USA, 1995
"And the Spirit of the LORD abandoned Saul, and an evil temper from the LORD overwhelmed him."
- 1 Samuel 16:14 (translation mine)
"Was not Esau Jacob's brother? ... Yet I have loved Jacob; but I have hated Esau, and I have made his mountains a desolation and appointed his inheritance for the jackals of the wilderness."
- Malachi 1:2-3 (NASV)
"For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"
- Matthew 16:26 (KJV)
I
I don't believe Richard Nixon, either the historical figure or Oliver Stone's fictional version, ever lost his soul. Stone's Nixon is not among the damned; he is a tragic figure, and his story is Biblical in scope. I know little of the real Richard Nixon's character - what I do know indicates he was a master deceiver who nonetheless possessed a startling sincerity, especially during his last days in office and during his years as ex-president. He is tragically the most maligned American president, and thus is greatest achievements (and they were very great) are often overlooked.
That's all I want to say about the "real Nixon"; he is not my concern. I am writing about Stone's Nixon, a brilliant hybrid of fact, fiction, and drama. Stone renders the president much as Shakespeare rendered his kings - they are brought to life by history, but never chained to it.
Of all the many reviews Roger Ebert has written, my favorite is his review of "Nixon." When the film appeared in 1995, it was almost universally admonished by critics for historical inaccuracies. No American filmmaker is as despised as Oliver Stone, and few critics hesitate to abandon journalistic integrity and attack the man when reviewing his films. Even the brilliant review by Christopher Sharrett of "Cineaste" criticized Stone for ignoring facts and embracing myth. (The anti-Nixon tone of Sharrett's review reveals how fanatical hatred for the 37th president affected a critic's view of this movie, just as fanatical love for Ronald Reagan virtually destroyed the recent "Reagan movie").
Ebert alone seemed to understand the essence of "Nixon," and described the film with a unmatched clarity: "'Nixon' gives us a brooding, brilliant, tortured man, sinking into the gloom of a White House under siege, haunted by the ghosts of his past. Thoughts of Hamlet, Macbeth and King Lear come to mind; here, again, is a ruler destroyed by his fatal flaws. There's something almost majestic about the process: As Nixon goes down in this film, there is no gloating, but a watery sigh, as of a great ship sinking. ... 'Nixon' would be a great film even if there had been no Richard Nixon."
Although he received an Oscar nomination for the role, Anthony Hopkins was widely criticized for his portrayal of Nixon, which many critics found comical. Mike LaSalle of the San Francisco Chronicle wrote, "The real Nixon looks and sounds like another Jack Kennedy next to the [Hopkins] version." Once again, Ebert saw what the other critics missed: "Hopkins looks and sounds only generally like the 37th president. This is not an impersonation; Hopkins gives us a deep, resonant performance that creates a man instead of imitating an image."
This Nixon is indeed Hopkins' (and Stone's) creation, and is a figure (to quote Henry Kissinger in the film) "of Biblical proportions." At times he reminds me of Jacob, whose name means "overreacher" and "supplanter," a man of craftiness. The film makes much of the duality between John Kennedy and Nixon, in which case he is Esau, the root of whose name means (among other things) "to observe," "to act with effect," and "to press, squeeze." Above all he reminds me of King Saul, whose name means "to ask for oneself" or "to beg."
There are certainly Christian themes throughout "Nixon," and I could devote an entire column to the relationship between the president and his strict Quaker upbringing. But in its entirely, "Nixon" is not what I'd call a "Christian film" - it is a Biblical film. It fits perfectly the Biblical proportions Kissinger describes; Nixon himself fits into a Biblical paradigm as a King Saul figure.
I believe there is a uniquely Biblical view of tragedy, and "Nixon" reflects this view. Biblical tragedy is notably different from its Greek counterpart: while the Greeks saw tragedy in the woefully predetermined strings of fate that guided human events, the Biblical perspective is closer to Elizabethan tragedy. King Saul is a prime example of a tragic Biblical figure - so is Esau, to an extent, and Absalom. At times, even Moses seems tragic.
