Cameron Meindl Professor Fulsom Watergate: A Constitutional Crisis October 17, 2013 Frost/Nixon Response Movies, as is their inherent

nature, are made to entertain. However, when a film based off of actual events is released, it is important to distinguish between its factual recreations and explicit use of creative license. In the 2008 film Frost/Nixon, director Ron Howard provides a portrayal of the historic interviews conducted between Richard Nixon and British television personality David Frost. While the film received widespread critical acclaim upon its release, its depiction of both Nixon and the facts surrounding the interview are worth investigating. Does Howard give Nixon a fair portrayal? Is he too sympathetic? Does he exaggerate historical truths? This paper looks to find answers to these questions. When addressing any movie focusing on Watergate, the first concern will inevitably be that films interpretation of Nixon. As portrayed by Frank Langella, Nixon is depicted as the complex individual he undeniably was. The film does a surprisingly admirable job of utilizing Nixon as a foil to its protagonist (Frost) while simultaneously humanizing him. Echoing the accounts and lectures we have heard over the course of the class, many of the characters in Frost look at Nixon as a political monster who tarnished the presidency and put Americans through two years of unnecessary anguish. Certainly, the film does not shy away from the conniving aspects of Nixons personality. Before nearly every interview session, Nixon does his best to throw off Frost, playing endless mind games and even

asking, Did you do any fornicating last night? seconds before taping. The movie also highlights Nixons penchant for money, as he passes up a more credible interview opportunity with Mike Wallace for the unprecedented $600,000 payment offered by the comparatively lightweight Frost. While the events of the film take place years removed from Watergate, other negative elements of Nixons personality are hinted at. During a briefing on Frosts personal life, Nixon is stunned to learn Frost was once engaged to actress Diahann Carroll. But shes African-American, right? says Nixon, shaking his head. This one throwaway line provides a short yet insightful glimpse at the hateful and sometimes racist tendencies of Nixon. Meanwhile, a running joke throughout the film also infers to Nixons homophobia. Following their first meeting, Nixon is taken aback by Frosts stylish Italian leather shoes: Those shoes What kind of man wears those? Theyre very effeminate. While Frost/Nixon does not withhold displaying the negative side of Nixon, the film also captures Nixons political and oral gifts when he initially overwhelms Frost as an opponent during the interviews. During early questions, Nixon is assertive, long-winded, and unapologetic. In other words, he is displayed as a master politician, perhaps to a flattering degree. When Nixon enters a room, the same characters that were cursing him minutes before become immediately awestruck and even charmed. Furthermore, even though Nixon admits in the film that small talk is a not a strength of mine, he seems to win over Frosts girlfriend, Caroline Cushing, with lighthearted recollections of his summit with Leonid Brezhnev. Is this an overly generous portrayal of Richard Nixon? The film begins with Nixon resigning from the presidency, arguably at his lowest moment. Without seeing the crimes

of Watergate depicted onscreen, it becomes easy to sympathize with the downtrodden Nixon right from the start of the movie. We then are immediately greeted with testimonials from Frosts researchers, who are perhaps Nixons harshest critics in the film. Within its five minutes, the film has effectively drawn Nixon as an outcast. Instead of Nixons neverending quest to be liked seeming needy and driven out of paranoia, Howard gives it a more sympathetic, human touch. If there are any remaining questions about the character of Nixon as depicted by Langella, the closing scene provides an answer. The final onscreen meeting between the titular characters takes place following the airing of the interviews, which have made Frost a star at the expense of Nixons already tattered reputation. Despite this, Nixon appears gracious in defeat, telling Frost he was a worthy adversary. He even accepts Frosts gift of Italian leather shoes, the same type he had ridiculed over the course of the film. Nixon seems genuinely moved by the gesture, and confides to Frost, You have no idea how lucky you are being able to go out to parties and enjoy them To have people celebrate you. At this point, Nixon is effectively transformed into a lead character from a Greek tragedy; rather than the hardened, cold politician we have come to know in class, Nixon here is a flawed yet remorseful human. Is this an accurate portrayal of the man who tarnished not only the reputation of the presidency, but also, for many people, the American political system? Like Nixon himself, the answer is probably more complex than we can imagine. Regardless, director Ron Howards decision to depict the character as such provides a more thought-provoking portrayal than a politically biased caricature ever could. While the films portrayal of Nixon is worth discussing, perhaps even more pressing of a question is the films faithfulness to the events as they actually happened. Howard has

