Brian Grazer On "Frost/Nixon," Bush's Damage, His Hair And More

"Frost/Nixon" opens today and is earning rave reviews, (see today's NYT, NYP and NYDN as examples) especially for Frank Langella and Michael Sheen, who reprise their roles from the stage version as Richard Nixon and David Frost battling it out in 1977's historic interview. Sam Rockwell, Kevin Bacon, Toby Jones, Oliver Platt, and Rebecca Hall also costar.

Originally a play penned by Peter Morgan while he waited to make "The Queen," the film is directed by Ron Howard, who saw it onstage in London and went after securing the rights. In the end the film was jointly produced by Howard's Imagine Entertainment partner Brian Grazer and Working Title's Eric Fellner.

Before Thanksgiving, Huffington Post had a chance to talk Grazer about Nixon, the Bush Administration, what he does as a producer, and even his hair. Below is some of what he had to say.

What's your memory of Nixon resigning?
I remember him resigning. I remember the feeling of that. It's sort of empty. On one hand we really resented him. We disapproved of him. On the other hand it was sort of an emptiness within our political system. I guess I felt sad by it. I didn't feel triumphant, I felt sad.

Would you want Bush to be interviewed like this?
I really wish Bush would be interviewed. I just feel like Bush caused us so much more damage. Nixon was someone who had a gigantic flaw. He was a bully, an emotionally impenetrable man that was president of our country, with a gigantic flaw. A flaw like a handicap.

Bush on the other hand has caused us so much political, social, financial and cultural damage.

What news do you watch?
I like BBC news, I like some London news because you can get it earlier then anywhere else. I like Charlie Rose a lot.

What is your role in producing a movie like this, with Ron Howard finding the material and Working Title co-producing?:
With Ron Howard, we've been partners so long. He's made every movie with me. On this movie I would be, I guess, taste. The basic judgment of taste from the very beginning when he said he wanted to direct it.

Story continues below

advertisement

If I didn't believe in it.... You know, believing in it means the subject and qualitatively. Is the writing good? Just, all those issues of taste and judgment and instinct. I am probably involved with that and I am partners with that decision. And of course involved with the casting of every role. Eric Fellner worked on this with me. Working on the script - Ron did a lot of that himself, and spent a lot of time with Peter Morgan, more than Eric or myself.

On fictionalizing a historic event:
Our job was to work closely with Peter Morgan, the playwright and screenwriter, and adhere to his truth. We are trying to convert a play into a film. The fact that there are factual events is secondary to what our overall, or our primary, intention is.

It is not a documentary.

Do you have any regrets about films you've made?
I mostly don't have a lot of regrets with the movies the last six or seven years. Comedies are very hard. I've learned a lot. You have to trust yourself, not research. Not testing. Testing helps, but you have to trust your own taste. If your taste says something isn't any good, don't let research rationalize that out of its own truth.

How do you do your hair?
It's not much of an ordeal. It happened by accident by my daughter who was 12 years old at the time. She just popped it up and was like, 'I like your hair that way,' and I kept the accident alive and it became my hairdo.

Do you still have a cultural attache?
That was sort of a joke title. I've been out meeting different people, I have a record, for 24 years, of meeting someone every two weeks. It helps inform your filter and hopefully informs your taste. I don't have anyone that's doing that for me right now. I use a couple of my assistants and I just say 'hey, can I meet so-and-so' and then we work on it or I'll call them myself, but I don't have a person that does that any longer.

Is there someone you next want to meet?
I just got emailed someone, a fixer like the character that Jodie Foster played in "Inside Man," a political fixer. I want to meet her. I just met this guy, a geneticist that wrote a book about the mirroring gene that creates empathy. So, the more this gene exists within your chromosomes, the greater ability to mirror. It's why it's difficult for people that are autistic to, ah, they're socially disabled because they don't have that gene.

Have you done a genetic test, like 23andMe?
I believe in it a lot, and I wanted to. I really wanted to. And then I read that someone tested and they had a 20-60% chance of Parkinson's, and that's too wide a gap for me. I'd feel like, 'Oh god! I've got it!'

If it's that wide, I don't want to know.

********

Go see Frost/Nixon. It's not just for political buffs, It's thoroughly engrossing, fun, and even the jaded all-media screening attended by Huffington Post broke into applause at the end.

WATCH THE TRAILER:

Comments

[toocoldout]

I almost rented Frost/Nixon last night. Any good?

[kylennblack]

What makes the Bush Administration worse is they were able to condition certain institutions and a good number of people to allow them to get away with their garbage. There was fury at what NIxon had done, impeachment was a clear choice, and the outrage of his pardon effectively ended Ford's brief presidential career.

Now considering impreachment for Bush is labeled "partisan" and "divisive."

Under Bush justice has become a commodity to be bought and sold.

Hate.

[tigs]

Bush hasnt really been a president ,he has been a puppet and Cheney the puppet master, Bush is not intelligent enough to make the sort of decisions he needed to make, Cheney was driving the pirate ship from the start, Bush was just the parrot on his sholder.

