Ron Howard’s Happy Lie: Nixon/Frost Movie Review

Ron Howard’s Nixon/Frost has much to recommend it. Creating a compelling drama that propels the watcher forward without the resorting to standards tricks such as action or romance certainly speaks well for the director. Howard also draws nuanced depictions of his two protagonists, refusing to make them into stock characters. The movie also does a nice job with its theme about how the power of television to crystallize a moment both illustrates and simplifies history.

Yet when dealing with real life events, especially those so relevant to the present, I think Howard owes audiences something more – he’s owes them honestly. I’m not talking about the slavish re-creation of facts, but the depiction of events and characters rings true in the overall sense if not in the details. Howard fails.

Howard portrays Nixon as a modern tragic figure – more sinned against than sin-ed. Nixon is brilliant, shrewd, and driven in Howard’s world. Yes, he’s a little crazy and yes he goes over the line – but who wouldn’t after spending your life being told by Ivory Tower elitists that you’re not good enough. Nixon’s “regret” that he let the American people down comes off as sincere.

This portraying is misleading and dangerous. Nixon was paranoid and ruthlessly persecuted enemies real and perceived. He would say and do anything to keep in power. Nixon’s cynical “southern strategy,” using racism to get democratic votes, set up the wedge politics that have lead to years of political stagnation. He spied on Americans, invaded countries in the express contradiction to federal law. This total abrogation of the public trust began a deep cynicism by the American people that continues to this day and has allowed Republics to rule so badly but stay in power. These are among the many malfeasances ignored by the movie.

The movie is dishonest but also dangerous. Nixon’s abuses of power should remind us that the current President has recreated the imperial presidency. Bush, while not paranoid, punished his enemies. Bush showed similar disdain for the law believing, like Nixon, that what the president does is the law. Howard’s psychological excuses of Nixon tend to provide an excuse the current president’s wrongdoing.

What is more disconcerting is that Howard’s deception is unnecessary. Nixon is a complicated enough tat he can be portrayed without being a stock villain. An honest portrayal would have in no way diminished Howard’s mediation on the TV’s ability to exemplify and simplify. It seems that Howard needed to graft a more positive spin on the story. Why? Could it just be for ratings? Or does Howard need to impose his optimism on the story? If so, he should pick other subjects that lend themselves to his theme without distorting the facts.

I don’t believe artists owe the public a particular story or a particular point of view. But when they do tell a story, they should do so honestly. And when they use recent facts they have a responsibility not to mislead the public.