Frost/Nixon - Movie Review

As a history buff, I enjoy good historical dramas. I also understand that historical dramas often take liberties with the facts in order to make the film more enjoyable (watchable). Frost/Nixon takes liberties with the facts but doesn't do much to make the film very enjoyable. It is slow and tedious. I was very surprised to see Ron Howard make such an average film

Frost/Nixon recounts the challenges faced by a British talk show host who manages to buy an interview with Richard Nixon following his resignation of the Presidency. Frost uses money from his own account to outbid another network and land the interviews. He begs, borrows and steals the balance of the two million dollars it will cost to produce four segments, which includes the $600,000 fee commanded by President Nixon. The major networks stonewall Frost, creating a stressful situation beyond the fundamental interview issues.

Frost agrees to conduct four interview sessions covering a variety of issues from Viet Nam to Foreign Policy, "Nixon the man," and concluding with Watergate. Watergate was a watershed moment in American politics. Every scandal from that point forward has had the tag "gate" added to the end. The scandal itself was fairly benign in the greater scheme of things. The problem was that American Naivete prevented most citizens from really examining what types of trickery go on behind the scenes in politics. The difference between Nixon and the rest was that his name got tarnished by the sausage-making.

The film documents Gerald Ford's pardon of Nixon, which I would like to comment on, as an "aside." Ford allowed the country to move forward after an ugly, partisan witch hunt that exposed the underbelly of politics. The entire impeachment approach took politics in a new direction, which was repeated again with President Clinton. These public airings of our dirty laundry reduce the Office and (to me) are petty. I was not old enough to weigh in on Watergate, but would have weighed in on that issue the same way I did with Clinton...it was a waste of resources. A witch hunt. We all know that politicians sling mud and try to get dirt on each other. The majority lie, succumb to pressure from contributors and manipulate those around them. This film documents the tragic beginning of America losing respect for the Office of President. That aspect of the event was not examined in this film, which concentrated more centrally on Frost's perspective.

In terms of reality checking, there were minor issues, such as the presence of Diane Sawyer at the taping. She was not there. Details like that are the type that don't really bother me. However, major themes and issues do. And in that area, Frost/Nixon appears to come up short. I was a lad when the tapes aired, so I do not have first-hand knowledge of the public response at the time. I did watch the interviews on Netflix, but only watched a little bit...it was as boring as the film about the interviews. I did find some literature from that time frame that sheds some light on the accuracy of this film.

Frost/Nixon portrays the taping as a personal challenge for Frost. He must overcome the incredible financing nightmare as well as conduct the interviews. After assembling a team of researchers to help him prepare, Frost fails miserably during the first three interviews. Nixon drones on with windy answers to minimize the number of questions that are asked. In the final interview, Frost manages to best Nixon and comes out as the clear winner. Nixon clearly loses face. But did he? Was there a winner? One of Nixon's biggest critics at the time, Bob Woodward, referred to the interviews as "a much-touted television interview which shed little new light on the scandal.” A few days later, the New York Times stated "No important factual information about Watergate emerged from the interview.” It appears the entire premise of Frost/Nixon is flawed.

Although the film was incredibly sluggish...to the point of boredom, the performances were outstanding. I am not familiar with David Frost and can't comment on Michael Sheen's ability to capture his essence in this film, but the performance was credible. I have seen plenty of video of Nixon and was old enough to even remember him when he was President. The cartoons always seem to draw his nose in Pinocchio fashion...and interesting physical trait that does have an element of irony to it. The comedians always flap their jowls and say "I am not a crook," while throwing up peace signs. Those stereo-typical signatures were avoided by actor Frank Langella, who dug much deeper into Nixon's character. His speaking patterns, gait, and gestures were carefully recreated by this gifted actor. It would have been easy to extend Langella's nose to create a more perfect visual illusion, but instead, the actor recreates the part with subtly. It was an amazing performance to behold (the bright spot of this entire project). A couple of the key players included Kevin Bacon, who portrays Nixon's Marine confidante, Jack Brennan. Bacon is solid, but I read comments from Diane Sawyer that indicated that Brennan was more laid back than the way he was portrayed in this film. That is not a negative on Bacon's part...he was still enjoyable. An author that really had a hard-on for Nixon was a guy named James Reston Jr. He is portrayed in this film by Sam Rockwell who managed to make the guy look like a complete dick (not to be confused with a tricky dick). I didn't like the actor or character, not to say that it was or wasn't an accurate portrayal. The entire cast was solid, but paled in comparison to Langella. The man became Nixon for two (long) hours.

Although I enjoy historical dramas, Frost/Nixon did its best to put me to sleep. I toughed it out to see where the film was going. The answer, quite simply, was "nowhere." Aside from a phenomenal performance by Langella, this film really had nothing to offer. It mis-characterized (hyped) the interviews, casting them in a historically inaccurate light. The pacing was sluggish to the point of nausea. This film really lacked any other redeeming qualities that I could hang my hat on. I really wanted to enjoy this film, but came away utterly disappointed. Although I did not feel it was a "hit job," it just didn't seem compelling, accurate or interesting...all qualities I look for in historical dramas. Not recommended. 4/10.

Trailer and images subject to copyright.