Babs on The Reagans

[Bruzilla]

This is from Bab's website:

A Sad Day for Artistic Freedom ...Barbra Streisand
Posted on November 4, 2003
I am deeply disappointed that CBS, the network that in 1964 gave me complete artistic control in creating television specials, now caved in to right wing Republican pressure to cancel the network broadcast of the movie The Reagans. (And I say MOVIE - because this is NOT a documentary - it's a television drama.) The movie will now be aired on Showtime, where the difference in viewership is in the millions.

One can only imagine the kind of pressure that would compel CBS to take such an extraordinary action. This was an organized Republican spin machine at work. Remember the Dixie Chicks controversy? It wasn't the larger general public that called in to radio stations and burned CDs, it was a small group of right wing activists. In fact, now the band is more popular than ever, with a sold out summer tour.

I don't believe Democrats often, if ever, try to muscle the First Amendment like this. For example, in 1983, no one stopped NBC from airing Kennedy, a biopic that portrayed President Kennedy and other members of his family and administration as deeply flawed, even though the movie could have potentially been hurtful to Jackie Kennedy, who was still alive to see it, as well as to her children.

This is censorship, pure and simple. Well, maybe not all that pure. Censorship never is. Due to their experience with the restrictive English government, the framers of our constitution specifically included a ban on prior restraint in the First Amendment, which is an attempt to stop information from getting out there before the public has a chance to see it at all - exactly what is going on in this case. Of course, CBS as a company has the legal right to make decisions about what they do and do not air. However, these important decisions should be based on artistic integrity rather than an attempt to appease a small group of vocal dissidents. Indeed, today marks a sad day for artistic freedom - one of the most important elements of an open and democratic society.
_______________

What I love about Streisand's comments are that once again, like most Liberals, she can't seperate the feelings of the common people from some vast right-wing conspiracy. It wasn't right-wing activists that were pi$$ed at the Dixie Chicks, it was a lot of average Americans. She just doesn't get it.

BTW... you should check out her Statements page at http://barbrastreisand.com/statements.html There's nothing on it but anti-right wing/Conservative rants and accusations. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

 

[vraiblonde]

I don't believe Democrats often, if ever, try to muscle the First Amendment like this.

No, Babs, they just try to get everything they don't like classified as "hate speech".

Dr. Laura? Rush Limbaugh? Lib Dems actually got Laura's show cancelled because they didn't like what she had to say. And they've been trying forever to silence Rush.

 

[vraiblonde]

WOW! Even Patti Davis came out in defense of her parents!
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,536971,00.html

 

[Tonio]

It bugs me when any group, liberal or conservative, lobbies against a work of entertainment without having seen it firsthand. Even an advance copy of a script or a rough cut of a movie doesn't count, in my opinion, because there are always changes before release.

In the case of the Reagan biopic, I see the GOP as no different from the ADL griping about Mel Gibson's "The Passion." Both are protesting based mostly on third-hand information, rumors and distortions about the content. Why can't they at least wait until they see the finished work? I respect Mel Gibson's decision to proceed with his movie, and I think CBS is a bunch of cowards for letting Showtime take the fall.

 

[SamSpade]

Once it's been aired you could say - the damage is done. If someone is going to depict your mom as a screeching pill popping Madame Fuhrer, your dad as a cuss like a sailor homophobe in constant denial over the sexual preferences of his ballet dancer son, of you yourself as being such a nutcase you'd hold an impromptu yoga session at your reception - yeah, I can see why Patti Davis was ####ed. Stories about her at boarding school - when she never attended one, about people camping out at the WHite House and that Nancy found out Reagan had Alzheimer's about ten years before it was announced when no such thing occurred. As far as I can tell, about the only thing they got right was the names of the characters. Numerous persons have stepped up, such as Merv Griffin who have said this is sheer bullsh*t. Quotes and events are supposedly corroborated by sources which seemed to have vanished. The judgmental "die in sin" comment by Reagan and the Armageddon "anti-Christ" stuff - ok, the writers SAID they made that stuff up.

So it isn't a documentary. Fine. I'm not even clamoring for them to make it a story about the 'good' things Reagan did. Hell, I didn't vote for him, either time. But they don't even appear to be *close*.

Maybe now, FOX can write that drama about Bill and Hillary where he regularly beats Chelsea, Hillary is an insatiable lesbian, and Al Gore is a raging racist bigot. I mean, why NOT? It's ART for pete's sake!

