Movie Review: “Reagan”

Film biographies are notoriously difficult to make. At least successfully. For every “The Theory of Everything” (the brilliant portrait of famed physicist Stephen Hawking), there is a “Maestro” (Bradley Cooper’s plodding look at the life of composer/conductor Leonard Bernstein). It helped that many of us didn’t know much about Hawking, whereas Bernstein was more of a known entity. Still, it often felt as though Cooper and screenwriter Josh Singer were merely checking off life events from a list of career highlights.

Unfortunately, that’s somewhat the case with Sean McNamara’s new biopic “Reagan,” which spends too much of its runtime earmarking familiar career peaks and valleys of a historical figure many of us recall vividly. Is it necessary for us to re-live every one of Reagan’s one-liners? In the hospital following the assassination attempt, he tells his wife, Nancy, “I forgot to duck.” When he’s about to undergo surgery, we can almost feel the next line coming: “I hope you’re all Republicans,” he quips to the surgical staff. Not necessary, and takes up time that could have been better devoted to Reagan’s public polity beliefs.

What does work in “Reagan?” Well, Dennis Quaid’s performance. Start there. And end there. Without Quaid hitting just the right notes, the rest of the film falters. Fortunately, Quaid captures the essence of our 40th president, without providing us with a spot-on impersonation. We are always keenly aware we are watching Quaid playing Reagan, much as Anthony Hopkins’ portrayal of Richard Nixon in Oliver Stone’s “Nixon” was not an imitation. While Hopkins succeeded in commandeering the dichotomy of Nixon’s paranoia and his supreme intelligence, we knew we were watching Hopkins. Same with Quaid. The cadence of Reagan’s speech is difficult to assimilate; so, give Quaid credit for showing us Reagan’s heart and significance without getting bogged down in the fine details of his mannerisms.

What doesn’t work? The structure. For some reason, “Reagan” begins with the 1981 assassination attempt, immediately jars us back to his time as president of the Screen Actors Guild (late ‘40s and through the 1950s), and then drops back even further to his Illinois childhood. Why not just begin at the beginning?

For that matter, Howard Klausner’s adapted screenplay (from Paul Kengor’s 2006 book) could have begun with Reagan’s SAG work, during which time he testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee. I realize Klausner and McNamara want to show us how Reagan’s Christian upbringing – and his mother’s desire to see him stand up to the neighborhood bullies – helped shape the values he brought to the White House years later, but for my money, that emphasis could have been trimmed in favor of more concentration on the SAG and his presidency.

Although the screenplay does devote ample time to the Communist “witch hunt” of the 1950s, it feels rushed. We’re never completely sure if Reagan supported Communist writers and actors in Hollywood or if he outed them. And that’s too important a point to have us miss. For that matter, Reagan’s work with that union certainly influenced his firing of the air traffic controllers early in his presidency. But that connection is never made. The “standing up to bullies” mantra of his childhood affected his relationship with the Soviet Union. We’re hit over the head with that connection, but not that of the labor unions.

Further, the impetus of “Reagan” is that he was responsible for the implosion of the Soviet Union in the 1980s. Granted, Kengor’s book is titled, “The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism.”

But there was so much more to his presidency. What about the theory of supply-side economics? What about the air traffic controllers’ strike? What about the invasion of Grenada? What about deregulation and the ballooning of the federal deficit? “Reagan” should have been titled exactly as Kengor’s book. Either make a film about the fall of Communism or make a film about Ronald Reagan! “Reagan” exists somewhere in between.

“Reagan” is so razor focused on the final years of the Soviet Union, his life story is even narrated by a fictitious retired KGB agent who feared Reagan long before he was ever elected to public office. Played by Jon Voight (using a spot-on Russian accent), the KGB vet relates the peaks and valleys of Reagan’s career to a young Russian agent. Obviously, Voight’s character proffers Reagan’s life through the lens of a former adversary, who wouldn’t have a keen interest in supply-side economics. So, that “Free World vs. Evil Empire” structure eliminates much of what would seemingly belong in a Reagan biography. On the other hand, it could be a warning, as Russia returns to the expansionist policies of the Soviet years.

Fortunately, “Reagan” succeeds in one very important area, as it harkens back to an era of civilized politics – in which the most politically conservative president since Herbert Hoover could argue policy during the day with liberal democrat House Speaker Tip O’Neill (an excellent Dan Lauria), then share a beer with him after work. We’ve lost that camaraderie during the intervening years. “Reagan” shows us how desperately we need statesmen like John McCain, Sam Nunn, and Indiana’s Dick Lugar. They worked together for the good of the country, rather than always attempting to score political points. “Reagan” will make you wistful for a time that may be permanently behind us. And that’s a damn shame.