Frost/Nixon

[Tom Chick]

As someone who pretty much loathes Ron Howard movies, let me just say: uh, whoa...!

Firstly, this is no Ron Howard movie. It's very obviously a Peter Morgan script. Like The Queen and Longford, it's a fantastic story about the intersection between the political and the personal, and how it plays out in the public eye. And Michael Sheen and Frank Langella are pitch-perfect. It's no surprise they've been living this story nightly for long stretches at a time during Frost/Nixon's theatrical runs in London and New York. These three men, working together, have re-created a moment that has timely implications as the disgraced Bush Administration rides off into the sunset. Just as Good Night and Good Luck was about the media in the run-up to the Iraq invasion, now Frost/Nixon is about the fallout of terrible abuses of power by the executive branch. Where do we go from here? How does a country move beyond that?

Langella is tremendous. I don't remember being all that impressed by Anthony Hopkin's representation of Richard Nixon as played by Anthony Hopkins. But Langella loses himself in here. There's a powerful sense of Nixon's arrogance, frustration, and sadness. He plays it like Richard II instead of Macbeth. It's impossible not to feel a mixture of pity and loathing for the man. One of the most powerful scenes of the year is Frank Langella as a devastated Nixon trying to pet a dog, and having no idea how to move his hands.

Langella's scenes with Kevin Bacon as Jack Brennan are surprisingly intimate, and it's to Morgan's, Langella's and Bacon's credit that these didn't have to be scenes with Pat Nixon (I don't think she has a single line in the movie). The one point I felt I was watching a Ron Howard movie was when he unnecessarily dribbled tinkly piano music over a scene between Brennan and Nixon to signal that it was an Intimate and Powerful moment. Hey, Mr. Howard, the writer and actors are carrying it all quite nicely, thankyouverymuch.

Michael Sheen plays straight man to the real performance here, and David Frost rising to the occasion is believable and effective. It's not just one of those convenient movie moments where Rocky II wins because the script needs him to win. Morgan plays out a great scenario for how and why Frost was able to breach Nixon's defenses (I'm not sure how much of it is dramatic license, but I find it hard to believe Nixon was calling reporters while he was so drunk he wouldn't remember).

It just goes to show how much a good writer and actors can accomplish in a movie that's based on people talking to each other. This is definitely one of my favorites this year. Tremendous movie.

-Tom

[Eduardo X]

You hit the nail on the head about Langella and Nixon's loneliness and incredible arrogance.

I've always been fascinated by Nixon, and this just adds to it. He was forced to do so much in spite of his ideals and political beliefs, but still managed to overshadow his political life by such obvious and stupid mistakes.

I've seen many movies recently that were originally plays, such as Closer. One can see HOW this could be staged as a play, but the movie never feels confined as Closer did, trying too hard to relegate the action to static locations, or even confine the action to just a few key characters. It all feels quite natural.

I also was surprised at how smart the whole thing was. Nixon's jokes usually take historical knowledge (that should be common, but I fear is anything but). There is no explanation about Russian leaders always being taped: it's just funny. I appreciate that, especially in a Ron Howard movie. I felt smart after seeing it!

[Nellie]

The original interviews have just been released on DVD as well.

Not even heard of the film, to my shame, but I'll definitely keep an eye out for it here.

[Funkman]

I thought the best part of the movie was far and away the relationship between the two men. They both believe that they have so much to regain from the interviews and its fascinating to watch as Nixon (with Langella doing a fantastic job) slowly realizes he will not restore his reputation. The final shot of him standing alone with those loafers summed up that character arch so beautifully. Any movie that can make intensely dramatic scenes out of, essentially, two talking heads is pretty amazing in my book.

[prolix]

I'm not sure how much of it is dramatic license, but I find it hard to believe Nixon was calling reporters while he was so drunk he wouldn't remember.

Haven't seen the movie yet, but read in a review that that part was dramatic license.

Edit: Here's an article explaining just how much license was taken.

[Jaysun]

I really want to see this, but it seems like it got a really limited release. I hope it gets an expanded release in the next couple weeks, but I'm not holding my breath.

[BlueJackalope]

Just saw this tonight.

Great stuff. I enjoyed that they set up the interviews like the fight in Rocky. Frost is outclassed and looks like a total lightweight next to Nixon. Then he gains his feet and comes back. They were able to inject tension into a historical event.

Langella was just great, very heavy very powerful. You get the feeling that he could have crumpled Frost like a piece of paper for most of the interview. His motivations and his character are clear. The telephone call and the end were great moments (the guy playing Frost had to just react, deceptively difficult to pull off).

