I love many Altman films, but was disappointed by "Secret Honor." Described as a work of "fiction" that uses Nixon as a "character," it still depends heavily on actual facts from Nixon's life to succeed and there is the constant danger of blurring fact and fiction. It's a claustrophobic experience in that it's basically a one-man show put on film, despite the introduction of some elements such as video monitors on the set to make the production slightly more cinematic.
I attended a presentation of the film after which the director made some comments. Seeing Altman in person was fascinating. His dedication to developing and completing the project was impressive. He said that he had chosen not to open up the play and that he'd mount the production in the same way today. I disagree with his choice, as did the woman who posed the question, but they both were gracious, which is something to see these days. I also think the play on which the film is based is overwritten. Some people in the audience seemed to be under the impression that merely because a film has a lot of dialogue it instantly qualifies as art. If a film has only one character and is pure monologue, the speeches must be brilliant throughout. That was not the case here.
Even as a work of "imagination" the film didn't ring true to me. Would a lawyer really say to himself that if he had actually gone to jail for Watergate, at least he would have been free after the experience? Lawyers know that's not true: Having served your time doesn't extinguish the public record; and Nixon was, by many accounts, a brilliant lawyer and a brilliant man, but there's the tragedy.
Even little details at the start played false. Nixon is seen as a bumbler who can't even insert a blank tape into his tape recorder. From what I understand, he was pretty anal compulsive, so as a bit of character definition, that business made no sense. I also didn't understand what he was doing wearing a velvet dressing gown if he was working in his office in a law firm. Other small details are dated: Alger Hiss did in fact spy for the Soviets, whether or not Nixon was out to get him as was suggested at the perjury trial.
Still, the portrait of Nixon was a far more complex and generous one than might have been expected for 1984. As an offering in this highly charged political season, "Secret Honor" is worth seeing. P.B. Hall's performance is very strong, although I kept saying to myself throughout, that's the man from "Magnolia." For me, the best section was when Fictional Nixon took himself to task for destroying Helen Gahagan Douglas's political career by suggesting she was a communist when she ran against him from California for a U.S. Senate seat. There seemed to be a deep undercurrent of affection. But am I the only one who thought the piece also was suggesting that Nixon may have been latently gay?
"Secret Honor" is not one of Altman's best. For Nixon mythology in cinema, my favorite is still Oliver Stone's "Nixon."
I attended a presentation of the film after which the director made some comments. Seeing Altman in person was fascinating. His dedication to developing and completing the project was impressive. He said that he had chosen not to open up the play and that he'd mount the production in the same way today. I disagree with his choice, as did the woman who posed the question, but they both were gracious, which is something to see these days. I also think the play on which the film is based is overwritten. Some people in the audience seemed to be under the impression that merely because a film has a lot of dialogue it instantly qualifies as art. If a film has only one character and is pure monologue, the speeches must be brilliant throughout. That was not the case here.
Even as a work of "imagination" the film didn't ring true to me. Would a lawyer really say to himself that if he had actually gone to jail for Watergate, at least he would have been free after the experience? Lawyers know that's not true: Having served your time doesn't extinguish the public record; and Nixon was, by many accounts, a brilliant lawyer and a brilliant man, but there's the tragedy.
Even little details at the start played false. Nixon is seen as a bumbler who can't even insert a blank tape into his tape recorder. From what I understand, he was pretty anal compulsive, so as a bit of character definition, that business made no sense. I also didn't understand what he was doing wearing a velvet dressing gown if he was working in his office in a law firm. Other small details are dated: Alger Hiss did in fact spy for the Soviets, whether or not Nixon was out to get him as was suggested at the perjury trial.
Still, the portrait of Nixon was a far more complex and generous one than might have been expected for 1984. As an offering in this highly charged political season, "Secret Honor" is worth seeing. P.B. Hall's performance is very strong, although I kept saying to myself throughout, that's the man from "Magnolia." For me, the best section was when Fictional Nixon took himself to task for destroying Helen Gahagan Douglas's political career by suggesting she was a communist when she ran against him from California for a U.S. Senate seat. There seemed to be a deep undercurrent of affection. But am I the only one who thought the piece also was suggesting that Nixon may have been latently gay?
"Secret Honor" is not one of Altman's best. For Nixon mythology in cinema, my favorite is still Oliver Stone's "Nixon."