329-2012--Week 15 Questions/Comments

PLEASE DON'T USE THE RICH TEXT EDITOR -- IT'S BEEN MESSING UP THE FORMATTING IN WAYS THAT TAKES A LONG TIME TO FIX EACH WEEK.

Things the movie got right
From what I could gather during the film (there are such a flurry of names flung around which was appropriate but also somewhat hard to follow at times), there were significant attempts made to include key players in the scandal. I appreciated the acknowledgement in the newsroom that McGovern was "asking everyone" to be his vice president running mate (that is accurate in lieu of Tuesday's lecture). Obviously the material culture was spot-on because of the little time that had passed since the scandal itself. --Ellen S.

I feel like the film did a good job showing Woodward’s interactions with Deep Throat. I thought that Deep Throat’s paranoia with the changing cabs and not wanting Bernstein to call was very well played, though I would have liked to have seen more of that. I also thought that most of the sources’ paranoia was well played throughout the movie. I don’t think that it would have been easy to talk to reporters when you think that the powerful men you work for are watching you, so I thought that was nicely shown. –Kayle P

This movie did a really good job portraying what was going on with Woodward and Bernstein at the time... however, it was rather boring. '''I mean, seriously! How do you make Watergate turn into your grandmas wilting watergate salad after being in the fridge for a month. It was wilted and boring. Then again, perhaps Bernstein and Woodward were bored the entire time.''' The phrase that comes to mind is "Hurry up and wait." One of the greatest parts was the anticipation the film built-- JRemy

'''This movie seems pretty damn accurate to what was going on with Woodward and Bernstein. We get to see the real stress a journalist faces in getting the story, staying up all night, beating a deadline, etc. The movie also emphasized the McGovern campaign—a lot'''. After scanning the book, however, it does make more sense to why those scenes were included. It seems that some were criticizing the Post for helping McGovern’s campaign by publishing articles that connected the White House to the Watergate scandal. The scenes in the movie suggest that Bernstein and Woodward were rather disinterested in the McGovern campaign and were more focused on breaking the story. --Brooke

I '''initially had a huge issue with the onslaught of names and occupations and how everyone was connected. Despite having a cheat sheet of names from class it was still extremely confusing. Then I quickly realized that Woodward and Bernstein were also confused so this sense of confusion seemed to be intentional.''' The movie made the audience feel like a third member of the team when Woodward and Bernstein are discouraged or get a break you as a audience member feel those ups and downs. The movie also captures the idea the no one knew what they were looking for but they understood something was not right. Also as a side note I am a huge Redskins fan loved the detail of having Redskins magnets round the office of the Washington Post. You tend to forget that at the desk next to one of these men a journalist was writing about stuff like the Redskins while Woodward and Bernstein were unraveling a massive government cover up. -Jason Milton

The movie was very accurate with what was going on during the time period, probably because it was made a few years after the initial scandal. I thought the relationship between Woodward and Bernstein was pretty accurate. Prof. McClurken said they didn't really like one another much, and there are hints to that throughout the movie (such as when Bernstein takes Woodward's work and polishes it, or when Woodward admits he is a Republican). Also, the McGovern campaign shown in newspapers as well as video footage was helpful to show how much time had passed and when their research fit in with political movements. -Amanda

'''Just like in class, there were so many names. At least all the names were correct and not pulled out of thin air. Also the focus on Wood-stein.''' With the short period of time between the event and the time when the movie was shot, it seemed like much of what was seen was correct. Aside form that I like how many of the writers at the paper questioned Woodstein's accusations, believing in Nixon's innocence. Pmccloy

This film seemed very accurate with the side of the reporters during the aftermath of the Watergate scandal. The names seemed correct and the actions that “Woodstein” seemed correct, seeing that Robert Redford shadowed Woodward and Bernstein during the actual events. - Emily

Like what others have said this movie is probably one of my least favorites of the semester. I had watched it in my high school journalism class and remember thinking how boring it was then but figured that was because it was high school, I have such a more sophisticated taste in movies now. Well, I guess not. It was just as boring and drawn out as I remembered it. But I do think the movie did a good job of showing just how confusing the situation was and how twisted it it got. When Woodward is trying to track down information and speak to various members of CREEP and get a straight answer all he gets is round about, deflective questions that make it seem like they are trying to cover something up. - Kendall

So. Many. Freaking. Names...just like the lecture with 4 or 5 different slides with names...all of that aside the movie, although terribly boring, seemed pretty spot on. Unlike some of the films this semester this one didn't add in any fictional fluff to make it more entertaining or pull at the heart strings of the audience. The film does more than illustrate the Watergate Scandal it introduces the audience to an accurate depiction of journalism at that time in history. --Mary O.

