Lies, Damn Lies and Dramatizations: ‘Frost/Nixon’
by Geoff Shepard
Introduction:
In a sense, son-in-law Edward Cox was mistaken when he told President Nixon shortly before his 1974 resignation that doing so would not stop the onslaught.
You don’t know these people. I know them. Let me tell you something about them. I worked in the US Attorney’s Office in New York. And I went to school with some of these people. They’re tough. They’re smart. But, most of all, they hate you with a passion. Most because of the war, and some because of other reasons. And they and others like them, and the press, they’re going to hound you. They’re going to harass you for the rest of your life.
Nixon died in 1994, almost fifteen years ago, but even his death did not stop the onslaught from those radicalized by their opposition to the Vietnam War… The “Frost/Nixon” movie is the latest ad hominem attack.
Being the only President to have resigned, there is a gracious plenty of wrongdoing involved in Watergate that could still be explored—but the misrepresentations and sheer inventions from Producer Ron Howard, Playwright Peter Morgan and Consultant James Reston, Jr. reach a new low in political revisionism.
I call them ‘lies, damn lies, and dramatizations,’ but they raise the essential question of how much the truth can be shaved in film making without becoming outright propaganda.
Given Hollywood’s lingering hatred of Richard Nixon, such questions seem irrelevant—and it should come as no surprise that that “Frost/Nixon” has been nominated for five Academy Awards: Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Film Editing.
Background:
The movie is a dramatization about the taping of almost thirty hours of interviews done by British TV host David Frost with former President Richard Nixon, with the help of Frost’s two researchers, Bob Zelnick and James Reston, Jr. The edited version—four ninety minute segments–was broadcast in 1977 to great critical acclaim and drew the then-largest worldwide audience for a news interview—with an estimated forty-six million viewers in America alone.
The movie’s difficulty is that from Nixon’s furtive glance after giving the victory sign as he boarded the helicopter on the day of his resignation to the vignette about the Gucci loafers, its most dramatic moments bear little resemblance to what actually happened during the interviews themselves. How can we know this for sure? For those caring to look, there are three primary sources—all prepared by Frost or one of his researchers.
First, a DVD exists of the actual broadcasts, issued in Great Britain with an afterword by Sir David Frost. While readily available, apparently none of the movie’s reviewers saw fit to view the actual broadcast, since they show that time and again the movie version alters, omits or improperly edits what was actually said by Nixon and by Frost.
Second, there Frost’s own book, published in 1978 and entitled, “I Gave Them a Sword”: Behind the Scenes of the Nixon Interviews. As the inside scoop on ‘the story behind the story’, at least from Frost’s point of view, anything of significance not actually contained in the taped interviews themselves would surely have been mentioned in his 320 page book.
Finally, there is the 181 page booklet by James Reston, Jr. that was published in 2007. Entitled, “The Conviction of Richard Nixon, The Untold Story of the Frost/Nixon Interviews,” it attempts—albeit some thirty years later—a rather audacious historical re-write designed to show how he (and he alone) brought Nixon down by discovering an unknown tape recording whose last minute use by Frost was not only the ‘gotcha moment’ in the interviews, but proves Nixon was at the center of the Watergate cover-up.
The booklet was hardly a critical success—and Reston’s claim so patently absurd as to be dismissed entirely– but for one reader: Peter Morgan, who based his stage play on Reston’s version of events. Reston—and not Frost—also is the one on whom Ron Howard relied for any historic accuracy in the movie. As we shall see, their reliance was entirely misplaced.
While the movie fairly portrays the Frost team’s extensive preparations and his two researchers’ massive disappointment in Frost’s seeming inability to nail Nixon on either foreign or domestic initiatives of his presidency, its portrayal of Nixon’s actions and statements is patently fraudulent.
Fortunately, while awaiting announcement of the Academy Awards, we can review what was actually filmed or written by the very people on Frost’s team that appear in the movie—and contrast that to the movie’s version of events. This is not a situation of being faced with competing claims from Nixon supporters; it is an exercise in comparing what Frost said happened then—and what people have been filmed as saying in the movie.
