Across the decades, a number of biopics about U.S. presidents have come out of Hollywood. And if fictional senators, mayors, or aldermen have understandably been depicted as liars and cheaters, most American presidents have been portrayed as American heroes. Such is the case with fictional chief executives and, as for the films spotlighting real presidents, most also have stressed the positive.
For example, in a long-forgotten 1942 fantasy titled THE REMARKABLE ANDREW, the ghosts of various U.S. presidents assist a young courthouse clerk who has uncovered political skullduggery. PT 109, another obscure biopic released four months prior to the assassination of John F. Kennedy, details the future president’s World War II heroics. More notable are such 1930s and early ‘40s films as ABRAHAM LINCOLN, YOUNG MR. LINCOLN, and ABE LINCOLN IN ILLINOIS, all of which lovingly trace the career of this iconic chief executive. Just as impressive is Steven Spielberg’s recent LINCOLN, which highlights the efforts of Abraham Lincoln to push through against massive opposition passage of the 13th Amendment, which would abolish slavery. Its scenario stresses how, a century-and-a-half ago, it was unusual and daring for a white man, even a U.S. president, to openly declare that black and white Americans are equal.
As for a president who is equal in stature to Lincoln, the poignant and inspirational SUNRISE AT CAMPOBELLO, from 1960, chronicles the courage of Franklin Roosevelt. Now granted, in the more recent HYDE PARK ON HUDSON, FDR is no saintly figure, as the film references the intimacies, physical or otherwise, that he shared with women who were not named Eleanor. But Roosevelt still is presented as one of America’s great presidents: a man who exudes self-confidence and refuses to let the polio that has crippled him hinder his approach to his duties. Most significant of all, he is a politician who is frank in his dealings with the public. This FDR does not lie. At one point early on, he poses a question that is well-worth pondering. And that is: “Why can’t politicians just be honest?”
However, a handful of celluloid portraits of real presidents are in fact less than flattering. Two of them were directed by Oliver Stone. The first is 1995’s NIXON, in which Stone depicts Richard Nixon as a deeply flawed human being, a tortured, haunted soul. The second is W, from 2008, in which George W. Bush is portrayed as an irresponsible frat boy who spends his early adult years drifting from job to job, and drinking, and licking the silver spoon in his mouth, and drinking some more. Sure, he eventually sobers up, but he is not a bright man. For example, he casually refers to Guantanamo as “Guantanamera.” But more importantly, according to Oliver Stone, George W. Bush is an insecure individual whose actions are predicated on his need to please his father. Stone’s George W. is little more than a child-man who yearns for his daddy’s approval.
At this juncture, one only can guess as to who will succeed Barack Obama in the Oval Office. Will there be a biopic about our new president? And if so, how will he-- or she-- be presented?
Rob Edelman has authored or edited several dozen books on film, television, and baseball. He has taught film history courses at several universities and his writing has appeared in many newspapers, magazines, and journals. His frequent collaborator is his wife, fellow WAMC film commentator Audrey Kupferberg.
The views expressed by commentators are solely those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect the views of this station or its management.