Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Biopic Battle

Aired November 04, 2003 - 09:18   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: CBS was not pulling punches with its upcoming miniseries "The Reagans." But now, the network could be the one that ends with a bit of a black eye. CBS is said to be considering yanking that series after an outcry from critics who say the series contains inaccuracies and paints an unflattering picture of the Reagans. Here with us to talk about this, B.J. Sigesmund, staff editor of "US Weekly."
Nice to see you. Good morning to you.

B.J. SIGESMUND, "US WEEKLY": Good morning.

HEMMER: I should point out, we contacted CBS, no response from the network just yet. There is a report out there, "The Hollywood Reporter," saying they've already made the decision to pull it. True, or can we say that?

SIGESMUND: Well, the writing is on the wall. The last couple days in the papers, there has been a lot of talk about CBS getting very nervous about "The Reagans" and shifting it to Showtime, which is also owned by Viacom.

HEMMER: Why would they be nervous?

SIGESMUND: From all accounts, it seems to present a fairly negative portrayal of Ronald Reagan. It has him ignoring those suffering from AIDS, it has him forgetful, and it has him allowing Nancy Reagan to sort of wear the pants in the family, consulting with astrologers and telling him what to do; not, as conservative critics have pointed out, focusing enough on his achievements as the president of the United States throughout the '80s.

HEMMER: What do you think of this talk about allowing historians to come in, and look at it and view it and then make their own suggestions to the script?

SIGESMUND: This is television entertainment. The guys who produce this movie made "Chicago." This is not what they're used to. They're not used to having historians come in. And this miniseries was never meant to be the consummate, you know, historical look at Ronald Reagan. It was meant to be entertainment. They cast James Brolin and Judy Davis, two Hollywood liberals, in the parts of Ronald and Nancy. This was, again, not meant to be a historical account.

HEMMER: As a journalist, let me pose this to you. Try and divide this between what's considered entertainment and what's considered censorship. How do you define the two right now, based on what we're hearing about how this miniseries may or may not come off?

SIGESMUND: Well, the Republicans wanted essentially to censor this film. They wanted CBS to either run disclaimers every 10 minutes saying that this is not a historical account, or they wanted to come in and sniff it up themselves, and it's been such a problem throughout CBS that, you know, the director walked, the actors are not doing any more press. Les Moonves, the head of CBS, has been fielding lots of phone calls, I'm sure, from angry people about this. I think it didn't surprise me at all to hear the news this morning that they were definitely thinking about moving it to Showtime.

HEMMER: Here is a scenario, just a quick scenario here that is not based on fact, but let's just assume CBS pulls it and this "Hollywood Reporter" story is true. What does it say in terms of precedent for the future, if anything...

SIEGESMUND: I think is shows precedent that the highly organized right wing of this country can, with enough support, force Hollywood entertainment to change its mind about something.

HEMMER: Do you think that's it, or is the network stopping and saying, you know what, it's not factual, the man's still alive, maybe we should hold our fire?

SIEGESMUND: I think the network would have been happy to run the miniseries if there hadn't been all of this controversy. It would have been a ratings winner for them. They would have been pleased. I mean, ratings are ratings, and publicity is publicity.

But sometimes publicity goes wrong, and this is a great example of that. There is too much egg on CBS's face right now. And to me, it makes sense for them to cut their losses and shift it to Showtime.

HEMMER: Got it. Thanks, B.J. for coming in. Good to see you.

SIEGESMUND: Thank you.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com







Aired November 4, 2003 - 09:18   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: CBS was not pulling punches with its upcoming miniseries "The Reagans." But now, the network could be the one that ends with a bit of a black eye. CBS is said to be considering yanking that series after an outcry from critics who say the series contains inaccuracies and paints an unflattering picture of the Reagans. Here with us to talk about this, B.J. Sigesmund, staff editor of "US Weekly."
Nice to see you. Good morning to you.

B.J. SIGESMUND, "US WEEKLY": Good morning.

HEMMER: I should point out, we contacted CBS, no response from the network just yet. There is a report out there, "The Hollywood Reporter," saying they've already made the decision to pull it. True, or can we say that?

SIGESMUND: Well, the writing is on the wall. The last couple days in the papers, there has been a lot of talk about CBS getting very nervous about "The Reagans" and shifting it to Showtime, which is also owned by Viacom.

HEMMER: Why would they be nervous?

SIGESMUND: From all accounts, it seems to present a fairly negative portrayal of Ronald Reagan. It has him ignoring those suffering from AIDS, it has him forgetful, and it has him allowing Nancy Reagan to sort of wear the pants in the family, consulting with astrologers and telling him what to do; not, as conservative critics have pointed out, focusing enough on his achievements as the president of the United States throughout the '80s.

HEMMER: What do you think of this talk about allowing historians to come in, and look at it and view it and then make their own suggestions to the script?

SIGESMUND: This is television entertainment. The guys who produce this movie made "Chicago." This is not what they're used to. They're not used to having historians come in. And this miniseries was never meant to be the consummate, you know, historical look at Ronald Reagan. It was meant to be entertainment. They cast James Brolin and Judy Davis, two Hollywood liberals, in the parts of Ronald and Nancy. This was, again, not meant to be a historical account.

HEMMER: As a journalist, let me pose this to you. Try and divide this between what's considered entertainment and what's considered censorship. How do you define the two right now, based on what we're hearing about how this miniseries may or may not come off?

SIGESMUND: Well, the Republicans wanted essentially to censor this film. They wanted CBS to either run disclaimers every 10 minutes saying that this is not a historical account, or they wanted to come in and sniff it up themselves, and it's been such a problem throughout CBS that, you know, the director walked, the actors are not doing any more press. Les Moonves, the head of CBS, has been fielding lots of phone calls, I'm sure, from angry people about this. I think it didn't surprise me at all to hear the news this morning that they were definitely thinking about moving it to Showtime.

HEMMER: Here is a scenario, just a quick scenario here that is not based on fact, but let's just assume CBS pulls it and this "Hollywood Reporter" story is true. What does it say in terms of precedent for the future, if anything...

SIEGESMUND: I think is shows precedent that the highly organized right wing of this country can, with enough support, force Hollywood entertainment to change its mind about something.

HEMMER: Do you think that's it, or is the network stopping and saying, you know what, it's not factual, the man's still alive, maybe we should hold our fire?

SIEGESMUND: I think the network would have been happy to run the miniseries if there hadn't been all of this controversy. It would have been a ratings winner for them. They would have been pleased. I mean, ratings are ratings, and publicity is publicity.

But sometimes publicity goes wrong, and this is a great example of that. There is too much egg on CBS's face right now. And to me, it makes sense for them to cut their losses and shift it to Showtime.

HEMMER: Got it. Thanks, B.J. for coming in. Good to see you.

SIEGESMUND: Thank you.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com