admitted to the inclusion of some scenes for dramatic effect, but does this material have a place in an account of an actual event? When viewing Frost/Nixon, there is one scene that immediately stands out for its seeming improbability. The aforementioned scene takes place three days before the final taping session of the interviews, when Frost receives a late-night telephone call under the impression it is his girlfriend taking an order for cheeseburgers. Instead, Frost is shocked to hear a heavily inebriated Nixon on the other line. Nixon proceeds to deliver an impassioned rant, claiming hes only had one or two drinks Im not that bad. Yet as Nixon grows increasingly fiery, dropping multiple expletives along the way, it becomes clear to Frost and the viewers that this not the case. The scene does provide valuable insight to Nixon, however. Towards the end of his speech, Nixon declares, Were not so different, are we, Mr. Frost? The snobs they laughed at you, too? Thats our tragedy. No matter how high we climb, they look down on us Were going to make those motherfuckers choke! With this line, Nixon declares the stakes for the final interview. For both him and Frost, this interview is their last chance to attain the credibility they both crave so much. In Frosts case, it is an opportunity to show to the skeptical sponsors and condescending reporters that he can produce a hard-hitting piece of journalism. Meanwhile, Nixon looks to finally clear the air, and prove that his presidency was full of political triumphs, not the black spot on American history it had become painted as. Despite the passionate and emotional tone of the speech, when Frost finally asks Nixon about the phone call, he cannot recall ever having the discussion. Of course, it must be asked: did this exchange actually occur? Nixon biographer Jonathan Aitken writes, This phone call did not happen. Nixon's weird rant about his

personal motivations and social resentments, which purportedly gave Frost new clues to hidden secrets about the Watergate cover-up, is, from start to finish, an artistic invention by the scriptwriter Peter Morgan (Aitken). Howard makes no such claims otherwise, stating that it was a liberal use of creative license utilized to mark a turning point in Frosts progress and motivations in the interview process. Yet, Howard also defends the decision, maintaining that it was not an unfair portrayal of Nixon as a rambling alcoholic, but rather something more rooted in truth. According to Howard, It was known that Richard Nixon, during the Watergate scandal, had occasionally made midnight phone calls that he couldn't very well recall the following day (Frost). Most importantly, is the portrayal of the titular interviews an accurate depiction of how they actually occurred? In the film, Frost struggles in his first three interview sessions with Nixon, allowing the former president to ramble on without addressing pressing questions. When watching the actual interviews, Frost comes off as more competent than he does on film, but it is clear he was not quite in his element just yet. Throughout the early questions, Frost reclines back in his chair, never imposing an intimidating presence to Nixon. Rightly, the film captures Frosts real-life evolution as the interviews move on towards Watergate. In both the movie and actual interviews, Frost becomes more willing to engage with Nixon, and even leans forward to get in his face at points. While the film accurately captures these little details, it does tamper with the interview in significant ways. The most notable example is the famous dialogue between the two in which Nixon utters, When the president does it, that means its not illegal. In the film, this line comes after a heated exchange between the two over whether Nixon has any regrets about Watergate. In reality, the line was delivered in an off-the-cuff, matter-of-

fact tone. Much of the cinematic version follows this formula of turning the latter parts of the interview into a shouting match of sorts between Frost and Nixon, injecting heightened drama where it did not exist. In the movie, Frost eventually leads Nixon into admitting a role in the cover-up of Watergate, signifying a victory in his stressful battle to make the interviews a success. However, Nixons party has claimed that his admission of regret was not a result of masterful interrogation by Frost, but rather a calculated decision by Nixon and his aides. We all agreed that Nixon should voluntarily go further and express some regret this was an opportunity to say sorry for causing the national trauma of Watergate, said Nixon advisor Colonel Jack Brennan (Aitken). If this is to be believed, then it certainly robs the scene of some of its magnitude and triumph, once again making it seem that Nixon was the one in control in the interviews, not Frost. An Academy Award nominee for Best Picture, it is hard to deny Frost/Nixon as an entertaining piece of cinema. However, its portrayal of both Nixon and the titular interviews are not without their controversial aspects; certainly, there are complaints to be had from both pro-Nixon and anti-Nixon camps on the depiction of the ex-president. Regardless, the film stands as an informative, compelling recreation of one of the most important American political interviews ever given.

Works Cited Aitken, Jonathan. "Nixon v Frost: The True Story of What Really Happened When a British Journalist Bullied a TV Confession out of a Disgraced Ex-President."DailyMail.co.uk. Daily Mail, 23 Jan. 2009. Web. 15 Oct. 2013. <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1127039/Nixon-v-Frost-The-truestory-really-happened-British-journalist-bullied-TV-confession-disgraced-exPresident.html>.

Frost/Nixon. Dir. Ron Howard. Prod. Ron Howard, Brian Grazer, Tim Bevan, and Eric Fellner. By Peter Morgan. Perf. Frank Langella and Michael Sheen. Universal Pictures, 2008. DVD.