Specifics:
At least three participants are unfairly maligned in “Frost/Nixon”: David Frost, who is portrayed as a washed up, witless dandy; Jack Brennan, Nixon’s aide-de-camp, who is cast the heavyweight protecting Nixon from himself; and former President Nixon, who is portrayed by Frank Langella as doing and saying things Nixon simply did not do or say.
Let us begin with a simple example: The movie would have us believe that David Frost picked up Caroline Cushing on his flight to California by offering to include her in his first meeting with Nixon, scheduled for the very next day. In his book, Frost carefully details that first meeting, naming all participants–without any mention of Cushing. Yet he does mention her appearance and participation in several other events. A harmless dramatization? A little white lie just to show where Frost’s interests really lay? Perhaps, but factually incorrect and a substantial disservice to both Frost and Cushing.
Another dramatization has to do with the Gucci loafers worn by Frost and commented upon by Nixon. The movie ends with Frost giving Nixon a pair as a gift—apparently oblivious to the fact that Nixon disdained them as effeminate. Isn’t it intriguing that this little vignette—which provides such clear insight into the personalities of both Nixon and Frost–is nowhere mentioned in Frost’s own book? Oh, it could have happened—but it didn’t. The Gucci loafer scenes are a complete and knowing fabrication.
Aside from such dramatizations, there are far more serious breaches of historic accuracy, including:
• Interview Payment: Frost not only paid Nixon $600,000 for the interviews (as claimed), he also promised him twenty percent of the profits—an omitted fact that shows the project was more of a joint venture between Nixon and Frost. For the most part, they were not adversaries; they had a common interest in the interviews being acclaimed and widely distributed.
• Unsettling Pre-Interview Questions: The claimed pattern of Nixon asking Frost seemingly innocent but deliberately unsettling questions as each taping session was about to begin continues this deliberate misrepresentation: by and large, the interviews were not an adversarial proceeding.
• Opening Question: While the opening question (about why Nixon did not destroy the tapes) did indeed occur, Frost’s book notes that he had informed Jack Brennan of his intent and obtained Brennan’s concurrence before that morning’s filming began—so Nixon was hardly surprised at the question–and no doubt agreed it would heighten viewer interest.
• “Well, when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal”: Nixon actually made this statement during their interview, but it was in the context of why members of any administration should not have to worry about being indicted by a later administration based upon a differing legal interpretation. While others might disagree, this is precisely the point the outgoing Bush administration would make about their aggressive questioning of certain terrorists (i.e.: waterboarding): If done under presidential order after full legal review, those carrying out the instruction should not be subject to second-guessing—or government employees could never feel safe in carrying out presidential directives. The movie’s treatment is a deliberate and substantive misrepresentation.
• Brennan’s Threat to Ruin Frost: Brennan made the statement, but in the context of improper editing (where Nixon’s responses might be omitted) and not with regard to any questioning about Watergate. In fact, Frost characterizes their exchange as sort of an informal compact that he would fairly present Nixon’s accomplishments and they would not try to stonewall questions about Watergate.
• Midnight Phone Call: Among the most dramatic moments of the film is Nixon’s late night call to Frost, supposedly after having too much to drink—surely a poignant moment where Nixon reveals his inner torments. Since no mention whatsoever of this call is made in Frost’s book, we can only conclude it to be another complete and deliberate fabrication.
• Brennan Interruption: Another telling and dramatic movie moment occurs as Nixon (purportedly) is about to confess to the crimes of Watergate and Brennan deliberately invades the set to interrupt the proceedings. In truth—as written by Frost himself—Brennan merely held up a sign saying, “Let him talk”, and it was Frost himself who decided to call for a time out in the filming—by telling Nixon they needed time to change tapes–with the intent of enabling Nixon to collect his thoughts before proceeding. Frost details his following discussion with Brennan, but makes no mention whatever of Brennan then counseling Nixon in private.
• Nixon “Confession”: In the movie version, Nixon is caught by his own words on the tapes and confesses to being a part of the Watergate cover-up. But his words from those interviews were changed in the movie version. What Nixon did (which was most appropriate) was to apologize to the Nation for his mistakes during Watergate—rather a distinct difference. Frost’s book details how everyone—on both teams—seemed pleased with their Watergate exchange. Indeed, even the 1977 DVD cover blurb characterizes that part of the interview as, “culminating in the unprecedented sight of a president apologizing to his people.”
