Wiki for Dr. McClurkens Courses

User Tools

Site Tools

Trace: • 329--week_3_questions_comments
329:question:329--week_15_questions_comments-2024

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_15_questions_comments-2024 [2024/12/05 06:10] – [How does this movie work as a secondary source? What does the movie get right about history?] 174.179.89.187329:question:329--week_15_questions_comments-2024 [2024/12/05 13:52] (current) – [The "So What" Question] 76.78.172.116
Line 14: Line 14:
  
  
 +All the President’s Men does a great job capturing the story behind the Watergate scandal. It shows how Woodward and Bernstein worked tirelessly to piece everything together by chasing leads, double-checking facts, and by relying on sources like Deep Throat. The film closely follows the actual timeline of events, showing how the conspiracy gradually unraveled. It also perfectly captures the mood of the 1970s, with its tension and widespread distrust of the Nixon administration. The portrayals of key players like Ben Bradlee and Katharine Graham feel authentic and highlight the courage it took Woodward and Bernstein to publish their findings. Overall, this film offers a compelling and realistic look at investigative journalism at its best. -Sam B.
 +
 +This movie gets many things right about the history of Watergate. One thing it gets right is many of the main characters to the story. Another thing this movie gets right about history is the timeline of the Watergate scandal. -Maddy
 +
 +The film faithfully captures the investigative journalism that led to the Watergate affair, including the dangers that Woodward and Bernstein faced in exposing political corruption, the role of anonymous sources like Mark Felt ("Deep Throat"), and document reviews. It successfully captures the tense atmosphere of the 1970s while maintaining the historical authenticity of insignificant events like the break-in at the Watergate Complex and the slow unraveling of the plot. By using actual newsroom documents and incorporating the reporters in the scriptwriting process, the filmmakers made every effort to maintain realism. -Ryan K
 ====== Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact? ====== ====== Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact? ======
  
Line 20: Line 25:
  
 Truthfully, this movie is extremely accurate and the issues in accuracy I noted were extremely inconsequential. For example, the lawyer that Woodward talked to during the trial of the burglars (in an early scene) did identify himself, instead of saying he was “Markham.” Another small issue to note is when Woodward is going to meet with Deep Throat for the first time. When Woodward changes cabs in front of the Kennedy Center, it’s presumably around 2 in the morning, yet there are crowds of people exiting the building. The only instance of historical inaccuracy that I could find that was pure fiction was the scene where Bernstein is able to speak with the Miami DA by tricking his secretary. This scene did not happen in real life. – Allie Truthfully, this movie is extremely accurate and the issues in accuracy I noted were extremely inconsequential. For example, the lawyer that Woodward talked to during the trial of the burglars (in an early scene) did identify himself, instead of saying he was “Markham.” Another small issue to note is when Woodward is going to meet with Deep Throat for the first time. When Woodward changes cabs in front of the Kennedy Center, it’s presumably around 2 in the morning, yet there are crowds of people exiting the building. The only instance of historical inaccuracy that I could find that was pure fiction was the scene where Bernstein is able to speak with the Miami DA by tricking his secretary. This scene did not happen in real life. – Allie
 +
 +While All the President’s Men is mostly accurate, it takes some creative liberties. The film simplifies timelines and makes the investigation seem faster and more linear than it actually was. It also focuses heavily on Woodward and Bernstein, sidelining contributions from other journalists that played a role in uncovering Watergate. Some scenes, like the one where they misreport a grand jury source, are fictionalized for tension. Additionally, the depiction of Deep Throat exaggerates his involvement, and the Washington Post’s role is made to seem more singular than it truly was. These choices make the story more engaging but ultimately detract from the film’s overall accuracy. - Sam B.
 +
 +While this movie gets many things right about history it does have a few historical inaccuracies. One inaccuracy is the sources the news reporters get their information from. In the movie, they get them from 2-3 main sources but in real life, this wasn't the case. This was an artistic liberty taken to streamline the movie so that it is easier for the audience to follow. Another historical inaccuracy is how simple and quick the investigation because it actual was much more complex than the film showed but again if they made the film to match history perfectly it would have been too complex for the general audience to follow. -Maddy
 ====== How does the film’s overall interpretation(s) deviate from scholarly historical sources? ====== ====== How does the film’s overall interpretation(s) deviate from scholarly historical sources? ======
  
Line 42: Line 51:
  
