Movie Notes: "A Dialogue with Nixon"

Deondre 2021-12-15 08:01:09


Go to the Frost/Nixon movie in the afternoon. I didn't intend to watch this one, but the few films I wanted to watch were all scheduled for Christmas. The only one that attracted me to the top-end film at this time was this one. I checked the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and the score was terribly high, so I decided to read it. I probably knew that it would be a film related to the Watergate Incident. I was afraid that my English was not enough to fully understand the details, so I browsed through the plot introduction in advance. It turned out that this was a terrible mistake.

This is not to say that there is any suspense in the plot. In fact, this is a fairly straightforward movie, with no blood, no flashbacks, and no surprises, but I still regret seeing the plot introduction in advance.

The director is Lang Howard. I have a very good impression of his "Beautiful Mind", "Apollo XIII" and "Apollo XIII", but the impression of his "The Da Vinci Code" is extremely bad, — I know he is a big name, but that failure made I have great doubts about his stability (or at least his professionalism).

The starring roles are Frank Langella and Michael Sheen. The latter is Prime Minister Blair in "Queen". I have never heard of the former. The only thing that is certain is that his appearance is very different from that of the character prototype Nixon-although I haven't seen much Nixon's video materials, at least his image is familiar. An actor who looks nothing like him will make it extremely difficult for the audience to have a sense of enthusiasm, although this is not necessarily a bad thing.

The result of putting all this information together is that I have no idea what this movie will look like.

Then, what I really regret is that I didn't make this ignorance more thorough-I should watch this movie without even previewing the plot. In that case, the enjoyment I get will be greater than it is now: I have not experienced such a pure, thorough, and truly sensory enjoyment brought by film art for a long time.

Almost from the first quarter of an hour when the film began to be shown, I was convinced that this is an excellent film, no matter what it is, it is a textbook standard. I sometimes feel like I’m watching a mix of "Queen" and "Good Night, Good Luck" (this is not just because the two leading actors happened to appear in these two movies. In fact, I didn’t realize it at the time. Langela is the actor of "Good Night, Good Luck"), and sometimes I think there is even more.

I know that these two starring actors are the original starring actors of the drama of the same name that won the Tony Award in the UK, but what I see is not just the drama on the screen (this is the easiest mistake to make in a movie adapted from a drama), but Movies in the true sense. What I saw was extremely accurate, smooth, gorgeous performances, tension and rhythmic scheduling, and beyond these technical factors, it was purely the mysterious beauty of the film as a whole.

If the only thing that makes me feel a bit awkward is that I have never been able to convince myself that the old man on the screen is President Nixon, and the huge gap in appearance has always been there like a chasm. I smiled when I saw the photo of Langela shaking hands with Mao Zedong, who had obviously been PS. I don't know if British audiences have similar feelings when watching the movie "Queen".

However, I am still immersed in the movie with satisfaction, watching Frost, played by Mike Sheen, get into trouble step by step. His performance is impeccable. If you have to pick a prick, you can also say that it is a little too gorgeous-that is to say it can make people. Aware of his performance. According to the harsher film aesthetics, this can of course be understood as an error in a certain sense. But it is not glaring in this movie.

However, what really surprised me was Langela. His performance led me to a strange situation step by step. I still can't believe that he is Nixon himself, but his gestures, frowns, and even the twitches of the corners of his mouth all have a strong sense of existence. I asked myself over and over again why I had never heard of this actor-I only saw such a performance in certain films of Al Pacino and Marlon Brando. In the first three interviews in the play, his performance—both as a person in the play and as an actor—has a burst of tension and self-confidence. This of course has the impact of the plot setting (Nixon was originally the winner in those three interviews), but I was still completely attracted by the living presidential feeling.

Then I suddenly realized the essence of Langela's performance. He was not imitating Nixon, not at the beginning. He was creating a Nixon, who may not be exactly the same as the real Nixon himself but has the same sense of reality. He was once domineering on the international stage. The president who stepped down after being caught in a scandal.

This explains the special feeling I have always had: this is not a movie that reflects history, but a movie that recreates history. Although the plot completely relies on historical facts, its performance and shooting are entirely based on the art of film itself. Those exquisite scheduling, accurate snapshots, and the actor's rich movements and expressions are all "acting"—acting in a literal sense. As viewers, you don't need to convince yourself that the two of them are the two real figures in history, but you see two fresh and fleshy "real figures" in front of your eyes. This is the ultimate aesthetic value of this movie.

Then came the climax of the movie, the last interview. It was in this interview that Nixon finally admitted that he had participated in planning the cover-up of the Watergate incident and apologized to the American people. I was deeply moved by this scene. On the one hand, Langela's accurate performance was extremely full of emotions, and on the other hand, it perfectly made people wonder if he had carefully planned every twitch of the tip of his nose. This scene is the best performance I have seen in recent years. Yes, if you have to criticize it, it can be said that it is too refined, more like a work of art than a natural reaction of people, so that it will even bring a certain sense of isolation to the audience, making people want to throw away the historical reality it corresponds to. And play with this scene itself. But you can hardly say that this must be a shortcoming.

This passage also applies to the entire movie. If I have to pick out what is not good enough for it, it is that it is not rough enough-not as naturally rough as the real world-but too delicate and deliberate, everything is designed and expressed to an ideal level. Some people may not like this style. I also think that the price of doing this is that the film lacks a certain epic style, but as long as a person like me feels that the film itself has an aesthetic that is independent of real life, then he I will be completely immersed in this pure aesthetic of the film itself.

View more about Frost/Nixon reviews

Extended Reading

Frost/Nixon quotes

  • Richard Nixon: We're not gonna let that happen! We're gonna make 'em choke!

  • Richard Nixon: [Watching Frost head for his car] You mean to say he just paid me two hundred grand for a visit?

    Jack Brennan: Yeah.

    Richard Nixon: Huh. If I'd known that I would invited him for tea.