Nixon - 1995 Oliver Stone Film

[Guest]

After someone mentioned this film in a thread the other day, I thought I'd have a watch and in my view it is a masterpiece. At 3 hours and 32mins long, I can see why it didn't do well at the box office, that's 3 movies for most people and beyond their concentration spans. On reflection, I think that is probably the shortest it could have been to include that volume of information. I think it was very cerebral, with an excellent cast of actors. It almost strikes me that it was a reinforcement of the 1991 Oliver Stone movie "JFK", there is plenty of Kennedy short clips that stir emotion and highlight what haunts Nixon. The viewer could also be in no doubt about the finger being pointed at the CIA by the writer/director. The scene where Nixon references 4 lives lost to clear his path to the presidency, and his aid corrects him and says; don't you mean two, he then reiterates "4 lives", really gets you thinking. The focus on the complexity of Nixon and his flaws makes it fascinating to watch, as he struggles to live up to or, be received as the man he lost to in 1960. Helms really doesn't come out of this film well or the agency. I thought Henry Kissinger got a bit of a pass and he'll be remembered as much more of a sinner than he is seen as in this film. I have a fascination with this era, so I do wonder how many would enjoy this film who don't share that passion but, to me it was excellent. I almost got a bit of a Citizen Kane / Hitchcock feel in parts. the cameras and music depicting the ever increasingly isolated Nixon. I do wonder how difficult it must be for a president with people surrounding you who are subverting your decision making and playing the game. Nixon was a fish out of water. 

I watched the Parallax view last night, which was great, is it worth watching the original Manchurian Candidate? 

[James DiEugenio]

The first version of The Manchurian Candidate is much better than the remake.

 

[Jamey Flanagan]

I saw the thread the other day. I haven't seen The Parallax View but I'm a huge fan of Nixon! As much of a fan of JFK as I am, I almost want to say that Nixon is a better made film. JFK was definitely original in the way it told it's story and it's use of editing and visual effects. I'm not sure if there's ever been quite a movie like it since or even coming before it. I think it is one of the most important movies ever made! It forced legislation for God's sake! Even if you wanna argue that the ARRB, like the HSCA and the Warren Comission before it won't solve anything or change anything in the big picture, what other film can say that it caused legislation to be born? Comparing JFK and Nixon is like comparing apples to oranges. They are two very different films. But, Nixon just seemed a little tighter. Whereas JFK was a trailblazer in film editing, it feels like Stone reigned everything in just a bit but it made for a tighter film overall I think. It has this Shakespearean tragedy feel to it. And the speech at the end, his farewell speech, almost brings me to tears every time! Especially as he talks about his Mother and Father. This is one of the most underrated and overlooked masterpieces in modern (if you consider 1995 modern, lol!) film history! I'm not going to argue that Nixon himself was a good man or a great man, but I don't think he was quite the devil people make him out to be. There are many things he did that are horrible but the things that brought him shame and ended his presidency were mostly things that other presidents before him were doing and he just doubled down. I think his removal was more or less a bloodless coup. His hands were dirty of course but the whole Watergate thing, in my opinion, was set up for failure or designed to fail. I could be wrong. But to return to the movie, I cannot reccomend this movie enough!

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Jamey Flanagan said:

I saw the thread the other day. I haven't seen The Parallax View but I'm a huge fan of Nixon! As much of a fan of JFK as I am, I almost want to say that Nixon is a better made film. JFK was definitely original in the way it told it's story and it's use of editing and visual effects. I'm not sure if there's ever been quite a movie like it since or even coming before it. I think it is one of the most important movies ever made! It forced legislation for God's sake! Even if you wanna argue that the ARRB, like the HSCA and the Warren Comission before it won't solve anything or change anything in the big picture, what other film can say that it caused legislation to be born? Comparing JFK and Nixon is like comparing apples to oranges. They are two very different films. But, Nixon just seemed a little tighter. Whereas JFK was a trailblazer in film editing, it feels like Stone reigned everything in just a bit but it made for a tighter film overall I think. It has this Shakespearean tragedy feel to it. And the speech at the end, his farewell speech, almost brings me to tears every time! Especially as he talks about his Mother and Father. This is one of the most underrated and overlooked masterpieces in modern (if you consider 1995 modern, lol!) film history! I'm not going to argue that Nixon himself was a good man or a great man, but I don't think he was quite the devil people make him out to be. There are many things he did that are horrible but the things that brought him shame and ended his presidency were mostly things that other presidents before him were doing and he just doubled down. I think his removal was more or less a bloodless coup. His hands were dirty of course but the whole Watergate thing, in my opinion, was set up for failure or designed to fail. I could be wrong. But to return to the movie, I cannot reccomend this movie enough!

"The Parallax View" probably has a few scenes that perhaps shouldn't be in there but, there is a very sinister or eerie feel to it, especially if you are familiar with the RFK assassination. It's shot in an unusual way. I agree, Nixon and JFK are dead different but, I feel Stone doubled down or reinforced his message on who killed JFK n this Nixon movie. It's great. Definitely another coup d'etat, people trying to get caught. 
Watching these films now, they already have the patina of a bygone era, I doubt you could get people under 25 to watch them. Which is the way I used to feel about B&W movies. 