 The movie does a solid job with historical accuracy, likely a consequence of being released so soon after the historical event it was fictionalizing. With the story having just unfolded in the papers a few years prior, any of the liberties that are easy for filmmakers to take decades or centuries down the line just wouldn't fly with such an audience. It also portrays the world that the scandal happened in as it was - D.C. in the seventies, in and around the locations that these events actually happened. As such, it is likely one of the most accurately representative historical fiction there is. - Claire C. The movie does a solid job with historical accuracy, likely a consequence of being released so soon after the historical event it was fictionalizing. With the story having just unfolded in the papers a few years prior, any of the liberties that are easy for filmmakers to take decades or centuries down the line just wouldn't fly with such an audience. It also portrays the world that the scandal happened in as it was - D.C. in the seventies, in and around the locations that these events actually happened. As such, it is likely one of the most accurately representative historical fiction there is. - Claire C.
 +
 +The film was made only two years after the events of Watergate which makes it a pretty good/credible primary source. It highlights and effectively captures the attitudes held by the American people towards their government. The movie being made so close to the events in question ensures that the feelings of betrayal and mistrust the public felt towards the government was still recent and fresh in their minds. This would have potentially heightened the wariness many citizens felt towards the government, especially given the recent participation of the United States in Vietnam War which had already stoked a sense of distrust from the public for the government and their actions. -Vumiliya Veriak
 +
 +This movie doesn’t just work as a primary source about society in the 70s (I mean, look at those outfits), but also as a primary source about the Watergate scandal (in a way) because of the movie’s close proximity in timeline to the actual event. This allows the viewers to see the sort of “small details” that might have not been captured if this film had been made today. Additionally, this movie does not have the big action-like feel that most films have today which allowed for less dramatization and more of the details of the investigation. —Emma F.
 +
 +
 +This film works as a good primary source because it showed how Americans truly felt after the controversial watergate scandal. This film was made not long after the event took place. The American people  felt the government failed them. The watergate scandal created much confusion and anger in the American people and can be shown by a number of political cartoons and the creation of this film not longer of actual event. -Leah B. 
 +
 +This movie functions more like a documentary rather than a drama, considering the very close timeline after the events of Watergate. The actual film footage inserted at several points within the movie //is// documentation of historical events as well. I also think that the freshness of what had recently developed and come to light made for a more empowering and accurate story, rather than making this film decades later and having to go back and do the research. The information was readily out there at the time, and being shortly afterwards truly captured the wave of shock, scandal, denial, confusion, and paranoia that was surrounding the cover-ups. Obviously being a period film made this movie so much better because of the authenticity of everything being of the correct era. The movie itself showed what life looked like in Washington D.C. in the 70's because some scenes were filmed there around the National Mall, so it exists as a documentary inside of another one. It was interesting to see footage of the district from back then and realize that its exactly when and where the story was taking place, which felt like in real time. -Jenna
  
 ====== The "So What" Question ====== ====== The "So What" Question ======
Line 59: Line 77:
 All the President's Men is an excellent example of what can be achieved by just telling an interesting historical story, rather than doctoring it up for theatre audiences. The only aspects of it that were fictionalized were those that had to be because they were not on record. Of course, not every event that becomes the basis for a movie can have the benefit of being made right after the events they were based on, but even so, All the President's Men feels like an earnest retelling of important events that probably largely could be used as a secondary source. It does what a historical movie should do, no more and no less. - Claire C. All the President's Men is an excellent example of what can be achieved by just telling an interesting historical story, rather than doctoring it up for theatre audiences. The only aspects of it that were fictionalized were those that had to be because they were not on record. Of course, not every event that becomes the basis for a movie can have the benefit of being made right after the events they were based on, but even so, All the President's Men feels like an earnest retelling of important events that probably largely could be used as a secondary source. It does what a historical movie should do, no more and no less. - Claire C.
  
 +
 +The film highlights the critical role of investigative journalism (and the press in general) in uncovering corruption, especially when it comes towards those in high positions of power like the president. It's significant that the film was told through a journalistic lens due to the fact that it underscores the importance of journalists and the challenges they had to go through to uncover this massive story in order to hold the people supposed to uphold democracy accountable for their actions. The film having been made just two years after the Wategate scandal also allowed the chance for citizens to process and grapple with the full scope of the scandal and the impact it had on the nation at the time the film was released. -Vumiliya Veriak 
 +
 +To me, this movie is important on two levels. One is because of the way in which the story was told. It wasn’t about Watergate itself, but rather the reactions and investigations that the press took. Through this lens, the film serves as a reminder of how important the freedom of press and investigative journalism is — if not for Woodward and Bernstein, who knows how much later (if at all) people would have found out about the scandal. The other level is how it demonstrates the importance of keeping people in power. No one is above the law, no matter how popular they are or how good of character they seem to be. —Emma F.
 +
 +We should care about this film because of the accuracy it betrays. It sought to capture the feelings of Americans right after the event initially took place. It’s seems most of the county’s wrong doings are covered up and spun into a view that makes this country look better, but this film showed the raw emotions of the American people. -Leah B. 
 +
 +History repeats itself over and over again- especially in politics and government corruption. This kind of thing has always existed and especially as the modern era moves on, its going to be especially important to document misconduct and to hold those responsible accountable, or else it just continues. A lot of the Nixon era corruption has been reduced to jokes by now, but this is very serious and it went very deep, which should be extremely alarming. Future generations should be aware of past lawbreaking so that it can be prevented from happening again. This is also not a subject that is focused on much in school and anyone who wasn't born then wouldn't know the details of this scandal, so its important that this movie exists as a representation of what happened. It also serves as a reminder that the American people deserve to know the truth. -Jenna
 +
 +This film shows how investigative journalism exposes political corruption and holds powerful figures accountable, highlighting the necessity of a free press in a democracy. It documents the Watergate controversy and Woodward and Bernstein's tenacity, reminding us of the necessity to fight misinformation and uphold journalism. It remains relevant as a warning about unbridled power and government transparency.-Ryan K
329/question/329--week_15_questions_comments-2024.1733379013.txt.gz · Last modified: 2024/12/05 06:10 by 174.179.89.187