Great movie, I didn't much care for the Sam Rockwell (or whatever his name is) giving a little coda, explaining what we just saw. But it didn't kill it.

[Roy Ziegler]

Great movie. As everyone else says, Langella is superb.

I'm sure they took a shit load of dramatic license, but it's ok to me because of how good it is.

[BrewersDroop]

I thought Langella's portrayal of Nixon was deeply flawed. He seems to be playing Nixon as though he were an old man in his late 70s. Nixon was 64 years old when the interviews with Frost took place and in the actual interviews he comes across as a much more youthful, dynamic and vibrant man than Langella's portrayal in the film.

[BlueJackalope]

I thought Langella's portrayal of Nixon was deeply flawed. He seems to be playing Nixon as though he were an old man in his late 70s. Nixon was 64 years old when the interviews with Frost took place and in the actual interviews he comes across as a much more youthful, dynamic and vibrant man than Langella's portrayal in the film.

I looked up a couple of clips from the real interview and this is true. Nixon looks pretty good. He's even able to smile without looking really really creepy. But, that wouldn't be the Nixon needed for the movie.

The movie Nixon needed to be the Appollo Creed to Frost's Rocky.

[Equis]

Langella is superb, I agree. I have only a passing familiarity with Nixon, myself being a stinky foreigner from the East, but I have no trouble believing every moment of Langella's performance. Sheen's performance was alright to me, if anything, I felt it was a bit too safe and restrained.

One annoyance that crept up though was the use of the montage training sequence to suggest Frost's turnaround in mentality and resolve. I had hope that a story such as this would avoid using a device such as that.

[Hiredgoons]

This movie is fictional.

- The ending credits talk about how revered Frost was after this interview, and that it completely changed his career, and that Nixon was irreparably damaged. Total garbage.

- That would be the case, if the interview as depicted, actually happened.

- The real aftermath of this interview shows what really happened. Frost did virtually nothing worth noting after his interview. He did not become a mini-Woodward.

- Nixon enjoyed a complete reversal of fortune after this interview and his resignation. He went to becoming one of the most despised figures in politics to one of the most consulted. He wrote well-received and in some cases bestselling books, and became a stateman and was consulted by his successors from both parties on numerous occasions.

- This interview was a complete non-event. It did nothing to distinguish Frost's career, because it wasn't a distinguishing event. It didn't harm Nixon in the slightest, and arguably helped him.

[extarbags]

- Nixon enjoyed a complete reversal of fortune after this interview and his resignation. He went to becoming one of the most despised figures in politics to one of the most consulted. He wrote well-received and in some cases bestselling books, and became a stateman and was consulted by his successors from both parties on numerous occasions.

When did this happen? The only part that rings true are that his books sold, but that's true because people wanted a glimpse into his deranged mind, not because they thought of him as a font of wisdom. He was disgraced for the rest of his life.

If you got this business from wikipedia, check the citation; it's an article from some site called nixonlibrary.gov.

[Hiredgoons]

I didn't get it from Wikipedia. I remember the 1970s very well.

Every President after Nixon talked to him regarding foreign policy at least several times during their career, and his advice and were recommendations were taken seriously. Including Carter and Clinton. He was so reviled at his death that five presidents spoke at his funeral. He was, and still is, regarded as a deep thinker on foreign policy.

He was a lawless president while in office, but this movie plays way too fast with the facts. I'm not saying Nixon is a saint. He certainly wasn't. But the movie sets it out like Frost slayed the dragon, and nothing of the sort happened. This interview was the equivalent of a big "meh."

Frost didn't break a single new fact about Watergate during this interview.

In his resignation speech, Nixon said that his judgments were wrong, and and that he had regrets. Frost didn't get him to admit anything more than that in his interview.

The movie portrays the interview as the news event of the decade. It simply wasn't. Frost isn't remembered today because the event was non-memorable. There was no news in it. The purported revelations in the movie are completely fabricated.

[Tom Chick]

The movie portrays the interview as the news event of the decade.

I don't think I can agree with this, Mr. Goons. The movie portrayed the interviews as a victory for Frost, who managed to exceed expectations and then rise above his status as a guy doing dippy little entertainment shows. It also portrayed it as a rare moment of candor for Nixon. That Peter Morgan interprets this from the five seconds of silence doesn't make it a complete fabrication. It makes it a dramatization, much like he did with the behind-the-scenes stuff about Tony Blair and the Queen in the wake of Princess Di's death.

Out of curiosity, have you seen the interviews? They're on DVD and I have them here from Netflix, but haven't gotten around to watching them yet.

-Tom

[Nellie]

The real aftermath of this interview shows what really happened. Frost did virtually nothing worth noting after his interview. He did not become a mini-Woodward.

