richard nixon Tagged Articles at Cinematical

"You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore ..."
-- Richard Nixon, on his 1962 loss to Pat Brown for the Governorship of California

That statement turned out, of course, not to be true; we would have Nixon to kick around for decades more. That statement also concealed a different truth, which is that Nixon -- the hunched, scowling, puritan-satyr of American politics -- could not only take a beating, but also dish one out. Frost/Nixon, Ron Howard's film adaptation of Peter Morgan's stage play, kicks Nixon around, but it also lets him kick back, as TV personality (not journalist or reporter, but personality) David Frost faces Nixon in a series of 1977 interviews for an ambitious, expensive and poorly-planned multi-night TV broadcast. Why would Nixon agree to an on-camera inquisition? Because Frost paid him -- $600,000 -- for the chance to do so, and because Nixon thought it might be a chance to re-emerge from his exile after resigning the presidency in 1974. Two men, their careers in decline, circling each other for a shot at redemption: Frost (Michael Sheen) is wagering his fortune on the chance to re-make his reputation; Nixon (Frank Langella), with neither reputation or fortune, is desperate for a chance to escape infamy.

But Frost/Nixon is not simply the equivalent of Thunderdome for readers of The Nation, where two men enter and one man leaves. Morgan's script is smart enough to make sure there are things hidden under that clash, a quieter film about character and communication, modern media and ancient principles. And we also get the interview field of combat, which drapes the slick surface of modern manners over the kind of brute, bloody battle you normally see only in nature documentaries. The film, like Frost's interviews, is not merely about Watergate -- which is good, because we have, I should think, drained that well of venality fairly dry -- but instead about bigger issues of accountability and process and principle. Frost, stripped of all pretense, was asking Nixon a good question: Who the hell do you think you are? Nixon, stripped of all pretense, was asking an equally good question: Who the hell are you to ask?

Who wants to see the Watchmen newsstand come to life? Here it is. And guess, what? That's not really New York City. No, fortunately (and unfortunately, kinda), 42nd Street no longer looks like that. Instead, that's a custom backlot built up in Vancouver. And there's more photos to whet your appetite, too, over at Warner Bros.' official site for the film. Looking at the pics, I feel like I'm seeing an establishing montage of the NYC of Watchmen. There's a grimy bus stop with the Treasure Island store behind it. There's the pun-named Gunga Diner. And best of all, there's a re-election campaign poster of Richard Nixon, with Rorschach walking by and some graffiti asking, "WHO WATCHES THE WATCHMEN?" nearby (see image above). This new update also includes interesting facts about the backlot, such as information on its design, construction ("20,000 donuts were consumed by the construction crew") and requirements ("Street had to work for 1938, 1945, 1953, 1957, 1964, 1974, 1975, 1977, and 1985"). Of course, someone might complain that all this work and money could have gone to a Mars set (which director Zach Snyder said they couldn't afford to build), and real New York locations should have been used instead.

I may be a die-hard supporter of New York films actually being shot in the Big Apple, but there are numerous occasions where I'm forgiving. For instance, I completely get that Watchmen can't film here. Aside from the fact that the story takes place in the 1980s -- an alternate 1980s to be exact -- and aside from the fact that until the end of the graphic novel there is no significant use of any necessary NYC locales or landmarks, the movie is based on a comic book. And it's important for it to look like a comic book movie, because it is a story that's very much centered on a comic book world. I don't mean it should look like a cartoon. It actually should look gritty and realistic at times. But I think having the characters dropped into the actual streets of Manhattan -- even if those streets were dressed up (or down, as it would be) -- it would look even more fake than a constructed set, which might be able to compliment the characters and their costumes better. If Watchmen were shot in the real NYC, my beloved city might look as artificial and lame as it does in Enchanted.

I don't know about you, but I just couldn't see Warren Beatty playing Richard Nixon. Fortunately he won't be, but for some reason he was almost cast as the former U.S. President in Ron Howard's next project, Frost/Nixon. If you think it would have been a good idea, then maybe you should write up a script about the Nixon and Kennedy debates -- and if you get Beatty to play Tricky Dick, then maybe you can get Leonardo DiCaprio to play JFK.

Apparently now that Beatty is no longer in talks for Howard's film, which you may recall is based on the play by Peter Morgan, a more proper choice for the role is being considered. Frank Langella, who played the part on stage, is in negotiations to reprise his performance for the screen. The casting of Langella will certainly make more sense than the casting of Beatty, because the play's other star, Michael Sheen, has also been in talks to reprise his own role, as television interviewer David Frost.

Langella should have been considered from the beginning, but obviously he isn't a big enough star for Hollywood to think of right away, despite all the acclaim he received for his work in the play. So as payback, I hope the actor, who long, long ago was nominated for a Golden Globe for Most Promising Newcomer (he lost to James Earl Jones), not only gets the part, but also wins some awards for playing it. I'm surprised that Hollywood still continues to pass over great stage actors for more well-known names when a play is turned into a film. They should have learned 40 years ago with the whole Julie Andrews-My Fair Lady thing.

Do we need another Nixon film? Between Oliver Stone's Nixon and the fluffy satire Dick, we're pretty fulfilled as far as Tricky Dick portrayals go. But neither of those films showed Richard Nixon after his resignation from office. Perhaps because his last twenty years weren't that cinematic. At least one moment is dramatic enough for the stage, though; Peter Morgan's Frost/Nixon presents the story of a 1977 television interview with Nixon conducted by David Frost. Now Ron Howard is thinking that it could be adapted for the screen as his next project. The question would be whether or not he'd cast Frank Langella, who is currently playing the part of Nixon in the London stage production. Another concern might be that this film will seem too similar to Good Night, and Good Luck (which also featured Langella); though it won't have to be in black and white since the interview was conducted in color.

A few months ago, Mark mentioned that Howard is also considering directing the thriller The Changeling. My guess is that his decision will come down to which film has a better part for Tom Hanks -- unless he decides to cast Hanks in a part not suited for him (think The Da Vinci Code); I think it would be neat to see him play Nixon. And when I say "neat to see", I really mean "neat to make fun."