Differences

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

--- 329:question:329--week_15_questions_comments [2016/12/08 14:37] – [1 Errors in fact] lmccuist
+++ 329:question:329--week_15_questions_comments [2016/12/08 15:24] (current) – [6 The So, what? question] lrainford
@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 The main editor of Bernstein and Woodgate, is actually Barry Sussman and not Harry Rosenfeld.  The Rosenfield on camera was a mix of Sussman and Rosenfeld in real life in order to simplify the script.  --- //[[ctrout@umw.edu|Trout, Christian C.]] 2016/12/07 21:56//
-We did not see any court cases play out in the movie, even though we discussed the court's vital role in the Watergate scandal. It seems more like Woodward and Bernstein developed the story all on their own and became the sole reason for Nixon's downfall.  --- //[[lmccuist@umw.edu|Lindsey McCuistion]] 2016/12/08 08:35//
+We did not see any court cases play out in the movie, **even though we discussed the court's vital role in the Watergate scandal. It seems more like Woodward and Bernstein developed the story all on their own and became the sole reason for Nixon's downfall.**  --- //[[lmccuist@umw.edu|Lindsey McCuistion]] 2016/12/08 07:35//
 ====== 2 Things the Movie got right ======
@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 It's very small, but still historically accurate. **I liked how in the very beginning of the movie, the security guard found the tape over the door.**  The timing of that scene seemed accurate too, the men sneaking around, the cops responding, as well as the reporters.--- //[[lfrey@umw.edu|Frey Lauren E.]] 2016/12/07 21:34//
-I think this movie got almost everything right from what we learned in the class and the readings. I was watching and going over my notes trying to find errors and could not really find any. I liked the small things it got right like investigative journalism and the people involved in the case.
+**I think this movie got almost everything right from what we learned in the class and the readings.** I was watching and going over my notes trying to find errors and could not really find any. I liked the small things it got right like investigative journalism and the people involved in the case.
 --- //[[nhouff@umw.edu|Houff Nicholas T.]] 2016/12/08 00:47//
@@ Line 43: / Line 43: @@
 I rather enjoyed how certain sounds, such as the punching of the typewriter in the opening credits or the turning off of the walkie-talkie, were amplified so much that they sound almost like gunfire. **I found that it really drove home to me just how the printed words of Woodward and Bernstein could be almost as powerful as a gun.** Although, I do question the reality of just how effective the group implementing the scandal were considering they were able to randomly access the EXACT librarian that Bernstein was talking to and convince her to be silent in the course of maybe 5 seconds. --- //[[ccooney@umw.edu|Cooney, Corey R.]] 2016/12/07 22:27//
-I also thought it was sort of weird that there wasn't much emphasis on the connection to Nixon himself until the end, but that was even saved for the typing sequence. It was hard to tell if the filmmakers chose to do this because they wanted the story to stay focused on the newspaper, or, since the film was made so soon after his resignation, if the filmmakers were afraid of being sued or threatened by Nixon since he always denied being involved. --- //[[mcarey@umw.edu|Carey Megan A.]] 2016/12/07 23:04//
+**I also thought it was sort of weird that there wasn't much emphasis on the connection to Nixon himself until the end**, but that was even saved for the typing sequence. It was hard to tell if the filmmakers chose to do this because they wanted the story to stay focused on the newspaper, or, since the film was made so soon after his resignation, if the filmmakers were afraid of being sued or threatened by Nixon since he always denied being involved. --- //[[mcarey@umw.edu|Carey Megan A.]] 2016/12/07 23:04//
 Exactly Carey. Nice to know it wasn't just me. I felt this one seemed more like a film about the inner workings of a newspaper and journalistic/investigative reporting, than the early stages of Nixon’s impeachment. Perhaps because that's what I thought it was going to be about....oh well. --- //[[ldblount@umw.edu|Blount David M.]] 2016/12/08 06:25//
-Making it right after the events made everything feel very real. I also really liked the use of contemporary news footage and television programs and the other headlines the paper was running or considering. They gave it a verisimilitude and gave me a better feel for the context of the events and how historical events like Watergate are never isolated. Even watching it decades later, it felt like I was there at the exact time the events were taking place, not just an approximation of the time period as in some films we’ve watched.
+**Making it right after the events made everything feel very real.** I also really liked the use of contemporary news footage and television programs and the other headlines the paper was running or considering. They gave it a verisimilitude and gave me a better feel for the context of the events and how historical events like Watergate are never isolated. Even watching it decades later, it felt like I was there at the exact time the events were taking place, not just an approximation of the time period as in some films we’ve watched.