Huh? Frost has been kicking around since the 60's, his volume of work even disregarding his output as a political Journalist is huge. I don't care for him much but to say he's done nothing but a single interview with Nixon is just staggering ignorance.

[Hiredgoons]

Staggering ignorance? I'm patiently awaiting some examples of this enormous journalist body of work that Frost supposedly has. It should be trivial to find some, if it's worth insulting me over.

I wrote that Frost had done virtually nothing of note since the interview. The ending credits create the impression that the interview catapulted his career and turned him into a huge journalist. In my opinion, as far as a "newsman" he is somewhere in between Larry King and Barbara Walters. He became a talk show host.

I know that he had an entertainment career, but the entire tone of the movie, particularly the ending, is that Frost did as much ground breaking journalism or nearly as much as Woodward and Bernstein did.

It makes for a far less interesting movie, but the truth, is that no new Watergate facts were discovered during the interview. Nixon said that his judgments were wrong, and expressed regret for his actions -- in his resignation speech, years before this interview.

I found the Frost interview a pathetic attempt to capitalize on the body of work of other journalists, particulary Washington Post, without them receiving any credit. Frost brought no new facts to the table.

Any extended interview with a former president is usually noteworthy, but for a big story, there has to be some actual, well, news.

Oh yeah, and the phone call between Nixon and Frost -- that never happened.

It's a great movie, but it isn't history. It's fiction.

[Tom Chick]

The ending credits create the impression that the interview catapulted his career and turned him into a huge journalist.

So your issue is with the title card at the end? I don't even recall it. What exactly did it say that you take issue with?

I know that he had an entertainment career, but the entire tone of the movie, particularly the ending, is that Frost did as much ground breaking journalism or nearly as much as Woodward and Bernstein did.

This is patently incorrect. The movie portrays Frost as largely uninterested in preparing for the interview until the eleventh hour. "The entire tone of the movie...is that Frost did...ground-breaking journalism"? That's enough to make me wonder if you even saw the movie.

It makes for a far less interesting movie, but the truth, is that no new Watergate facts were discovered during the interview.

The point of the movie seemed to be that they managed to dig up a detail that caused Nixon to lapse into a supposedly famous five seconds of silence during the interview. The movie is a dramatization (see below) about what could have led to those five seconds. It's not All the Presidents Men and it never pretends to be.

It's a great movie, but it isn't history. It's fiction.

You seem to be unaware that there's a word for what it is, which is something that exists half-way between fiction and history. It's called a "dramatization", and it's what Peter Morgan is known for. You might want to check out some of this other stuff (The Queen, Last King of Scotland, and Longford) instead of holding him to some standard where there are only two kinds of drama, one strictly fictional and one strictly historical.

-Tom

[Hiredgoons]

You seem to be unaware that there's a word for what it is, which is something that exists half-way between fiction and history. It's called a "dramatization", and it's what Peter Morgan is known for.

I strongly disagree with the proposition that there is this third type of narrative which can be meaningfully distinguished between the other two, namely fiction or history. If it didn't happen, it's fiction. Yes, I've seen the Queen and Last King of Scotland. I liked both movies, and would recommend them. I'm not as familiar with those historical figures, but I wouldn't be surprised if the real story departs significantly from the film.

Prolix, above, posted a link to an article that captures some of the more important omissions and additions contained in the movie. It's a much better read any paraphrase I could attempt here.

[TimElhajj]

History is the fiction of conquerors!

[Anaxagoras]

A dramatization of something is when the writers of the movie create scenes that capture the essence of what happened. If the facts in the link posted above are correct, Frost/Nixon isn't a dramatization. It's not even fiction. It's a lie.

Fiction is something the never happened, and everyone understands that. When you purport to be telling what actually happened, and then change fundamental & important facts, you're spreading misinformation. Adding phone calls to a movie that never happened in real life is a dramatization. Changing "You're wanting to me to say that I participated in an illegal cover-up. No!" to "...was involved in a 'cover-up,' as you call it." is a lie.

[Tom Chick]

You guys are silly. The line Elizabeth Drew quote is taken out of context. The substance of that sequence in the movie is directly from the interviews: Nixon admits to wrongdoing, but insists his motives were pure and pretty much refuses to apologize. That Peter Morgan has edited it into a five-minute monologue -- and a fantastic one at that -- doesn't make it a "lie". It's not even the supposed "zinger", which is an earlier bit in the interview.

