'Elvis & Nixon' plays with an odd moment in history

Michael Shannon and Kevin Spacey succeed in making us care about the little-known 1970 encounter between Elvis Presley and Richard Nixon.

Oliver F. Atkins/White House/Nixon Library/Handout via Reuters
President Nixon shakes hands with Elvis Presley in the Oval Office in Washington, DC, in December, 1970, after their little-known meeting. "Elvis & Nixon" is the comedy movie that re-imagines the unlikely encounter between the two cultural giants. The film opens in US theaters April 22, 2016, after premiering at New York's Tribeca film festival.

The most requested photo in the National Archives is the 1970 image of Elvis Presley shaking hands with Richard Nixon in the Oval Office. The conjectural back story to that oddest of encounters is the basis of “Elvis & Nixon,” starring Michael Shannon as the King and Kevin Spacey as Nixon. 

The meeting came about because Elvis, distraught at the druggy counterculture of hippies, wanted to work as an undercover federal agent to ferret out wrongdoers.

The ironies abound in this scenario – written by Joey and Hanala Sagal and Cary Elwes and directed by Liza Johnson – but the entire enterprise is played straight.

Nixon, at first, angrily dismisses the idea of a photo-op confab with Elvis. But finally, at the urging of one of his starstruck daughters, he comes around when it looks as if the meeting might be a vote-getter for him. The extended scene between the two men, which constitutes the core of the film, comes across as a vaudeville act in which both participants are playing the straight man.

Shannon, in the essentially unplayable role of Elvis, does rather nicely at conveying the King’s sly, taciturn pigheadedness, and Spacey, a master of mimicry, turns Nixon into much more than a revue sketch parody. He makes you actually feel for the guy, which is no small achievement.

Given the high quotient of hypotheticals in the story line, “Nixon & Elvis” can’t really be said to add to the historical record, but it’s an entertaining, deadpan jape that, with a bit of tweaking, could probably work as a stage play.

(B)

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.