The Brink of War: Reagan at Reykjavik

Elizabeth Massie never appears in this film, yet her presence is felt. She served as one of Pres. Ronald Reagan’s Soviet advisors. She hipped Reagan to the traditional Russian proverb “trust but verify,” which the President quoted back to General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev with great relish, during the Reykjavik summit. A lot of activists criticized Reagan for not reaching a dramatic agreement (their words for giving away the store just for the sake of a “deal”), but the meeting was later recognized as a pivotal juncture in U.S.-Soviet relations. In fact, it might have the key turning point. That is certainly how director-screenwriter Michael Russell Gunn interprets history in The Brink of War, which opens Friday in theaters, from Angel Studios.

As the film opens, Pres. Reagan appears to consider the summit a grave failure, because Gorbachev has walked away from the table, leaving the fragile pseudo-détente in doubt. How did they reach such an impasse? Gunn rewinds to show the summit’s promising start.

Reykjavik’s isolated (allegedly haunted) country hotel was chosen, because it was far from prying (news media) eyes. Nevertheless, several reporters pretend to cover the summit from the closest bar. Quickly finding them, Raisa Gorbachev launches a full-court media press, thrilled to take advantage of Nancy Reagan’s absence.

The actual work happens at the old manor house, where the heads of state meet in the conference room, while the CIA and KGB awkwardly share the basement, with a chalk line dividing their territories. Reagan’s advisory contingent includes Richard Perle and Ken Adelman, but Secretary of State George Schultz is the only one the President really talks to. However, Reagan doesn’t need anyone to tell him what he thinks. In fact, he came to the summit with a very specific strategy in mind—one that he hasn’t fully revealed to Schultz.

Gorbachev also has an agenda: save the Soviet Union. As he confides to Raisa (while masking their conversation from KGB eavesdroppers), the USSR is dead broke. He needs an arms control agreement, because the Socialist state (what do you think the third “S” in USSR stood for?) can no longer afford to wage the Cold War. He needs a deal more than Reagan, but he has less freedom to negotiate, fearing the military might turn against him (which indeed happened).

Consequently, Gorbachev wants to limit their discussions to arms control. However, Reagan keeps returning to the subject of human rights, because that is what really matters to him. Yet, the real sticking point will be the SDI missile defense system.

Frankly, Brink of War has the makings of a great play, because the high-stakes negotiations between the leaders are surprisingly gripping stuff. It is necessarily talky, but Gunn’s shrewd use of split screens results in a surprisingly cinematic presentation. Perhaps just as important, it fairly and accurately represents the history of the Reykjavik summit and the relationship between Pres. Reagan and Gorby.

In fact, that also entails faithfully depicting the American President’s great fear of potential nuclear Armageddon, which was precisely why he was so forcefully advocated for SDI. Gunn and company make it crystal clear that in reality, Reagan was the exact opposite of a warmonger.

That leads to the issue of casting leftwing actor Jeff Daniels as Reagan, but his performance is respectful and at times quite sensitive, especially with regards to his enduring love for Nancy. He employed modest prosthetics, which really weren’t necessary, but does a nice job evoking Reagan’s instantly recognizable vocal cadences, without recreating them through cartoonish mimicry.

Hudson Institute ’11: Ronald Reagan—Rendezvous with Destiny

Regardless of politics, those of us who came of age as children of the 1980’s (so-called “Generation X’ers”) will forever measure presidents against the standard set by Ronald Reagan. So far, his successors have come up well short (woefully so in recent years). Yes, he was the “Great Communicator,” but his words were far from empty. The 40th American president’s life and legacy are explained in context for those who might have forgotten in Kevin Knoblock’s Ronald Reagan: Rendezvous with Destiny (trailer here), which screens tomorrow during the 2nd Annual Hudson Institute Film Festival.

The basics of Reagan’s story are well established. Born to modest means, Reagan became a popular Warner Brothers’ contract star. Parlaying his fame into a successful political career, Reagan defeated Pat Brown, the profligate incumbent governor of California in one of the greatest upsets of the 1960’s. Yet, as biographer Lou Cannon notes in Rendezvous, Reagan’s political rivals kept underestimating him. That did not work out so well for Gerald Ford in the 1976 primary. It was even worse for Jimmy Carter in the 1980 general.

