Monday, June 15, 2009

Dad/Nixon

My mom attempted to clear out her old bookcases a few years ago, and before she donated the books she tried to hawk them off on some of us. I went through the old titles with some welcome nostalgia, remembering my dad's tastes and interests with admiration (a lot about the history of economics, some about dealing with grief and tragedy, probably for people he had to help at church). The topic most thoroughly covered, though, was Richard Nixon. This made some sense: he was a closeted Nixon apologist, not because he didn't think Nixon was guilty of cover-up but because he felt that Nixon had always been treated with indignity. I recall learning about Watergate in Social Studies in fifth grade and asking him about it. He explained what it was with considerable honesty, and then reminded me that things are never so clear as they are in history books and that he remembered Nixon as an admirable thinker and strong leader.

This kind of attitude was characteristic of my dad. He was, of course, more conservative than I was and am, but he had a striking sympathy that occasionally surfaced in surprising ways, whether I was slandering someone from church or a historical figure. To his credit, I once asked him about JFK (after I had accused JFK of being a president that was overrated) and he explained to me that Kennedy had been an effective president, and perhaps underrated, and could have been one of the greats had his questionable moral character not gotten in the way. At any rate, Nixon was especially intriguing for my dad, and I assume it was because he had been painted as a stock character ("Tricky Dick") that did not quite do him justice.

I rented Frost/Nixon recently with this mind. I had heard, by some of my trusted sources, that the movie itself was worth seeing, and I watched an "American Experience" about Nixon on PBS last year that astonished me. I don't know as much about American History as I aspired to when I was younger, but I would venture to say that Nixon is perhaps the most fascinating public figure in 20th century America. That "American Experience" left me sleepless, thinking over and over about somebody that I couldn't possibly understand, a person who has been described as "Shakespearean" for so long that I actually think he has altered that adjective's contemporary definition. "Shakespearean" indeed: you could write one thousand books about him, and he would still be beyond comprehension, as most humans are, I suppose, if on a smaller scale.

Frost/Nixon attempted to capture this element of Nixon, and basically used the strategy of "let's get the most interesting actor working right now, and let him do the work." This, I would argue, is typical of director Ron Howard's work: sometimes the strategy succeeds and sometimes it fails--the movies themselves are never as interesting as the actors in them, but sometimes the actor obliges to Ron Howard's lesser ambitions. I might add that I am not a Ron Howard hater: I thought Apollo 13 and Cinderella Man were very good movies and I am always pleased with Howard's serious approach, even if it makes The Da Vinci Code into the most unimportant movie of the last 20 years, simply because Howard took it too seriously. Frost/Nixon is very good, though, and very entertaining. Frank Langhella's decisions are interesting to witness--he is an actor doing actorly work, the kind that you aspire to when you are a young actor, like I was when I was ripping it up in such fare as "Guys and Dolls" and "The Crucible." That doesn't necessarily mean it is a truly great performance, at least in the way that his performance in Starting Out in the Evening was, but you can learn a lot by watching his excellent actorly choices.

The point of the movie was to show this moment when Nixon is outfoxed and made to apologize for acts that he knew were wrong. I am not so sure it succeeded. Understanding my fondness for my own dad's Nixon apologetics, and putting that aside, I thought Nixon won. That is, Nixon the character. When he was onscreen, I watched, and sympathized, and felt something. This is all to the credit of Langhella's performance I guess. But then, after the movie was over, I watched excerpts from the real Frost-Nixons interviews, and I had a similar reaction. Not only was the real Richard Nixon's performance more subtle and intricate, it was also more powerful than both the real David Frost, the fake David Frost, and the fake Nixon. Now, considering my current politics are nothing like Richard Nixon's were, I find this fascination and sympathy surprising. But I think it has something to do with debates and my dad. Perhaps it is the side of me that was always afraid of a debate with my dad (he would invariably win), who was, like Nixon, an excellent debater and shrewd, articulate thinker, but it is even more the side that saw my dad after the debate. To explain: we would occasionally get into debates, political or historical or cultural, in the car on the way somewhere, and the debate might end before we got there. He would always win, and win by a considerable margin, but between the end of the debate and our destination, he would look thoughtful. Maybe he was going over the debate, maybe he was proud of his win, maybe he was proud of his son, or maybe he was even just thinking of beating the next red light, but whatever it was, he looked like he was thinking, reconsidering, all with a characteristic sympathy. I always viewed the debate afterthought look with awe, hopefully apprehending an unerring thoughtfulness and empathy. Most people end their debates with anger and disdain, but not Dad.

Frost/Nixon, I think, conveyed this sense of thoughtfulness in Nixon pretty well. I didn't feel that the movie did the same for the Frost character, or maybe I just didn't believe it. But I wonder if that is where the strange kinship between my dad and Nixon, two very different men in temperment and ambition, comes from: they both had a considered approach to issues, even as they spoke with such confidence and force. The post-debate wonder gave away more about them than anything else, and I reacted towards one with wide eyes and fascination and the other with deep love and admiration.

2 comments:

  1. You did the Crucible? Adam and Benjamin were just reciting one of my favorite scenes (Daniel Day-Lewis style) from that film for my mom (I watch and re-watch the "Because it is my NAME!" scene from the brilliant film on YouTube regularly for inspiration).

    Kieth Merrill once suggested we should have DDL play Joseph Smith in a movie. I think that would be interesting (though impossible). I could imagine quite a "SILENCE! Ye fiends of the infernal pit..!" scene that I could watch on YouTube over and over.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I liked acting in the Crucible much more than I like seeing it. I was Giles Corey, a bit part, but I got to play old and angry. I channeled Clint Eastwood and gave Giles a bit of "Man with No Name" vibe. Our high school director did the play as an allegory for accusations of homosexuality, which I thought was a bit weird considering that actual witchcraft seems to me negative no matter how you slice it, and homosexuality is something altogether different, often a matter of identity. Commies makes more sense. But our director had his own identity issues, I suspect, and so got to make his grand statement by dressing us up in neutral colors and giving it a melodramatic vibe. The play is a bit melodramatic anyway, which is often the Daniel Day-Lewis modus operandi.

    As for someone playing Joseph Smith, I would say anyone could play it besides the guys who have been cast already. I mean, Joseph Smith was not vacant around the eyes, was he? Everytime I have seen a church-picked actor do the part, he seems scary and robotic. Here is my criteria for casting a good Joseph Smith: do not look for handsome, look for presence. I don't care if the actor is blond, short, Guadalajaran, or pale, just as long as he has real presence, you know?

    ReplyDelete