• Farewell Meeting: The movie ends with Frost calling upon Nixon in his San Clemente home following the broadcasts and that Nixon, dressed in shirt sleeves and musing about golfing in retirement, implies that he had been unmasked and undone. In contrast, Frost wrote that he had met with Nixon for their final time in his office just after the second program on foreign policy had been broadcast [i.e.: before any broadcast of their Watergate segment]–so no such observations by Nixon could have occurred. There is no mention of shirt sleeves, only an allusion to Nixon’s staff always being careful to wear coats and ties when entering his office. By then, Nixon was hard at work on his Memoirs, the second of the ten books he would write. While Frost doesn’t dare say so, it is even possible they congratulated each other on the apparent success of their venture.
Conclusion:
What are we to make of all this—a movie whose portrayal of Nixon is so biased and based on such sheer invention as to be meaningless? A conservative producer could make a movie about any of the last three Democratic presidents—and portray Bill Clinton as a philandering lightweight, Jimmy Carter as the most inept president of our lifetime, or Lyndon Johnson as a bullying, intemperate redneck. But if their film changed the words and actions of actual events to ‘prove’ their version of these leader’s souls, there would be adverse editorial comment and public reaction—as there was when this was tried with Ronald Reagan and the public outcry led to cancellation of the planned broadcast.
The Frost interviews were (and still are) mesmerizing—but they show something entirely different from the movie’s version: They show Frost probing and Nixon responding, defending his decisions and his administration. He is and remains the dominant foreign affairs president of our lifetime: Detente with Russia, the opening to China, ending the Vietnam War—all remain accomplishments of great magnitude. His domestic agenda, forged with a Congress dominated by the opposing party, shows a creativity and innovation unsurpassed by subsequent administrations. Watergate, of course, overshadows all else, but recent revelations about the true identity of Deep Throat, about the conduct of Judge John Sirica, and about the complex roles played by John Dean may yet lead to a different interpretation of those historic events.
But the Left’s residual hatred of Richard Nixon has no bounds and we are left with a movie based on the terrifically biased version by a junior researcher, basking in his fifteen minutes of fame. “Frost/Nixon” contains great acting to be sure, but the factual basis of its most telling moments is virtually non-existent.
Are Academy Awards given out on the basis of how evil some wish our thirty-seventh president to have been? We shall have to wait and see—but the American people have a right to ask how this movie could have been produced, promoted and reviewed without anyone pointing out how much of it is merely a fictionalized version of events.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
43 Comments
“For God’s sake, let us forgive him, finally… What was done to him and all his men – “all the President’s men,” as it’s put – had to be done. But it is over, and he should be let out into the sunlight again; no creature, no person, should be shut up in darkness forever, in fear. It is not humane.” — Philip K. Dick, 1978
Bravo. I disliked Nixon during Watergate and some years after, believing the MSM propaganda. But later, after reading “silent Coup” and “Witness” (Whittaker Chambers) I came to view him as a victim of the left’s irrational hatred. Nixon helped to convict Alger Hiss, the communist, and they never forgave him. Wasn’t Carl Bernstein a red diaper baby? Since then, Woodward and Bernstein have been caught in flat-out lies. The left got their victory, toppled a president, which led to our defeat in Vietnam. The left has been trying to repeat their victory with every Republican president since.
I never trust Hollywood “history.” Especially when “Dopie” makes it. What is the purpose? It’s about time to lay Richard Nixon to rest.
Ron Howard continues to disappoint.
Cryptofascist – I hear fashioning a hat out of tinfoil will help fend off liberal lies.
I actually thought this movie went out of its way to paint Nixon in a fairly sympathetic light. And Reston *is* portrayed as kind of a pompous blowhard.
Leftist motto: If you don’t like history, change it! Right out of Stalin’s rule book.
The biggest problem is with the sheeple who’ll just eat it up as fact. I have stopped accepting Hollywood’s interpretation of actual events. Want to see another brutally butchered movie taken from real events? See The Last King of Scotland and then see what’s said about it on the internet. Complete lies.
