LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.  
November 8, 2009
Log in / Register

 Choose a size
Text Size

Most Read

House Passes Health Care Bill

Steve Fraser on the Crisis of Capitalism

Sen. George McGovern on the Presidency From Lincoln to Obama

'Daily Show' Insta-Classic: What Lurks Within Glenn Beck?

Happy Birthday, Pat Tillman

Most Comments
Most Emailed

Reports

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Arts & Culture

Digs
Financial Meltdown 101
Vetting Sarah Palin

Truthdig Bazaar
Iraq: A War

Iraq: A War

Chris Hedges
$15.60

more items

 
Arts and Culture

Allen Barra on ‘Frost/Nixon’

Email this item Email    Print this item Print   
Posted on Dec 12, 2008

By Allen Barra

Richard Nixon doesn’t deserve Frank Langella. Neither, for that matter, does Ron Howard. “Frost/Nixon,” adapted for the screen by Peter Morgan, who developed the stage play from James Reston Jr.’s book “The Conviction of Richard Nixon,” is directed in a blunt, conventional pseudo-documentary style that is unsuited to its subject. The film drags at first but eventually comes to life through the brilliance of its casting: Sam Rockwell as Reston; Toby Jones as Swifty Lazar, the agent who helped swing the deal that brought Nixon to national television in 1977; Michael Sheen as David Frost; and, best of all, Langella, whose intelligence and energy keep the film afloat and finally succeed in shining a penlight into the mind and dark heart of Richard Milhous Nixon.

“He was an immensely complicated man,” Reston told me last year in an interview for American Heritage, “and those very complications made him fascinating.” That’s the way Langella plays him, peeling away one layer after another until he sits revealed at the film’s end, a man who understands that his own name should have been at the top of his infamous enemies list. 

Wherever he watches this film from, Richard Nixon will surely acknowledge that Langella has done him justice—and just as surely it must gall the man who wanted only All-American faces among his White House attendants to see his soul exposed by an actor with such Mediterranean features.

Peter Morgan (whose previous film scripts include “The Queen” and “The Last King of Scotland”) is merely the latest writer of imagination to dare a probe of Nixon’s psyche—Gore Vidal (“An Evening With Richard Nixon”), Philip Roth (“Our Gang”) and Norman Mailer (“Miami and the Siege of Chicago”) have all taken their turns at deciphering the 37th president.

  Mailer, not entirely unsympathetic, probably came the closest to pinpointing Nixon’s Rosebud. At the 1968 Republican Convention, Mailer thought Nixon’s modesty to be “a product of a man who, at worst, had grown from a bad actor to a surpassingly good actor, or from an unpleasant self-made man—outrageously rewarded with luck—to a man who had risen and fallen and been able to rise again, and so conceivably had learned something about patience and the compassion of others.” 

What Mailer, Vidal, Roth and others have never entirely explained was their fascination with a man they derided as shallow and unrelentingly prosaic. Yet, despite the derision of so many intellectuals—or perhaps, in some perverse way, because of it—Nixon has cast a long, dark shadow on American pop culture. Movies, for instance. With the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln, Nixon has been portrayed by more great actors than any other president. Just a partial list of movie and TV Nixons is eye-opening:  In chronological order:

—Rip Torn in the 1979 CBS mini-series “Blind Ambition,” from the book by John Dean (and, it is rumored, though Dean has ever denied it, Taylor Branch). For many Nixon haters, Torn’s is the quintessential interpretation. He certainly gets the paranoia and megalomania right, but at times he overpowers the role: Could anyone so out-front nutsy have misled so many people for so long? Well, maybe. You can’t fool all the people all the time, but, as Nixon understood, you only need a majority. (Presidential movie trivia buffs will note that Martin Sheen, who plays John Dean, at one time or another played both John and Bobby Kennedy, as well as Josiah Bartlet on “The West Wing.”

—Philip Baker Hall in a one-man play about the final days before Nixon’s resignation, “Secret Honor” (1984), directed by Robert Altman. Hall doesn’t so much impersonate Nixon as caricature him—and nails it. There’s no attempt at balance here, but Altman knows that satire doesn’t have to be fair to be funny. Signature line: “They [the Republicans] will probably replace me with some dumb SOB who just looks good on TV.”

—Lane Smith, the late TV character actor in “The Final Days” (1989), adapted from Woodward and Bernstein’s book. A fine actor who never got the movie breaks, Smith may have been the best of all fictional Nixons, at least before Langella. No other performance drew us into an empathy with Nixon that stopped just short of sympathy. The uncanny casting coup of Theodore Bikel as Henry Kissinger helped raise “The Final Days” far above the usual made-for-TV fare.

