Ask those citizens of a certain age what they know about Richard Nixon and chances are you’ll be greeted with blank stares.  That the disgraced 36th President of the United States, so intertwined with latter half 20th century history and helped usher in the age of televised politics would have been relegated to the annals of pop-culture as the epitome of evil and standard bearer of all things nasty is indeed a curious thing.  Some thirty years since they were first broadcast, it’s perhaps a fitting symmetry that a cinematic adaptation of Frost/Nixon, a 2006 play by Peter Morgan (The Last King of Scotland, The Queen) would come so soon after the historic inauguration of the 44th president of the United States.  There are those who argue that elections are often decided in the media, where a sympathetic press corps can help create a new administration, and a hostile one destroy it.

At its core, Frost/Nixon holds true to its staged beginnings, and this feeling of fixed angles and stationary locations is wrestled away – kicking and screaming – by the competent direction of Ron Howard.  A good director when engaged, his best cinematic achievements seem to come from his own historical backlog of experience (Apollo 13).  It’s interesting to note that when the original Frost/Nixon were first aired against a myriad of popular television programming, the most notable being Happy Days, starring Ron Howard himself.  An effective mix of close-ups and documentary-style interstitionals help revive a time and place many have forgotten, or never known.  Though lacking the usual layering of special effects and big-budget spectacle, this is easily one of his best and most mature films yet.

Having the lead actors reprise their roles from the award-winning play was the right choice, as both Frank Langella (Nixon) and Michael Sheen (David Frost) have become more than comfortable playing their historical charges.  Although neither actor much resembles their real-life counterparts, both imbue a sense of humanity and stylize their movements as accurately as possible, leaving performances that are less imitative and much more satisfying.  Sheen is fantastic at the affable and Cheshire-like Frost, clearly outmatched by his subject on all fronts, although blessed with the good sense to know when to throw a punch.  The real David Frost may resent his portrayal as the inexperienced, celebrity-driven personality (the film omits the pair's first interview in 1968), but this perspective helps give the proceeding some much-needed cinematic heft and adds weight to the David vs. The Goliath theme.

Langella, having already won a Tony for his stage portrayal, commands the screen as the former President, giving the role a sympathetic heft and humanity that will likely startle many of Nixon's political and cultural foes, having long cast him a ghoulish figure.  While cinemaphiles will find it somewhat fitting that an actor best known for portraying both Dracula and Skelator was the right man to portrayal the disgraced politician, those looking for a sinister interpretation will find themselves disappointed.  Here we see a fully realized, human being haunted by his own shortcomings, yet resilient in his convictions that his deeds (and misdeeds) were for the benefit of the American people.  Langella overcomes the obvious physical and aural differences with Nixon admirably, presenting a fully nuanced look at a man generations have come to revile by caricature and assumption alone.  Those unfamiliar with Langella's work prior will likely find it hard to forget him afterward.

The supporting cast is great, with Oliver Platt (Bob Zelnick) and Matthew Macfadyen (John Birt) as Frost's second-tier standouts.  Kevin Bacon was great in his small, although vital and steadfast bit as Nixon's unflappable confident.  I was slightly disappointed with Sam Rockwell (normally so good) and his overly zealous portrayal of author and historian James Reston, Jr., who's crusade against Nixon here borders on frothy liberal caricature; an agenda with purpose, yet unscrupulous.  At one point the character makes the case that he’d like to give Nixon the trail he never had, asserting that Americans need a conviction.  Only then he states that if Frost’s interview is the one “that Richard Nixon exonerated himself that would be the worst crime of all”.  Apparently Reston’s theoretical trial would be a mock one, the outcome predetermined long before the opening gavel had even struck.  When Frost’s questions fail to satisfy his bloodlust he’s screams “You’re making him look presidential!”

Funny how two-term Presidents tend to look presidential.

Looking back at the historical record, its interesting to see just how skillful Nixon became at understanding the new television media.  Painfully aware of his lack of telegenic presence, fully realizing that aptitude and intelligence alone were no longer enough.  "They say that moisture on my upper lip cost me the presidency," he concedes with the hindsight of a warrior less interested in rationalizes than adjusting strategy.  Narrow caricatures of the man have erased much of his reputation for charming opponents into lapses of judgment and securing victory.  In this respect Frost was never an equal, but when the film centers on the historical relationship between the two men its easy to imagine a comfortable relationship of give and take.

As we're seldom likely to challenge favorable results, one aspect the film touches upon (too briefly) is the intersection of agenda within the media.  Its clear from the onset that Frost (and his researchers) are plotting to trap Nixon, hoping to wring a confession for his role in the Watergate scandal (among other things) and to exploit this for the purpose of ratings.  Its an unsettling business that all too often blends entertainment with editorial discretion in direct opposition to historical accuracy.  This is agenda reporting, designed from the outset to attract viewers by appealing to their most base of interests with promises of blood and vengeance.  One must remember that history demands context, and as a historical document the film omits much (if not all) of the hyper-partisan congressional sentiment of the time.  Can you imagine a parallel circumstance that would attempt to make a drama about the impeachment of President Clinton and not detail his treatment at the hands of the Republicans?  Of course not, but why let a thing like historical context impede a good drama?  Let the rationalizations begin…

Its a shame the advertisements for this are so misleading, misrepresenting a perfectly acceptable adult drama as a sort of cerebral Rocky.  Rather, its a work whose fireworks are entirely generated by its superb cast, particularly Langella, and help remind us of the absolute potency of good acting.  Although it does little (if anything) to educate on the subject of the Watergate scandal itself, Frost/Nixon still makes for a thrilling historical capsule of a time many felt would live forever in the public consciousness.  Some have drawn parallels between the circumstances of the Nixon White House to the second Bush administration, and for all I know these may be correct.  But the lessons of the era were nothing new, and unfortunately not isolated events.  That’s the gift of history, to provide the archetypical lessons which help to explain and offer guidance within our own moments in time and place, and remind us that even the most reviled can be afraid of the dark.