The following articles are interesting.
1. After reading the book and the watching the film, All the President's Men, which do you think is more effective in telling the story of the Watergate scandal?
2. Discuss the differences between Woodward and Bernstein and their evolving relationship.
3. Why is it often said that this film inspired a generation of students to go to journalism school?
b) Would you ever consider a career in investigative journalism?
4. How is the media environment of today different from the newspaper dominated media culture of the 1970's?
5. "Nothing's riding on this except the first amendment of the Constitution, freedom of the press, and maybe the future of the country" - Bradlee to Woodward and Bernstein
How would America been different if Woodward and Bernstein had not relentlessly pursued this story?
6. Ken Ringle wrote, "The director wisely keeps his Nixon administration villains of screen -- their power and inaccessibility hinted at by TV images or by a voice on the telephone or by the opaque windows of darkly sinister limousines." Comment.
7. Discuss the cinematography and the use of music throughout the film.
8. Which character do you find the most interesting?
9. What is your opinion on the way Pakula ends the film? How would you have ended differently if you were dissatisfied?
10. Compare and contrast Woodward's informant Deep Throat with Daniel Ellsberg, Bradley Manning, and Edward Snowden. Were they all heroes, traitors, or whistle-blowers?
11. Try to watch the Discovery channel's All the President's Men Revisited and integrate into your comments. (*posted below)
12. I would also highly recommend watching Frost Nixon on your own. (here is a trailer below
In regards to the ending, I feel quite satisfied with it. While the lead-up into the ending was anticlimactic and left out a large portion of the investigation as shown in the book, it was a proper ending to the film. When I picture Woodward and Bernstein reporting the verdict of the men involved in the scandal, I imagine them exactly how the movie portrayed them: typing up headlines to report the results. Had Pakula had a more "Mississippi Burning" type ending with the guilty shown leaving court in handcuffs, the film would have not seemed as realistic and accurate as it did. So, while a more dramatic ending may have been more appealing to the viewers, I don't think it would have been as proper to have for this film since it was aimed for informing the general public about the investigation of the Watergate scandal, not for entertainment purposes.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I definitely thought the book did a better job of telling the story of Watergate. To reiterate what we said in class today, I found the film, especially the ending, underwhelming. However, I think we missed the mark a bit today in our discussion of why we did not like the ending. Personally, I had no issues with the ending itself. Under certain circumstances, I think the ending would have been a great closing to the film. My issues with the film came with the amount of story that was omitted from the film. Having read the book first, it set expectations that I felt the movie fell short of. For example, I expected to see the resolution of the Haldeman debacle--Woodstein's vindication for having used false information in their story; the investigative process leading up to the indictments and convictions of Nixon's aides; L. Patrick Gray's role in tying the cover-up to Nixon himself; and the making of the connection of Liddy and Hunt to Ehrlichman. I also though the film downplayed the roles of Ron Ziegler and Donald Segretti (although I think Segretti was cast almost perfectly). Ziegler was a constant obstacle to the reporters in the book and his brief appearances in the film did not do a good job of conveying his antagonism toward them. Segretti's sabotage was the window into the break-in, another aspect of the book that I believe was poorly explored in the film. I would have loved to see these scenes play out on the screen, and fully expected to, which made the ending seem more abrupt. Like Stanley said today, it seemed as though the director wanted to make a 5-hour-long movie, but stopped halfway through. I did, however, enjoy seeing the chemistry between Woodward and Berstein play out on screen, and liked having an insight into their process of investigative journalism. The film also did a good job of getting straight to the point, whereas the book took the first few chapters to throw out a bunch of names before getting to the meat of the story. The book on the other hand, had much more information and helpful details. This helped the book read more like a mystery than a historical novel, which relieved some of the potential dryness a story like this could have had. For me, the book seemed more complete than the movie, and seemed to tell the whole story where the film seemed to only tell half a story.
ReplyDeleteI think both the book and the film are effective in telling the Watergate scandal, but in different ways. The book is more informative and in-depth. On the other hand, the film is more fast-paced but concise and clear. I personally preferred the film because the film was easier to digest and comprehend. For example, I oftentimes found myself overwhelmed by the number of figures appearing in each page of the book. New name is thrown at a reader almost constantly, and it was challenging to keep track of all these people and their importance and relationships with other figures. The movie, however, did a great job cutting down details yet presenting all key figures and events, making it much more concise and comprehensible. Though I personally liked the film better, I still appreciate the book for its in-depth coverage of how Woodward and Bernstein were able to uncover the Watergate Scandal.
ReplyDeleteAlso, there was a number of things that the film was able to show to its viewers that the book cannot do. I think the strongest example of this is the portrayal of developing affinity between Woodward and Bernstein. The Discovery Channel documentary mentions that both Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford not only memorized their own lines but also other's dialogues. This allowed them to do things like finishing off each other's sentence in the scenes when they were having a conversation about the investigation. I was able to recognize these kinds of subtle, but effective ways to portray their evolving relationship. Though the book also mentions how the relationship between Woodward and Bernstein changes over time as they collaborate together to uncover the Watergate, the film was far more effective in showing how the journalists competed against each other in the beginning but later became good partners.
I think the ending was appropriate and consistent with the movie. This film is accoladed for its accurate depiction of the two journalists' investigation of the Watergate scandal, so a "hollywood style", Mississippi Burning-like ending wouldn't fit into this film.
In my opinion, All The President's Men (the film) is essential to understanding America during Nixon's presidency–and onwards–not only for its dramatization of the scandal and its investigation but more importantly for its depiction of the media's role in government at the time. At the time, media was primarily influential through highly centralized and relatively unbiased networks of newspapers, television news teams, and radio stations. The stalwart media exposed publicly hidden information on political issues and possible conspiracies, such as the My Lai Massacre or Reagan's Iran Contra Affair. Because of the tensions of the Cold War, counterculture & Civil Rights movements, and Middle East, presidents often were forced to make controversial decisions for what they considered the greater good. This translates directly to today's controversies concerning government access to private information via the NSA, even providing counterparts of Woodward & Bernstein: Assange or Snowden, take your pick.
ReplyDeleteThe role of media in governing the United States interests me mainly because I follow the markets very closely and read several news articles on the financial world a day. And if there's one lesson that I've learned about the media from my newfound exposure to its financial branch, its that for one reason or another, they are significantly less trustworthy OR influential as they once were. Several of the most popular of these media giants now operate on a bias, or simply do not have access to, or understanding of, increasingly esoteric but nevertheless CRUCIALLY IMPORTANT information. Often bias can be directly traced back to ownership of the media firm. Take, for example, the Wall Street Journal. Founded by, amongst others, Charles Dow (creator the Dow Jones Index), this newspaper is read by millions of Americans invested in the US money markets and prides in its unbiased journalism. Why, then, do very few people know that the WSJ relies heavily on the capital of market-making, too-big-to-fail banks such as Goldman Sachs? Or that the Dow Jones Industrial Average, widely considered a benchmark helping to accurately measure stock market performance over time, weights 33% of its holdings in FIVE stocks?
Whether or not there exists evidence as strong as the Pentagon Papers proving that the a relatively large portion of the mass media and information industry is skewed by minority interests, it is the only logical conclusion to arrive at once considering the facts (Although this is true more so in financial media and executive government media coverage than anything else).
This cripple effect on information accessibility has been countered by growing blogs such as The Huffington Post & The Daily Beast, networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter, and discussion-based webpages such as Yahoo Answers or Ask.com.
In an era that would stifle the attempts of a contemporary Bernstein and Woodward more effectively, there exists a vacuum of responsibility in the media; who will be our voice of enlightenment in a time when information deceptively seems to be the most accessible?
Having read the book and seen both the film and documentary, All the President's Men Revisited, I definitely feel a lot more informed about the Watergate Scandal, and the reality behind what most of the public knows about it today. Before this, I had very little idea of what exactly the scandal entailed - the only thing I knew about it was that Republicans were spying on Democrats, and that two Washington Post reporters figured out that President Nixon was not only aware but also heavily involved in the scandal. That was it: a clean and extremely quick version of what really was a long and tedious process. The reality of the grueling work Woodward and Bernstein put into this long two-year journalistic endeavor was lost on me beforehand, and both the book and film (but more the latter) did an excellent job of conveying this to the audiences.
ReplyDeleteOf the three sources on the scandal, the documentary was the most informative of all - with interviews of the people involved in Watergate on both sides (the Washington Post AND some of the "President's men"), as well as the actors who portrayed some of these people, it helped me appreciate subtler points in the film that I otherwise would have missed, and clear up a few things that confused me in the dense thicket of details in the book. It also helped me comprehend the extent and impact of Watergate, and what it meant for American democracy.
The main problem with all the film and documentary, however, was the glorification of Woodward and Bernstein, as if they were the only two reporters trying to solve the mystery of Watergate and its implications about other sketchy Republican campaign practices. The book emphasized, at least to a greater extent than the other two, the role of other reporters from other papers, such as the New York Times, who were also hot on the trail of the Republican party's practices. In fact, the book often mentioned how Woodward and Bernstein would be disappointed when another paper published a tidbit of information that they had missed out on. This is not to diminish from the importance of the duo's work, which is arguably the most important journalistic effort in American history, but simply to point out that others were just as involved in getting to the bottom of Watergate as the Washington Post was.
I definitely think that the book was more effective in telling the story of the Watergate Scandal as it outlined the development that eventually connected it to the White House. However, I preferred the film version. The book was really dense and it was difficult to digest the information. There were too many names and I often got confused as to who the names corresponded with. The film was more focused on Woodward and Bernstein, which made it easier for me to pay attention to. The movie was more organized in my opinion, and the music and the acting was laudable. The film was also able to bring out humor between the two reporters unlike the book, which had attempts of humor in it. I thought that the ending was a bit too abrupt and I definitely would have liked if the film was turned into a television series instead. If we were able to watch the story of the Watergate Scandal progress through a series, I think it would have been really interesting. But since it was a film and its purpose was to give a general idea of how the investigation of the Watergate Scandal proceeded, the ending was acceptable.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed the film. Though the ending did feel a bit rushed, it would not have been possible to show all the events leading to Nixon leaving office in just two hours- people watching the film would have found it too long, as well. The movie was extremely effective in keeping people entertained as they watched and simultaneously showing the difficulties that come with journalism. When I read about the Watergate scandal, I assumed it wasn't a long process to figure out that the President was involved. However, it was much longer and much more difficult than I had expected it to be. Every fact needed a source (or multiple sources) backing it up and people weren't always willing to talk and give out information. I really liked watching Woodward and Bernstein working hard to try and find out all these facts.
ReplyDeleteI also really enjoyed the teamwork between Woodward and Bernstein. I felt that they both had different working styles that turned out to be a great combination when working together. Bernstein seems to be more 'street-smart' - he knows how to talk to people and get information from them. He was the one who visited different people to try and get them to talk about the Watergate scandal. Woodward was more 'book-smart'. It was really interesting to see the both of them use their individual skills to find out information and piece the missing pieces of the story together.
Both the film and the book were effective in telling the story of the Watergate scandal, but I liked the book better. Having read the book before the film, I felt that a lot from the book was cut out in the film (which was necessary, of course, because of time constraints). I agree with Sungwoo's point in that there were many names in the book, and that it was a bit difficult to keep track of, but the book still managed to describe Woodward and Bernstein's investigation process clearly and in depth. I felt that had I not read the book before seeing the movie, the film would have confused me, especially with its fast pace. However, I still enjoyed the film as a whole. I felt that the ending was well done in the film, especially since the book's ending was inconclusive and fairly disappointing. I had wanted to see what had happened to Nixon, but the book was published before his retirement, and so the ending didn't feel very final. The film, however, had a more conclusive and fitting ending. I also enjoyed the cinematography, especially the scene in the Library of Congress where the camera slowly panned out until Woodward and Bernstein could barely be seen. The film did a good job in showing how the two reporters were facing forces much more powerful than they were, like when Woodward went to meet Deep Throat and found out that he might be in danger. This also ties in with Ken Ringle's comment on how the members of the Nixon administration were kept off-screen - doing so just added to the atmosphere, as the people in the White House seemed much more powerful than two Washington Post reporters (like a David vs Goliath story).
ReplyDeleteI also liked the dynamics between Woodward and Bernstein. They contrasted each other well - Bernstein was more disorganized and laid-back, while Woodward was more neat and focused, but both of them wanted to figure what was the true story behind Watergate. I felt that the chemistry between the two was more obvious in the film than the book, because I could actually see their enthusiasm as they worked together on the story.
Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed the book and the film, and they both helped bring to light just how big of a deal the Watergate scandal was at the time.
Both the book and the film were extremely interesting and informative. Watergate scandal is a topic in U.S History that is mentioned and summarized as "Nixon's break into the Democratic National Committee Headquarters" and it is dismissed with Nixon's resignation and pardon by Ford. However, with All the President's Men, you not only attain more evidence because the investigation, but you also learn more about the investigative Journalism and what it felt to be in "Woodstein's" shoes.
ReplyDeleteAll though the ending was indeed abrupt and sudden, the film was captivating and informative. Unlike most of the students, I have to say I enjoyed the movie a lot more than the book. The tie-breaker between the book and the movie would have to be the visualizations and portrayals. While you can imagine what it was like in the Washington Post Office, or what kinds of emotions ran through their minds as you read the book, with the movie, it's directly portrayed to the audience and it's easier to picture the frustration they had when the article printed was denied, or the fear that they faced when "Deepthroat" told Woodward that they were all in danger. Also, the little details that were added into the movie that were not in the book made it that much better. For example, when Bernstein tricks the secretary so that he can sneak into the office to get more information.
Like they said, during the early stages of the investigation, more than 50% of America had not even heard of the word Watergate, and it all seemed extremely unlikely that Woodstein would get any story out of this. However, it's because of these 2 determined and brave Journalists that we know now how important Watergate was to the American democracy and although it seems cheesy, they teach the lesson of not giving up until the end.
The film version of All the President's Men is the quintessential look into American investigative journalism in the 20th century. It achieves this status not only because of the gripping story on which it is based, but also because it does something very few film versions of books do; that is, it completely ignores the second half of the book.This allows the film to stay true to the part of the book it does focus on far more than it would otherwise by going into many of the rich details of the story and hitting all of its important plot points. When this level of detail is added to all of the things the film does that a book cannot do, it makes the film incredibly powerful and gripping.
ReplyDeleteThe exclusion of the story's second half also comes with very few drawbacks for a film released in 1976. This is because the film only tells the half of the story that Americans who lived through Watergate did not know about. While millions of Americans tuned into the Watergate hearings during the summer of 1973, the film takes place at a time when, as Ben Bradley's character says, half of Americans hadn't even heard the term "Watergate." For an audience in 1976, the film gives an insight into the untold story of Woodward and Bernstein's early struggles in exposing the Watergate scandal, and the rest is history. However, as someone who did not live through Watergate, I find the book far more insightful. While the film is more dynamic and engaging, the book is gripping as well, and, more importantly, includes an account of the Watergate hearings themselves that the film glazes over. While the film does a better job of telling the story of two journalists, the book does a better job of telling the story of the Watergate scandal and the revelations that followed.
I believe that the informant Deepthroat and others like Daniel Ellsburg should be considered heroes. The information they leaked did not put America in national harm. The FBI informant did not outright give information to Woodward but instead guided him in the right direction. For example, he told Woodward to follow the money and nothing more. Daniel Ellsburg leaked the Pentagon papers. These documents exposed America's war crimes in Vietnam. These " war crimes' include he napalm bombings, and the use of agent orange in supposedly neutral countries like Cambodia and Laos. It also proves that the American government purposely expanded the war in Vietnam. The American public became more skeptical about the federal government. I believe it is a patriotic act. Both men violated laws and rules of their employment to help inform the American public of the government's corrupt nature. A whistle blower could be Edward Snowden. He had the right intentions but failed to act accordingly. He was successful in exposing NSA's violation of privacy. However, in doing so, he hurt America's safety. Exposing the NSA is fine but giving classified documents to foreign nations is not. Those classified papers should have never reached the hands of foreign intelligent services. This poses a national threat to America as many nations are involved in cyber warfare. The leaks may provide enemies of America the opportunity to attack us through cyber warfare. In addition, many democratic nations have also been exposed to spying on their own civilians such as the UK. In conclusion, I feel that it is acceptable to leak classified documents which will not affect the national security of America. The people have the right to know about their government's fault or else they will be voting liars into office.