—Jason Robards Jr. in “Washington Behind Closed Doors” (1992), the ABC TV movie made from a potboiler by yet another Nixon aide, John Erlichman. Probably because the book is a novel, the characters’ names had to be changed to protect the guilty. The script doesn’t allow Robards (as President Richard Monckton) to be much more than grumpy, and the production is stolen by Andy Griffith—yes, that Andy Griffith, TV father of “Frost/Nixon” director Ron Howard—as a president from Texas, Esker Scott Anderson, aka Lyndon Baines Johnson.


Elsewhere: .

Comments

Are you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.

By I.M. Trenchant, January 9 at 7:15 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

CORRIGENDUM:  In my earlier post, a correction is needed.  Vidal wrote, in the article mentioned, that Nixon was “the only great [U.S.] president of the last half of the 20th century.”

Report this

By I.M. Trenchant, January 9 at 6:29 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

This hate-filled, hate-mongering commentary by Barra about the man, Richard Nixon, who Gore Vidal called “the only great [U.S.] president of the 20th century” (in his essay, ‘Not The Best Man’s Best Man,’ in 1983), is best understood in the context of Bryce Harlow’s account of his conversation with John Osborne.  Harlow asked Osborne, a onetime Communist sympathizer, admitted Nixon-hater, and dean of the Washington Press Corps during the Nixon Presidency, why he hated Nixon as he did.

Harlow was a great admirer of Nixon and a friend of longstanding of John Osborne.  A partial excerpt of Harlow’s description of his conversation with Osborne follows:

Harlow asked Osborne “‘Let me ask you a question.  Just why do you hate my guy [Richard Nixon] so much?’ [Osborne] said, ‘Well I don’t really know, but ...’ conceding in effect that he loathed Nixon.  Then after a moment’s silence, he said,  ‘Bryce, I wish you hadn’t done that.  That was a dirty trick.  I am ashamed of my attitude toward Nixon.  I don’t have a right to that as a reporter, but I don’t like him and I can’t help it.  I have no real basis to dislike him and I can’t help it.  He has done nothing to me.’ ... ‘Do you know what we call him in the press corps—the cardboard man ... He conceals himself somewhere behind a cardboard image of himself.  He never comes out ... I’ve talked to him in all kinds of ways.  But I’ve never seen nor met the real man ... Now, Bryce, you can’t trust a man, you can’t like a man whom you don’t meet, who hides himself from you .. I said, ‘John, now I understand.  You have finally revealed yourself and your comrades.  The real reason you don’t like Richard Nixon is that he is smarter than you are ... You sit here, John, and you use me like putty because you are smarter than I am ... you get all you want ... But Nixon, oh no, he gives you just what he wants to give you, and no more.  And you get all bent out of shape because you can’t control it.  He controls it.’ Well, there was a pause, and he looked at me, and he said, ‘You know, you may have something there.  I had never thought of that, and it’s quite possible.’”

For any who are interested, Osborne’s stylish writing about Nixon was collected in several books, covering various time periods, all entitled ‘The Nixon Watch.’  Osborne’s candor in his responses to Harlow (like the admissions of Nixon’s most ambitious biographer, Stephen Ambrose, a self-confessed onetime Nixon-hater when he began his Nixon trilogy, who came to like and admire Nixon by the time he wrote his Epilogue to the 3rd volume) do Osborne great credit because they underscore the reason why Nixon-haters such as Barra hate Nixon.  Nixon was smarter than those who hated him and he managed, through his intelligence (his measured I.Q. was prodigious) to accomplish great and historic goals for the world and for his country.  These accomplishments are perhaps best described in Ray Price’s ‘With Nixon,’ but are also well-described in Jonathan Aitken’s ‘Nixon. A Life,’ Black’s ‘The Invincible Quest,’ and Longford’s ‘Nixon.  A Study In Extremes Of fortune.’

The tragic and pathetic truth about pseudohistorians like Barra is that, by accentuating what they view as negative personality traits, they let an understanding of the history of their times pass them by.  Wagner, Einstein, and Churchill, to name just three others who wrought great historic changes in music and physics, and statesmanship, respectively, all had as many, probably more so-called ‘personality flaws’ than Nixon, but that in no way detracts from their achievements.  The great accomplishment of Langella is that he has done for Nixon, in the film Frost/Nixon, what George Scott did for Patton—the greatest U.S. field commander of the 20th century—in the film Patton.

Report this

By mill, December 16, 2008 at 10:05 pm #

The Frost-Nixon interviews are real, and available.

Why not make a Burns-like documentary?

