Frost/Nixon

Frost/Nixon is a riveting film anchored by two outstanding performances from Frank Langella (Nixon) and Michael Sheen (Frost). They reprise their roles from the award-winning stage production of the same name. Both the play and the film were written by Peter Morgan who continues his amazing writer's streak of award-winning works (The Last King of Scotland, The Queen and Momfort) briefly spoiled by The Last Boleyn Girl. Ron Howard beat out Martin Scorsese, George Clooney, Sam Mendes, Bennett Miller and Mike Nichols for a seat in the director's chair. Frost/Nixon has received overwhelmingly positive reviews and garnered five prestigious Oscar nominations including Best Picture, Best Director (Howard), Best Actor (Langella) and Best Screenplay (Morgan). Langella won the Tony on Broadway for his stage performance and he is outstanding here once again. As of today, Frost/Nixon has only made $14 million of its $35 million budget back, but its jump to 1100 theatres from 150 after its Oscar nominations should correct that.

Ron Howard deftly directs in a documentary style complete with talking heads and the superb screenplay maintains the tension throughout nicely softened by many moments of humour. The supporting cast is uniformly fine with notable performances by Matthew Macfadyen, Oliver Platt and Sam Rockwell as Frost's producer and lead investigators and a campy take on Nixon's uber agent Swifty Lazar by a bald Toby Jones (Was Sylvester Stallone his voice coach?). Rebecca Hall (Vicky Christina Barcelona) plays Caroline Cushing, based on actress Carol Lynley who had an 18 year on-off relationship with Frost, and adds a female connection to Frost's motivating forces.

Though I really liked this movie and recommend it, I continue to have a problem with Morgan's screenplays and Howard's direction when it come to historical dramas. Too much drama and not enough history. Frost/Nixon continues this modification of historical fact though not anywhere as flagrantly as in Howard's A Beautiful Mind. First and foremost, the interviews were a colloborative business arrangement where Nixon received $600 000 up front (stated in the movie) but also 20% of all profits (left out) and thus not the David/Goliath battle that the screenplay implies. Though the probing opening question "Why didn't you burn the tapes?" in the interview was as stated, Nixon's answer was remarkedly different than in the screenplay. In many important moments in the film, Nixon's comments are remanufactured to create a different and deeper tension and poignancy. This is seen most specifically in his supposed admittance of guilt for a criminal offence and his apology to the American people . The crutial phone call that provides the impetus for Frost's final 'surge' and victory did not occur and is a reminder of the crutial scene in The Queen when Queen Elizabeth spies the majestic stag and sheds her only tear. Furthermore Peter Morgan seems to want to make a connection between Nixon's failings and G.W. Bush's failings and so takes license with the dialogue to bring this 1970's story into today's mindset.

When a historical drama is remanufactured for audiences, I wish that there was a disclaimer, at least in the credits, that dramatic license has been taken with the facts to enhance the story. After all, what worries me is that what is seen on the screen will for many viewers automatically become reality. Ironically when I do go back and read what really happened I find that these historical dramas are extremely prowerful in their true setting and do not really need a major overhaul.

For more details visit:

Peter Morgan Interview

Dishonourable Distortion of History

Why Didn't Nixon Burn the Tapes


Julian D.