 --- //[[dhawkins@umw.edu|Hawkins Daniel C.]] 2016/12/08 06:43//
+I had seen this movie before for my journalism class in high school, and watching it now in a historical context was a very different experience. I had loved the movie in journalism; it was a prime example of what good journalists do when faced with an adversary they cannot get around. They pushed the limits despite everything being against them and some spooky organization looming over their every interview as people tell them "They'll see you." As a historical film, I'm not totally convinced this has that much stock to it. **It barely grazes the actual investigations going on and completely misses the part where Nixon's administration is actually put on trial, so we don't see enough of what really happened. We're left assuming that it was the great Woodstein pair who cracked this impossible scandal and got things moving for cleaning out the scandal.**  --- //[[lmccuist@umw.edu|Lindsey McCuistion]] 2016/12/08 07:41//
 ====== 4 Movie as a Primary Source about the time in which it was made ======
@@ Line 70: / Line 72: @@
  --- //[[mcarey@umw.edu|Carey Megan A.]] 2016/12/07 23:04//
-At first the ending of the movie got me mad. When I saw it I couldn’t understand why it would just end with Nixon resigning, but after looking at it as a primary source with the election coming up at the time, it made so much sense to end it there. By the time the movie came out and the election, everyone had known what had happened. The movie stopped there because that’s where everyone agreed that those were the facts. By not showing the clearing, the director was essentially asking America the question they needed to answer that election: is it okay to forgive them for what they did? Was the American people going to allow criminal acts go unpunished? It was asking the people: what are you going to let be the truth?  --- //[[mlindse2@umw.edu|Lindsey, Megan E.]] 2016/12/08 02:35//
+At first the ending of the movie got me mad. When I saw it I couldn’t understand why it would just end with Nixon resigning, but after looking at it as a primary source with the election coming up at the time, it made so much sense to end it there. By the time the movie came out and the election, everyone had known what had happened. The movie stopped there because that’s where everyone agreed that those were the facts. **By not showing the clearing, the director was essentially asking America the question they needed to answer that election: is it okay to forgive them for what they did? Was the American people going to allow criminal acts go unpunished? It was asking the people: what are you going to let be the truth?**  --- //[[mlindse2@umw.edu|Lindsey, Megan E.]] 2016/12/08 02:35//
 ====== 5 Comparing the reading to the movie ======
@@ Line 77: / Line 79: @@
 So what? Why does this movie matter? As Dr. McClurken stated in class Tuesday, when it comes to Watergate we immediately think about Nixon resigning and either than Nixon is bad because of it or America got it wrong. This becomes a problem to all those involved. We leave out the narrative of the Washington Post and Woodward and Bernstein who had great influence in the early stages of the scandal. We also leave out the narrative of the administration involved and the judicial process that took place with it. However, All the President’s Men, is needed because it does voice part of the narrative of the Washington Post and all those involved in the journalism aspect of the beginning stages of the process. Also when it comes to this movie, **it shows how much influence media has on the viewership and how important journalism is in exposing the good and bad in the world. Within the past few years journalism has been seen more of a hobby with websites such as The Onion, or Buzzfeed.** The thing is though, journalism is people’s livelihood and it can create a huge impact on the readers. A few years ago the world was brought back to why journalism is important with the movie Spotlight and the exposure of child molesters being priests in the Catholic Church. I honestly could go on about the ‘so what’ question but considering this is the first post I am going to stop here and let others participate in the discussion.  --- //[[mmcmaken@mail.umw.edu|Mary-Margaret McMaken]] 2016/12/06 17:57//
-I really enjoyed this movie. I think it is important to see this movie because it was made so close to the event and it is very accurate. However, it is an interesting and compelling story so it also keeps a non-history audience entertained. Also, I like how it looked at the behind the scenes of the event and not necessarily looked at the outside events that were shown on the news like Nixon resigning and what not.
+I really enjoyed this movie. ** I think it is important to see this movie because it was made so close to the event and it is very accurate**. However, it is an interesting and compelling story so it also keeps a non-history audience entertained. Also, I like how it looked at the behind the scenes of the event and not necessarily looked at the outside events that were shown on the news like Nixon resigning and what not.
 --- //[[nhouff@umw.edu|Houff Nicholas T.]] 2016/12/08 00:47//
-I think it is important to look at this movie, especially since it is the last one of the semester, because it shows an event that is far enough away that it is history, but happened recently enough that if I asked my parents if they remembered it they could go on and on about it. And unlike //Born on the Fourth of July//, a movie about an event that effected the US in different ways, this movie was about an event that effect the majority of America in similar ways. It’s a film about a widely known and remembered topic that we can look at objectively but still are able to understand its relevance. --- //[[mlindse2@umw.edu|Lindsey, Megan E.]] 2016/12/08 01:48//
+I think it is important to look at this movie, especially since it is the last one of the semester, because it shows an event that is far enough away that it is history, but happened recently enough that if I asked my parents if they remembered it they could go on and on about it. And unlike //Born on the Fourth of July//, a movie about an event that effected the US in different ways, **this movie was about an event that effect the majority of America in similar ways. It’s a film about a widely known and remembered topic that we can look at objectively but still are able to understand its relevance.** --- //[[mlindse2@umw.edu|Lindsey, Megan E.]] 2016/12/08 01:48//