Frost Nixon tagged: , , , ,

Frost Nixon

Posted by Claire Connelly in Entertainment

Frost Nixon is one of the best films I’ve seen all year. In fact it’s possibly one of the best films I’ve seen this decade. An edge of your seat political drama following the infamous Frost-Nixon interviews whereby David Frost (a British television presenter) essentially puts Nixon on trial and tries to surrender an apology for all his past wrong-doings. In one part I literally had to cover my mouth to keep the massive gasp and the many expletives that would have followed – in. To think that Nixon admitted on national television, that when the President commits a crime, it is not illegal; that Watergate and his many other corrupt activities were not an abuse of power, but an entitlement – what guile, what crude arrogance.

Frost Nixon is a brilliant film that will no doubt gain zero Oscar nominations (nominations are announced on the 22nd of January). It’s far too controversial a film, and there are far too many republicans on the decision committee that would prevent Frost Nixon from even being nominated. (Besides, nobody takes pot shots at Diane Sawyer and gets away with it).

I remember when I was in high-school, I wanted to do my extension history thesis on Nixon. My history teacher LOATHED Nixon. I remember fondly, her not so subtle encouragements that I should choose a new subject for my thesis. She railed,
“Why? Why would you want to write about That Man?” (She always referred to him as “That Man”). “Nixon isn’t worth the ink we write with, the paper we write on. He isn’t worth the air we breath! Why would anyone want to devote more than five minutes to that man let alone an entire thesis? History has already devoted enough of it’s attention to a man so undeserving of our sympathy, understanding, respect, or time.”

Towards the end of the film, her words came drifting back, as I almost began feeling sorry for the poor bastard (the film devoted more than enough time to Nixon’s complexities, a second chance I don’t really think he deserved). I was almost moved to tears, until that invaluable advice of that one teacher (you know the one – that one teacher who made you who you are, that inspired you to greatness, everyone has one), rang true in my ears. It was almost like a smack round the head “what are you doing feeling sorry for the guy?” I berated myself inwardly. She’s right. Nixon was and is a corrupt, arrogant, thieving, unapologetic excuse for a human being. A complete waste of matter. I hate to speak ill of the dead, but I hope for his sake, that he made his peace, with whatever maker he envisioned to be returning to on his final judgment day.

I think to an extent Watergate, and then finally Clinton’s impeachment, has contributed to a form of political apathy within the general population that has indirectly legitimised political corruption. Ever since Watergate, people have come to expect corruption and deception from their leaders. When once we held politicians to a higher standard, it is as though the bar has been set so low, nothing could shock us anymore. Resultantly, when corruption is uncovered, politicians are held less accountable, less responsible. Thus, the imperative for the strictest and most severe prosecution has decreased over time.

Like he said in the infamous Frost-Nixon interviews, Nixon admitted regret that his actions may have contributed to less young people getting involved in government because they believe the reach of corruption has spread too far, to the highest office in the land. The disappointment and apathy that followed Watergate has had a two-fold effect on American politics (and perhaps politics worldwide): firstly, Presidents and politicians have gone so far to protect themselves, essentially legalising and or legitimising illegal and or ethically questionable activities in the name of protection and national security (e.g post 9/11 sedition laws, legal phone-tapping and violations of right to privacy laws, not to mention deregulation).

Secondly: voter apathy. People expect to be duped, lied to, and manipulated. Voting has become a case of having to choose between the better of who the hell cares. I truly believe that without Watergate, George W. Bush would never have been elected (or at least perhaps it would have been a much more difficult campaign). Voter participation dropped significantly after Watergate. People began to lose faith in politics. If it wasn’t already a cynical game, it certainly became one. It minimised election issues and transformed voting into cynical selfishness – what can this country do for me? What am I going to get out of voting for this guy instead of the other guy? Instead of asking what do I believe, and what kind of values would I want and expect in a leader, it comes down to – how is the President going to help me squeeze the most value out of a dollar? I am not trying to minimise the importance of the economy – of course everyone needs to know whether they can make ends meet, or whether they will be able to send their kids to college, but I believe that the American people (and people all over the world) should be asking a hell of a lot more from their leaders than they currently do.

Hopefully, with Obama’s election to office, the winds of change will move once more – so we can once again come to expect and demand more from our leaders than being able to string two words together or an eloquent turn of phrase.