Wiki for Dr. McClurkens Courses

User Tools

Site Tools

Trace:
329:question:329--week_14_questions_comments-2020

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
329:question:329--week_14_questions_comments-2020 [2020/12/03 02:10] – [I.How does this movie work as a secondary source? What does the movie get right about history?] 68.100.75.18329:question:329--week_14_questions_comments-2020 [2020/12/03 14:20] (current) – 68.100.75.18
Line 12: Line 12:
 I think that the film would make a good secondary source for anyone just getting into the subject of Watergate. Of course I don't think that it should look at as the Watergate bible or anything. The movie seems to over dramatize the events a bit to the point where you feel like you're watching a cool detective movie. Which, I supposed in a sense is accurate as the reporters were chasing leads and investigating. **However, it does seems to make the media and journalists in general seem a little too glamourous.** I think a lot of this may have to do with the casting. One thing I read on this movie was a review by a Washington Post Staff Writer in 1992. He was with the Post during the time of the scandal and mentions that the **movie makes it look like Woodward did it all by themselves**. While they obviously contributed more than anyone else they were not completely alone in this pursuit. **There was also the absence of Katherine Graham who was the publisher of the paper.** I think that the film would make a good secondary source for anyone just getting into the subject of Watergate. Of course I don't think that it should look at as the Watergate bible or anything. The movie seems to over dramatize the events a bit to the point where you feel like you're watching a cool detective movie. Which, I supposed in a sense is accurate as the reporters were chasing leads and investigating. **However, it does seems to make the media and journalists in general seem a little too glamourous.** I think a lot of this may have to do with the casting. One thing I read on this movie was a review by a Washington Post Staff Writer in 1992. He was with the Post during the time of the scandal and mentions that the **movie makes it look like Woodward did it all by themselves**. While they obviously contributed more than anyone else they were not completely alone in this pursuit. **There was also the absence of Katherine Graham who was the publisher of the paper.**
 Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/stories/ringle.htm - Dan Dilks Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/stories/ringle.htm - Dan Dilks
 +
 +I thought //All the President's Men// did a good job of following the actual story. I thought they also overall did a good job of getting down the actual characters as Woodward and Bernstein were more junior reporters at The Washington Post. I thought the movie did a good job of portraying the stress that created but I felt they didn't overplay it too much either. --Helen Dhue 
 +
 +The entire **setting and style of the time period is accurate by virtue of the fact that the film was made so soon after the event it is portraying occurred**.  However, it also gets a number of details correct as well.  For one, the film does not overemphasize the magnitude that the public assigned the Watergate scandal at the time.  The film could have very easily made it a national dramatic event, but many times characters mentioned that many people had not even heard about Watergate.-Daniel Walker
 +
 +I found this film to be incredibly accurate. It depicted the **Watergate scandal from a journalistic perspective very well**. The attention to detail was excellent, even in small bits like portraying the relationship between Woodward and Bernstein, as well as how surprising it was for them to write about the scandal after only having worked at //The Washington Post// for several months. Almost everything depicted in the film seemed accurate, from the character portrayals to the setting. One aspect I found really interesting is **the fact that Frank Wills, who was a security guard at the Watergate complex, played himself in the movie, only adding to the accuracy portrayed in the film.** It can definitely be used as a secondary source. – Jordan Petty  
 +
 +I don't have a lot of previous knowledge about the Watergate investigation or scandal so I found this film to be **really informative in explaining aspects that I didn't quite understand before**. I think it does a really good job of showing how much work was put into uncovering the money trail, as well as how many people Woodstein talked to that weren't willing to say anything. It definitely sets the stage for the real event and manages to convey a lot of information in a reasonable amount of time. -Madison Roberts
 +
 +I think this film is a great secondary source for the Watergate scandal. **The film doesn't try to exchange historical accuracy for entertainment in major ways so it's able to properly portray the events of Watergate and how it was uncovered by journalists**. The nuances of the each person and of each part of the event can be seen through the film's attention to detail. The film is able to show a lot of information in a comparatively short amount of time without making situations seem overdramatic and unbelievable.  -Purnaja Podduturi
 +
 +//All the President's Men// works well as a **secondary source not just for the Watergate Scandal but also for journalists**. I first watched this movie in my first journalism class, and I remember my professor pausing the movie and different parts for us to discuss what the reporters were doing and going over how we should approach our stories from different angles etc. With that in mind, I think the film works well as a secondary source in giving the American public a perspective on the scandal they may not have seen before, having it all laid out for them from the viewpoint of the journalists, like a summarized explanation after an incredibly convoluted story. It allows the public to take a step back and really understand what happened during the Watergate Scandal. -- Cat Kinde
 +
 +//All the President's Men// works pretty well overall as a secondary source, particularly in depicting the context around the Watergate Scandal. The atmosphere and characters are super realistic and believable, though it helps that it was made very close to the actual events. Its use of actual news and press report footage and audio helps to further that credibility and set the film in the time period. It seemed to be pretty accurate to the Watergate scandal and the investigation of the Washington Post and it told the story in a compelling way that even if you weren't able to follow all of the little details, you were able to understand the overall story and events. - Ashley Dimino
 +
 +**This film, just like //The Best Years of Our Lives// is an example of a film that blends the line between primary and secondary sources**. Since this film depicts events that were so recent, many of the details, especially the material ones are spot on to the period and are portrayed almost in real time. I think this film would be a very helpful secondary source about the events of the Watergate scandal but also a primary source for things like mid-70's clothing, how reporting was done in the 70's, addictive habits people had, and in general what kind of material things were used and how. - Wilson
  
