Perhaps this film, like Chazelle’s Obsession, showed some activity as a sport. But if Damian’s activity was driven, fast and physically exhausting, like basketball, music, then in the movie “Frost v. Nixon” it was rather a long chess game, requiring incredible mental effort and careful preparation.
This film is not about politics, of course. She is given very little time there to introduce the viewer to the course of things. That’s even more amazing how the filmmakers were able to make a whole story out of one interview.
Maybe I’ll change my mind later, but right after I saw it, I gave it an 8. The thing is that Frost’s confrontation with the president feels like a parable that begins with the victory of the antagonist and ends with his defeat. A typical story in which the opponent of the main character eventually repents in order to find at least some understanding of the reader / viewer. But unlike other similar competitions, we know what happened before and after. We know that both are doing their jobs without any specific claims against each other. They both talk at the end of the film. Their rivalry didn’t last the whole film, because there were moments when they communicated as people outside their professions.
What really makes this parable interesting? Yes, the fact that the path of transformation during his "journey" was largely not the protagonist, but his rival. It is Nixon who changes as a result of the film: from a man absolutely confident, fighting for his version with all truths and untruths, he turns into an ordinary grandfather, hunched, defenseless, but remorseful, who is glad that his former accuser visited him. All those masks and cardboard people who were close to Nixon seem to fall away towards the end, and we see only him on the beach looking at the shoes left as a gift by Frost.
The director told an interesting story about a man who in a few days went from a closed American elite to a man who was able to feel free, to whom nothing else is worth explaining. He said he was wrong to preserve his human form.
The first ever U.S. president to voluntarily resign amid a high-profile wiretapping scandal involving political opponents. He is defeated by his inglorious fall from Olympus and longs to return to the ranks, once again winning the confidence of the Americans.
British showman, once popular in America, but lost the way of success and thrown into the lower echelons. He's willing to put everything he's got to do an interview for his whole life. It will not only return him to his former glory, but will forever inscribe him in history as a great journalist, not a clown-entertainer, which he is considered by colleagues in the workshop.
This duel of minds will decide everything. One will be more cunning and quirky, will seize the initiative, tighten the noose around the opponent’s neck and strangle him with his victory speech. The other will not withstand the furious pressure, will give slack and quietly accept professional death, hiding in the margins of history. And even mutual respect will not play any role here, because there are no friends in war. Everything will determine the last close-up, in which one of the opponents will perform a cold sweat, marking defeat.
Witty, tense, flavored with strong acting work and a perfectly matched Hans Zimmer soundtrack. It's all Frost versus Nixon. And although the creators initially decided on the figures of the protagonist and antagonist, this does not prevent empathizing with both sides. The characters of the film are truly fascinating, inspiring and are the personification of people who are ready to fight through any difficulties to achieve their goals.
I did not expect anything from the film, but now with a clear conscience I give it a tenth.
After Oliver Stone's film about Nixon and Pacula's picture 'All the President's Men' I didn't think there was anything to do about Nixon. The subject of his presidency seemed to have been revealed. This was very interesting.
Most importantly, the film didn’t look like anything else Nixon had done before. This is not an inspired political investigation or a heavy biopic. Nope. This is a great movie about another time. This is a dynamic and vivid story about the meetings of a journalist with a famous person. This is a story about the fact that the image of a famous person may not play the best role with him - in fact, he is completely different. No better, no worse, different. And in every dialogue between Michael Sheen and Frank Langella, it becomes clear that Nixon was different.
So we have a film about how a journalist regularly tries to get a politician to refuse ' swim out for buoys' and abandon the usual cliché. This game of cat and mouse stretches throughout the film, and the viewer has to guess ' the true face' the hero of the interview.
I found this approach very interesting and worthy of attention. And it is the main advantage of this tape. Among others, there is no doubt a light style of storytelling and a fast pace, which is unusual for paintings about politics. Excellent camera work, costumes and makeup. Even the colors. All of these points distinguish the film from others.