Rendezvous identifies three fundamental goals of the Reagan Revolution: promoting freedom abroad by rolling back Communist expansion, revitalizing an American economy mired in Carter-era stagflation, and restoring the American spirit. Anyone who lived through the 1980’s knows he succeeded on all three fronts. Rendezvous is clearly strongest when addressing the first point, but surprisingly disappointing when tackling the second (relying on the likes of former Treasury Secretary James Baker rather than real Supply-Siders). In fact, the film’s best material consists of behind-the-scenes accounts of the Gorbachev summits, conclusively documenting just how thoroughly Reagan out-maneuvered the final Soviet ruler.

Though produced by the activist Citizens United, many of Rendezvous’ talking heads praise Reagan for his savvy pragmatism as a negotiator. Historian Douglas Brinkley cites a particularly apt Reagan quote on what he learned from his stint as the president of the Screen Actors Guild: “the purpose of a negotiation is to get an agreement.”

Any film boasting commentary from legitimately heroic figures like Lech Walesa and Vaclav Havel is significant. Rendezvous also includes some strikingly expressive Reagan photos that have not been widely circulated. Unfortunately the host segments featuring Newt and Callista Gingrich lend the film a distinctly uncinematic vibe. (Indeed, just why we should care what she has to say is certainly debatable, while the film’s target audience is likely to be a bit down on the former Speaker after his ill-considered words on the politically courageous Rep. Paul Ryan.)

Frankly, Rendezvous is a far more insightful examination of the Reagan Administration than Eugene Jarecki’s polemical HBO documentary-opinion piece. Of course, this is a lot like saying it is more technically polished than the films of Ed Wood or more uplifting than Bergman’s Hour of the Wolf. Essentially, the guts of Rendezvous are very good, but the connective tissue is pretty weak stuff. Though worth seeing, the best film at the 2011 Hudson Institute Film Fest by far is Bob Bowdon’s The Cartel, which has been covered here several times in the past. Both screen this Memorial Day Monday (5/30) at B.B. King’s venerable club on 42nd Street.

From Sundance to HBO: Jarecki’s Reagan

In an ironic way, President Ronald Reagan might have approved of the approach taken by his documentary profiler, Eugene Jarecki, at least in principle. While readily conceding personal virtues, Jarecki gives no quarter in the political arena. Such a strategy earned Jarecki Pavlovian praise for his “evenhandedness” at the 2011 Sundance Film Festival, but it contributes little to the public discourse. Instead, Jarecki essentially offers viewers the same old canned talking points in Reagan, which debuts on HBO tomorrow night.

Frankly, Jarecki’s polemical Reagan is best when covering the early Reagan years. A better actor than generally acknowledged, Reagan was eager to serve his country during WWII. Unfortunately, he was nearly as blind as a film critic, which to his genuine regret, kept out of combat duty. However, the metaphor Jarecki latches onto is Reagan the lifeguard, the vision-impaired teenager who pulled seventy-seven floundering swimmers to safety.

In contrast, when addressing the political, Jarecki is far from an honest broker. He only cursorily discusses Reagan’s time as the Screen Actor’s President, largely to speculate whether the future president named names. Had he delved deeper, he would have examined Reagan’s alarm at the extent to which Communist and fellow-traveling factions had co-opted Hollywood’s unions and progressive organizations. Of course, this would challenge long held articles of faith regarding Hollywood and the HUAC committee, which Jarecki obviously was not about to do. Better to play it safe.

As a result, this omission leaves Reagan’s evolution from Roosevelt Democrat to Reagan Republican (if you will) largely unexplained. Context is not a priority here though. All viewers are really told about his predecessor Jimmy Carter is that he had the courage to make his “malaise” speech. The word “stagflation” however, is scrupulously ignored. The Iranian hostages are discussed, but apparently only to illustrate Reagan’s providential good fortune with their fortuitous release.

Jarecki interviews some Reagan insiders, but his editorial hand is always obviously. Peter Robinson has a chance to discuss Reagan’s frequently lauded talents as a communicator, but policy analysis is reserved solely for the President’s partisan critics. So what do you suppose they say happen to the rich during his tenure?

We can also see this formal balance but practical bias in the appearances of Reagan’s family. Michael Reagan is only seen playing a cheerleader role while conducting a Reagan-themed tour (just long enough for the audience to suspect he might be trading on his father’s name). Conversely, Ron Reagan is allowed long thoughtful camera time to whittle away at his father’s political legacy. It is worth noting though, Jarecki’s film directly contradicts the junior Reagan’s claim his father exhibited symptoms of Alzheimer’s while in office.

Despite the near constant criticism of Reagan, Jarecki never comes close to suggesting the iconic president ever acted out of self interest or cynical calculation. Ever during the Iran-Contra affair, the “lifeguard” metaphor is too hard for him to shake. Indeed, this is Reagan’s ultimate saving grace, or failure, depending on one’s biases. Further diminishing the film’s seriousness, the constant use of vintage 1980’s pop tunes, like “99 Luftballoons” to underscore Reagan’s nuclear policy, is rather shallow and clichéd. (Sadly, it seems Jarecki was not able to clear the Buggles’ “Video Killed the Radio Star” for a “Great Communicator” segment.) Disappointing but not surprising, Jarecki’s Reagan does a disservice to its subject and its audience. It airs tomorrow night (2/7) on HBO, following its recent Sundance premiere.

L’Affaire Farewell

Instead of the man who knew too much, he was the spy who knew everything. Codenamed “Farewell” by the French, Colonel Vladimir Vetrov was charged with reviewing the intelligence the KGB gathered on the free world—every speck of it, including the extent to which each western intelligence agency had been compromised. He also knew the Soviet government had failed to live up to its promises. President Ronald Reagan called the resulting L’Affaire Farewell: “one of the most important espionage cases of the 20th century.” It also inspired Christian Carion’s espionage drama Farewell (trailer here), which opens in New York this Friday night.

Like the real-life Vetrov on whom he is based, Colonel Grigoriev was once stationed in Paris, where he rebuffed the advances of the French and American intelligence services. However, by 1981, the Colonel had come to the conclusion the Soviet Union needed drastic reform, so he approached the DST, the French equivalent of the FBI (the only western intelligence agency the KGB had not bothered to infiltrate), through Pierre, a French businessman with no formal involvement in the world of espionage.

Out of his element, Pierre wants to extricate himself from the affair as soon as possible, but Grigoriev insists on dealing only with him, considering the professionals untrustworthy. Partly in recognition of the value of Grigoriev’s intel and partly out of a sense of budding friendship, Pierre becomes the Colonel’s amateur handler, passing a wealth of information on to the DST.

While Pierre and Grigoriev meet in parks and train stations, another alliance in being forged between President Reagan and Mitterrand, France’s newly elected socialist prime minister. The President is less than thrilled at the prospect of Communist ministers in the new French cabinet, but Mitterrand has an olive branch to offer: “Farewell.”

Farewell’s portrayal of these influential world leaders is quite fascinating and surprisingly even-handed. Philippe Magnan’s Mitterrand is intelligent but aloof, coming across like more than a bit of a cold fish. Refreshingly, Pres. Reagan is not depicted as a doddering bumbler, but as an engaged and commanding leader. Yes, there are scenes of Reagan using classic film as a metaphor with his National Security Advisor (played by an almost unrecognizable David Soul), but never in way that calls his judgment into question.

Yet, there is something about Reagan’s distinct mannerisms that are hard to emulate without lapsing into caricature. American actor Fred Ward takes a good shot, but he still sounds more like a Saturday Night Live impersonation than a real flesh and blood individual. Frankly, Ronald Reagan remains such a commanding presence in the national consciousness it makes any dramatic representation problematic.

Fortunately, Farewell’s primary leads are uniformly excellent. Though he looks appropriately rumpled, Emir Kusturica plays Grigoriev sharp as a tack, keenly aware of his own personal contradictions. As Pierre, Guillaume Canet’s performance is also smart and understated, avoiding the headshaking “what-did-I-get-myself-into” histrionics. As a result, viewers believe the unqualified trust Grigoriev places in him.

Technically well produced, cinematographer Walther Vanden Ende and designer Jean-Michel Simonet effectively capture the oppressive drabness of the Brezhnev era. Yet ideologically, Farewell resists easy classification. While it certainly conveys the repressive and corrupt nature of Soviet Communism, the film sometimes suggests a John Le Carre-like equivalency, at least between the rival spy masters. However, the shrewd conclusion again challenges the audience’s conceptions of faith and loyalty, within the context of the preceding “L’Affaire Farewell.”

Considering how long it has been since a brainy spy film sneaked into theaters, Farewell is quite welcome indeed. Featuring two compelling lead performances and a meaty story that intrigues on several levels, it is an engrossing film. It also might be the fairest shake Pres. Reagan has gotten on screen since his inauguration in 1981, ironically coming by way of France. Definitely recommended, Farewell opens Friday (7/23) I n New York at the Lincoln Plaza and Sunshine Cinema.