I have always been extremely interested in the life of Richard Nixon, and, because I also enjoy Oliver Stone's work, I was very much looking forward to seeing his take on the 37th president.
Like "JFK," "Nixon" is a film that is long but never boring, always intriguing, and one that shows sides of people (particularly Pat Nixon) and events that for most of us have always been shrouded in mystery. (Nixon's strange upbringing is especially well-presented by Stone, even if it probably lacks some historical authority.)
Nevertheless, I cannot recommend "Nixon," mostly because the characterization of the President seemed to me to ring just a bit untrue. Much has been said about how Anthony Hopkins so skillfully portrayed Nixon as a deeply insecure man plagued by his own personal demons. This he surely was. He was also a man with not-terribly well-developed people skills, and was no stranger to occasional public humiliation.
But Hopkins's Nixon seemed so *constantly* nervous, jerky, sweaty, and generally terrified of everything around him that I could not imagine such a man gaining support from people who had actually had contact with him. As I watched scene after scene of Nixon interacting with people, I wondered whether, after he had left a room, the other characters considered sending for the paramedics to help the poor, unbalanced, and dangerously hypertense man who had just left their midst.
The real Nixon, one must remember, was well-versed in public debate and was the veteran of many a political campaign. Yes, there was the blatant hollowness of Checkers. Yes, there was the deeply embarrassing press conference of 1962. But if you see, for instance, his "comeback" appearance on the Jack Paar Show, you see a cool, confident Nixon, one who seemed ready to take on any challenge. He was also not so completely unappealing publicly that he could not gain over 49 percent of the vote in 1960. Moreover, his real-life aides were extremely loyal to him, mostly because they believed in him strongly, though in the film they nearly always seem to think they are in the presence of a ticking time bomb.
I suppose it would have been better to see a more well-rounded view of Nixon, both the deeply disturbed and paranoid fellow who pushed people and success away with equal energy, and the occasionally well-spoken, cleverly sinister Nixon with the big grin. The end of the first half does show a rousing speech given by Nixon at the 68 convention, but by that time, I think, the damage has already been done, and the point continues to be hammered in the second half.
No, I don`t think Stone could have made Nixon likeable, but he, and Hopkins, did make him into a frightening caricature rather than a frightening man.
Like "JFK," "Nixon" is a film that is long but never boring, always intriguing, and one that shows sides of people (particularly Pat Nixon) and events that for most of us have always been shrouded in mystery. (Nixon's strange upbringing is especially well-presented by Stone, even if it probably lacks some historical authority.)
Nevertheless, I cannot recommend "Nixon," mostly because the characterization of the President seemed to me to ring just a bit untrue. Much has been said about how Anthony Hopkins so skillfully portrayed Nixon as a deeply insecure man plagued by his own personal demons. This he surely was. He was also a man with not-terribly well-developed people skills, and was no stranger to occasional public humiliation.
But Hopkins's Nixon seemed so *constantly* nervous, jerky, sweaty, and generally terrified of everything around him that I could not imagine such a man gaining support from people who had actually had contact with him. As I watched scene after scene of Nixon interacting with people, I wondered whether, after he had left a room, the other characters considered sending for the paramedics to help the poor, unbalanced, and dangerously hypertense man who had just left their midst.
The real Nixon, one must remember, was well-versed in public debate and was the veteran of many a political campaign. Yes, there was the blatant hollowness of Checkers. Yes, there was the deeply embarrassing press conference of 1962. But if you see, for instance, his "comeback" appearance on the Jack Paar Show, you see a cool, confident Nixon, one who seemed ready to take on any challenge. He was also not so completely unappealing publicly that he could not gain over 49 percent of the vote in 1960. Moreover, his real-life aides were extremely loyal to him, mostly because they believed in him strongly, though in the film they nearly always seem to think they are in the presence of a ticking time bomb.
I suppose it would have been better to see a more well-rounded view of Nixon, both the deeply disturbed and paranoid fellow who pushed people and success away with equal energy, and the occasionally well-spoken, cleverly sinister Nixon with the big grin. The end of the first half does show a rousing speech given by Nixon at the 68 convention, but by that time, I think, the damage has already been done, and the point continues to be hammered in the second half.
No, I don`t think Stone could have made Nixon likeable, but he, and Hopkins, did make him into a frightening caricature rather than a frightening man.