Nixon

The film shows how much Oliver Stone was attracted to the subject and how the conspiratorial vision of the world of Republican schemers fascinated him during Nixon's era. During filming, he was in his element and also unstoppable - the length, which is indigestible for the average (casual) viewer, speaks for itself. Watching Nixon means immersing yourself again in an environment that Stone's fans already intimately knew from his famous treatment of Kennedy's assassination. In the case of Nixon, Stone made a ruthless political pamphlet that could be described as a "final blow" to the memory of the former American president. In the film, you will find plenty of details where the camera lingers on Nixon's sweaty face, his crooked smile, signs of uncertainty and nervousness, and physical and mental exhaustion. The result is a one-sided caricature, not a realistic depiction of a complex historical figure. It is not about improving Nixon's legacy by retouching his human weaknesses, undeniable political mistakes, and personal failures, but I consider Stone's final image to be distorted and biased. I have no problem with Anthony Hopkins' acting performance, but with where the director is directing him. Similarly, I have no problem with the technical aspects of the film, but with its content. Honestly, I didn't enjoy any of Stone's portraits of American presidents, his work is too ideologically biased for that. The average film consumer will be deterred not only by the length of the film but also by the overwhelming number of characters and events, and last but not least, detachment from the topic of politics. Overall impression: 45%. (09/12/2018)

I'm reviewing Nixon a few days after seeing it, and I think I'm doing the right thing because this is one of those films that distance can help. I enjoyed Oliver Stone's second "presidential film" from the start, I was incredibly intrigued by Anthony Hopkins' performance (his facial expressions, gestures, overall posture, it's all spot on, and yet I never would have guessed that he would play Nixon) and I enjoyed Oliver Stone – a director who switched styles as much as the camera operator until the whole thing looked almost documentary-like. I was a bit annoyed with Oliver Stone the screenwriter, though. That's when I occasionally asked myself if "it's a bit much", for example, during meetings of the evil Republican schemers who were only horns short of perfection, or the very first shot of the White House in the storm, under lightning, and to ominous music by John Williams until it looked exactly like the Springfield Republican Party Headquarters from The Simpsons. But this is where distance helped, as well as reflection on the overall tone of the film, which oddly enough is not exactly what you'd expect from Oliver Stone. In the end Nixon is not the embodiment of evil, but rather its convenient tool, which he willingly became. There are others pulling the strings here, and the pulling, the drunkenness with limitless power and the ability to do evil and yet be falsely convinced otherwise, is all very believably rendered. We get to see the transformation of Nixon in all its horror – from a simple young man who wanted more, more, more, to a president who could have no more, and it (almost) destroyed him. The final speech is very impressive because of all this, and I felt sorry for the main "hero" during it, I really did.____ P.S. I was very amused by the way Oliver Stone dealt with the assassination of John F. Kennedy – we don't see him in the film, but instead we just hear the familiar drum roll that begins the opening scene of Stone's JFK. It's as if he's saying, "You can find out all about it there." And you know what? If I had three hours to spare, I'd do it now. (30/10/2019)