This was a very depressing film. How could smug, shallow, rabbit-toothed David Frost even remotely resemble pretty-boy Martin Sheen? Did Richard 'Would-you-buy-a-used-car-from-this-man?' Nixon ever have gravitas?

No, but we have to remember this is based on a play, with a need for interesting, contrasty personalities. Too bad the originals were at pains to present epitomes of blandness.

It's depressing because it assumes the audience will accept these personas as approximating reality.

It's depressing because the way the plot reels out is like watching American wrestling with the good guy lying down to the count of 9 then suddenly making a spectacular recovery.

Most depressing of all, though, is to see issues with such shattering consequences reduced to a drama about two not very admirable men trying to score points off one another.

Sheila

I'm afraid there's no way I would watch it with those two actors. Martin Sheen looks like a demented chipmunk, and they should have got Anthony Hopkins to play Nixon - wasn't he in the stage play?
And anyway, why turn it into a movie when we've got the original tapes of Frost v's Nixon?


- NaomiM

Yes, I sometimes regret the turn-taking with my (similarly) film-addicted partner. I've been threatening him with 'Beverley Hills Chihuahua' and/or 'Rival Brides' since yesterday. In fact, the former looks quite amusing, so I might go myself on one of his bridge nights. Depends on what else is on.

A friend who takes politcs seriously agreed with your point about preferring to watch the original TV broadcasts.

I read the 'Time Out' review this morning. It said that the playwright, Peter Morgan, claimed he made the play so theatrical he doubted it could never ne made into a film. However, the reveiwer thinks he made a good job of it. Of the director, Ron Howard, the reviewer says his

'tactic of of treating the 1977 TV confrontation between David Frost ad Richard Nixon as a mano a mano sporting contest, with the underdg coming from to win through in the final round, gains in tension and excitement what it loses in the banality of its narrative template.'

To my mind,putting the emphasis on the clash of egos on the fringe of events just trivialises the whole thing. I don't mind tension and excitement to the fore with say, 'The Wrestler', but here the 'narrative template' seems not so much banal as glued on.

Sheila

but here the 'narrative template' seems not so much banal as glued on.

Lol, Sheila, great line.

I think the problem with the original TV broadcast, IS Frost's ego. I have no problem with the terrier mentality of getting the confession/apology from Nixon - it's what makes Paxman such fun to watch on Newsnight (although it is excruciating to watch if a lesser interviewer tries the same tactic). But Frost does have an enormous ego and it's not a nice thing to dwell upon.

Well, I'll rely on 'Revolutionary Road' to take the taste away this afternoon, althought the 'Time Out' reviewer isn't keen. it's more my kind of film.

Sheila

Sheila,

saw this and was very much looking forward to it. Night before saw "Milk". The two don't compare for me but that may be where I am in my life. Seann Penn was brilliant and I learned a lot from this film. I was (obviously) around in those days but not as a gay /homosexual man/woman. What he did was worth chroniclling (Sorry, can't spell the word!)

But re Frost/Nixon, like you say, when we have the tapes, why make a film? It was good, but, what is the lesson of Watergate? We are so cynical now, that the irony of this tale, that may have been a lesson to us when it was being written as a drama, is already old hat. But what Harvey Milk, did, well - that should be taught in history lessons in school. Plus Penn surpassed anyone I've seen on screen all year.

Revolutionary Road tomorrow.

Hey Sheila, should we do our own Oscars? We shouldn't base it on films just released in January though, which is a joke.

<Added>

"This" in the first line refers to Frost/Nixon not Revolutionary Road

Re: Oscars

I think the late Heath Ledger has prety much got Best Supporting Actor warped up - assuming they allow postumus awards?

And Kate Winslet for - is it Best Supporting Actress? Or is she up fo Best Actress too?

Definitely Sean Penn for Best Actor for Milk. Not seen Milk, but Penn is a superb actor at the top of his game.

Anyway, those are my predictions.

- NaomiM

<Added>

oops, for 'warped' see 'wrapped'.

Well, I thought DiCaprio outshone Kate in a very unsatisfying 'Revolutionary Road'. He looked and acted just right, I thought - a touch of the weak and pretty Gatsby-like appeal that suited the role. He looked just right in the clothes, too. She was just nothing like as good as in 'The Reader', despite the frocks. As for all the shouting, I could have stayed at home for that. What an odd film.

Yes, I have to agree that Sean Penn was utterly convincing. Then again, so was Mickey Rourke in 'The Wrestling'.

I see from the trails that Meryl Streep is coming up as a Mother Superior in 'Doubt', another film that looks from the trails as all shouting, opposite Hoffman. I think she could outdo Kate because of 'Mamma Mia'.

Sheila

tbh, I can't stand Kate Winslet. She seems one of those actors whose best work is a couple of decades off - maybe when she's in her 50-60's and starting to show her lines.

As for Mickey Rourke, what an amazing transformation from his early career with 9½ Weeks and (his best film a far a I'm concerned Angel Heart.
It's a biopic, I mean, he has lived that life and he was the right choice for the role. I still hope it's Penn.



- NaomiM