Have you read Stone's book; "Chasing the light" ? it's very good. 

 

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

The first version of The Manchurian Candidate is much better than the remake.

 

Thanks - Just downloaded & I am going to give it a watch now.

[Matt Allison]

Well, both Nixon and JFK are masterpieces of film. In many multiple ways.

Parallax View is great, captures the era very well, and the incidental music is fantastic; So good it was re-used to excellent effect for episodes of the TV series Mr. Robot.

Edit: and yes, the original of Manchurian Candidate is definitely better, and I would consider one of the best movies ever made. Also a masterpiece.

Edited March 7, 2021 by Matt Allison

[Jamey Flanagan]

Haven't read that book but sounds like I need to! I have the Untold History book and the DVD's. LOVED that series! Had never heard of Henry Wallace or that coup of a Democratic convention that ended up with Harry "A-Bomb" Truman running the country before that series. Wonder how things may have turned out had Wallace been VP and took over after FDR died? I doubt they would have let him change the status quo. Who knows.......we might be here today discussing the assassination of Henry Wallace instead of JFK. It's AMAZING to think what could have been had JFK and RFK not been taken from us! We could very well have had 24 years of Kennedy presidencies from 1960-1984. And imagine if Joe Jr. hadn't died?

[Jamey Flanagan]

Wasn't the original Manchurian Candidate directed by Frankenheimer, who was good friends with RFK.......who was then assassinated via a Manchurian Candidate? Oh the irony!

[James DiEugenio]

The original version of The Manchurian Candidate was really ahead of its time.  Especially when you consider that it  was made before the JFK assassination.

Condon must have had ties to intel to come up with that concept that early.  Way before the Church Committee.

That film has that famous scene, of the 360 degree pan where the scene changes.  And Frankenheimer says that was not done with photography, the set was all rearranged in real time.   If that is true, wow.

Plus you had Angela Lansbury in what was her signature role.  First rate.

 

PS Jamey, yes that is all true.  In fact, RFK was staying at Frankenheimer's house when he was killed.

 

Edited March 8, 2021 by James DiEugenio

[Ron Bulman]

Jamey, regarding Nixon you might find this thread interesting if you've not read it.

Questions About Secret Agenda - Page 3 - JFK Assassination Debate - The Education Forum (ipbhost.com)

I was looking for another Nixon thread on the forum where I've seen the deleted scene from Nixon the movie mentioned on the current Parallax View thread.  The ne where Helms (Sam Waterson) sniff's Angleton's Orchids.  It's quite good, enlightening. If I can find it again.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

The original version of The Manchurian Candidate was really ahead of its time.  Especially when you consider that it  was made before the JFK assassination.

Condon must have had ties to intel to come up with that concept that early.  Way before the Church Committee.

That film has that famous scene, of the 360 degree pan where the scene changes.  And Frankenheimer says that was not done with photography, the set was all rearranged in real time.   If that is true, wow.

Plus you had Angela Lansbury in what was her signature role.  First rate.

 

PS Jamey, yes that is all true.  In fact, RFK was staying at Frankenheimer's house when he was killed.

 

I have just finished watching, it was very good. I think I read the RFK bit about having dinner with Frankenheimer in Lisa Pease' book or I saw it in the Al Jazeera who killed Bobby Kennedy thing. It's interesting where the concept came from, you'd think the writer was privy to the MK Ultra experiments taking place but, I guess there could be some possibility the concept was just born from the captured POW's in the Korean War that inspired the MK Ultra program. Angela Lansbury is very good in it (I used to watch "Murder She Wrote" with my gran, so that was a bit of a shock seeing her remotely young and evil), and Sinatra acts well too. They don't make blondes like Leslie Parish anymore either. 🙂

I wondered whilst watching, how abstract or conceivable the film seemed at the time? The fear of the red menace must have been at its most elevated height but, did hypnotism or mind control seem outlandish to the public? Or in a more superstitious/religious era were people more open to the idea of things science couldn't explain at the time?  

This will sound very way out there as a theory to most but, with the film being released in October 1962 (over a year before Dallas), did this plant the lone nut soviet theory of assassination by a rife in a high position, long before Dallas? Then when Dallas happens the public would be more likely to accept the LHO theory as they'd had a year to watch the latest cinematic hit and conceive it? Then when it did happen, the public psyche would accept it that much easier. Logic often defaults to "Ocram's Razor" and assumes the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Did the planners of the assassination use that scenario as it would be most easily bought by the public? If it had been in Chicago, it would have likely been the same plan, perhaps? 

Edit: There is even a JFK quote supposedly from Houston or somewhere on that trip about; nobody being able to stop a high powered rifle at an elevated window. I am not sure the quote is authentic or remember where I read it. Could that film have shaped JFK's mindset too? 

Edited March 8, 2021 by Chris Barnard

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Jamey Flanagan said:

Wasn't the original Manchurian Candidate directed by Frankenheimer, who was good friends with RFK.......who was then assassinated via a Manchurian Candidate? Oh the irony!

