![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chaletianSo, Katie and I went to see Frost/Nixon last night. And I have written about it. At some length.
First of all, I think my experience of Frost/Nixon is going to be fundamentally different to that of someone who watched the interview first hand: there was no resonance of memory for me, not even in the vague I-sort-of-remember-this-happening memory that I have of, for instance, Margaret Thatcher losing her leadership battle. I know almost nothing about Richard Nixon, other than the most general of fluff, and I am more familiar with the Dead Ringers parody of David Frost than I am with the man himself (not to mention that lovely ISIRTA joke: “History is full of great romances – Romeo and Juliet… David Frost and himself…”). It always feels to me that Peter Morgan’s political drama (he was the man behind The Deal, about Blair and Brown) is aimed at those for whom this is memory, not merely history.
But notwithstanding this, it was a jolly good play. I can’t really comment on Frank Langella’s resemblance to Nixon (in terms of speech and deportment), but I thought he played an excellent character: a man unwilling to admit any wrongdoing, unwilling to admit that his time at the top was gone, unwilling to let go of the life he had built for himself (much was made of his fight to get where he was: Nixon was not, apparently, handed his political career on a silver plate). And Michael Sheen did indeed seem to embody what little I know of David Frost, a man still fighting, despite his success so far, for that prominence and respect that Nixon had enjoyed.
I think what makes this work as a drama is that, basically, it’s a fight to the death. Death of reputation and credibility, rather than literal death, but for these men you feel that it comes to pretty much the same thing. Frost has to get Nixon to admit wrongdoing for his interviews to have any impact; Nixon has to restore his reputation with the American public and show that he did nothing wrong: their aims are diametrically opposed. And at first, it’s all impersonal. Frost and his team know that Nixon will try and stonewall them, as he had done everyone else on the Watergate thing; Nixon and his team know that Frost will want to publicly interrogate him on the matter, though they do not seem to be particularly worried by the prospect.
But this changes over the course of their association. The pressure builds on Frost to deliver the goods, especially after the earlier interviews are a disaster, with Nixon waxing lyrical about his successes in office, and generally doing a fine job of rehabilitating his reputation. Frost’s reputation (and finances) are on the line, and towards the end of the process he learns that he has lost his Australian talk show contract. He is desperate. Then Nixon gets drunk and calls him the night before the final interview, the one about Watergate. In a rambling, slightly staggering monologue, he outlines the similarity between the two men, and makes it clear that this final interview will make one of them, and break the other. There is no middle ground here. Everything, for both of them, lies in the following day’s recording.
Frost becomes determined at this point that he will defeat Nixon though it takes some last-minute evidence to really break through Nixon’s defences. One of his researchers spent the weekend in Washington, and going through the tape transcripts uncovers evidence that Nixon was aware of the cover-up long before he admitted it. I know this is all based on a true story, and so I presume this did happen, but for me the use of what amounts to a deus ex machina rather spoiled the dynamic of the show-down between the two men: it might have been more satisfying for Frost to break down Nixon as matters stood, though I suppose Nixon had been defending himself more or less successfully against the same claims for some time, and it would take new evidence to shake his composure. And in the end, it felt – and Frost explicitly stated – that Nixon wanted to be brought down, to be finished off. He had had enough of trying to prove himself to people who would always look down on him.
It was all jolly good: the staging was simplistic but effective, there was a subtle use of 70s costume, excellent supporting actors, the use of the TV screens was interesting and emphasised how much television was the arena in which this battle would be fought. The action was compelling, although relatively low-key (chiefly because there was, unsurprisingly, a lot of sitting around and talking). The satisfaction of seeing Frost’s team puncture Nixon’s seemingly impenetrable armour of “banal anecdotes” and presidential non-answers was considerable, though in the final moments, as they focused on close-ups of Langella, I really felt at a disadvantage for not having seen the original interview. But yes. It was good. I recommend it.
We're off to see Mock the Week being filmed next week, which is tremendously exciting.
And, apropos of nothing in particular, I have decided, on the basis of our staggering, semi-hysterical progress down Sheen Road last night, that Katie and I have NO NEED of alcohol. Frankly.
First of all, I think my experience of Frost/Nixon is going to be fundamentally different to that of someone who watched the interview first hand: there was no resonance of memory for me, not even in the vague I-sort-of-remember-this-happening memory that I have of, for instance, Margaret Thatcher losing her leadership battle. I know almost nothing about Richard Nixon, other than the most general of fluff, and I am more familiar with the Dead Ringers parody of David Frost than I am with the man himself (not to mention that lovely ISIRTA joke: “History is full of great romances – Romeo and Juliet… David Frost and himself…”). It always feels to me that Peter Morgan’s political drama (he was the man behind The Deal, about Blair and Brown) is aimed at those for whom this is memory, not merely history.
