Frost/Nixon. Or the triumph of vacuity over evil?

Kitty Muggeridge once memorably observed that David Frost, the eponymous hero of Frost/Nixon, that he had “risen without trace”. People remember the gibe because it seems to capture the essence of the Frost phenomenon — the fact that he rose to great prominence in the world of broadcast television without ever appearing to have any real substance. As someone said in another context, “there’s no there there”.

Mrs Muggeridge’s crack came to mind a few weeks ago when watching the preview of Frost/Nixon, which went on general release in the UK yesterday. Based on a screenplay by Peter Morgan (who wrote the stage play of the same title which played at the Donmar Warehouse to rave reviews), it tells the story of how Frost — then a puffball chat-show host — negotiates an exclusive deal for a series of four two-hour TV interviews with Richard Nixon after the latter’s resignation following revelations about his involvement in the cover-up of the Watergate burglary. If Nixon had not resigned when he did, he would have been impeached by Congress. He was clearly guilty of what in the Uk would be called conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and he ought to have gone to gaol. But he was (scandalously) granted an unconditional pardon by his successor, the genial but dim-witted Gerald Ford.

For those who were serious about politics (and for a large segment of the US electorate) Nixon’s escape from justice was an outrage, made worse by the fact that the culprit failed to admit either guilt or remorse. Frost — then languishing as the host of wacky, down-market freak-cum-celebrity chat-shows for the Australian market — seemed immune to such emotions: what obsessed him was the idea that landing an exclusive deal with Nixon offered the possibility of hitting the media jackpot. (There’s a sequence showing him thoughtfully watching the footage of Nixon’s final hours in the White House and then saying to an assistant “get me the numbers on this” — meaning the audience figures.) But to help him prepare for the ordeal, he hired a team which included John Birt (then a successful current affairs producer, later a controversial Director-General of the BBC), together with a grizzled political journalist and a young academic whose prime aim in life was to put Nixon behind bars.

For Nixon and his entourage, glowering resentfully in his Californian retreat at San Clemente, the prospect of an extended interview with a guy who had never done serious political interrogation offered a way for Nixon to get over his side of the story. (His advisers would never have allowed him to submit to interrogation by hard-boiled US newsmen).

Thus both sides came to the encounter with divergent expectations. The dramatic drive of the film derives from the fact that for most of the time Nixon ran rings around Frost, who was out of his depth and indeed for much of the time seemed slightly detached what was going on. (Some of the detachment was understandable — he was frantically trying to put together the finance needed to fund the series. But part of it was testosterone-driven — he was screwing a gorgeous brunette he had picked up on the transatlantic flight.) But in the end he was pressured by his back-up team to pull himself together and eventually extracted from Nixon an extraordinary sequence in which the former president expressed something close to remorse and extressed expressed the view that whatever the President of the United States does cannot, by definition, be illegal (a doctrine later embraced enthusiastically by the Cheney/Bush regime). So, in the end, the tension implicit in the plot — will Nixon be allowed to get away with it? — is resolved.

In an interview after the preview, Peter Morgan was asked whether he had taken any liberties with the facts of the story. He replied that he had exercised dramatic licence in two areas. Firstly, he had invented a late-night telephone call in which a drunk or doped (it’s not clear which) Nixon telephones Frost; this plays a pivotal role in the plot because it makes Frost realise that he will become a global laughing stock unless he can pull a substantial rabbit out of the hat in the final interview. The second exercise of dramatic licence came from putting Nixon’s dramatic admissions in the last interview, whereas in fact they came earlier in the four-day marathon. But neither of these liberties seemed unreasonable to me. Nixon was well-known for late-night incoherent phone calls. And the critical admissions were made, even if they had come earlier in the original narrative.

The film has a couple of distinguished performances. Michael Sheen gives a very good rendition of Frost’s unique blend of superficial plausibility and subterranean vacuity. Deep down, you feel, the man is shallow. In that context it’s worth remembering that Sheen’s last memorable role was as Tony Blair in The Queen (also written by Peter Morgan). Could it be, one wonders, that the two men have something important in common? I mentioned this at dinner last night to a journalist who had just returned from a Middle-Eastern tour which had included attending a press conference given by Blair. It all sounded, my guest said, very plausible and impressive. But when he got back to his hotel room and began to type a report about what Blair had said he found himself stuck. Why? Because actually there turned out to be little substance in the ex-Prime Minister’s remarks; it was “all fluff”. There was “no there there”, as it were.

The other memorable performance is by Frank Langella as Nixon. Although he doesn’t look quite right in the role (he’s physically bulkier than Nixon), he’s about the right age, and that matters. And he really gets inside the strange perverted psyche of his subject to give a performance that, while not diminishing one’s dislike of Nixon, at least gives an insight into how he came to be the man he was. (The ‘invented’ phone call is partly a rant by Nixon about the way he — like Frost — has always been an outsider, always patronised by the Ivy League crowd.)

I found Frost/Nixon both riveting and thought-provoking. The trailer is here, if you’re interested. It’s had five Oscar nominations.

Obama gets to keep his BlackBerry

From The Register.

President Obama can keep his BlackBerry, making him the first sitting president to use email.

Barack Obama has resisted calls to relinquish his beloved handheld despite concerns over personal security, espionage, and presidential record-keeping.

