by Tony Medley
Run Time 122 Minutes.
History is made by the
people who write it, not the people who actually do the deeds, and this
film is a prime example. Director Ron Howard may still look like a bald
little, guileless Opie from “The Andy Griffith Show,” but this movie is
sinister. It stands for the proposition that Howard’s thought processes
haven’t advanced much since he played a 9-year-old in those halcyon days
of yore. Here’s what Howard said on CSPAN:
“The only thing that is kind of quaint about the story at all is the
fact that the Nixon crimes pale by comparison with, you know, what we
have been reading about and hearing about in the last few years.”
I’m not going to get into a
comparison of what Richard Nixon did in Watergate and what President
Bush has done to defend the country against Islamic extremists. Suffice
it to say that the mind boggles at such lunacy expressed by Howard. But
what he says does give us his mindset in presenting this story and
making this movie. He had an agenda.
Writers creating history
that didn’t actually happen go back a long way, at least to the War of
the Roses in the 15th Century. Even though Nixon was no
saint, Frank Langella’s portrayal of Nixon is grotesque, reminiscent of
the way Shakespeare portrayed Richard III with a hump to make him much
more of a monster than he really was. In fact, Richard III wasn’t a
monster at all; modern evidence indicates he was a well-spoken man
without any physical deformity who was demonized by Tudor writers after
he was killed at the Battle of Bosworth Field, which ended the War of
the Roses and the Plantagenet dynasty and started the era of the Tudors.
Henry VIII was the second Tudor king. Henry VIII’s boon companion,
Thomas More, wrote a scurrilous, disputed history that maligned Richard.
It was that account upon which Shakespeare relied when he wrote his play
during the reign of Elizabeth I, the daughter of Henry and Anne Boleyn,
and the fourth Tudor monarch. In 2002, however, the BBC sponsored a
ballot to name the “100 greatest Britons” and Richard III was included.
It’s taken five centuries for Richard to start to shuffle off the mud
that was splattered on him by Tudor historians. So that’s the way the
left treats any Republican or conservative. Nixon was no saint, but he
was no Langella, either. Langella adopts Shakespeare’s portrait of
Richard III for his impersonation of Nixon, in that he walks stooped
over. It almost looks like he has a hump. Worse, although Nixon could be
ponderous, his speech patterns weren’t anywhere near the caricature
For almost an hour, this
isn’t the famous interview of Richard Nixon by David Frost (Michael
Sheen). Rather, it’s the setup. Frost was a surprise choice to interview
the former President, considered a lightweight by his media compatriots.
Frost was better known for his high living and womanizing than for his
For the first hour we see
him desperately trying to get the financing to put on the interview
since all the networks had blackballed Frost’s interview out of pique
that they couldn’t get it for themselves. Frost ended up having to
commit his own money to the project and paid Nixon $600,000 up front.
This film is disappointing
to someone who lived through the Nixon era as did I (I had lunch in the
White House Mess the day after Gerald Ford was sworn in as Nixon’s
successor) and who saw the Frost/Nixon interviews when they were
The star of the movie isn’t
Langella, although he’s getting all the ink. The star for me is Sheen,
who actually does do an expert recreation of David Frost, although he
makes him a lot more likeable than the real Frost who always came across
as pretty arrogant. The film paints Frost as being pushed around by
Nixon until the final interview when, in true Hollywood fashion, Frost
scores a touchdown with little time remaining on the clock. It just
takes a long time to get there.
The film ends with James
Reston, Jr. (Sam Rockwell), an anti-Nixon hack who was one of Frost’s
two advisors while prepping for the interview, wrapping it up at the end
of the film and applying the coup de grace to Nixon by stating
that he was never “rehabilitated” and implying that he never again
regained any influence. However, I know this not to be true. I was
fairly close to one of Ronald Reagan’s “kitchen cabinet,” the four men
who were behind his rise to power. I dated his daughter in college and
was in contact with him throughout Reagan’s 1980 campaign. He told me
that they received abundant advice from lots of people, but by far the
most astute and best advice they received from anyone was from Richard
Nixon. Despite what director Howard would have you believe, Nixon wrote
several best-selling books and was respected by the people who counted.
I’d like to score the film
as a big miss because of its unfortunate political bias, but Sheen does
a good job and it is interesting. The sad fact is that Nixon had enough
weaknesses that had Howard chosen to tell the story honestly and
straight up, Nixon probably wouldn’t have come out much better then he
Howard inserts scenes
showing an inebriated Nixon calling Frost late at night before the final
interview and making lots of statements against his interest. Later,
Frost mentions this to Nixon and he can’t remember it. Did it happen?
Did Frost invent it? Did Howard invent it? Regardless, unless there is
irrefutable evidence that it happened, it shouldn’t have been included
in the movie.
Even so, Howard, for all
his political naiveté, is a sometimes talented director, and this is a
sometimes entertaining film.
December 9, 2008