ReplyDeleteThe film version of “All The President’s Men” was, in my opinion, more effective in describing the Watergate scandal than the book. The book is inarguably more in depth, as it provides much more information. However, that’s usually the case with all books that are later portrayed as film. Like Sungwoo, I also struggled to keep track of all the new characters introduced throughout the book, which added to a bit of confusion in my reading. However, the clear advantage that film has, and that “All The President’s Men” capitalized on was its ability to use visuals and make it much more easier for viewers to follow. The chemistry that Woodward and Bernstein had seemed much more alive in the film than in the actual book. Nonetheless, I agree with others that the ending of the film may have been too abrupt.
ReplyDeleteUltimately, I thoroughly enjoyed watching the film, as it, along with the book, provided me with a lot of interesting facts about the Watergate Scandal that I would otherwise have never known. Who knew that two strong-willed journalists had the ability to expose the wrong doings of the President of the United States?
I enjoyed reading the book and watching the film, but I think that overall, the book was more effective in telling the story of Watergate. The book delved in depth into the scandal, mentioning every single name that Woodward and Bernstein came across. This could be seen as overwhelming to most readers, but I thought it helped to give the reader a better picture of how tedious and hard it was to get to the bottom of the scandal.
ReplyDeleteThe film was great in showing the entire process of journalism– Woodstein ran around gathering information from various sources, calling and visiting their houses. After, they would start typing their story; the film showed the busy newsroom of the Post and the repeating sound of the typewriter. I liked these scenes where they focused on the sound of the typewriter and the words gliding across the paper. Another factor the film portrayed better than the book was fear. A lot of Woodstein’s sources were anonymous because some were scared that they were being watched; I think the film portrayed this well. We saw this in scenes with the bookkeeper and Sloan. In addition, Deep Throat was more mysterious; we saw that Woodward had to meet him in dark garages under intense secrecy. These were things that were almost lost in the facts of the book.
However, the book was more illustrative and informative; the film rushed through the facts and ended abruptly. Understandably, they couldn’t have crammed the entire book into two hours. However, I do think that it would have been better to create a short television series or documentary series instead of a movie. This way, the positive aspects of the book and the film can be combined. Instead, the film seems more of a movie about investigative journalism than a movie about the Watergate scandal.
I also think the film was better than the book. I liked both but felt that the film helped one to understand the process more completely. There were a lot of names involved in the process such as Haldeman,Ehrlichman and Colson. There were also smaller fish such as Sergetti, Clowson and others. It was a little hard to keep track of them all but the movie brought it to life and added more drama making it easier to integrate the names. It really brought the process to life.
ReplyDeleteI also really liked the ending. It fit in with the whole story. The story wasn't about how big the Watergate scandal got but rather the process of getting to that. Showing Nixon would have ruined the whole story. Plus Woodstein coauthored another book, this time all from Nixon and the White House's point of view. In that book, you see the frustration the White House had after the Post articles started to have an affect.
Although the book goes much more into detail, making it more factually accurate, I think that the film did a better job of telling the story, just because of the advantages it had in being a film rather than a book; it was able to capture the life of a journalist and the aspect of journalism so well, which is something that the book can't portray as well. The way that the two journalists communicated with each other in the office, outside the office, in the car, and with people they want to obtain information from was articulated.
ReplyDeleteThis not only captured the life of two journalists who took down the POTUS but the life of a journalist in general. I can see this film being the equivalent of an introduction for journalism for someone who wants to go into that field. Although I don't plan on pursuing a career in investigative journalism, it sounds pretty damn interesting - the piecing together the puzzle, the caffeine, and so forth, as portrayed by the film.
The way the film ended was not as satisfying as I wished it to be; however, when the typewriter was typing before flashing to credits, I had a feeling the credits were next to come, contrary to most of the other students in our class. Nonetheless, if I had a choice, I would end it with some sort of climax - perhaps a scene of Woodward and Bernstein putting the nail in the coffin by chasing down important players in the scandal. A Hollywood-style ending wouldn't have been bad either; an example could be a scene where Woodward and Bernstein flash a smile to one of the men involved before he gets cuffed and escorted out.
In conclusion, I feel the film did a better job of communicating what it was like to be a journalist, the pressure involved, and so forth, and although it wasn't as informative, it was much more entertaining. Unlike Mississippi Burning, however, the film would have sufficed as a source of information for someone who is uninformed of the Watergate scandal (the book went above and beyond).
Having seen and read All the President's Men, I felt that the film version was more effective in telling the story of the Watergate scandal. Although the book contained a wealth of details not included in its adaptation, the film ultimately portrayed the grueling process in a clearer and more concise manner. As many people have mentioned before, I found the first thirty pages of the book extremely confusing. The reader is introduced to a large cast of characters, many of whom don't carry much significance throughout the book. Further contributing to the confusion are the numerous government positions of the characters, as well as their relationships to one another. I remember forgetting who Eugenio Martinez (though he's a suspect) was within a couple of pages. To be frank, the denseness of the book prevented me from fully enjoying it initially. Nonetheless, All the President's Men was a worthwhile read that provided deep insight into the Watergate incident.
ReplyDeleteOne of the many aspects I enjoyed about the movie was the portrayal of Woodward's and Bernstein's relationship. The audience can really note the development between the two during the course of their investigation. At the beginning, both regarded each other as nothing more than rival journalists. They worked separately, rarely bothering to communicate. However, by the end of the film, they have become a great duo. Bernstein and Woodward formulate strategies together to goad people into revealing information. During one of the scenes in the movie, Bernstein excitedly calls Woodward (almost immediately) upon discovering information on Kenneth Dahlberg. The two have such wonderful chemistry, complementing one another. The film takes advantage of its visual aspect to convey their relationship. On the other hand, in the book, their chemistry is not expressed nearly as well, perhaps because of the narrative style. It has a more detached feeling.
I also thought that the music in the film was well-suited, particularly the background music played when Deep Throat meets with Woodward. It's very suspenseful and even eerie to an extent - which is perfect, because it expresses the dangers at the time. Bernstein and Woodward were risking their lives to investigate the scandal. Finally, although I was initially surprised at the abrupt ending, I don't mind it as much now. After all, I can't even think of a better ending myself. I think the abruptness adds a dramatic note to the ending. If Pakula had gone even further, it might have been difficult to stop the film.
After watching "All the President's Men," I definitely feel more knowledgeable about the Watergate Scandal. I really loved the movie and I felt that it did an amazing job in portraying the effort that it took to uncover the dirty secrets of the Nixon presidency. Woodward and Bernstein are such a dynamic pair, and I personally think that it is their work together that enabled them to eventually expose the corruption in the Nixon presidency.
ReplyDeleteI especially love how journalism was portrayed in this movie. I felt that it gave us a very reasonable understanding about the difficulties and experiences of a newspaper journalist. I particularly love the scenes where Woodward and Bernstein are knocking from door to door, constantly saying their names and that they are from the Washington Post, and constantly getting doors slammed in their faces. But they never gave up. I think that this determination encouraged a lot of young adults to become journalists -- it's a sense of self-righteousness and morals that drive these people. I also loved how the movie went in depth with the information process, and how it showed that, for the majority of their investigation, Woodward and Bernstein weren't 100% sure of their information; a lot of it came from gut feeling, and a lot of it came from smart deductions that were later verified by witty interviewing skills. I think my favorite part in the movie was when Woodward and Bernstein used reverse psychology on the bookkeeper to find out the identities of L, M, and P. I thought that that move was so brilliant,and it really showed me that the journalists had to think outside the box to obtain their information.
Very similar to what a lot of people have been saying, I do admit that I was surprised by the ending, and even in some ways, a little disappointed. I think that because we were all rooting for Woodward and Bernstein to finally expose Nixon and his fellow corrupt comrades, that when the movie suddenly ended, we felt very unsatisfied. However, at the same time, I think that the ending was the best way for this particular movie to end because that way, the movie solely focused on the efforts of Woodward and Bernstein in their epic investigation.
All in all, I think that this movie was definitely worth watching. I would love to read the book and compare it to the movie.
Many mark Watergate as a turning point in American politics. They point to the incredible reporting of Woodward and Bernstein, their persistence in the face of public apathy and governmental hostility, and thank their efforts. They are seen as Christ-like figures, having suffered for the sins of others in order to leave the world a better place... perhaps this is taking it too far. But the truth stands that the event of Watergate is revered amongst all Americans who lived through it as a turning point in the modern struggle between the "people" and the "government". In many ways, both the movie and the book versions of All the President's Men typify this attitude and infatuation with a distancing of the people from their government. Both works of art are compelling, entertaining creations that portray an important event. But held against the effects of history, they did little but create a false sense of triumph in the millions that consumed each.
ReplyDeleteThe positive merits of the film, which I felt was more captivating than the book, were predominantly its inspirational character. As I described above, the viewer truly gets the feeling of a struggle against government, against even a labyrinth. In the scenes with Deepthroat, Woodward is forced down a dark parking garage that gives a terrible, oppressive vibe. Likewise, the early shot of Woodward and Bernstein in the Library of Congress is tremendously effective. As the camera pans out into the heart of the rotunda, the tiny figures of the two hardworking reporters seems to diminish rapidly against the sheer magnitude of institutional power. In many ways, this aspect of the film was the most inspirational and interesting. I felt the excitement of the journalists, and I see how someone more inclined to journalism could super easily have become very inspired by the film's portrayal of the two reporters' struggle.
Ultimately, I think viewing the film in 2014 is radically different from seeing it in 1976. As I wrote above, the generation that experienced Watergate saw it as a triumph of public outcry against corrupt politicians and power. They saw the resignation of Tricky Dick as an uncomfortable but necessary event, a defeat of excess, a check on executive power. It's unfortunate that the truly powerful work of Woodward and Bernstein has not ended governmental abuse of power. Within five years of the film's production, the CIA was ramping up intense covert operations around the globe, most notably in Nicaragua. The Iran-Contra Affair was another Watergate, only this time without Woodward or Bernstein. Throughout the Bush Jr. presidency, the abuses of war abroad not only continued but expanded the Tricky Dick behavior in Washington. Arriving in 2009 with a mandate for change, President Obama only continued the policy of Nixon-esque executive abuse, as is evidenced by the NSA scandal.
While we mark Watergate as a national triumph of the media, even titling it the fourth branch of government, we disregard the ensuing half-century of contrary evidence. Executive abuses are not a thing of the past, squashed by the democratic backlash of the Watergate fiasco. Rather, whistle blowing is receiving the squashing, as evidenced most notably by Chelsea Manning. Instead of thanking her for her service to this country in revealing our horrible actions abroad, we dishonorably discharge her from the service and sentence her to decades in prison. Where is the justice here? Where is the investigative reporting of Woodward and Bernstein? Who will line up the president's men, who will bring about justice? Where is the media when you need it?
Personally, the book definitely did a better job in expressing the feelings of Woodstein. Although the pressure of being in that office, publishing against the word of everyone above you cannot be expressed with the book, the book did a particularly good job in making sure one felt like they were in the actual scene. One scene in particular, after Deep Throat told Woodward that they were in danger, Bernstein requested the name of the their pursuiter, in which Woodward mouthed "C-I-A". Bernstein was then shocked and my body shivered. Not once in the movie did they seem on the brink of death.
ReplyDeleteBernstein and Woodward seemed to quarrel at first, but they quickly overcame their differences (not without the occasional argument), and formed a single entity called Woodstein. As seen in the movie, they took the name seriously and responded as one entity as well. Had they not had each other to persevere, we would still be under governments who would abuse their power, specifically the executive branch. This perservence proved there was a "fourth branch" that sadly no longer exists. The reason this was so inspiring was because two journalist nobodies suddenly became the face of the country and took down the strongest men in the country with everyone distrusting them.
The cinematography was also great. Nixon, Haldeman, and all their underlings seemed like villians who worked in the dark, and it was up to the viewer to imagine how they looked. Haldeman, although still scary in real life, was nowhere near as scary as I had imagined him in my head. The time of the scenes also looked as if Woodstein had to work at night due to present danger, or even the shadow of the huge figures they were attacking.
I consider Deep Throat the most interesting, because he truly took the bigger risks. In the day, he was wiretapping Woodstein, but at night he was informing them and pointing out specific details to bring down the face of the country. He is a hero because like Ellsburg, he dealt with the injustices that take away from a democractic government.
Overall I think the movie was more effective in telling the story of Watergate. Although Woodward and Bernstein actually work the book, and only helped out a little on the movie. For me, the movie was more clear in helping to understand the scandal where the book was a bit long, and dry at times. And even though it was written by the people involved the third person narration of the book gave less of an understanding of characters of Woodward and Bernstein less than in the movie. I really liked the portrayal of the relationship between them in the movie. Although they weren't friends, and didn't know each other before this story they so quickly grew to become really close. At first they don't like each other as seen when Bernstein just takes Woodward's piece and rewrites it without his permission. But they grow to become friends as is evident when they were questioning witnesses together they worked off each other being better as a team and how excited they are to tell the other whenever they get a new piece of evidence, or source.
ReplyDeleteI also think it's quite interesting how close to the real event this movie was made. All the people seeing this movie would have memories of the scandal, and all the publicity of this as it was going on and the outcome was known, so it was really about their process. The ending does have an epilogue of sorts going across the typewriter t have some sense of closure but people didn't need a full ending because that's the past they knew with the trials, and Nixon's resignation. Yet it still felt abrupt because the movie was about Woodward and Bernstein solving the scandal, not just the scandal. But the epilogue only told the end of what happened to Nixon and his aids, leaving Woodward and Bernstein's stories unfinished.
In my Opinion, the movie was better than the book in showing the uncovering of the Watergate Scandal. I liked how the film was in the perspective of the reporters and showed how difficult it was to get information because people refused speak to them. They had to knock from door to door with many rejections. Woodward and Bernstein’s relationship went from being extremely competitive and critical of each other to being good coworkers and almost like brothers. I thought it was interesting how their characters developed and changed because of this investigation.
ReplyDeleteThis movie is very accurate in how it portrays journalism, taking notes and having to confirm facts is very essential to an investigation. I liked how it showed fear, the scene where Woodward looks behind him and thinks he is being followed really showed how stressful this whole ordeal was. It was a great risk for Woodward and Bernstein to try to bring down America’s most powerful man, they could have been followed or declared as traitors and imprisoned. This film could be very inspiring for young journalists today because it showed how two nobodies rose up and almost singlehandedly ended Nixon’s presidency.
The ending could have been done better in my opinion. It could have been a headline with Nixon being charged and then headlines of the Saturday Night Massacre. Then I would shift the scene to a TV playing the public trials and Nixon’s resignation. Then I would include that Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon and showed a slowly zooming out birds eye view of the night time White house, with the words ‘Will America’s presidency become a dictatorship, Woodward and Bernstein showed us the shocking actions of Nixon, it is now up to the future American citizens to take a stand against injustice and tyranny’
The thing that bothered me most about the book was that although it was said, by various endorsements on the back of the book, that it would be a fast-paced, exhilarating read, it was anything but that. I found the book to be unnecessarily verbose, and while I understand that there was a lot of different information flying around during the investigation, I felt that even without all the complications, the book was still a mire of words that don't go anywhere quick. This, I felt, took a lot away from the experience of reading the book.
ReplyDeleteIn comparison, the movie, being a movie, had to compress the amount of information it could fit into the screen time. In addition, because the movie is a visual source, scenes could be acted out instead of described using words. This difference makes the same scenes in the movie and the book have radically different impacts. For example, early on in the book, there was a scene where Bernstein took Woodward's draft and completely rewrote it, citing the reason as "I have more experience so I'm helping you make your piece better." Woodward reads both drafts in disbelief, then admits Bernstein's is better. While this scene was meant to have a humorous tone in the book, it really was not all that funny. On the other hand, the same scene in the movie was absolutely hilarious, probably because we actually have some priceless expressions to laugh at.
Comedy aside, what really makes the film so amazing was its faithfulness towards the book - scenes that did make the cut had the words come out from the book verbatim, with almost no derivation. This is incredibly difficult to do, as a transition from a book to a movie generally have some number of difficulties, including the lack of ability to fit every scene as well as the awkwardness that comes from differences between reading text and hearing words. The fact that the movie was so smooth regardless, especially with its faithfulness to the book, is a sign of its brilliance. Although it is true that the amount of information the movie contains because of its restraints pale in comparison to the book, I feel that it's not necessary to know every little thing to appreciate the broader topics this Watergate scandal touches upon - one doesn't need to know the name and deed of every single crook and witness to wonder about the moral and credibility of the government, or the severity of the consequences of Watergate. Perhaps the major downer would be the ending, which could be described as sudden at best. However, I think by that point, one already got all the information they needed about the case, and the movie had done its job - ending before it got stale is not the worst move to make in terms of movie-making.