Exactly, uncanny.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Jamey Flanagan said:

Haven't read that book but sounds like I need to! I have the Untold History book and the DVD's. LOVED that series! Had never heard of Henry Wallace or that coup of a Democratic convention that ended up with Harry "A-Bomb" Truman running the country before that series. Wonder how things may have turned out had Wallace been VP and took over after FDR died? I doubt they would have let him change the status quo. Who knows.......we might be here today discussing the assassination of Henry Wallace instead of JFK. It's AMAZING to think what could have been had JFK and RFK not been taken from us! We could very well have had 24 years of Kennedy presidencies from 1960-1984. And imagine if Joe Jr. hadn't died?

It's very good, it takes you up to the point where Oliver Stone is at the height of his fame, after Platoon, everyone wants to work with him. You get the feeling a follow up book is going to cover the moment he announces JFK and the way this alters his life and public perception. What I found particularly interesting was how difficult it is to get films made that don't paint the USA in the best light, and the mechanics of the film business (ie the number of ways your script or film can be changed or blocked, or funding cut). Sure, I understand a film must be commercial but, I wonder if the long arms of uncle Sam does interfere at times. We obviously know they fund some movies through fronts. 
I think I just admire Stone and the choices he has made, he came across so well in the Joe Rogan podcast last year and as you mentioned; that Untold History of the United States was great. Regarding Wallace, Stone certainly paints a picture that he would have taken a better path than most. Regarding Joe Jr, I suspect if they were looking to wipe out multiple brothers, then it would have been a plane crash or something that looked tragic and natural. It surprises me that a 'lone nut' or a 'plane crash' didn't get Bobby & Jack at once' but, I suspect given how nervous Bobby was engaging the public, they never could have imagined how his stature and public following would grow. Its clear Nixon was the one they thought would win in 1960. 

[Douglas Caddy]

3 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

After someone mentioned this film in a thread the other day, I thought I'd have a watch and in my view it is a masterpiece. At 3 hours and 32mins long, I can see why it didn't do well at the box office, that's 3 movies for most people and beyond their concentration spans. On reflection, I think that is probably the shortest it could have been to include that volume of information. I think it was very cerebral, with an excellent cast of actors. It almost strikes me that it was a reinforcement of the 1991 Oliver Stone movie "JFK", there is plenty of Kennedy short clips that stir emotion and highlight what haunts Nixon. The viewer could also be in no doubt about the finger being pointed at the CIA by the writer/director. The scene where Nixon references 4 lives lost to clear his path to the presidency, and his aid corrects him and says; don't you mean two, he then reiterates "4 lives", really gets you thinking. The focus on the complexity of Nixon and his flaws makes it fascinating to watch, as he struggles to live up to or, be received as the man he lost to in 1960. Helms really doesn't come out of this film well or the agency. I thought Henry Kissinger got a bit of a pass and he'll be remembered as much more of a sinner than he is seen as in this film. I have a fascination with this era, so I do wonder how many would enjoy this film who don't share that passion but, to me it was excellent. I almost got a bit of a Citizen Kane / Hitchcock feel in parts. the cameras and music depicting the ever increasingly isolated Nixon. I do wonder how difficult it must be for a president with people surrounding you who are subverting your decision making and playing the game. Nixon was a fish out of water. 

I watched the Parallax view last night, which was great, is it worth watching the original Manchurian Candidate? 

Nixon was set up in Watergate. He was a patsy just like Oswald was. One day he will be rehabilitated in history when events and actions will be revealed that for national and international security reasons he could not disclose publicly. He carried this immense burden to his grave.

[Jamey Flanagan]

I remember back just before the 2008 election debating the candidates and politics in general with my fellow church members. Of course being a church in the south (Alabama, lol!) there was one family there who were Democrats and then me, lol! The rest were Republican. The go-to response is always I can't vote for someone who wants to allow babies to be killed. I told them that I was against abortion myself, but I'm also against capital punishment. I just don't condone murder period. I realize that sometimes it is necessary as in self defense. I don't hate those that disagree with either of those beliefs of mine. But I flat out told them that voting Republican was not going to bring an end to abortion. I said let's go back to when abortion became legal. I think Nixon was president but could have been Ford I guess. Maybe even Carter. Since I'm not sure I'll start at 1980. Reagan was president for 8 years putting his conservative SC Justices in office, the GHWB for 4 years. Clinton had 8 years. GWB had 8. I said so in that timespan you've had 20 years of "conservative" Republicans in office versus 8 for Clinton. If those presidents really wanted abortion to end they would have done it. Anyway, sorry to get off track but in the same discussions I said I just vote for who I think the best candidate is. None of them ever happen to be Republican, lol! Then I said theoretically if Nixon were running against LBJ I would vote for Nixon without hesitation. LBJ was one of the sorriest, most corrupt politicians ever! I would say that Nixon was a better president (in hindsight, I wasn't even born until 1978) than Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., George W., Obama, and Trump and I will probably add Biden to that list soon.