In the Bible, tragic characters rise and fall based on certain attributes intrinsic to that character (making tragic Biblical characters less dynamic, though not less interesting, than tragic Elizabethan characters, who were dynamic except for a central "fatal flaw"). Whereas fate was predetermined to the Greek mind, character was predetermined to the Hebrew mind (consider how the Hebrew language plays a role in a character's life, with the character's name reflecting unchangeable aspects of their personality). As such, David was almost permanently "beloved," and Saul was ever beneath him. The tagic elements really come into play when the character begins to realize their own shortcomings.
Nixon is a character totally aware of his own shortcomings. In his review, Sharrett accurately identifies Nixon with Wilhelm Reich's "little man." This is an identity Nixon recognizes, and is the source of much of his self-hatred. The Biblical Saul measures himself similarly - in 1 Samuel 15:17, he is said to be "small" in his own eyes, the Hebrew word for little being "Qatan." The word has four meanings: "physically small," "young," insignificant," or "unimportant." Saul was not physically small (he was in fact the tallest man in Israel). He was not young. Thus, the verse can only mean that he viewed himself as insignificant, or unimportant, with a kind of self-loathing. Nevertheless, he is propelled to the kingship, but he loses the favor of God and falls into disgrace.
In "Nixon," the love of the American people is interchangeable with the love of God. During the famous prayer scene between Nixon and Kissinger, Nixon weeps as if he is addressing God and the people...as if he, like Saul, has been rejected by both. This understanding is more than he can bear, and ultimately leads to his resignation. The way Hopkins plays Nixon during those last days evokes the "evil temper" that overcame Saul.
But the most striking parallel between Nixon and Israel's first king is the war.
Nixon: "They smelled the blood on me this time. ... It came over from Vietnam, that smell. I mean, everyone suffered so much. Their boys killed. They need to sacrifice something, appease the gods of war: Mars, Jupiter. I am that blood, General. I am that sacrifice, in the highest place of all."
The stories of Nixon and Saul are stories of war its effect on the commander's soul. For both Nixon and Saul, the core issue is weakness during wartime. Neither is fit to lead their nation in battle. Saul is hesitant, always second-guessing, sparing lives rather than taking too many. Nixon is the opposite, violent and aggressive. During a meeting with Mao Zedong, the Chinese leader notes the similarities he and Nixon share: "We both come from poor families, and others paid to feed the hunger in us. In my case, millions of reactionaries - in your case, millions of Vietnamese."
It may seem extreme, almost crude, to compare the crimes of any American president (even Nixon) to those of Mao. Americans are sensitive about their legacy being compared to that of other nations - when a small, liberal website recently released an ad comparing Bush's policies to those of Hitler, the screams of right-wing protest were audible on Pluto. But as the film examines the role Nixon and Kissinger played in world affairs from 1969 through 1973, the sheer horror of it all cannot be missed, nor can we doubt that Mao's comparison has merit. This is a man who prolonged the Vietnam war out of pure asininity. His decision to attack Cambodia indirectly led to the collapse of an entire society and mass genocide. There are references to the coup America staged in Chile in 1973, a transfer of power which resulted in the death of thousands. There are allusions innumerable to the many secret operations Nixon executed as Vice President under Eisenhower (one of which, Stone intimates, may have inadvertently led to the assassination of John Kennedy).
Yet Nixon's legacy is ultimately one of peace. He achieved a working relationship with China and a remarkable (though sadly overlooked) detente with the Soviet Union. Compare the world after Nixon's resignation to the world after Reagan's last year in office. Our 40th president virtually restarted the Cold War, brought turmoil and death to the Middle East (a mistake for which we continue to pay), and waged illegal wars throughout the world. His crimes are certainly equal to Nixon's, and he has no legacy of peace-making with which to match Nixon. Yet he was beloved and Nixon despised, just as David was beloved even as he drove his nation deeper into war and turmoil.
Why does the blood that rolled off Reagan's hands, or Kennedy's hands, or David's hands, so stick to men like Nixon and Saul? This is one of the great mysteries of the Bible, a mystery at the center of Biblical tragedy. That which God honors in one man, He condemns in another; He will reward one man for sparing the enemy, and punish another for sparing the innocent. He will not intervene to protect Abel, but makes a covenant to protect Cain. He spares Ninevah because her livestock cried out, but will not spare His own people from genocide at Ninevah's hands. He loves Jacob but hates Esau. He punishes Saul but pardons David.
"Nixon" is haunted by the ghosts of previous administrations. Paintings of Kennedy and Theodore Roosevelt haunt the walls, reminding Nixon of the love his people have bestowed upon previous leaders...but not upon him. Eisenhower and FDR appear, reminders of corruptions and scandals veiled from the public, the naïveté of a more innocent age...luxuries Nixon has not been afforded.
Above all there is Lincoln, whom Nixon invokes in a pivotal speech during his '68 campaign. Lincoln is there throughout the presidency, during moments of inner turmoil. When reflecting on the quantity of death that preceded his election, the assassinations and war, the "bodies," he looks at Lincoln's portrait and asks, "How many bodies did you have? Hundreds of thousands? Where would we be without death?" During a scene at the Lincoln memory, images of Vietnam are intercut with images of the Civil War. The Civil War was certainly the Vietnam of its time, and the 1860s produced as much moral uncertainty and disillusion as the 1960s. It is not ironic that Nixon identifies with Lincoln throughout the film - both men ended bitter wars and worked to reunite a divided country; both men fought inner struggles which rivaled even their toughest the political battles. But in the end, Lincoln was loved and Nixon was not.
Sharrett astutely identifies Lincoln as a Mephistophelean presence in the film. He is always there, in paintings and monuments, beckoning Nixon in, taking the forms that Nixon himself most wants to embody. Despite his personal identification with Lincoln, Nixon understands that, in the eyes of America, Lincoln was everything Nixon is not. Lincoln is "Honest Abe," the most beloved president in history. His legacy resulted in his assassination, much like Kennedy.
Kennedy's presence in the film is as strong as Lincoln's. The Kennedy/Nixon duality textures the film, and Nixon understands exactly where he falls within that duality - Kenndy is the Billy Budd to Nixon's Claggart, the David to his Saul. After Kennedy is killed, Nixon mutters to himself, "If I were president, they would never have shot me"; nobody would have bothered.
Neither Nixon nor Saul are evil men. Nor, for that matter, are they unusually sinful men. Stone provides examples of both evil and sin in the form of Richard Helms and J. Edgar Hoover. Helms, Director of the CIA, manages those shadowy government mechanisms which Nixon calls "the beast"; to Helms, they are nothing more than a kitten. In one of the most striking shots in the film, Helms opens his eyes to reveal only blackness behind his eyelids. He is the void into which his nation sinks. Hoover is portrayed as a classic Sodomite, a hissing homosexual who preys on young boys and destroys anyone he deems threatening. If he'd been born in Germany, he would have undoubtedly help build the Nazi party.
Nixon's involvement with either of these men is never disputed, but he is portrayed in constant conflict, not cooperation, with them. The weight of his nation's sins bear heavily on his soul in ways that would never strike Helms or Hoover. It is a mixture of conscience and self-hatred that ultimately save him from the void that has long since swallowed those men.
But in the end, Nixon never ceases to be Nixon, just as Saul never ceased being Saul, nor did Esau cease to be Esau. There is a type of man who, for all of his virtues, seems permanently outside the favor of God. The Bible is littered with such men, men whom God inflicts with self-loathing with self-deception, men who slide always further from God despite their better tendencies. This is Biblical tragedy; it may not sit well with much of Christian theology, but it's a theme the Bible asserts both between the lines and within them.
---
Note: "Nixon" is one of my favorite movies, and I consider it (along with "JFK") one of the greatest American films. I have watched "Nixon" more times than any other film I own. It troubles me that Oliver Stone's political ideas so discredit his value as an artist in many critical circles. Nobody frets much about Shakespeare's political stands, even when politics dominate much of his work...he was a monarchist, but you don't hear English professors calling him a fraud because of it. I don't see why it's any different for a filmmaker.
To read Ebert's review of "Nixon," click here. To read Sharrett's review, click here.