One of my favorite things about the book and the movie was the relationship between Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein and their impressive evolution. I found the snippets when they first start working together absolutely hilarious and very telling.
ReplyDelete"That figured, Bernstein thought. Bob Woodward was a prima donna who played heavily at office politics. Yale. A verteran of the Navy office corps, Lawns, greenward, staterooms, and grass tennis courts, Bernstein guessed, but probably not enough pavement for him to be good at investigative reporting" (16). (and it continues, scathingly) But it wasn't just Bernstein harboring dislike toward his partner.
"Woodword knew that Bernstein occasionally wrote about rock music for the Post. That figured. When he learned that Bernstein sometimes reviewed classical music, he choked that down with difficulty. Bernstein looked like one of those counterculture journalists that Woodward despised" (16).
It was suprising as I realized, while looking back at these snippets later on, that Woodward and Bernstein WROTE that, wrote all of the brutally honest prejudices they held of each other. I know too well how much painful introspection goes into writing things about yourself, and I really was rather pleasantly suprised when I saw elements of my own writing in this very important and influential political novel!! (Though I lovelove writing, I don't really like newspaper writing, and I don't think i should be trusted investigating news as huge as Watergate was!) I simultaneously saw how much their relationship must have grown, to be able to write what their (not so nice) first impressions of each other were, and laugh at themselves looking back.
While there were aspects the book conveyed that didn't get through in the movie, there were things that I didn't quite get from the book. Though there wasn't a line as poignant as the scenes from the book quoted above that conveyed their feelings toward the other, I really liked the scene where Woodward keeps typing up things and handing them in whereupon Bernstein would take them to his desk, apparently rewriting Woodward's piece (and writing it better). Woodward finally confronts him saying, "I don't mind what you did, just the way you did it", exemplifying the tension in their relationship!!
Even beyond the actors' (particularly Hoffman's) appearances, I really loved how, in the movie adaptation, their very postures communicated their personalities: while they would be talking to each other over food, Bernstein would be slumped and leaning on his chair, and tie loosened and legs lazily apart, while Woodward would be sitting straight, sometimes leaning forward.
However, the energy both of the actors lent to their characters was ASTONISHING and just really well done!! I could really see them slowly warming up to each other, and feel the energy in their relationship as they fired ideas at each other and finishing each other's sentences! They become so in tune with each other, (Bernstein catching on immediately when Woodward began communicating to him silently through the typewriter, Woodward listening silently on an end of the telephone at another room as Bernstein tries to get confirmation from someone) that Bradlee calls them "Woodstein" at one point!!!
The movie overall conveyed gave off an interesting aura, more than the book did. It threw upon journalism this glamor, with all the danger (and subsequently thrill) of dark shadowy garages and excitement of uncovering a mystery (the excitement very, very well conveyed through the actors), and just with the idea of toppling the PRESIDENT!! Also, I really loved the idea of incoporating actual footages of the President;s inaugural in the movie, in an actual television as if it were broadcasting as Woodward and Bernstein worked feverishly. It lent the movie a aura of reality, connected it with world, and the reality of the times they were supposedly in.
Tiffani says:
Delete"I was suprised though, upon watching "All the President's Men: Revisited". It shone light again (because I know we learned about how much turmoil the U.S. was during the Vietnam war, I feel like I just didn't quite connect it in my head) on the circumstances in which the Watergate scanadal unraveled. The United State was not in a time of peace and prosperity, I realized as I watched the napalm bombings and protests of the counterculture (people taking drugs, women becoming more sexually active, etc). I was reminded of how Nixon ran on a campaign of law and order (which is sadly ironic in hindsight), and why he so appealed to the country in turmoil. I was also suprised to find another thing the movie glossed over, while reading the movie review of "All the President's Men" by none other than the Washington Post in 1992 (in the packet Mr. Sandler gave us a while ago). Bob Wordward and Carl Bernstein weren't working alone, however romantic scenes of them working feverishly in a darken room side by side, working against time and all the people who don't believe in them (some of them in their very department at the Post!) would be. Ringle writes in the review, "the truth is that almost everyone in the newsroom ... became swept up in the Watergate coverage: staying late, fielding queries, passing along tips, and offering assitance". (IT'S SO COOL it seems as though Ringle was among those who worked alongside and indeed helped the original Woodward and Bernstein!!! It's kind of fascinating to see that they're still around and writing!) Ringle goes on to say "It was like being in combat together". I find it sad that the movie makes it as though Woodward and Bernstein were working alone against everyone else (for the most part, I mean, there's this wonderful, touching moment Bradlee passes a note to another person and it reads: "we will stand by our boys" IT'S SO NICE), because I find the reality, the entire Washington Post backing Woodward and Bernstein and FIGHTING TOGETHER, just as touching, if not even more beautiful and wonderful, as the reality they portray in the movie."
I think that the movie was more effective in telling the story of the Watergate scandal. While All the President’s Men was often dry and read like an elongated newspaper article, instead of an actual novel, the movie helped visualize the entire scandal and process of investigative journaling much better. (Also, it was strange that Bernstein and Woodward, the authors of the story, referred to themselves in third person in the novel.) One visual aspect of the movie I especially liked was the callback to the beginning of the movie; in both the start and the end, Bernstein and Woodward could be seen in the background typing up articles, while the foreground showed clips of Nixon and parts of the trials. However, I disliked the ending of the movie, which seemed more focused on the journalism efforts of Bernstein and Woodward, but ended with loud and quick typing spelling out to the viewers the verdicts of those on trial. I would have preferred a more “meta” twist to the movie, where Bernstein and Woodward celebrate their findings that implicate Nixon in the scandal and plan to write All the President’s Men, the book that the movie was based on.
ReplyDelete- Eda
Compared to the book, I felt that the movie portrayed the Watergate scandal in a much more comprehensive and understandable way. In the book, we are introduced to a plethora of characters in practically the first few chapters, and the people disappear or reappear so often that it's honestly hard to keep track of who's who, especially who runs which federal organization.
ReplyDeleteBetween Woodward and Bernstein, I feel that Woodward was more of the intellectual persevering type whereas Bernstein was the go with the flow, get all up in your face type who had much more experience in journalism. I think their differences really worked for them, as they covered each other's weaknesses and brought out each other's strong suits. This film probably inspired a generation of students to go to journalism school because of how it portrayed Woodstein as practically heroes who single handedly brought down the corrupt political administration of Nixon. If I was watching this when it came out in 1976, I would definitely consider a career in investigative journalism since it seemed like so much fun and detective like.
If Woodstein didn't pursue this story, I feel like it would've never been uncovered like it did, and Nixon would forever be remembered as one of our greatest presidents. Secretly, I feel that it would create a precedent in the White House that illegal activities such as these would be okay as long as you get away with it, and I honestly don't know what the country would be like today.
I loved the cinematography and the use of music throughout the film. It made it much more dramatic when it needed to be, and made the film that much more exciting. I especially liked the scenes where they zoomed out on Woodstein, such as in the Library of Congress and when they were walking out of someone's house into the distance. It made them seem remarkable and almost small, that these two people could work so tirelessly on a case that seemed improbable at the time. They seemed so small, and it made their achievement that much greater. I also liked the scenes with Deep Throat, because the dramatic lighting and darkness of the parking lot made it seem that much more like a detective fiction story. I don't believe that Pakula ended the film very well. I feel that it was kind of rushed. If anything, I would have the person type "NIXON RESIGNS" on the typewriter at a much slower speed, as to kind of fade it out. Or, I would show the front page of a newspaper where it shows that Nixon resigns as the headlines.
I really like the Discovery channel's All the President's Men Revisited because you learn who is who, and it gives a more comprehensive overview on who was who and who did what. It was also interesting to find out that Felt turned out to be Deep Throat. It was really interesting seeing the actual person from the book and from the Nixon presidency and how they talked about their role in the scandal and how they felt since then.
Overall, it was a wonderful book and film and well worth watching and reading.
Unfortunately, I was absent for the majority of the movie and I did not read the book, All the President’s Men. However, from the parts of the movie that I did see (the very beginning and the very end) I like the way that Pakula ends the film. He starts off the movie with the intense sounds of the typewriter and ends the movie with the same typewriter that is typing up the news headlines about the downfall of Nixon’s men. Unlike the rest of my classmates who were waiting for another scene to occur after the last typewriter scene, I knew that the movie had ended and without any context, I felt that it was a fitting way to end the movie because it showed that Woodward and Bernstein had succeeded in exposing the Watergate Scandal. The idea of seeing Woodward and Bernstein shaking hands at the very end to represent closure also came up in our class discussion, but to me, the headlines themselves represented the success of their campaign making a literal handshake unnecessary. Maybe if I was able to watch the movie I would agree with the rest of my classmates but with the parts of the movie that I did see, I thought Pakula made a good choice ending the movie the way he did.
ReplyDeleteToday’s media environment is very different from the newspaper dominated media culture of the 1970s. In today’s media environment, our culture puts a lot more emphasis on celebrity drama and sports news than on local or world news such as politics or uprisings. As a result, the quality of our printed news has gone down because journalists do not focus on the important issues of today’s society. Instead of having an in-depth analysis about the hostage that was returned to us after five years in captivity by the Taliban, journalists write headline stories about the Kardashians. We do not see the same relentless journalistic pursuit of leads that we saw in the 1970s and as a result, the quality of modern day newspapers has dropped significantly.
Bradley’s quote "Nothing's riding on this except the first amendment of the Constitution, freedom of the press, and maybe the future of the country" to Woodward and Bernstein showed just how important it was to nail the Watergate scandal. Had Woodward and Bernstein failed to pursue their leads, Nixon would never have resigned as President and none of his men would have been arrested. Although Nixon would have been out of office after the 1976 election anyway, his advisers and the very people that committed the Watergate scandal would have remained in the White House. If they remained in the White House, they might have gone on to commit more wrongdoings including rigging the Election in 1976. With the added hubris that they would have had from the Watergate success, they would have gone on to commit worse crimes until eventually they would have been caught doing something even worse than spying on the Democratic headquarters. Because Woodward and Bernstein relentlessly pursued their leads, they were able to avoid this catastrophe from happening in the future.
I think both the book All The President’s Men and the movie were very effective in telling the story in an engaging and entertaining way, but they each had their own pros and cons. The movie was able to tell the story in such a way that made it very clear and understandable, whereas the book had a huge amount of detail that made it very hard to keep track of everything that was going on at some points. In All The President’s Men Revisited, Robert Redford made the very interesting point that it was hard to get people on board with the movie at first because they didn’t see the point of creating a movie that everyone knew the ending to already. I think this is one reason the movie was ended the way that it was. At the time the movie was released, Watergate was still very recent and everyone was very aware of it and what went on, so the director might not have felt the need to rehash everything that had unraveled so recently. Because of this the movie did a really good job of focusing on Woodward and Bernstein and the lengths that they went to in order to expose the truth.
ReplyDeleteWatching the relationship between Woodward and Bernstein evolve was very interesting as well. More so in the movie than in the book because in the movie you got to see the two characters constantly interacting and working together. It was really fascinating to see these two drastically different reporters come together and overcome their skepticism of one another to complement each other perfectly and come out with a groundbreaking story.
In general I preferred the book because it provided a more complete picture of the story and had a much smoother ending, but I think the movie was very well made and did an amazing job in telling the story in an entertaining and enthralling way.
The reason why most people did not like the film is mainly because of its ending. The film All the President's Men started off really well and interesting but ended literally at the rising action where Nixon becomes inaugurated for his second term. Disregarding the ending, I thought the film did a great job in telling the story of the Watergate scandal. The constant interrogations of the people from the Committee to Reelect the President by Woodward and Bernstein are so realistic and well re-enacted. The film itself successfully portrays the paranoia of revealing the truth and succeeded in depicting the amount of effort it took to gather evidence. The film focuses on the two protagonists, Woodward and Bernstein. Bernstein was a college dropout but had a lot of experience with investigative journalism, becoming a full-time reporter by the age of 19. On the other hand, Woodward had a fascinating résumé, being a veteran of the Navy officer corps and alumni of Yale, but at the same time, was not a proficient writer. Although both have contrasting characteristics, they eventually develop a great, mutual, and beneficial relationship.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I thought the director's choice of cast was well suited for the movie. It was easier to recognize and remember who is who compared to the confusing abundance of characters introduced in the beginning of the book. Unlike the book, the movie establishes the characters beforehand. My favorite actor would have to be Robert Walden who played Donald H. Segretti. Although he appeared in only one scene, he played a vital role in the scandal and his characterization was really interesting. You cannot really judge whether the movie or book is better because the movie is more of an “incomplete” version of the book. However, if the movie was finished (which would increase the length to around five hours!), I think it would be more effective in telling the story of the Watergate scandal. There are certain elements that a film can portray and a book cannot as well as vice versa, but in regards to the Watergate scandal, the film wins my vote.
"All the President's Men" was a really fun and interesting movie to watch, however I think it did a better job at featuring the art of journalism than featuring the story of Watergate. While watching Woodward and Bernstein and work, I felt their paranoia, their frustration, their excitement- feelings that I was not able to experience while reading the book.
ReplyDeleteThrough this "newspaper movie" I was really able to understand how powerful newspapers were during the 1970s and how important good and true journalism were. The FBI, CIA, and some of the most powerful men in the country were afraid of these two reporters, so unimportant before the story broke out that their Executive Editor (Ben Bradlee/ Jason Robards) dubbed them "Woodstein." The duo's work as journalists acted as an almost fourth branch of government- keeping the people who represent America honest. It's really sad to see how newspapers are slowly dying out today, when just a mere 40 years ago they were the source of controversy, of truth and of speedy news. Because journalism today is nothing like that of Woodstein's, there are Edward Snowdens and Bradley Mannings today exposing America's secrets. As for the question "are people like "Deepthroat" and Snowden and Manning heroes?" Well, there is a lot that has to be considered before answering that question. For one, time. If Mark Felt told the world in the 70s that he was Deepthroat, he would not have been considered to be a hero, but today he is widely considered to be. Second, which is more important? Your obligation towards the bureau or your obligation to the public people?
What i thought was really well done was the acting and directing. The film is careful to not show viewers Woodstein's private lives, but we are still able to discern little pieces of their personalities through their interactions with each other such as when Woodward brushes off the ash from Bernstein's cigarette that has fallen onto Bradlee's couch and glares at him. Also there are just scenes of total silence, when Bernstein is listening in on a conversation on an extension cord or when Woodward is creeping around with the "garage freak."
As for the ending of the film, I thought it was perfect. A lot of students complained how they wanted more closure or a scene where Woodstein celebrated their work. But the fact of the matter is that there is no closure. Watergate marked yet another event where Americans lost faith in their President. Ford's pardon of Nixon was another event that many had an issue with- the fact that he was never punished.
Although the book was more informative than the film, the film version of All the President's Men was more successful in setting the scene.
ReplyDeleteMany scenes, such as the opening scene, were so strong and effective in portraying the life of the journalists, it caught my attention right away.
However, it was hard to picture the scenes while reading the book, because of the in-depth details and different characters.
Although there were disputes about the lack of a satisfactory ending, I think it was reasonable to leave it the way it is. The main purpose of the poem was focus on the process of the investigations through Bernstein and Woodward's point of views and to remain factual unlike the Mississippi Burning. Still, I would have to agree with Inhae that the film glorifies Bernstein and Woodward too much, but on the other hand, it is also justified because the reason the film was successful in telling the story was because of these two strong protagonists.
After both reading the book and watching the film, I can not definitively say which one was better. While the book was a lot more detailed, the film was great in depicting the mood and background of the story. To a certain extent though, the book had a very unfair advantage because a first-hand account of a story is always the best way a story can be told. This part is most evident in how effectively the book was in painting a picture of how big of a discovery this Watergate Scandal was actually. By mentioning the large number of names of people involved in covering up this scandal, Woodward and Bernstein were able to depict just how expansive this project was. In the film, it seemed as if they had only taken down a small group of people who worked for President Nixon. However, after reading the book, it was clear that a lot more people were involved.
ReplyDeleteThe book and the film both did a very good job of showing the fear of the people involved at the time. In the book, Bernstein and Woodward wrote about a lot of tricks they had to use to get their sources to talk while in the movie some of these tactics might go unnoticed. For example, when Bernstein went to go talk to the bookkeeper, he had to buy some time to make the bookkeeper more comfortable around him. In the book, it was obvious he did this on purpose and continued to prolong the situation by sipping the coffee slowly. In the movie, it almost came off as if he just wanted a smoke and the coffee plays a minimum role as the director just has the actor say that the coffee is cold to show how much time Bernstein has actually spent there. In addition, in the book the readers are able to see a lot of the corners that were cut and the rules that were broken. For example, in the book, Bernstein doesn't introduce himself to a source to get the source to talk to him but fails to tell Woodward that he has done so. When the source calls again, Woodward picks up and Bernstein's cover was blown. It represented the great lengths that these two reporters would go to get information. However, this scene was not in the film.
Ultimately, while the book focused a lot more on the process Bernstein and Woodward used, the film focused more on the content they found and just a broad overview of how they came about this discovery. When this film was published in 1976, most of the public already knew how expansive this operation was so I believe the film catered more towards what the public at that time wanted to know while the book just gave a summary of the events as is. Ultimately, looking at the film and the book almost 30 years after the incident, I believe the book is a lot more effective in describing the Watergate scandal though during the time both were published, the film may have been more popular to the public.
After reading the book and watching the film version, I thought the film was definitely more effective in showing the environment and society the break-in took place. I felt the book had a lot of information, and was extremely thorough, but was kind of hard to understand at times due to the numerous random characters. The book was very different from any other book I have read all year in that it was very straight forward and in your face. The book simply reported anything and everything that happened to Bernstein and Woodward on their chase for the truth. There were no symbols; it had a lot of telling. This made the overall plot easy to follow, but due to the character names that kept appearing, it got confusing fast. Thank god the book had funny details that helped me understand and take in all the information, like when Woodward introduced us to his secret assistance, who was dubbed Deep Throat by Simons from a pornographic film. I thought it was irrelevant to the plot, but was a welcoming stop from all the information. I also liked when Woodward explained how he meets with Deep Throat, which really hinted at how stalker like Deep Throat was, which was also quite amusing. Deep Throat would literally look at Woodward’s balcony for a red flag every day, and on more serious occasions, he would write a secret message on page 20 of Woodward’s New York Times. Then, when Bernstein at one point seemed jealous of Woodward’s great source, mentioned how he also had his own source, some random motor cycle enthusiast, which also didn’t add much to the plot, but did show how human Bernstein was.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the film was much better because it told the story, but focused on the journalists’ process. The movie portrayed a better sense of the tension and excitement felt by the journalists. In the movie, Bernstein would contently shake as he took out a cigarette, and when Woodward would wake up to answer the phone, then immediately grab his coat and leave, I got a sense of how urgent the affair was. I got none of that from the book. I really enjoyed watching Woodward and Bernstein run around nonstop, which showed me how hard investigating was. The book didn’t really do a good job portraying how good Woodward and Bernstein were as investigators. From the movie however, I was able to see how the two would plan and adjust their statements to get people to confirm things. I really liked how the two used many loopholes to get confirmations from people who were too afraid to legally confess, like having people nod instead of talking, or counting to 10 to get answers. It doesn’t surprise me how this film inspired a generation of journalists, since it portrays their jobs as very exciting, and suspenseful. I’m sure anyone watching the film would get a sense of how cleaver the two were, as well as how much power the two held compared to normal people. Watching the film definitely gave me a new look and respect for journalists.
I think this film was extremely important to America because it not only showed how powerful the press could be, but also showed America the imperfect president. If the film and article had failed, then America today would be a lot different, as the government would probably be much more powerful. The government would probably be able to censor many forms of media, as well as use wiretapping without much hesitation. Thanks to the film, the Republican Party was punished, and didn’t get away with wiretapping the Watergate building. Thanks to this film and book and thanks to “Woodstein”, America today can still be considered democratic. “
I felt the film was definitely worth watching, and while I would have liked the ending to show a bit more, it was very artistic, and did give a good sense of the time line of events. I would have liked it to end maybe with the book, when Nixon’s people were resigning, Archibald Cox was fired in the Saturday Night Massacre, and Nixon gave his speech about focusing on more pressing matters. Overall I really enjoyed the film and book.
Both the book and the movie All the President's Men did a good job to showing an aspect of the Watergate scandal. From the movie, we get to see the hard work required to make such a society-changing story from the reporter's point of view while the book mentions all the detail in between and puts more emphasis on what happened and shows the journalism aspects on the side. Based on this, I would have to say the book did a better job of telling the story of the Watergate scandal, not only because it has all the detail which the movie skipped but also because it tells it more coherently. One of my biggest criticisms of this movie was because the major event before the ending where Woodward and Bernstein type while Nixon is on the TV was the two reporters trying to label Haldeman as the fifth man who controlled the secret fund and getting railed after Sloan's testimony was not how Bernstein had interpreted it. The sudden gap from what I believe to be the biggest setback in their investigation to suddenly showing the results with the headlines and the loud typing noise in the background to catch the audience's attention one last time just raised the suspense for the credits which was a major disappointment. In fact, the analogy Mr. Sandler made of this gap to the 18.5 minute gap in Nixon's recordings is a very strong one, as both the movie and the tapes did not include the most crucial details that would lead up to the end. Instead, the movie would have been better just following the book in its entirety, or at least showing tapes of Nixon getting stressed while the headlines were being shown (such as when he fires Haldeman and Ehrlichman).
ReplyDeleteWhile I find the movie to not be as adequate as the book in telling the story of Watergate, I find it to still be a decent movie overall. It does something that the book does not do as well and that is draw attention from the beginning. While the book starts with Woodward waking up, the movie immediately begins with a loud typing noise which was a good use of audio. At the same time, while I disliked the ending in context to the story, it served as a great way to lead up to something final. The loud typing noise accompanied by the headlines of major officials being arrested and ultimately Nixon resigning did a great job of drawing attention and keeping our eyes glued on the screen to see how events were developing. In addition, we get to see these actors portray hardworking journalists who pursue and stay dedicated to a story. Just the idea that two journalists could take down the leader of the country, as the movie made it out to be, would be inspirational for anyone who wanted to affect change. It is in this context that I can sympathize with breaking a logical flow in the movie as it shows how a story is not easy to obtain and how easy it can fall through (with Haldeman getting off the hook temporarily after Bernstein and Woodward mess up).
Overall, both the book and the movie did its job. The book does a great job of telling the story of the scandal and of including every important relevant detail to the case that the two found, as well as remembering to mention the difficulty that came with trying to meet deadlines and competing with other newspapers (especially The New York Times after it published the Pentagon Papers). Meanwhile, the movie had its Hollywood effect on the reporters, glorifying them and giving them the credit of uncovering the story, despite not recounting the entire story. However, this can be made up for with the Revisited video where there is more video to help complete the story with its own characterization of Nixon who was completely left out of the movie aside from televised appearances and is part of the reason why Watergate is so notorious. Yet seeing how we are comparing which one tells the story better, I would have to side with the book as the movie was not adequate in telling the whole thing and required the hour and 30 min Revisited clip to help complete the story.
The film was very interesting. The use of music clearly indicated, during some scenes, the mood and the tension that was there. It was very good in creating a suspense and also a sense of seriousness. Also, the cinematography captured just how hard these two individuals worked. The camera constantly followed the reporters as they ran from place to place constantly back and forth.
ReplyDeleteHowever, one of the most interesting parts of this film that I found was how the film portrayed the informant Deep Throat. Clearly, this man felt a need to expose the government for what it was doing, and, since he was the number 2 highest officer in the FBI, he clearly knew everything that was going on during the Nixon's presidency. The film portrayed him very well, as he wished to remain very secretive while explaining certain parts of the scandal to Woodward. He was a very large factor in showing the public the truth. In more recent times, we have had people like Edward Snowden have leaked confidential information to the public. However, he is less of a hero than he is a whistle-blower. Unlike Deep Throat, Snowden's info has not made any massive changes to the government, and unlike Deep Throat, Snowden did not try to remain anonymous. The film simply portrays this informant so well that one could really imagine this happening exactly as how the film shows it happening.
Compared with the novel, I felt that the film All the President’s Men definitely drew me in much more quickly. The book began with a plethora of characters, making it initially confusing to follow. However, as I delved further into the novel, I did feel that the novel was much more thorough in telling the story of the Watergate scandal whereas the film, especially at the ending, was rushed during certain parts. I felt that the ending to the film could have been different. A better way to end it could have been showing short scenes of all of the incidents that happened, instead of merely having them being typed out.
ReplyDeleteOne aspect of the film that I did like more than the novel was that I really got a sense of how fast-paced and exciting the environment in the Washington Post offices were. The persistent ringing of phones and the sound of typing on the typewriter were definitely unique to the film and could not be experienced through the novel.
I understand why the film inspired a generation of students to go to journalism school. Woodward and Bernstein were heroes in the film and it really shows how much influence these two reporters who nobody really knew at first had on the entire country. I thoroughly enjoyed watching Woodward and Bernstein’s different personalities, and felt that their relationship resembled those of the two FBI agents in Mississippi Burning. The film depicts how hungry these two young reporters were as they chewed away at the Watergate scandal, an incident that most of the nation had not even been aware of at first. It shows how great of an influence that newspapers had on the public in the 1970’s.
Although I enjoyed both the movie and the book, I felt as though the film did a better job portraying the pace and suspense Bernstein and Woodward felt as they were pursuing their story. Their tones of voice gave life to the various journalism techniques they used in the film. The labyrinthian garages and music choices made in the scenes with Deep Throat made them thrilling and enjoyable. I see Deep Throat not so much as a heroic figure, but one of the many who fought against the corrupt government. In today's time, I feel as though people are more reserved in publicly stating their opinions about the government. Today, the government seems to monitor much of what the public does and it also uses the media to control public thought. The media is a powerful tool in today's time period because it is a resource that many people use and it is also where many get their source of information. Journalism plays a large aspect in the media as shown in the film, I used to have dreams of being a professional reporter like Bernstein and Woodward. Speaking of, I enjoyed watching the two characters work together to solve the case of Watergate. Bernstein's unconvetional, roundabout methods of information gathering were a stark contrast to Woodward's simple, but efficient data collection. They worked in tandem, not getting along at first but eventually they became strong partners. I enjoyed the movie more because it really displayed all the characteristics of journalism and the development between Bernstein and Woodward. Although I wasn't completely satisfied with the ending I think I understand the director's choice in ending it the way he did. Overall it was an interesting and thrilling tale.
ReplyDeleteThe book was definitely better at portraying the Watergate scandal in a more engaging and thorough manner. The research was laid out clearly and holistically and by the end, I had a great sense of how intricate the scandal was. At some points, the film felt a bit dry.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it did an amazing job at portraying Woodward and Bernstein's energy and the thrill and complexity of the search (not so much as the content). For example, when the two men ask a coworker who dated someone with CREEP connections, their differences become clear; Woodward is softer and tactical, whereas Bernstein comes off as more aggressive and energetic. In addition, scenes with the "Deep Throat" informant were done really well. The dark car garage with lighting that only illuminated their profiles emphasized the tension of the situation and added to the enigma. I also really loved how right after, Woodward rushes through the maze like stair case, representing how stressful and complicated their research was.
I also really liked the "All the President's Men Revisited" documentary because it really covered a lot of bases. First of all, the real Woodward and Bernstein (plus the other journalists involved) discuss the scandal. Plus, Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford also mention the filmmaking process and how they translated the research process into a movie and really emphasized that the point wasn't the investigation's result, but how the journalists got there. Redford says it was difficult to convince studios to pick up the movie, considering that most Americans knew about the results. The documentary also focuses on Richard Nixon more so than the book or film with people like Jon Stewart, Egil Krogh, and Alex Butterfield (the latter two actually worked with Nixon) who analyze the complexity of Nixon's character and personality. They mention that although he was incredibly paranoid and exploited, he was an incredible presidential mind, as Krough says, with his formation of the EPA, detente with the Soviet Union, and negotiations with China. Overall, the documentary is probably my favorite version of the events because although it is removed from creativity and theatrics, it is really thorough in analyzing Nixon, the scandal, and how it continues to affect us today.
I did not enjoy the book. It was complicated and convoluted, so it felt like a chore to read. The book was like a long list of facts and names, with no emotion or pace. It was dry and boring, and reading it felt like cramming for a history test. But to be fair, it is an accurate, detailed account of what happened. The movie may not have been as detailed or factual, but like all films, it is inherently a more entertaining and easier to digest. I like the sense of desperation that the film conveyed. The skillful camerawork and the dark, twisting hallways all added to the engrossing atmosphere. The film is, although not as complete, still an accurate and vastly more entertaining version of the events. It illustrated what really mattered to the public: two heros and their accomplishments.
ReplyDeleteI'll be honest and say that because of the fact that I have been unable to find my book, I was unable to read the book. When I was in class today, it seemed that many people believed that the book did a better job in efficiency in telling the Watergate scandal story. But I would just like to bring up (this is very similar to what Sungwoo was saying) that the film and the book both are efficient in telling the Watergate Scandal, but in different ways. What I mean is that the two have a different audience. For those that have never really known the details of Watergate, the movie is probably more efficient in telling the story, because it is more concise and more exciting. The book is more efficient though in telling the complete story, and would probably be more effective for those that already know a good idea of what occurs. So I think that audience is a key factor in deciding which is more effective.
ReplyDeleteFocusing on the movie, I really enjoyed it, because it was sort of like a mystery, watching to see how Woodward and Bernstein were able to piece the puzzle together. I enjoyed the dynamics seen between the two of them, and enjoyed watching them struggle and press on in their investigation. Although I was also disappointed with the ending, it was not so much because it didn't end with them in victory. But for me, I felt that the film needed to show how they were able to get to these conclusions seen in the headlines, as done in the first part. What evidence did they get such that they could make these conclusions? It just left the story without a clear, explained conclusion. It's also a little hard to comprehend the whole situation, but I think that was one point that they wanted to make: that it was complicated and a very intricate plot.
1 After reading both the book and watching the film, I would say that the book was more informative and detailed but the movie is easier to watch and digest. For that reason, I believe that the movie is more effective. There were many aspects of the movie that the book just couldn't depict as well. For example, the movie uses dramatic music, shadows, and the skills of the actor to portray the fear and looming presence that Woodward constantly felt. Also, a big part of why the movie is more effective in telling the story of the Watergate scandal is from its ability to intrigue viewers via its cinematography. I felt that a really powerful scene was one, toward the end of the film, in which Nixon is reelected on TV and he continues his political career (shown in the foreground) and Woodward and Bernstein working feverishly in the background. This idea was revealed in the book but didn't seem to emphasize as much the fact that had Woodward and Bernstein not continued through all the threats and buggings Watergate would have died down much quicker, and not have been the infamous event in history it is now.
ReplyDelete5 Bradlee's comment to Woodward and Bernstein "Nothing's riding on this except the first amendment of the Constitution, freedom of the press, and maybe the future of the country" was extremely powerful and in my opinion true. As Mr. Sandler said in class what many people fail to realize is that the Watergate scandal would have gone unnoticed in history had Woodward and Bernstein not relentlessly followed the story. Only by them exposing the President's men and the schemes that the intelligence community had did Watergate become what defines Nixon today. If Woodward and Bernstein hadn't pursued their story I feel like a precedent would have been set in which the President is able to do whatever he feels like doing. This is basically what happened in the the Watergate scandal. Nixon was extremely paranoid and used his power as President to manipulate the intelligence departments and give out money for a re-election that was bound to occur (the Democrats not having a good candidate to compete with him). Also, with the many threats that Woodward and Bernstein recieved another precedent would have been set in which the government can cover up any story that bothers them by using its power. This would limit the ability for reporters to tell the masses about corruption and controversial topics.
8 On a quick side note, I would have to say that Bernstein is a pretty interesting figure. In the book, he is denoted as someone who doesn't finish high school and just works in the Washington Post on various topics. Woodward says in the book that Bernstein was notorious for being able to get a story because of his ability to get sources by any means possible. I felt this was paralleled well in the movie where Bernstein snakes his way into the homes of various homes to receive confirmation on various points, and uses trickery to get more information out of his sources (for example, pretending to know that Haldeman was the fifth man to get confirmation that he in fact was the fifth man).
Even though I enjoyed the film version of All the President’s Men, I preferred the book. Having read the book first, I was kind of disappointed that the film left out a lot of details, some of which were essential to my understanding of the Watergate Scandal. Unlike the majority, I found the overwhelming amount of information presented in the book helpful in bringing out a complete picture of what was happening inside the White House. The film oversimplified the matter by neglecting people like John J. Sirica, and Patrick Gray. Both men had played big roles near the end of the book. In addition, the book did a better job expressing the stress, frustration and fear Woodstein had felt. While reading, I could feel the authors’ emotions (even though the book is in third person) very clearly.
