I saw this last night and must say sat through it completely enthralled. I didn`t have time to re-read my review of the stage production (see below) as I had intended to before rushing off to the cinema, but having done so now I can only marvel at how closely the movie follows the play. There is no need to go through the plot or the underlying factual ground again here; it is all set out in the previous review. What then is there left to say about the movie?
Two thoughts came to mind as the movie began and took hold as one got drawn into it: first, how appropriate that it should have opened during the week of Obama`s Inauguration, and second, which became even more compelling at the end, that maybe in not too distant a future, we shall see another avatar of the same, say a Paxman / Bush interview "with no holds barred", in which George W will confess his guilt over everything associated with his neo-con strategy of the `War on Terror`!
In the movie too, as in the play, the characterisation of the two protagonists is superbly done by Michael Sheen as David Frost and Frank Lingella as Richard Nixon; if anything, Lingella has definitely got the upper edge. We can of course see them in closer detail, with facial expressions and body language fully exposed. Sheen`s Frost comes across as a weak, fumbling, playboyish tv personality who is a bit out of his depth in dealing with the larger than life figure of Nixon, even as a disgraced ex-President. Both of them of course have an entourage of their own. Nixon`s loyal minder is well played by Kevin Bacon as a concerned and protective aide, while Frost`s friendly female companion and other staff remain true to their parts. The two sides have moments of confrontation over the implementation of the agreed deal but in the end the interviews are allowed to proceed according to plan.
And so it was that the denouement came after the first three rather anodyne sessions, during which Nixon was able to gain the upper hand and expound self-confidently on his personal history, foreign policy and other matters. The tables turned with Watergate which was the subject of the last session. In this sense the underlying reality that was his undoing was to surface again, in retrospect. It happened when Frost, who had by then become depressed at his own lacklustre performance as the interlocutor, was goaded into an aggressive mode by the discovery of a damning piece of evidence, unearthed by one of his assistants from the congressional records, that he was then able to put to Nixon, to unsettle him. It was also at this point that I began to feel distinctly empathetic towards Nixon, for he was obviously a troubled man. His `confession` was wrung out of him not so much by hostile as assertive questioning, nor was it an unqualified admission of guilt, but rather he proffered it as a rational, if flawed, explanation of his conduct, which the viewing nation could therefore see for itself as amounting to wrongdoing in fact. But while his reputation as a `tricky dicky` probably remained unaffected, what came across was that he did grapple with inner demons, and while it may not have been sufficient to rehabilitate him fully he was not to be condemned to remain a pariah for ever.
And in any case would the American public have felt morally vindicated if Nixon had been `broken`, in the manner of a weepy emotional spectacle? That he was wrestling, had wrestled, with his conscience was clear. After all, he was the product of a system that requires all aspiring politicians, and those who achieve high office, to be beholden to a whole array of supporters, promoters and hangers-on. They are all steeped in a cut-throat culture of corruption. They navigate a path to victory through what to lesser mortals is a daunting minefield of legal traps and loopholes. Favours done have to be returned and supporters protected. In the final analysis, however, the best that could be said for him was that he presented a credible case of mitigation rather than of innocence. But he did resign, and ended his life in virtual seclusion, away from the nation`s gaze. So we can afford to take a charitable view now (some 35 years after the events in question and 14 years after his death) and say, without re-writing history, that justice of sorts was done after all.
Lingella has been nominated for the best actor award in this year`s Oscars; I think he deserves that. Ron Howard too has been nominated for best direction, though there he may face stiff competition from `Slumdog Millinaire`. The film has also been nominated for the best adapted screenplay category. On the whole, the movie provides a thoroughly satisfying experience; so it will be interesting to see what awards it picks up.
RAMNIK SHAH
Great
ReplyDelete