PHILOSOPHICAL DEBATES BOIL WHEN FILMS ALTER HISTORY.

Byline: David J. Smollar Orange County Register

Oliver Stone's new film, "Nixon," contains imaginary dialogue and invented scenes. But so did "Apollo 13," "Schindler's List," "Reds," "Glory," "Patton" and "All the President's Men."

In fact, every historical film ever made includes healthy doses of alteration, compression, metaphor and invention, according to film historian Roger Rosenstone.

Without these storytelling devices, there would be no films because the medium requires a different approach from written histories, given limited screen time and an imperative to be visually dramatic, noted Rosenstone, a professor at the California Institute of Technology.

So why are so many people exercised over "Nixon" for its use of techniques so naturally a part of historical movies?

"Oliver Stone has taken on a contemporary subject that all of us over 40 years old have an emotional stake in," Rosenstone said. "The issues are still very much alive with us. The shadow of Richard Nixon still hangs over us.

"Contrast Nixon to a Civil War movie like 'Glory,' where perhaps two dozen historians claim familiarity with the data. With Nixon, we expect it to be a literal rendering, as if there exists some certifiable history that we all agree on."

But Rosenstone says the idea of " 'Dragnet' history: just the facts, ma'am," is fallacious, especially in the case of Nixon, where written interpretations themselves seriously conflict.

"All histories, whether written or on film, are stories that have to be created," Rosenstone said. "Stone's 'Nixon' seems overall to be a valid, serious interpretation of the man, of issues of the 1960s and 1970s, and of the control of government power. Stone likes to mess with people's sacred icons, and that bothers a lot of them."

Rosenstone said films must adhere to certain standards to be judged reasonable interpretations. "They cannot exist in a state of historical ignorance; they cannot indulge in capricious invention; they cannot ignore findings and assertions of what we already know from other sources. ...

"Clearly, you have to meet (the test) at the overall level of interpretation, of the portrait of Nixon, and not at the level of every tiny detail," Rosenstone added.

Rosenstone explores the fascination and frustration that many have with such films in his new book, "Visions of the Past: The Challenge of Film to Our Idea of History."

Many critics of Nixon cite a movie scene between Watergate co-conspirator E. Howard Hunt and White House counsel John Dean. In real life, it never took place. There was an intermediary who passed information between the men. Stone condensed material and invented the scene for dramatic purposes to keep a coherent and paced visual sequence, Rosenstone said.

"Film will always include images that are at once invented and true," Rosenstone said. "True in that they symbolize, condense or summarize larger amounts of data, true in that they impart an overall meaning of the past that can be verified, documented or reasonably argued."

In "Nixon," Rosenstone said, critics take examples of invented data and "proceed to condemn the whole film rather than deal with the overall interpretation.

"The fact is, at some point a movie cuts loose from the data and its portrait stands apart, so even if some individual data turns out to be wrong, the final portrait still stands."

If the film is commercially successful, Anthony Hopkins will likely become Richard Nixon for a generation of Americans too young to have lived through the Nixon era. "That's not necessarily bad," Rosenstone said, "given that Stone's interpretation covers a wide gamut in trying to come to grips with major issues of the time."