ReplyDeleteAnother problem the film had was its abrupt ending. Although the film accurately laid out a timeline for the last days of the Watergate investigation by typing out headings of different articles, I found the sound of the typewriter to be very anti-climactic. I felt that it would be more powerful to show Richard Nixon talking about the resignations of Haldeman and Ehrlichman on television before typing out “Nixon resigns. Gerald Ford will become president”.
Over all, I found both the film and the book enjoyable. I can now understand why Woodstein’s remarkable effort and enthusiasm to cover the Watergate had inspired a whole new generation of journalists.
I liked the movie more than the film. I thought that even though the book provided more details, the movie definitely did a better job portraying the stressful environment that Bernstein and Woodward had to go through. From running around to get more sources and confirmations to tracking down and visiting the important figures associated with the scandal to meeting deadlines, I definitely felt the huge amount of stress that they were in.
ReplyDeleteWhat I really liked about the movie was seeing the tactics that journalists have to use to get what they want. For example, one memorable part was when Bernstein was trying to get into the accounting office (since he had made an appointment) but the secretary at the front desk wouldn't let him. He then made a fake phone call to the secretary, luring her out of her seat so that he could sneak into the office. I thought that was brilliant (and also hilarious)! Another part that showed clever tactics that journalists have use in order to achieve what they want, was when Bernstein was trying to get the last confirmation from his source so that the article could be published. Because none of the sources wanted to be held responsible for what they said directly, Bernstein was able to get confirmation indirectly. I thought it was such a smart idea to do "count to 10 and don't hang up if it's true" tactic. Seeing the sly tactics that journalists have to employ was arguably my favorite part of this film.
However, with that said, like some people, I didn't like how the movie ended. I didn't even realize that the movie was ending. (I guess I wanted to Woodward and Bernstein gain recognition for their work.) I thought the ending was too abrupt. It almost felt like the director was running out of film and had to conclude the movie as quickly as possible. Even though the ending was really rushed, I did like how the movie, in general wasn't too in depth and dragged out. I liked that it had just the right amount of details so as not to bore the audience. So overall, I do like the movie better than the book.
At first, I felt as if the film would have been more impactful than the book, even with all the details a book can offer, but the ending of the movie shifted me towards liking the book more. Of course, what the movie can offer, is a more impressive scene of The Washington Post office and work area, along with actors providing feeling behind the lines. One of the best changes I feel, is that we can see characters facial expressions even during silent scenes, whereas the book would simple have said nothing.
ReplyDeleteAnother aspect I really liked was the Washington Post office, where you could hear noisy typewriting and phone calls being made. Although I would not pursue a career in Journalism, I feel as if this would inspire those who already want to be Journalists even more.
Something that the movie was also able to do was give the feeling that Nixon and the White House was something unreachable, by showing off only televised recordings of them, and not having actors. I really liked this decision, due to the fact that throughout the film, that had in fact not reached Nixon, and probably never even got to see him, making it more realistic. However, this caused me to dislike the ending even more. By the end, I wanted to feel that Woodward and Bernstein had accomplished something amazing, they had finally brought down Nixon, but all that is shown is simply another televised recording, one that isn't even about his resignation.
I felt the use of music pretty lackluster. The voices of the actors, background noise such as typing and phone calls, pretty much overshadowed the music entirely. For most of the film I focused on the lines said, and even when there were no lines to be said, the music was simply average. There was no amazing soundtrack describing the risk they were taking, or when they had finally won, only simple background music.
I hated the ending also. I would have liked any form of closure, even if it would simply be a "Hollywood" film type of closure. It simply didn't feel right for the movie to end with a typewriting scene. Maybe show a recording of Nixon's resignation, or even a made-up ending where Nixon does get punished would be better. If I wanted to see Nixon get pardoned, or not have anything done to him at all, I would go find a textbook, and read it again.
I also felt that compared to the book, Deepthroat was less of an informant, than a plot device used to move Woodward and Bernstein along whenever they got stuck. Between every 30 minutes or so, there is a scene with Deepthroat where he reveals information to Woodward, and pushes them along. In the end, even after all his comments about how he can't reveal anything else. He just spills everything to end the film, which made it feel really rushed.
Overall, I felt both the book and film had their strong points. You can't squish all the details the book has to offer into one film, but what a film can do is emphasize the themes that can be squished even further than the book can. To really understand what Woodward and Bernstein went through during this time, I would recommend the film first, regardless of how bad the ending was, and read the book for important details and in-depth information.
Having read the book and watched the film chronicling Woodward and Bernstein’s role in exposing Watergate, I strongly feel that each medium contain a sharp difference in the way that they tell the story; books and films are so different in execution and intent. As a book, All The President’s Men is dense and detailed. I will admit that personally, I had to flip back numerous times to identify certain characters, and certain names out of the the president’s men. There’s no face to identify the characters with, their descriptions are very much hard to distinguish. Watching the movie after I read through the book thus helped elucidate the various men implicated in the scandal, and I could follow who Woodward and Bernstein were after more easily.
ReplyDeleteThis is a story focused on the two journalists. Inevitably, at times, it may seem as if their role is more important than I (as someone who was not alive during the unraveling of Watergate) could have assumed; after all, they start off as merely two rival journalists not very high up on the newspaper hierarchy. But their relationship and the importance of said relationship, I found to be quite believable as it developed. Furthermore, the movie especially demonstrated, for me, the effectiveness and true makings of journalism in the best of its times.
Is the film version a sensational Hollywood production depicting the scandal as Mississippi Burning was to that civil rights case? Obviously not, but given its stunning accuracy, I can appreciate its value, and the political implications it sends. I very much enjoyed the film, despite the book’s strengths in its own right.
I agree completely with Ken Ringle's statement that it was a wise directorial choice to keep the members of the inner Nixon circle behind closed doors and tinted windows. By obfuscating the roles of governmental agents in the film (as well as designing intentionally labyrinthine sets), the director managed to capture the trapped feeling of the Woodstein team, as well as that of the cover-up being unknowably extensive and of questionable purpose. Furthermore, by making the influence of governmental agents seem as ingrained in the system as the maze-like physical structure of many of the locations visited by Woodstein, the director succeeds in instilling in the viewer an understanding of the degree of frustration and seemingly impossible difficulty that Woodsetin went up against.
ReplyDeleteThis, I believe, is the main reason why this film is considered to have inspired a generation of investigative journalists: because it expressed the view (which was commonly held) that the government could and would abuse its power, and that although their/its tools may seem omnipresent and omnipotent, they remain fallible so long as there were those willing to stand up for the rights of the people. In a sense, the movie served to empower the people by portraying two everyman-style characters fighting an impossible foe and succeeding.
I personally preferred the film over the book. However, there are some flaws in the movie that should also be addressed. I commend Pakula on keeping all of the events factually accurate while creating a riveting perspective on the Watergate Scandal. The book is much more dense and informative, but on the other hand, the movie is more comprehendible and concise. I think that the book and movie serve different purposes then. If one wants the whole picture, with all the details in uncovering the scandal, then I think the book would be the better choice, considering that it was still fast-paced after the first 100 pages and gives the an accurate and precise depiction of the scandal from when Woodward receives his assignment to when Nixon delivers the State of Union. The film, although dramatized, showcases the influential role of media and does a great job at giving the viewers a true sense of the relationship between Woodward and Bernstein and the reality of the struggles of journalism. I thought the film captured better the experience and spirit of investigative journalism. Through their perspectives, we were able to feel their frustrations as well as their victories and triumphs; I got a much better sense of the chemistry between Woodward and Bernstein in the film than in the book. The book did a great job at characterizing Woodward and Bernstein and the contrast between them was well described. However, it was not until I watched the movie that I saw their synchronization and compatibility with each other. The cinematography was also something that the book was unable to illustrate. However, the film did pretty much truncate half of what the book covered and like many others, I found the ending very dissatisfying and incomplete. The book covered the Watergate hearings and I think that in general, the book put the unfolding of the scandal at the center. The film focused on the experiences of the dynamic journalists and their revealing and bringing down of the president and his men.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the director executed the film well for the majority of it showing the determination of the two reporters. However, I believe that he may of had in mind to craft a 5 hour film or a multi part tv special instead of a 2 hour movie because the ending was extremely anti-climatic as some other students have already posted. The movie built up tension and the mystery of the Watergate incident was getting close to a resolution, yet the movie abruptly ends with the inauguration of Nixon and several headlines typed on typewriters.
ReplyDeleteI personally would had possibly included Butterfield's or Gray's testimony that linked the White House to the Watergate wiretapping before cutting to the newspaper headline. Nixon's inauguration doesn't really match with the tone that was set and the sense of inevitability that was portrayed from the successive headlines typed one after another in a rapid succession.
Another aspect I believed the film could had improved on was the fear of the two reporters and the Washington Post in general. Although the fear was established, including scenes of Woodward and Berstein subpoened by CRP brings meaning to Deep Throat's statement that their lives were in danger. Furthermore, both them could had possibly faced jail time for attempting to interview Grand Jurors.
Finally, the documentary from Discovery channel had an interesting ending about Watergate not being the end. People that were interviewed went on to say that there's bound to be something else just as bad or ever worse than the Watergate scandal to heppen to the president. It really shows the cynicism that has instilled into our society today against the politicians. Another interesting comment is how the Internet and social media affected how news reporting is done today. Now news is a 24 hour spectacle where information spreads significantly faster which could blow open a future scandal at an unprecedented speed such as Snowden's recent leaks about the NSA surveillance.
I have a hard time deciding whether I enjoyed the book, All The President's Men, or the movie more. Each clearly had its defining strengths and weaknesses. For example, I found the book extremely dense and difficult to get through: We are introduced to a large cast of characters who constantly enter and leave the scene, making it hard to keep track of who's who. I found that having to differentiate each character by name forced me to constantly remind myself and took a bit of the enjoyment out of my reading. However, I really liked the book because it was narrated in such a way that was captivating and at times, humorous--that is surely something you cannot merely get out of the scenes in the movie. The book was much more detailed in telling the story, as it should be because it lacks the ability to communicate through moving images.
ReplyDeleteThe movie, on the other hand, really effectively used music and setting well. Although I felt the usage of the same soundtrack over and over again a little bit repetitive, I really enjoyed how the director would always show Woodward descending the stairs and secretly meeting Deepthroat or the "garage freak" in the dark parking lot. The dramatic, grave music really emphasized how paranoia and fear was an important factor. However, the scene where Woodward falls asleep and takes a taxi straight to the dark parking lot is just one instance of how the book is superior to the movie: In the book, the author goes to extents to explain how Woodward would have to take many taxis to avoid being followed; in the movie, the taxi is not even emphasized. In a way, I guess the music is supposed to compensate for these lack of details. The movie director also made a great use of panning out for a few seconds in the Library of Congress at the beginning of the film. Because this scene was so early in the movie, the director's choice to pan out emphasized how maze-like and large this case was, and how small and almost insignificant Bernstein and especially Woodward, who has worked on the Washington Post for less than a year when he was first assigned the job. I felt that the movie, however, also did a fantastic job describing the atmosphere and rush of the newspaper office. Although I am not a journalism expert by any means, I felt the same excitement as "Woodstein" when they were able to procure confirmation through the most clever ways (stay on the line to confirm, hang up to not) and the same disappointment when their stories were not 'credible' enough. Bernstein and Woodward's initial dislike and tension and later development into a close duo partnership is also well depicted as compared to the book, which relies on the constant restatement of their dislike and distrust. The ending of the movie was extremely disappointing to me at first, and felt extremely rushed. After over two hours that spanned only the first 100 or so pages of the book, the movie entirely excludes the second half of the book, leaving typewriter reports explain the events. This, I felt, was extremely rushed--why did a few days or week's worth of time take up 90% of the movie, but two years or so take only mere seconds? I really like Annique's explanation to the lack of closure in this ending: there is no true sense of closure because there was truly no closure: these abuses of the CIA/FBI or other intelligence agencies still occur today.
Despite all the criticism surrounding the movie version of “All The President’s Men,” I really enjoyed the movie, and I think that this was because I was viewing it with a journalistic lens. I also read the book, and in this lens, I thought that it wasn’t as effective at portraying all the energy and excitement associated with the process (the dense prose weighs it down), but I do appreciate that the book includes excerpts of the different articles Woodstein writes about Watergate. The film, however, really served to define the essence, or purpose of journalism in the world today by focusing on the entire process of Woodstein as they scrambled to get sources, and as they frantically pursued this story relentlessly. The film really portrays the excitement of journalism, and this is obvious from the opening scene, where the noises of the typewriter are magnified and make one jump in our seats. And as the movie progresses, it effectively portrays Woodstein and the excitement surrounding the Watergate story--it becomes a story that consumes them, for example, as we hear Bernstein say that he has downed 20 cups of coffee and taken disheveled notes on wrinkled napkins just to keep up with his interviewee. These interview tactics themselves in circumventing stonewalling were extremely entertaining to watch, and give off a sense of the spy-films that we love as Woodstein come up with creative ways to have their ideas and ledes confirmed by sources. For those of us on The Spectator, a simple interview means approaching a person and asking a boring set of questions--here, the film seeks to dispel everything that boring about journalism, and seeks to remind viewers what the purpose of journalism really is: to expose the truth to its citizens.
ReplyDeleteI remember Mr. Sandler asking us during the start of the movie, whether we could draw any parallels from this movie, to experiences on The Spectator, for those of us involved, and this was a question that I really answer as I watched the course of the movie. As Editor-in-Chief of The Spectator now, as well as having served on the editorial board for three terms, I’d have to say that the Watergate scandal covered bravely by Woodstein was very reminiscent of The Spectator’s coverage of A) the cheating scandal and B) the case with Ms. Damesek. I would say that in the past five years, these two events covered by The Spectator have been our BIGGEST stories in a long time, and I distinctly remember trying to get interviews about both topics, and being stonewalled left and right, especially by the administration. A bunch of editors would come in every day during the last week of summer to find teachers who would be interested in talking, and the frustration that occurred when every single teacher shook his or her head “no” in the fear of misunderstanding the situation, and in the second case, getting in trouble with the administration. I also remember scrambling to create the comprehensive article detailing everything about the cheating scandal in order to beat out every other newspaper in the city waiting to report on this--it paid off in the end, as Zhang would use our paper in court as evidence. This is why The Post wanted to get an edge of everything--in order to become the sole source for American citizens about this story. And in case B, I understood the David and Goliath references of Woodstein vs The White House completely, as similar events occurred when the administration threatened heavy consequences in response to a very controversial article. That confrontation was one of the most stressful moments in Spectator history.
Some may say that the film glorified Woodstein too much in their coverage of Watergate, but I disagree. Journalists rarely get the recognition they deserve as just a tiny little byline hidden under a massive article--they are what I call, hidden heroes of truth. Most of America had no idea what Woodstein had to go through in order to make this story come to life, and I think that it was important for this movie to finally make this process known.
Although the book is more informative than the film about Watergate, I preferred the film to the book. I thought the film did a good job showing the investigative journalism Woodward and Bernstein used. The book was very dense with information and I had to sometimes reread pages, but the film did a good job of condensing the information. The film really shows the power of the media and journalism as the 4th branch of government. After seeing the film I understood why this film inspired a generation of students to pursue journalism because the investigation was very exciting. Woodward and Bernstein’s persistence is admirable because although many people refused to provide them with information they didn’t give up and eventually got the details.
ReplyDelete"Nothing's riding on this except the first amendment of the Constitution, freedom of the press, and maybe the future of the country". This quote really stood out to me because it stressed the importance of the investigation and the stakes at hand. Freedom of press was definitely riding on this investigation. After the initial articles the Washington Post received tremendous criticism and Woodward/Bernstein were at risk. The scene with them communicating through a typewriter was powerful because it showed a challenge to the first amendment. The future of the country and politics did rest on this case. Had they not investigated this case the Republican party would continue using these illegal strategies to continue reelecting their men. This image seems very disturbing because it weakens our country’s Democracy.
Overall, I thought what the film excelled in was making people understand the Watergate scandal and gain appreciation for the efforts of the journalists that took part in the investigation.
I definitely prefer the film over the book. I find Watergate to be a fascinating topic, but even with my interest, try as I might, I could not get myself to read through more than one paragraph at a time. The constant flow of names and info is overwhelming. The film is easier to follow. The director effectively builds up an atmosphere of urgency: in the news room, there is the constant clicking of typewriters, the hum of conversation, and the ringing of phones. One reoccurring cinematic technique was panning back the cameras further and further until Woodward and Bernstein are a mere dot in the huge Library of Congress, or their car is lost in the maze of Washington D.C. While they get smaller and smaller, their voices continue to play in the background. Although they may have the world against them and even they themselves have no idea where they are going, Woodward and Bernstein never budge in their efforts to pursue the truth.
