|
||
Frost/Nixon: A Dishonorable Distortion of History
It's not surprising that the movie Frost/Nixon is receiving rave reviews. Like the eponymous smash play it's based on, it tells a dramatic story of a clash of two interesting figures (one of them absolutely riveting), with two richly talented actors, Frank Langella as Richard Nixon and Michael Sheen as David Frost. The film is even more powerful than the play because of the effects of motion-picture techniques - size, penetrating close-ups, film clips, variegated scenery, and simply more action. But mainly size: everyone and everything is bigger - even eyeballs. Moreover, the movie is set against the backdrop of one of the most dramatic, frightening, and significant episodes in American history -- "Watergate" is inadequate shorthand for the constitutional crisis this country went through (often misinterpreted as simply a series of crimes on the part of the president and his top aides), ending in Nixon's being the first (and as yet only) president to be forced to leave office.
But it's because of the enormously historical importance of that period that the film raises serious questions of its legitimacy. The film's plot is a contrivance; its telling is so riddled with departures from what actually happened as to be fundamentally dishonest; and its climactic moment is purely and simply a lie. Literary license in the name of drama or entertainment is one thing; the issue comes down to what one is taking license with, and the degree of license being taken.
The play/film is at least based on something that actually happened: three years after Nixon left office in 1974, the British talk-show host/entertainer Frost, his career on the skids, wangles the first set of television interviews with the disgraced former president, brooding and plotting in San Clemente, California over how to restore his own reputation and, by the by, to pay his substantial legal bills. (Typically, Nixon's effort to redeem himself in the public eye was a plotted project with a title, "The Wizard" -- a telling fact that the script omits.) The highly successful screenwriter Peter Morgan, using his familiar trope, turns the interviews into a mythic battle, David-and-Goliath style (note the order of the names in the title), pitting a callow Frost against the master conniver and debater Nixon, and, after hours and hours of frustrating questioning, "nails" him. Thus, Nixon is at last brought to justice, forced to admit his knavery to the American people, and truth wins out. The problem is, this isn't what happened.
First of all, the whole arrangement between Frost and Nixon was dubious from the outset. While the script is straightforward about the fact that under their agreement Nixon was to be paid for the interviews (a then-whopping $600,000), a highly unusual arrangement, it omits the even more questionable part of the deal in which Nixon was guaranteed twenty percent of the profits from the sales of the interviews to television stations. Thus, the two purported gladiators were in business together, with a mutual interest in making the interviews interesting enough to make a nice profit. The deal also guaranteed that only one-fourth of the time would be devoted to Watergate, leaving Nixon the rest to ramble on about his foreign policy achievements - which in his mind included the invasion of Cambodia. To further disguise the degree to which the interview project was essentially a fix, the script of both the play and the movie simply leaves out the episode in which, after Nixon returned to his dressing room during a sudden break in the taping of the Watergate segment - the break misrepresented in the script as having been called for by Nixon aides worried their boss was becoming uncomfortable, whereas it was actually called for by Frost because he misread a cue card held up by the Nixon aides saying "Let him talk" - Nixon aide Jack Brennan (Kevin Bacon) told Frost's frustrated aides, "He knows he has to go further. He's got more to volunteer." These lines appear in neither the play nor the movie.
Second, Frost did not in fact "nail" Nixon. The climactic moment of the movie (as in the play) has Nixon confessing to having participated in the cover-up of the famous break-in of the Watergate offices of the Democratic National Committee, in June, 1972 by operatives hired by White House aides. But this "confession" is produced through a blatant distortion of what Nixon actually said in the interviews. At that particular moment, Frost was pressing Nixon to admit that he had more than made "mistakes," that there had in fact been wrongdoing, that crime might have been involved (a rather mild way of putting it). Then, through a sleight of hand, the script simply changes what Nixon actually said: the script of the play has Nixon admitting that he "...was involved in a 'cover-up,' as you call it." The ellipsis is of course unknown to the audience, and is crucial: What Nixon actually said was, "You're wanting to me to say that I participated in an illegal cover-up. No!"
As he gives the faux confession in the movie, Langella's remarkably Nixon-like face (shown on a television screen in the play) is ravaged, distorted in agony, contorted in anger. On the disk of the actual interview, Nixon glowers and looks perturbed, but the scene lacks the drama of both the film and the play. Nixon, as promised, did give Frost some interesting material "I let down my country;" "I gave them a sword;" his mistakes "were mistakes of the heart rather than of the head," all very unusual things for an ex-President to say, but far short of an admission of attempts, carried out during Nixon's presidency, to undermine the inner workings of the opposition party, of his broad-scale and alarming assaults on the constitution. The Watergate break-in was small beans compared to, say, the break-in of the office of Dr. Lewis Fielding, the psychiatrist of Daniel Ellsberg, who had leaked the Pentagon Papers - Nixon was far more worried about the discovery of this break-in. In the movie, even the semi-admissions come across as dramatic; on the disks of the actual interviews, they seem bathetic.
