Talk:The American President

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• Palmer, William J. (2009). "The American President". The Films of the Nineties: The Decade of Spin. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 93–101. ISBN 0230613446.

Tagging for Cleanup

Someone had marked this for cleanup in December without any explaination. Please take advantage of the talk page when you tag a page with something so people who have the time or inclination to go through the entire article will know where others had problems. --Torourkeus 00:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Bias

The below paragraph was recently drastically edited:

It has also been considered an unabashedly liberal film by some, who say that the filmmakers portrayed all Democrats as noble, forthcoming and trustworthy while the Republicans are portrayed as uneducated, pro-gun, and deceitful. In one scene, Lewis Rothschild (Michael J. Fox) advocacy for tough gun control laws, a staple of lilberal policy goals, are shot down President Sheperd due to the realities of American politics, rather than the protection of constitutional rights.

I removed the edits for two main reasons:

• The problem with the movie isn't because it is liberal but specifically because it was unabashedly liberal. It's been argued that all hollywood movies are liberal, so that alone shouldn't be a problem. The problem is that this movie is supposedly drastically liberal to the point that it is immediately on the attack of any conservative views.
• I also didn't like that the last statement was removed to avoid bias. The only problems that I can see with the sentance is that gun control laws are a staple of liberal policy goals (It could be argued that gun control isn't a Democrat issue but it is decidedly a liberal issue. Also, the main argument FOR gun control laws is the protection of constitutional rights. I think the sentance represents both sides fairly well without stating that either view is better than the other.
• By the way, I'm a liberal so believe me I wasn't meaning to attack liberals on this issue. --Torourkeus 17:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Curious

How could the film present an apologetic view of the Lewinsky scandal when the film predated the scandal by over 2 years? Rhobite 05:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Aaron Sorkin "Liberals Can Win" Paradigm

Pre-dating his "West Wing", "The American President" is the primary example of a paradigm held by writer Aaron Sorkin that a "honest and courageous liberal" can win over the American populace, even on ideas that moderate or conservative Democrats oppose...the gun control issue primarily.

Sorkin expanded on this idea in "The West Wing", with "President Bartlet" and his team invariably (and typically OFF-camera) winning on some piece of legislation or policy initiative "unabashedly liberal", despite opposition from both Republicans as well as some Democrats. Like a magic trick, how this was pulled off is never exactly revealed, but it's implied that it's the result of their superior intellect and the "natural rightness" of the cause.

In "The American President" this is most prominently noticed in "Andrew Shepherd's" final speech at the end. "Coming back" as a forceful and ideological liberal, he states "I'll go door to door, if I have to. But I'm going to get the guns!".

In the real world, such a statement would IMMEDIATELY be leaped on by both the NRA, Republicans, and even many Democrats and used against Shepherd, costing him many gun-owner and even libertarian votes, and likely his re-election.

In the "Sorkin world", it results, no doubt, in a post-ending triumph for him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.150.208.34 (talk • contribs)

Did you copy this from somewhere and just slap it here, or is this your original opinion? In either case, what does it have to do with the article? — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

They are my own thoughts. And it relates, as to the influence of "The American President" on "The West Wing" paradigm created by Aaron Sorkin. Or is "Discussion" not supposed to be about "discussing" the subject of the article???—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.150.208.34 (talk • contribs).

Actually, no. Discussion pages are meant to discuss the article, not its subject (independent of its representation in the article). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorkin was accused of lifting ideas from an earlier screenplay by William Richert, which was denied by the WGA.

No link or support for this accusation, it's pretty much libel, and now removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.161.102.246 (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Inaccurate depiction of US politics

Wasn't there a section in the article about how it gets several points of American politics wrong? Like how the President isn't allowed to introduce bills or to prevent (shelf) bills from being presented to Congress? Whatever happened to that section? I thought it was relevant and merited mention. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Rachel Maddow uses a line from the movie? It's been going around in the past few days that, on Monday night (23 September, 2013), Rachel Maddow used a line delivered by Michael J. Fox as his character from the movie, to the effect of Republicans being "a bag of blindfolded, hungry weasels high on Angel Dust". I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know whether the line is actually from the movie. If it's true, the fact deserves inclusion into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.145.42 (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

This movie could be a classic - the basic plot is great, but it goes so far off into left field in terms of the politics that it is hard to sit through. as such, have no doubt that the likes of rachel maddow would quote from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.13 (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The American President. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061028142351/http://www1.hfpa.org/browse/year/1995 to http://www.hfpa.org/browse/year/1995
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://m.cinemascore.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Dogwoods

At the end of the article it states that Douglas gives Bening roses and dogwoods just before he goes to give his State of the Union speech. He did not give her dogwoods. Jinxhpb (talk) 01:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)