Our Nixon seemed to be well-received in its North American premiere at the SXSW Film Festival in Austin, TX. This film is a compilation of footage of the Nixon years composed of archival footage from the era, interviews with participants, contemporary audio recordings of public events, audio of the Nixon White House tapes, and most peculiarly never before Super 8 home videos taken by Nixon aides H.R. "Bob" Haldeman, John Ehrlichman and Dwight Chapin. The film, while clearly critical of Nixon, seems to be attempting to humanize Nixon and his aides by providing an up close and personal view of him and those closest to him. But what emerges isn't particularly informative. The film seems to retell many familiar events: the winding down of the Vietnam War, the release of the Pentagon Papers, Nixon's Visit to China, and the Watergate Scandal (among others) without providing much that is historically new or different from many previous re-tellings of these events. The home videos provide a slightly different shading of events, but nothing that is particularly startling or new. The Nixon White House tapes have been in the public domain for many years so that we've already heard much about Nixon's paranoia and bigotry. The film is entertaining, but the overall point seems to be that Nixon was a flawed human being. I think we knew that already.
10 Reviews
A favorable, if surface exploration of an immensely checkered administration
StevePulaski22 August 2013
The video camera and the audio recorder are two of the most powerful tools ever to be invented in human history, mainly because they are so neutral no matter what is placed in front of them. They are designed to do one thing and that is to capture whatever is placed in front of them or around them, along with playing the audio/video back at any given time. It's no doubt both tools can be abused if put into the wrong hands, but it's also no doubt that the tools can be used to seek out the truth in times of uncertainty.
Penny Lane's Our Nixon is a documentary that uses archival video footage from the time of Nixon's presidency, along with an extensive library of audio files, to tell the story of Nixon's presidency in his own words. After the famous Watergate trials, over five-hundred Super 8 reels were put in a government vault and left untouched for many years. How the team behind Our Nixon obtained a great deal of them is a mystery, but many of them are compiled into a film that plans to allow Nixon and his cabinet a voice if decades have passed since the scandal. The result is an interesting, albeit listless documentary that functions with enough satisfaction to delight viewers and history-hounds.
The footage we are watching is directed by Nixon's chief of staff H.R. Haldeman, his domestic affairs adviser John Ehrlichman, or his personal assistant Dwight Chapin, all of which were tried in the Watergate trials. The archival footage shows many things, whether it be Nixon's vacations or trips, his speeches, or simply traditional actions carried out in the White House. The most interesting tidbits are when recordings of from the White House wiretaps are played, one of which housing Nixon's opinion of the homosexuality on TV's All in the Family. Other wiretapping instances show an occasionally vulgar Nixon commenting on the current world and his presidency in a nicely unfiltered manner. Also spliced in are news reports and older interviews with Haldeman, Ehrlichman, and Chapin, which provide for an opinion on the aftermath of Watergate and the Nixon presidency.
Our Nixon hits documentary-heights when pieces of information like this manage to slip through the cracks. When it plays long, disjointed videos and clobbers them together without much of a thesis or underlying commentary, it becomes monotonous. The recordings allow for a deeper and less filtered look at the president. The recordings (and the videos) were never intended to be seen by anyone outside of the tight-knit White House circle, so the fact that we're grateful enough to see this material is a miracle. Because of this, Nixon talks in an unsurprising but notably lax manner, and we are presented with a man not diluted by the presence of TV cameras or a microphone; just him and his thoughts.
It's only a shame that Lane and her crew weren't able to string along these clips with continuity and a clear message. The entire idea and goal of this project was to establish a more intimate view on Nixon as a president and a man subject to enough trouble and bad-press to eventually resign from being the President of the United States. It succeeds at its goal to an extent, but evidently confuses intimacy for traditionalism and commonality in routine. Nothing here is as shocking or, more importantly, interesting as the producers and filmmakers seem to think, leaving a large hole in the documentary's ultimate goal.
There's entertainment in the documentary. The only real issue is that I'm afraid even those who read history religiously will find Our Nixon a bit lacking in that department. By the time Watergate is introduced, the film seems to go down a similar paths a historical, political documentary would. The aforementioned entertainment stems from the authenticity of the audio recordings and the home movies, which keep the film at least buoyant as a gimmick. It's just a little upsetting to report that there is no attempt at a formal thesis to give a documentary like this more life and meaning other than surface-level exploration.
Starring: Richard Nixon, H.R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman, Dwight Chapin, Henry Kissinger, Ron Ziegler, and Larry Higby. Directed by: Penny Lane.
Penny Lane's Our Nixon is a documentary that uses archival video footage from the time of Nixon's presidency, along with an extensive library of audio files, to tell the story of Nixon's presidency in his own words. After the famous Watergate trials, over five-hundred Super 8 reels were put in a government vault and left untouched for many years. How the team behind Our Nixon obtained a great deal of them is a mystery, but many of them are compiled into a film that plans to allow Nixon and his cabinet a voice if decades have passed since the scandal. The result is an interesting, albeit listless documentary that functions with enough satisfaction to delight viewers and history-hounds.
The footage we are watching is directed by Nixon's chief of staff H.R. Haldeman, his domestic affairs adviser John Ehrlichman, or his personal assistant Dwight Chapin, all of which were tried in the Watergate trials. The archival footage shows many things, whether it be Nixon's vacations or trips, his speeches, or simply traditional actions carried out in the White House. The most interesting tidbits are when recordings of from the White House wiretaps are played, one of which housing Nixon's opinion of the homosexuality on TV's All in the Family. Other wiretapping instances show an occasionally vulgar Nixon commenting on the current world and his presidency in a nicely unfiltered manner. Also spliced in are news reports and older interviews with Haldeman, Ehrlichman, and Chapin, which provide for an opinion on the aftermath of Watergate and the Nixon presidency.
Our Nixon hits documentary-heights when pieces of information like this manage to slip through the cracks. When it plays long, disjointed videos and clobbers them together without much of a thesis or underlying commentary, it becomes monotonous. The recordings allow for a deeper and less filtered look at the president. The recordings (and the videos) were never intended to be seen by anyone outside of the tight-knit White House circle, so the fact that we're grateful enough to see this material is a miracle. Because of this, Nixon talks in an unsurprising but notably lax manner, and we are presented with a man not diluted by the presence of TV cameras or a microphone; just him and his thoughts.
It's only a shame that Lane and her crew weren't able to string along these clips with continuity and a clear message. The entire idea and goal of this project was to establish a more intimate view on Nixon as a president and a man subject to enough trouble and bad-press to eventually resign from being the President of the United States. It succeeds at its goal to an extent, but evidently confuses intimacy for traditionalism and commonality in routine. Nothing here is as shocking or, more importantly, interesting as the producers and filmmakers seem to think, leaving a large hole in the documentary's ultimate goal.
There's entertainment in the documentary. The only real issue is that I'm afraid even those who read history religiously will find Our Nixon a bit lacking in that department. By the time Watergate is introduced, the film seems to go down a similar paths a historical, political documentary would. The aforementioned entertainment stems from the authenticity of the audio recordings and the home movies, which keep the film at least buoyant as a gimmick. It's just a little upsetting to report that there is no attempt at a formal thesis to give a documentary like this more life and meaning other than surface-level exploration.
Starring: Richard Nixon, H.R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman, Dwight Chapin, Henry Kissinger, Ron Ziegler, and Larry Higby. Directed by: Penny Lane.
A Voyeur's Delight, But Don't Look For Anything Too Deep
sddavis632 January 2014
Robert Haldeman, John Ehrlichman and Dwight Chapin all worked as insiders in Richard Nixon's White House. They had one other thing in common: all three apparently liked to take home movies, and they took a lot of them during their time on Nixon's staff. Given the medium, this turns out to be basically what you would expect - not a documentary filled with new revelations about Watergate or Vietnam, but a personal look at the centre of power; a voyeuristic experience for the viewer more than anything.
Nixon was a complicated man. A consummate politician whose public persona was nothing like the private man. But that's already well documented. This film merely reinforces what we basically already knew about him.
Haldeman, Ehrlichman and Chapin are all spliced into this in excerpts from later interviews. The most interesting part of this is probably from those interviews when they discuss the fallout from Watergate, that eventually led to all three of them resigning from the White House and eventually serving time in prison. Otherwise, there's not much new information about anything to be found here, but it is a voyeur's delight. (7/10)
Nixon was a complicated man. A consummate politician whose public persona was nothing like the private man. But that's already well documented. This film merely reinforces what we basically already knew about him.
Haldeman, Ehrlichman and Chapin are all spliced into this in excerpts from later interviews. The most interesting part of this is probably from those interviews when they discuss the fallout from Watergate, that eventually led to all three of them resigning from the White House and eventually serving time in prison. Otherwise, there's not much new information about anything to be found here, but it is a voyeur's delight. (7/10)
I feel as if this documentary gets misunderstood.
danielgibson-027165 February 2022
The point of the film, in my opinion, is not to provide any new information on Watergate or Nixon that we don't already know. The point is to tell us more about the people involved in Watergate, their aspirations and how the scandle ultimately effected them. If you are going into this expecting a new angle on Watergate this may not be the documentary for you. But if you are interested in learning about the lives of those within the whitehouse at the time you will definetly enjoy this.
you won't see this stuff anywhere else
howboutthisone_huh12 May 2021
Warning: Spoilers
This is a fantastic film. If you don't get anything out of it, you're not watching carefully enough because there are scenes in the film which you won't find anywhere. For instance, nixon's complaining about 'all in the family' tv show is just hilarious. And the comments made about henry kissinger is equally gut wrenching and sad and embarrassing too. Kissinger was a media darling in the nixon era. The media always gave him a free pass on on watergate but this film shows him up as just as much of a buffoon as the rest of the nixon administration. Many people whine about the pettiness of nixon but that's what he did for a living. That's what got him in the white house so he was pretty good at it.
Ironically, 50 years later, the media is still focused on watergate and not much about anything else. Nothing about integration which was hugely unpopular or price controls or inflation or global competition. Nothing about trade with china. 1972, we had no trade deficit with china because we didn't trade with china and now our trade deficit has ballooned to over 500 billion dollars a year and the chinese hold most of the US debt. Nice going nixon.
Hitler made home movies too, along with his sycophants, but unfortunately many did not survive the war. Those that did are often repeated in documentary films not because they're particularly interesting or reveal a great deal of historical significance but because they show another side to the man. That is, the home movies show how ordinary he was. Yeah, ordinary. Weird, and dangerous but also ordinary. This is an interesting film but like hitler's home movies, you won't get very much context of the times or historical reference. And the constant home movies of nixon rallies is a bit over the top but most of the film, you're getting a short synopsis of the times and after watching, there's no need to travel to the national archives and listen to hours of the white house tapes.
It's just an amazing film with interviews of some of the participants who even years after the fact are glowing in the conservative embrace. No, conservatism is not bad, but cronyism, and boot licking is and this shows up these nits for who they really were. The end of the film is classic too because these boot lickers turned on their master, their master turned on them and still, after all the grilling and prison time, they all came up smelling of roses. They were all successful in later life. Probably, apart from nixon, some of the most successful felons of all time.
If you didn't live thru this period, it helps if you consider the context. No internet, no cables news 24/7, maybe two or three broadcast channels in your area, and maybe a couple of mexican bull fighting channels on UHF. No cell phones, no streaming, no changing what was published. Imagine if you will, reading a news paper article, then coming back two days later and it's all the same words. No editing, or deleting. Also, the home movies in this film were shot with film. Yeah so, you shoot on film, then you have to send it off for processing and wait for it to come back and then you needed relatively expensive equipment to watch it and a certain amount of skill to operate the projector without destroying the film. Guaranteed, most of these movies were shot, stored somewhere and then years later someone dug them out and watched and edited. If watergate never happened, they's still be in shoe boxes somewhere. Nobody in those days had the time to deal with film.
Oddly though, and maybe this was missed, there's no mention of chuck colson. Why's that? He was up there with the rest of the musketeers.
Ironically, 50 years later, the media is still focused on watergate and not much about anything else. Nothing about integration which was hugely unpopular or price controls or inflation or global competition. Nothing about trade with china. 1972, we had no trade deficit with china because we didn't trade with china and now our trade deficit has ballooned to over 500 billion dollars a year and the chinese hold most of the US debt. Nice going nixon.
