tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post7592879757838634908..comments2024-01-30T04:32:47.585-05:00Comments on The Cooler: Bigger Screen, Smaller Suspense: Frost/NixonJason Bellamyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18150199580478147196noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-27789187058263153722009-02-07T10:30:00.000-05:002009-02-07T10:30:00.000-05:00I think "pedestrian" is a good word. I have no ide...I think "pedestrian" is a good word. I have no idea how someone could watch this movie and praise Howard's direction - it feels so stale and at times mildly in the way of Morgan's script and the performances.mBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18159859094031741254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-42590281269255930442009-01-16T14:39:00.000-05:002009-01-16T14:39:00.000-05:00I wholeheartedly agree with the review – I too was...I wholeheartedly agree with the review – I too was greatly let down by the film, and I think your comments related to <I>Apollo 13</I> help me put my own finger on why I was so tremendously disappointed. I'll continue to swear that if Ron Howard's name had not been present in the opening credits, and I had not known he was involved going in, I would not have thought he was behind the camera. Not that I hold him as some pinnacle of directing prowess by any means, but <I>Frost/Nixon</I> just feels so pedestrian compared to the good work with a bend toward history that Howard has accomplished in the past.T.S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/00945932279787919282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-34632310552816899482009-01-09T15:12:00.000-05:002009-01-09T15:12:00.000-05:00Marilyn –If I’m correct, I see two things here: a ...Marilyn –<BR/><BR/>If I’m correct, I see two things here: a general political observation and then a question about the art. I wouldn’t refute your political observation, but I’ll try to clarify on the art, which of course requires some actual historical context:<BR/><BR/>Prior to the interview with Frost, Nixon had been elusive. At the time of his resignation, much of the smoking-gun information about Watergate hadn’t come to light. So here was this guy in hiding, who Frost pursued, not the other way around. (Nixon was working on his memoirs, but it wasn’t like he was selling his exclusive interview to the highest bidder, as is done now.)<BR/><BR/>So “Frost/Nixon” suggests, and I presume this is accurate, that there was a sense that this might be the only time that Nixon might ever come of his bunker to speak for a national audience. So the stakes were that if Nixon “exonerated himself” that would be “the biggest crime of all.” (I think that’s how it’s put in the film.) The Frost team felt they had to get the win. And, more or less, they did. Though in Howard’s film, it seems a more important win for Frost himself than for a country that was desperate to get some kind of confession.<BR/><BR/>Having said that about the art, let me get back to your astute political observation with a societal observation: In this country, Time + Contriteness = Forgiveness. I don’t think Nixon was exactly contrite, but he at least leaned in that direction. So if you’re offended by Nixon’s ultimate image, you might say that Frost won the battle and lost the war. On the other hand, let’s look at someone like O.J. Simpson. I think many people were happy to see him wasting away, and now he’s off to jail to waste away some more. But I think many would trade Simpson’s current misery to hear him say, “Yep, I did it.” Saying as much would gain him some sympathy, I’m sure. But there’d be some catharsis.<BR/><BR/>At the time of the Frost-Nixon interviews, I was weeks old. But my sense is that much of America appreciated the catharsis of Nixon’s quasi-confession, even if long-term it helped open the door to his redemption. Other thoughts, anyone?Jason Bellamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18150199580478147196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-71805585357086909862009-01-09T13:47:00.000-05:002009-01-09T13:47:00.000-05:00I was struck by something you said:With Frost seem...I was struck by something you said:<BR/><BR/><I>With Frost seemingly disinterested, the stakes of Howard’s drama are made small – unless, of course, you know your history and understand how enormous the stakes really were. </I><BR/><BR/>In the end, Nixon rehabilitated his image to such an extent that he's been hailed as a statesman. What were the stakes exactly then? That Nixon's repentance would lead to his redemption? If so, Frost and history lost, and dirty tricksters learned how to game the system so that they could get away with far greater crimes than Nixon committed and stay in office until the not-so-bitter end.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-50238825370278390702009-01-07T11:02:00.000-05:002009-01-07T11:02:00.000-05:00I agree with your review. Something was lacking he...I agree with your review. Something was lacking here - as with "Doubt." The film version needs to be more visual, more cinematic than the play in order to be worth making a film version of a play. Frankly, I wish filmmakers would steer away from film versions of plays. Like remakes - this simply cuts down the number of new and original stories that are released.<BR/><BR/>I enjoyed "Frost/Nixon" well enough though it was didactic more than dramatic.Richard Bellamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12397053921647421425noreply@blogger.com