Ron Howard seems to have a history of this. In Cinderlla Man I understand that he made Max Baer out to be a monster that was completely unlike the real Max Baer. Max Baer now has living ancestors that must live with this lie.
Maybe someone will be just as creative when the do the film, Opie’s Opus
Oops! That should have been: Cinderella Man…and…When they the film, Opie’s Opus.
I guess it’s called “dramatic or artistic license.” I can’t even remember a good novel being filmed faithfully by Hollywood!
Mr. Howard hit his peak with “Apollo 13″. That is the movie is one that I point out as, The Best of America. Since then, his output has been a disappointment.
Has Ron Howard visited Cuba and met with Castro, or has he shaken hands with the Clintons? My theory is that once a producer or actor touches either of these two, they never produce anything of value again.
Steven Speilberg visited Castro (walking by concentration camps holding people who had committed the crime of free speech or being homosexual) and slobbered all over Castro. Since then? Nothing he has done has been worth a dime.
Harrison Ford, once a gifted actor, shook Clinton’s hand at the White House. Shortly afterward he abandoned his wife and sons, got his ear pierced, took up with the human Q-Tip Calista Flockhart, and hasn’t made a decent movie since.
Is is a virus? Something toxic, like mercury poisoning? Ron Howard must be infected too. Poor Ron.
Crucify him.
Noam, that was hilarious. You haven’t lost your edge. Oh, I concur, by the way.
Hugh Hewitt, WHO ACTUALLY WORKED FOR RICHARD NIXON, has been effusive in his praise for Frost/Nixon, declaring Langella’s performance as Nixon to be absolutely spot-on in capturing the man and, allowing for some dramatic license and liberal spin, a fair portrayal of the man at this point of his life. Hewitt had gone into the film fearing it would be a hatchet job as this article says it is, but was relieved that it wasn’t. He had Ron Howard on his show the other night for a brief interview and repeated his praise. (Fun factoid: Howard voted for Nixon in ‘72.)
So, who do we believe? A conservative talk show host who knew the man personally and finds the film a fair enough treatment of its subject or this article which presumes that Hollyweird has a vendetta against Nixon and Republicans (next, I guess, he’ll enlighten us as to the wetness of water) and maliciously got everything wrong and should be considered a personal attack by conservatives. Damn you, Hollyweird! Damn you all to Hell!!!
I starting to detect a rigid “They bad. We victims.” tone creeping into some of the articles and a lot of the posts here at Big Hollywood. I wonder if Mr. Breitbart really had this in mind when he started the site. Standing up for conservatism by being as blinkered and reactionary as the liberal crazies isn’t exactly taking the high road.
[...] suit its appallingly liberal bias. I enjoyed reading this Big Hollywood article by Geoff Shepard, “Lies, Damn Lies and Dramatizations”. Geoff Shepard worked in the Nixon administration and knew more about what was going on in the [...]
The ironic thing here is the movie not only defames Nixon, but it also defames the liberal Washington press corps of the day as basically being incompetent for not coming up with these revelations that Scotty Jr. suddenly discovered 20 years after the fact. But given the hatred the left can gin up even for people like Hillary Clinton when they don’t meet their requirements, throwing the Watergate-era media under the bus along with Nixon is no big deal, especially since other than Bob Woodward, few of them are around any more to defend themselves.
What does the truth have to do with history, as we’re supposed to see it?
Richard Nixon: Great President or GREATEST President?
Dirk,
I am not dictating what people write at this site, as I am not censoring you from disagreeing with what you are reading. Just because Hewitt likes the movie doesn’t mean it isn’t worthy of criticism. Why is there yet another Nixon movie being made? And why did Howard admit the film is an attempt to draw attention to President Bush? I don’t mind if Hollywood plays the political card, but I will be there to point out for every Nixon or Bush is bashed in film and television, just as I will point out that the system is stacked to ensure that there is no movie that goes after Bill Clinton who was IMPEACHED and lost his law license. The system is rigged and this site will not be intimidated to play it safe when criticizing the current highly politicized and exclusionary order of modern leftist Hollywood.
