Review: Frost/Nixon

Frost/Nixon

OPENING: 12/05/2008

STUDIO: Universal

TRAILER: Trailer

ACCOMPLICES: Official Site

The Charge
400 million people were waiting for the truth.

Opening Statement
There is a scene in Frost/Nixon that stands out as a memorable moment. It is late at night, and David Frost is sitting alone in his hotel room. The phone rings. Frost answers, and is surprised to hear Richard Nixon’s voice on the other line. Nixon has been drinking, and seems to be in a reflective mood. “We’re both looked down on, you know,” he muses. “No matter how many awards you win, no matter how powerful the office I hold is, we’re always looked down upon and laughed at.” While no such phone call ever actually occurred (there is an unwritten rule that every film about Nixon must take creative liberties), such a statement would have been true at the time. Nixon was probably the most-mocked politician of his day, and Frost was regarded as a buffoon with, “no discernible talent.”

Facts of the Case
The year is 1977, several years after former U.S. President Richard M. Nixon resigned from his most-esteemed office. At least, the office was most-esteemed before Nixon got his hands on it. Corruption had tainted Nixon’s tenure and the public had understandably begun to develop a deep-rooted cynicism that remains in place to this day. However, the bitter public never received any real catharsis when it came to Nixon. “Tricky Dick” was pardoned by his successor, Gerald Ford, essentially preventing Nixon from ever being charged for his crimes.

Enter British talk show host, comedian, and casual journalist David Frost. Many had wanted to score a substantial interview with Nixon after his resignation, but Nixon was not particularly interested in being chewed apart. However, he was intrigued by the idea of an interview with Frost. Not only was Frost a lightweight who would probably toss easy questions, he was willing to pay considerably more than any of the news networks were. So, after some brief negotiations, it was agreed that Richard Nixon and David Frost would conduct a series of lengthy interviews over the course of twelve different days. When the interviews were aired, they drew hundreds of millions of viewers and broke records. Ron Howard’s new film recreates the verbal duels that occurred during those interviews, and tells the compelling story of how a lightweight journalist successfully went head-to-head with a disgraced former President.

The Evidence
It’s kind of astonishing to consider such a thing, particularly when one looks at the kind of politicians and journalists we have today. Yes, Nixon was a corrupt man, but doesn’t he look just a bit less awful when contrasted with the likes of Elliot Spitzer, Rod Blagojevich, Mark Foley, and others? From what we see of Frost, he was certainly no Walter Cronkite, but he seems more professional and competent than a large percentage of network news anchors on television today. Ron Howard’s portrait of the battle between David Frost and Richard Nixon has taken on an unexpected nobility and class. In 1977, Frost and Nixon were perhaps perceived as two nobodies fighting to gain an ounce of respect. In 2008, they seem like two rather intelligent men attempting to outfox one another. It’s rather interesting this story is being told now. One might suspect a film like this would attempt to offer parallels to current political situations, but no, not really. Frost/Nixon simply gives modern viewers a chance to witness these events through the lens of today’s culture.

Rather, I should say it gives them an opportunity to witness a fictionalized version of these events. Frost/Nixon is a good film, but it’s not a particularly useful history lesson. Things are made up, sliced up, spliced up, spiced up, tweaked, adjusted, and re-arranged until we have something accurately resembling history without actually portraying it to any degree of genuine accuracy. The film is best used to inspire discussions and motivate thoughts, not to teach children about David Frost and Richard Nixon. Surprisingly, such historical liberties permit the film to reach considerable heights. The aforementioned phone conversation is probably the high point of the film, and many of the most “revealing” moments are typically the ones that didn’t actually happen.

As you might expect, Nixon is the magnetic force that drives the movie. Actor Frank Langella offers a terrific performance, and his Richard Nixon is a great character. However, I would not say Langella makes a great Richard Nixon. We aren’t exactly getting Nixon here, but a Shakespearean alternate version of Nixon. Langella is bold, eloquent, commanding, and intense. When the real Nixon appeared on television, he seemed sweaty, nervous, and uncomfortable. Langella’s Nixon has the swagger and poise of a king. Part of this comes from Langella’s unique natural screen presence. Langella’s Dracula didn’t seem much like Dracula, and his Perry White didn’t seem much like Perry White, but they were great characters nonetheless. The other part of it comes from Howard’s desire to frame Frost/Nixon as a David and Goliath tale. For the majority of the film, Michael Sheen plays Frost as if he were a grinning deer stuck in the headlights, which only amplifies the effect. Again, I sound as if I’m being negative. If I were a historian, all of this would bother me a great deal. As a film critic, I’m just fine with what we get. It isn’t good history, but it’s excellent cinema. Believe me when I tell you that the Frost/Nixon interviews presented here are even more compelling than the interviews that actually exist. As he did in Cinderalla Man and A Beautiful Mind, Howard ignores pure fact in favor of telling a better story.

Richard Nixon has slowly become one of cinema’s great characters. Oh sure, there was once a real Richard Nixon, but the idea of Richard Nixon is so much bigger than the real Richard Nixon. There was a real Richard III, but Richard III wasn’t really Richard III until Shakespeare made him “Richard III.” Have the likes of Robert Altman, Oliver Stone, and Ron Howard given Nixon similar immortality? Every time Nixon appears in a film, he always seems to have more of something… more poise, more intelligence, more tragedy, more desperation. Long gone are the cornball stand-up routine caricatures of the 1970s and ’80s. Nixon’s life played out like great literature, and actors like Philip Baker Hall, Anthony Hopkins, and Frank Langella have molded the man into a figure worthy of the story he lived. I say this because Frost/Nixon feels like last important evolutionary step of Nixon’s cinematic journey. Altman got the ball rolling with the intensely personal Secret Honor, Oliver Stone offered a sprawling biopic that colored outside the lines with Nixon, and now Ron Howard brings closure to the Nixon story with Frost/Nixon. The man has been defined and re-defined by various people, and now a legendary character has emerged. History is written by the winners, and the winners have generously chosen to make Nixon a tragic villain of the grandest sort.

Closing Statement
Frost/Nixon isn’t quite a classic. It’s a bit uneven at times, and Michael Sheen’s Frost isn’t quite the worthy adversary for Frank Langella’s Nixon. My criticism more or less stops there. This is a film that works remarkably well in spite of itself, and is all the more fascinating for it.

The Verdict
8/10

• “”>