Hitler made home movies too, along with his sycophants, but unfortunately many did not survive the war. Those that did are often repeated in documentary films not because they're particularly interesting or reveal a great deal of historical significance but because they show another side to the man. That is, the home movies show how ordinary he was. Yeah, ordinary. Weird, and dangerous but also ordinary. This is an interesting film but like hitler's home movies, you won't get very much context of the times or historical reference. And the constant home movies of nixon rallies is a bit over the top but most of the film, you're getting a short synopsis of the times and after watching, there's no need to travel to the national archives and listen to hours of the white house tapes.
It's just an amazing film with interviews of some of the participants who even years after the fact are glowing in the conservative embrace. No, conservatism is not bad, but cronyism, and boot licking is and this shows up these nits for who they really were. The end of the film is classic too because these boot lickers turned on their master, their master turned on them and still, after all the grilling and prison time, they all came up smelling of roses. They were all successful in later life. Probably, apart from nixon, some of the most successful felons of all time.
If you didn't live thru this period, it helps if you consider the context. No internet, no cables news 24/7, maybe two or three broadcast channels in your area, and maybe a couple of mexican bull fighting channels on UHF. No cell phones, no streaming, no changing what was published. Imagine if you will, reading a news paper article, then coming back two days later and it's all the same words. No editing, or deleting. Also, the home movies in this film were shot with film. Yeah so, you shoot on film, then you have to send it off for processing and wait for it to come back and then you needed relatively expensive equipment to watch it and a certain amount of skill to operate the projector without destroying the film. Guaranteed, most of these movies were shot, stored somewhere and then years later someone dug them out and watched and edited. If watergate never happened, they's still be in shoe boxes somewhere. Nobody in those days had the time to deal with film.
Oddly though, and maybe this was missed, there's no mention of chuck colson. Why's that? He was up there with the rest of the musketeers.
Watching the Trailer was the best part of the movie
johnythesciencetutor9 August 2013
I must say that I was very disappointed with the documentary. After watching the trailer, I was eager to watch what I thought was going to be a classic documentary that examined a "new" life of R. Nixon. Unfortunately for me (and most likely you) the trailer was the best part of the film and I found myself bored to death sitting through the full-length doc.
Horrible directing as well. I'm not sure what the director was thinking. Was the movie suppose to be cheeky and cute? Was it suppose to show us a new way of looking at Nixon? Nothing was accomplished other than a loss of 86 minutes.
I'm surprised CNN is showing this junk.
P.S. This movie was supported TWICE on Kickstarter and yet the movie was completed both times the director asked for the funds. Seems like a cash grab to me.
Horrible directing as well. I'm not sure what the director was thinking. Was the movie suppose to be cheeky and cute? Was it suppose to show us a new way of looking at Nixon? Nothing was accomplished other than a loss of 86 minutes.
I'm surprised CNN is showing this junk.
P.S. This movie was supported TWICE on Kickstarter and yet the movie was completed both times the director asked for the funds. Seems like a cash grab to me.
Missing Players
mckenziefriends-nv3 March 2014
The film features footage from 500 hours of 8mm movies shot by Halderman, Erlichman, and Dwight Chapin, however none of the footage shows Charles Colson or John Dean. Did they sue their way out of this production? It seems odd that such major players in the White House with roles significant enough to be incarcerated for regarding participation in the Watergate affair are absent during every occasion these three individuals independently decided to shoot film. The only logical explanation is that they were intentionally omitted for some reason and the filmmakers should have included either in the film or in the closing credits what the reason was.
why is everybody such squares?
aemery12326 September 2013
I wasn't born in the 50's so, I haven't seen all this footage before. I also didn't study political science in university. This movie really appeals to laypersons, who don't know what else to watch. I liked it, maybe give it a try. I've seen images of Nixon being portrayed as a creep, but I didn't know why. Now I do. try and make a review and you will know. By submitting this review you are agreeing to the terms laid out in our Copyright Statement. Your submission must be your own original work. Your review will normally be posted on the site within 2-3 business days. Revieview you are agreeing to the terms laid out in our Copyright Statement. Your submission must be your own original work. Your review will n
Conservatard mad at reality
rocks-6726411 June 2018
pointless
alhernandezlaw10 December 2019
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
