THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Saturday, December 23, 1995 TAG: 9512220064
SECTION: DAILY BREAK PAGE: E1 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Movie Review
SOURCE: BY MAL VINCENT, MOVIE CRITIC
LENGTH: Medium: 89 lines
IN STONE-LIKE FASHION, "NIXON" INFURIATES AND INTRIGUES, TOO
``NIXON'' IS THE most complex, ambiguous and balanced film biography since
1970's ``Patton.'' It is, in turn, both compelling and infuriating, with a
mixture of level-headed analysis and reckless interpretation. No other movie
this year has been so ambitious.
Coming from the apparently obsessed writer-director Oliver Stone, the level of
sympathy for the tortured, paranoiac Nixon is surprising. After the reckless
and irresponsible ``JFK'' we can never, sight unseen, trust Stone again. Here,
he has taken steps to cover himself in most (but not all) of the more
questionable aspects.
The trouble with watching any of Stone's versions of recent history is that
once you have bought a ticket and the lights dim, you are forced to play by
his rules. You might talk back to the screen, but you'll be talking into the
darkness.
The filmmaker's sometimes infuriating quality for recklessness is, ironically,
also his greatest attraction. The film is most interesting when Stone hints
at paranoiac secrets and undercover schemes. These are merely hints as Stone,
as usual, fires a scattershot using a shotgun, not a rifle. He loves
vagueness.
Yes, he is infuriating. But, no, he is never dull.
Even at the excessive, almost painful, length of three hours and 15 minutes,
this film is constantly intriguing. It's never really riveting but, still, it
holds our interest all the way.
``Nixon'' treats its audience members as if they were intelligent, thinking,
beings. It throws them in the water and expects them to swim.
The newsreel-account victories and defeats of Nixon's life are pictured in
feverish flashbacks in no particular chronological order. The boyhood scenes
are, unexplainably, filmed in black and white. (Is Stone saying that we live
in color but remember in black and white?)
The effect is a blatant copy of Orson Welles' ``Citizen Kane,'' beginning with
an opening shot through the gates of the White House as if it were Xanadu and
including a chilly wife-husband dinner table scene. But Nixon had no Rosebud.
Nothing as simple as a sled could explain him.
Anthony Hopkins turns in a superb performance as Nixon, in spite of the fact
that he is physically wrong for the part and doesn't always maintain his
chosen accent. Nonetheless, he has the essence of the man. This is grandiose
acting on a risky level that fully matches the epic exaggerations of the
director.
The best performance of the film, though, is a more restrained outing by Joan
Allen as Pat Nixon, often known as ``Plastic Pat'' or ``the Mona Lisa of
American politics.'' Here, she smokes cigarettes and looks as if she knows
more than she's telling. She's patient and enduring. The Nixon family, on the
basis of reading the script, has denounced the film as ``character
assassination.''
It may make us feel guilty to admit it, but the film is much, much more
interesting in its speculative moments than when it deals with the well-known
facts. The personal scenes with Pat are the ones that make us sit upright.
We could have used more humor - and that means more of Madeleine Kahn as
Martha Mitchell (she has only a few moments).
The most flagrant, and potentially controversial aspect of this surprisingly
uncontroversial film, is the publicized claim that the movie says that Nixon
felt guilty about the Kennedy assassination but it's silly to try and make
much of a controversy out of this. We know, by now, that Stone has a
particular hangup about the CIA.
Hopkins and Allen are surefire Oscar nominees. The only other performance to
step out of the pack for a nomination could be Paul Sorvino's on-target
impersonation of Henry Kissinger which, in spite of the mimicking nature of
the outing, still manages to humanize the man. It is the failure to analyze
Nixon's successes that weakens the movie. More needed is attention to the
early years and how this man went from poverty to power. Any biography's real
heart must be in the beginnings. What made Nixon get into politics in the
first place? What prompted him to turn toward dirty tricks and tough political
fighting?
Mary Steenburgen has scary moments as Hannah, his Quaker mother, to whom, he
says, ``I will always be thou faithful dog.'' More could have been made of
this and less of the full hour given to rehashing the overly familiar
Watergate events. The final hour almost sinks the film.
``Nixon'' should be seen for its effort at epic Americana and for its
unbridled ambition.
You don't have to like it to be intrigued, and informed, by it. It supplies
the impetus. You supply the information.
MEMO: Mal's rating: three and a half stars
ILLUSTRATION: Color photo by Hollywood Pictures
Anthony Hopkins and Joan Allen star as the Nixons...
by CNB