 ====== II. Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact? ====== ====== II. Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact? ======
Line 19: Line 35:
  
 The film, All the President’s Men, approaches the investigation of the Watergate scandal by Bernstein and Woodward for the Washington Post. **The film which came out two years after the scandal concluded while the journalists involved were still writing their book is a film which I can call a good presentation of the investigation**. I hesitantly believe that of the many films we have seen this semester, t**his film might best draw from the historical record and be a source on the Watergate scandal.** The initial catching of the five individuals at the Watergate building is accurate as the film notes how **four of them are Cuban Americans** and that they all had **connections with the CIA** and that other members of the activity were at a building across from the convention center. The actual investigation by the journalists seems so real as they struggle to find information as the cover-up threatened or removed many of those involved. The change in statements as people are told to deny the claims at Watergate to cover-up the event. The film also includes the presence of the plumbers and their activities to tear down the competition and the strange relationship that such activities would have because it was an evolution of a normal activity of politics. **I like how the major political events of the time play out in the background as the journalists focus on Watergate which I thought was a beautiful way to present how the scandal was initially obscured by the larger attention drawn by the presidential election.** I also thought it was so fitting that everyone doubts the president’s involvement which was so fitting for the belief that was prevalent for Nixon. Finally, the insistence on the journalists being young and the doubt that such a position would hold was interesting. The film overall is a good historical presentation of events and I think that the film would do well as a source for any talk about the Watergate scandal. -Robert Keitz The film, All the President’s Men, approaches the investigation of the Watergate scandal by Bernstein and Woodward for the Washington Post. **The film which came out two years after the scandal concluded while the journalists involved were still writing their book is a film which I can call a good presentation of the investigation**. I hesitantly believe that of the many films we have seen this semester, t**his film might best draw from the historical record and be a source on the Watergate scandal.** The initial catching of the five individuals at the Watergate building is accurate as the film notes how **four of them are Cuban Americans** and that they all had **connections with the CIA** and that other members of the activity were at a building across from the convention center. The actual investigation by the journalists seems so real as they struggle to find information as the cover-up threatened or removed many of those involved. The change in statements as people are told to deny the claims at Watergate to cover-up the event. The film also includes the presence of the plumbers and their activities to tear down the competition and the strange relationship that such activities would have because it was an evolution of a normal activity of politics. **I like how the major political events of the time play out in the background as the journalists focus on Watergate which I thought was a beautiful way to present how the scandal was initially obscured by the larger attention drawn by the presidential election.** I also thought it was so fitting that everyone doubts the president’s involvement which was so fitting for the belief that was prevalent for Nixon. Finally, the insistence on the journalists being young and the doubt that such a position would hold was interesting. The film overall is a good historical presentation of events and I think that the film would do well as a source for any talk about the Watergate scandal. -Robert Keitz
 +
 +This film allows the audience to believe that Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward were the only reporters working on covering the Watergate Scandal. This is misleading, because there were a range of others also reporting on these events. The film ultimately generates a picture for the unassuming audience that the collective Woodstein single handedly pieced together the scandal and brought it to light. This is further backed by actions taken throughout the film. I can only recall hearing one mention of other reporters early on in the movie, but then our two protagonists take the story head on. Furthermore, the ending was rather anticlimactic on this matter. The audience is given the impression that the two failed, then are forced to read the conclusion of the scandal as it is being written. Once again, a lot of the credit goes to these two when is reality there where hundreds of people investigated in this affair. -- Lyndsey Clark
 +
 +Despite the level of accuracy shown in the film, it still needs to be remembered that this is a historical drama film, and therefore some things aren’t quite accurate. After some reading, I found that Editor Barry Sussman helped Woodward and Bernstein in their investigation, yet he wasn’t portrayed in the film. This relates to how their involvement in the investigation was also exaggerated. **The film made it seem like Woodward and Bernstein worked almost entirely alone in the investigation, when in fact everyone at The Washington Post was involved. While Woodward and Bernstein by far contributed the most, it should be noted how others were involved.** Despite these instances however, it does not take away how great, entertaining, and educational the film is. 
 +
 +Sources
 +
 +Ringle, Ken. “Journalism's Finest 2 Hours and 16 Minutes,” June 14, 1992. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/stories/ringle.htm. – Jordan Petty 
  
