Comments on: Lies, Damn Lies and Dramatizations: ‘Frost/Nixon’

By: Tim McNabb

Tim McNabb — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 16:03:53 +0000

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?

By: John

John — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 17:33:41 +0000

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.

By: Paul Leemick

Paul Leemick — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 15:57:20 +0000

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.

By: Todd Robbins

Todd Robbins — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 09:54:25 +0000

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.

By: Jones

Jones — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 08:50:32 +0000

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.

By: Cryptofascist

Cryptofascist — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 07:49:10 +0000

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.

By: LawhawkSF

LawhawkSF — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 07:48:33 +0000

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.

By: maatkare

maatkare — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 07:00:45 +0000

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.

By: maatkare

maatkare — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 05:13:26 +0000

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.

By: Devin Parker

Devin Parker — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 04:45:54 +0000

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!