Differences

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

--- 329:question:329--week_14_questions_comments-2022 [2022/11/30 21:40] – [IV.How does this movie work as a primary source about the time period in which it was made or the filmmakers?] 76.78.225.92
+++ 329:question:329--week_14_questions_comments-2022 [2022/12/01 15:21] (current) – 192.65.245.80
@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 I thought that this movie was fairly accurate in its portrayal of the Watergate scandal. This movie has the benefit of being made closer to the event, so the pressure to have the facts correct it seems is higher. I thought especially that the gravity of the scandal was portrayed very well, as it went from a minor story to a huge ordeal almost overnight. -Margaret Jones
+I liked how the story followed real reactions to the scandal. It has the advantage of getting the real perspectives and reactions since it was made during the time period it was happening. But movies often exaggerate stories, this one held true to the events. The general public had faith in their president and didn't pay attention to the news of the scandal. I also think the film did a good job at showing Woodward and Bernstein's relationship. They weren't "besties," they were coworkers. In the film it is obvious their individual personalities are very different and their relationship is purely professional. - Neonya G.
+I found this movie to be really accurate to what I know the Watergate scandal to be. It did not seem to have much if any unnecessary pizzazz added to the movie. As a secondary source this movie does a good job of explaining the story in an entertaining way. For many this movie could be a more digestible version of events than the books written about it. I think this movie is a great way to get into American political scandals. -Michaela Fontenot
+One thing I appreciated was how the movie portrayed public opinion about the articles, and how people were conflicted about the articles and whether or not they should be published. Especially the divisions within the party itself were interesting to watch, with characters saying “I’m a republican,” and so on. Just how much opposition they faced, even from within the newspaper from other employees and higher ups, highlighted that a lot of people didn’t see the point in the articles and thought the journalists were printing lies up until the end. — Sasha Poletes
+I thought that this movie was incredibly accurate. From creating an exact replica of the Washington Post office to using footage from the actual Republican National Convention, the director, Alan Pakula, focused on getting the film accurate instead of making the film as entertaining as it could be. However, the most accurate parts of the movie (which were the majority of the movie), were when Bernstein and Woodward would be working at a desk in the office of the Washington Post. - Zack Steinbaum
 ====== II.	Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact? ======
@@ Line 17: / Line 25: @@
 Reportedly though the set for the Washington Post was deadly accurate. The producers even had the real newspapers trash shipped to the set. The discoveries of information were also very true. -Annika Sypher
-====== III.	How does the film’s overall interpretation(s) deviate from scholarly historical sources? ======
+One thing that I think this movie gets right is confusion and clutter around this event. Because there were so many people working to keep Watergate and the people involved under wraps, the amount of incorrect or semi-correct information was immense. Bernstein and Woodward worked hard to get around these blocks and to find the real information from the people who were part of the actions. Following the reporters the entire time also made the movie seem more realistic because the information they were getting and the rate they were getting it at would be similar to the way it came out in the papers for the general public. -Sarah Moore
+Something I picked up on was that the movie somewhat dropped the conflict between the two reporters. Though they get off to a rocky start their dislike of each other seems to disappear quickly even though I don’t believe that was the case. After their first antagonistic meeting, it seems like they get along just fine and work together without issues. Nevertheless I thought it was accurate how even the editor started calling them Woodstein, reflecting how everyone thought they were a pair even though they did not get along. — Sasha Poletes
+====== III.	How does the film’s overall interpretation(s) deviate from scholarly historical sources? ======
 ====== IV.	How does this movie work as a primary source about the time period in which it was made or the filmmakers? ======
@@ Line 37: / Line 48: @@
 The film works very well as both a primary and secondary source. The filmmakers, actors, and everyone else actually lived through this experience relatively recently so, they were able to draw from those experiences. The fact that it was so reliable to the actual history tells us that at this time, the population was either very invested into this story or still did not understand what happened fully. -Annika Sypher
+This is an interesting movie as a primary source. It captures the perception of Watergate, 2 years after the event actually happened. Making the movie so close to the event, leads to less potential for error and shows the real opinions of people who experienced the event. The frustration of the journalists and the opinions of other characters would have been the feelings of the general public at the time. They would have known exactly how frustrating it was to get misinformation and the slow speed at which real information came out. -Sarah Moore
+Honestly, I think that this movie is an excellent primary source for the actual events of Watergate itself. This movie was made just 3 years after the events took place, and everyone who was in the movie was able to witness them real time. Very different than many of the movies that we walked in this class during the semester. It is an amazing example of current events being put to the big screen in record time. This movie shows how important this event was to the country as a whole. -Michaela Fontenot
+This movie works amazing as a primary source because it has the benefit of being made so close to the actual events. The actors playing Bernstein and Woodward were able to do research for their roles in the Washington Post. So, they got to experience a newsroom that the actual events happened in, in a state that was very close to what it was. This movie gets the facts right, but I think it is more intriguing how real the newsroom feels. The filmmakers clearly cared about making the movie feel authentic and the research by the actors who play the two main journalists makes the care to authenticity evident. Robert Redford, who plays Woodward, actually first talked to Woodward in 1972, meaning that his portrayal would have been as accurate as possible. The lack of time between the events and the movie makes the events of the movie not so much interpretation but just showing Americans what happened in the major political scandal they just witnessed. - Taylor Coleman
+I think this film works great as a primary source about it's time period. One of the reasons this works great as a primary source is that it came out only two years after the events of the Watergate scandal, especially with the scandal still fresh in everyone's minds. Something that really worked for the film as a primary source was it's perspective on Nixon. With president Richard Nixon resigning shortly before the movie came out, not just the filmmakers, but America as a whole did not like Nixon, and that was shown in the film in the director's harshness towards Nixon. - Zack Steinbaum
 ====== V. The "So, what?" question	======
@@ Line 47: / Line 66: @@
 The film takes the viewer in the eyes of the journalist and reports that didn’t realize they were on the verge on something huge until they starting investigating a bit more. You can see the emotions range from something being too suspicious to not be overlooked to almost uncovering something but being pushed back and then ultimately finding what you didn’t even know you were looking at. It gives the sense of rawness that mostly likely did happen as the individuals were uncovering what they found. Like someone said before this film shows the Freedom of Speech in a variety of ways. In the way where some individuals were scared or bought into silence and in other ways tries to get information as best as they could. - Paula Perez
+The Watergate scandal is an important event in recent history and All The President's Men portrays it as extremely dry and boring. It's important to present historical events as accurately as possible, and the movie did a pretty good job of that. However, it wouldn't've killed the filmmakers to have included background music or something other than monotonous dialogue. -Katherine Rayhart
+The movie is really well done and does a good job of portraying a true event in history.The Watergate scandal was an important moment in Modern American History. It also mirrors events happening within the government recently. History truly repeats itself. -Neonya G.
+This movie is as relatable to American audiences of the time as it is to current American audiences. It is very easy to draw the comparisons between Nixon and Trump. It is also interesting to see how news plays into both of their narratives. The two are similar and as a person watching this in the present day I kept relating the events to Trump. You could swap out the characters from this movie and sub them for people involved with Trump, but keep the plot, and the movie would still feel like an accurate portrayal. On another note, the whole movie was based around the work of journalists, which is a nice break from our previous war centered movies. The scenes inside the newsroom were so well done, I loved watching the background to gather pieces of the story and what else was happening at the time. One scene that sticks out as a great example of this was when everyone kept gathering around the TV, while Bernstein and Woodward typed away. The newsroom scenes were my favorite for the involvedness of them in contrast to the diligent work of Bernstein and Woodward. - Taylor Coleman