criterionforum.org

The critically acclaimed stage play is now a Ron Howard film (with a phenomenal cast). Here's the trailer.

I saw this at the London Film Festival and have no knowledge of Peter Morgan's stage play or the actual events. I assume though that a degree of creative license has been used by Morgan to create a part-fact, part-fiction event much as some of his previous work has.

I suppose anything about Nixon humanises or at least invites sympathy for a man synonymous with political corruption. It tries to comprehend Nixon's motives for his entire career, aligning them with Frost's own to suggest more similarities between the men than both would admit. Both from humble origins, who had to work hard to get where they have, both take risks to remain at the summit because the fall is so great. There's a telephone call which may have been imagined by Frost or took place when Nixon was drunk. It's this which changes the dynamic at least; until this point Nixon had Frost, described as a performer by John Birt even, on the ropes, but afterwards Frost was able to pinpoint Nixon's weaknesses and extract guilt and contrition. Although this seems something of a contrived plot development for the final third, I assume it was in the stage play.

Anyway, it's pretty decent for a Ron Howard film, though I don't think the supporting parts are that well fleshed out. It's essentially a two parter between Sheen and Langella, reprising their stage roles and capturing the mannerisms if not the looks of their parts. Worth seeing, has the look of Oscar bait all over it.

Oh, and there's these reflective interviews with the supporting parts, John Birt, Jack Brennan etc about the Frost/Nixon interviews, which seems no more than contextualising for the audience. Pretty redundant.

thirtyframesasecond wrote:it's pretty decent for a Ron Howard film, though I don't think the supporting parts are that well fleshed out. It's essentially a two parter between Sheen and Langella, reprising their stage roles and capturing the mannerisms if not the looks of their parts.

I hope you're right - based on the trailer, there's lots of evidence of "opening up" the play, which I usually dislike. As a general rule, the more it resembles the play, the better. Especially with Ron Howard in charge (the music in the trailer being particularly obnoxious).

The studio was pushing for Warren Beatty to play Nixon.

Disaster or no, I would have loved watching Beatty as Nixon.

Isn't Beatty retired?

domino harvey wrote:Isn't Beatty retired?

Jerry "The Geator" Blavat sez no.

In an alternate movie universe, this film would've starred Warren Beatty and been directed by George Clooney.

Why is Ron Howard still allowed to make movies?

Michael wrote:Why is Ron Howard still allowed to make movies?

I know that's a rhetorical question, Michael, but I'll answer it anyway. Ron Howard's films almost always come in on time and under budget and make a substantial profit for the studio. If you're the guy signing the checks, those are the deciding factors in who gets to make movies.

See also: "Why is Michael Cimino no longer allowed to make movies?"

I'd be very happy if the situation were reversed, but I wouldn't make a very good studio head.

A more pressing question in my mind is: Why does my hatred of all things Ron Howard immediately dissipate whenever I pop in an episode of Arrested Development?

Did anyone like The Paper?

I did.

I have no problem with Ron Howard. I don't particularly like his films, but there are never any surprises with him and he's not as offensive as say, a Brett Ratner or McG. Howard is earnestly and thoroughly milquetoast.

Are some of you saying you would take Ozu's family dramas like Tokyo Story over Parenthood?

The "We're gonna make 'em choke!!" line from this trailer has been playing over and over again in my head, I couldn't figure out why Langella's portrayal of Nixon is making me chuckle to myself so much until now:

He sounds exactly like Mr. Burns doing his impression of Nixon.

His waggle is no match for yours, sir. I've never seen you lose a game. Except for that one in '74 when you let Richard Nixon win. That was very kind of you, sir.
Oh, he just looked so forlorn, Smithers, with his 'Oh, I can't go to prison, Monty. They'll eat me alive!' I wonder if this Homer Nixon is any relation?
Unlikely, sir. They spell and pronounce their names differently.
Bah! Schedule a game and I'll ask him myself.

I really hope you guys have heard some of the audio of the EVEN MORE just-declassified Nixon tapes. The man had a gift for swearing.

A good sign: Armond hates it.

Armond White wrote:Ron Howard shows his stupidity

Wow, it only took the first five words to cement this review in the Armond White Hall of Fame. Not that I think Howard needs defending, but what sort of high-profile film reviewer says something as completely irresponsible and juvenile as that to defend their opinion?

domino harvey wrote:Wow, it only took the first five words to cement this review in the Armond White Hall of Fame. Not that I think Howard needs defending, but what sort of high-profile film reviewer says something as completely irresponsible and juvenile as that to defend their opinion?

Although "Armond White Shows His Stupidity" would be a great title for a collected volume of his criticism -- not that any publisher would ever agree to such a project.

Jeff wrote:Although "Armond White Shows His Stupidity" would be a great title for a collected volume of his criticism -- not that any publisher would ever agree to such a project.

I think there would be some takers.

Oh man, John Stossel and "stupidity" are a match made in Heaven

Like so many other Ron Howard films this one lacks a sense of certainty in its direction. I am not sure whether it is the material, the fact that this was a stage play originally or simply that Howard never seems comfortable with the camera but this film lacks a real sense of engagement. There is a sense of clinical distance to the subject and the storyline that i would argue pervades his films. There is no real feeling of inventiveness or intellectual engagement on his part. However, what saves the film are the two performances by Frank Langella (Nixon) and Michael Sheen as well as the script.
I can see where some critics and viewers are comparing this film to The Queen and The Deal because of its subject matter but this film lacks the excitement, intellectual engagement, and understanding of what the camera can be used to capture in terms of emotions, story, space, and metaphor. Langella should definitely receive an Oscar nomination for the way he embodies the dualities of Nixon (polished statesman, happy father) versus the insecure, paranoid power mad scion who struggles for recognition and love in the face of delusion. An interesting film that perhaps speaks more to our own times and perhaps it is a portent of things to come. Maybe someday there will be a journalist who will go out on a limb and try and force George W. Bush to admit his mistakes, excuse me crimes. For now we are left to see Bush being interviewed by people like Charlie Gibson who are afraid of tarnishing their own reputations rather than serving the interests of the American people as members of the fourth estate.

kaujot wrote:I really hope you guys have heard some of the audio of the EVEN MORE just-declassified Nixon tapes. The man had a gift for swearing.

Where can we hear these?

Uhm, you know, I'm not exactly sure of where you can hear them. I've been hearing clips on various shows (Olbermann and Matthews, respectively). I'm sure they're somewhere on MSNBC or Fox or CNN or something.

kaujot wrote:Uhm, you know, I'm not exactly sure of where you can hear them. I've been hearing clips on various shows (Olbermann and Matthews, respectively). I'm sure they're somewhere on MSNBC or Fox or CNN or something.

Try this.