Seldom mentioned: After the Watergate matter was basically over, there were still wrap-up matters. That required a successor to previous Special Prosecutors on the matter. The man appointed concluded that he didn’t think there were grounds for indicting Nixon, absent the pardon that made that a moot point.
In terms of Nixon, I guess it’s not paranoia if they are actually trying to get ya.
I was reminded recently of a scene in Annie Hall where “Alvy Singer” was doing his standup routine and claiming that he was trying to do to some woman what the Eisenhower Administration had been doing to the country for the past 8 years. Its just the thread of demonization of Republicans (except those you just can’t take down like Reagan who you claim as your own).
I think Abraham Lincoln is lucky there wasn’t a Hollywood in his day – or we would still be getting movies reminding us just how racist the Great Emancipator really was.
I heard Jack Brennan, Nixon’s aide, on Medved’s show, saying that the acting was uncanny but that some of the things (drunk episode, alleged statements) never happened. He was present at the interview. Hugh Hewitt was not. He may have liked the movie and Nixon may have been portrayed sympathetically, but that’s not the point. History has been twisted once again to prove a political point. I doubt if that many people care or will see this movie, as these events took place over 30 years ago. The thing I object to is Hollywood’s revision of history. History is important, whether Dopie thinks so or not.
Waaah! Sniff sniff…
Man, my party has turned into a bunch of sniveling crybabies. Why on earth would ANYONE defend Richard Nixon? Why? And don’t dismiss what Nixon did by pointing to something Bill Clinton did. Good grief, we’re not in kindergarten!
Can someone honestly tell me one good thing tricky Dick did for this country? One thing that wasn’t borne out of political expediency?
And we call liberals whiny? I’m sorry, but I hear just as much victimization rhetoric coming from the Right nowadays. Maybe you should call for a “Hollywood Fairness Doctrine” if you’re so upset by the “bias.”
Nixon sucked, and he was a Republican. Come to grips with the fact that Republicans aren’t all perfect just because they have a little ‘R’ by their names. Don’t defend him just because he shares your political affiliation. We’ve had that mentality over the past eight years, and look how great that’s worked for us. The Republican party is imploding and the country is being run by socialists.
I wonder if Dopie’s true motive in making this movie was to gain street cred from the rest of the Hollywood left. It certainly wasn’t for profit.
Jim ” David Frost is NOT dead. Bob Zelnick is NOT dead. Jim Reston is NOT dead. John Birt is NOT dead. Wouldn’t it make sense to try to get their feedback before attacking the movie?”
It would seem that these calls could/should have been made by the producers of this film, after all they had a large amount of money involved – I don’t see the same for the author of this article.
People seem to forget how big Nixon won back then- I never saw any need for this school boy type of breakin, he was way, way ahead. It always seemed to me that his only real crime was trying to protect these foolish men (his friends ?).
I say let the man have his peace. For all the bad things Richard Nixon did, his becoming an elder statesman is how I want to remember him as. The man paid a heavy price for his stupidity, but he contribulted greatly after he left office, and this is coming from a big time Liberal! I will not go see a film based on outright lies and exaggerations. The sad part is that people who have no knowledge of real history will have an incorrect view of history based on this film, that is a crime.
Someone earlier mentioned the liberties taken with Cinderella Man, although that was just the beginning of Ron Howard’s casual relationship with history. I would like to see a similar analysis of Beautiful Mind….the film that disappointed me greatly in its depiction of its subject. The problem, as we all know, is that history is written by the victors, or, lacking victors, the movies. I’m sure it won’t be long before this movie will be shown in high school government/history classes….and another generation bites the dust.
Pay attention to the final words on the screen….here’s where you can really see the underlying beliefs. Read what they write about Nixon’s life after the interviews, and see if they mention his 10 books, his eventual rehabilitation into a respected writer of foreign policy analyses, etc. But don’t hold your breath.
That being said, I enjoyed the movie, believe it or not, because I can appreciate the acting and the story as removed from fact. But it seems to me that, if you are going to distort the history in such a meaningful and intentional way, just produce a movie that contains characters based on historical events….then you can invent anything you like.
poor poor nixon’s corpse.
i suppose you r tards are still going to be defending the criminal disaster bush 40yrs from now.