Why a movie?  Beyond useless - up there with O. Stone’s JFK as a matter of capturing important real historical events

Report this

By Anarcissie, December 14, 2008 at 1:53 pm #

Nixon was the Bad King, therefore, no good attributes can be assigned to him, just as no bad attributes can be assigned to the Good King.  Things get quite paradoxical: Nixon must be at once shallow and treacherous, stupid and devious, cunning and ignorant, violent and cowardly, a master of deceit and evil and yet incompetent.  The adjectives fall over one another.  Meanwhile, we must not pity the poor devil, or even find him interesting.  Bad, bad, bad!  Meanwhile, let us sigh and turn our eyes to the horizon so that perhaps we may catch sight of the Good King riding up on a white horse to save us.

Report this

By Purple Girl, December 14, 2008 at 11:03 am #

Gee who does that clip sound like..“If the President does it it is not illegal”, Just need to change the tone to that of a dumbass cow poke (no offense to cowpokes in general)
There is a Undeniable thread (Cable line) between the Acts & attitudes of Nixon and W.
I’m sure there are others - Baker- Who have contributed to this Corp Kingship. Seizing power through might and money.If you can’t break democracy through legislation, create economic choas and international instability.We are th elast great frontier to conquer for the Corporationists.
That phrase alone sound have gotten Nixon Prosecuted for Treason..Presidents Are elected,therefore Serve at the Pleasure of the People. So by the mere claiming that nothing a president does is not subject to the expectations of the people (or in direct conflict with the interest of the people), he is eligible for prosecution by the People.
Why do they think we Fought the Revolutionary War? what did we Declare our Independence From? Not just English rule, but ANY Monarchy,dictatorship or theocracy.The Oldest form of Patriotism.
You don’t need to be a ‘Politcal Junkie’, or a Constitutional Scholar, or even a Pundit to KNOW The President above all others is subject to prosecution for attempting to claim Rights and priviledges REMOTELY resembling ‘Kingships’
The New AG must take on this demand for Justice by the People. We have not been betrayed and deceived for 8 yrs, more like 40. Our issues with terrorist did not start on 9/11/01, Or Oil problems did not just happen this past summer,Trickle Down has not just been revealed as disasterous, Our Exective branch has been used to promote policies which benefit Corps over citizens. These last 8 yrs have not been a collection of blunders, but last remaining touches on a Long methodical mission.
They may not be ‘Loyalists’ to a Family crest, but certianly to a few multi national conglomerate logo’s. These men have not only undermined our entire system of Gov’t, through their ‘rovian’tactics, lies and back room deals..they have undermined our Free market system. If a market is Truely ‘Free’ and competition is brisk, then how does one or two companies take down an entire banking system and /or the manufacturing industrial base? “Too Big to Fail” Says it All. Why hasn’t AIG or Citi been forced to liquadate their smaller companies and assests. As for the Big 3, apparently now that the oil gigs up, these ‘free market’ fanatics have no use for them. Funny how easily Repugs forget the ‘Free market’ was developed for the Individual Citizens benefit.thus it not only means he has the right to sell his ‘wares’, but he has the right to compete as a commodity himself (labor).therefore he has the right to get the best possible price for his abilities. Who is gov’t to Price Set a line worker and can not set limits on CEO’s compensation? Obviously the CEO is able to negotiate, why not workers? Pick One and Be it ‘conservatives’ Free Marketers.‘Having your Cake and Eating it too’ is akin to “let them Eat Cake”.
The only way this Corp Rule Trickle Down Feudalism is going to be immediately halted is to prosecute the ones who have left the blood trail for the last 40 yrs…CheneyCorp

Report this

By squeaky jones, December 13, 2008 at 10:40 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

Nixon wrote a book,“No More Vietnams.” Evidently, the Bushs, Cheney, Rumsfield, Rice, and Powell never read the book. Major Powell could not find anything wrong with the massacre of Vietnamese citizens at Mi Lai by the American Army. What do you expect from cold heart killers.

Report this

By JNagarya, December 12, 2008 at 10:06 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

Richard Nixon was to a large extent the product of his political environment.
_____

“If one hangs out with gangsters, one must dress like gangsters.”

—Attributed to either Richard Millstone Nixon, or Spiro Agnew, or both.

Nixon was to the largest, consequential extent the consequence of his decision to be a criminal.  I will not tolerate being charged with his decisions, criminality, and crimes, simply because I happened to be alive during his lifetime.  The “environment” did not make his decisions for him.

Report this

By Maani, December 12, 2008 at 6:48 pm #

david:

There is a trailer for the movie here:

http://www.frostnixon.net/

Peace.

Report this

By JNagarya, December 12, 2008 at 3:54 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

Rich Little was also prescient: he released “Nixon: A Watergate Fantasy,” which had Nixon go to prison, only days before the “October Massacre”* finally convinced a majority that Nixon was a criminal and should be impeached, tried, convicted, and imprisoned.
_____

*Those who lived through that era, and were paying attention, recall that as probably the most frightening event of the era, post-JFK assassination.
_____

One of the most accurately revealing of Nixon, in Rich’s satire, was the exchange between Nixon and his “Hippy freak” cellmate.

