aknudse2's Movie Review of Frost/Nixon

aknudse2 - wrote on 01/01/09

Frost/Nixon provides viewers with a superb acting performance, and it will be of general interest to those with an interest in American history. Still, as a film touted as one of 2008’s finest, Frost/Nixon may disappoint.

The film recounts the interviews conducted by David Frost of Richard Nixon in 1977 as Nixon sought to rehabilitate his public reputation. The film’s strongest attribute is not a remarkable story or a probing character study. Rather, Frost/Nixon entrances its audience by the presence of a persona, the curious vibe created when one of the movie’s namesakes enters the room. As Nixon, Frank Langella depicts a man unnaturally detached from the mores and conventions instinctively understood by the rest of humanity. Yet, Nixon’s vaguely unhinged manner create a peculiar charm. Even if Langella’s Nixon is a complete fiction that bears little resemblance to the real man, the effect is captivating. I would recommend “Frost/Nixon” if only to marvel at this fascinating character.

The interactions between Nixon and David Frost, whose manner resembles a toned-down Austin Powers, provide some moments of levity.

Unfortunately, the remainder of the film fails to equal this performance. The interviews between David Frost and Richard Nixon were an actual public event viewed by millions of people. However, several aspects of the film feel unreal. The “admission” that Frost finally elicits from Nixon, the purported climax of the film, is somewhat muddled because the movie doesn’t explain very clearly the content of the “discovery” that supposedly prompts Nixon’s admission. The lack of clarity is not without reason. Writing on December 14th, Elizabeth Drew in the Huffington Post avers that Frost/Nixon’s climactic scene (and much of the rest of the movie) is almost entirely invention.

If we must take literary license, we might as well make it interesting. Yet, the fictionalized storyline is typical. An underdog (interviewer David Frost) appears overmatched against his foe (Richard Nixon). The underdog, who is somewhat unserious, has an epiphany that causes him to work harder for at least a few days (in this case a whopping four). There are a few dramatic scenes meant to capture the focus and intensity of the moment. Then, after this labor, the underdog prevails. Scenes of hugging and victory dances follow. The movie ends.

A greater film might have postulated regarding the roots of Nixon’s torment or sought to answer the question how Nixon, a man seemingly so unsuited to politics, chose that career. In the movie, Nixon comes close to asking this very question. Yet, alas, Frost/Nixon merely tantalizes the viewers with possibilities. Langella’s Nixon is a powerful “presence,” but the script does not allow for the attainment of genuine insight into the man’s motives. In a sense, this reflects Nixon’s real-life inscrutability; however, as we have seen, Frost/Nixon is not an actual history.

I enjoyed Frost/Nixon, but I left the theater somewhat disappointed.