“he was a piece of sheet, but he was a shiny piece of sheet, which they failed to mention!” an aging still irrelevant britefart drone will say.
Further proof that Opie has sold his soul to the Devil. This one-note propaganda garbage won’t end until the last Baby Boomer Hippie is cold in his grave. Then, maybe, history will reflect facts instead of fantasy. Truly sad.
Firstly, if you’re going to complain about something being unfairly biased, then you should, by all means, avoid the temptation to be counter-biased. It undermines your argument.
Nixon did some good things, and he did some bad things, as do we all. The higher your position, the farther you can fall, and few things can precipitate a fall from a political position like the abuse of power. It’s this little tidbit that makes the thirty year old story of self-induced catastrophe relevant to current events, at least with regard to the most recent ex-President.
I believe that history will show Bush 43 to be the most un-American president ever, or at least so far; that he abused his position to violate law and custom, to undermine the standing of America in the world-at-large, and to undermine the very principles upon which the country was founded. Your opinions may differ, and in America, that’s ok.
For a vastly more entertaining move based around Richard Nixon, let me recommend to you the movie titled _Dick_ from 1999. ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0144168/ )
The Washington Post and the press in general will always revel in Nixon’s resignation as how they brought down an American President. After that, the press became more biased than ever, secure in their self-image as Philosopher Kings who must ‘manage’ information to serve a Cause that the NASCAR-watching rubes in flyover country cannot be trusted to know.
While appalling, we shouldn’t be surprised. After all, “Frost/Nixon” is from the same guy who brought us “The Da Vinci Code”. Howard’s already established his flippant disregard for anything resembling historical accuracy.
Many thanks for this article!
When I want history, I’ll read some books. I no more went to Frost/Nixon expecting history than when I went to Amadeus. It’s a movie based on a play reducing a long event to mere hours. Of COURSE it’s fictionalized. I went for the interaction between two excellent actors, and it was time well spent. (I’d heard of the Baer family’s anger. I also think the descendants of a Titanic officer shown in “Titanic” to act cowardly then shoot himself were furious as well. I don’t blame them for being angry)
And Coloradoright/Joshua Speed–Spielberg is making a Lincoln movie with Liam Neeson.
Elle–Carter didn’t break the law, and bungled as the attempt was, he didn’t resign. No matter how you slice it, or whether you think he should have or not, Nixon will always bear the dubious distinction of being the first president to resign.
I am a conservative who used to be a liberal. During both phases I have had no use for Richard Nixon. But I don’t like lies (one of the reasons I didn’t like Nixon). Propagandists for both sides share a common trait. They don’t understand overkill. Like the thirteenth strike of the clock, a lie calls everything that came before it into question. The best example I can think of, because of having heard it my entire lengthy life, is that “Hitler was a house-painter.” He was a painter, yes. But not a house-painter. My point? This mass murdering totalitarian genocidal crazy man wasn’t bad enough? Oh, and he was a house-painter. Now I understand just how evil he was. I feel the same way about Nixon (on a much smaller scale, of course). Simply telling the truth about him is both sufficiently damning and screenworthy. What’s the point of distorting truth and thereby calling the basic premise into question?
Unrelated note: Andrew, this is a great site, and a refreshing change from what usually comes out of Hollywood. I’m also a great believer in debate(I practiced criminal defense law for over thirty years), and fully understand that the “comments” section should contain views of both sides of an issue. But for God’s sake, there’s a difference between a legitimate difference of opinion and obnoxious trolling complete with hate-filled venom and ad hominem attacks (even on little children with mental disabilities). Please, please, please exercise some editorial discretion and block the trolls. They’re hateful, they’re tiresome, and their obnoxious rants damage the discussion. And when they have reached a certain level of hatefulness, they get exactly what they want. An otherwise reasonable commentor loses it and engages in precisely the same kind of rhetoric. It’s all a waste of time, space and energy. Tolerance, like the Constitution, is not a suicide pact.