  
Line 26: Line 50:
 ====== IV. How does this movie work as a primary source about the time period in which it was made or the filmmakers? ====== ====== IV. How does this movie work as a primary source about the time period in which it was made or the filmmakers? ======
  
 +I think this movie is an excellent primary source, as it was made shortly after watergate. The movie presented the feelings of distrust the American people had toward the government. One of my favorite parts of the movie was when Woodward and Bernstein went to the wrong woman to interview and she expressed to him that she thought they were only scratching the surface. I think this scene did a good job of showing the distrust the American people felt after the scandal was revealed. Also how people lost support for Nixon but said "it went beyond party politics," showing that ticket-splitting was popular during the next election. --Helen Dhue
 +  
 As I said above, the fact that this **film was filmed and released so close to the actual event gives it a bit more legitimacy in my opinion to portray the events**. The film, while clearly disapproving of CREEP's actions, reflects the attitudes of the American people toward this event, and the fact that this **came out during Gerald Ford's presidency makes it extremely important as a source into how the American people were feeling towards their government**. It makes the backroom dealings of the presidency very scary and reflects how the American people for one of the first times in history felt disconnected and betrayed by their government. The revelation that this scandal was so deep that it even connected the entire US intelligence community was terrifying, and this film presents that attitude in a very realistic and almost too relatable way. -- AJ As I said above, the fact that this **film was filmed and released so close to the actual event gives it a bit more legitimacy in my opinion to portray the events**. The film, while clearly disapproving of CREEP's actions, reflects the attitudes of the American people toward this event, and the fact that this **came out during Gerald Ford's presidency makes it extremely important as a source into how the American people were feeling towards their government**. It makes the backroom dealings of the presidency very scary and reflects how the American people for one of the first times in history felt disconnected and betrayed by their government. The revelation that this scandal was so deep that it even connected the entire US intelligence community was terrifying, and this film presents that attitude in a very realistic and almost too relatable way. -- AJ
 +
 +This film is a great primary source in terms of the cast. The leads are Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman, two major Hollywood names today who were very active in the 1970s, and I feel like this film does an excellent in showcasing their skills as actors. **It’s clear how much research went into portraying Bernstein and Woodward and their relationship, especially with Redford’s portrayal as Woodward**. – Jordan Petty 
 +
 +This film works well as a primary source in the time period in which it was made, as it does a good job of highlighting the loss of trust in President Nixon and the government as a whole. The move was made just a few short years following the Watergate scandal, so it has a lot of very fresh reactions to incorporate into the film. **The proximity to the historical event means the film lacks some of the knowledge of the larger impact of the Watergate scandal in the decades following the scandal and the nation's long recovery**. The fear of and trust in electronic devices being used as recording devices in the film is very accurate and it does a great job of capturing the fear and distrust of the government that the American people had in the 1970s. This largely must be due to the fact that everyone involved in this movie experienced the scandal and impacts first hand. -Morgan Gilbert 
 +
 +This movie is interesting to examine as a primary source because it was made so soon after the scandal itself.  With the event still being so fresh in everyone’s minds, it makes the movie very **relevant to the general public.**  The making of the film shows that people were very disheartened by the scandal.  The film was influential in that it may have affected voters in the 1976 election.  This shows that people were still interested in the scandal and would give the filmmakers reason to make the movie.
 +
 +https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/162706
 +-Daniel Walker
 +
 +I think that //All the President's Men// works well as a primary source for the time period it was made in because of the fact that it is based off of true events that happened roughly two years previous. The film demonstrates the growing distrust in the government by Americans, especially in the wake of the Vietnam War. At the time of the movie's release, Vietnam and Watergate were both fresh in people's minds, meaning this movie portrayed some of the prevalent attitudes of the time period. Moreover, the movie is sort of like an inside look at the investigative process of reporting. You learn through the lens of the camera as Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward sift through the conflicting evidence and reports to paint a full picture regarding one of the greatest scandals in American history at that point in time. In many ways the film points out the obvious shock and outrage at such a coverup, which is also reflective of the time period. -- Lyndsey Clark
 +
 +I think that because of when it was made it can be kind of hard to find the line between defining it as a primary or secondary source. This movie was very analytical of everything and very negative about everything, that makes complete sense for the timing because this was something the people were still very angry, and most everyone watching the movie would have watched these stories as they came out. This movie was a good way for the public to learn the background of those stories that they read in the paper, and get to see the intense research that went into finding the information needed. The fact that the people watching and making the movie remembered the events and they probably still stung to think about as an American, are probably what makes this movie such a great primary source, and what blurs the line between primary and secondary. --Kimberly Sak 
 +
 +I think the movie works really well as a primary source for the time period and the director. The fact that this movie was made so close to the time of the actual Watergate scandal and it did really well in the box office speaks to the culture of the time period and American sentiment towards the government. It represents the lack of trust in the government and the desire for transparency that most citizens held. It's also a good primary source for the director in how it represents the kind of message Pakula wants to spread through his works. **Pakula, who also directed To Kill a Mockingbird, once said "Most of us live in a safe world, we don't have to fight for our values, we don't have to fight for our freedom, we don't have a sense of injustice." He wanted to make movies that explored sensitive issues and honesty. This movie really represents Pakula's filmography and his dedication to the truth**.  -Purnaja Podduturi
 +
 +Like //Best Years of Our Lives//, //All the President's Men// was made super close to the time period it is based in, which makes it an excellent primary source. Overall I think the movie does a great job at capturing the baffling and twisting tale that turned out to be the Watergate Scandal, how different sources gave conflicting information or refused to go on record, making it impossible to tell a valid story all make the film appear legitimate to how actual reporters would go about trying to uncover a massive scandal like this. Considering the movie also came out very soon after Nixon was impeached, it also makes sense that the film has a decidedly negative outlook against Nixon, which I'm sure the country very strongly felt against his deceitfulness. Additionally, the film was directed by Alan Pakula, who as Purnaja already pointed out creates films where finding the truth or justice isn't always easy, like in //Sophie's Choice// or //the Devil's Own//. -- Cat Kinde
 +
 +//All The President's Men// is another example of a film that is a great source for the period it was made in because of how close in proximity it was to the events they're portraying. Because of the fact it was made so shortly after the real events, there was no excuse for mistakes, the people watching the movie would have been able to easily pick out what was right and what was wrong since it was so fresh and raw. This applies not only to the story details but material details as well. The costume departments for example could've gone to a department store to buy the clothing and it would've been perfect, no need for extensive research. I thought the extensive smoking and coffee drinking was also telling of the period, it reminded me of the stories of my grandpa who never drank anything other than coffee and liquor and would smoke like crazy. - Wilson  
  
