Ebert bases his criticisms of All the President's Men on the narrative of the film. Yet, with a screenplay based on real events and people, the most common criticism happens to be that the narrative was manipulated to suit the general audience. Because of this, filmmakers either choose to run with the actual events as a lose skeleton of the film or strive for hyper-realism in their portrayal of the events. This film dealt with the Watergate burglary and the eventual resignation of the President of the United States, however, the outcome was only a piece of the film Pakula and Redford focused more on the journalism that went into exposing the cover up. Ebert condemns the end product as all about "the boredom and the waiting" of journalism. Had Redford and Pakula thrown untrue and outrageous political thrills into the film, Ebert would accuse the film of being untrue and separate from the source material.
I agree with Roger Ebert in his claim that the Alan Pakula’s All the President’s Men “is truer to the craft of journalism than to the art of storytelling,” but I think creating the film any other way would have been a mistake. Ebert discusses how the viewer gets bogged down in details and names, and the reporting cycle is repeated too many times. These aspects of the film, however, are what make it so noteworthy; without the repeated cycle of digging for information, the viewer would not feel the frantic sense of urgency Woodward and Bernstein felt, or the satisfaction of finally piecing together the puzzle. Pakula’s “wizardry” through technical skill is an important component of the film--the ending, for example, utilizes overlapping audio of presidential music, cannons, and typing to show Nixon’s duality and foreshadow his resignation--but the movie’s accuracy in regard to journalism, and its repetition of this accuracy, is equally as important. The viewer sees Deep Throat three times, for example. While the conversation differs in each encounter, the repetition of secret parking-garage meetings builds tension and emphasizes the danger of the situation. So, while I agree with Ebert in certain respects, I disagree that the elements of All the President’s Men fail to “add up to a satisfying movie experience.” I think they do.
I agree with Erbert’s argument that Pakula’s All the President’s Men strays away from the art of storytelling and relies very heavily on the cycle of reporting. Just as Erbert argues, once the viewers become accustomed to Woodward and Bernstein’s style of investigative research, there is not much else to the story that the viewers do not already know. While Erbert suggests that All the President’s Men is “truer to the craft of journalism than to the art of storytelling,” in my opinion, the essence of the story is the craft of journalism. Pakula chooses to tell the story of journalism by masterfully portraying the waiting and timelessness of journalism in order to celebrate it, not sensationalize it. While the story itself is interesting, the true suspense comes from the cinematography that captures Bernstein and Woodward’s determination and thirst for the truth. As both reporters gain more knowledge and experience, their pattern of digging does not really change, therefore the drama and suspense has to come from the way the film is shot. In this case, the story does not need to be the principal focus of the movie, because the achievement of the movie is the development of Bernstein and Woodward and their pursuit of a controversial national story. The visual motifs of entrapment, lighting of Woodward’s apartment, conveyal of Deep Throat, and montages of Woodward and Bernstein’s search, are just a few examples of cinematic elements that help Pakula tell the story of journalism.
I agree with Ebert to an extent. Ebert argues that All the President’s Men emphasizes the mundane aspects of journalism - the digging, denials, and following up of leads. And at times the flim’s plot seems a little dry. The names, places, and minute details can all seem overwhelming, especially to a generation that knows little about the Watergate Scandal. I disagree, however, with Ebert’s assertion that the dry plot leads to an unsatisfying movie experience. Because the audience is forced to suffer through the sometimes agonizing routine of the two journalists, we come to empathize with them, and root for them more fiercely. Ultimately this flim provides ample entertainment while still preserving a realistic journalistic experience, and for that reason, it is a successful flim.
I mostly agree with Robert Ebert’s review of All the President’s Men. While watching the film, I was waiting for the actual confirmation that Nixon was involved in Watergate, as his resignation was the most well known result of Watergate. As such, I was disappointed when the film abruptly ended after the Nixon’s inauguration. However, like Edert, I agree that, had the film continued, I would have become bored of the, as he puts it, “reporting cycle repeated several more times.” So in that sense, I am glad the film ended when it did. I also agree with Ebert’s opinion on the tension the filmmakers created using almost only conversation. Throughout the film, I always felt as though Bernstein and Woodward were very close to uncovering an important piece of information, and as a result, I became enthralled by the film. However, unlike Ebert, I felt as though the storytelling was excellent. I liked that Pakula didn’t add anything unnecessary to the film, such as a love interest. I liked how their investigation lead the story, even if the names became a bit overwhelming by the end of the film.
I agree with Robert Ebert’s rating of All the Presidents Men and his opinion that the movie feels rather monotonous and shows the audience a more accurate depiction of what investigative journalists do rather than providing the audience with a really entertaining movie. I particularly agree with his point that the movie “develops the illusion of momentum” even in the scenes where little is getting done, or rather the story does not seem to be progressing. I do not think this movie was un-entertaining but I do agree with Ebert’s opinion that what “saved” the film was Pakula’s successful technique rather than a successful narrative.
I definitely agree with Roger Ebert’s review of All the President’s Men; Ebert perfectly sums up the methods of the movie, including both high points and flaws. This film focus’ solely on Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein's investigation into the Watergate scandal, and barely scratches the surface of the results of their search for the truth, yet still, just as the review says, makes the tedious series of dead-ends and off the record accounts interesting to watch, even more so as the plot unfolds. I agree that Pakula managed to create tension in many scenes of the film that may have been dull otherwise. Redford and Hoffman really did do a great job portraying the journalists for whom the film is based on, creating a believable interpretation of the events. As the review comments, there is little differentiation between the methods the reporters use to find their evidence.
I agree with Ebert in that the acting, directing, and “technical skill” are the strogest points of the film. While I only saw the beginning and ending parts of the film, what i saw was a very well made portrayal of how the investigation went and what it took to actually find the evidence to put into the paper. When Ebert says “[the film] is a truer to the craft of journalism than to the art of storytelling” he says it like it is negative. In my opinion, it is this that makes the movie more intriguing. The film takes us through the process and brings the story of writing the articles and investigations to life in the manner they actually happen, setting it apart from other movies. Had they attempted to change the story to make it more of towards the art of storytelling, they would have been forced to stray from the way the events truly occured and changed the story alltogether. Now, i cant say whether or not that would have improved or ruined the film if they made it differently, but i prefer the unique narrative the story has and how brilliantly the filmmakers portrayed Woodward and Bernstien’s story.
I agree with Roger Ebert's review on this film, especially when he writes that it "is truer to the craft of journalism than to the art of storytelling" however I disagree with the fact that he says "that's the problem". I feel like there are too many movies today that are storytelling and changing story lines to make us entertained. Journalists are constantly being turned down and criticized for their claims and views on various aspects of life. As these two "normal" men set out on a case that some don't believe, we get to see their growth as people and journalists. This film would have been very boring if their case turned out to be wrong but we are pleased to see at the end that their clues finally come together. After seeing so many people who would not share any information with the men, when we finally are faced with people willing to talk we are eager to see what secrets are about to be disclosed. For those who knew how this scandal turned out, we were eager to see which characters would step up to the plate to share the information that was due to come out.
As I do mostly agree with Ebert's review of All the Presidents Men, there are still aspects that I disagree with as well. Ebert is right in the way that he sees the film as hard to follow at times, since it has many instances in which it is a bug mix of specific dates, names, numbers, truths, lies, and small details. These aspects of the film are what i found uninteresting and difficult to keep up with, which left me with an unsatisfying movie experience. I also agree with Ebert when he says that this film does not play up the excitement during the scandal, which leaves the audience with a more boring view of the film. I believe that although this scandal was an important time in American history and should be able to stand on its own, in order to have a successful movie with the maximum number of views possible, the director needs to put in more excitement that would appeal to the maximum number of audiences. With this, I believe that this film may be very entertaining and successful to those who enjoy or are involved in journalism. People like this would have a very satisfying movie experience and would most likely be happy with the directors choices. Personally, I am not one of these people and therefore did not enjoy the film as much as others might. Although this is true, I believe, along with Ebert, that the acting and editing of this film is fabulous and was greatly produced. It is just the topic that was less interesting/entertaining for me.
I think that “All the Presidents Men” was a good movie but I also agree with Roger Ebert’s accusations of the film. It very closely followed the actions of Woodward and Bernstein who live the lives of average reporters who finally get a break on a big story. Yet, this is all we get from the characters as they don’t develop into more than an increasingly paranoid version of themselves. There are various lulls in the film, such as two of the three Deep Throat accounts, where names and ideas are brought up that I can’t remember or connect later. Since Deep Throat can neither confirm nor deny these statements with the tell-tale “you’ll have to find that out yourself” it only makes everything more confusing. While the film is meant to show the Watergate incident and these two reporters told the story, I learned more about journalism than the event itself. Although I greatly appreciate a true to the story film, it was difficult to understand to the point where I didn’t feel a sense of relief at the end because I had watched them jump through all these hoops but for the reason that I knew those headlines were supposed to mean they succeeded. I am not saying they should romanticize real events like so many movies do because on average they lose their meaning. Yet, in this very realistic account I feel as though they also didn’t achieve what they wanted to in making this film.
I agree with Roger Ebert’s review on All the President’s Men in the sense that the “success of the techniques” carried the movie more than the narrative. The narrative between the characters is not what draws the viewer into the film but the quick transitions between each conversation and the desperation of finding the truth that the character’s exhibit. Although this is true, I do not think that this “a problem” as Roger Ebert considered it. I think that the movie was still interesting to watch, even suspenseful at some points. Maybe this is due to the fact that I have minimal knowledge of the history behind Watergate, or because I watched the movie in multiple parts so it did not seem to drag on as much like Ebert described it.
I agree with Roger Ebert’s opinion that All the President’s Men is not reliant on the narrative, but rather the “success of technique,” however, Pakula’s technique mimics the reporter’s feelings, thus enhancing the narrative for the viewer. Ebert is spot on in his assessment that “the reporting cycle is repeated several more time just because the story grows longer and the sources more important.” And Pakula distracts us from the monotony of repetition with his conscious manipulation of music and lighting to stir up the viewer’s emotion. The scenes with Deep Throat are dramatic in the way that Pakula creates suspense, even if there is no real threat. The story is inherently frustrating because the reporting is a constant stream of names and setbacks, with little reward. The relief that the technique offers makes the movie bearable, but is also what made the actual reporting bearable. It does not manipulate the story in any way, but rather allows the viewer another look inside the reporting, by synthesizing the same feelings of excitement that carried the reporters on throughout the process. Working with a well-known scandal and a tedious narrative, Pakula did not use the technique to simply drum up a threadbare story, but rather illuminated the real emotions at the heart of it.
After reading Roger Ebert's review of the film "All the President's Men", I agree with almost everything he had to say about it. The pace of the film ranged from dull and slow to fast paced, exciting and tense. Particularly, in scenes when Woodward and Bernstein would be on the verge of gathering new information, or when they would get a lead on a big piece of their story, I could really feel the excitement from the actors. Particularly, when the two of them got the okay to run the story, and Bernstein ran out of the office to tell Woodward. I also very much agree with what Ebert said about how most, if not all movies that portray journalism often show the hard hitting, fast paced, exciting side the journalism world, and never the lulls or the digging for more information. This movie did a good job of portraying both, especially the slower moments.
I mostly agree with Roger Ebert's review of the film. Ebert's first criticism, "'All the President's Men' is truer to the craft of journalism than to the art of storytelling, and that's its problem... the processes used by investigative reporters...finally overwhelm the narrative," articulated exactly the confusion I felt throughout the film. Ebert complains a viewer feels, "...adrift in a sea of names, dates, telephone numbers, coincidences, lucky breaks..." While this makes for a slightly frustrating viewer experience, it successfully portrays the frustration that must have been felt by two young reporters, and to accurately portrays journalism. The film can either aim to provide a most satisfying experience for the viewer by simplifying the truth for his connivence, or aim to portray the true story of the unraveling of the Watergate Scandal; the two goals are difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile. Although, as Ebert suggests, the film is overwhelming to watch, if the goal of the film was more to truthfully tell a story than to entertain it may be a necessary sacrifice so that the film may achieve accuracy.
I agree with Ebert's review when he says it is more of a telling of the craft of journalism than it is a story. This movie was interesting in the way that a documentary is, telling us different information about one certain thing. I think that All the President's Men was certainly a very detailed movie depicting how journalism is used, and what the overall process is. Which is why I agree with Ebert. Also, there was not much of a climax, because the viewers are aware of what happens. The story is based around how the two reporters find out their information and how they go about with their jobs. It is a very in depth story based on the jobs of journalists, and they happen to be covering the Watergate Scandal. I think this movie would be considered a bio-pic on the two reporters that covered the scandal. Going into it, I think the movie would have made more sense if the audience was told it was more based around the craft of journalism, than the actual Watergate Scandal.
Ebert thinks that the film is too boring, too confusing, and the technique bad for movies. I disagree. The facts in this film are the only thing that is important. While it is slightly confusing if the viewer isn't already aware of the Watergate scandal, it is incredibly important to see the journalistic approach exactly the way it is in reality. The confusion, frustration, and time it took the reporters to uncover the truth should be exactly shown as thus by the director, and in All the President's Men it was very well done. He adds suspense for the viewer, and keeps a faster pace throughout the film so the viewer is never bored. Experiencing the moments and investigation, without any fiction or exaggeration, is important to get a feel for what Watergate was actually like. All this adds to the movie experience, not takes away. Sticking to the facts was an excellent choice, and I would not change anything about this film.
I agree with Elbert's statement that the movie is "truer to the craft of journalism" because the majority of the film depicts the journalists' process in order to discover the truth about the scandal. The film lacked a driving force that engaged the audience because of its devotion to the journalism aspect of the story, and while it is a very good film on the nature of journalism, it failed to be as entertaining as it could have been. I also agree that the viewer gets confused because of the many names and dates that Pakula throws at the audience. Most of the time, I was pretty confused as to who was doing what at the White House and why that was significant to the case. While I appreciate the portrayal of the journalists journey and efforts, the film lacked a sense of intensity that was translatable to the viewer.
I agree with the argument that the article presents. While watching the film All the Presidents Men, I found that there was minimal artistic technique used in the filming process. The movie lacked an aspect of creativity, and was presented more as a documentary than a film. Though the director projected the events of the time period accurately, I found myself getting tired of the same routine events, that were repeated several times throughout the movie. I feel like the direction could have achieved his goal of portraying the actual events of the time period in a more artistic manner. This film did achieve its goal of giving as much accurate information on the subject as possible, however the direction of the the film made it not as interesting to watch. As a viewer the message of the film was lost by the overwhelming display of facts and dialogue.
I agree with many aspects of Roger Ebert’s review of the film, All the President’s Men. First of all, he claimed that the “wizardry” of Pakula in terms of technical skill and the acting saved what otherwise would have been a dull film. He was able to make a very interesting film because the technique he used was so good. He created excitement and intrigue even though the narrative was at times dull and repetitive. The film focuses almost solely on the process of investigative reporting, and recycles through many similar scenarios as the movie progresses. I agree with Ebert’s claim that the narrative of the film is not what makes it a good film. The narrative alone is very repetitive with a lack of action, leaving the viewer ultimately unsatisfied and uneducated about watergate. Ebert decided to make a film that examined the more real side of journalism, and didn’t intend to make a movie solely based on entertaining the viewer. Yet, due to his “wizardry”, he was able to make a film that was still interesting to the audience.
Ebert bases his criticisms of All the President's Men on the narrative of the film. Yet, with a screenplay based on real events and people, the most common criticism happens to be that the narrative was manipulated to suit the general audience. Because of this, filmmakers either choose to run with the actual events as a lose skeleton of the film or strive for hyper-realism in their portrayal of the events. This film dealt with the Watergate burglary and the eventual resignation of the President of the United States, however, the outcome was only a piece of the film Pakula and Redford focused more on the journalism that went into exposing the cover up. Ebert condemns the end product as all about "the boredom and the waiting" of journalism. Had Redford and Pakula thrown untrue and outrageous political thrills into the film, Ebert would accuse the film of being untrue and separate from the source material.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Roger Ebert in his claim that the Alan Pakula’s All the President’s Men “is truer to the craft of journalism than to the art of storytelling,” but I think creating the film any other way would have been a mistake. Ebert discusses how the viewer gets bogged down in details and names, and the reporting cycle is repeated too many times. These aspects of the film, however, are what make it so noteworthy; without the repeated cycle of digging for information, the viewer would not feel the frantic sense of urgency Woodward and Bernstein felt, or the satisfaction of finally piecing together the puzzle. Pakula’s “wizardry” through technical skill is an important component of the film--the ending, for example, utilizes overlapping audio of presidential music, cannons, and typing to show Nixon’s duality and foreshadow his resignation--but the movie’s accuracy in regard to journalism, and its repetition of this accuracy, is equally as important. The viewer sees Deep Throat three times, for example. While the conversation differs in each encounter, the repetition of secret parking-garage meetings builds tension and emphasizes the danger of the situation. So, while I agree with Ebert in certain respects, I disagree that the elements of All the President’s Men fail to “add up to a satisfying movie experience.” I think they do.