“He has a BlackBerry through a compromise that allows him to stay in touch with senior staff and a small group of personal friends in a way that use will be limited and security enhanced to ensure his ability to communicate, but to do so effectively and to do so in a way that is protected,” White House press secretary Roberts Gibbs told reporters on Thursday.

Some in the intelligence community fear the device may be a source of information leaks or be used to track the president’s location.

Gibbs wouldn’t elaborate on how the president's handheld will be protected, or the type of security enhancements that have been added.

Former presidents have chosen not to use email because they can be subpoenaed by Congress and made public under the Presidential Records Act. Gibbs said the ‘presumption’ is that emails on the BlackBerry are still subject to public records laws, but noted the Act includes exceptions for strictly personal messages.


Blogs morphing into freesheets. And vice versa

Interesting development.

The Printed Blog, a Chicago start-up, plans to reprint blog posts on regular paper, surrounded by local ads, and distribute the publications free in big cities.

The first issues of this Internet-era penny-saver will appear in Chicago and San Francisco on Tuesday. They will start as weeklies, but Joshua Karp, the founder and publisher, hopes eventually to publish free neighborhood editions of The Printed Blog twice a day in many cities around the country.

How does it work?

The Printed Blog will publish blog posts alongside other Weblike content, like user-submitted photographs and readers’ comments. The paper will be printed on three or four 11-by-17-inch sheets of white paper and laid out like a blog instead of in columns.

Users will eventually be able to log on to its site, theprintedblog.com, to choose which blogs they want in their edition, and editors will decide which posts make the paper. A city the size of Chicago could have 50 separate editions tailored to individual neighborhoods.

The Printed Blog also expects to duck many of the major costs that make traditional newspapers expensive to produce. The company will put commercial printers in the homes of its distributors, avoiding the circulation costs of papers with large, central printing presses. Advertisers will eventually be able to buy ads on the Web site, so The Printed Blog will not need to employ many sales people.

By publishing articles written by bloggers who are already diligently covering topics as varied as town politics and local fashion, Mr. Karp can slash one of the biggest expenses of a newspaper: reporters. So far, 300 bloggers have given The Printed Blog permission to publish their work for a share of the ad revenue, including small-audience bloggers in Chicago and nationally known blogs like Daily Kos.

Coming soon: Obama’s first mistake?

The most satisfactory sight yesterday was that of Dick Cheney, looking for all the world like Dr Strangelove, being wheeled off the scene in a wheelchair. The only problem is that he was then helped into a limousine rather than a police van. Much as I enjoyed Obama’s stern denunciation of the Cheney/Rove/Bush perversion of the presidency and their abuse of the Constitution, I had the sinking feeling that he is going to grant the bastards the kind of unconditional pardon that Gerald Ford gave to Richard Nixon. And that would be his first big mistake.

The omens are not promising. Last Sunday he was asked whether he would seek an investigation of possible crimes by the Bush administration. “I don’t believe that anybody is above the law,” he responded, but “we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.”

Oh yeah? As Paul Krugman put it in the New York Times:

I’m sorry, but if we don’t have an inquest into what happened during the Bush years — and nearly everyone has taken Mr. Obama’s remarks to mean that we won’t — this means that those who hold power are indeed above the law because they don’t face any consequences if they abuse their power.

Let’s be clear what we’re talking about here. It’s not just torture and illegal wiretapping, whose perpetrators claim, however implausibly, that they were patriots acting to defend the nation’s security. The fact is that the Bush administration’s abuses extended from environmental policy to voting rights. And most of the abuses involved using the power of government to reward political friends and punish political enemies.

Yesterday, Obama swore on Lincoln’s bible to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” And, says Krugman, that’s not a conditional oath to be honored only when it’s convenient.

“To protect and defend the Constitution, a president must do more than obey the Constitution himself; he must hold those who violate the Constitution accountable. So Mr. Obama should reconsider his apparent decision to let the previous administration get away with crime. Consequences aside, that’s not a decision he has the right to make.”

Mark Anderson is even more incensed.

Who cares what Obama decides to do about Bush? Excuse me, but I just could not care less. When criminals break the law, we don’t ask candidates-to-be if we should prosecute. I would suggest that ANY comments by the Obama team indicating a lack of will to prosecute would, of itself, be worth examining as being in some way accessory.

In other words, Obama: on this subject, please shut up. We are not interested in your first big mistake: not prosecuting the most evil and dangerous villains ever to misuse power in the U.S. government.

Therefore, regardless of the Obama political calculations, we should be resolved, as we have in past similar situations (Iran Contra, Watergate) to put these crimininals to trial.

There are so many crimes, it seems almost impossible to list them; I certainly won’t try to here, but will leave it to experts in each department and field to do so. Krugman says he has counted six different departments wherein crimes were committed; that seems too small a number, but it does not matter.

Here is a simple question: who is responsible for nearly a million civilian deaths in a faked war? There was never, ever a need for an Iraq war; and that statement will stand the test of history. Given its truth, we should not be talking about the few thousand GI deaths as the cost of the war, but should recognize that the United States, without cause or any particular aggression on Iraq’s part, and without any proven concern for its own safety, did cause the deaths of between 600,000 and 1,000,000 civilians in that country.

Let’s see now, is Dick Cheney ready to stand up and pay for this? Exactly how, Mr. Cheney, are you planning on doing that?

As Cheney was wheeled away I’m afraid my composure slipped and I uttered a phrase much beloved of my mother (a fanatical catholic): “May he rot in hell”. I take that back. I merely want him to rot in gaol.