'''I feel like it captured the atmospheric paranoia, tension and anxiety. Not just about the government, but everyone surrounding Woodstein--who can we trust?''' Reflects the crappiness of the 70s, the rapid coming-back-to-earth after the high hopes of the 60s. Captured the disillusionment. --Stef L.

I thought this movie was very confusing, but unlike many of my classmates, I liked it. I was surprised by the angle from which it approached the story of Watergate, as I expected it to be a lot more about the people who were involved in the scandal. At first I was disappointed that we didn’t see more of what went on in the White House, how the breaking was planned, and how the attempted cover-up proceeded, but as the movie went on I thought it was very well done. Watching Woodstein uncover the size of a story that was supposed to be minor was a great tactic. The sense of paranoia among the people who knew what was going on and disinterest among those who didn’t know was well conveyed. I liked the sense of frustration as Woodstein struggled to verify theories that the facts clearly pointed to, and I think that audiences can relate to that as we look at the past and frequently have only educated guesses to interpret it. -- Laura-Michal

I really enjoyed watching this movie. I think there was a sense of the competitiveness between Woodward and Bernstein. '''The atmosphere of the film was perhaps the most striking thing for me. The use of music was very select and strategic and tonal, which offered a stark contrast to the symphony played when Woodward realizes that the room has been tapped and he communicates through typewriter. On a side note, The X Files took every. single. cue. about how to portray conspiracies from this movie. Definitely influential.''' ---Mary Quinn

'''There was a comment that I made the other week which has relevance here. The closer that these historical movies are to the actual events that they portray, there is a trend that they become more accurate.''' &#160;While there are some minor errors made I feel that overall the movie tried to stick true to the story, especially since it came out less than five years after Watergate occurred.--NJenn

'''The first time I watched this movie, it was for a journalism class in the spring and I actually enjoyed it. I was definitely confused with the "break in" scene and it was not until Professor McClurken's lecture that I really understood why "Deep throat" was so short with the reporters and so secretive.''' I watched the movie with the mindset of a journalism student at first, but now watching it as a history student, I found it to be very accurate. The scenes with Deep Throat always annoyed me before for some reason, but now I understood why he was paranoid and short with them (since he was the FBI's associate director). Like everyone said, '''it really showed the importance of each and every tip they received, the complexity of uncovering what really happened and also showed the pressure that was on Woodward and Bernstein. Their lives were riding on this story.''' One aspect of the movie I wish they would have less discretely and more of was the way the American people began to view Nixon and the administration. --Aqsa Z.

The intensely secretive nature of the whole cover up comes through really well and explains why the story and scandal took so look to become relevant. '''Although, it may have been over exaggerated I think the filmmakers conveyed to the audience how corrupt the system really was and how even the government could not be trusted. Watergate its a deeply complex event and the movie was able to portray that fairly well as the reporters uncovered facts bit by bit.''' -Rachel T.

'''I felt like this is how my friends in the Bullet must feel about being a journalist. New found appreciation for their stress. It becomes hard to publish a story when the backlash creates the opposite effect'''. You can see that there's different scandals going on and everyone is afraid to talk because of the "they" that are referred to. - Hannah

This movie really did wonders for my appreciation of technology. Researching leads looked like a real pain in the butt. The importance of knowing people who knew someone was very well portrayed in this movie. Nowadays you can find profiles and various other information on pretty much anyone with a decent search engine. Couldn't imagine writing the stacks of essays I have due next week without the internet. -- Wolona

Things the movie got wrong
I just wanted to say that out of all the movies we have watched in this class, All the President's Men is the most BORING one! I think that the way the story was filmed was completely wrong. The Watergate Scandal is a story about espionage, cover-ups, and Nixon sweating in the White House office, was any of that included in the film?...'''A little bit, but not in an exciting or dramatic way! I just sat through two and a half hours of two reporters fact finding and getting yelled at by their boss. It did not make me want to go and wikipedia the Watergate Scandal after the film'''. However, if the film was portrayed from the view of the White House trying to cover up the scandal as Woodward and Bernstein were uncovering it, THAT would make me want to wikipedia the scandal. Professor McClurken's lecture was more interesting than this film. --Paige