ReplyDeleteThe film, in many aspects, triumphed over the book for me personally. Although I am rather used to reading dry, dense texts, All the President's Men was particularly unfriendly to me and failed to give any character to the Watergate Scandal and the journalistic process that led to its exposure. The film, in my opinion, addresses this issue. After watching it, I can very easily see why it "inspired an entire generation of journalists." The suspense throughout the film was tremendously well done and did great justice to its purpose - to paint a picture of the origins of the Watergate scandal's investigation with the dynamic duo, Woodward and Bernstein.
ReplyDeleteAddressing the ending, I felt that it was, although blunt, a satisfactory and appropriate way to close the movie. I do understand that, only minutes before, the apex of the movie was reached when Woodstein is informed that their lives were possibly in danger. However, by that point, the film had already served its purpose - to give the audience an image of the struggle to get the story into print. The most telling aspect of this movie was the constant conflict between Woodstein and Bradlee, who was stalwart in believing that the string of anonymous sources was not worthy of the Washington Post's front page. Additionally, it successfully portrayed the immense risks Woodstein was putting the Post in - with Nixon's relentless attacks on the paper as a "McGovern paper", the credibility of the entire paper was on the line. Past this sort of mystic, suspenseful, and in many cases untold history, there is only the scandal that many Americans know all too well. If the film continued at the same pace until Nixon's resignation, the movie would have been far too long, and would have digressed too far from its original purpose. Above all, this is more of a movie about Woodstein's escapades than it is about Watergate per se.
When looking at media in American history, it's clear that there is a massive difference between today and the 1970s with regards to structure. For one, it seems as if media is much more loose in terms of who distributes information - it matters not if you're the New York Times, or the Wall Street Journal, as smaller, perhaps less credible media outlets are able to rise and attract readers. However, this gives rise to the issue of fringe media outlets that seem to be becoming increasingly mainstream in some parts of the nation. Indeed, Mr. Sandler mentioned that subscription rates for the New York Times nationally are incredibly low, shedding light on how dominant "alternative" news outlets really are. These fringe media outlets especially dot the internet, and lean very sharply either left or right of the political spectrum. These websites seem to serve the purpose of tailoring their "news" to suit the interests of their audiences, who consume this information as if it were fact. This highly varied media climate, although providing more options, does make it clear that unregulated expansion of the press can yield undesirable results. As stated before, these fringe media outlets are rather popular among certain audiences, and may end up hurting the nation more if left unchecked. The main concern of Woodstein was uncovering the truth behind the Watergate affairs - Woodward even said himself that he is a Republican, but was more interested in uncovering the truth. Perhaps if the media were willing to look past political boundaries and rediscover its purpose in delivering truth to the masses, America could once again have credible and strong media.
(cont'd)
DeleteIn all, both the movie and book were excellent, and I would recommend them both to anyone remotely interested in American history. However, I feel like the film was able to masterfully execute the telling of the journalists' stories in ways the book seemed unable to. Yes, a quirk in the time-worn mantra of "the book is better than the movie!" we've all heard before, but visuals did help to convey emotions in ways Woodstein's words couldn't.
After watching the documentary and reading the book, I think that it was definitely worth going in depth on this topic. Before learning more about the Watergate Scandal, I had no idea that exposing Nixon’s administration was such a long and risky process. The documentary definitely did a great job of showing how risky this process was. Showing the meetings with Deep Throat at night in a dark parking garage really emphasized how unsafe it was for Woodstein to obtain information. This was definitely much better emphasized in the documentary because the visuals created a sense of mysteriousness and allowed the audience to feel the tension and thus, empathize with Woodstein.
ReplyDeleteBetween the documentary and the book, it was difficult for me to choose which was more effective in telling the story since both had their pros and cons. Starting with the book, it was a bit dense, making it difficult for me to concentrate on all the names and information that was thrown at me. Despite this, its going into details does give a more complete story and allows the readers to know exactly what’s going on, that is if the readers are able to fully focus. As for the documentary, it left out many of the events presented in the book, but it still gave a clear picture of the Watergate Scandal, especially Woodstein’s process in uncovering the secret details. A memorable scene from the documentary was at the beginning when Woodstein first attempted to uncover the details behind the burglary. Knocking on doors and having the doors being slammed in their faces really emphasized the lack of help they were receiving and their determination to continue on. I also liked the scene where Woodstein was inside the Library of Congress, and the camera slowly dragged out, showing the pattern of tables. This scene created a sense of change because by this scene, Woodstein’s attitude toward the case changed, causing the men to work extra hard to uncover more information.
By the end of the documentary, I expected a different ending, maybe one in which we can actually see Nixon leaving, but I was quite satisfied with it. Since the documentary was essentially more of the process taken by Woodstein than it was of the whole story of the Watergate Scandal, Woodstein’s typing of the headlines actually created a nice closure to show that they’ve completed what they started. It shows that they’ve reached their goal of uncovering everything and publishing the information. This definitely evoked a sense of victory.
I felt like the movie told the story better because it kept the story moving. In the book, despite being very interesting, at times, was rather dry and kept going over the same information over and over again. Also, the use of music, lighting and the acting kept me in suspense even though I knew the ending of the story. This showed to me how much better the movie was compared to the book since I wanted the book to end more quickly. Also, more people would watch the movie than the book and, in that, the movie was much more effective in telling the story of the Watergate scandal. The Watergate scandal was a warning of the secrets that the federal government hides and that the press needs to ensure that the general public knows what is going on. The movie conveyed this very well while the book felt more like a mystery novel with many more facts.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I never considered a career in investigative journalism, I can see why this inspired a generation of journalists. The perseverance through threats and danger and the heroism that comes with saving American values would have spoken to a lot of young people. They would have wanted to do what Woodward and Bernstein did; keeping the integrity of the government and in a way saving the country.
Today, the government seems to control everything and I think Woodward and Bernstein's story might not even have been allowed to be published. It seems even truer when one looks at the Snowden affair and how the government is monitoring the internet. At the same time, it is easier to get access to information now than it was in Woodward and Bernstein's time. There is a constant flow of information from our phones, computers and the people around us. This love of information might have been influenced by the Watergate scandal which would be why there was such an uproar at because of what Snowden revealed. The government didn't even deny that it was monitoring the internet as it did with relations to the Watergate Scandal.
--Christina Lai
I loved how the movie dramatized the scenes and introduced the viewers to the Washington surroundings. We were able to see the National Library and inside of a news room; this experience is incomparable to the details described by any book. Although the movie was successful in portraying the energy and excitement with the investigation, it glorified Woodward and Bernstein too much. I preferred the novel, which gave me a more factual, less exaggerated (dramatized) explanation of the case. Furthermore, I felt like the movie was unable to fully explain the Watergate case to the readers. While the movie was constrained by minutes, the novel was not constrained; the author could write as much pages as he wanted. If the movie was made into separate parts, I believe the audience would obtain a well rounded, better understanding of the investigation.
ReplyDeleteI disliked the ending of the movie. I felt like it was too rushed, like a novel reaching its climax and suddenly ending. There were more questions that could be answered and more effects that could be explained. Instead, we get a lackluster, lazy ending with the newspaper headlines telling the rest of the story. Instead, I would fully follow Woodward and Bernstein through their investigative process, with the ending as the resignation of Nixon. Also, there would be a feeling of satisfaction of a investigation well done, most likely through a celebration at the Washington Post.
The real significance of All the Presidents' Men, both the book and the film, is in portraying the fragility of American government (that is, government according to American principles). In achieving this task I think that the film was the more successful of the two. The Watergate scandal is very well known to most people, and telling a story about the many televised hearings and Nixon's eventual resignation would be, while surely an interesting story, largely unnecessary. What the book does is it begins the job of alerting people to how close the scandal was to being ignored. We see all these delicate threads of blame and responsibility from one person to another, that two journalists are carefully and slowly (perhaps tediously) tracing along until eventually arriving at the White House. The book does get the message across that Nixon's exposure was the result of mostly chance events and could just have easily have not happened. However, what it does not do is relay it to a public who, by and large, can no longer tolerate the real journalistic writing that Woodward and Bernstein have been accustomed to using. The book would be too tedious and factual for most. The movie, on the other hand, has a distinct aesthetic and cinematic appeal that draws in large crowds of people who have tossed out their newspapers and turned on the Diane Sawyer heroic puppy story. It has a simple, accessible appeal backed by the historical importance of the events it portrays, and I think that that's what makes it better than the book; it's not a question of the works quality but of its consequences.
ReplyDeleteThat brings me to my next, briefer paragraph about the decline of journalism over the course of the past half-century or so. In All the Presidents' Men we see two journalist portrayed who pursue the fit-to-print truth with almost scientific rigor. As a result, when a truth is hard to find, or with clues that take more than one newspaper-printing-time to piece together, they still chose to do the work out of a need to find out what was going on. When they began the investigation they had no idea how far up it would go, but they pursued the story for the sake of determining the truth. Modern reporting now values neither truth nor fitness-to-print. The disregard for truth is shown when news companies take stories of little significance (e.g. Fox News' Obama birth certificate story) and use them as a springboard for endless speculation, that will continue for as long as it remains profitable. The disregard for fitness-to-print is shown by the aforementioned Diane Sawyer heroic puppy story, chosen because World News with Diane Sawyer is ABC's "real news" program, as the title suggests. Such stories, eye-catching rather than important, show that the purpose of journalism really is no longer to inform the public of what matters, but rather to produce something that the public will swallow contentedly. Interestingly enough, "fake news" shows such as the Daily Show are the only news shows I have yet encountered which acknowledge this practice as wrong. Anyway, it's bad and they should stop that.
I have to agree with many of the comments in that the film and the book were better at portraying certain aspects of the investigation. I think the book did a much better job of showing in depth the successes and struggles of Woodward and Bernstein as they investigated deeper into the conspiracy. That being said, it is a book, and has much more time to explain each and every detail. Another thing I think the book did better was really help me understand how all of Nixon's aids were eventually brought down and the events leading up to that. As people have said, the film skipped over the majority of that. I think the film did a great job of bringing the whole situation to life. I loved seeing the interactions between Woodward and Bernstein, and their interactions with their contacts and witnesses, etc. I also learned a lot about the actual process of investigative journalism, and how much work is actually involved. finally, i though the film did a great job of showing the atmosphere involved. The film really brought the paranoia, intensity, struggle, and the actions of Bernstein and Woodward to life. Overall, i thought thew film, predictably, was more entertaining and the film was more informative.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the end, while i didn't hate it, I thought it was a little abrupt.I think that after showing the process that Woodward and Bernstein had been through up to that point, it felt rushed to just end it there and not show anything about them exposing Nixon's inner circle. I've been conditioned by Hollywood, but i did expect to see some sort of closing scene. I would have liked to see maybe one more scene after then end, showing Nixon resigning or something like that. Something to provide some visual closure.
I personally believed that the film was better than the book, mainly for the reason that it was much more comprehensive. The book was very dense in information, introducing new names every few pages. The book was indeed more accurate and explains the whole scandal itself a lot better, but being able to physically see these names on a screen made it much more realistic and easier to follow through.
ReplyDeleteI loved the way that the film was put together. The cinematography was amazing. The lack of music in various scenes, such as the garage scenes with Deep Throat, made the entire mood of the scenes so much more realistic and thrilling. Scenes with music also showed the thrill of journalism and sometimes the dangers of it. There were also several unique yet amazingly clever camera angles that made certain scenes so incredible. I also loved how the film used actual broadcasts to be played on the television in the film, making the entire film much more realistic.
The film manages to present investigative journalism tremendously well. I can definitely see why this film was able to inspire a generation of students to pursue journalism. The typewriter scenes, where all the viewer can see is a functioning typewriter with the television playing in the background, were also phenomenal. The wide angled shots showing large monumental buildings seem to symbolize how huge or important the investigation was and how involved the journalists had to be. Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford also portrayed their characters extremely well, portraying their persistent and determined journalism.
Although it is unfortunate how the film has to cut off certain details off, I was satisfied with the ending. The film's focus seemed to be towards the journalism involved instead of the Watergate scandal itself and I believed that the period that the film ended at was sufficient enough for the purpose of the film. The book is definitely more effective and accurate in describing the Watergate scandal, but I believe that the film portrays it in a more presentable and comprehensible way.
To be honest, it was really hard for me to read the book. From what I was able to read though, I can say that book was definitely denser in comparison to the movie. There was just a deluge of names of people that appeared once only to reappear twenty pages later. By that time, I would have forgotten about that person and would have to go back to remind myself who he was. So I definitely enjoyed the movie a lot more. It was easier for me to remember the characters once I could put a face on the name.
ReplyDeleteThe movie did a good job of retelling the Watergate scandal but I do agree with what Stanley said in class (that the directors realized they couldn’t produce a five hour movie and rushed the end.) I really liked when Woodward and Bernstein were driving in the beginning of the quest to uncover Watergate where the screen panned out so we saw Washington DC while still hearing their dialogue. In retrospect, I guess it shows how big and momentous their search was even if it was done by two (almost) nobodies. I really liked how the movie showed how dangerous it was for them to uncover Watergate. I remember the scene where Woodward was walking back from a talk with Deep Throat in the parking garage. He was constantly looking around and the music began to build up as he broke out into a run. This really shows the fear that the reporters had since something bad could have happened to them because they were digging so deeply into the scandal. I also remember the scene where Woodward and Bernstein were using the typewriter to communicate for fear of being overheard.
I thought the character Deep Throat was extremely interesting. I wish there was more about him but the public didn’t know much about him until 30 years after the Watergate scandal. I’m still wondering why they chose to name him Deep Throat and how he got ahold of Woodward’s newspapers to write meeting dates in them. I liked how the ending was like the beginning of the movie, with the typing. It was like the movie came into a full circle. However, like the majority of my class, I felt as if it wasn’t enough closure. However, there’s only so much action that one could bring into a documentary without turning it into “Mississippi Burning.”
After reading the book and watching the film, I have gained a deeper understanding of the plot that rocked America in the 1970s. Contrary to belief, Nixon was not bound to get caught; instead, it was through the efforts of the press that revealed the truth about Nixon. Also, in order to discover the big picture, it was first required that individual details be discovered by the reporters. This was accomplished through Woodward and Bernstein’s ability to extract information from people even if they were initially unwilling to talk.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I believe that the film was more effective than the movie in telling the story of the Watergate scandal, I think that reading the book prior to watching the film gives the viewer a much more profound understanding of the events that transpired. Each form of communication has its pros and cons. On one hand, the book was very enlightening about the scandal, especially in the way it puts the reader in Bernstein and Woodward’s shoes by writing out their thought process, even if the suspect is incorrect. However, the book may confuse the reader because there are so many people involved, something that also shows the scope of the scandal. On the other hand, the film did a really good job portraying the mood of the time period. Through its music and lighting, the movie portrayed the growing tension as the evidence slowly started to implicate Nixon as the person behind Watergate. However, the movie did end up leaving some moments out, such as the reporters’ getting some witnesses to confess, an action probably done so that the film will not run too long.
There are also some things that I thought the movie did very well. Other than the music and lighting, the film producer decided not to include Nixon in any portion of the film. I thought this was a good decision because it really put the viewer in the reporters’ shoes because they did not have contact with the president either. Another thing I liked was the fact that the producer decided to only focus on the beginning of the investigation. Everybody knows how the story ends, but very few know about the origins of the search and how a duo of reporters would begin to doubt the president of the United States. By only focusing on the beginning, it also really glorifies Woodward and Bernstein and commends them on their great reporting.
I cannot necessarily determine which was distinctly better between the book or movie version of All the President’s Men, as each had its own set of strengths and weaknesses and, by extension, weas significant in its own way. The perspective that the book focused on was different than that which the film focused on, as purposefully intended. The book focused more on the facts and details of the Watergate scandal, as well as any event or information that was related to it. The book allowed for the entirety of the scandal and its investigation to be portrayed. However, while the book could exhibit such an exorbitant amount of information and still sell, the movie needed to find a clever Hollywood twist that would allow the story escalate quickly from a boring tale of corruption to something that could bring down the President. Hence, Robert Redford decided to focus on the two guys, Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward. Therefore, when it come to the contextual significance of the Watergate scandal, the book was without a doubt, better at portraying it than the movie ever could, however the movie was able to produce an interesting thriller that pertained to the Watergate scandal, as Woodstein would exemplify the pinnacle of investigative journalism. Therefore, I can comfortably say that I preferred the movie over the book, due to the visually appealing portion of the movie, as well as the emotional and mental connection I was able to make with Redford who placed Woodward and Dustin Hoffman who played Bernstein, which was able to immerse me more in the scandal and made it as if I was actually in Watergate scandal era. I felt like the book, which kept referring awkwardly to Bernstein and Woodward from 3rd person omniscient perspective, distanced the reader from the scandal as it tried to cram in the historical context and progression of the Watergate scandal.
ReplyDeleteThe chemistry between Hoffman and Redford, on screen, was unbelievable. They had their share of differences at first, in both character and as actors, since Woodward was the Yale educated, Navy veteran while Bernstein was the smoking-counterculture looking, college dropout. But this did not hinder their progress and growth into the driving force behind the Watergate investigation, starting with their first encounter when Bernstein took Woodward’s article and made it better, to the point where they knew each other’s thoughts. Likewise, Hoffman and Redford knew each other’s’ lines and were able to finish each other’s sentence so even though it seemed like they were just rambling out a lot of information, similar to what the book did, their execution made it so that their conversation actually informed the reader in an engaging and comfortable way, which was especially well done considering the time constraints. I can see why this movie might have inspired a new generation of journalists. Woodstein presented to me an image of journalism that was contrary to what I imagined it to be. While I normally imagine journalists to be the kind of people to just sit at their desk and type out stories, what I completely missed was how they formed their story. Woodstein would have to pressure their way into homes, as also shown in the book but not as vividly, and they would have to run around and meet sources such as Deep Throat (Mark Felt) in places like a parking garage, hence in a comedic aspect of the movie, Bradlee eloquently entitled him as “Garage Freak.” The film also left people with a topic to investigate and that was the identity of Deep Throat, which was kept secret for 30 years. While in some sense Felt was a traitor, he was more along the lines of a traitorous hero. While he may have been leaking confidential information, his intentions for doing so, to expose illegal conduct in the White House, was similar to a witness giving testimony to a crime.
Sadly investigative journalism has significantly deteriorated over the years. Many of the most read articles are currently poorly written pieces on celebrities such as Miley Cyrus twerking or Kim Kardashian having a baby. Modern time has given us too much convenience, so that we take our civil rights for granted, hence we did not notice when those rights are violated. Media still makes an impact on society, but I feel that it was more prominent during the Watergate scandal era. Thinking back to what Bradlee told Woodstein, “Nothing's riding on this except the first amendment of the Constitution, freedom of the press, and maybe the future of the country,” I believe that perhaps America would have indeed been different if Watergate never came to light. Possibly the Nixon era may have lasted for a little longer or maybe another one of his corrupt misdeeds may have been his downfall. Jimmy Carter or any other Democrat would have probably not won the 1976 election as the era of moderate Republicans was likely continue. Perhaps the philosophy that “when the President does it, that means that it's not illegal,” would have explicitly continued. Presidents would have likely remained above the law and continued to expand the executive power of the President
DeleteThe movie was very violent and explicit. The noise of typewriters, the cigarette smoking, and the explicit remarks made the movie very interesting. I thought the movie allowed us to see from the perspective of a journalist during the Watergate scandal era, at least until the ending, which was considerably rushed and unorthodox and, by extension, it left a lot of loose ends due to skipping past the rest of the investigation by Woodstein. I felt that Frost Nixon, would have been a great sequel to the movie, as well as the book, as it shows Nixon after his resignation. It gave us a taste of the Frost/Nixon era and the interviews that occurred, as well as portraying Nixon with a unique twist. The Discovery channel's All the President's Men Revisited, is also an interesting and is much more information heavy than the movie was. I felt that this documentary was much more in line with the book as it shows a much better chronological ordering of the historical events pertaining to Watergate, both including vital things such as the John Dean Watergate hearings and the infamous eighteen and a half minute gap. I felt that this modern revisit of an event from four decades ago allowed us to see the Watergate era from the Modern era and from the perspective of the interviewees and the changed perspective of Woodstein and Bradlee after the scandal had wrapped up.
After reading the book and watching the film, I think the film is definitely more effective in telling the story of the Watergate scandal. Seeing Woodward and Bernstein [also commonly referred to as Woodstein] in action makes the story livelier and more realistic whereas in the book, you cannot see the anxiety of Woodstein as they tried to find another source for their story. The film gives us much of the action in front of our eyes, the intensity of the two reporters' passion and eagerness to successfully figure out the culprits who ordered the Watergate break-in. However, at the same time, the film lacks many of the details given in the book which made the film much more condensed and easier to follow. The book, although more accurate and much more detailed frequently threw out way too many names that I could not recognize, but the book was written for an audience who had the Watergate Scandal in their newspapers. In that sense, although I prefer the film, I think the book needed to be as detailed as it was because only then would the audience understand every step of the process that was taken to bring down Nixon, the former president.
ReplyDeleteI loved the staging of each scene. The darkness and shadows that continued followed Woodward every time he walked to the meeting place with Deep Throat really complimented that mystery of the whole investigation. The director made a great decision in developing the scenes into symbolic ones including the spiraling stairs. The inclusion of the music also helped consolidate the mood for each scene and definitely made the film much more enjoyable to watch.
In addition, I enjoyed watching Woodstein's journalism at work. The intensity of the phone interrogations they performed on the aides, Bernstein's flirtatious methods, Bernstein's strategy of asking for a cigarette to get into the bookkeeper's house, and the discussions they had with Bradlee always intrigued me. Many times, reporters seem to merely go out in the field and report events they see in front of them, however, Woodstein completely proves that false as they found their hit story by digging up dirt. Here, in the Woodstein duo, you had Woodward running to meet up Deep Throat, and Bernstein racing to get confirmations for their story by using methods like counting to ten and asking their other source to stay on the line if they should go ahead with the story. The book and the film both clearly demonstrated the process in which Woodstein used their freedom of the press to change the nation. Woodstein is often seen as an inspiration to the future generation of journalists because as journalists, they were able to change the country. Their words, their voice, made them heroes as they took down the president. Their success and their articles showed that media was truly the fourth branch of the government.
Initially, I had assumed that the film and the book would tell us the entire story from the start of the investigation to the events that led Nixon to resign, however as the endings of both the film and book fell short, I was disappointed. But, at the same time, I think an ending with the events preceding Nixon's resignation would draw the focus away from the journalism aspect of "All the President's Men". The focus was the process it took for the two Post reporters to discover who was behind the Watergate scandal, and if Pakula ended the film with the resignation of the Nixon, the emphasis would have been on the result rather than the process. Although underwhelming, the typewriter typing out headings of the top stories written later as a result of their work emphasized just how powerful the media was in this nation.
After reading the book and watching the film, I can definitely say that I enjoyed the film better. As everyone else has been saying, the book, in my opinion, was too dense. After reading a few chapters, I found it hard to remember all the names of those involved in the scandal and connect back to the storyline. I even had to look up some of the names in the index. In the movie, Bernstein and Woodward were great actors, and you could see how passionate they were about uncovering the truth. It was hard to find that in the book. In addition, I didn't like how the book ends before disclosing some of the more important events in the Watergate scandal, such as Nixon admitting to being involved with Watergate, and him resigning. In the end though, I think the book taught me more about journalism and what being a reporter is like more than about Watergate itself. For example, in one scene, Woodward and Bernstein thought that they had been wrong in one of the stories, and as they scrambled to fix up their mistake, I could really see the importance of making sure all your sources are correct. Also, I thought that the movie was more suspenseful. When Woodward is waiting in the garage for "Deep Throat", we hear the music playing in the background and we can related to his feeling nervous. Overall, though, I thought that the movie was very informative as well as interesting, showing the whole process of Woodward and Bernstein uncovering the truth about Watergate. However, I would have liked to see them being congratulated for their work, after Nixon resigned, which we did not see in the movie. All we saw were their articles about Watergate being published.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI really did not like the ending, though not because it didn't have the guilty be brought out in handcuffs. I really wanted to have a buildup of how Woodstein got from the lower ranks of Washington to accusing the top ranks of Washington. The ending would have been appropriate if they showed up to getting to the inner circle, like Haldemann. But since there are restraints on how long a movie can be, obviously that couldn't have happened.
ReplyDeleteBesides that critique, I thought the movie was amazing in showing how the investigative process went, and the tediousness of it all. It showed how much dedication they needed to actually break the story open and piece together all the parts of the puzzle.
I thought the book was better than the film, but reading the book and watching the film bring a more complete picture. The book brings all the details, while the movie brings in the setting and a better knowledge of who's who. While the book may be better, the film is an added supplement that enhances the book.
As a News reporter of the Spectator, I found both the book and the movie were both very inspiring, because the relentless work taken by Woodward and Bernstein really exemplified the News industry. Although I have only done a few investigative pieces (which obviously were not as intense as finding out the president and other officials were a part of a huge scandal), the actions that they had to do in terms of calling many people, having many interviews declined, and cheering with one's partner when one finds vital information are all elements that I can definitely relate to. In addition, I would definitely understand why their investigative journalism would inspire a generation of journalists because who wouldn't want to try to develop such a big story as this?
ReplyDeleteIn terms of the movie ending which everyone seems to be discussing, I actually found it to be a very creative ending, and actually reminded me of the ending of Mississippi Burning, because instead of having an action-filled ending, it named out all of the outcomes and all the people who were involved get punished. However, like some students in my class mentioned, I also would have preferred a consolation scene between Woodward, Bernstein, and Bradlee maybe discussing the aftereffects of all their hard work.
I also watched a big chunk of the documentary, "All the President's Men Revisited," which I also found very interesting because it had interviews from Woodward, Bernstein, and Bradlee in current times, in addition to many other knowledgable individuals in the media industry today. Although it was a lot more factual and less plot-based, I found it to be very intriguing and a very good complement having read both the book and watched the movie.
As for the movie vs. the book, I definitely understand people's concerns about the many names that the book throws at you and expects to remember. I personally remember being extremely confused as I was reading the beginning of the book because I couldn't keep track of all the characters that Woodward and Bernstein named. One thing that we should take into account, however, is that they published the book very quickly after the assassination and writing all of their pieces, so much of the public would know of the people who are referenced to in the book, which would make it much easier. As a result, I would understand why many people preferred the movie since it was much easier to follow. However, personally, like many others, I did prefer the book because it was much more specific and covered much more of process of how Woodstein found out about the scandal and the participants involved.
After watching All the President's Men and reading it I can definitely say that I vastly prefer the book to the movie. While reading the book I found that while it did give a more realistic picture of Watergate it was also basically a book of notes where in the authors just threw facts at you one after the other. The book is overall very wordy and dense, where the movie does an excellent job of keeping the suspense and keeps the viewer engaged. I can definitely see how this book inspired a whole generation of investigative journalists by being basically the CSI of the time. The movie showed the brill of the chase and the integral part of Woodward and Bernstein in bringing down Nixon, while this may be a little dramatized due to Hollywood it overall stays true to the book and the case.
ReplyDeleteWoodward and Bernstein did what many see today as a heroic thing, bringing down the corrupt president. During the case though they were basically risking many of the basic freedoms that we are granted in the Constitution. In the movie, the character Ben Bradlee says, "There is nothing riding on [the story] other than the First Amendment to the Constitution, freedom of the press and maybe the future of the country..." I definitely agree with him, it is not the first time that a president has suspended the First Amendment for his own gain. I also think that the story had to have been exposed or else it would have set a dangerous precedent of Presidents covering up clandestine affairs that meant sabotaging their opponents. While Woodward and Bernstein are seen as heroes this kind of action would not be accepted very well today. In our post 9/11 society we are more paranoid than ever about threats to our security. Take Snowden for example, what he did in exposing the spying done by the NSA was basically Watergate on a larger scale, and yet he is persecuted for this by our government and media.
Both the book and the movie had their pros and cons, so it was hard for me to decide on which was more effective in documenting the story of the Watergate investigation. When reading the book, I noticed that I was able to get a good idea of what was going on because Woodward and Bernstein were both very good storytellers, who had added a bit of humor into their writing. They also give background details so that I could understand the causes and effects of events. However, they mention a plethora of characters that are mostly unnecessary since they mostly just appear for one scene. This made the book confusing and I would always have to flip back in the book to find out who the character was, whether they were a person that was contacted, CIA, FBI, etc. The movie was effective at telling the story of the investigation as it gave a visual aspect and essentially a "face" to the characters. So, it was easier to keep track of the characters. In addition, the cinematography was meticulously created when showing intense scenes such as those with Deep Throat. In summary, the movie was able to tell the story in a short 2-hour film. However, the movie does not give nearly as many details as the book and does not give us a look into Woodstein's personal thoughts about the situation.
ReplyDeleteWoodward and Bernstein were initially just writers for the post, but in different sections. Woodward, at first, was skeptical that he would work well with Bernstein on an investigation since they had never worked together in the past. While this skepticism was apparent in the beginning, they had started to work together. It started when Woodward had found out that one of the burglars was a former security agent in the CIA. When he sent his paper to the editor, Bernstein took it and rewrote it, in an more eloquent way so that it would not seem like the CIA agent was being targeted. From this moment, Woodward and Bernstein would work closer together on this investigation and they soon became one, Woodstein.
I think that Deep Throat was an inspirational character. As an informer at night and a wiretapper in the morning, he was risking his life to help Woodward and Bernstein. He should be compared to Daniel Ellsberg and Edward Snowden as heroes because he helped greatly in exposing the illicit actions of the president. Without his help, Woodward and Bernstein would probably not have been able to solve the case and Nixon may have been able to escape being caught and be called the greatest president (from his foreign policies as according to Kissinger). Upon further research, Deep Throat was the pseudonym for Mark Felt, the Associate Director for the FBI. He had such a high rank at the time and had he was exposed, he would have been targeted by the FBI. His work as an informant should be deemed heroic as he nearly risked his life to expose the worst scandal in American history.
I loved the directing, acting, and overall sense of tension, paranoia, and tenacity presented in the movie, but at I at some times wished that the movie shifted its focus more to accommodate the actual shady dealings going on during Watergate incident. The movie especially came out to me to be more of a movie presenting the detective work and adventure of journalism, rather than about the insides and outsides of the Watergate Scandal. It would have been nice to characterize Nixon during all of this and see what was going on outside of the Washington Post. That said, the film served this other purpose of displaying true journalism extremely well. Many particular scenes especially caught me eye, such as the gradual zoom out of the Bernstein and Woodward looking through the impossibly large piles in order to show the determination of the two.
ReplyDeleteAs for the book, I think it was a little more informative and a little less intense than the movie because it was able to go in depth with factual detail but not able to display it in a scene.
Overall, I really enjoyed the film. I didn't finish the book, so I was unable to see the difference in the endings. The film's ending, however, still felt too abrupt for me. Though it was the most accurate portrayal of what happened, I still wanted some sort of closure - perhaps a celebratory scene with Woodward and Bernstein, or images of the men involved in the scandal and punished.
ReplyDeleteStill, I thought the movie was great. The book becomes a bit confusing with a ton of names, and the movie allows all the events to come to life. It edits out less important aspects and the acting was phenomenal. Like Tomin said in class, I especially enjoyed the performance of Dustin Hoffman. As Bernstein, I thought he almost stole the show from Redford's perfect-haired Woodward. The best scene of the movie was when Bernstein went through 20 cups of coffee to get all his notes on napkins. The relationship between the two journalists was also great, and I thoroughly enjoyed the whole good cop/bad cop routine.
I much preferred the film version of All the President’s Men to the book for many reasons. First of all the performances of Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman were beyond the usual terrific performances that we usual can expect from them. They brought an added dimension to Woodward and Bernstein and I felt I could relate to them more. Another thing that really stuck out to me about the movie was the brilliance of William Goldman’s screenplay. Goldman, who also wrote Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Marathon Man, and The Princess Bride, was able to take the dry and newspaper like story from the book and transform it into the entertaining drama. Goldman truly deserved the Oscar that he received for his efforts in breathing life into a text that was suffering from a tremendous lack of entertainment value. “Follow the money” has become a quintessential phrase in the American conscious and its reaction to political scandal, from the serious to the unimportant is seriously influenced by the tremendous screenplay of this film. Finally, the character of Ben Bradlee really stood out to me as a man of integrity and understanding who put the future of his country ahead of the future of The Washington Post. Bradlee realized that the crimes of Richard M. Nixon needed to be revealed to the public and the reputation of the newspaper was only a small price to pay for justice. It has been a few years since I saw the film Frost/Nixon about the 1977 interviews of former President Nixon by British journalist David Frost. I enjoyed that film as well because it showed a different relationship between Nixon and the press, firmly hammering the nail in the coffin of Nixon’s reputation. I would recommend both films to anyone who was interested, but I would be a little more hesitant to recommend the book.
