I finally caught Frost/Nixon at the theater and was pretty entertained. The movie depicts the events leading up to and including the interviews of Former President Richard M. Nixon, the only president to ever resign, conducted by TV personality David Frost. I wasn’t aware of these interviews at all until this movie was advertised (I wasn’t aware of the stage play either) so I wanted to watch this bit of history in Hollywood format.
I really liked the movie. The acting was top notch and there was even a moment or two when I was at the edge of my seat. One aspect of the movie that I really liked was when the movie would cut to interviews with the cast in character, showing the character’s name at the bottom while they provided their thoughts on various events throughout the movie. It gave the movie an almost documentary-like feel at times.
However, the accuracy of this movie has been called into question and for that reason alone, I almost didn’t watch the movie. I understand when material needs to be tinkered with to make a better movie but I have read that some parts are completely far off. Check out writer Elizabeth Drew’s article in Huffington Post, Frost/Nixon: A Dishonerable Distortion of History for information about this topic.
From the article:
But it’s because of the enormously historical importance of that period that the film raises serious questions of its legitimacy. The film’s plot is a contrivance; its telling is so riddled with departures from what actually happened as to be fundamentally dishonest; and its climactic moment is purely and simply a lie. Literary license in the name of drama or entertainment is one thing; the issue comes down to what one is taking license with, and the degree of license being taken.
I do recommend the movie but with the caveat that you won’t walk out knowing more about that time in history. Instead, the movie may prompt the viewer to find out what really happened.