This may be a nitpicky thing, but when Woodward came home and was listening to the radio, it said the Dow Jones market had dropped substantially, but wasn't there an economic upswing in the States around that time? — Fanghella, Amy E. 2016/12/06 18:07

In the film, Deep Throat tells Bob Woodward that his and Bernstein's lives are in danger. I believe this is likely for theatrical effect, because Woodward says in a Q&A that he was paranoid but felt he was in no real danger. http://bobwoodward.com/question-answer — Fanning Neal R. 2016/12/07 13:28

In the beginning of the film, when it portrays the break-in, four of the men were supposed to be Cuban and the movie is right in what they said - but those men did not look Hispanic at all. — Callie Morgan 2016/12/07 19:09

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. — 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. — Lindsey McCuistion 2016/12/08 08:35

One aspect the movie got right was how young both Bernstein and Woodward were. In the beginning of the movie, Bernstein makes a comment about Woodward's inexperience. Meanwhile, Bernstein remarks that he's been in the business since he was sixteen. While both of them were in the beginning of their careers, Woodward worked at the Washington Post for only a few months before they started writing this story. — James, Emily B. 2016/12/06 13:50

The amount of runaround that Bernstein and Woodward faced when trying to get people involved with CREEP and other sources was realistic. In class we discussed the culture of denial around Watergate and this film really emphasized the denial. Especially in the ways that the CREEP employees stressed that they could not talk about anything related to their work. — Liberty, Catherine A. 2016/12/06 20:05

Since this film was made four years after the event it portrays happens, it is hard to tell cosmetically. Perhaps the logos and wrappers, and maybe some of the styles. Politically they got it right when they guessed their informant might have been in the FBI. One of the FBI guys asks Bernstein how the Post’s information is matching their evidence. This was because Deepthroat (aka W. Mark Felt) was in the FBI. — Gaddie, Jason 2016/12/07 18:24

I think that this movie is really accurate in the way that it showed how difficult investigative journalism is. They showed that leads don't always turn out the way they expected or wanted. This was especially true in this case because of all of the denial. CREEP was influencing its employees to keep quiet which I could imagine made the jobs of Woodward and Bernstein very difficult. — Callie Morgan 2016/12/07 19:09

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.— 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. — Houff Nicholas T. 2016/12/08 00:47

Something that bugged me towards the end of the movie was that there was never that moment when the journalist realized that Nixon was a part of it. This goes into my question about their interpretation, when Americans hear about Watergate, the immediate thought it Nixon. Why did they not include that initial reaction or why did they stop the movie when it did? After watching it, I was under the impression that the journalist played a bigger role in the resignation of Nixon. However, in class we learned that it was only a small portion to what actually happen. When discussing this part of history, why did Hollywood decide to focus on this section of the Watergate scandal instead of the court process? — Mary-Margaret McMaken 2016/12/06 17:47

The contrast between Woodward and Bernstein as people is frequently highlighted throughout the film. I am not sure quiet about how closely the are depicted to their actual selves though I would assume since it is based off their book I would assume it was close. However the film often focused in on the differences of the two men, from the ways that they dressed all the way to the ways that they interviewed people. The choice to highlight this seemed intentional especially in the first portion of the film when the pair first started to work together. By the end of the film it was much less noticeable. — Liberty, Catherine A. 2016/12/06 19:59

I really liked how the film told the news angle of Watergate. Bernstein and Woodward were instrumental in investigative journalism. Throughout the movie, it felt more of a narrative of how newspapers and reporters gather information than about Watergate itself. In many movies, the press is shown in a negative light, however I thought it was interesting how this movie painted them as the good guys-as the ones who hold public leaders accountable. — James, Emily B. 2016/12/06 20:55

I strongly enjoyed the method of interpretation that the movie took in this film. The movie took on a most recognizably ‘behind the scenes’ take on the story, that most people would not normally come across. The movie takes a step away from the more modern ‘academic history’ that tells the story of who and what, and investigates the information that is already known. — Baker, Jonathon A. 2016/12/07 19:24

Maybe it's because I still don't know a lot about the Watergate scandal, or maybe it's because it's the end of the semester and I am admittedly kind of frazzled, but the events of this movie were a little difficult for me to follow. A third option is that it was deliberate. Bernstein and Woodward didn't have anything fall into their laps, there was a lot of frustration they dealt with to get to the bottom of the story, so perhaps that's why the filmmakers added so much detail to what was happening. — Frey Lauren E. 2016/12/07 21:25

