Not Best Picture: Frost/Nixon  

Cross-posted at Filmicism

For the next week, let's do a little hateratin' on the best picture nominees, shall we? I'm going backwards in ranking (worst to first), so let's start with the bottom spot on my list, Frost/Nixon.

I've been pretty open about my love for Frost/Nixon. I placed it at #5 in my top ten list for the year, and gave it a pretty glowing review to boot. There's no question that I really enjoyed the movie, more than a lot of others even. But there's no way that this picture represents the best that came out in 2008.

Cinema has an inherent ability to convey atmosphere, to keep the viewer immersed in the world that the director and writer creates. But there's nothing special about the world that Howard depicts on screen. I've said it before, Howard's biggest contribution was getting out of the way of Morgan's screenplay, and letting the camera linger on Sheen and Langella's performances. Every time he does try to add a little flair, the movie sags. It's no surprise that this movie worked so well as a play, and in my opinion probably worked BETTER as a play, seeing as the movie's effectiveness revolves around the fact that you're removed from the experience to a certain degree. You know that Langella's not Nixon, you know how it ends, and you know that history has already given both of these men their due (whether deserved or not). In the confines of a play, there's a self-awareness of both the actors and the audience in coming to grips with how much you're willing to accept as reality, and what you're going to parse out as fiction. Are you going to watch the actors' performances, or are you going to believe that these actors are the characters they say they are. Movies are where we're supposed to get lost, and Frost/Nixon did little to add to that side of the experience, and even took steps (the talking heads, the faux-documentary style, the arguably unnecessary epilogue) to pull you out of it.

I'm also coming to a point where I'm getting more and more reluctant to give such high accolades to a movie solely based on performances (something we'll get to BIG TIME in Milk). Langella deserves the oscar in my eyes, even over Penn and Rourke; and Sheen and co. do a great job of rounding out the cast. And while it may be fascinating for me to sit and watch singular performances, or see Morgan's screenplay unfold into one of the most unassuming yet spectacular climaxes of the year, the MOVIE Frost/Nixon doesn't add much to a play where two men would simply sit on an empty stage, talking back and forth. This isn't like There Will Be Blood, where Daniel Day Lewis's performance was central to the meaning and effectiveness of the movie as a whole. Frost/Nixon is hinging its power on not only the performances, but the history and ghosts that these figures bring to the screen, something that Langella and Sheen can't add to with a simple line read, and something that Howard doesn't effectively convey more than a lazy metaphor to our current administration and the desire to see Bush "put on trial" in the way he will never be.

Frost/Nixon is a great movie that fails to deliver on the most central message to the movie: the power of the camera, the theater of media, the exposing light of truth. It reads you the story of a book, when it should be SHOWING you the emotions and messages it seeks to convey. This failure is a testament to Morgan's play, and the performances of the actors...that it still manages to be a powerful, moving experience. It just wasn't the best of the year.