Reagan: A Review (Review #1865)

 

REAGAN

How one feels about Reagan, the biopic on the 40th President, might, more than likely will, depend on how one feels about the man himself and what he represents to the viewer. Those who love the Gipper will adore the film. Those who hate the Great Communicator will despise it. It is unfortunate that most cannot get past their own feelings on the man and his ideology to see the film itself. Respectful without being too reverential, Reagan is a positive though placid look at one of the most consequential Presidents in living memory.

Reagan uses the framing device of Russian Communist Andrei Novikov (Alex Sparrow) visiting former KGB operative Viktor Petrovich (Jon Voight). Novikov wants to know why the Soviet Union fell. Petrovich tells him the story of how he had been tracking Ronald Reagan (David Henrie as a teen, Dennis Quaid as an adult) since at least from his time as a Hollywood actor and president of the Screen Actors Guild.

Petrovich repeatedly warned the Politburo that Reagan was dangerous. He had a mix of firm anticommunism with a religious bent that made it a crusade. He'd even earned the mocking nickname of Crusader from Petrovich. Reagan was a generally affable fellow, mixing with other Hollywood personalities and firmly allied with the SAG until he saw that the Communists were trying to muscle in on them. This began his shift to the Right. Reagan's commitment to his political causes cost him his first marriage to Jane Wyman (Mena Suvari). However, hope came when aspiring actress Nancy Davis (Penelope Ann Miller) turned to Reagan for help in getting her name removed from a blacklist when she was confused with another Nancy Davis. From that, a romance blossomed.

Reagan soon started moving up in the political world, first as Governor of California and then after a thwarted effort in 1976, the Presidency four years later. His assassination attempt and dealings with the Soviet Union brought about the eventual collapse of the Iron Curtain and the Communist dictatorships in Eastern Europe. However, Alzheimer's would soon take over, leading to his death.

I am not surprised at the divide Reagan has between critics (21% positive) and audiences (98% positive). My sense is that professional reviewers are seeing Reagan through their own biases on the subject. Some, no doubt, do find elements in Reagan that are worthy of criticism. I too will do that. However, I also see this, or any film, based on what it is attempting to do and whom its target audience is. Reagan is for those who do not think he or his views are demonic.

As a side note, I have lived long enough to see Reagan and both Bushes described as "literally the New/Worse Than Hitler", so there is that.

I see Reagan as something of comfort food for conservatives and center-right individuals who do not want either a long lecture or a hagiography closer to Southside with You (91% and 71% positive from critics and audiences respectively). The question that I ask is, "Is Reagan (the movie) terrible?" not "Is Reagan (the man or his ideas) terrible?"

Reagan is not a hagiography in that it does touch on some controversial matters. It does not shy away from Iran-Contra. It gives time for a montage of negative reactions from those opposed to him in the 1984 reelection. In a nice montage to Genesis' Land of Confusion (itself an anti-Reagan song), we see teens and young adults dancing while also noting the various protesters opposed to his lack of action on AIDS or nuclear disarmament. That Reagan tackles these subjects at all is a plus to the film.

I can see where Reagan made a few wrong turns. The framing device was a mistake in Howard Klausner's adaptation of Paul Kengor's The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism. Perhaps opening and closing Reagan with this conversation would have worked. Going back to it over and over again cut out the flow the film gets into. A better use might have been if Petrovich had been lecturing a group of students about the fall of the Soviet Union.

In fact, I think Reagan might have done better if it had focused on his war with Soviet Communism instead of attempting to put almost every part of Reagan's life in the film. It starts getting bogged down, and sometimes one feels like one is rushing through things. Take for example the character of Dana (Derek Richardson). Starting out as essentially a Hippie for Reagan (he shows up unannounced on their yard, disheveled with long hair and a vaguely stoned-out speaking style that understandably alarms Nancy), we next see him coming to the White House as a speechwriter, still wearing casual wear in the Oval Office. Reagan might have done well covering these events through his eyes.

Instead, characters come in and out so quickly that you rarely if ever get a sense of who they are. Things went so fast that I was surprised to read that Creed frontman Scott Stamp appeared as Frank Sinatra. I didn't realize Sinatra was even in the movie. If not for my own knowledge, I would not know who "Trumbo" or "Holden" were when Ronald and Jane were at a nightclub. Other incidents, such as his speech at the Brandenburg Gate or an amusing moment when he shushes a group of protesters who greeted him with silence, are nice. However, they again show that Reagan tried to pack too much in.

The reason Reagan is not getting a negative review from me is due to a few factors. At the top of them is Penelope Ann Miller as Nancy. She did a standout job in the role. Miller made Nancy into a genuine person, neither the overprotective power-hungry shrew nor the zombified political spouse. I was genuinely moved when Nancy is at the hospital after the assassination attempt. The mix of fear and hope that Miller shows was effective. Credit should also be given to the makeup work on Miller, who looks convincingly like the former First Lady. Her scenes with Dennis Quaid really do well in selling their great love story. 

As the title character, I think Dennis Quaid had a difficult task. Ronald Reagan had a distinct speaking manner and voice, trained from decades as a radio announcer and actor. As such, Quaid could do only so much in his interpretation of the role. I think he did as well as he could, which is not a slam on his performance. There were times when he sounded more like Ronald Reagan and less like Dennis Quaid. Other times, it was the reverse. There was, again, only so much he could do with the script he was presented. On the whole though, Quaid was a serviceable Reagan. 

The scope of the film did not let David Henrie do much as the younger Reagan. That is a shame since he could have done well in Reagan: The Early Years. While I think Miller was spot-on as Nancy Reagan, I was not convinced by Suvari as Jane Wyman. Dan Lauria was good in his small role as House Speaker and Reagan frenemy Tip O'Neill, one moment bon vivant with Ronnie, the next being fiercely antagonistic. John Coda's score was an error, not so much in that it was bad but that it was dead set on being stirring when it might have done well to take a "less is more" approach.

Reagan is, I found, a film that is perhaps not as in-depth as it could have been but not filled with fierce fury and hatred for its subject either. It may not be the definitive portrait of the man behind the myth. It does serves as a good primer into this man, loved and hated in equal terms then and now.

Ronnie, we hardly knew you...

1911-2004

DECISION: B-