I had never seen the real interview between Frost and Nixon and so came into this movie totally fresh. The story is engaging, the script enjoyable and the acting fine. At the end though, I didn't get what all the fuss was about. I didn't get a "he said it!!" moment.
The film implied that Frost had gotten Nixon to admit to something no-one else could (i.e. something illegal), thereby condemning himself to political wilderness. However, instead I was left feeling that Nixon was an OK guy - an intelligent, quick witted, sincere and strong guy who did what it took to get things done. Whereas Frost came across as a chancer, who was a bit lucky. At the end I wondered what the purpose of the movie was.
I have now seen the actual footage of the interviews and can only conclude that the movie's purpose was to show Nixon in a much more favourable light than he would've come across in the real interviews - because in the real interviews, he stinks. In the real interviews you can see the panic in his face, you can see the often painfully contrived shows of friendliness in his mannerisms and you can hear the uncoordinated logic of his answers. Whereas in the movie he's smooth with his answers and his mannerisms.
Any Brits out there should liken Nixon to our very own Gordon Brown - a man as bereft of any social attractiveness as Nixon. By getting Langella to play Nixon, it's like getting Alec Guiness to play Brown. I.e. a brilliant actor, but a million miles away from the truth.
And THAT'S the problem with these recent "real life" movies that focus on people in high offices of state - The Queen, The Special Relationship and now Frost/Nixon. The films make the people in high office appear to be totally articulate, very quick witted, sincere, at times funny and always strong in character and determination. Whereas the truth is anything but that. We've seen footage of a supposedly eloquent Clinton and he is anything but. We've seen the Queen deliver her speeches and "sincerity" is never a word you'd associate with her.
I know the counter argument is that it is only a movie and we shouldn't take it literally. But that's just it, by giving the film "real" characters and "real story" lines, the film makers are implying it is real. In fact, it is the very suggestion that it might be factual that draws the audiences in. Otherwise where would the attraction be of seeing a film about a fictional President's relationship with a fictional Prime Minster? Or a fictional queen's reaction to the death of a fictional daughter in law? There would be no attraction. So the makers have lured us paying public to part with our hard earned cash to see something that promises fact but instead delivers fiction.
So yes, I enjoyed the "story", but ended up resenting its total fiction.
The film implied that Frost had gotten Nixon to admit to something no-one else could (i.e. something illegal), thereby condemning himself to political wilderness. However, instead I was left feeling that Nixon was an OK guy - an intelligent, quick witted, sincere and strong guy who did what it took to get things done. Whereas Frost came across as a chancer, who was a bit lucky. At the end I wondered what the purpose of the movie was.
I have now seen the actual footage of the interviews and can only conclude that the movie's purpose was to show Nixon in a much more favourable light than he would've come across in the real interviews - because in the real interviews, he stinks. In the real interviews you can see the panic in his face, you can see the often painfully contrived shows of friendliness in his mannerisms and you can hear the uncoordinated logic of his answers. Whereas in the movie he's smooth with his answers and his mannerisms.
Any Brits out there should liken Nixon to our very own Gordon Brown - a man as bereft of any social attractiveness as Nixon. By getting Langella to play Nixon, it's like getting Alec Guiness to play Brown. I.e. a brilliant actor, but a million miles away from the truth.
And THAT'S the problem with these recent "real life" movies that focus on people in high offices of state - The Queen, The Special Relationship and now Frost/Nixon. The films make the people in high office appear to be totally articulate, very quick witted, sincere, at times funny and always strong in character and determination. Whereas the truth is anything but that. We've seen footage of a supposedly eloquent Clinton and he is anything but. We've seen the Queen deliver her speeches and "sincerity" is never a word you'd associate with her.
I know the counter argument is that it is only a movie and we shouldn't take it literally. But that's just it, by giving the film "real" characters and "real story" lines, the film makers are implying it is real. In fact, it is the very suggestion that it might be factual that draws the audiences in. Otherwise where would the attraction be of seeing a film about a fictional President's relationship with a fictional Prime Minster? Or a fictional queen's reaction to the death of a fictional daughter in law? There would be no attraction. So the makers have lured us paying public to part with our hard earned cash to see something that promises fact but instead delivers fiction.
So yes, I enjoyed the "story", but ended up resenting its total fiction.