Responses to this message:
I was impressed with Stone's "JFK" but I have problems with "Nixon". A few years ago, during a heated discussion about Nixon--I thought he was slime--I learned how little I understood Watergate and Nixon. So I decided to read a book about Watergate--it wasn't enough. While trying to understand what happened, I've read 10-12 books since the first (both positive and negative on the Nixon phenomenon). I don't hate Nixon anymore. Nixon was a Great man with profound faults.
Stone hurt himself more with "Nixon" than he did to Nixon. He drew from facts that only served his beliefs. Facts were often incomplete, out of sequence, out of context. They only served to protray and exagerate one side of Nixon. Most of the characters didn't remotely resemble the personalities of the real people. I won't go into Stone rediculous emphasis on Nixon's mother or the psychadelic sequences. And the conspiracies... well, what's a Stone movie without those?
Stone's "Nixon" would have been far more interesting if it was accurate. The way things really went down (with the good motives and the bad) would make a great movie. In Stone's favor, he said that "Nixon" was not a documentary, its designed to entertain and make you think. What "Nixon" made me wonder about the most was if "JFK" was as slanted and falsely presented as "Nixon".
Stone really missed out on his apportunity to make a great movie. "Nixon" was more of a caricature of Stone's conspiracy films than the intended target.
Responses to this message:
Post a response to this discussion thread