Insider: Why ‘Reagan’ Biopic Matters
Star-studded film does far more than bring presidency to the big screen
Disclosure: Before delving into this review, I must disclose my connection with the filmmakers and with author Paul Kengor, having collaborated with them on previous projects, including “The Divine Plan” (2019), a documentary about President Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II.
This background gave me insights into the challenges they faced while bringing “Reagan” to the big screen.
More than 35 years after he left the White House, Ronald Reagan remains a figure of immense controversy and admiration—a small-town boy turned Hollywood star turned influential politician.
“Reagan,” starring Dennis Quaid and directed by Sean McNamara, attempts to capture the essence of this iconic figure’s life. Yet its greatest accomplishment might lie not in its storytelling as much as its very existence.
In a cultural landscape increasingly hostile to traditional stories (we prefer comic book heroes and antiheroes to cowboys), the mere fact that “Reagan” has made it to theaters is a testament to the producers’ persistence and determination.
The film opens with an aging Soviet spy (Jon Voight) reflecting on decades spent studying Reagan and how the old Soviet Union collapsed.
While imaginative, the “told through the Russian’s eyes” narrative sets a tone of reverence that permeates the biopic. From Reagan’s humble beginnings in Dixon, Illinois, to his Hollywood career and political ascendancy, the story unfolds through a series of pivotal moments that shaped his legacy.
Quaid’s portrayal of Reagan is charismatic and convincing, capturing the former president’s affability and unwavering determination. Whether navigating Hollywood intrigues or engaging in geopolitics, both these characteristics come shining through.
And while finding someone to so brilliantly portray Reagan must have been a challenge, the greatest task was creating a film version of Kengor’s fascinating, 420-page tome “The Crusader.” The book tells Reagan’s story from his birth in 1911 to his death in 2004.
How do you share all that—and the beginning and end of the Cold War—in a two-plus hour film?
Having worked closely with a similar story and having seen firsthand the public’s lack of familiarity with Reagan’s policies, I witnessed how the film’s depiction of Reagan’s Hollywood years could only skim the surface.
The film also spent much time defending his anti-Communist fervor and his economic policies, while it downplayed various complex issues like the Iran–Contra affair. In addition, critics rightly note the film’s tendency to pass over the man’s flaws and failures.
After many years of negative press, it clearly wants to remind everyone of his victories.
Critics point out that “Reagan” plays more like a cinematic CliffsNotes of the story than it does a comprehensive biopic, appealing primarily to Reagan’s existing admirers. However, given that it is one sympathetic film among other anti-Reagan projects, what else is possible?
The film’s brisk narrative pace and selective focus on Reagan’s achievements also leave less room for critical reflection or deeper exploration of his presidency’s complexities. While Quaid’s performance adds great depth, the screenplay’s one-dimensional approach might limit its appeal beyond those already sympathetic to Reagan’s conservative ideals.
However, the significance of Reagan extends beyond any potential shortcomings.
In an industry often dismissive of traditional American perspectives, the film’s production journey spanning over a decade underscores the challenges faced by its creators and Reagan himself. Producer Mark Joseph navigated a landscape increasingly hostile to narratives like Reagan’s, where cultural sensitivities and political divides threatened to derail the project at every turn.
The film’s completion and release symbolize a triumph of perseverance—a testament to the belief that every story, no matter how contentious, deserves to be told.
For audiences familiar with Reagan’s presidency, “Reagan” serves as a well-deserved, nostalgic tribute, celebrating his charisma and enduring influence. Reagan roamed with giants including Mikhail Gorbachev, Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II.
The film’s reluctance to delve into Reagan’s more lonely and dire moments, when his choices were filled with uncertainties and complexities or his heart was challenged by a loss of faith, keeps it from the conflicts explored in prior renowned biopics such as “Chaplin” (1992, Richard Attenborough), “Amadeus” (1984, Milos Forman) and “Patton” (1970, Franklin J. Schaffner).
“Reagan” is more than a cinematic biography—it is a testament to resilience and determination, a reminder that storytelling can transcend political divisions and ideological differences.
The film may not be the definitive biopic that critics hoped for, but its existence marks a significant cultural moment. It stands as a testament to the enduring legacy of a president who, for a time, reshaped America and our global politics.
Quaid’s fair portrayal and the film’s nostalgic appeal offer a glimpse into Reagan’s life and times. Ultimately, “Reagan” is as much about the man as it is about those of us who still believe his story deserves to be told. Most importantly, in our modern political landscape, it serves as a reminder that Reagan’s vision of democracy must be defended in every generation.
“Reagan’s” release should ignite a resurgence in traditional storytelling about real Americans who believed in this nation and sought to make a real difference. It stands as a beacon against a generation of cynicism and self-destruction, reaffirming the importance of preserving and sharing narratives that shape our understanding of leadership and democracy.