The political picture, which is part of the history of the American people, is understandable only to them and plays on patriotism. Why would we watch this? Brilliant role execution, development and good presentation of information.
President Richard Nixon resigns, and his path from pedestal to bottom is enlightened in disgrace. There were errors in government, there were substantial civilian casualties and the Watergate scandal itself. Essentially, watching Frost/Nixon makes you dig into the story. Disclosure of spy wiretaps, release of classified documents and recordings of conversations with Democrats. It's a stain on the U.S. flag, but it's the one that has historically translated events into an artistic product. Do not throw phrases at me, saying that I should be “for myself and for Rashka” – all historical paintings leave new knowledge in your head. Therefore, Watergate ("Water Gate" because the complex is located between rivers) was a key element in the resignation of Nixon. About the scandal was released last year the film “Watergate”. The White House Collapse is a must-see. Although chronologically it is better to evaluate it first, and only then to take up interviews with David Frost and Richard Nixon.
Now we begin the battle between the opponents. Sami understands that when a president resigns after a crushing failure, journalists swore at him like flies on ... hot trails of shame. But Nixon hides from the paparazzi, does not leave his villa and assesses the scale of his actions. Frank Langella has become the 37th President of the United States. A glance at him gives the impression of an experienced strategist, an intelligent person who understands that he will go down in the history of the country as a leprosy, despite all the achievements.
At the same time, the hunt continues, and the former president is attacked by showman David Frost. The picture shows how to choose the lesser of two evils. Political bloodhounds, Nixon advisers and the ex-president himself understand that the people need to speak. But do as they see fit. Kill two birds with one stone at a time: get a reward, give answers to questions, and perhaps manage to stay on the political vein.
When a lot of money is paid for hours of interview, there is an information attack. This is a strong confrontation, driven by risk, but promises a big jackpot. Excellently shown the turmoil of preparation for the long-awaited event. Frost knows what the people want to hear, and Nixon knows it. If one needs to pull out the truth, the other should try to move away from it as much as possible. Not to lie, but to waste time. This great conversation, recorded live across the country, can only be pivotal in Richard Nixon’s career if the truth is heard.
Then comes the magic of words. Even meeting before an interview, signing a contract, and developing a list of questions can get you down. Nixon tries to confuse the opponent, so the conversation covers everything, except the interview. To hit and break a man before the battle. Of course, you pay attention to all the details, the president’s retinue did not just choose this inexperienced person, since he can be manipulated.
Time is running out! Nixon is stalling! Awareness of such actions of the hero causes emotions when watching. I didn’t think such a debate would be intriguing. Yuri Dud on a minimum can not approach the President, everyone counts on repentance, but receive an information flow, with lyrical branches and memories. A correctly posed question can hit an opponent, but Nixon is not a guy from the corner, not in a rap battle, he knows how to get out and take hours, thereby not answering the main questions.
A total of three visits are scheduled for two hours each. Therefore, after losing in the first round, strategies should be worked out. How do you get close to someone like that? The amount that went into the deal with Nixon was expensive, in addition to an empty pocket at home, Frost loses sponsors, his show around the country closes, and the necessary amount is not collected. Nobody believes in the success of this case, especially after a failed first round.
The picture makes you evaluate the actions of the assistants of both heroes. Frost’s team is not just rummaging through all the historical records, but also rehearsing, trying to predict the ex-president’s response. On the other hand, Nixon’s advisers come up with vivid elements of description, hyperbole, digression, but in moderation to both answer a direct question and add even more information.
It’s a great race to not be afraid of your opponent. Frost moves on to new ways of catching the truth. If in the first interview he failed, in the second he became more collected and ready to attack. It's a great performance when both sides of the support have their own traits that you shouldn't stand up for. To destroy publicly will not work, you just need to squeeze recognition before the people: on the other hand, you need to lower the upstart from television, so that his attempt to get to the truth was the most crushing in his career, the more he is already deprived of the means to exist. Nixon knows Frost is in trouble, so he tries to hurt him even more by raising the issue. Frost makes comments, does not react, but in the soul insults accumulate in a mental trauma.
What will the final, third round lead to? To Frost's collapse or Nixon's revelation? Movie-dialogue – lately, such began to come across often, as acting skills can be appreciated without any epic moments. The picture has a powerful musical accompaniment of Hans Zimmer, so the euphoria is maintained due to the soundtrack. Exciting and shocking. For gourmets!
Michael Sheen has transformed into Jack Frost. Such a vivid image of a smiling optimist who hides the pain of losing all assets behind a smile. Sheen reminded me of a young Jack Nicholson. Frank Langella for Richard Nixon was nominated for an Oscar, looked powerful on screen. Secondary roles were diluted by equally talented actors: Sam Rockwell, Kevin Bacon, Oliver Platt, Rebecca Hall and Toby Jones - yes, this is a balm for me. Such a sodium brightens the project, and most importantly, the presence of these people fully justifies itself.
The ends always justify the means. Especially if it's the media - that's the thought David Frost woke up with every morning. For a decade now, his British accent has sounded from American television speakers. On a deaf late evening, the average Yankee Republican slouched into the sagging soft chair of "LayZeBoy," opened a Budweiser tin and stared into the blue screen at David Frost's plastic smile. Shaking off a dirty checkered shirt the remnants of corn chips, the Yankees nodded focusedly, agreeing with Henry Kissinger's damn smart lines. The empty tin remained under the armchair, in the reach of the man's hands, to fly directly into the screen the next night, where Frost had a dialogue with this fucking insolent nigger Muhammad Ali. Frost's talk show ratings grew in proportion to fees, and David himself was his own among both Democrats and Republicans. Apparently, this was glory, if not for the damn only “but”: having moved from the BBC to the American information market, Frost retained his reputation as a clown host, babble, outrageous provocateur. The desire to go to the “upper league” of television journalism, to become one of the snobs swelled in the brains of David obsessive manic idea, which resulted in real madness: “fool” Frost decided to interview Richard Nixon - a cult political figure, holder of the unofficial title of "worst president in U.S. history."
It was their hours-long interview that later formed the basis of Ron Howard’s historical drama Frost vs. Nixon, based on the play of the same name by Peter Morgan. Produced by the same Howard, with a soundtrack from the consummate maestro Hans Zimmer and the camera work of the experienced Salvatore Totino, the tape takes us to 1977. Promoted by a million dollar fee, former President Nixon breaks his three-year silence and gives a private interview to David Frost, performed by the boundlessly charismatic Charlie Sheen. Frost appears before the viewer not just an outrageous fool who chases sensations. Yes, he is still ready to sell the devil a soul for a few percent of the TV rating, but gradually and gently, without abrupt cinematic transformations, the director reveals this character from the other side: David turns out to be a man complex and disappointed, ambitious and purposeful. It is this flammable wild mixture that leads to unpredictable consequences: Frost decides to detonate a real bomb with an incredible TNT-information equivalent. He takes the interview to the opposite plane, violates the terms of the contract, goes to va-bank and a sweet conversation, a kind of confession after a terrible disgrace, turns into a dynamic intellectual battle, as a result of which Nixon for the first and only time admits his guilt in the Watergate scandal associated with illegal wiretapping and political espionage.
Frost turns into a real monster of journalism, who is able to talk even such an unsurpassed intellectual as Nixon - even then old and broken, nostalgic for power, abandoned and betrayed by everyone. The director hints to the audience that, first of all, the journalist has the right not to ask questions, but to demand an answer. Howard projects this problem on Frost, who conducts titanic work, resorts to all possible methods of gathering information, gives away the last money, uses manipulation and blackmail. Unbeknownst to him, Frost gives his work all possible functionality: from ideology to recreation, he becomes a symbol of political, international, civic, tabloid and business journalism. For a moment, he forgets ethical standards and receives the remnants of a smile on the wrinkled face of Nixon, who bitterly admits his defeat and wrongness.
One can admire such a powerful desire to bring a dirty politician to light, but Davey’s motivation was very prosaic: his own ego, the desire to prove to everyone, and to himself in the first place, that he is capable of more. Frost took a risk, putting everything on “zero” and became a model of lightning-fast evolution: from an interesting interlocutor, a “yellow” idol of the Yankees, he became a cult figure in the American mass media space for a week, whose work will be inspired by more than one generation of promising journalists. Purpose justified the means.
A journalistic semi-documentary about the Truth, based on Richard Nixon’s famous interview with David Frost, where he pleaded guilty to many aspects of his activities, including Watergate. The case, in its own way, is unique. In our political system, this happens with every change of power, but in the United States it is nonsense (especially for the 70s).
It's a 7-ring movie. For more flattering epithets it somehow lacks. The dynamics are very tedious - you do not understand what pace he wants to take: sustained, with a bias in documentary, or more dramatic and expressive. A year before the film adaptation, a play was staged on this interview (with the same actors) and it was very successful in the States. I think Frost/Nixon is a case where the theater shouldn't have been put on the screen. After all, cinema is a different kind of expression of thought and the audience wants the appropriate presentation. And the viewer's opinion creators should take into account first of all. It's not about action and scale - it's just dry and very local. For the stage there is everything, for the set - not. In this tape, all that intimacy, static, a bunch of close-ups of characters, sometimes excessive gestures of actors, which is more usual to see during a theatrical performance. And although it is clear that Howard laid out as always, other film adaptations of real stories he came out much better – caused more emotions, for a long time cut into memory.
And paradoxically, it's theatricality -- the play of actors and the dialogue -- that pulls the whole movie. The discussion between the journalist and the president is really catchy. And of course, acting. This is the most exciting part of the film.
Michael Sheen, who played David Frost - charismatic, arrogant, sometimes arrogant, but purposeful journalist, perfectly coped with the role. In addition to the external similarity, it is clear that the actor very carefully worked out the small details in the behavior of Frost. It's interesting to watch, and you really empathize with it.
Frank Langella as Richard Nixon. Nominated for an Oscar, and a bunch of awards and nominations from other institutions and academies. A striking external similarity - both natural and thanks to makeup. Alas, I could not appreciate the voice - I watched in dubbing. I specifically found a real Nixon for a few performances and I can say that Langella played admirably. The magnetism and greatness that people with such power and such intelligence possess, he was able to convey.
Supporting roles are also very cool – bright, everywhere relevant characters with their own charm. Most of all liked Rockwell (he probably does not know how to play well in principle) and Bacon.
All in all, Frost v. Nixon is a decent film for the genre On real events, with an excellent selection of actors and their wonderful performance, with interesting, lively dialogue. But at the same time, pressing on documentary, the film passes in the dynamics of the narrative and only at the end makes you really worry. After all, Ron Howard’s vocation is to make films “for motives”, in this he is a genius unconditionally. That this is not his best work is a fact. But it’s probably worth watching, at least as an interesting documentary.
This picture can be viewed from two points of view: from a journalistic point of view and from a political point of view. I'm more interested in the first option.
Initially, Frost seems a standard and superficial handsome, for whom the rating is above all else. However, the relationship with the team shows a strong and charismatic leader. It is especially exciting to find sponsors for the broadcast.
Nixon seems like a giant that stands so firmly that it props up everything else. Even in spite of the scandal.
The confrontation of two persons, like a shield and a sword, permeates the whole film. I want to avoid the banal words about 'Follow your dream'. And the result of the film is a complete reincarnation of the characters - Nixon, who does not hide emotions, and Frost in the role of an intelligent and moderately persistent interviewer.
American history remains something for us ' a thing in itself'. We underestimate it, believing that we, who are in Europe and Asia, have a much larger history. However, there are episodes like Watergate that we have yet to go through.
Frost turned out to be a man - he had great respect for Nixon as a person. The choice between oblivion and rehabilitation is very difficult, but David found a way out. So the movie is worth watching.
“It is the purpose that gives life certainty and meaning.”
Richard Nixon, 37th President of the United States. The most controversial and scandalous. He is the only one in the country’s more than 200-year history who left the leadership post before the end of his term in good health.
In the mid-70s during the election campaign in the headquarters of the Democrats were detained people installing eavesdropping “bugs”, a grandiose scandal broke out. But even more resonance was received by the fact that all of them were directly related to the team Nixon.
The trial was short-lived. Under the threat of imminent exposure and possible impeachment, President Richard Nixon resigned. His successor, Ford, signed an amnesty to former Nixon. The people were dissatisfied with this outcome, he thirsted for blood. For Cambodia, Vietnam, amending laws and the Constitution. Nixon settled in California. I thought and hoped in a favorable situation to return to big politics.
Popular British showman and host David Frost, on the contrary, was on the rise. He was known not only in his homeland, but also in Australia and Europe. But he wanted more. A challenge, a new height to which I have not yet climbed.
The idea of a series of 4-part interviews with the former president suddenly received support. America was waiting for explanations, revelations. There was a benefit for each of the participants. Nixon needed rehabilitation, Frost wanted fame. There was a heated debate, a real battle of intellects, which could only have one winner.
The light of the ramp can only burn for one of us. And for the other, it will be a desert.
"Frost vs. Nixon" first of all takes powerful and charismatic main characters, who were brilliantly embodied on the screen Michael Sheen and Frank Langella, who have already played these characters on the Broadway scene, and Ron Howard, by the way, took up this project only under the condition that the studio will allow them to take the lead roles of these same actors.
I didn’t know Michael Sheen before this movie. He shocked me. His hero David Frost, who knows nothing about politics, is a controversial figure and at first does not cause sympathy, but by the end of the film he will reveal his inner potential, and this interview itself will make him grow up and teach him a lot.
Frank Langela no less diversely played on the screen of the most scandalous President of America Richard Nixon. In Ron Howard, we see Nixon, a man, a psychologist, an intellectual. And this is an unforgettable sight! Nixon performed by Frank Langella - a voluminous, majestic figure! You accept it instantly, unconditionally and unquestioningly.
Frank perfectly managed to show the traditional for the ex-leader of the nation confidence that the most important judge will help him - a time that, if not put everything in its place, then certainly will erase in the memory of Americans all the sins of their President. Later he will realize that for his actions and he will have to answer.
Directing does not cause serious complaints, it adheres to a very confident rhythm. Strong hand operator Salvatore Totino, equal as a metronome, the musical series of the composer Hans Zimmer, canceled the game of one Hollywood veteran and several younger professionals. Peter Morgan’s script was “born” from his own play, from where the chamberality characteristic of the theater migrated to it.
Howard and Morgan Nixon are not branded as criminals. In the bedrooms and offices of an extraordinary person, the camera enters with reverence and tact, and in the center of the narrative is again, first of all, a personal story told impartially, but not without a dose of irony. The irony is that for Nixon, Frost is first and foremost a reminder of him, Nixon, as he once was - young, ambitious and once caught luck.
He was able to show all the agony and despair of his life during that period. At the same time, Langela managed to bring to the image of his character incredible moral and intellectual strength, as well as a sense of compassion for Nixon as a person who found himself in the most difficult situation, which led to his own political mistakes and crimes. The moment of his “political death” is one of the strongest scenes that predetermined the success of the final impression of Howard’s painting. The viewer begins to empathize, and even sympathize with Nixon. The director and sought precisely this – that the viewer saw in Richard Nixon not a political criminal, whose actions questioned the freedoms and principles that are the basis of the American system of state and socio-political life, but a person.
Howard, like a master storyteller, built his film as close as possible in style to documentary film. An interesting technique that Ron Howard found for his picture was pseudo-documentary inserts, through which he showed the attitude of eyewitnesses and participants of those events to this interview.
Frost vs. Nixon is a masterfully filmed drama about the clash of characters of two bright personalities. Ron Howard successfully withstands the pace of the narrative and the central semantic thread of the picture. The real success can be called that part of the picture where there is a direct clash of David Frost and Richard Nixon during the interview of the latter. In these moments there is everything - and unexpected angles, and amazing plans, and dramatic tear.
P.S. “Frost v. Nixon” is a kind of historical chronicle, an artistic embodiment of the end of the political life of one of the most odious political figures of the twentieth century.
"I knew too much..."
Encouraged by the ratings of President Nixon's (Langella) farewell speech, entertainment host David Frost (Sheen) decides to interview an impeachment victim. While Frost and his bloodhounds (Platt, McFaden and Rockwell) carefully prepare uncomfortable questions, adventurous Nixon decides to use this conversation as a springboard for his new political career and accepts the fight of a radiant showman. The political mastodon wins the first few rounds: Vietnam, Cambodia, the USSR - but everyone knows that there is still talk about the ill-fated Watergate.
Screenwriter Peter Morgan is a master at turning dirty behind-the-scenes rumors into gripping political tragedies. With one stroke of the pen, he turns the ruler’s personality into a metaphorical tantamaresque, so that everyone can imagine himself in the place of this or that leader. For example, to feel what it is: to be the Queen of Great Britain, clutched by age-old traditions, a cruel African dictator with megalomania and peculiar ideas of morality or an American president who everyone hates in his country, but seems to have forgotten why.
Built on the canons of sports drama, the polished "Frost/Nixon" is above all an attempt to compile from excerpts of the former president's various real revelations one two-hour conversation with the Hollywood-style inevitable remorse of old Nixon. The culmination of the epic fail of a charming elderly gentleman falls on his phrase about the fact that “if the president does something, then his actions cannot be illegal” – and here the whole idea of this little performance is revealed: as a single phrase can ruin a successful interview in principle, so a small puncture with Watergate burglars can destroy a good presidential career.
Good movie. I love movies like that. Richard Nixon is a president who will be remembered, and of course the Watergate scandal is an important fact, but in fact it is the first and so far the only American president to be impeached. Many people will immediately say “this is the one that became famous for the scandal in the case of plumbers and massive corruption in the highest echelons of power”, and after all, he really achieved the result.
The film shows the character of Nixon that is inherent in him. He is cunning and quirky, intelligent and resourceful. And let someone say that this is not true, but the fact that this man was president of the United States of America for almost two terms says a lot. He's facing upstart. Frost, the host of the show in Australia, is a loser.
At first glance, Richard Nixon’s confidence is clear. I'll make a little remark here. The 37th President of the United States was a really literate politician and did not stand out from the crowd. In 1937 he graduated from Duke University Law School. His difficult childhood, then World War II, Congress, etc. He really understood and accounted for many of his decisions later on. And all this suggests that he was a good politician, tough and uncompromising, a true Republican! And his achievements in foreign policy, by the way, are not very much talked about, although they are weighty, because it was Henry Kissinger in his foreign office. But for some reason, Frost was immediately interested in questions about the Watergate scandal.
And if closer to the film, it was Nixon, actor Frank Langella played matchless. Everything is fine, and the manner of communication and the manner of behavior and teasing. Why am I talking about Richard Nixon? And I'll tell you, journalist Deved Frost didn't impress me at all, because his team was much better, they did all the work for him, they did everything. He is only the one who played the game, and his image, the soul component, is disgusting. Jack Brennan is great, he's loyal to Nixon, and despite the fact that many people think he's guilty, he's a Vietnam war hero, he's already decided everything. And by the way, actor Kevin Bacon perfectly played his role, entered into that image.
In short, for those who like political dramas or just Richard Nixon’s biographical pieces, watch this movie. And I advise you to see who has not seen the movie “Nixon”, but this is for a genre lover.
7 out of 10
It is worth saying that the film is good at least in that it can equally appeal to people interested in American politics and politics in general, and people who are neutral about this and are completely superficially aware of the events in the United States in those years. So, if you are not a political scientist, but you love an interesting movie with a beautiful acting, in which the main place is allocated for dialogue, then you should definitely pay attention to this film.
Now for the inside part. Since I’ve already mentioned acting, I’ll praise it first. Frank Langella, who failed, after all, to receive the main film award, nevertheless perfectly played the role of Richard Nixon. The main purpose of this role, in my opinion, was to evoke the sympathy of the viewer for a person whose attitude was not successful among Americans, and it is understandable. And, most importantly, it was quite successful – the character (if you can call a real person in the context of a biopic) evokes a sense of empathy. Also pleased Kevin Bacon, who shows in the film a male sense of loyalty, his hero unquestioningly and to the end supports his, so to speak, boss, despite the fact that he participated in the Vietnam War, the protractedness of which is accused Nixon. I cannot say bad about any of the actors, except that Rebecca Hall, and rather not even she, but her heroine, is present in the film in vain, only to fill the script with a female role. Her story does not develop in relation to either the main character or the plot as a whole.
The script of the film is well written. Without ten-minute deflections and deviations from the dynamics of the adaptation of the plot was not done, but it happens very rarely. Let’s not blame a good screenwriter Peter Morgan for this.
As a result, Ron Howard got a decent movie with a quality directorial production, a beautiful cast, the right script, an appropriate humorous note and, most importantly, simplicity for the viewer.
8 out of 10
As I recently discovered, Operation Argo was not a pioneer in a galaxy of vibrant political thrillers in the 1970s United States. I am sure that very few viewers are aware of the events described in the film. And this is not about a well-known interview, but about the political situation, the crisis of trust in the authorities. In this sense, the fact of working with real events, as well as, as it turns out, attention to detail, make the film informative and encouraging to study history.
The first advantage of the film, which I want to highlight from the initial minutes of viewing is an original and really interesting approach to the presentation of the story. We are introduced to the minor characters through recorded monologues presenting their comments on the historical events underlying the plot. Such interviews give what is happening on the screen a certain, albeit casual, but authenticity and help to reveal some characters from both sides at once. Interestingly, the viewer is not offered to categorically choose one or another side of the illuminated conflict of interest.
A certain intrigue to what is happening is achieved due to the lack of a clear division into “white” and “black”. Formally, Nixon appears as a negative hero in the format of a journalistic duel, but it all depends on the point of view. As the plot progresses, the first thoughtless impression changes, and the incriminating Frost no longer seems to be such a knight on the guard of public opinion. Unfortunately, the promised intellectual duel did not work out. Interest in what is happening is achieved largely due to the atmosphere of immersion in the described era, excellent acting, but the dialogues themselves, especially Frost and Nixon, look with interest, but without breathing.
With a solid duration of two hours, there are practically no openly boring scenes in the film, although it feels like timekeeping could be qualitatively reduced by twenty minutes. There are only a few truly holding the screen moments, one of which, as you can guess, is the culmination. Separately, it is worth noting the front of work on hairstyles, makeup and costumes. Although the creators of the project, apparently, did not set the task to bring the screen characters as close as possible to historical prototypes, while watching it, you do not think about it.
Context: Ambitious witty TV presenter David Frost seemingly successful and in demand - has a couple of TV shows in different parts of the world, but feels he can achieve something more than banal talk shows and TV entertainment. He becomes obsessed with the idea of creating a series of interviews with Richard Nixon – the disgraced former president of the United States, of course, this man was not chosen by chance – Frost intends to bring the politician to the clean and learn the truth about the famous Watergate scandal – an event that most Americans consider a disgrace to the nation and a serious blow to the carefully cultivated democracy. Nixon, in turn, is willing to cooperate – he is dejected that instead of running the country, he has to tell jokes at parties, so he is diligently preparing for a series of interviews with Frost with the hope that she will help him re-enter big politics. And when the recording comes, Frost realizes that perhaps his on-screen opponent is out of his reach. .
The main and, perhaps, the only miscalculation of the film - the creators have not figured out why they are making a film about the confrontation between Frost and Nixon - what is the idea of cinema, what is its morality? The film has excellent acting work, there is a script idea - to show behind the scenes not so political or TV in life, which is already so tired, namely to reduce everything to the confrontation of two people - Frost and Nixon.
