Although Frost/Nixon's documentary style seems to be stronger, the film even has a very documentary-like approach such as interviews with figures from both camps, but, unlike Good Night and Good Luck's clear political expression and strong idealism, Frost/Nixon doesn't seem to have much interest in political judging, although, it seems like Good Night and Good Luck, Frost's team is up against a political figure, and what they (at least James Reston is) is trying to get Nixon to accept He escaped trial in the Watergate scandal, confessed his fault, and in the end they also achieved final success. But does this mean that Frost's victory is the victory of righteousness? It is true that some viewers have made such an interpretation, and some viewers think that the purpose of the film is to "borrow the past and satirize the present" and compare Nixon with the outgoing Bush, but I think that the point of the film is not here, it aims to Digging into the inner worlds of the two wrestling men has nothing to do with their political stance.
As James Reston says in the film, television is deceptive, and its original sin is that it simplifies everything, simplifies great, complex ideas, simplifies the course of time, entire careers, and ultimately compresses into one snapshot (the first and greatest sin of the deception of television is that it simplifies; it diminishes great, complex ideas, trenches of time; whole careers become reduced to a single snapshot.), and this film is to restore the The whole process, although, this restoration may not be the reality of history, but it is a reality of art.
Frost and Nixon in the movie seem to be tit-for-tat, but in fact they are extremely similar in heart. From the moment Frost saw Nixon who had stepped down sadly, this kind of relative and similarity was displayed in front of us everywhere, although most of the time, the two parallel narratives The clues make us feel that the two are more confrontational than similar. It was not until the eve of the decisive victory, a fate-determining phone call, that we discovered that the previous tit-for-tat was actually due to their extreme similarity. These two people seem to be mirror images and shadows of each other. , they are unwilling to be lonely, thirsting for victory, thirsting for glory, and at the same time facing a serious crisis in their careers, this interview makes them opponents in fate, but in the end, only one person can win, the winner will get everything Glory, and the loser will walk off the stage lonely, alone, with nothing but desolation.
Of course, as with history, in the interview, Frost turned things around and won the final blow, but Nixon and Frank Langella were slightly better than Frost and Michael Sheen in terms of performance and performance.
In terms of performance, Frost's plot setting seems to be a little flawed, that is, the reason why Frost fell in the first three interviews was not because the opponent was too strong, but because Frost did not make careful preparations, not to mention the news work From the perspective of the film's shaping alone, Frost should not make this mistake as someone as ambitious and as eager for honor and victory as Nixon.
In terms of performance, it's not that Michael Sheen is bad. In social situations, the mask-like courtesy smile on Frost's face is behind the loss and helplessness. In the previous interviews, he was restrained by Nixon everywhere, and Frost tried his best to stay still. With his voice, his eyes showed surprise and tension, and Michael Sheen played very convincingly. However, after all, there seems to be a bit of "acting" traces. Frank Langella is different, whether it is the old hot politician who controls everything in the first three rounds of interviews, or the lonely and frustrated face in front of the camera at the end, delicate and without leaving traces of acting, of course, my favorite is that part The monologue in the dark night, with a little alcoholism, Nixon exposed his inner secrets, like a trapped lion, seeing the opportunity to regain his freedom, the long-suppressed desire and anger gushed out. When Nixon hung up the phone, turned to turn off the lights, and was left in darkness, I couldn't help but feel some kind of very politically incorrect regret about the fate of this man.
The supporting roles in the film are also quite good, and I especially like Kevin Bacon who plays Jack Brennan, the stern, tough Nixon "lacking dog" who made me politically incorrect once again. On the other hand, Oliver Platt, who plays Bob Zelnick, made me laugh at the Nixon parody. The snarky, but stubborn James Reston (Sam Rockwell), Frost's producer, John Birt (Matthew Macfadyen), can't be beat. However, the female lead in the film is relatively weak, and Caroline Cushing's role in the film is rather vague, except that when she first met Frost, she saw that he had a pair of "Sad Eyes" (Sad Eyes), a little confidante, and the rest of the time It's like being used to be teased by Nixon.
(After wandering between "recommended" and "recommended" for a long time, I finally gave it 5 stars. It was completely directed at the actors' performances. The movie itself still has a little flaw.)
View more about Frost/Nixon reviews
