Tuesday, May 5, 2009

The sweet political science

After months of waiting, I finally got to see the one Oscar film I had the most interest in; Frost/Nixon. And after weeks of watching underwhelming Oscar films, I've now seen one that was worthy of the praise and acclaim it received.

Based on the play by the same name, Frost/Nixon examines the multi-part interview British TV personality David Frost had with Richard Nixon after his resignation. Unlike Doubt, which felt like a slightly more elaborate version of the stage performance, this film takes a play and gives it a true cinematic film. While the story may be narrow in scope, director Ron Howard does a great job of fully fleshing out the characters and everything around them as they prepare for this interview.

Helping the cause is having the original stage actors, Michael Sheen and Frank Langella reprise their roles as Frost and Nixon respectively in the film version. Both men are just tremendous at capturing who these men were. Langella doesn't necessarily look exactly like Nixon, but is able to still embody this complex man in his performance. While not as flashy, Sheen's take on Frost is equally worthy of praise. He provides us with a look into the nuances of Frost, which reveal a more complex person than you may assume. By now, both of these actors are very familiar with these people they portray and it shows.

Not surprisingly, I liked this film more for what it revealed to us about the media rather than its political statement. Both staunch republicans and democrats will be interested to see how the most controversial president of recent time is portrayed, but that wasn't of great importance to me. I wasn't alive during that time, so I don't have a real vested interest in that. However, seeing the way both men prepared for this interview was extremely fascinating to me. These men don't just prep for this interview in order to get their agenda across; they specifically examine each other in an attempt to stay one step ahead of the other.

There's one specific mention by a character in the film where he likened the interview to a boxing match. This is apropos because there are several other allusions to this throughout the film, which I just thought were excellent. It truly becomes a fight between these two and in order to win they can't just go out there firing punches. It becomes a cat and mouse game to see who can corner the other in order to make that knockout blow. Even though you may know the outcome, the film does a tremendous job of making you become invested in seeing how it all plays out.

One recommendation I would make however is that you should see this movie before watching the actual interview. While the script does an amazing job of boiling down everything that they covered into this two hour movie, this is not a true reenactment. The film naturally makes certain parts more dramatic than they appear to be in the actual interview. If you watch the interview first, you may have a more difficult time appreciating the film. Do watch the interview afterwards though if you can because it is rather remarkable how this interview went down.

As much as I love this film, I can understand why it didn't win best picture. The film is very much a snapshot of one particular point in American history. This story is not grand in nature, which is something that the Academy tends to reward. I'm ok with that though because I wouldn't have wanted this film to attempt to be any broader than what it was. Sure, I would have loved for there to be an additional hour of material, there's certainly enough there to do it. But that may have been overkill. So as it is, this is just a tremendous film that has great acting and an interesting subject matter. It's tough to write reviews for good films because you feel like you're just repeating yourself over and over again. So simply put, go check out this movie, you won't be disappointed. Grade: A

No comments: