Frost/Nixon came out roughly two months ago, but it’s taken me this long to see it. It wasn’t for a lack of trying; Frost/Nixon was a limited release and not shown in any theatres within an hour of me. I managed to catch a viewing recently, and even that was an awkward affair.
I haven’t written a review on Servusamanu since November. I’ve had plenty of material, but I wanted to concentrate on articles directly relating to writing. Reviews just don’t fall into that category.
Frost/Nixon deserves the award, partially out of good timing. I got into a mood to do something a little bit different from my recent string of story submissions. It also happens to be an example of what movies aren’t very often these days: dialogue based.
Theatre, and Frost/Nixon began life as a play, has always revolved around dialogue. I suppose a few especially daring plays might use stunt men for every performance and there are hundreds of singing/dancing shows, but the standard dramatic play doesn’t have many tools outside of dialogue to work with.
Movies, of course, seem to be driven more by CGI technology and stunt work than by the simple premise that ‘the emotional interaction between people is the height of drama.’ Frost/Nixon manages to do this especially well.
The name refers to was a series of interviews between David Frost and Richard Nixon in 1977. In the final dramatic interview Nixon admitted, however reluctantly, a degree of culpability and regret for the Watergate scandal. It was an important interview and certainly an interesting one, but historically speaking it would hardly be counted as one of the great events in history. It didn’t change the world of broadcasting, it didn’t sink Nixon’s reputation any lower than it already was, David Frost, while respected and famous, did not take over the world. It was momentous, but only a little bit so.
Not so, in the movie. It could be the single most important event in the 20th century for all anyone knows. The movie could have failed very easily in that regard. They could have hyped it too much and made it a farce or left it alone and bored the reader. However, I bought it. I bought into the premise and enjoyed the next two hours. The movies takes the form of scenes of event taking place, with ‘interviews’ spliced in giving commentary to the events taking place. This format lends authority and consequence. The fact that the characters care, even in the interviews they are giving an unknown number of years later, makes the history important.
A number of critics have taken umbrage at the importance given to these events in the movie, but…it’s fiction. I felt drawn in and it had nothing to do with fireworks or love scenes or car chases. The dialogue was used effectively to set up background, taken the viewer through the event, and, most importantly, make the consequences important. They used dialogue to its fullest capacity and it worked brilliantly. (It didn’t hurt that Frank Langella, and the other actors as well, are all top-notch.) For an example of how this same attempt can be done poorly, see ‘Bobby’. That movie uses a similar style, but despite the fact that movie’s central event was genuinely important (The assassination of Robert Kennedy), I found myself not especially caring about any of the characters.
I haven’t kept up on the DVD release of anything, but if anyone cares to see Frost/Nixon it should be out on DVD soon, if it isn’t already. Sadly, the original theatre run has already ended.
