Political Ideas Conveyed within Frost/Nixon - Movie Review Example

Howard, R. (Director). (2008). Frost/Nixon [Motion Picture]. United s: Universal Pictures. Govt 2301 Section # WC: I: Annotation of Politics Involved in Frost/Nixon The film version of Frost/Nixon centers on the question: What does Watergate mean to American history, politics, and law? The film’s plot begins with an ending—Nixon’s process of resignation from the office of the president in order to avoid formal impeachment. Intercut news clippings and interviews with persons of interest and average citizens establish the underlying motive of extracting an admission of guilt from Nixon in holding these interviews. What is Nixon guilty of? The film uses multiple perspectives to question his military strategies in Vietnam and Cambodia and, of course, the break-in to the Watergate hotel office of the Democratic Party and the subsequent cover up. Audiences see Frost and Reston, a researcher representing liberal criticism of Nixon’s foreign and domestic policy, using these interviews as a mock trial for Nixon. Nixon’s camp views the interviews as a re-election campaign, a fence mending expedition, and a path back to the East and the Capital beltway, which I didn’t realize before watching this film. During the interview process, Frost and Nixon’s interview-prep teams act like campaign advisors and spin doctors. The film reveals a Nixon whose political ambition soothed an ego, who stretched past the judicial limits of executive privilege. Nixon, who was granted a full pardon by President Ford, discusses his conflicts with the bipartisan Congress and Media and his frustration with the American checks and balances system. The film becomes as much about exploring Nixon’s feeling that what he did was “wrong,” but paradoxically not “wrong” because he did it as president as about the influence of American media as a fourth branch, a watchdog of American democracy and political transparency. II: Analysis of Political Ideas Conveyed within Frost/Nixon As the film opens, Director Howard and Writer Morgan expose viewers to a plethora of media clippings from nightly news programs, presidential interviews and public events, the formal Watergate hearings, and the voice of the average citizen. While these clippings provide background information and certainly provide urgency and interest in this cinematic event, they oversimplify the complex, elongated task of these revelations and impeachment process. One of the main criticisms of this film deal with the compression of time and boiled down simplification of the steps and factors culminating in Nixon’s resignation. In a 2009 article, Reston himself commented: “For that televised interview in 1977, four hours of interrogation had been boiled down to 90 minutes. For the stage and screen, this history has been compressed a great deal more, into something resembling a comedic tragedy” (para. 5). The issues of the historical veracity of almost every step of this screenwriting process and cinematic manipulation has become an ongoing, contentious issue among political journalists and pundits. The ethics of the original interview put David Frost, his camp, and media itself on trial within this film and questions the unbiased nature of Frost’s interviews. The first segment of Frost/Nixon focuses on Frost and Nixon dancing around each other as Frost attempts to raise funds to secure an interview with Nixon as well as find a reputable network to air the interviews. Yet, as I previously did not know, all the established networks scoff at Frost’s party image and lack of political expertise and refuse to be involved or lend their credibility to support Frost’s initiative. Specifically, the networks refer to their policy not to pay for interviews while Nixon’s Hollywood agent is requiring a staggering 600,000 dollars, 200, 000 of which must be up front for an afternoon exploratory meeting. The angle on the Frost’s first scribbled check to Nixon sheds light upon both Frost and Nixon’s desires and motivations to hold these interviews and the ethical quicksand they both automatically walk. As the interviews begin, the formidable politician Nixon takes Frost for a ride through his own perspective on his days and decisions while in office. Beyond the gratuitous, emotional war footage clip in Cambodia and Reston’s voice of furious disdain, the film does not focus on the actual events and proven political policies involved in Nixon’s decisions regarding Vietnam and Cambodia. Instead, the film focuses on Nixon’s impression of himself. Although this is different from hard-boiled facts, it is still politically relevant to understand something of Nixon’s self-perspective. According to these interviews, Nixon did not feel responsible for engaging the United States in Vietnam citing the former administration handing the responsibility onto him. Nixon, who believed in an American silent majority who supported the U.S. actions in Asia, couches his strategy in terms of weapons confiscation in order to save U.S. soldiers’ lives and even cites an American father who tells Nixon he should have gone into Cambodia earlier. Viewers see Nixon manipulate Frost’s inept interviewing skills as well as double talk his actions in Asia and against American war protestors into a protection of America. Of course, the crux of the film occurs in the final interview. At this point in the script, the historical veracity of the events has become as hotly contested as Watergate itself. Peter Morgan, the playwright and screenplay adapter, has in interviews explained that his research almost led him to a crisis of faith regarding the very nature of truth and history. Discovery layer upon layer of subjective and objective truths, Reston cites Morgan’s quote in the London program for the play, “I’m satisfied no one will ever agree on a single, ‘true’ version of what happened in the Frost/Nixon interviews…As an author, perhaps inevitably that appeals to me, to think of history as a creation, or several creations” (para. 27). And while Morgan has prior experience dealing with sensitive political material having written the script for The Queen, his artistic license has left many critical of his historical license. Journalist Elizabeth Drew reports an extremely different series of events contrasting the film’s breakdown of Nixon’s admission of guilt and apology to the nation. Within Howard’s film, Reston brings a new piece of evidence, a supposedly previously unheard incriminating audio recording, to the floundering Frost’s attention. Frost in turn uses these tapes to force Nixon into a corner unquestionably providing evidence for Nixon’s prior knowledge of the Watergate plan as well as the dodgy financial dealings attempting to cover it up. Drew’s report completely discounts the importance and “newness” of this evidence citing Watergate investigators who mentioned having found the tape before but that they had discarded it for far more powerful evidence. More importantly, Drew rails against Morgan’s using Nixon’s aide, Jack Brennan, as a fuse release to increase drama when Frost nears exacting a confession of guilt from Nixon. Drew explains that Brennan did no such thing, but that Frost inadvertently called for break by misreading the cue cards. Ultimately, online and library searches find a barrage of perspectives on the original Watergate event, the interviews themselves, and the theatrical adaptations. This makes it necessary for audiences to forge their own opinions by being as aware as possible of the colliding forces of history, truth, and media within this vital chapter in American history. III: Personal Opinion Overall, Frost/Nixon offers a helpful beginning insight into the Nixon Watergate controversy packaged within a Hollywood engineered cinematic vehicle. The major aspects of the controversy are brought to light, Nixon is lifted out of a history book photograph into a three-dimensional human being, and film watchers learn of an interesting intersection of politics and the pursuit of justice through popular media. Director Ron Howard accomplishes a formidable task of deftly interweaving actual footage with movie footage establishing an air of authenticity and excitement as audiences feel we are watching something behind-the-scenes that hasn’t been revealed before. Michael Sheen clearly elucidates his well-written character’s journey from fun-loving talk show host to driven interviewer while Frank Langella captures every sweaty muscle twitch of the fallen president. Beyond the cinematic cohesion and financial success of this Shakespearean tale, audience must consider the complex storytelling process involved within this episode in American history. First, there is the backroom Watergate deal itself, the 1970s theater of public hearings, the original Frost/Nixon interviews, the stage play, and, finally, this film version. Indeed, this tale continues to be refracted throughout history, altered, and contested at every step of the way. Bibliography Dargis, Manohla. (2011, May 1). Mr. Frost, Meet Mr. Nixon. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com Drew, Elizabeth. (2008, Dec 14) Frost/Nixon: A Dishonorable Distortion of History. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com McGrath, Charles. (2009, Jan 4). So Nixonian That His Nose Seems to Evolve. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com Reston, James, Jr. (2009, Jan). Frost, Nixon, and Me. Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.smithsonian.com Schwarz, Fred. (2008, Dec 5). Frost/Nixon’s Self-Congratulatory Revisionism. National Review. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/f/frost-nixon-script-transcript.html Read More