 ====== V. The "So, what?" question ====== ====== V. The "So, what?" question ======
Line 38: Line 83:
 It does make one wonder what kind of reaction a movie like this would garner if it was made today. Would it be fake news? Of course, these are two completely different times and one can't really say. I just think it is interesting to think about with a 2020 perspective.-Dan Dilks It does make one wonder what kind of reaction a movie like this would garner if it was made today. Would it be fake news? Of course, these are two completely different times and one can't really say. I just think it is interesting to think about with a 2020 perspective.-Dan Dilks
 Link:https://news.gallup.com/poll/243665/media-trust-continues-recover-2016-low.aspx -DD Link:https://news.gallup.com/poll/243665/media-trust-continues-recover-2016-low.aspx -DD
 +
 +**This movie is important because it shows the extent to which corruption can exist in a complicated, but still easy to understand way**.  Many Americans believe that our government is immune to widespread corruption because it is a democracy.  This film shows that it is not the case.  It shows just how involved the Watergate scandal truly was and how it incorporated people from almost every position in government.-Daniel Walker
 +
 +What I think is most important about this film, other than its accurate portrayal of one of the biggest events in American history, is the fact that it p**ortrayed this event from a journalistic perspective.** More films that focus on major events should at least introduce how the news portrayed these events, and I think that this is starting to be explored more. This movie helped to pave the way for future films like this one, such as //Zodiac// (2007), //Spotlight// (2015), and //The Post// (2017). 
 +The fact that this movie was made shortly after the actual scandal should also be noted. I feel as though it was daring and necessary to do so, and just the film did so extremely well. It’s definitely clear to see why this film received such great reviews. – Jordan Petty 
 +
 +This film and the Watergate Scandal as a whole is almost more significant now than ever before with the recent events in the past couple of years in America. The public distrust in the government and media, which is especially seen today, was a major topic in the movie. Americans feel like they don't know who to trust because the government and many news sources are telling conflicting information, all of which are pointing fingers at everyone but themselves. The promiscuity to the Watergate Scandal definitely added to this movie’s credibility, and it does a good job of portraying an important event in America’s more recent history. Not only did Watergate have political implications, but sociocultural ones as well. Everyone calls scandals of any kind something gate, for example, Deflategate in the NFL. While this is almost making fun of Watergate, it keeps the scandal and distrust in the government at the forefront of many Americans’ minds. -Morgan Gilbert 
 +
 +I think that this movie is really important in the story of Nixon and the Watergate scandal. It tells a different story than the investigation or the tapes do, it is about the mission to tell the world about what happened and the difficulties and dangers that come along with that, not to mention the extensive effort that had to be put in. It tells the story without talking to Nixon or acknowledging the tapes and shows a little more about what must have been going through the heads of the press and the public not to mention the CREEP, during all the confusion about whether or not this was a story or a scandal or just a small crime, especially at a time when Nixon was loved and supported and doing well as a politician. This movie does a good job of explaining the Watergate scandal and showcasing the American distrust in the government that it would have started in the public during and after all the investigations. Making so that, regardless of any inaccuracies, the movie really shows off the tone of anger, fear, and confusion that was going through the press and the public during the investigations. --Kimberly Sak 
 +
 +This movie does a great job of putting the audience into the story through the set, script and ambiance.  It almost moves too slow for standard movies, yet in doing so it makes the viewer feel the slow burn of investigative journalism.  For 1970s viewers this movie would have felt incredibly relevant such as a movie on the Trump presidency would feel in 2022.  The scenes where the journalists are discussing what news will make the front page gives snippets of current events that are also happening.  As a viewer, current or in the past, these little details really make the film feel authentic and life like.  -Janis Shurtleff 
 +
 + This film is relevant because it tells the compelling story of a scandal that is still discussed colloquially almost 50 years after the events of the Watergate Scandal occurred. All the President's Men was released in 1976, nearly contemporary to the incidents. The events would largely be fresh in the minds of the audience at the initial release and thus its ability to show the thread of investigation and corruption could help the general public to better understand the events, and the film likely affected the outcome of the 1976 Election where Jimmy Carter defeated Gerald Ford. Additionally, a film about exposing government corruption that would later connect to an impeachment investigation is increasingly relevant once again with the recent Trump Impeachment trial early in 2020.  - Ashley Dimino
 +
 +
329/question/329--week_14_questions_comments-2020.1606961411.txt.gz · Last modified: 2020/12/03 02:10 by 68.100.75.18