There are other distortions in the movie. One of them makes a very big thing of the "discovery" by James Reston, Frost's chief researcher, of a taped conversation between Nixon and his political henchman Charles Colson, supposedly the first one about the cover-up. (Reston, is depicted as the moral conscience of the story, the one who is determined to hold Nixon to account, but he is made less of a noodge in the movie than in the play, where he became an irritating presence.) Much is made of the fact that this bit of conversation was theretofore unknown. But after I saw the play I checked with one of the Watergate prosecutors, who told me that that particular piece of tape was unknown because "we were awash in far more incriminating evidence" against Nixon, and the prosecutors didn't consider it worth using. (The play was based on an unpublished manuscript that Reston wrote about his role in the interviews; the book, The Conviction of Richard Nixon, was published after the play was a hit.)
Finally, though the main characters are acted well as they were written to be, they were not written to be what they were actually like. Langella, wreaks the magic of not just imitating Nixon but becoming him before our eyes, but this is not the true Nixon. The one we meet in the movie is too mellow, too jokey. There are only flashes of the bitterness that consumed and ultimately destroyed him. The main display of that bitterness comes in an invented scene in which Nixon phones Frost in his hotel room, and pours out his bitterness. No excessive liberty was taken in the invention of the scene as a device to display this critical aspect of Nixon's persona, but it goes further than that by also distorting the plot. In the imagined conversation, Nixon heightens the supposed collision between them ("I shall come at you with everything I got") and that only one of them can win. (But that wasn't the deal.) And this supposed conversation supposedly inspires Frost to try harder, which supposedly leads to Frost nailing Nixon, which never happened. Langella deftly shows that Nixon was a strange man, awkward with small talk, uneasy with people, but Langella's Nixon becomes an almost sympathetic figure, and also a jokey one, the one we most want to see, in order to have more laughs. But Nixon wasn't funny. And he certainly wasn't the likeable figure of Frost/Nixon. (Yes, of course, some people liked him, but not very many, and not even his dog.) He was a tragic Shakespearean figure, often out of control (and drunk), and, it seemed, more than a little mad (his aides never knew which orders were even intended, not least should be carried out), brought down by his flaws: he would have made for excellent drama, if not as much entertainment. Because Langella's figure is outsized, Sheen's remarkable talent is outshone. But Frost himself wasn't and isn't the dolt portrayed in the play/movie. Sheen has Frost's intonation down cold, and Frost certainly liked his booze and his women and his parties (he's settled down now, married to the daughter of a major Duke, and has three sons, on whom he dotes), but he's more intelligent and more serious-minded than the way he's portrayed.
Peter Morgan specializes in stories that pit two figures against each other -- David and Goliath-like -- with the good guy prevailing. The Queen, in which Sheen played Tony Blair convincing a frosty Queen Elizabeth to show her grieving subjects more empathy over the death of Princess Diana; The Last King of Scotland, in which a young Scottish doctor realizes the brutality of Idi Amin, and leaves him, the monstrous Amin desolated. So, in this story, Frost must win out over Nixon, even if it never happened. The interviews ended in a draw. Morgan himself told John Lahr of the New Yorker after the play came out, "I could just as easily written the piece -- and found substance to support it -- to substantiate it, that Frost didn't get Nixon, that Nixon threw it in, for these interviews to sell."
It doesn't matter whether the Queen actually cried and thought of Diana when she saw a beautiful stag about to be killed by hunters. We don't really know how mature, or even sane, Hamlet was. To try to ascertain to what degree the liberties taken in Frost/Nixon are in accord with dramatic tradition, and acceptable, I recently raised the subject of dramatic license with Michael Kahn, the esteemed Artistic Director of the Shakespeare Theater, in Washington. Kahn told me that "while Shakespeare took a lot of liberties to produce great drama, he based most of his stuff on historical sources; he didn't distort [ital] history." Kahn added, "There were court documents to work from, there were a lot of letters from Queen Elizabeth I; as far as I know what he never did was take any documentary dialog and change it into something else." (Kahn expressed shock when I told him about the distorted key line in Frost/Nixon.) There's also the matter of timing. Nixon remains a relatively recent figure, around whom there still swirls a lot of controversy. Shakespeare, Kahn said, never wrote about contemporary politics. If he wanted to write about Jacobean times he put it in the period of Pericles and Athens; the most recent figure he wrote about was Henry VIII, "and by the time he wrote it those figures were long dead."