Report this

By JNagarya, December 12, 2008 at 3:42 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

“He was an immensely complicated man,” Reston told me last year in an interview for American Heritage, “and those very complications made him fascinating.”
_____

Meaningless, except perhaps as pretext, or excuse, because virtually every human being is “immensely complicated”.
_____

Peter Morgan (whose previous film scripts include “The Queen” and “The Last King of Scotland”) is merely the latest writer of imagination to dare a probe of Nixon’s psyche—Gore Vidal (“An Evening With Richard Nixon”), Philip Roth (“Our Gang”) and Norman Mailer (“Miami and the Siege of Chicago”) have all taken their turns at deciphering the 37th president.

Mailer, not entirely unsympathetic, probably came the closest to pinpointing Nixon’s Rosebud. At the 1968 Republican Convention, Mailer thought Nixon’s modesty to be “a product of a man who, at worst, had grown from a bad actor to a surpassingly good actor, or from an unpleasant self-made man—outrageously rewarded with luck—to a man who had risen and fallen and been able to rise again, and so conceivably had learned something about patience and the compassion of others.”
_____

“Miami” is hardly the only Mailer writing about Nixon; he covered Nixon from early, through to the grave, and after.
_____

What Mailer, Vidal, Roth and others have never entirely explained was their fascination with a man they derided as shallow and unrelentingly prosaic. Yet, despite the derision of so many intellectuals—or perhaps, in some perverse way, because of it—Nixon has cast a long, dark shadow on American pop culture. . . .
_____

Duh!?  He was “the first president to R-E-S-I-G-N”!  Like, that is BOUND to make news, and be excuse for any number of intellectuals, most of them pseudo- (Vidal), to write about him _ad nauseum_.
_____

Movies, for instance. With the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln, Nixon has been portrayed by more great actors than any other president. . . .
_____

There is more money in movies than in books.  And more in the combination.  Nixon was a retread, and he continues to be retread fodder for others’ bank accounts.  So everyone ripe for exploitation for cash is—the ubiquitous excuse—“complicated”.  It gives a fake-serious cover to a guilty exploitation.

Let us not, of course, forget that Nixon was a criminal—the latest release of his tapes show him yet again as paranoid nutball behind that—and ensure that he is remembered for that above all else.  And nail to him those who follow his America-hating anti-Constitutional example, such as the Bushit criminal enterprise.

Report this

By John Trask, December 12, 2008 at 1:56 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

Richard Nixon was to a large extent the product of his political environment. He was notable because he managed to carry political treachery to greater heights that any of his predecessors and it was his undoing.  Today the perception of who and what Richard Nixon was has become iconic. He is rightly vilified for his corrupting of the political and administrative systems to maintain his control on power, but that was not widely known at the time. Certainly insiders in politics and the press that knew him were in a position to judge, but by and large he was successful at managing his public image during his term in office.

He has always been a polarizing figure in American politics, but much more so now I think than during his life. There have been as Mr Barra points out a number of movies made on this subject. I personally think that you have to have lived through those times in order to really judge whether or not they portray a true image of the man rather than simply a caricature.

For all his faults he was an effective administrator, and governed with an essentially liberal ideology. He created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), promoted the Legacy of parks program, and implemented the Philadelphia Plan, the first significant federal affirmative action program. (From Wikipedia) And he had approval ratings in the 30% to 40% percent range before the Watergate story began to really gain traction in the summer of 1973.

Historians don’t even regarded him to be the worst American president of the 20th century, that distinction goes to Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge, although I suspect that George W. Bush will probably push Harding off his perch.

The comedian Rich Little was probably most famous for his Nixon impersonation, and that line, “I’m not a crook”. But that petty caricature belittles both the office of the President and the magnitude of crimes that Nixon committed.
He was more than a crook and a liar, he was President of the United States and he betrayed his oath office and the trust of the American people.

Having seen the film myself I felt that Langela’s characterization was dead on target, even if it somewhat sympathetic. No matter what you think you know about Richard Nixon the man, the movie is well worth seeing.

Report this

By davidperi, December 12, 2008 at 9:39 am #

It would be nice to see a clip of this movie.  Can anyone give a link?

Report this

Add Your Comment

Posts by unregistered readers are moderated. Posts by members
are published immediately. Why wait? Register today!







Number of characters remaining: 4000

Notify you when others comment on this article?


Are you a human?
Retype the word you see here.


Please read and abide by our comment policy.
By submitting this comment, you agree to this site's terms and conditions.

 
Click here to learn more about Truthdig
 

 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
Get any 3 books for $3.00 - Join Progressive Book Club today
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2009 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.