 

[SamSpade]

Oh and I am still looking for what Babs referred to - what does this mean - "the framers of our constitution specifically included a ban on prior restraint in the First Amendment, which is an attempt to stop information from getting out there before the public has a chance to see it at all ".

I have no idea what she is referring to, the First Amendment isn't that long -

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "

I don't see it.

Is this like her Shakespeare quote some time back?

 

[SamSpade]

Ok, FOUND it. It's official. Babs IS a blathering idiot.

Prior restraint refers to the situations where information is controlled prior to release to the public by the government or the churches.

Somehow, this has something to do with CBS pulling a show before it airs. No government, political party, church or authority of any kind (other than the public, who'd gotten wind of it) had anything to do with this. Average Americans heard it and said to CBS "if you run this crap I'm taking my business elsewhere".

CBS head Les Moonves made the ultimate decision to pull THE REAGANS off the November schedule after concluding the film was "biased" against the former president.

It's pointless propaganda. And it is lousy TV.

I'm actually beginning to HATE Babs. And I've never hated anybody.

 

[vraiblonde]

Tonio, as Sam said, the damage is done if the show would have aired. And the Reagans could have tried to "set the record straight" all they wanted but nobody would listen.

I think it should be against the law to make a movie or write a book that's a blatant smear campaign against a public person, with no basis in fact.

As the late great Vince Foster said, "Here they ruin people for sport."

 

[Tonio]

Originally posted by SamSpade
No government, political party, church or authority of any kind (other than the public, who'd gotten wind of it) had anything to do with this.

I had read that the head of the RNC has weighed in on this, so the Republicans had some involvement. Still, you're right that a lot of the outcry was a grass-roots effort.

And vrai, I believe that outcry shows there are plenty of people who would listen to the Reagans' side. And in today's media age, the Reagans are certainly not without resources in getting the word out. If I were Nancy, I would go on Hannity and O'Reilly and Limbaugh and any other talk show I could think of and tell the world that the movie is trash.

This column (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2482-2003Nov5.html) brings up a great point: "Hiring Mr. Barbra Streisand (James Brolin) to play the Gipper only fed suspicions that this was a left-wing hatchet job."

 

[Bruzilla]

Tonio, the other shoe that hasn't been dropped yet is that many people on the right knew what this movie was about since it was first comissioned. It's not a case of someone bashing a movie before it was made. The fact that most people only became aware of it very recently doesn't change the fact that many Republicans and conservatives have been tracking the issues with this film since summer.

This was suppossed to be a movie about the relationship between the Reagans, based on the Reagan letters that were released last year and other writings. The project was taken up (or assigned to depending on who you ask) by Zadan and Meron, who are as Liberal as Rush is Conservative, and they filled the production with all their Liberal pals. This movie was written by Egloff, another Lib, who freely admits that she made up many parts of it... even while Zadan and Meron claim that they witnesses and proof that everything in the movie is true. Who's lying?

Should we prejudge this movie before it is shown? I think this falls under the "walks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck... it's a duck" rule.

 

[Tonio]

Good points, Bru, and thanks for the info. You're right that conservatives should have little hope that the movie will be fair to the Reagans.

My point is, there's a world of difference between that and claiming that it actually does smear Ron and Nancy. Until we see the finished project, we don't really know. Maybe I take that kind of prejudging too personally, since I've made my living by writing.

 

[Tonio]

This column makes some good points:

http://www.sacbee.com/content/lifestyle/story/7730562p-8669995c.html

...Most depressing of all, this is what American politics has become. Political discourse is no longer a discussion or a debate of ideas, it's a bitter, spiteful war. So many people on both ends of both major parties behave as if any disagreement is treason.

In truth, in America, disagreement is patriotic. That's how we stay free. This was a nation founded on dissent, on the proud notion that all people are free to speak and believe what they choose.

Reagan dedicated much of his presidency to fighting regimes that stifled ideas and silenced dissent. His legacy is large enough to stand up to a TV miniseries, and you have to wonder what he would have thought of the people who believe otherwise.

 

[vraiblonde]

Most depressing of all, this is what American politics has become. Political discourse is no longer a discussion or a debate of ideas, it's a bitter, spiteful war.

