Spring Break
'Frost/Nixon' freezes up during transition from stage
by Marianna Faynshteyn
Staff Writer
Arts | 12/9/08
Posted online at 10:18 PM EST on 12/8/08
The title of Frost/Nixon, the Ron Howard-directed, Brian Grazer-produced movie based on the play recently featured on Broadway, concisely summarizes the play's plot.
David Frost was a well-liked British TV show host who was imbued with a sudden surge of ambition and opportunism after witnessing the world-wide appeal Richard Nixon's televised resignation speech drew. Following Nixon's delivery of the speech,?Frost conceived the idea to interview the man himself with the hope that the segment would become infamous.
The interview took place only a few years after Nixon left office to take advantage of the wave of notoriety Watergate offered, but, as the slash in the title suggests, unlike the generously tell-all interviews we've become accustomed to, the Frost/Nixon exchange became a showdown between the men-"a duel," Nixon, played by Frank Langella, offers.
Moving from stage to screen is a tricky transition, and Frost/Nixon contains some kinks as a result of the shift. The film opens with actual footage of Watergate coverage, providing the preface to the subject of the story: However, rather than simply offering the viewers the visual benefits of cinema, the footage adds unnecessary elements that take away from the film.
The film builds the story on two fronts, one telling the tale as it happened and the other interspersing documentary-style interviews from the characters to further contextualize the event. I have not seen the play, so I'm not an authority as to where and how much the film diverged, but I can say with a decent amount of confidence that the faux-documentary was a cinematic device or, at the very least, an interpretation of Frost/Nixon's original format.
This aspect of the film, used most in the beginning, was generally ineffective in conveying the nuances of the story that are not expressed within the film's dominant narrative. While I can appreciate the extra effort, I'm not sure I understand the reasons behind its over usage. Often, it seemed distracting and provided little more than what the viewers could have presumed on their own from body language and facial expressions.
David Frost was a well-liked British TV show host who was imbued with a sudden surge of ambition and opportunism after witnessing the world-wide appeal Richard Nixon's televised resignation speech drew. Following Nixon's delivery of the speech,?Frost conceived the idea to interview the man himself with the hope that the segment would become infamous.
The interview took place only a few years after Nixon left office to take advantage of the wave of notoriety Watergate offered, but, as the slash in the title suggests, unlike the generously tell-all interviews we've become accustomed to, the Frost/Nixon exchange became a showdown between the men-"a duel," Nixon, played by Frank Langella, offers.
Moving from stage to screen is a tricky transition, and Frost/Nixon contains some kinks as a result of the shift. The film opens with actual footage of Watergate coverage, providing the preface to the subject of the story: However, rather than simply offering the viewers the visual benefits of cinema, the footage adds unnecessary elements that take away from the film.
The film builds the story on two fronts, one telling the tale as it happened and the other interspersing documentary-style interviews from the characters to further contextualize the event. I have not seen the play, so I'm not an authority as to where and how much the film diverged, but I can say with a decent amount of confidence that the faux-documentary was a cinematic device or, at the very least, an interpretation of Frost/Nixon's original format.
This aspect of the film, used most in the beginning, was generally ineffective in conveying the nuances of the story that are not expressed within the film's dominant narrative. While I can appreciate the extra effort, I'm not sure I understand the reasons behind its over usage. Often, it seemed distracting and provided little more than what the viewers could have presumed on their own from body language and facial expressions.
Be the first to comment on this story