#nixon 1995

[seph7]

J.T. Walsh interview with Dini Petty, circa Autumn/Winter 1995.

Found by @tequilasunrise28

[harrison-abbott]

A Short Review of Oppenheimer (2023)

Why would you want to make a film about Richard Nixon?

Oliver Stone did that in 1995, with Anthony Hopkins starring as Nixon. Hopkins’ portrayal of the President is one of a chronically paranoid, insecure man who is in charge with heavily charged international matters. He barely seems to comprehend what he’s doing.

And surrounding him are the other characters of 1950s/60s America who were key to geopolitics at the time. They’re also played by terrific actors; such as Paul Sorvino, Ed Harris, James Woods, Joan Allen and Bob Hoskins, among others. They play the parts very well. Especially with Paul Sorvino as Henry Kissinger – who was a great geopolitical villain and pantomime-like character in real life.

There was no need for Oliver Stone to glamorise the plot in Nixon (1995) because the events occurred in reality. But, what Stone did need to do was make the story a piece of art. As opposed to a documentary.

Well, for one thing, it had to be long. So it finally churned out around three hours in length. In order for it not to be tedious, Stone spliced up the time periods. It couldn’t be a long, linear epic – so he mixed up what happened into short, frenzied scenes with bursts of action. Often using black and white for historical parts and colour for modern; and yet, with present-day scenes featuring Nixon as an older, finished, defeated man.

This mix of content is dense and spanning. But it never gets dull. And it is essentially the portrait of one man. The movie is asking questions about this single person, against a background of mayhem of which he is directly integrated.

I thought the exact same way about Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer (2023): and have rarely seen a pair of films which I found quite so alike.

We have a brilliant lead actor in Cillian Murphy. Who is constantly fraught and uncertain with his plans, which have worldwide consequences. And all around him are these other people who are equally as compulsive in their disastrous ambitions. [And they’re also played by a star studded cast, of Robert Downey Jr, Matt Damon, Florence Pugh, Kenneth Branagh, Gary Oldman, etc etc.)

The movie lasts 3 hours. It switches throughout its tenure with an array of time periods and the scenes are short and alarming and the tension never quite ceases. Many of the scenes are shot in different tonalities and this adds to the overall sense of nightmarish delusion.

Why would anybody want to make a blockbuster film about the men (or man) who invented the atomic bomb? If we were to watch Grave of the Fireflies (1988) would that not be enough to make up one’s moral notion of what happened?

What I believe Oppenheimer has triumphed with in being a blockbuster is by making entertainment ambiguous. Which is difficult to do in a mass sense: make a popular movie questionable. There is no doubt that it’s a great film. Many ‘big’ movies come out each year which are only intended for gluttony or indulgence.

However. And, just as a parting thought: is Oppenheimer as disturbing as Grave of the Fireflies? Or Nixon, for that matter?

Of course it’s important to inform people about the past. Just as it is with current affairs.

There are films like Downfall (2004) and lofty television shows like Band of Brothers (2001) which are both historical accounts, and yet have completely different attitudes or modes of expression. Both were about World War II, yes, but, they show very alternative depictions of the conflict.

In Nixon, about 90 minutes into the flick, there is a terrific moment of cinema. Whereby we’re introduced to Nixon’s 1968 inauguration speech – and we see Anthony Hopkins by his podium: just as he’s about to start speaking. But the camera is below the podium. And we can only see his edgy, distressed face. He does not look like a man who is happy at just winning the Presidency of the United States. It’s a fantastic feat, sure. Except he’s in total terror about what to do with his position, or where it will lead.

The camera then spans up and the light and colour changes and Hopkins then smiles and waves to the crowd and the folks applaud and cheer for him.

Quite similar (if you agree?) to the scene in Oppenheimer where he making a speech to the filled auditorium just after the bombs have been dropped in Japan; and he inwardly imagines the explosions going off in his very vicinity, and what they would do to the bodies in the audience.

[90smovies]

[audiemurphy1945]

Nixon(1995)

[imjustheretoseetheprivateblogs]

People only ever call him Tony. As if calling him Iron man would make him less appealing.

Adapted from a quote from Oliver Stone’s 1995 film “Nixon”

[troia-citta-micro-movies]

Good day to you

[harrison-abbott]

a terrific film

[audiemurphy1945]

“You got people dying because he didn’t make the varsity football team. You got the Constitution hanging by a thread because he went to Whittier and not to Yale.”

Nixon (1995) dir. Oliver Stone