‘Nixon’ Getting Kicked Around at the Box Office

It was one of the higher-profile movies of the season. But in a month of release, Oliver Stone’s “Nixon” has taken in only $13 million at the box office--far less than the Walt Disney Studios and the filmmakers had anticipated.

“On paper, it looked like gold,” recalled a source close to the $43-million project, referring to laudatory cover stories in Newsweek and Entertainment Weekly, a barrage of broadcast publicity and 65 Top 10 lists anointing it one of the year’s best. “ ‘Schindler’s List,’ another three-hour film about an extremely dark subject, went through the roof. We’ve hit a brick wall trying to figure what went wrong.”

Industry observers say the Cinergi Pictures Entertainment movie had a host of obstacles to surmount if it were to equal the $70 million grossed in the United States and Canada by Stone’s “JFK”--obstacles that had little to do with the film’s quality, they add.

Frank Price, chairman of Price Entertainment, says a “presidential bio-pic” is always a tough sell. “ ‘JFK’ was a murder mystery . . . ‘Who Killed Cock Robin?’ ” he said. “ ‘Nixon’ suffered from being a life story--one that’s perceived as a civics lesson.”

If so, film critic/historian Richard Schickel says, the critical establishment is partly to blame.

“The reviews led people to think they’d be watching a bunch of middle-aged white men sitting around talking,” he said. “They totally missed the ‘fun’ aspect of the film. Oliver Stone is a masterful, kinetic filmmaker who made the mistake of throwing in some cockamamie stuff about Nixon and the Kennedy assassination. Instead of talking about entertainment, critics focused, once again, on ‘a filmmaker’s obligation to Truth.’ ”

Others are less forgiving of Stone, who declined to be interviewed for this story. Despite relative restraint in his portrayal of Nixon and the publication of a 563-page annotated script, the director is still perceived by some as a filmmaker of “excess.”

“After ‘JFK,’ people realized that if they want reality, they don’t go to Stone,” a producer said. “And if you want drama, you don’t go to ‘Nixon.’ For a movie to succeed, the audience must either be able to identify with a character, wish it were he, or want to sleep with him. None of these applies in Nixon’s case.”

However well the subject is handled, Richard Nixon is no box-office draw, said Paula Silver, a motion picture strategic consultant and former president of Columbia Pictures marketing.

“Nixon is America’s dirty laundry,” she said. “When he died, there was an acceptance--a cleansing of sorts and applause for his foreign policy accomplishments. Whatever the psychological reasons underlying his behavior, people don’t want to be reminded of it.”

Stone spokesman Stephen Rivers agrees that a miscalculation may have been made. “We probably underestimated people’s psychological aversion to Richard Nixon,” he said. “Though the press finds him endlessly fascinating, the public’s appetite is considerably less.”

Especially in the all-important foreign market, where the film hasn’t yet been released, industry analysts say. Though “Nixon” is opening the Berlin Film Festival in February, interest in the 37th president is even weaker abroad.

Dick Cook, president of distribution and marketing for Disney’s Buena Vista Pictures, says that the audience has been an older one--men and women who lived through the Nixon era.

“This is a movie that appeals to those who are interested . . . and it’s hard to find a 16- or 17-year-old who is,” he acknowledged. “From what I’ve read, some high school seniors don’t even know what Watergate or Vietnam were about. It’s the narrowness of the subject matter that worked against ‘Nixon’ rather than any backlash against Stone. He’s one of the important filmmakers of this generation, one who tackles tough subjects in an intelligent and unique way.”

Hits such as “Dances With Wolves” also ran three hours, Cook observed. But the time factor may have been a deterrent--on weekdays, at least. “You have to make a commitment to a movie of this size,” he said. “It can’t be a whim.”

A leading producer contrasts “Nixon” with a more commercially successful holiday offering. “Though the filmmaking isn’t nearly as good in ‘Grumpier Old Men,’ the movie was considered diverting enough so people said, ‘Why not?’ ” he said. “With ‘Nixon,’ word of mouth was insufficient to overcome the three-hour running time--which is also what happened to ‘Casino.’ ”

Even in terms of controversy, insiders note, “Nixon” suffered in comparison to “JFK.” Some still consider the Kennedy assassination an open book and the furor greeting Stone’s conspiracy theory fanned the flames. The critical dissection of “Nixon” was of a drier sort and served to drag it down.

“People were outraged at the implications of ‘JFK,’ ” Price said, alluding to Stone’s suggestion that Lyndon Johnson was involved. “Compared to the furor that greeted that film, targeting Stone’s portrayal of Nixon as a pill-popping drunk is like criticizing a hangnail.”

In December, the Richard Nixon Library & Birthplace Foundation issued a statement labeling the movie “character assassination.” Rather than taking credit for the film’s demise, however, it says that the official response may actually have helped.

“Stephen Rivers called and jokingly said they should send us flowers for fueling public interest in the film,” says library spokeswoman Evie Lazzarino, whose group will discuss “Nixon” and other political films in a bipartisan conference this fall.

Amid mounting criticism of “Nixon” last month, Stone’s sense of humor remained intact. Participating in an America Online conversation, he was asked what his next project would be.

“A movie on [President] Gerald Ford,” the director quipped. “Perhaps when he stumbled, he was pushed.”