Oliver Stone has pretty much owned films based on the time of the Vietnam War. He has his Vietnam War trilogy with Born on the Fourth of July, Platoon and Heaven and Earth. He also has The Doors and JFK. Here we will talk about Nixon, the director’s in-depth look at one of the United States’ most controversial presidents and in familiar form Stone brings his own twists and theories to the story as he once again says he is a filmmaker and not a historian.
This was my first time seeing Nixon and considering this is the director’s cut boasting an additional 28 minutes I knew I was in for a long haul as the film now spans a whopping three hours and 33 minutes. The funny thing is to listen to Stone’s introduction to the deleted scenes on the second disc and how he says wasn’t able to get it down to two hours for the theatrical cut. Yeah, no shit, theatrically it was three hours and 12 minutes (for those of you that are good at math the 28 minute means additional footage added, which means some was also removed), trying to cut an hour and 12 minutes wouldn’t be easy.
Released in 1995, one of the quotes on the back of the package art is from Entertainment Weekly saying this was the “best film of the year”, and while it was nominated for four Academy Awards it didn’t end up winning any and wasn’t nominated for Best Picture. Of course, Oscar isn’t the ultimate determiner of what is and isn’t a great film. I just thought it was an interesting foot note.
Nixon is a hard film to judge in terms of greatness. Certainly 213 minutes is too long for a film in terms of “entertainment value” when it is based on a true story and admittedly not entirely accurate. The one thing making it really hard for me to say whether or not this is indeed a great film is the level of conspiracy theories presented and also left unanswered. They are left unanswered because Stone can’t answer them, and at this point I am not even sure history can answer them. These theories include Nixon’s rivalry with the Kennedys, which leads to a a small insinuation that implies Nixon may have additional knowledge involving John F. Kennedy’s assassination. Both John and Bobby Kennedy’s assassinations aren’t presented in this film as a matter of coincidence as much as they are presented in a manner of circumstance. Nothing is said outright, but I think it is quite a ballsy leap to leave any manner of insinuation without factual proof backing it up.
However, everything I just said is what makes Stone a filmmaker worthy of our attention. Without writer/directors such as Stone we would be left with a bunch of yes men playing to the lowest common denominator. The conspiracies I refer to in Nixon are not exactly presented on a surface level, they are made visible between the lines and while it may be looked at as dirty dealings Stone also offers up a large amount of positives when looking at Nixon. I am sure many may argue this isn’t a fair portrayal, but in matters of assumption I would say Stone was equally fair when slinging the dirt as well as tossing out praise, both of which are in the hands of the viewer’s comprehension of what is shown.
An accompanying new documentary talking with several Washington insiders including John Dean who was portrayed in the film by David Hyde Pierce and author Gore Vidal gives you a good idea of how the film was perceived by those close to the subject of Nixon and whether it was deemed by them to be accurate or all lies, and both sides of the argument are touched upon.
Stone presents Nixon as a man already broken down and beaten by the time he earns his seat as President. His early political dealings and his devastating family history have shaped him into a man that doesn’t seem to know whether he is coming or going. He appears to be a man of vision who was tossed into a situation of impossibility when confronted with the Vietnam War. Stone’s Nixon seems more influenced than influential, in flashback scenes we see Nixon alone hardly believing what he is hearing as he listens to his tapes playback.
Putting the subject of the film aside for a moment and simply looking at the performances this is another one of Anthony Hopkins’ great performances from the 1990s, a great decade for Hopkins. Starting with Silence of the Lambs in 1991, his performance in Legends of the Fall has been much praised (even though I didn’t like the movie), Amistad and he even brought something to The Mask of Zorro when many questioned why he would even get involved in such Hollywood fare. I even like Meet Joe Black and believe his performance in 2001’s Hannibal was really the last time he turned in a performance that didn’t seem like he was just going through the motions. Of course I have not yet seen World’s Fastest Indian, which I understand is phenomenal.
Along with Hopkins there are several other great performances, but the one that surprised me the most is easily Paul Sorvino as Henry Kissinger. Sorvino is above and beyond anyone else in this film, including Hopkins, and the fact he was not nominated for an Oscar only proves the point I made earlier that being nominated, or not being nominated, for an Academy Award doesn’t really mean anything in terms of quality. Sorvino’s performance is transformative and based on what I have seen it is the performance of his career. Bob Hoskins turns in a rather impressive performance as well in a limited role as J. Edgar Hoover, but if I wanted to talk about all the great performances of the supporting cast we would be here for quite awhile.
Nixon is an intriguing film to say the least. It offers up plenty of conversation, but considering the running time I have a hard time recommending you pick up a copy to own. I really can’t imagine anyone watching this movie over and over again considering it takes three-and-a-half hours to watch it all and offers up no kind of real entertainment in terms of movie-style entertainment. Sure, facts, information and conjecture are all there and they are great on occasion, but in terms of something you want to buy I am sure you can find something that will be worth watching on a more frequent basis.