I thought that the movie sort of swept under the rug the role that other people besides Woodward and Bernstein played in breaking Watergate. There was all of the drama going on with the Grand Jury, the changes in special investigators, the Congressional committee, but it seemed that Super Woodward and Bernstein the Boy Wonder were the ones most responsible for bringing down the Nixon administration. Obviously their work was important, but I felt like some of the other people should get a little more than the occasional one-line reference thrown their way. --Carrie

This movie was based of Woodward and Bernstein’s book, so it would make sense that the movie was told from their perspective rather than telling the scandal from the perspective of someone that was in the White House'''. I actually enjoyed the scandal being told this way because the audience was still able to follow the scandal but was also to see the story of Woodward and Bernstein. However, I did not think that the newspaper stories were as important, until later in the scandal, as the film made them out to''' be. –Kayle P

Like Kayle pointed out, the film was based on the book of Woodward and Bernstein. '''Therefore, this film represented one specific angle to the story. This is definitely a theme I've seen throughout the semester and one that can't be necessarily disagreed with, just acknowledged as a viewer. It is impossible to truly and justly capture all perspectives (gender, class, race) of a particular story. I would rather filmmakers fairly and deeply represent one view or one people group in a film than attempt to depict how everyone felt in a rushed way that doesn't do them justice.''' Movies are 2-3 hours for a reason. I don't know if this post even fits in this section, but I wanted to bounce off of Kayle's comment --Ellen S.

I’m not sure why the movie decided to stop before Bernstein and Woodward explicitly connected Nixon to Watergate. They had dragged the movie through purgatory for 2 hours and 14 minutes. Replace some of those bizarre 3-minute scenes of them just typing or the camera slowly zooming out with some scenes of Bernstein and Woodward actually linking him to his own damn scandal. '''And I won’t take “it’s not in the book” as a reasonable explanation because I scanned through the last chapters of the book&#160;and Bernstein and Woodward definitely connected him by the last page. I also respect that Redford, Woodward, and Bernstein had a particular perspective and that was to emphasis journalism; however, as a secondary source, this film lacks context.' Again, let me put a disclaimer out there that I understand why this film lacks context (it was BORN in context, molded by it), but Redford did not put much effort into creating that context for those who were not as well-versed as he in the scandal—or for future generations, really.'' -- Brooke

I thought that the movie ended too abruptly and did not finish the task it set out to accomplish. While the movie had great detail it seemed to linger too long in the beginning investigation and as an audience you are left to piece the story together for yourself it never completes the story through Woodward and Bernstein. - Jason Milton

'''It seems like in terms of sequencing, names, as well as other historical aspects were correct. I saw very little incorrect, but more that was left out.''' As other have said, although it was based on the book, you would think that they might have added in some more details that would have more the story more complete, not just a woodstein epic. pmccloy

There did not seem too much that was wrong in the film. '''After some research I found out that the city editor, Barry Sussman, was combined with another character. Also, Sally Aiken was really Marilyn Berger.''' - Emily

I have to agree with Paige this was by far the most boring film this semester. It seemed to me that at times the danger Woodward and Bernstein faced was over exaggerated, and I am sure that the FBI and CIA played a larger role in the real scandal than what was shown in the film. --Mary O.

For the record, I wanted to point out that I always enjoy Dr. McClurken's lectures... so yeah. This film '''made it look like Nixon was trying to Murder the two reporters. I think the main thing this film did not show the arrogance showed by the administration. Also, REALLY?? NO one knows when they have stumbled over a story that is going to change the nation and cause them to elect Jimmy Carter as President.''' So why was he fighting so hard for the story?-JRemey

I feel like this one was ok as far as accuracy goes, since it wasn't that far removed from the actual events. There were some clear interpretive choices made though (although without them, this wouldn't have been much of a movie). It seemed like Woodstein knew from the VERY BEGINNING that they had stumbled upon something HUGE. You never know that you're experiencing a big moment in history until it's over. Also, the characterization of Deep Throat as some sort of menacing puppet-master, instead of a frightened leak, seems kind of far fetched. Makes a fun detective story though, and it helps keep the story going, so ok fine. --Stef L.