Why did the film end when it did? I know that it was based on the book that Bernstein and Woodward wrote but the directors had the benefit of hindsight. Were there any parts of the film that benefitted from hindsight, perhaps too much so? — Trout, Christian C. 2016/12/07 22:20

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. — 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. — 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. — 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. — Hawkins Daniel C. 2016/12/08 06:43

The film is reflective of the time period because it shows the cynicism and distrust that America had towards the government. In the film, the audience roots for the reporters to find the truth and witness their obstacles that the American government place before them. It villainizes the American government showing them as corrupt and infringing on the Constitution. However, before Watergate, people had more faith in what the government was telling them. Once the public found out the truth, it disgusted them. By making this film a few years after it was exposed shows that people were still really bitter about this scandal and had lost trust in their political leaders. — Kacoyanis, Leah F. 2016/12/06 12:08

I agree with Leah's point. The public's approval of public figures was plummeting with the Watergate scandal, Nixon's tax evasion, Spiro Agnu's bribery issues, and Gerald Ford exempting Nixon from any wrong-doing. The film capitalized on the dropping trust of the U.S. government and gave an inside look into how the heroes brought down the bad guy. — Fanning Neal R. 2016/12/07 13:20

The dialogue where Woodward and Bernstein are looking for a “sympathetic face” and then the film immediately jump cuts to the black librarian plays into the fact of the beliefs, lingering segregation & prejudices of the seventies as well as the stereotype of the “generous black” that is unfortunately still prevalent in films today. — Fanghella, Amy E. 2016/12/06 18:04

All The Presidents Men is a political thriller of its time. Like other movies such as The Parallax View, Marathon Man, and Three Days of the Condor, this movie shows America that is increasingly uneasy with its government. There are anti-heroes on both sides, corruption is everywhere. It’s also a time capsule of the styles and technology of the 1970s. Redford’s plaid shirts and light brown suits, for example. — Gaddie, Jason 2016/12/07 18:04

At the end of class you told us to think about the film as its release was near a presidential election, and to ask ourselves how this movie would have influenced its viewers. This is an interesting question that helps us talk about the movie as a primary source of its time. The movies journalistic scavenger hunt for a greater truth, along with the seemingly unresponsive population for most of the movie reveal to the audience a reminder to keep informed. I think this movie would have had people in the upcoming election cycles to pick up the paper, and at least attempt to read into the facts more, or at least more then usual. — Baker, Jonathon A. 2016/12/07 19:04

It is difficult for this film to not be a primary source for the time in which it was made because it is set just four years before the movie was made. This makes sure that clothes and language was all very accurate. This film also shows the views of Americans- or at least Hollywood- following the Watergate scandal and Richard Nixon resignation. For the first time in a long time there was a distrust of those in the White House with Nixon as well as LBJ before him. — Callie Morgan 2016/12/07 19:15

Looking at some of the factors regarding the year the film was released in, we begin to realize just how strategic the release of this film was, and possibly how it may have affected the outcome of the 1976 election. In 1976, the presidential election was between Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford. Both were relatively conservative, but Ford still had damage to his reputation from his support of Nixon during the Watergate Scandal, meaning that this film would have reinvigorated the controversy of Ford's support of Nixon. This would lead to the voting public being distrustful of Ford, and the Republican party itself even suffering from infighting. The illusion of the President being the epitome of American citizenry had given way to distrust of the establishment and confusion regarding just how corrupt the government may be. — Cooney, Corey R. 2016/12/07 22:40

I agree with Lauren that at times the plot seemed hard to follow, whether on purpose or not. However I did get the impression that maybe it was difficult to follow in some places and it left off the events after Berstein and Woodward published their article because some of the details and those events were probably more fresh in the audience’s mind and the filmmakers didn’t want to include more than what was necessary. — 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? — Lindsey, Megan E. 2016/12/08 02:35

The film relates back to the reading where the author explains that in the film the attention is on the two reporters when in reality the story had a lot more people involved in it. However, the film does not show it because it would be too complicated for the audience. The audience becomes emotionally invested in these two reporters which makes easier to be pulled into the story. Even though the film does not accurately depict what happened during the covering of the Watergate scandal, it is done in that formula in order for audiences and people to become invested in the movie so we cannot fault the filmmakers for doing that. — Kacoyanis, Leah F. 2016/12/06 12:07

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. — 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. — 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. — Lindsey, Megan E. 2016/12/08 01:48