Doubt and Frost/Nixon Under the Critics’ Eye

The LA Times’ Charles McNulty on the adaptations of Doubt and Frost/Nixon:

“Frost/Nixon,” adapted by author Peter Morgan and directed by Ron Howard, and “Doubt,” adapted and directed by author John Patrick Shanley, haven’t been radically altered, but changes in thematic emphasis, acting style and dramatic pacing might upset viewers silly enough to want to relive their theatrical experiences at the multiplex. The films will also have to contend with the particular snobbery of moviegoers all set to encounter modern drama at its finest.

That’s a tall order and not one with a glittering record of success. (“Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?” was eons ago, folks.) How do you get a golden goose to lay gilded eggs? Faithful reinvention is the strategy adopted by Howard, whose film is the better of the two largely because he’s the cannier movie craftsman.

Having never seen either play, I only have the film versions to go on and both were, to me, among the best of 2008’s offerings. Doubt was thrilling to watch from start to finish and Frost/Nixon has grown on me. I wasn’t immediately captivated but in the subsequent viewings of the film I have come to admire Ron Howard’s directing and especially in Langella’s portrayal of Nixon – probably the best Nixon ever put to screen. His portrayal is magnificent. That makes Best Actor a three-way draw between Langella, Sean Penn and Mickey Rourke. Rourke seems to have the edge to me simply because his is a once-in-a-lifetime turn. Just last year Langella was turning in a brilliant performance in Starting out in the Evening, and Sean Penn doesn’t seem anywhere near being done being great. Rourke, though, turned himself inside out with this role and that may give it the slightest edge.