Nixon wasn't portrayed as the bad guy behind it all. Also, the ending was horrible and I almost had a seizure/migrane while watching it type the ending. - Hannah

The movie discussed the investigation of the FBI in concurrence with the Post's investigation. '''In class we didn't really talk about the FBI's investigation other than Nixon tried to tell them to stop it. What came of the FBI's investigation?''' Maybe I just got lost in the lecture, but did the FBI's investigation find anything? The movie made it seem like the FBI wasn't doing as a good a job as Bernstein and Woodward. - Kendall

I did not get the sense that Woodward and Bernstein's reporting was catapulted into importance only after the connection to the hearings, which was a bit misleading. Instead, it looked like Woodward discovered something huge right off the bat and ran with it. The FBI investigation was also missing. So I guess overall my complaint is that the perspective is a bit lopsided, which I think is understandable. ---Mary Quinn

The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it
Since the movie was released in 1976, the first election year after the Watergate scandal, I felt that there was a sense of wariness about the entire political system that was an undertone throughout the movie. All of the campaign clips were played against scenes of Woodward and Bernstein working to bring Nixon down, and the celebratory cannon fire during the inauguration paralleled the key strokes on the typewriters. It felt like those moments were subtle reminders that just because the political system looks like it's going well, doesn't mean things aren't rotten just below the surface, and to not be totally complacent. --Carrie

Here I go again. '''Ok, so, I would agree that it’s yet another movie based on a book based on a specific perspective. But let’s also think about  when this movie was made. It was released in 1976 which means that the production for the movie began immediately after publishing the 1974 novel.''' When did Watergate happen again? 1972. When did Nixon resign from office? 1974. This means that the entire nation had heard “Washington’s side” of the scandal from the very beginning. While the Post probably didn’t have a paper in every household, I can bet that nearly every household heard the denials and contradictions from politicians—especially Nixon. So people at that time probably didn’t care to hear more about the scandal from Nixon’s side. How Bernstein and Woodward broke the story, however, was a perspective that no one had heard about at the time. Even better?! It showed how journalists worked behind the scenes. I’m sure few people had any idea of the stress at the time. Since it’s just not my thing to sit for 2 and half hours of talking and zero action--unless it’s about has Daniel Day-Lewis in it—I can’t really compare this to another movie. What comes to mind for me, though, is the HBO series The Newsroom. It was incredibly popular besides being sexist, and, hell, let’s just say it, misogynistic. I think it was popular because people like to see the “behind-the-scenes.” The show, if you’ve never seen it basically backtracks to 2010 and depicts how big news stories broke. Of course there’s a bunch of prattling women and serious men, but that’s not important. While the show is fiction (like Homeland… right? RIGHT?!!!), it still demonstrates the nation’s desire to see how stories became news and how journalists work, etc. -- Brooke

B--Watched one episode of Newsroom and couldn't take any more. Just awful. Why are all the women screeching idiots? --Stef

I think that one could make a connection between the sense of disillusionment and suspicion in the country from when the events depicted took place and the nature of the film--it follows the people who are conveying major information that will shape understanding. It's as if we want to know know more about the people that are informing us at the same time that we are losing confidence in our officials. Also, I know that the movie ended before Nixon had really been taken down, but the closing shot of his inauguration with the reporters typing away at his demise in the background was meant to foreshadow that. The ending sort of relies on the audience's knowledge of very recent, still smarting, events instead of actually tying up the narrative.--Mary Quinn

I think the movie was very narrowly focused on the experience of WoodStein because the movie is based off their book. The paranoia and drama was over played in my opinion. Though Nixon was kinda screwy, I don't think he would've been down with assassinating journalists because it would reflect badly on his administration and raise suspicion which would validate WoodStein's claims. The movie did a poor job providing context. Though the scenes with the editor's discussing news reports provide some insight to other issues, it felt very rushed which made those details look insignificant. I think the film could have benefited with references to Nixon's popularity which would add to the forces WoodStein were working against. I was also very disappointed by the decision of how to end the movie. For all the paranoia and anxiety it ended pretty anticlimactically. -- Wolona

Comments on Toplin's Reel History &amp; the intersection of history and film this semester
'''I liked reading Toplin's "Reel History" because after reading it, I had a moment of "it all makes sense, now!" I feel like I now have a greater insight into the methods of directors trying to make a historically accurate film.' I understand how films are never going to be 100% accurate, but I like the idea of using fiction to portray a wider historical picture (i.e. Titanic''). That way film directors aren't limited in the types of stories that they tell. '''Using fictional stories is also a good way to get the general public interested in history. If people don't want to watch something that has been marginally fictionalized, watch a documentary'''. It is now okay for the TV mini-series North and Southto be my favorite movie(s) ever again. -- Paige