That, I'll agree with. But I don't think it's necessarily "patriotic" to disagree to the point that you slander people and tell lies. I don't think it's patriotic to slam our military on foreign soil. I don't think it's patriotic to call the President a liar without any proof that he did, in fact, lie.

People are free to speak and dissent, that's true. But just because they're doing what the First Amendment gives them the right to do, that doesn't make them patriotic.

 

[SamSpade]

I'm trying to find the comment made I read once that said "I'll believe you're patriotic when you can get up in the morning and for once say 'it isn't America's fault'".

Ask average Joe to name things that are "patriotic". And he will probably say things like:

1. Flying the flag.
2. Standing for the National Anthem. Put your hand over your heart when you do.
3. Occasionally sing songs about your country. Actually KNOWING the words to some patriotic songs.
4. Express pride in your country.
5. Respect and honor our military.
6. Express pride and gratitude for those who have died in service.
7. Pledge allegiance to the flag.

I'm sure there's lots more. But doesn't that present the picture of someone who is patriotic? Someone who isn't afraid to say "this is the greatest nation on earth, the best there ever was?".

"Breathes there the man with soul so dead
Who never to himself hath said,
This is my own, my native land!
Whose heart hath ne’er within him burned,
As home his footsteps he hath turned
From wandering on a foreign strand?"

Don't patriots love to tell the stories of brave Americans? Of courage and valor?

Now there are folks who are trying to tell you - it's patriotic to rip into your country at every turn. To be hyper-critical of your nation for your own aggrandizement. To burn your flag. To say you're *ashamed* of being American. To criticize, insult and take a "we're the enemy" approach to ANY international issue.

I don't buy into the 'patriotism' of saying 'I love my country but I don't like what it has become - so I'll move to *FRANCE*'. Such people do NOT love the country. They love their own ideas. They HATE the idea that other Americans don't agree with them. If they thought dissent was the cornerstone of patriotism they wouldn't spend all their time shouting down the opposition.

You know, if those things I listed above make you want to retch - just admit it - you're NOT patriotic. It doesn't make you a criminal, but it might make you honest about it.

 

[jazz lady]

I thought it was funny, even though they spelled Reagan wrong.

I used to like Barbra, even though I disagreed with her politics, because she was passionate about her cause. But now looking at the lengths she is going to and the rabidity of her hate and malice, I find her pathetic.

Anyone want some Streisand CD's for target practice?

 

[Tonio]

Babs has never been a likable person, even during her Funny Girl days. I always imagined her giving Diana Ross a run for the spoiled diva title: "Dammit, I specifically asked the crew for Aquafina for after the concert, not Dasani. I want them all fired NOW!!" She would be the same way even if she was a rock-ribbed Republican. Diva-itis knows no political affiliation.

Here's something I hadn't considered--maybe CBS' owner, Viacom, pulled the Reagan movie because the company stands to benefit from the new FCC media ownership rules, and wanted to curry favor with the Republican-dominated Congress. If so, I stand by my contention that CBS is run by unprincipled cowards. They don't care one way or the other about the Reagan film's factual inaccuracies. They're just They would do the same thing if Congress was run by Democrats and CBS was filming a pseudo-documentary about Juanita Brodderick and Kathleen Willey.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by Tonio
wanted to curry favor with the Republican-dominated Congress.

Shoot, the Republicans aren't even benefitting from a Republican-dominated Congress - why should the Democrats?

They would do the same thing if Congress was run by Democrats and CBS was filming a pseudo-documentary about Juanita Brodderick and Kathleen Willey.

Actually Juanita Broadderick barely saw the light of day because the Clinton butt-kissers in the media wanted it squashed.

 

[Larry Gude]

The thing about this...

...is that the 'alleged' portrayals are so vicious and apparently very, very wrong.

Tonio, it is a good point that perhaps Reagans real legacy could hold up under this and I originally was all for it airing so everybody could see how ugly and what liars the people who want to put this out really are.

Vrai is right though; the perception is reality to many, many people.

A movie could be made tomorrow about the Clintons repleat with all kinds of vicious things they both have been heard to say, racial slurs and the like, that have already been documented in any number of books. How about any number of scenes involving Bill and the women he has used to get his rocks off? How about the Jaunita Brodderick scene? There's some art for you Babs.

It would all be the truth to a much higher standard than was used in this Reagan attack piece.

The left creams bloody murder about the suppossed Clinton hating that goes on.

Well, at least it has a basis in reality.