In May 1976, in a rather dim New York City hotel room filled with David Frost's cigar smoke, the British television personality put an intriguing proposition to me: leave your leafy academic perch for a year and prepare me for what could be a historic interrogation of Richard Nixon about Watergate.
This would be the nation's only chance for no holds barred questioning of Nixon on the scandal that drove him to resign the presidency in 1974. Pardoned by his successor, Gerald Ford, Nixon could never be brought into the dock. Frost had secured the exclusive rights to interview him. Thus the prosecution of Richard Nixon would be left to a television interview by a foreigner.
I took the job.
The resulting Frost-Nixon interviews— one in particular—indeed proved historic. On May 4, 1977, forty-five million Americans watched Frost elicit a sorrowful admission from Nixon about his part in the scandal: "I let down my friends," the ex-president conceded. "I let down the country. I let down our system of government, and the dreams of all those young people that ought to get into government but now think it too corrupt....I let the American people down, and I have to carry that burden with me the rest of my life."
If that interview made both political and broadcast history, it was all but forgotten two years ago, when the Nixon interviews were radically transformed into a piece of entertainment, first as the play Frost/Nixon, and now as a Hollywood film of the same title. For that televised interview in 1977, four hours of interrogation had been boiled down to 90 minutes. For the stage and screen, this history has been compressed a great deal more, into something resembling comedic tragedy. Having participated in the original event as Frost's Watergate researcher, and having had a ringside seat at its transformation, I've been thinking a lot lately about what is gained and what is lost when history is turned into entertainment.
I had accepted Frost's offer with some reservations. Nixon was a skilled lawyer who had denied Watergate complicity for two years. He had seethed in exile. For him, the Frost interviews were a chance to persuade the American people that he had been done an epic injustice—and to make upwards of $1 million for the privilege. And in David Frost, who had no discernible political philosophy and a reputation as a soft-soap interviewer, Nixon seemed to have found the perfect instrument for his rehabilitation.
Although Nixon's active role in the coverup had been documented in a succession of official forums, the absence of a judicial prosecution had left the country with a feeling of unfinished business. To hear Nixon admit to high crimes and misdemeanors could provide a national catharsis, a closing of the books on a depressing episode of American history.
For all my reservations, I took on the assignment with gusto. I had worked on the first Watergate book to advocate impeachment. I had taken a year off from teaching creative writing at the University of North Carolina to witness the Ervin Committee hearings of 1973, from which most Americans' understanding of Watergate came, because I regarded the scandal as the greatest political drama of our time. My passion lay in my opposition to the Vietnam War, which I felt Nixon had needlessly prolonged for six bloody years; in my sympathy for Vietnam War resisters, who had been pilloried by the Nixonians; and in my horror over Watergate itself. But I was also driven by my desire for engagement and, I like to think, a novelist's sense of the dramatic.
If Nixon had actually been tried for the crimes of Watergate, US and World history would be different. Jerry Ford would have been (re)elected. The sequence of US presidents would have changed. Misdeeds of US presidents of the future would have been inhibited. Misdeeds such as the invasion of Iraq would have been inhibited and likely prevented.
Posted by Fred on December 17,2008 | 01:27PM
The author of Frost, Nixon, and Me, Mr. James Reston, Jr was extremely graceful in his acceptance of the alterations of his material for the play and movie. I don't know if I would have been as forgiving or tollerant of the changes even though they were for "entertainment" sake. I appreciate all Mr. Reston did and am happy that his works have been published. Thank you for your clarity of vision and the demonstration of your kindness.
Posted by Dene McFadden on December 17,2008 | 01:32PM
I think I come down on Reston's side. Factual history is History, imaginative history is Fiction. Fiction may well be stronger dramatically than History but it is important to maintain the distinction. Greek tragedy was a characteristic of that civilization and was a teaching vehicle. History should be as accurate as possible and improving it to make it saleable is a perversion that, though in this case modern, has been a problem throughout recorded history.
Posted by Don Borden on December 17,2008 | 03:09PM
I was busy raising 4 kids during this time and I'm ashamed to admit that I didn't watch this interview. Where can I purchase a copy of it for myself? I plan to buy the book, also. Joanna
Posted by Joanna Cowell on December 17,2008 | 03:19PM
"Memory is the mother of the muses" goes the old saying, perhaps because the arts help make their subjects more memorable. Surely "The Iliad" has held human imagination far longer and more vividly than any purely factual account of the so-called Trojan War. Shakespeare's history plays are likewise not chained to pure fact but to memorable drama. Those under forty have hardly heard of Watergate, but this play and film may well increase their awareness of it. That seems like a good thing to me.
Posted by Marilyn Goodman on December 17,2008 | 05:38PM
I do NOT attend movies, they announce that they are telling a story from a known book. Watched it is impossible to recognize the book you have read. I am afraid that the history being taught is much of the same. Producers chose toHOLLYWOODIZE every story ! They change so much of the original that I loose respecdt for the authors who accept the cash to have their name assoicated with the production. I find much to argue with in much that is presented on Film and television and toof often in subsequent print, magazines and newspapers. WE ARE IN DESPERATE NEED OF HONESTY.
Posted by GEORGINE ISELI on December 17,2008 | 09:47PM
I LOVE the Smithsonian Museum and am also a charter member of NMAI. I read every article in the Smithsoniam magazine. Thank you so much! Aloha ~ Sally from Kailua, Oahu
Posted by Sally A. Miller on December 18,2008 | 12:59AM
Having directed the piece myself, in Toronto and Vancouver, I must say it does NOT bear scrutiny, the kind of scrutiny that a play normally has to withstand. It is a clever screenplay, written, oddly, for the stage, and now, rightly, a film. The truth is definitely sacrificed for entertainment value. Enjoyable ride though...
Posted by ted dykstra on December 19,2008 | 09:05AM
Mr. Morgan's statement about history is disingenuous. In this case, there is a factual history to refer to, namely the tapes of the original interview. So, if the playwright wants to exercise artistic license for the sake of creating a stage drama, he could call it more truly: "An Artist Impression of the Frost/Nixon Interview", just as painters title their works. I don't object to Mr. Morgan writing a play; but I have to object to his corrupting attitude towards history, in which it doesn't matter what actually happened. If you don't think it matters, just consider the horrible consequences of our current president's lack of any grasp of historical reality, especially in terms of near eastern geopolitics.
Posted by Martin Tornheim on December 20,2008 | 03:16PM
Having lived through those times I was skeptical of how the new movie presented the interview since it was not how I remembered it. This article confirms my suspicions. Rewriting history and presenting it as fact (which is how the film has been received) is dishonest and dangerous to all of us. The major media needs to take a page (literally) from a magazine like Smithsonian on how to report history.
Posted by Kris on December 26,2008 | 11:19PM
The Lie That Tells The Truth is a fine book by John Dufresne, a novelist, short story writer, and English professor, that says all that needs to be said on the subject. Recreating an historic moment is wonderful and has its place. Creating the essence of such a moment through a dramatic device has its place. Both the play and the film have their own verities. Authors of histories and participants in historic events are brave and smart when they stand aside and allow an artist to paint a new picture of what they wrote or saw as participant. Fish and fowl. Sometimes foul. C'est la vie.
Posted by Richard McDonough on December 30,2008 | 12:37PM