I’m still waiting for a major Hollywood film depicting the Bay of Pigs fiasco, courtesy of JFK. Oh, I forgot. JFK is Camelot and Castro is a god.
Having seen Oliver Stone’s “Nixon” which all but accused Nixon of conspiracy to commit murder, this ‘Frost/Nixon’ sounds pretty mild by comparison.
However, the man is dead and buried. Maybe we can leave him be.
Darlene: We do have a movie about Carter, though not a full feature of course. The movie is called Miracle, starring Kurt Russell. It’s the story of the American Olympic hockey team and their triumph over a much stronger soviet team that had been dominating such events for years and years.
At the end of the movie, to help put things in perspective, they have a nice little segment that tells the viewers all about the Carter years so they can get some idea why something as seemingly innocuous as a Gold Medal in Ice Hockey at the olympics could possibly be considered such a big deal.
The showed how America was suffering from a terrible economy and a total lack of pride as a nation, thanks in large part to Carter’s totally inept handling of the Iran Hostage Crisis. Iran knew that Carter didn’t have the intestinal fortitude to really do anything about it. Funny though, within days of Carter losing the election to Reagan suddenly Iran’s tune changed dramatically and they released the hostages forth with.
But the little addendum at the end of the movie does a great job of showing us why the hockey game turned out to be so important to so many people, namely it showed us just how terrible Carter’s presidency truly was.
Strangely enough though we just elected him again. Granted, this one is a little bit easier to listen too and he doesn’t have a half-wit drunken brother, but aside from that he’s pretty much a second coming of Carter, and were all going to be in very bad shape 4 years from now as a result.
So a “based on a true story” movie has fictional and dramatized elements? Yawn. Show me one that isn’t. Sure Ron Howard sucks, but I can’t believe you people are defending Nixon. Sure, as with anyone else, he deserves to be treated fairly, but to imply that he didn’t get a fair shake? He was a crook. He conspired to commit crimes from the Oval Office. He betrayed this country and its people. For doing so he deserves to be hung out to dry.
Andrew, you are on point and of course have a great deal of support from what must now be millions of regulars here.
Of course you welcome opposing views, and it’s refreshing to see you respond from time to time.
Your point is eloquently and poignantly accurate regarding the fact that NO movie about Clinton/Lewinsky is forthcoming.
I had dinner last night with some liberal friends, God bless them, but a comment from one of them sent chills up and down my spine. It went something like this:
“It was so refreshing to hear Obama admit he ’screwed up’ on vetting some of his cabinet appointments. After eight years of an arrogant president (Bush) who would never admit he was wrong, we FINALLY have someone in the White House who’s humble and approachable.”
I guess this person somehow conveniently forgot that Bill Clinton’s eight years were not punctuated with frequent admissions of errors or miscues; on the contrary, he lied to the American public, got caught, and was IMPEACHED.
But as the de facto leader of the Democratic party up until now, I guess that doesn’t count.
I don’t see anyone defending Richard Nixon per se, but rather are defending history. A thing either happened or it didn’t. It is simply wrong to hang things around a man’s neck that, while believable, simply did not occur.
Hollywood does corrupt the ability of the people to see clearly what happens. A man like Nixon may indeed be on balance something of a villain, but he does not have to be the WORST VILLAIN EVER. Fabricating evidence to upgrade his villainy is itself a greater wickedness. How can we learn from history if each and every day history is a new thing?
I like the criticism of the historical accuracy of the film. It's going to help me a lot with an essay I have to write on the subject. The thing is, I don't like Nixon at all and what he did was completely and utterly wrong with Watergate. Don't ever blame his downfall on anyone other than himself. He did something illegal. Much like Clinton lied about his sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky (although he did say he didn't have sex with her, and getting a blow job is not the clinical definition of sex, so, we can argue that). The thing is, Nixon broke the law on a political basis, directly obstructing justice. Clinton was asked a question during a hearing that he shouldn't have had to answer in the first place. Nixon brought his failure on himself through directly illegal actions, while Clinton was pursued by the right on the Lewinsky issue. So, don't tell me that the left is the side that goes out of their way to attack and condemn political leaders. Indeed, both sides are guilty of this act.
You must be logged in to post a comment.