My main problem with the performance was Keach’s portrayal of Nixon. I thought it was a little broad, which helped capture the humor, but he never really disappeared into a realistic character. More importantly, he didn’t give Nixon the weight of a Shakespearean tragic character, which I believe is what is needed to maximize the script. For that reason, I am looking forward to the performance of Frank Langella (who originated the Nixon role on Broadway) in the movie next month.

I found, in the reading, that Nixon came across as complex and – if not pitiable – at least multi-dimensional. And that Frost came across as quite complex himself, as a man of ambition and cheer and no great depth, who found something in himself to finally crack Nixon’s considerable hubristic facade.

While it was a side-show in Nixon’s long career, it was, at the time, an emotional tumult for many of us to see. It was the one and only time anyone in public ever saw Nixon’s public ego penetrated to reveal his own awareness of what he’d done.

I somehow don’t remember feeling that the narrator had the effect of one-siding the play, but rather, seen by me as a reflection of what I felt, and most of the public felt, was a valid view of the man, however unfair or demonizing that may have been.

It is also – maybe – unfair for you to credit the actors with what works in the characters, and not the playwright. I highly value actors, but I’ve not known one that could save a mediocre play, but rather, make shit shiny. There was, it seems to me, an attempt to make it seem like a docudrama, not unlike what Hare does in STUFF HAPPENS.

But, then, when others see it and let me know, or I see the upcoming movie, I might find myself in agreement with you.

Certainly, the review was, as I’d fully expected, thoughtful and thorough.