Wiki for Dr. McClurkens Courses

You've loaded an old revision of the document! If you save it, you will create a new version with this data.

You should do a total of 2-3 comments/questions/observations this week.  You do not need to post to all areas. -- Dr. McClurken

====== I.	How does this movie work as a secondary source? What does the movie get right about history?  ======

//All the President's Men// does an excellent job at depicting a serious event that happened in our country. While many films tend to cut a lot of information out due to the copious amounts of information that is involved, this story is told very well. As a secondary source, the film does a great job at utilizing pieces of the Watergate scandal and was released only four years after the events. The organization of the meetings with the informants, the use of real information from the source, and the order of events that occured lead this film to be one of the most accurate films we have watched this semester. --Tara Scroggins

I think that //All the President's Men// would be a great secondary source. It was a very well-done interpretation of the Watergate Scandal and the way that the event turned out. The **film contains so many details and background knowledge and I think that is what makes it such a great source**. I would recommend this film for those who are just learning about the Watergate Scandal as well as those who are looking for other secondary material about the event. --Mariah Morton

This film works as a very good secondary source into the story behind the Washington Post investigation. The **characters are incredibly realistic and natural**, and the actors do a fantastic job portraying believable people. **There are not many dramatic or overly cinematic scenes**, **every scene is nuanced and believable**. I think how close the film was to the actual events give it a much more clear picture of the events than a film that would have come out decades later. -- AJ

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

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

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
====== II.	Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact? ======
As for problems with accuracy, not many can be found in //All the President's Men//. One thing that was not included in the original history was the idea of **"following the money"**. This **idea was not presented in the book either**. Also, the tedious nature of organizing the meetings with Deep Throat was much more complicated than the film presented it as. Overall, however, I think the film is great in terms of entertainment and historical accuracy. --Tara Scroggins

For the most part, this movie is fairly consistent with the historical events that took place in the early 1970s. One major flaw that can be seen in the movie itself is the accelerated timeline, as this an event that took a couple of years to fully unravel. And not within just a few months or so as the movie makes it seem to be. -Kaylee Williams

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

====== 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? ======

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

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

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

====== V. The "So, what?" question	======
This movie was released in 1976, and I feel like it was done so intentionally. As at this time in America there was a good deal of unrest and distrust between the citizens of the US and the government. It is possible that this movie was created and released as a way to remind the American people that the government should be held accountable. - Kaylee Williams

The film’s close historical proximity to the events which it displays is interesting and important. The event would have **still been fresh in the minds of the viewing audience and individuals involved in the event were still alive to consult**. Additionally, Redford bought the rights to make the film based on the book, then unpublished, by the journalists. The filmmakers had to adhere to the historical facts as much as possible both because they bought the story and that the event would have fresh for so many viewers that any strange deviation from the historical event would have hurt the film. The close proximity in time for the film and the story it portrays makes it a strange affair because the mere two year gap would both convince an audience that the film was trying to grasp the story and spread the event but would have lacked any further releases of information about the event that came long after the heat of the story cooled off. It matters that a filmmaker decided to tell of a historical event before those involved could even finish their book on the subject. I think this is a part of a trend that has echoed in which some major events receive attention like a movie before they have passed into the realm of being historical in the sense that time has passed enough for it to be looked at with a wider eye. -Robert Keitz

I would agree that because this film was created so close to the actual Watergate Scandal, it is **still fresh and relevant in the minds of many Americans**. I think that it might have helped to answer the questions that Americans had about what happened in the scandal, who was involved, and what the repercussions of the event were. Although President Nixon and others did not face punishment, there were those who lost their reputation, jobs, and prestige. I think that it also shows the lengths that the government went to in order to try and intimidate people or keep the scandal "under wraps." I believe that //All the President's Men// is also a great tool to use when teaching younger generations about the Scandal and all that it entailed. --Mariah Morton

As many other people have mentioned, this movie was made within a couple years of the actual events which I think has some implications. I am just hypothesizing here, but I think that the public could have seen this as a accurate depiction of what happened. Of course the public would have knowledge on the story as it was nationwide news, but this behind the scenes look may have stuck with them more. I also think this movie shows an interesting relationship between the media and the public at this time. Every time the paper reports something the people accused of wrongdoing immediately deny the allegations much like politicians do today. The big difference is the public trust in the media when this movie was made was around 72% and today it is hovers around 40% give or take. 
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

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 portrayed 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

Edit summary

Note: By editing this page you agree to license your content under the following license: CC Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International