avocets
Avocets
rss 2.0 subscribe to this page
search


view all
•  projects
•  owners
•  tags
The Washington Post site dedicated to the film. Includes links to other sites with information about Watergate and the film, as well as the original news story by Woodward and Bernstein.
Strober, Deborah H. (Deborah Hart), 1940- . Nixon presidency : an oral history of the era / Deborah Hart Strober and Gerald S. Strober. [1574885820 (acid-free paper) ] Washington, D.C. : Brassey's, c2003.
Call#: Van Pelt Library E856 .S76 2003
 
    The Nixon Presidency: An Oral History is a comprehensive work compiling oral accounts of different aspects of Nixon’s term as president and its aftermath. Chapter 29 is a collection of interviews about the Media’s Role in Nixon’s Downfall. A variety of people with different levels of involvement in the Nixon administration comment on the role of Woodward and Bernstein. Gerald Warren states that Woodward and Bernstein’s coverage of Watergate caused journalism to “lose its purity” because of their “reprehensible” tactics. He believes that the journalists operated on the assumption that the ends justified the means, and that journalistic integrity could be compromised to ultimately bring Nixon down. Raymond Price calls Woodward and Bernstein “totally dishonest reporters.” Bob Woodward responds by defending the veridicality of his account. William Rusher argues that Woodward and Bernstein did not break the Watergate scandal, and that they do not deserve the credit they have received. Seymour Glanzer is of the opinion that “all Woodward and Bernstein did was to follow in the wake of the investigation; they didn’t do any pioneering work.”
    All of the people interviewed, other than Woodward of course, agree that the role that Woodward and Bernstein played has been overemphasized and that, other than maintaining public interest in the scandal, they were not integral in allowing the event to play out as it did. However, many more people can recall the names Woodward and Bernstein than names that some of the interviewees cite as important players, such as John J. Sirica, the U.S. District Court judge who presided over Watergate-related trials. This can be accounted for by the fact that the story of the Washington Post investigation, as told in the book and the movie All the President’s Men, glamorizes the journalists and journalism in general, and it dramatizes the story with the mysterious portrayal of Deep Throat and the shadowy scenery of Washington D.C.
 


Scott, Ian.. American politics in Hollywood film / Ian Scott. [1579583059] Chicago : Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, c2000.
Call#: Van Pelt Library PN1995.9.P6 S36 2000
 
    Chapter 4 of American politics in Hollywood film looks at Action, Adventure and Conspiracy in Hollywood Political Film.  Ian Scott explores the paranoid movie trend of the 1970’s and the connection between the thriller genre and political subjects. Pakula’s The Parallax View and All the President’s Men are examples of 1970’s films about “political breakdown and subservient democratic discourse being used for elitist, hidden aims.” Scott quotes Pakula stating that his movies are myths, but he uses them to emphasize aspects of reality.
    According to Scott, films of the 1970’s reflected a general cynicism resulting from political events of the first few years of the decade. Society had become paranoid as a result of conspiracy theories that sometimes turned out to be true, and this paranoia was reflected in a Hollywood style of “seedy politicians” and “dark and shadowy urban scenes.” In this sense, Scott states, a very real sense of paranoia could be written off as merely an aspect of trendy movie scenarios.
    While many movies of the decade dealt with conspiracy, All the President’s Men dealt with the process of uncovering a conspiracy. For the sake of entertainment, Woodward and Bernstein were heroized and the meetings with Deep Throat were portrayed as a perfect example of the “dark and shadowy urban scenes” that Scott mentioned as a characteristic of many conspiracy films of the 70’s. However, Scott believes that the film “made documentary political filmmaking respectable,” and that its performance in the box office (the film was one of the two top grossing films of the year with One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest) reflected a general but short-lived mood of anti-authoritarianism in the United States. 
 


Toplin, Robert Brent, 1940-. History by Hollywood : the use and abuse of the American past / Robert Brent Toplin. [0252020731 (cloth : alk. paper)] Urbana : University of Illinois Press, c1996.
Call#: Van Pelt Library PN1995.9.H5 T66 1996
 
    In part 4 of his book, Robert Toplin discusses movies that celebrate “the ‘Great Man’ in the Documentary Style.” He uses All the President’s Men as one of two main examples. He argues that although the movie generally maintains a commitment to authenticity, it overemphasizes the role that Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein played in cracking the Watergate scandal. Focusing on the personal experiences of these two journalists helped the filmmakers minimize complexity in an already intricate story. He also mentions that the movie's documentary feel is obtained through attention to detail and the strategy of withholding information from the audience.
    For the film to be interesting to the audience, it had to depict the every day tasks of the characters, phone calls, note taking, and staff meetings, as exciting and dramatic. The director, Alan J. Pakula, portrayed “typewriters, pencils, pads…as important weapons that could bring down some of the most powerful men in the country.” The movie begins with an close shot of a typewriter; each key stroke sends out “cannon shots, suggesting the power of the press in exposing assaults on freedom.” This strategy served to glorify both journalism and the protagonists. Many people other than Woodward and Bernstein were involved with bringing down the conspiracy, but the movie elevated these two journalists to the roles of primary and practically sole players in most people’s memory of this historical event. Toplin ultimately excuses the glorification of Woodward and Bernstein as a common tendency of docudrama, and he credits the film as “a bold an informed view of a significant crisis in American political life.”