ReplyDeleteTina Zhu
ReplyDeleteI personally preferred the movie because it helped me visualize the growing relationship between Bernstein and Woodward. Whereas the book was highly detailed and analytic to make it feel like we were discovering the hidden facts together, the movie highlighted memorable key figures such as Bradlee and Deep Throat. I believe that the movie inspired many incoming students to strive to become investigative reporters. People were able to believe that individuals who wield the power of the media are able to make a difference in the secretive and often corrupt political world. I love how the director completely focused on the reporters in lieu of Nixon. Having two nameless investigators on their battle against the government seems like a more modern idea. Although people at the time were motivated to change the world through journalism, the media today has indeed changed. The circumstances of Snowden and Bernstein and Woodward were increasingly similar yet the people's response of today seems more diluted. People no longer trust the government as they did in the past, result of the two reporters. Snowden's impact is equally great but the people realize they are unable to do much because of government controls. I would not try to become an investigative reporter because my actions and results would not yield the same results as in the past. However, I do respect and admire Bernstein and Woodward for their persistence and devotion. They also had incredible instincts to be able to stick with such a seemingly far-fetched idea.
Overall, even with the controversial ending, I preferred the film version of All the President's Men to the book. I was able to understand the time period, the job and the atmosphere surrounding the event through visual presentation. I especially loved the atmosphere of the newspaper office and how hectic it was. I also enjoyed the acting, especially of Bernstein and Woodward. I got the sense of urgency, dedication and passion from the two characters and gave me a good sense of how it must feel like to be a journalist, especially someone who's working on an important and controversial case.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I thought the movie had to sacrifice certain key elements of the book during production, which are details and information. The huge number of names, places, etc. in the book was a little too much for me to handle. However, I do believe that all the factual details are important to showcase the amount of information and how much time consuming it was for it to be processed and organized. Another aspect was time. In the movie, it felt as if the investigation happened in a really short period of time. However, this was not the case and the investigation took several years, overall.
I believe that the book and film both have pros and cons and both have their merits. There are many things that the movie can convey to the watchers that the book can't and vice-versa. Although I preferred the movie to the book, I believe that if people were to read or watch this, they should do both to understand the event through different angles.
I have mixed feelings about the book versus the movie. In favor of the movie:
ReplyDeleteThe acting of Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford: he development of the relationship between Bernstein and Woodward was more focused in the movie, possibly because the actors took that liberty. Settings and environment: one thing portrayed in the movie that wasn’t highlighted in the book was how hectic the office of the Post was--the typewriters, phones, and fast pace. I also found that the book introduced a slew of names, sources and organizations that I could never keep straight, and the movie helped me remember the characters since I could put names to the faces. Compared to the book, the movie gave more closure with the dates of court cases and sentencings that eventually lead up to Nixon’s resignation.
While some parts of the movie were fast paced, at times, you remembered that this was documenting a long, enduring process. Some interview scenes were suspenseful, my favorite being the phone conversation in which Bernstein counts to 10 in order to indirectly confirm information for an article. It was interesting to see the researching process sans Google or texting. Somehow, I found myself zoning out during the meetings with Deep Throat. The book gave more insight into the backstories of both journalists, such as Bernstein’s run-ins with the police in Washington and the dislike both men initially have for each other, due to differences in their backgrounds and characters. In both the book and movie, I had trouble telling Woodward and Bernstein apart and thought of them as one unit.
The movie did capture the life of a journalist: struggling to find sources, getting around laws and rules to get a story, dealing with a large, continuous story. Bernstein and Woodward made sure the President’s spying did not go unnoticed by the American people. The book, the movie, and the actual history of these two men portrayed journalists as possible heroes, who keep the public informed and the subjects honest. Even now, that is the image of a journalist. Anderson Cooper’s slogan is “Keeping Them Honest”. Richard Engels has told countless stories of being kidnapped and detained in the Mid East. However, the media scene has changed since Woodward and Bernstein. Both journalists and the President have Twitter feeds. The White House has a Tumblr. Walter Cronkite has been replaced by countless reporters from several major news stations. The newspaper is no longer the only source of daily information, and a decrease in political involvement in the general population has given the media less swaying power.
I definitely prefer the film version of "All the President's Men" to the book because although pretty in depth, the book failed to provide an interesting read and it seemed like I was only reading it because I had to, not because I was captivated in the text. The movie really takes you into the world of investigative journalism and shows what it took for Berstein and Woodward to even get the slightest information. These two characters were not only dedicated to the story, working relentlessly to find someone who would talk to them, but they also showed an interest in bettering the country by weeding out those involved in the watergate scandal. Although these two Washington Post journalists were definitely integral to the operation, I agree with Inhae in that the movie really glorifies them as if they were the only reason Nixon and his administration were taken down.
ReplyDeleteAs for deep throat, I believe he performed an act that is morally right and it was necessary for him to do so. Eric Snowden, on the other hand, also performed an act that was morally right but at the same time he put the security of our nation at stake. I believe Snowden should be held accountable for his actions that were most definitely unlawful and the fact that he fled to China and now Russia go to show that maybe his true intentions weren't all in America's best interest.
Overall the debate about All the President's Men was extremely interesting and the topics stringing from it, like the Snowden/Ellsberg/Deepthroat comparison also led to great debate topics. I find that doing activities like this is the best way to learn about a specific topic.
As someone who’s been sufficiently trained with dry, condensed and often convoluted material, I found the book extremely interesting. It was an objectively academic, though admittedly involved, read, and as a student in an AP history class, detail was what I craved. The book explained the Watergate scandal in greater depth, and actually introduced us to “all the president’s men,” as opposed to their brief appearance or reference in the film.
ReplyDeleteBut as someone who also appreciates cinematographic value and grew up with a deep admiration for true journalism, the film was fantastically accurate and spectacularly done. Beside its powerful scenes, the film showcased something that couldn’t be explained in words. Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford were extremely expressive actors and had the kind of intelligent, appealing allure that explained much of their success. They also portrayed the kind of stress journalists were under and their fear of losing not just their careers but also their lives. In the parking lot, after visiting Deepthroat, Woodward hears the screeching of car tires and suddenly realizes he is being followed, or at least suspects it. He walks with fear and caution, and the sweat dripping down the sides of his cheeks isn’t something we could’ve gotten from the book. Bernstein’s return after getting information from the bookkeeper, pulling out the napkins on which he had jotted down notes and clearly suffering from severe sleep deprivation, is something we could probably imagine reading the book, but not fully understand without watching the movie.
It’s true the movie focused primarily on the reporting, and placed the emphasis on Woodward and Bernstein, but I don’t think that takes away from its value. The fact that the two were attractive, interesting, intelligent and appealing figures served to explain how they got most of the information they got. If Bernstein hadn’t been engaging and possibly flirtatious with Howard Hunt’s former partner, they wouldn’t have had a lead. If he hadn’t been persistent with the bookkeeper and known how to push without being rude, they wouldn’t have had a lead. Their manner had to be extremely careful - of all the doors that were not shut in front of their faces, the only ones willing to cooperate could’ve easily refused if Woodward and Bernstein hadn’t seemed like charismatic, trustworthy, and polite figures. But perhaps less to their own credit, if either of them hadn’t had the luck of being told things others expected them to already know, they may not have been able to put everything together. When Woodward is asked if he is surprised that Hunt worked at the CIA, he is expected to have already known that. He immediately replies “no, no [absolutely not surprised].” Their journalistic skill is phenomenal and their perseverance extremely remarkable, but a lot of their success is due to luck. The film can portray that much more effectively than can the book.
Watergate inspired a new wave of journalists seeking the kind of success Bernstein and Woodward had. This movie, even if just watched by a few AP history classes, can inspire a few to seek to turn around the fate of journalism as it’s become today and go back to its 1970s golden era.
Perhaps I am a little biased as concerns my interest in the film and novel, but I've never personally been affected by crime-dramas, nor been tempted by the spirit of investigation/ journalism. That is not to say that I didn't respect the pure visual affect of the film, but I felt relatively unaffected by the thriller aspect of it. In fact, I preferred watching "All The Presidents Men revisted" because it gave more of an historical background behind Watergate, and supplied real footage of the events, which were fascinating to me. What I really wanted to see was Nixon, his discomfort, his insecurity, and to watch the psychological affect on him, and the progression of his downfall. In that sense, I guess I would have preferred to watch the documentary "NIxon". I'm definitely planning on watching "Frost Nixon" just to get an understanding of his rationalization of Watergate. What a crook.
ReplyDeleteThere is this idea that Journalism today is weak in comparison to the audacity and skill of these two iconic figures, Woodward and Bernstein, and I think that's definitely true. However, it seems to me as though the effectiveness of journalism has a cyclical graph, starting way back with "yellow" journalism and Pulitzer. And it is something indicative of our society today, but perhaps too that is cyclical. I can not help but feeling that although today, perhaps, the media is a reflection of the public, perhaps in future years it will evolve, as our society evolve, in the same way that is has since the 70s.
And now to tackle the effectiveness of the film. For purely telling the story of Woodward and Bernstein, and their genius, it was riveting, and I think really took out the most important details of their investigation, in chronological way. They were very much "the good guys" fighting "the bad guys" and for all the "right" reasons. I would have found it interesting if the had talked more about the idea of party loyalty, and perhaps analyzed that conflict in Woodward, as a former supporter of Nixon. But again, that wasn't the purpose of the movie; it was to be a thriller, exciting, inspiring, and very much the tale of scandal.
I felt that the movie was more effective in telling the story of the Watergate scandal. As a movie, the main thing that it was supposed to do was to entertain, which it not only did, but also did while keeping true to the real story. The movie implemented different aspects to keep you drawn to the story line. For example, after Deep Throat gives important information to Woodward in the parking garage, Deep Throat dissappears, leaving Woodward all alone. As a viewer, this scene was incredibly suspenseful. We know the importance of the information that Woodward is carrying right now, and we know he is essentially playing with his life by following the Watergate scandal. The scene becomes even more suspenseful as creepy music begins to play in the background while Woodward begins picking up his pace as if someone was following him.
ReplyDeleteI feel like the media today would have aided in the covering up of Nixon's watergate scandal, in order to protect business interests and political interests. However, select newspapers will still stay true to their moral values. Back during the 1970's, the media was quite different. Rather than protecting business and political interests, they would go follow their story, for the sake of the story.
If Woodward and Bernstein had not followed with the Watergate Scandal, it would've set a precedent for future presidents to be able to essentially do what ever they want, no matter how unconstitutional and corrupt, and get away with it. I was dissatisfied with the ending, but i can see why Redford chose to end it in the way he did. If he did not end it the way he did, they movie might have dragged on for another 3-4 hours, ending with the resignation of Nixon.
I absolutely loved the film version of "All the President's Men." Instead of focusing on the Watergate scandal itself, the movie instead revolved around Woodward and Bernstein's struggles as journalists to follow the story and get it published. I initially was somewhat disappointed at the ending, which although incredibly creative and effective in its quick reel of typewritten headlines, seemed to me to end too early, before confirmation that involvement existed at the executive level. However, upon reflection, I realize that the intention of the movie was to focus on the journalism of two determined writers, not on the actual scandal. This is supported by the fact that Nixon is never actually introduced in person - we only see and know what Woodstein did. It is this aspect of the movie that makes it so fantastic. The viewer follows the plot with the same suspense the journalists followed the story.
ReplyDeleteBesides this, creative elements include the camera angles and symbolism of scenes. One scene in particular that stuck with me was one in which Woodward's car drove away from the garage and away from Deep Throat, running completely alone opposite traffic. This effect was subtle, but reflected the isolation Woodward and Bernstein both felt. One other powerful scene occurred toward the end, as Nixon is shown on a television screen in the foreground at his Inauguration, while Woodward and Bernstein type furiously in the background. This scene represented the unraveling of the President and the near-success of the journalists, who worked to uncover the truth the re-elected president sought to hide. Creative elements like these did a great deal to make the film as wonderful as it is.
I thought that the book was much better in portraying the issue than the film. The film seemed lackluster at times while the book gave more thrill of finding out the pieces of the events in chronology. Thus the book made the effort seem more like solving a puzzle piece which is what researching truly is. The relationship between Woodward and Bernstein was portrayed in a commendable manner.
ReplyDeleteWe see the two journalists as comrades, the research that either finds helps the other and they instantly inform each other of their latest findings. This intimate, brotherly relations that the two had was vital in solving the Watergate scandal. Unlike in Mississippi Burning where the two main characters happen to be polar opposites, we see that Woodward and Bernstein are more similar. The primary purpose of the difference is that Hollywood intended to incorporate comedy through contrasting personalities. This film on the other hand was intended to create a more realistic approach to how real journalism takes place. The film showed that in more cases, similar personalities tend to prove prosperous than those that are opposite. I liked that the film, although very slow paced, showed the truth as to how journalism takes place and the dedication, cooperation and luck involved in the success.
It is sad that in today’s media, most of the news is reported through websites like yahoo which have made newspapers obsolete. This shift in consumption of knowledge means that web editors can cherry pick the news that they wish to publicize which in turn limits our insight into our surroundings. This makes it much more difficult for us to understand the effort behind uncovering many of the stories.
Bradlee’s comment, “Nothing's riding on this except the first amendment of the Constitution, freedom of the press, and maybe the future of the country" is an accurate summary of the significance of the work of these two journalists. Had it not been for their persistence, Nixon would have gotten off scott free and we might never discover this scandal. That would imply that the president would be above the law, thus nulling our constitution. Mindful of the fact that many, including some of Woodward and Bernstein's co-workers, disapproved of the ambitions of the story including the fact that some people even threatened the journalists, we must praise them on their perseverance. Despite the condescend from their colleagues and outsiders alike, Woodward and Bernstein continued to take cracks to the case and had they not taken the initiative, nobody else would have because they were too afraid to come into the spotlight.
I think the book v movie debate is much larger than just the story presented in All the President’s Men. Well-written historical books/movies tend to be very factually dense (regardless of their style, content, or how well they make the history seem like a real event). Books tend to focus on laying down the facts as much as possible, while movies try to make the scene come alive.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of Woodward and Bernstein, I strongly believe that the movie served them a greater justice than the book. No amount of words in a book could make me understand the suspense in the air when Woodward typed out to Bernstein that their lives might be in danger or when Bernstein counted to 10 on the phone. No amount of adjectives could help me properly imagine the hectic nature of the newsroom, constantly filled with the clicking of typewriter keys.
The cinematography also acted as a great tool in perpetuating the director’s vision. Whenever Woodward or Bernstein were alone and outside, it was almost always dark. Deep Throat and unknown White House personnel had their faces, almost their entire bodies covered in shadows to show the secretive and dark nature of the cover-up. I thought this was a wise choice because removing the unique personality and identity of certain characters (especially Nixon) made me, as a viewer, focus more on and connect more deeply with Woodstein’s quest for truth. Another cinematographic effect that I found very useful was the combination of mazelike sets with the already unsettling darkness, symbolizing and solidifying the two reporters’ relentless and sometimes blind determination to uncover the truth.
Although I agree that much of the vividness and originality of visualization is lost when a book is turned into a movie, it is hard for someone outside of the time period (i.e. myself) to put myself into the events of the investigation without having someone hold my hand and guide me through it; this is easiest and most well-done with a movie. Similar to the John Adams HBO series we watched in class last semester, I believe that this sort of visual guidance played a great role in my appreciation of the history as real-time, real-life events, and not just as one potential story I could use in an essay on the AP exam.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe film All the Presidents Men focused not really on Watergate but on the journalists, Woodward and Bernstein. The film focused on their methods to expose this illicit activity and how they proceeded to get to this. This film really did inspire a generation of journalists and represents the golden era of journalism where there were no biased news stations. In the film, Woodward was a registered voter but chose justice first. In the movie, it was said that over half the country did not know about Watergate. Newspapers acted as the vanguards, putting out the truth. Newspapers nowadays cut up quotes and lines are biased towards one party and don't fact check. Just recently there was a trade for an American soldier that had been a captive of the Taliban for 5 years in exchange for 5 Taliban soldiers. Instead of being hailed as a hero and being welcomed home, his parents got death threats and new stations branded him a deserter.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to the journalists, they cannot be compared to Snowden with the NSA leaks. Although pure in intention, the way he carried out the leaks have caused to put people's lives in danger.