CinemaRian Blog

Under discussion:

Frost/Nixon  (2008)

Ron Howard’s achievement must be acknowledged- more than perhaps any other filmmaker, he has found the ultimate cinematic style to con people into thinking there watching an important movie.  His films are rarely boring, and are often very good, but are never really profound, or important, or even memorable.  He’s caused me to give Frost/Nixon a three and half star rating, pretty impressive for a film I have contempt for.  

This is a film that pretends to be important, that states that it is about a subject and then discusses the topic hardly all.  The subject in question is the role of the media in politics, specifically, the 1977 serious of interviews between British journalist Sir David Frost (Michael Sheen) and disgraced U.S. President Richard Nixon (Frank Langella).

The thin plot of the film regards Nixon and his aids believing that Frost will be an easy mark for the former President to rehabilitate his reputation as a statesmen.  Since the trailer gives away the climax of the movie, I don’t think I’m giving much away when I reveal that for the most part, Nixon failed.  

The movie, written by Peter Morgan, who adapted his own stage play, spends far too much time with Frost, who the picture makes out to be a somewhat hapless, Barbara Walters-like journalist, neglecting the fact that he had in fact interviewed several major political figures before Nixon.  Michael Sheen also chooses to play Frost as a lightweight who is in over his head.  Sheen’s performance is a major flaw of the movie- he doesn’t look or sound much like the real Frost and his character comes off as such a dimwit that it’s hard to care what happens to him.

Frank Langella’s Nixon, on the other hand, is another story.  This is one of the best performances of the year, perhaps the best.  Langella seems to become Nixon before our eyes.  He looks like Nixon, he speaks like Nixon, and for all intents and purposes he is Nixon.   Comparing him to Sir Anthony Hopkins performance in Oliver Stone’s 1995 film and the difference is like night and day.  Hopkins did a good job, but you were always aware that he was acting.  Here, you just believe that you are looking at the 37th President, who somehow wandered into a movie.

But all the insight comes from Langella, not Howard. Because the movie is supposedly historically accurate, Howard occasionally uses a documentary style in which characters speak as though they are being interviewed on 16mm.  Is this supposed to make us think the movie is "real"?

And besides, what is the point of any of this?  There are other and better films about politics and the media (Network and Good Night, and Good Luck come to mind).  Those films actually bother to take a position on their subject.  But Howard is so set on pleasing everyone, of offering no offense to only the most sycophantic Nixon supporter that the movie says very little at all.  It is not boring and technically flawless, but it lacks one element crucial to great art- daring.  If you want to see a well made, perfectly safe movie that appears to be about something but really isn’t, with one brilliant performance, Frost/Nixon is the movie for you.

Frost/Nixon (2008)

Under discussion:

The Mark of Zorro  (1920)

Irony of ironies- what was once a standard, big budget Hollywood blockbuster now seems a bit more like an art movie.  The Mark of Zorro was an action adventures spectacle, and was received as such, but today there’s no doubt that no many audiences would have a problem with the movie’s leisurely pace.  Aside from an impressive action sequence towards the end, no one seems to be in much of a hurry to get anywhere in this movie.  Show this to the average action movie audience today and its likely that there would be large numbers of snores, in addition to a few snickers when Zorro is introduced as “The Gay Blade”.

However, an audience of movie fans will probably find much to love in this picture.  The fact that the movie is slow means that the picture draws us into its world at its own pace, and the intent in a picture like this seems to be not as much to get us super excited as it is too look at the evocation of California in the 1840’s.

I sometimes think that silent films have there own type of beauty that was never seen since, perhaps because the intent is not a setting for actors to say their dialogue in but a painterly visual composition where the actors exist along the world the exist in.  So much information is conveyed by the costumes, art direction and cinematography that at times it’s hard to believe that this was a star vehicle for Douglas Fairbanks, except when he’s on the screen, and dominates everything.

Fairbanks produced and co-wrote the film, adapted from the first Zorro novella, The Curse of Capistrano , published only the year before.  With the exception of The Scarlet Pimpernel, audiences had never seen a character like Zorro- a Batman type character who performed his heroics while masked, with a secret identity.  There could not have been a better choice for the character, as Fairbanks is a hero to ten year old boys of all ages.  With an athletic physical presence and devil-may-care attitude, combined with an absolute knowledge of moral clarity, his Zorro is a hero for the ages, really, all superhero movies might in some owe something to this movie.

Despite the slow pace, the movie knows its audience well enough not to add too much unnecessary romance (isn’t kissing disgusting?) the film is pretty economical in its story telling.  If doesn’t say too much about the human condition, well, I should point out that I wasn’t interested that much in that type of thing when I was ten either.  The Mask of Zorro spoke the part of me that refuses to grow up, and so few movies acknowledge any kind of innocence that I kind of loved it for doing so.

Under discussion:

Staying Alive  (1983)

How can I begin to describe this movie?  A sequel to one of the greatest of hits of 70’s, made pointless by the fact that the disco craze it celebrated was long sense over?  One of the best bad movies of all time?  A perfect vehicle to gaze at John Travolta’s sweaty, muscular body?  All of these my friend, and more.

Staying Alive is so very, very bad that it’s very very good, given the right environment of course.  I would not reccamend you watching the picture by yourself, unless you wanted to freeze frame the images of Travolta and- well, I’ll leave that to you in your private affairs.

The movie is a sequel to John Badham’s 1978 Saturday Night Fever, but follows precious little of that films story and the main character, Tony Manero (Travolta) seems different- a lot more feminine and stupidier.  Manero was never a brainaiac to begin with, but that was part of his character’s charm- he knew that he was no Einstien and accepted that, but had a basic level of intelligence that most people without major brain damage seem to have.  In this picture, Manero is so dumb at times you expect him to see him drool, which makes you wonder how he was smart enough to put the rouge and eyeliner on his face.

The plot of the film involves Manero trying to make it as a professional dancer in a broadway show in Manhatten, and having to choose between two women, both his fellow dancers- his girl Friday, Jackie (Cyntha Rhodes) and Laura (Finola Hughes) a British bitch who sleeps around a lot and uses and abuses him.  Of course, Manero ends up making into a big show in which both Jackie and Laura appear in, along with Laura’s “guy Friday”, Jesse (Steve Inwood), who looks weird.  The name of the show is Satan Alley and it’s a piece of total garbage, set to hilarous 80’s synth pop.  The music in this film aside from a reprise of the title song at the end, is all ass-awful.  My favorite piece of music was “(We Dance) So Close the Fire” performed by Tommy Faragher, much of which seems to consists of the words “dance” and “fire” repeadited over and over again in the most melodramatic way possible. 

My friend Kristen pointed an important feature of Stallone’s films- Sly always seems to have the conviction of his actions, even when his pictures are totally stupid, which tends to make them entertaining, even while they lower your IQ points.  Staying Alive is so melodramatically directed while being totally hearfelt that at times the movie develops a kind of hypnotic quality, that you can understand why no one told Stallone his screenplay sucked- they were all caught up in his energy.

I can’t say that on any level Staying Alive is a good movie, but do I reccamend you see it? Hell yeah!

Staying Alive (1983)