NIXON
A film review by Mark R. Leeper
Copyright 1995 Mark R. Leeper
Capsule: A long, dark, bleak, often
bewildering biography of one of this century's most
controversial figures mixes large doses of fact and
speculation. Sometimes it is insightful, sometimes
it is not very credible, and occasionally it even
becomes muddled and incoherent. It falls well
short of the great film everybody was hoping for
but, it has some very good points. Rating: high +1
(-4 to +4)
Some critics complained earlier this year when THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT portrayed some Republicans as sitting in dark rooms hatching dark conspiracies. That film was mild compared to Oliver Stone's cold expressionist painting of America's most controversial President. NIXON is the bleak story of a man who had a harsh, unpleasant childhood. He parlayed that experience into life of power and pain only to be brought down and destroyed by the powers he unleashed. NIXON is a look inside the head of Richard Nixon that comes up with no revelations beyond that it was a dark and scary place haunted by images of his youth, a place as frightful for Nixon as it was for anybody else.
The film begins with a sales training film that may or may not present Nixon's philosophy of dealing with people. It is being watched by the Plumbers on their way to Watergate. The scene makes no earthly sense in saying that these people would be watching this particular film at just this instant of time. But it is the sort of artistic liberty that Oliver Stone takes in NIXON. From there the film jumps to points all over Nixon's life, flashing back in time for a few scenes only to flash forward again and then to jump to some third point. We see Nixon's stern Quaker upbringing and his love/fear relationship with a mother who had a power over him all his life. Flash forward and we see the deals he is making as a President after the Watergate story broke. Flash back and he is making other deals with J. Edgar Hoover or with shady businessmen in Texas who seem to know before the assassination that Kennedy will not be running for office in 1964. Yes, this is an Oliver Stone film and secret deals and conspiracies are salted into the plot. In Stone's view, Nixon was a man who repeatedly conspired with others and who saw conspiracies against him and betrayals nearly everywhere. He is a natural subject for an Oliver Stone film.
Under Stone's direction Sir Anthony Hopkins plays Nixon as a stern vengeful man who must always assign blame for every misfortune, sometimes bizarrely inappropriately. Nixon is a man who remembers every slight that he has ever received or imagined. The 190 minutes spent in Nixon's world is more than enough time. Or more accurately, it is far too much and yet not enough. It is too much because of the personality Stone gives Nixon is so sullen and unpleasant to be around. And it not enough because the narrative is strangely out of kilter. It seems to assume the viewer already knows much of Nixon's history. The film spends an hour on Nixon's involvement with Watergate but not enough to explain coherently the Watergate scandal to someone who does not already know it. Stone assumes the viewer knows the facts and instead gives us a sequence that could be called "Famous Scenes from the Watergate Affair." I pity the foreign audiences who will try to understand Watergate from what Oliver Stone tells them about it. And on top of that, Stone handily sidesteps the question of whether Nixon knew in advance of the break-in. In another odd sequence the film has Mao and Nixon admitting to each other that they are tyrants. Even if the thought crossed Mao's mind, he would hardly tell Nixon. Stone's idea of what heads of state say to each other in private is almost surreal.
Some of the characterizations of the people around Nixon will be equally controversial. Haldeman and Ehrlichman are played by perennial screen slimeballs James Woods and J. T. Walsh. While Haldeman is as slimey as any of Woods's characters, Ehrlichman comes off as surprisingly troubled by Nixon's actions. Pat Nixon (played by Joan Allen) is elevated to almost heroic stature, torn between love and loyalty on one hand and moderation and conscience on the other.
The Hollywood Pictures production is a prestige film and has a superior cast of actors led by Anthony Hopkins but including Powers Booth, Ed Harris, Bob Hoskins, E. G. Marshall, David Paymer, Paul Sorvino, and Mary Steenburgen. Hopkins is, of course, a terrific actor, but his Richard M. Nixon is one of his worst performances in recent memory. He neither looks nor sounds much like Nixon, but worse yet he exaggerates Nixon's slight slouch giving him a round-shouldered hunched look. Making matters worse the make-up artist has given him a much more serious case of five o'clock shadow than the original ever had.
While Stone was bending reality he threw in more than this film's share of surreal and experimental scenes including sequences that were highly under-cranked to show cars or clouds zipping by or shots printed in negative. Rarely do these convey much to the film but a touch of pretentiousness. Certainly in an epic film of this length a few of these strange effects should have been cut.
On the other hand it is hard to rate NIXON too low as a historical film that tries to analyze a figure as complex--not to say pivotal--as Richard M. Nixon. This is not a film that reaches for easy and pat answers, even if it does at times seem overly harsh on the man. It covers a broad swath of history and presents it in a way that does not underestimate its audience. Like Nixon the man, NIXON the film has major problems and major virtues. I give the film on balance a high +1 on the -4 to +4 scale, still a rather tepid rating for so lavish a production.
Mark R. Leeper
mark.leeper@att.com
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews