In a tense, character-driven meditation, Richard Milhous Nixon—a disgraced former president—paces a dim study in his Saddle River, New Jersey mansion during the early 1980s. A loaded revolver sits on the desk beside a bottle of Scotch and a running tape recorder, while closed-circuit cameras keep a watching chorus of eyes on him. What unfolds over approximately ninety minutes is a long, spiraling monologue that swerves between rage, suspicion, sadness, and disappointment as he traverses the contours of his controversial life and career. The mood is claustrophobic, the air taut with power and paranoia, and the room becomes a kind of confessional stage where memory and grievance are the main performers.
From the outset, the monologue is less a linear history and more a series of interlaced recollections that frequently derail into tangents. Nixon revisits the people who shaped his ascent and his fall, the voices that either supported him or betrayed him, and the forces he believes stood in his way. He speaks of his mother with fondness, paints Dwight Eisenhower with unmistakable anger, interacts with Henry Kissinger in tones that border on condescension, and grapples with John F. Kennedy through a blend of admiration and fury. As he probes these relationships, the narrative voice often shifts with his mood: when anger rises, the speech becomes jagged and disjointed, and if the speaker senses drifting from the point, he directs the unseen transcriber, a character named Roberto, to edit out the digressions and return to a calmer moment earlier in the tape.
Throughout this self-portrait, the former president’s view of himself mutates. At times, he casts himself as a man of the people, insisting that he understood failure and could relate to the average American who had toiled and fought to reach the top. He dwells on humble origins and the relentless effort that propelled him upward, recounting the setbacks he faced and how he supposedly overcame them. Yet these moments of self-affirmation quickly blur into self-pitying rants about being an innocent martyr, ruined by malevolent and hypocritical forces. He vacillates between self-deprecating portraits and self-congratulatory boasts, but he rarely dwells on his own faults for long, preferring to blame others for what he sees as misfortune. A persistent thread is his insistence that Watergate is not relevant to his legacy and that he never committed a crime; since he was never charged, he contends, there is no need for a pardon. He even argues that the pardon he received from Gerald Ford tainted him in the public eye, because—by his own logic—accepting a pardon implies guilt.
The talk grows more conspiratorial as he lifts the veil on his supposed entanglement with a political network he alternately names “the Bohemian Grove” and “The Committee of 100.” He suggests they are concerned with a heroin trade in Asia, and contends he pursued their power and influence as much as a belief in their alleged willingness to bring democracy to Asia. Yet after a pivotal 1972 vote, he claims they shifted their orders: keep the Vietnam War alive at all costs and push for a third term so they can continue the arrangement with him as their instrument. There comes a chilling admission that, at some point, he decided he never wanted to be remembered as the president who sacrificed thousands of soldiers for drug money, so he staged Watergate as a means to exit office while still maintaining broad public support. In his telling, he places blame not on himself but on a public that would rather see him fail, labeling himself a hustler and a thief who believes many of the same people are complicit in the deception.
The tension of the room builds as he chamber-by-chamber weighs the moral and political calculus of his actions. He gestures to the camera feeds, the tape recorder, and the looming specter of his own legacy, wrestling with the idea that a single moment could redefine a life spent in the glare of power. The monologue moves toward a desperate, almost ritual conclusion: he reaffirms his resolve not to end his life, even as the weight of his narrative presses down on him. The final act of the scene culminates in a dramatic demonstration of defiance. He pulls back the hammer on the gun and holds it to his head for a breathless beat, then lets it fall back to the desk. With a fierce, almost apostrophic deliverance, he declares a defiance that becomes his last power move on camera: “They wanted me to kill myself. Well, I won't do it. If they want me dead, they'll have to do it... Fuck 'em.” The moment is reinforced by the haunting visual of the same two words looping across all the closed-circuit monitors in staggered intervals, until the sequence slides into static, leaving the room to a growing, unsettling chant of “Four more years!”
What follows is a careful, almost clinical exploration of how memory, reputation, and power intertwine in the mind of a man who insists on telling his own truth, even as the truth remains contested and fraught. The piece is a study in how one former leader negotiates legacy, blame, and sanity while surrounded by screens, sound, and the echo of a career that refuses to fade. It remains a stark, unflinching portrait that never shies away from uncomfortable questions about duty, loyalty, and the costs of ambition—all directed through the warped glow of a man who believes his narrative is both his vindication and his final indictment.
![Investigation of a Citizen Above Suspicion [re-release] movie poster](https://whats-after-the-movie-ti152.sevalla.storage/movies/investigation-of-a-citizen-above-suspicion.jpg)
