See, this is my problem with the film- i never found it to be at all believable. It seemed to reduce a very complex character to a simple stereotype. The way he shuffled around, with his rambling mutters occasionally punctuated by a snorting laugh, reminded me more of Gollum than anything else. I could see a lot of political motivation for portraying him this way- making him an object of pity also serves to depower him, reminding us that he is on the way out and can't bother us anymore- but I couldn't see what this film was achieving artistically. The opening blurb (which I don't have onhand to quote) claims that this film is meant to explore and understand Nixon, but by reducing him to a strawman and suggesting that his presidency is the product of mental illness (or at least a troubled mind), I think Altman is evading Nixon as a character rather than understanding him.Gregory wrote:Sure, in public he was far more self-aware and usually able to put up a good front in the eyes of most voters before Watergate at least. But considering how secretive, ruthless, paranoid, and vindictive he was known to have been, and some of the things he seemed to sincerely believe both politically and personally, it's not hard for me to imagine that his mind would sometimes become like this at times when he was alone and his career had reached its lowest ebb. It's a fantasy, but a mostly believable one, at least for me.
I really liked some of the discussion questions, but I hadn't posted in this thread yet because I just don't have a very good answer to them. I'd like to think that this is meant to be something more than character assassination (by putting his worst attributes on center stage), but I haven't been able to see it that way.