| Oliver Stone's new movie, starring Anthony Hopkins as the title character.
Stone's Nixon is a sweaty, awkward, socially inept, mistrustful striver, with
a deep understanding of the dynamics of political power. One of the ways he is
humanized in the film is by black-and white sequences showing scenes from his
childhood, his relationship with his strict father and manipulative, "saintly"
Quaker mother (played by a well-cast Mary Steenburgen.)
He is shown with an utterly corrupt J. Edgar Hoover (Bob Hoskins), who
is shown hob-nobbing with mobsters and eyeing young male waiters, and a
shadowy, equally nasty, nameless Texan millionaire (Larry Hagman,) shown as
complicit in the JFK assassination. These are important behind-the-scenes
power brokers with whom Nixon must deal. At one point in the movie, Nixon
reflects to H. R. Haldeman (James Woods) and others of his entourage that
future historians may see his greatest achievement as having been ending the
Viet Nam war without a right-wing rebellion.
He is portrayed as obsessed with the Kennedys, particularly their glamourous,
positive image in the press, in contrast with his own less positive image, and
determined, having had the 1960 election "stolen" from him, to do whatever it
takes not to be defeated again. Another significant scene shows Nixon, just
before his resignation, looking at a White House portrait of JFK and saying,
"They look at you and see what they want to be. They look at me and see what
they are."
His key personal relationship is with his wife, Pat, a formidable, decent
woman whose support he knows is vital, until the last desperate Watergate
period. I forget the name of the actress who plays Pat, but she is very good.
Hopkins really is excellent. He mimics some of Nixon's well-known mannerisms,
and at some moments his voice is very similar to Nixon's, but the performance
is a lot more than that. He really brings Stone's Nixon to surprisingly
sympathetic life.
As with Stone's "JFK," there's a big cast (many of whom are very good,) flashy
cinematic technique, and a complicated, flashback-riddled storytelling style.
Also as with "JFK," some of the characters are no more than vivid, striking
cartoons, and some of the "historical" events presented are speculative at
best.
I found both movies riveting. To me Stone's presentation of his own
(questionable) interpretation of American political history is highly effective
dramatically and cinematically. It may not be good history, but it presents an
intriguing counterpoint to the perhaps equally false myths disseminated in the
media.
-Stephen
|
|
I liked this one as well, and much more than I would have thought beforehand.
I cannot remember anything about the movie afterwards that I can use to
explain even to myself why it might deserve to be called a "great movie." The
film techniques were rather simple and everything about the movie was very
straight-forward. In the end I don't think it deserves to be called a "great
film," however I can wholeheartedly say that I did find this film to be a
wonderful and moving and enjoyable movie experience.
And the reasons it was such a great experience all boil down to Anthony
Hopkins. I was completely transfixed by him, he simply _was_ Nixon
throughout the film. I felt as if I had spent three hours with Nixon alone,
as he gave me personal insights into his life events as we sat together by
the fireside on that timely, dark, conclusive day for him. It was a gripping
experience and quite amazingly, the three hours raced right by in what seemed
like only a handful of moments. The film captivated me - and for a
more-factual-that-drama history piece about a very boring man, I thought this
was a true worthy achievement for Stone. I both liked this film better and
found it more deserving of praise than his previous effort "JFK."
Everyone on screen did a fine job, but Hopkins and in large measure Hopkins
alone made this movie. Perhaps the film hit us in the right spot in the
right moment, by wow, what a gripping portrayal. And for what it is worth, I
thought Stone could have been a lot more 'Stone' in his painting of Nixon.
The images presented could have been exaggerated and enhanced in places and
played up for the drama of it all, but Stone stepped back from that in many
scenes and instead gave a very respectful and realistic interpretation
instead. In fact, I would have made Nixon a lot sweatier and nastier and
darker if it were my own film. However it feels as if Stone probably hit
closer to the truth than how I have Nixon's image in my own mind. We saw the
film just before leaving for a half-week in Washington DC (crowded but
wonderful Vermeer exhibit), and Hopkin's Nixon was on my mind several times
during that visit. It was a haunting performance I suppose you could say.
To sum up, the film features bland usual Hollywood film-making but was a
wonderful experience carried in part by the strength of Anthony Hopkins
alone. He remains one of my favourite male actors, and his performance here
justifies my high opinion of him even more.
-Erik
|
| Oliver Stone gives us his sometimes warped view of history in "Nixon"
but the movie is so good, it's almost forgivable. Almost. Some of the
allegations he makes in this film are really disturbing, especially the
insinuation that Nixon was somehow involved in the Kennedy asassination.
On the other hand, the film takes a sometimes accurate look at Nixons
early years, his rise to power and his ultimate fall from grace.
Sir Anthony Hopkins gives a stunning performance as the very complex
Nixon; Joan Allen is excellent as the very loyal Pat Nixon; and a host
of others give very good performances as well.
"Nixon" is pure Oliver Stone. It's long, well done, and controversial.
If your like me and you like movies that are based on true stories and
you like Mr. Stone, then you'll probably like "Nixon".
*** out of ****
Gary S.
|