Remember, ‘Nixon’ Is Just a Movie

What or who prompted Howard Rosenberg to castigate Oliver Stone for his “Nixon” because some perceived it “as being fictional in some spots”? (“Critics’ View of ‘Nixon’ a Dirty Trick on History,” Dec. 22).

Rosenberg missed the entire point of the movie: It is about who Nixon was and how he operated. That’s history.

CARLO P. DEANTONIO

Sherman Oaks

*

As a moviegoer, I appreciate Oliver Stone’s films. Both “JFK” and “Nixon” are dramas that held my attention. However, as a retired teacher and historian, I am disappointed that many do not realize that these pictures are fiction. Stone has moved events for effect and has liberally used his “dramatic license.” Unfortunately, some will still accept his version as accurate history instead of entertainment.

BERNARD BOIKO

San Diego

Despite its distortions and fantasies, “Nixon” will find a proper place among the chronicles of this chameleon of American politics. Those who recall the red-baiting of Nixon’s early career will find irony in the claims that his legacy has fallen victim to mud-slinging.

I also found it ironic that the Nixon Library would pose, in a Times advertisement, as the defender of the “true” story of his career. After two visits, I view the library’s version as the product of selective memory, sympathetic editing and polemic, all focused on putting the best possible face on the man and his career. Oliver Stone may be less true to the facts of the Nixon presidency, but he could hardly be less faithful to the man’s political spirit than the cover-up at Yorba Linda.

DANIEL J. STONE

Los Angeles