Movie Review- "Frost/Nixon"

I was very much looking forward to seeing this film. I finally got an opportunity on Saturday. I gotta say, the film left me a bit confused. Not as to the plot or to the message, mind you. I am confused as to why it was nominated for Best Picture, while Gran Torino was snubbed.

This is not to say that "Frost/Nixon" is not a good movie. It is. It features some strong performances by the actors. In fact, these performances (specifically Frank Langella as Nixon) are probably what got the film the nomination. Actually, that's not really a fair statement. Let me explain why.

See, the Academy Awards, in addition to honoring the art of film making, serve as a good cultural barometer. In other words, it's possible to gauge the general mood of the populace by observing what the Academy chooses to honor. (Or, at least, it's possible to gauge the mood of the previous year.) This, I believe, is at the heart of the reason for the nomination.

There was, prior to the November presidential election, a tense mood in the United States. There was also a great deal of anger and anxiety. And a large portion of that anger and anxiety was assigned to the previous administration. Many, including myself) felt the administration was corrupt, and arrogant in its corruption. Many also, including myself, we upset because the administration seemed to be getting away with it. Essentially, we wanted some sort of comeuppance.

This was the way many people also felt about and during the Nixon administration. This is best demonstrated in the line from the film, "I want to give Richard Nixon the trial he never had." A good summation of the times. What I'm getting at here is that there is a sense (or was a sense) of needing a similar event from George W. Bush. I'm not so sure of the necessity for that now. After all, he had approval ratings lower than Nixon's, and gave much more incriminating testimony in our modern 24-hour news cycles. Plus, we are already seeing the results of that administration's policies both domestically (economic crisis) and internationally (America's terrible reputation in most of the world).

But I digress. The point is, you cannot stop the people from making such parallels. Let me share 1 thing which highlights this. The big, climactic line in the film is when Nixon says, "When the president does it, it's not illegal." When that line was aid, several people in the theater around me whispered, "That sounds like Bush." Take that for what it's worth.

One good thing about this movie is that it weaves in archival footage from the times. But, as I said before, without the strong performances, this probably wouldn't have garnered the Best Picture nomination. But the best word to describe this film is "effective".

The discussion factor is high. Not only for the parallels I mentioned above. Other issues mentioned include, but are not limited to the distinction between power and authority, the limits of presidential power, the use of media in all aspects of life, as well as others.

The "that guy" factor is fairly high as well.

Acting: A-
Directing: B
That Guy: B
Overall: B+

Read My Lips! MORE New Taxes?

The top video, of course, comes from the former president George H. W. Bush (or, shorthand Bush 41). He made this promise and terrific soundbite during his successful 1988 presidential campaign.

We've come quite a ways since then. I read recently that state governments are proposing making new or increasing taxes on a wider variety of goods and services. The local example is the governor's so-called "obesity tax" which will tax the stuff that increases that particular health risk. It includes all non-diet sodas. The bottom video highlights this. It's easy for for me to sit here and be OK with that, since I don't drink that much soda, diet or otherwise.

But it does make an interesting point. What are the limits of taxation? When is it too much. (Some may argue that any tax is too much.) Another side of the issue is this: Why are we so surprised and outraged when we hear phrases like "obesity tax" floated?

I should make one thing clear at this point. I am all for paying taxes. It's our duty as citizens to pay our taxes to help the government carry out its business. But this doesn't mean that every tax is necessary and/or fair. And our government gives us the right to peacefully express our disapproval and disappointment at those taxes we feel are unnecessary and/or unfair. So please, dear reader, pay your taxes!

The issue here is why we get upset when ideas like the obesity tax are foisted upon us. I believe there are a couple reasons for this. And, yes, both sides of the political spectrum are to blame.

Let's start with the left. We all know about the stereotypical "tax and spend liberal". You know, the one who wants to raise taxes to fund every government program with a bloated budget, no matter how crazy or unimportant or obscene it may be. Unlike others, this stereotype has a nugget of truth in it. Some of us do see value in a variety of things and feel that the government should help pay for it. After all, we never know what we will learn or the good that will come from it. And without government assistance, the gains will never be made. And the best way to get said money is from the taxpayers.

Moving on to the right. Here we work in the stereotype of the evil conservative who hates just about everything except Big Business. He or she wants to cut funding for things that make the world better and funnel all that saved money into military defense. Like its cousin in the above paragraph, this stereotype also contains a nugget of truth. Some of us do think that while these programs are probably important to somebody, the government has more pressing issues on which to spend its cash. The cash that the government does get does come from taxpayers, who should be giving less of it. Cut spending, reduce taxes.

Both are good valid, arguments. It's not hard to see why people are confused and outraged. From the ratcheted-up rhetoric of both parties, an interesting phenomenon has occurred. A new idea has emerged. Somehow, Americans have gotten it into their heads that you can have everything and you don't have to pay for it. Where did this come from? I argue that it is from the people we choose and elect to lead us. Maybe not on purpose, maybe by design. But, I believe it is their use of "wedge issues" that shift the focus from things of substance to things of style. Prime examples: Flag burning. Flip-flopping. You name it. All designed to act like mental rodeo clowns (or quites, for you bullfighting aficionados).

I see why people are upset. Are our leaders listening?