SYNOPSICS
Reagan (2011) is a English movie. Eugene Jarecki has directed this movie. Bud Abbott,Walter Abel,Spiro Agnew,Martin Anderson are the starring of this movie. It was released in 2011. Reagan (2011) is considered one of the best Documentary,Biography movie in India and around the world.
Ronald Reagan as a man, as compared to his legacy, is rich territory for exploration, and a line from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar is just one of the many things that springs to mind after viewing filmmaker Eugene Jarecki's latest opus, Reagan (Jarecki's Why We Fight won the 2005 Sundance Film Festival Grand Jury Prize: Documentary). Speaking at his funeral, Mark Antony said of Caesar, "The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones." With a firm grasp of Reagan's story, Jarecki avoids the predictable and takes the long view on Reagan's life and influence, while staying centered on him as a man of deep contradiction; an American whose patriotism paradoxically led him to impeachable acts, a liberal Democrat who came to define the modern conservative movement.
More
Reagan (2011) Reviews
Man and myth
Ronald Reagan has become such a mythologised figure by the American right that it's hard for a documentary to present a balanced view. Moreover, Americans in general tend to treat their Presidents with a respect that is wholly absent from British politics; although Eugene Jarecki's documentary is actually not bad in challenging the myths (both that everything Reagan did was good, and also that he did everything that has been attributed to him), in it's tone, it can't help but add to them. In fact, it's pretty soft on his early years, and fails to mention that as Governor of California, his trick was really to talk like a conservative but to spend like only liberals were supposed to (although it concedes the same point with regard to his subsequent presidency). On the presidency itself, Jarecki's film delivers a harder verdict, as the critics are far more precise than the admirers, who can only defend Reagan through vague eulogy. It's a bit odd, however, that the final verdict on Reagan's years, and American society, is given by a former military officer who seems no more entitled to pass the definitive opinion than any of the rest of us. One interesting thing for me was to see that Reagan was, at his peak, a genuinely accomplished performer - dismissed as senile by his enemies perhaps before he truly was, he comes across as shrewder than popular perception allows, even if one can dispute the value of his legacy.
A brilliant documentary on the life and presidency of Ronald Reagan.
A friend in Paris, France, and fellow filmmaker sent me a copy of this new Reagan documentary. Not a great fan of Reagan or his presidency, I set it aside. My friend persisted and pushed me to watch it. I finally did. The film begins with the death of Ronald Reagan after an extended bout with Alzheimer's disease. Then, it returns to his life, starting with his childhood and covering every step of his career from radio announcer to actor to union president and on to his dazzling political career, one that was not easy any step along the way. It is one of the most extraordinary documentaries I have ever seen, the revelation is not in the massive amount of data packed into this film (Michael Moore, take note, please) but its beautifully organized objectivity and most of all, its subtext, that makes a powerful statement about the impact, often world-changing, of the power of the illusion of ideas. This illusion can create and destroy quickly and with great and lasting power. It is recommended not just to those interested in a fine example of documentary filmmaking but for historians interested in objectivity, especially so in the life of the 40th president of the United States. As an important aside, I have had my feelings about Ron Reagan, Jr. (the president's son, who works in the media) confirmed He is a bright, deep thinker who doubtless transcends his own father's intellect and contact with humanity.
The second half is frustrating.
You can get a good idea of the film from the other reviews. If you are a liberal or progressive, you'll think it's a good film. If you're conservative and think Reagan did a lot of good while president, you will be disappointed. The first half is good. The film does a good job with his childhood and early years. It is fair regarding his acting career and how he became a GE spokesman when his acting career faded. (By the way, why do leftist posters call him a corporate shill? Many of their lefty media heroes promote for corporations.) The second half is frustrating. We get a taste here and there of the good things that Reagan did, interspersed among a catalog of the supposedly bad things. His probable cooperation with the FBI regarding communists in Hollywood gets the second part rolling. Then his governorship in California gets brief coverage and most of that coverage is negative. On to the reason he's the subject of a documentary: his presidency. This section could have been longer as it should be the main part, but perhaps it didn't need to be any longer than it takes to thoroughly cover his assassination attempt, "Star Wars", and Iran-Contra. We hear several Keynesian economists who say that Reagan's policies were bad for the country, and they actually blame Reagan for the problems we have now. As the film came out in 2011 I guess they prefer to ignore the booming 1980s and 1990s, when the era of big government was supposedly over. Reagan is blamed for deficits caused by increases in defense spending and tax cuts. Not discussed is that non-defense spending skyrocketed and that the Dem congresses always spent more than Reagan budgeted for. Also not discussed is that, after taxes were cut, GDP growth and tax revenues did indeed increase. If you are hoping for a Hayek view for balance you will be disappointed. By the end, conservatives will regret watching. They'll wonder why so little discussion of the many good things that happened during his presidency. They'll wonder why a dramatic economic recovery and major foreign policy achievements get shortchanged. They'll wonder why the contrast between the 1970s and 1980s is skipped. The film ends with criticism that Reagan didn't do enough when the new disease AIDS took off in the homosexual community. Other reviewers praise the "objectivity" but that is because their liberal point of view is dominant throughout the second half. .
Very Good Look at the Actor and President
Reagan (2011) *** 1/2 (out of 4) Very good HBO documentary from director Eugene Jarecki takes a look at the life and career of Ronald Reagan. The documentary follows him from his childhood all the way up to his death and covers just about everything one could hope for. This includes his time in Hollywood, his days as the leader of SAG, his cooperate salesman job, his getting into politics and of course his run for President of the United States. I think whether you love or hate Reagan, this documentary will leave you impressed even though I did find a few strange things in it. The film opens up talking about how wonderful Reagan was and it really makes you think that you're about to see some love feast for him. The documentary is pretty much this until the final twenty-minutes when it turns to show some of the negative things that Reagan did and this here caught me off guard because of how "kind" the film was being to him. I actually thought it was good that some of the other side got to question some of the things that the President did because it makes the film seem a lot more even. The majority of the running time takes a look at Reagan's eight years in the office as we see his popularity rise but then take a hit on the controversial hostage situation that he got into. We also see the assassination attempt as well as hearing some great stories about what he was up to after his acting career ended and his term in office began.
Incisive and Balanced
I watched this on Link TV, a liberal cable channel specializing in those such as Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, so I expected it to be scathing. It certainly stripped away many illusions, but while strongly critical the results of trickle down, and the limits of his grasp of complexity of issues; it defined his positions fairly. He did evolve from a New Deal Democrat, leading his Actors Union against management, but also was viscerally opposed to global Marxism, and the social revolution of the 1960s. The insights of Morris, his official biographer for almost a decade, along with Cannon who wrote several biographies including when he was Governor, provide special scholarly insight. The current Republican conservatives forget that he pass what was an actual amnesty for illegal-undocumented immigrants, and actually increased both government spending and deficits. It could be that his hawkish policies early on allowed him more latitude to connect with someone eager to wind down the cold war, Michel Gorbechev. History doesn't allow for controlled experiments so we can't re-run events with a different leader at the helm. I commend this documentary for those who lived through the era, but events have become hazy.