“Frost/Nixon” stands out in terms of narrative and character development.
Firstly, in terms of narrative, the director skillfully employs a documentary-style approach, repeatedly interspersing interviews with the two participants, who are also staunch opponents of Nixon. There is a clear intention to portray a semblance of restoring the true face of history. However, the interview follows the formulaic pattern of American courtroom dramas: a young, inexperienced lawyer (occasionally a washed-up, alcoholic older lawyer) must initially start at a disadvantage and be clearly on the losing side.
Later, they must be inspired by some spiritual force or aided by a righteous figure, discovering powerful new witnesses or evidence to turn the tables and win the case. Examples include characters like my cousin Nevin and Yihai Xiongfeng. In this film, the British man Fox, a former talk show host, evidently plays the role of the young lawyer. In contrast, his interviewee, former U.S. President Nixon, is akin to a cunning prosecutor or defense attorney.
The intriguing aspect of character development lies in the dramatic switch of personalities between Fox and Nixon. As a renowned British talk show host, Fox doesn't exhibit the typical British humor and eloquence (the latter perhaps altered due to his temporary change). Instead, the character portrayed in the film resembles more of what his opponent Nixon should embody. Fox doesn't mind the opponent's sarcasm and cynicism; he even brings in the American journalist, played by Sam Rockwell, showcasing broad-mindedness and adept judgment of people. In the second interview stage, when Rockwell challenges again, Fox decisively quells the internal strife, saying, "If any of you have doubts, please leave now," displaying mature and stable leadership qualities.
On the other hand, Nixon, the former U.S. president, provides humor and observational skills that should belong to Fox. Before the interview, he playfully comments on the other's girlfriend (the role of Fox's girlfriend, whether based on actual events or purely fictional, seems somewhat decorative, especially since she is later replaced by the intoxicated Nixon to play the role of encouraging the protagonist who suffered an initial defeat with the power of love). Simultaneously, he displays an extraordinary enthusiasm for the Italian designer shoes on Fox's feet.
Unfortunately, the courtroom drama's provided plot twists and character reversals did not make the two protagonists more compelling. Fox's inconsistency lies in the contradiction between the so-called leadership qualities and his actions throughout the story. Logically, the immense pressure from spending a million dollars out of his pocket and being rejected by major TV networks should have prompted him to give his all from the beginning. However, his performance in the first three days seems more like a lack of focus and perfunctory work rather than due to lack of experience. Furthermore, although he recognizes Rockwell, he only engages in deep conversation with him for an extended period, unaware he holds a winning move against Nixon. He contacts him late at night, seemingly awakened from a dream only after that peculiar phone call.
Regarding Nixon's character, the audience sees not mere humanization but rather evident traces of "dramatization." For instance, the plot where the emotional loss of control leads to speaking out of turn and ultimately losing all seems reminiscent of Hollywood films of the 1950s and 1960s like "Written on the Wind" and "The Caine Mutiny." The details of Nixon's facial expressions and body movements under mental instability bear a striking resemblance to the character played by Bogart in the latter. The only difference is that he doesn't have a pair of iron balls.
Although this portrayal technique undoubtedly makes the characters more vivid, it raises doubts about how close this character is to the real Nixon, especially for viewers not concerned with the actor's resemblance. Nixon's mental state at the time conveniently aligns with the earlier phone call to Fox. This purely fictional plot not only exaggeratedly rescues Fox from adversity in the narrative but also cleverly embellishes the image of the only president in American history to resign from office after exposure of his erratic behavior under the influence of alcohol.
Whether one should use a specific fictional artistic method to exonerate an actual historical figure like Nixon is not a concern for Chinese audiences as outsiders. Moreover, considering Nixon's undeniable historical achievements in opening the door to Sino-U.S. diplomacy, the audience might be more interested in the film's revelation of certain American ideologies and values highly sensitive to third-world people through interviews.
When Fox sharply points out the "Cambodia" issue, Nixon calmly responds: Regardless of any initial doubts, what comes to mind first is still the construction worker in Philadelphia. Because he told me, if you had intervened earlier, you could have found the weapons that killed my son! So, I don't regret invading Cambodia. On the contrary, I think we should have done it more forcefully earlier!
The impact of this scene lies not in Nixon's response but in Fox's speechlessness afterward and Rockwell's comment, "He's very confident." Their reactions clearly indicate that even the most ardent opponents of Nixon in the United States share the same stance with the government on whether to use force abroad solely based on suspicion of potential threats, even at the cost of sacrificing a large number of innocent civilians.
Due to the flawed perspectives on the essence of war, both at the government and ordinary citizens' levels, based on incorrect positions (at least from a non-American perspective) and a lower moral standpoint, it has led to the paradox where, despite the emergence of numerous anti-war works of art in various forms for over half a century, the United States has become increasingly embroiled in wars, from the Korean War to the Iraq War...
Share your thoughts!
Be the first to start the conversation.