You know in high school when you had to write those papers comparing and contrasting a book and a movie? They always seemed fun and easy because you got to watch a movie, but when you got into them they were a lot harder than you thought. I was struck by that problem all over again last weekend. Two weeks ago I saw the play of Frost/Nixon downtown at the Palace Theater and Friday I saw the movie, which was directed by Ron Howard. Both were excellent, but now everyone keeps asking me what the difference was between the two. Each time I have been asked it has been hard to describe. Now I think I finally have my answer.
The biggest and most obvious difference was the actors. Stacy Keach played Nixon on stage. He was great and played the part well. However, he did not make me feel like I was watching Nixon on stage. He just seemed like someone similar to Nixon and happened to have the same name. Part of it was because he does not look all that much like the former president. The more subtle reason was that Nixon has such a distinctive voice and speech pattern, which Keach did not do well. Frank Langella (who played Nixon in the movie), on the other hand, nailed it. I did not see an actor playing Nixon when I saw the film version, I saw Nixon. I also thought that through the power of big screen that I was able to connect with Langella's Nixon better than I could with Keach's Nixon. When I went home and watched the actual Frost/Nixon interviews (here) it felt awkward because the real Nixon almost seemed fake. Langella was fantastic, and he deserves to win the Oscar for which he is nominated.
The plot of both the play and film were identical. I picked up lines while watching movie that were word for word from the play. There was just one scene that was a little different. In the movie David Frost calls James Reston and tells him to go find the damning piece of evidence that they use against Nixon at the Library of Congress. In the play Reston mails Frost the evidence without being asked. It seems more like a coincidence in the play, instead of Frost having great investigative skills like the film portrays. It was not a very important difference, just something that stuck out to me.
After seeing both versions I left each feeling that the pivotal scene was put in there for dramatic effect. Spoiler Alert: Nixon calls Frost drunk the night before the final interview. What Nixon says stirs up something in Frost and gives him the determination during that last interview to get the confession out of the former president. It worked in the story, but I did not think that was how it really happened. I was wrong, that is exactly what happened. In fact, according to the Slate: Spoiler Special podcast, Nixon had a habit of making numerous drunken phone calls at night. It seems crazy, but sometimes history is a little crazy.
Overall, I thought both versions of the story were great and would recommend seeing either one or both. I would also recommend if see the movie to listen to the Spoiler Special podcast afterwards. They bring up an interesting point about how Frost reacted to Nixon's drunken phone call because of his British upbringing, good stuff.
No comments:
Post a Comment