Frost/Nixon and the line between history and fiction

[RealityChuck]

@Stink Fish Pot

You and I may not watch movies for our history lessons, but that doesn’t mean the general public has the same standard. Few will seek out the real transcripts. Nixon had enough faults… if the story wasn’t interesting without distorting the historical record, why not just make up a fictional interview with Nixon and whoever? Using Frost implies that the interview exchanges are accurate… the behind-the-scene intrigue is up for massaging, but not the interviews.

But how does it matter if there’s a change in the transcripts? The historical record isn’t distorted in the slightest; Nixon said the same things in the transcripts that he did in the movie portrayal – just not the same exact words or perhaps in the same order.

By making changes, you increase the dramatic effect. The movie becomes less dull and much more interesting. The OP makes no claim that the film distorts Nixon’s meaning and general intentions, just that it didn’t use the exact words of the transcript. How on Earth is that a problem?

If the transcript reads “Uh, well, the President . . . the president can do . . . what he wants in something. . . things of this nature where national security (cough) excuse me . . . is involved . . . it is not a crime” and you change that to “The president can do what he wants where national security is involved. It is not a crime.” how is that distorting history?

And, the bigger question, would you rather be accurate and dull, or make minor changes – that not even David Frost probably noticed – to make the movie more interesting?

As for JFK, it’s not like Stone made up the conspiracy theory. His problem was simply that he pretended that the film was a documentary telling the truth about the assassination when he knew it was fiction. It was a great marketing ploy, but had nothing to do with the truth of the matter.

[Hampshire]

@RealityChuck

By making changes, you increase the dramatic effect. The movie becomes less dull and much more interesting. The OP makes no claim that the film distorts Nixon’s meaning and general intentions, just that it didn’t use the exact words of the transcript. How on Earth is that a problem?

If the real life story was that great to begin with why attempt to increase the dramatic effect? Hearing now in this thread that changes were made actually makes me NOT want to see the movie.
I rather see an accurate attempt at retelling a true story (boring blandness and all) than hollywood trying to spice it up for my benefit.

[Dread_Pirate_Jimbo]

@RealityChuck

But how does it matter if there’s a change in the transcripts? The historical record isn’t distorted in the slightest; Nixon said the same things in the transcripts that he did in the movie portrayal – just not the same exact words or perhaps in the same order.

By making changes, you increase the dramatic effect. The movie becomes less dull and much more interesting. The OP makes no claim that the film distorts Nixon’s meaning and general intentions, just that it didn’t use the exact words of the transcript. How on Earth is that a problem?

If the transcript reads “Uh, well, the President . . . the president can do . . . what he wants in something. . . things of this nature where national security (cough) excuse me . . . is involved . . . it is not a crime” and you change that to “The president can do what he wants where national security is involved. It is not a crime.” how is that distorting history?

And, the bigger question, would you rather be accurate and dull, or make minor changes – that not even David Frost probably noticed – to make the movie more interesting?

As for JFK, it’s not like Stone made up the conspiracy theory. His problem was simply that he pretended that the film was a documentary telling the truth about the assassination when he knew it was fiction. It was a great marketing ploy, but had nothing to do with the truth of the matter.

But some of the changes do distort what happened. Consider an example from this article:

Frost did not in fact “nail” Nixon. The climactic moment of the movie (as in the play) has Nixon confessing to having participated in the cover-up of the famous break-in of the Watergate offices of the Democratic National Committee, in June, 1972 by operatives hired by White House aides. But this “confession” is produced through a blatant distortion of what Nixon actually said in the interviews. At that particular moment, Frost was pressing Nixon to admit that he had more than made “mistakes,” that there had in fact been wrongdoing, that crime might have been involved (a rather mild way of putting it). Then, through a sleight of hand, the script simply changes what Nixon actually said: the script of the play has Nixon admitting that he “…was involved in a ‘cover-up,’ as you call it.” The ellipsis is of course unknown to the audience, and is crucial: What Nixon actually said was, “You’re wanting to me to say that I participated in an illegal cover-up. No!”

The movie has Nixon admitting guilt; the reality did not. I don’t necessarily care if a movie writer juggles sequences and outright fabricates things we don’t have on record, but if the reality was that no confession was produced and the film changes that, I consider this a serious issue. We’re not talking about cutting out a few coughs and stumbles, we’re talking about revising the verifiable history in this case.

[Cat_Whisperer]

Hell, we’re not even allowed to fiddle with quotes from other posters on this board, but Ron Howard should be allowed to do so with a former President of the United States of America, to change a denial of wrongdoing into a confession? My first reaction is no way, man! That’s just wrong!