Another Look at History

It must be "1970s historical period film" week for me, because today I followed up my recent viewing of Milk by going to see Frost/Nixon, the new Ron Howard film about the famed interview of Richard Nixon conducted by British talk show host David Frost.

There are a lot of really great things to recommend about the film. Foremost are the performances of the actors. Frank Langella is outstanding in his role as the former president. He avoids the pitfall of doing an imitation of Nixon, instead channeling more of the essence of the man. (Indeed, one scene in the movie has Oliver Platt's character doing a stereotypical impression of the president, which in a way serves to make Langella's portrayal even stronger.) Langella comes off as a very commanding and intimidating figure, as one knows the real Nixon must have been.

Though the other performances don't dominate the screen, they're all very strong in their own ways. Michael Sheen skillfully portrays Frost as an amiable but ambitious man who finds himself in over his head. Kevin Bacon is great as an aide to Nixon who would do anything for the man. Oliver Platt and Sam Rockwell shine as members of Frost's interview prep team.

But perhaps the most commendable work is that of the screenwriter, Peter Morgan. The film is based on his own stage play, and I must say the film leaves virtually no signs of its theatrical origins. It's extraordinary to me that the same man who wrote such a critically lauded piece of theater could turn around and convert his material in such a way that I'm hard-pressed to even imagine how the work would have been presented on the stage.

Yet the writing does have a weak spot, in my view. The film operates brilliantly on an intellectual level, but far less effectively on an emotional level. We do see the emotional stakes both Nixon and Frost have in the events, and they are believable, but nonetheless a bit hard to relate to. This may be simply due to how foreign both the men's positions are to the rest of us. Will any one of us seeing the film ever have to worry about how to redeem our tarnished reputation as a former President? Or whether we'll be able to seize a new measure of journalistic credibility after the cancellation of some of our multiple TV shows?

But on that intellectual level -- wow, the movie is good. The scenes between Frost and Nixon are charged with gamesmanship and fascinating to watch. Other scenes addressing each man separately are interesting in how they inform the characters' agendas.

I do suspect there's a generational component in my emotional distance from the material, though. The Watergate scandal is simply not of my time, and I must confess that it actually seems rather "quaint" to me. In the three decades since Watergate, we've seen so many examples of political corruption and abuse of power, too many of them that are far more wicked in nature than Watergate. Enlisting operatives to bug the offices of a political rival, paying them for their silence, and then lying about responsibility in the matter? That's what Nixon did that was so horrible? Sure, it was criminal, and should not be excused.

But take Blagojevich basically trying to auction off a seat in the Senate. What about the dozens -- maybe even hundreds! -- of sex scandals we've seen? Or if it was the fact it happened at the presidential level that made it so objectionable, what about the about the Iran-Contra Affair, the Iraq War, or even Nixon's own bombing of Cambodia? To me, Watergate seems like such a small fish in a big pond. I simply don't have the ability to put it into any kind of context that makes it seem important to me.

Which is why the big emotional moment at the end of Frost/Nixon, when Nixon finally does let his guard down and show vulnerability, doesn't do it for me. Oh, it's well written, and Frank Langella portrays it perfectly and genuinely. But what the character Nixon is confessing to feels like pretty small potatoes to my sensibilities.

Intellectually, the movie took me on a thrilling ride. But emotionally, it left me feeling a sense of "so what?"

Nevertheless, it is a movie worth seeing for the fine work of many involved. I should also note director Ron Howard's contribution before closing. Acting for the stage and acting for film are two very different things. As both Frank Langella and Michael Sheen were reprising roles they originated in the original stage play, I believe Ron Howard did a great job in guiding their performances in this different medium.

I rate the movie a B+. And I'd be particularly interested in hearing from anyone who sees the movie that that actually lived through the Watergate scandal and has the connection to those events that I lack. I wonder if that indeed improves one's opinion of the film.