[realpolitic]

Sure, Bush cause much more damage than Nixon. Nixon's damage was kind of amateurish, breaking into hotels and then attempting a coverup. Bush assaulted the whole constitution. He used fear to make his criminality, such as torture, legal. He listened to our phone calls even before 9-11. We have never suffered through such a direct, sustained attack on our constitution as Bush tried and he just about succeeded. Hoprefully, someone will be indicted in the illegal firing of the assistant attorney generals. Otherwise, Bush's crimes will probably go unpunished and we are then doomed to repeat them.

[MarkInEugene]

With proper qualification standards and testing America could eliminate the damage from candidates who want to be president but don't have the temper, the intelligence, the diplomatic and communication skills, and the educational acumen to hold such an important office.

We simply have to hold our president to a higher standard. The fact that the country has permitted mediocre candidates to hold this position is a problem with our system. The country and the world can't afford another Bush.

[rroy]

The saddest indictment of all is the American voters reelected these two dingbats!
Having lived through the terms of both these dudes, I recall Nixon's antics in his character assasination of Alger Hiss with aid of that sociopathic quear, Whitiker Chambers.
I find it difficult to decide who was more harmful for the country! it's almost like chosing between a rock and a hardplace. In final analysis,I would chose Bush as the most stupid of the two and Tricky Dick the most devious.

[BannedInBoston]

Nixon was tricky but at least had enough of a brain to write books. He also established relations with communist China and abolished the draft. So (unlike Bush) he wasn't all bad -- just more than a bit crooked. And had the mistfortune to get caught red-handed....

[FearlessFreep]

Actually, the official recognition of Red China only happened under Carter in 1978. And Nixon would have had to abolish the draft anyway.

[RJSquirrel]

Nah, I thnk trickie dick is still the King. He paved the way for the destruction of faith in government, of high crimes and treason of public officials on a mass scale. Bush/rove/cheney are amateur punks.

The difference is that 30+ years ago there was actually a press corp. (Cronkite, Huntely, Brinkley et. al.) that took these officials to task and brought these matters to the attention of the public and followed through with action. Today the media is a bunch of circus clown entertainers who are shills for the government propaganda allowing the war in Iraq and such to go unfettered. Walter Cronkite alone brought the Vietnam war into a different focus that these bozos today can't do.

Bush is just Nixon "lite".

[Giada]

Nixon = Bush in the harm done to Americans. The only difference is in one of psychology, (passive/agressive behavior). Both are/were unwilling to be accountable for their behavior.

[mikekc]

In terms of policy Nixon was moderate and in some cases liberal. He supported the EPA and proposed a credible national health care plan. If Nixon had not failed because of his personal flaws and criminal deeds, it might have meant Ronald Reagan and the neocons would not have been able to take over the party and use it to establish a second Guilded Age. One of the worst things about Nixon though is he was the first to figure out how to use race politics as a wedge issue to get whites (in the south especially) to vote against their own interests. Reagan then took this to another level. Read Krugman's Conscience of a Liberal for a great explanation of these points.

[wsblake]

nixon was a despicable criminal, but there was a glimmer of light- dim as it was- that could evoke some slight empathy- bush is utter darkness

[breakfast]

No contest. Bush actually makes Nixon look good.

[Blurp]

Bush worse than Nixon? Gee, ya think?

[Eric8869]

This shows you what money can do. Because he's rich he can wear his hair spikey and look like an idiot and no one says anything. Same with Donald Trump.

[Stilts9]

He's fibbing about his hair, and probably fibbing about everything else, too.

As for Bush doing more damage than Nixon - I hope that observation isn't considered any kind of insight or revelation.

[bubbuh]

Bush led us into foolish wars. Nixon led us out of one we had been involved in one way or another for 14 years by the time he took office in 1968. True it took awhile but he did it. Everything else Bush has done to our detriment, Nixon did first, except for faith based science things. Reagan was first since the 19th century with faith based science stuff.

Nixon did a lot of damage. But, he also did some good. His domestic policies would be rightly regarded as centrist, not that much different than JFK's.

An informed opinion would have to Bush was far worst. Besides, he's so arrogantly stupid.

[bubbuh]

ACK...An informed opinion would have to say that Bush was far worse.

[ZoydVond]

Nixon came to power in '69. He vastly expanded the Vietnam war. For two years he escalated several times, and in May of ’70 he “incurred” into Cambodia, for the stated purpose of getting bombing access to Viet Cong troops hiding across the border. In fact, the U.S. had routinely bombed Cambodia--the invasion was made to seal the takeover of the neutralist Cambodia government and install a stooge, Lon Nol. Nol’s administration was so hated that the previously weak Khmer Rouge were able to gather support. A huge percentage of Cambodians were driven into Phnom Penh, where they were supported by food airlifts while their homes and lands were firebombed After the “fall” of Saigon, the US discontinued support of the government and abandoned the airlifts, leaving the Khmers to take over, with the result we all know

As for Vietnam, Nixon was in charge for six years, and the US was still bombing when he left office. Johnson was in charge five years, and the war didn’t really get going ’65. The four Johnson years were the initial push of the forces on the ground. Nixon continued on the ground, and expanded the air war by a factor of twenty or so.

[Bitsko]

"It's sort of empty." Deep, Mr. Grazer. Really deep.