Toplin's Reel History connected to what we have been talking about all semester when he argues that movies are a valid source of relaying historical information, if done correctly. He liked how Glory portrayed the 54th Massachusetts regiment, despite some of its mistakes and the fiction it added to make a good story. '''This point, of having to make a good story, is something that we have talked about as well. It must be difficult as a director or screenwriter to make a historical film that is ultimately entertaining'''. Toplin provides a few examples of movies that were incredibly accurate, but box office flops, such as Fat Man and Little Boy. Although this was a good historical film, it had no story, no way for people to connect with it. This balance between making an entertaining movie and a historically accurate movie should be a goal of directors as they have a responsibility to correctly inform the public. -Amanda

I agree with Paige, after reading chapter one it all started clicking. The way he breaks up every genre and goes into detail of what classifies a movie as a certain genre was very entertaining. We all know the stereotypes involving characters and scenery, for each genre, but this book goes far beyond that. This was a very good last read to tie it all together for this class. --Olivia

I completely disagree with Toplin about Pearl Harbor. That being said, Toplin’s argument is where we’ve ended up after all these movies. Historical films do not have to be (and probably shouldn’t be) completely historically accurate. The main goal of films is to entertain and to make money, and they are more entertaining when the audience can relate to the film and when it follows a prescribed story format. I’d have to agree with Toplin, too, that if a Hollywood historical film were too accurate, critics would be even more nitpicky: “Well, if they included this they should have included that.” It would become a vicious cycle until eventually it became a documentary and even then people would complain. Toplin’s wrong about Pearl Harbor. -- Brooke

I have to agree, this reading was great for the end of the semester. It helped to tie everything together and really put it into perspective. Toplin makes a great point in the fact that movies are an excellent way to portray historical events to audiences without needing to be 100% accurate. I found the entire book intereisting, and Toplin makes a lot of really great points throughout his work. --Mary O.

I really like the Toplin book because he gives a very balanced opinion on historic films. He points out the good things, the bad things, and why both of these groups are important. I agree with his call for film critics to take a more middle-of-the-road approach to historic films, however, I would add that makers of historic films should add qualifiers to their films so that the audience knows how much of what they watch is fact, how much an educated guess, and how much is just made up for the sake entertainment. I think that setting a movie in the past can add a lot to the entertainment value, but it can also be misleading. As a history major, I’m likely to fact-check a movie set in the past, but the majority of audiences is probably unlikely to do so, especially when taglines like “based on a true story” are thrown in. I think that a simple disclaimer at the beginning of a film, or an accuracy rating system (not practical, I know, but I can dream) would be very beneficial to the historic movie genre. We have no reason to believe that admitting the factual failings of a film would lessen its appeal, as entirely fictional movies are financially successful all the time. -- Laura-Michal

There is a reason that historical films are appealing to viewers, they excite us. &#160;However, in trying to sell the movie to a broader audience Hollywood sometimes loses sight of the events which they are attempting to portray. &#160;Humanity has always had a fascination with its own history and its why these movies do so well. &#160;I have to agree that a middle of the road approach to making future historical films would be a more ideal compromise. &#160;Besides, as students of history well know, sometimes the real history can be just as exciting. &#160;--NJenn

I found Toplin's explanation for why historical movies rarely depict the truth to be very logical. The three acts concept is like the mold for the majority of movies even historical ones that are forced to conform to this setup. Since these movies are made for a mass audience the importance of having exposition, complication and resolution are super vital. It is clear now why movies come up short with their historical accuracy when they are put the filter of three acts and blatantly false assumptions made to fill in the holes. -Rachel T.

Toplin's example of Das Boot is an important idea to grasp about movies. '''Movies can convey the environment of a historic period better and quicker than pages can. For example Amistad's 10 minute flashback to Cinque's capture easily imbeds itself in the audience's mind by showing the horrible conditions of the transatlantic slave ship.''' A film's crack of a whip on flesh is far more psychologically powerful then adjectives on paper can only go so far. To make a cheesy pun, reel history makes history feel real. Toplin goes on to describe movies, Patton as an example, as a Rorschach test that revels the audience's own assumptions. This is basically our class's "The movie as a primary source about the time" section. History isn't just what happened in the past, but how we interpret the past, making movies important as an indication of public collection memory. As Toplin points out, even the most egregiously inaccurate historical film has bright spots. They can be starting points for a more sophisticated understanding of that period of history. If I had to guess at the takeaway lesson of this class it would be that we should adapt a "meta-critical" understanding for films by trying to understand the creative compromises a film maker has to make while still having an accurate historical portrayal. For me, that line of responsibility is still fuzzy but I think I understand the criteria better now. - Zhen Chen