MovieChat Forums > Frost/Nixon (2009) Discussion > acting is great but this story is comple...

acting is great but this story is complete *beep*


1. As documented elsewhere on the web, a lot of the details of this thing are flat out wrong. Nixon was not 'tricked' and there wasn't a big showdown Rocky moment. It's all added to give the film a narrative and 'stakes'.

2. David Frost would later go on to do such "investigative" and "hard hitting" journalism as when he did fawning, boot licking interviews of that bastion of good politics, Muamar Gaddafi. Nobody knows how much David Frost got payed to do it, but I don't think he had a satisfied, triumphant, libertine smirk on his face as he accepted the massive bags of cash it would take him to avoid asking a mass murdering torturer why he did it.

3. And as for mass murdering torturers, lets go back to Nixon again. What is David Frosts big "blango" question? It's about *beep* watergate? Nixon ran a secret war in Cambodia, which many would argue helped set the chaotic power vacuum that the Khmer Rouge later stepped into, committing mass genocide. Nixon oversaw the Vietnam War for, lets see, 1968 to 1975. He also was Vice President under Eisenhower when we overthrew the ****** government of Iran. Nixon was also there during the Red Scare, helping out the Inquisitors while they did their dirty work against the various innocent people banned and banished during that time. Nixon went through election after election after election.

Do you really think Nixon gives two *beep* about some reporter bitching about Watergate? Yes, he got impeached. He also gave orders resulting in the death of tens of thousands. Which bad actions of Nixon did "Iconoclast" Frost choose to "go after"? Some flub ups in a meeting or something. A silly little burglary and a silly little cover up.

How much stuff do you think Nixon and J Edgar Hoover really covered up? Stuff that actually, you know, mattered?

If you have heard of MK ULTRA, or the CIAs various domestic spying programs, or the NSA? a lot of that was happening under Nixon. FBI bugging civil rights people? Under Nixon. Come on people. Wake up.

This movie is not about resistance to authority. It's authority co-opting yet another form of supposed counter-balance - the media. David Frost, in his Gadaffi debacle, proved himself to be one of the least principled, most corruptible journalists out there. But this movie makes him seem like some kind of hero.

Who were real journalistic heroes? The people who were actually reporting on Watergate, on Vietnam, on Cambodia, not someone who pounces in years after the fact and tries to kick an old man while he is down. It's pathetic.


---

Other than the gross lack of relationship to anything remotely resembling reality, the movie is great. It's a great story, great acting, great dialog, great camera work, great costumes, great shot composition, etc.

The problem is that its almost completely fiction. Not just in the letter of history, but in the whole meaning and point.


reply

Hmmm! I think Nixon did care about Watergate as he is a) best known for it and b) it triggered his downfall!

"not someone who pounces in years after the fact and tries to kick an old man while he is down."

Like you're doing with David Frost now you mean?

reply

It appears that the OP was posted on 28th August 2013, while David Frost was still alive and making regular public appearances. Frost then died suddenly on 31st August 2013. So it's not really quite right to say that the OP was kicking him while he was down.

On the other hand, Frost paid at least $600,000 to Nixon for the privilege of conducting the interviews. So if there was any "kicking" involved, well… Frost paid handsomely for the right to do so.

reply

I know Frost was still alive when that earlier message was posted. But the poster was attacking Frost for attacking an old man. Frost himself was an old man by the time of the post (about the same age as Nixon was at the time of the interviews in fact). So by attacking Frost so viciously, he could be accused of doing the same thing!
THAT was my point...

reply

Ah-so, and point taken

reply

Frost/Nixon tried to frame itself as the journalist having a victory over Nixon, when in actuality Nixon was always a step ahead. Nixon let Frost "win" on Watergate to help rehabilitate his image.

- Cart

reply

I think the point about the film was that Frost WASN'T a journalist. he was a presenter really and a man who did lightweight chat shows. However, this light weight managed to get a confession out of a man whom many top journalists couldn't. And he put his money where his mouth was.

reply

David Frost was more of a credible journalist than this film credits him as being. He'd already interviewed Nixon once, when Frost was writing his book about the 1968 presidential race, for which he interviewed all the important candidates in both parties. Gonna have to read that one sooner or later.

"I don't deduce, I observe."

reply

Frost's agreement to accept £57,000 in exchange for some media-puffery on behalf of "Colonel" Gaddafi certainly does show him in a weaselly, unflattering light. But that was 30 years after the events described in Frost/Nixon and I don't blame Ron Howard for leaving that out of the story.

When the interviews took place and were initially telecast in 1977, the public interest (in the US and the UK) in hearing Nixon's side of "Watergate" related matters was infinitely greater than in hearing his side of Vietnam/Cambodia related matters. So again, it is understandable that Ron Howard chose to focus on that.

I agree with the OP that that the movie's big "confession" or "confrontation" was hyped almost beyond recognition compared to the reality of what Frodt and Nixon actually said.

reply

And yet all those bits come directly from the actual interviews. So no.

reply