But notwithstanding this, it was a jolly good play. I can’t really comment on Frank Langella’s resemblance to Nixon (in terms of speech and deportment), but I thought he played an excellent character: a man unwilling to admit any wrongdoing, unwilling to admit that his time at the top was gone, unwilling to let go of the life he had built for himself (much was made of his fight to get where he was: Nixon was not, apparently, handed his political career on a silver plate). And Michael Sheen did indeed seem to embody what little I know of David Frost, a man still fighting, despite his success so far, for that prominence and respect that Nixon had enjoyed.
I think what makes this work as a drama is that, basically, it’s a fight to the death. Death of reputation and credibility, rather than literal death, but for these men you feel that it comes to pretty much the same thing. Frost has to get Nixon to admit wrongdoing for his interviews to have any impact; Nixon has to restore his reputation with the American public and show that he did nothing wrong: their aims are diametrically opposed. And at first, it’s all impersonal. Frost and his team know that Nixon will try and stonewall them, as he had done everyone else on the Watergate thing; Nixon and his team know that Frost will want to publicly interrogate him on the matter, though they do not seem to be particularly worried by the prospect.
But this changes over the course of their association. The pressure builds on Frost to deliver the goods, especially after the earlier interviews are a disaster, with Nixon waxing lyrical about his successes in office, and generally doing a fine job of rehabilitating his reputation. Frost’s reputation (and finances) are on the line, and towards the end of the process he learns that he has lost his Australian talk show contract. He is desperate. Then Nixon gets drunk and calls him the night before the final interview, the one about Watergate. In a rambling, slightly staggering monologue, he outlines the similarity between the two men, and makes it clear that this final interview will make one of them, and break the other. There is no middle ground here. Everything, for both of them, lies in the following day’s recording.
Frost becomes determined at this point that he will defeat Nixon though it takes some last-minute evidence to really break through Nixon’s defences. One of his researchers spent the weekend in Washington, and going through the tape transcripts uncovers evidence that Nixon was aware of the cover-up long before he admitted it. I know this is all based on a true story, and so I presume this did happen, but for me the use of what amounts to a deus ex machina rather spoiled the dynamic of the show-down between the two men: it might have been more satisfying for Frost to break down Nixon as matters stood, though I suppose Nixon had been defending himself more or less successfully against the same claims for some time, and it would take new evidence to shake his composure. And in the end, it felt – and Frost explicitly stated – that Nixon wanted to be brought down, to be finished off. He had had enough of trying to prove himself to people who would always look down on him.
It was all jolly good: the staging was simplistic but effective, there was a subtle use of 70s costume, excellent supporting actors, the use of the TV screens was interesting and emphasised how much television was the arena in which this battle would be fought. The action was compelling, although relatively low-key (chiefly because there was, unsurprisingly, a lot of sitting around and talking). The satisfaction of seeing Frost’s team puncture Nixon’s seemingly impenetrable armour of “banal anecdotes” and presidential non-answers was considerable, though in the final moments, as they focused on close-ups of Langella, I really felt at a disadvantage for not having seen the original interview. But yes. It was good. I recommend it.
We're off to see Mock the Week being filmed next week, which is tremendously exciting.
And, apropos of nothing in particular, I have decided, on the basis of our staggering, semi-hysterical progress down Sheen Road last night, that Katie and I have NO NEED of alcohol. Frankly.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-01-16 04:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-16 05:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-16 05:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-16 05:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-16 05:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-22 04:03 am (UTC)I found this play, and my lack of knowledge about the political background, quite inspiring, and I went off to gather every book I could find on Watergate, Nixon, Woodward and Bernstein (who, oddly, don't get a mention in this play), and so on. And I discovered that Frost wrote a book about the interview process, of which I read a bit, before I became bored -- Peter Morgan is perhaps a pacier storyteller than David Frost.. But something I do remember is that they had the 'new evidence' right from the start. They had it several months before filming began, and always knew they'd use it in the last interview to knock Nixon for six. Obviously, this might've removed any sense of urgency from the play's plot, so Morgan rejigged events a bit.. but if it felt a bit convenient and artificial onstage, that's because it WAS artificial. Jolly good play though, all the same!
no subject
Date: 2007-01-22 10:38 am (UTC)Nixon - this chat show host will never be able to get the better of me!
Frost - I have proof. Ha. Piece of cake.
I salute your research! I wikipedia-ing Messrs Frost and Nixon, but that was as far as I got. Ah, see my laziness, see it shine...
no subject
Date: 2007-01-22 10:39 am (UTC)