It doesn't matter that Frost/Nixon moves some scenes around (though it's not always clear why), and engages in some invention. But such a gross misrepresentation of such important events -- roughly seventy percent of the population is too young to have been aware of Watergate -- about a figure over whom there is still serious debate, in the name of entertainment and profits, to my mind, crosses the line of dramatic integrity and is dishonorable.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
So basically Frost/Nixon, for entertainment value, falsely dramatizes an interview that was falsely dramatized for entertainment value. Perfect!
Um...I think it's called a "movie' and not a "documentary" for a reason. I thought the film was enjoyable. If I want a documentary, I'll tune into the History Channel.
Wow it is a movie, that you are taking way to personal. The real interviews were so boring that Hollywood had to distort them. I enjoyed this movie as it kept me entertained throughout. Then again I don't take history lessons from movies. Movies by definition are pure fantasy which is why we all go to the movies in the first place....
Who cares whether Frost "nailed" Nixon or not? It's the historical events themselves that mattered, not some boring interview that happened years after the fact.
Who cares? All history is a distortion of the truth as seen through the eye of the writer.
This is Hollywood "Based on a True Story" fare and, as such, takes some liberties with the dramatization. I think the only really important thing that should not have deviated from the actuals is the meme that Frost "nailed" Nixon. Maybe that was done for Frost's ego reasons like GWB, for example, is revising his own history in his "Lunacy 'er 'Legacy' Project"?
Thank you Ms. Drew. You are doing the public a service by outing this obvious hunk of celluloid trash.
Hollywood is a reflection of how hopelessly corrupt and debased Amerika has become!
I can't stand the ridiculous "accent" they gave Nixon in this movie.
Since when did Nixon have a British accent?
huh? Did you see a different version of the movie than i? He just sounds like Nixon, a pretty good imitation, from what I remember of Nixon himself!
Elizabeth Drew has written for us an indispensable critical evaluation of Nixon/Frost ! Other commentaries, written by reviewers, whose political sophistication and historical knowledge are unable to match Ms.Drew's, will supply their usual sycophantic praise for this "entertainment". A shoddy simulacrum of "History."
I saw some of the interview back then. It was too boring to watch the whole thing. I do remember thinking that as hard as Frost tried, he was not up to the task of breaking down Nixon. I remember one set of questions that were asked , and Nixon finally responded that we've been over that several times, go on to something else. Also when Nixon made his famous quip that when the president does it, it is not illegal, he said it very matter offactly, in a monotone voice. Nothing like the dramatic departure in the movie
Yeah, I'm old enough to remember those interviews, and they really weren't as dramatic or historically-important as this movie is making out.
A hack job of Bush and Nixon all within three months. How shocking from Hollywood.
Maybe if Republican Presidents were such criminals movies wouldn't be made about them.
Um sorry, you are wrong on a bunch of points, in fact! You mentioned that there was no mention of the 20% buy outs for Nixon, but it was mentioned twice in the script!
The way I see it, it is more of an opinion/interview movie based on a guy interviewing Nixon. Of course there may be agenda's involved, some of which you point out, like the contractual stuff. However, nowhere have I seen the movie being passed off as a Nixon documentary or even a historical movie. It's simply a movie about a guy who interviewed Nixon. That in itself, isn't interesting enough for me to even see the movie. Nixon already had confessed in his secret recordings. Everyone knows he did his best to coverup Watergate, but failed. That's history, the movie is not exactly history.
Ms. Drew,
You were always one of my favorite political reporters on the tube. I am happy to read your article for its facts, but I must concur with many of the posts that say that revisionism is the rule rather than the exception. I just wonder how well this film compares to "Nixon" -- a film that I found riveting. I recently saw "JFK" -- a film much maligned when it came out because it seemed to play loose with the facts. What I saw in "JFK" was an interesting narrative that contained history but was not historical in the purest sense of that word. The truth is, though, that those unaware of Nixon's story, will believe that it is truth. But what is historical truth? It is never more than a good approximation of the facts.
Lighten up. This is a dramatization, not a documentary. And Shakespeare did no better in his "historical" treatment of Richard, for just one example of the Bard's historical poetic license.
It's a docudrama. So don't shout "lighten up" when the critical moments in the play and the film actually distort history. Ron Howard could have done justice by correcting the script to reflect what actually happened. The Truth is always more interesting than fiction.
You are correct. I think that on this occasion the truth could have been a whole new story as far as Nixon's psycosis, the levels of government gone wrong, the training of Nixon as protege of W's grandfather, frost: delving past what he was warned against. Truth is paramount; and I'm sure the ticket buying public would agree, instead of being dumbed downed to. Complexities? We can handle it, Mr. Howard.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
