Differences

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

--- 329:question:329--week_15_questions_comments-2024 [2024/12/05 08:00] – [The "So What" Question] 76.78.172.63
+++ 329:question:329--week_15_questions_comments-2024 [2024/12/05 13:52] (current) – [The "So What" Question] 76.78.172.116
@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 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? ======
@@ Line 24: / Line 27: @@
 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? ======
@@ Line 50: / Line 55: @@
 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 ======
@@ Line 71: / Line 81: @@
 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