David Frost is a very secretive and introverted person, despite his appearance and success. It is enough to see the shine in his eyes when he smiles at another person from whom he needs something to understand that this guy is not so simple, a kind of fox-scum. But he’s also a man of principle — an interview with Nixon for him is a chance to make history by getting a criminal president to confess.
Richard Nixon is a real shark. He immediately feels that these interviews may be a turning point in his career, and he does not regard Frost as an opponent at all, despite the outward cordiality with him. At first, Frost also underestimates his opponent when he meets with him to discuss legal matters, as Nixon makes a chic maneuver - pretending to be a harmless pensioner who made a mistake and became a victim of high position and great responsibility, and begins to talk nostalgically about his meetings with Khrushchev, Brezhnev. So Frost relaxes, doesn’t even give instructions to his team of journalists collecting dirt on Nixon, to work properly, thinking that it’s in his hat – ask a couple of direct questions, push where you need to, and here they are, the old man’s tears.
However, the time comes for recording and Nixon opens his real face - he turns all Frost's questions against him, seizes the initiative, makes an image of a man who has always worked for the good of America, for which he sometimes made decisions that are not entirely pleasant for most people, thereby proving that it was impossible otherwise. Here Frost realizes how miscalculated, underestimating Nixon, that the interview is a duel and the winner will come out only one.
When interviews begin in the film, the main claims to the film begin - these interviews are presented so flatly and superficially that all preparation for them before that seems unattached to them.
Nixon smacks Frost, doesn't give him a word to say, and yet he's so sure you start to believe him -- that's what a real politician means! It happens once, second, third. and only at the end, gathered, Frost was able to defeat the enemy - but how! In the film, this moment is given criminally little time, the feeling that Frost all previous interviews deliberately kept silent, and then said a few words: “so you still did not do well here and here this and here, but here’s the evidence” – and that’s all, Nixon is defeated. I found this moment very tense.
Returning to the morality of the film, it turned out that it boiled down to the fact that you will not escape from crime, the reproaches of conscience will still overtake you. It seems to be true, but the thought is not original at all, and combined with such realization leaves a sad impression.
After all, Nixon is a mountain, a masterfully played character, defeated once, but finding the strength to go further, he could achieve his goal. But it is not clear what stopped him - if conscience tormented him, it is not clear why it could not torture him earlier, when he committed major state crimes? Why didn't she stop him from planning a return to politics?
I do not leave the feeling that we will never know the true events of the Watergate scandal and the resignation of Nixon – political life is carefully filtered and ordinary people get only what, in the opinion of people from above, ordinary people should know.
Therefore, the events of the film look somewhat far-fetched - the criminal receives retribution.
Of the other comments, it’s unclear why Frost assembled the team at all, if their ideas were largely ignored until the fourth interview. Also, most good actors were not allowed to reveal themselves fully, as the focus is on the leading couple. Nixon and almost all the other characters are pretty cardboard. A little annoying inserts of “real interviews” with the characters of the film, made in the spirit of television documentary – they play a bad role, as they add extra pathos, and do not contain truly valuable thoughts.
The film nevertheless deserves a rather positive assessment - there are excellent acting works: Michael Sheen - his Frost certainly wins very unconvincingly, but all his anguish about lack of funds / telephone conversation with Nixon before the last interview, after which Frost, like a student the day before the exam, begins to learn the background of the former president, all this looks very cool. Nixon, played by Frank Langella, is a very powerful character, his deep voice often puts him into an almost hypnotic state (it is believed that people listening to the Kennedy-Nixon radio debate voted for Nixon because of the persuasiveness of his voice).
And of course, many of the shortcomings of the film atone for the very final scenes, when in the eyes of Nixon, after his defeat, all the fatigue, all the mute despair, all the shame of his situation, he seems to age another 10 years. He realizes that this war is finally lost and leaves. It is truly depressing to see the fall of such a strong personality.