A lot of the dialogue during the interview is rewritten for whatever reason: to make it more dramatic, to condense important points, or even to sound better. And I'm sure Langella and Sheen might have even -- gasp! -- spoken them differently than they were actually spoken. A Watergate scholar like Elizabeth Drew getting her panties in a twist about certain details seems to have missed the point of the movie, much like hiredgoons. It's not a dry historical retelling. It's a dramatization, filtered through the eyes of the playwright, the performance of the actors, and Ron Howard's editing and direction. It's powerful for its historical basis and contemporary relevance, so it's pretty silly to stand up and announce that it's a lie because the dialogue isn't a 1:1 recreation.

BTW, if you want to see the episode really blown out of proportion, have a look at the trailer for the DVD of the actual interviews: The Most Important Political Interview Ever, it announces. Lie? Or marketing? And does it minimize the authenticity of the DVD? Hmm.

-Tom

[Tom Chick]

The ending credits create the impression that the interview catapulted his career and turned him into a huge journalist.

Oh, and since hiredgoons conveniently ignored my questions, here's the title card at the end of the movie:

David Frost continues to work at a TV presenter and news interviewer.

Today his annual summer party is a firm fixture on the British social calendar.

The Nixon interviews remain the most successful program of his career.

Man, they really blew his career out of proportion there! Such hyperbole! Goodness!

-Tom

[TimElhajj]

This sounds like the crazy business they gave Mel Gibson after Apocalypto came out, where they were interviewing anthropolgists who were so upset by the authenticity of that movie. I think documentaries that offer one sided presentation of facts are more upsetting. If it's a drama, it's going to be dramatic.

[alexlitel]

Bar Grand Theft Auto, this is the lowest grossing Ron Howard film ever.

[awdougherty]

Didn't dig this one. I enjoyed the subject, thought the performances were great, but the heavy-handed structure (if structure is the right word) really got to me after a while. Basically the interviews stuck here and there throughout the film. They usually seemed to state the obvious and feel rather fake for being the "cinema verite" part of the film. Really hated the big moment when Nixon states that when a president does something, it's not illegal (from the trailer). If they would have just let Frost watch in shock, perfect. But in case you missed that statement and what it meant, here's an intrusive cut to Frost's team high-fiving and an intrusive cut to Nixon's team looking beat. Ruined a pretty powerful moment of the film and was indicative of a lot of what I felt about the movie as a whole.

[Malcolm Tucker]

Completely agree about the little interview segments. To me the actual Frost/Nixon interview parts were great, and Frank Langella was mesmerizing, but everything else just kind of felt flat. I never really understood why Frost was being such a pushover in the interviews, given that he really needed something useable to make back all the money he'd borrowed.

I have TiVo and therefore never see commercials, so I was glad to see that "When the President does it, that means it's not illegal." was in there. What a piece of shit Nixon was. Again though I'm with you awdougherty, the moment was handled badly.

In short, great film, too bad about the direction. And like a quarter of the script.

[Tom Chick]

Really hated the big moment when Nixon states that when a president does something, it's not illegal (from the trailer). If they would have just let Frost watch in shock, perfect. But in case you missed that statement and what it meant, here's an intrusive cut to Frost's team high-fiving and an intrusive cut to Nixon's team looking beat. Ruined a pretty powerful moment of the film and was indicative of a lot of what I felt about the movie as a whole.

This is flat-out incorrect, AW. Nixon makes the comment and Ron Howard lets the reaction play out on Michael Sheen's face, which is exactly what you note he should do. Sheen then makes his follow-up comment, and Nixon replies. After that, there is then a one-second cut-away to Jack Brennan's reaction in Nixon's ready room, which is entirely earned based on how the Brennan/Nixon relationship is an important part of the movie. I strongly disagree that it's some sort of heavy-handed tell to the audience.

And just to further make the case that the cut-away to Brennan is important, do you remember what the very next scene is? It's Brennan interrupting the interview and pulling Nixon away, which leads to the scene between the two of them in a side room.

Also, quit watching trailers. They'll color how you see a movie.

I hate Ron Howard's direction as much as the next guy -- heck, more! -- but he deserves some credit for getting out of the way of Frost/Nixon and letting it happen among the actors.

-Tom

[awdougherty]

I may have remembered it wrong, but for me I think any cut aways would have ruined it for me. I loved Sheen's shocked "excuse me?" but I felt like I just wanted that moment to be between the two guys until Bacon storms in to cut off the interview. To me, the Nixon team reaction shot felt like it was there as a backup in case someone didn't get the enormity of what was just said from just Sheen and Langella. Maybe I felt that way after I reacted to a lot of the interviews with that same feeling, that they were there to hold the audience's hand a little.

Also, I should disclose that I have never seen this movie at all. Thank you good sirs.

[Jakub]

Way too much fiction. Nixon doesn't need to be villainized like that.