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Erbert’s argument that Pakula’s All the President’s Men strays away from the art of storytelling and relies very heavily on the cycle of reporting. Just as Erbert argues, once the viewers become accustomed to Woodward and Bernstein’s style of investigative research, there is not much else to the story that the viewers do not already know. While Erbert suggests that All the President’s Men is “truer to the craft of journalism than to the art of storytelling,” in my opinion, the essence of the story is the craft of journalism. Pakula chooses to tell the story of journalism by masterfully portraying the waiting and timelessness of journalism in order to celebrate it, not sensationalize it. While the story itself is interesting, the true suspense comes from the cinematography that captures Bernstein and Woodward’s determination and thirst for the truth. As both reporters gain more knowledge and experience, their pattern of digging does not really change, therefore the drama and suspense has to come from the way the film is shot. In this case, the story does not need to be the principal focus of the movie, because the achievement of the movie is the development of Bernstein and Woodward and their pursuit of a controversial national story. The visual motifs of entrapment, lighting of Woodward’s apartment, conveyal of Deep Throat, and montages of Woodward and Bernstein’s search, are just a few examples of cinematic elements that help Pakula tell the story of journalism.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ebert to an extent. Ebert argues that All the President’s Men emphasizes the mundane aspects of journalism - the digging, denials, and following up of leads. And at times the flim’s plot seems a little dry. The names, places, and minute details can all seem overwhelming, especially to a generation that knows little about the Watergate Scandal. I disagree, however, with Ebert’s assertion that the dry plot leads to an unsatisfying movie experience. Because the audience is forced to suffer through the sometimes agonizing routine of the two journalists, we come to empathize with them, and root for them more fiercely. Ultimately this flim provides ample entertainment while still preserving a realistic journalistic experience, and for that reason, it is a successful flim.
ReplyDeleteI mostly agree with Robert Ebert’s review of All the President’s Men. While watching the film, I was waiting for the actual confirmation that Nixon was involved in Watergate, as his resignation was the most well known result of Watergate. As such, I was disappointed when the film abruptly ended after the Nixon’s inauguration. However, like Edert, I agree that, had the film continued, I would have become bored of the, as he puts it, “reporting cycle repeated several more times.” So in that sense, I am glad the film ended when it did. I also agree with Ebert’s opinion on the tension the filmmakers created using almost only conversation. Throughout the film, I always felt as though Bernstein and Woodward were very close to uncovering an important piece of information, and as a result, I became enthralled by the film. However, unlike Ebert, I felt as though the storytelling was excellent. I liked that Pakula didn’t add anything unnecessary to the film, such as a love interest. I liked how their investigation lead the story, even if the names became a bit overwhelming by the end of the film.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Robert Ebert’s rating of All the Presidents Men and his opinion that the movie feels rather monotonous and shows the audience a more accurate depiction of what investigative journalists do rather than providing the audience with a really entertaining movie. I particularly agree with his point that the movie “develops the illusion of momentum” even in the scenes where little is getting done, or rather the story does not seem to be progressing. I do not think this movie was un-entertaining but I do agree with Ebert’s opinion that what “saved” the film was Pakula’s successful technique rather than a successful narrative.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with Roger Ebert’s review of All the President’s Men; Ebert perfectly sums up the methods of the movie, including both high points and flaws. This film focus’ solely on Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein's investigation into the Watergate scandal, and barely scratches the surface of the results of their search for the truth, yet still, just as the review says, makes the tedious series of dead-ends and off the record accounts interesting to watch, even more so as the plot unfolds. I agree that Pakula managed to create tension in many scenes of the film that may have been dull otherwise. Redford and Hoffman really did do a great job portraying the journalists for whom the film is based on, creating a believable interpretation of the events. As the review comments, there is little differentiation between the methods the reporters use to find their evidence.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ebert in that the acting, directing, and “technical skill” are the strogest points of the film. While I only saw the beginning and ending parts of the film, what i saw was a very well made portrayal of how the investigation went and what it took to actually find the evidence to put into the paper. When Ebert says “[the film] is a truer to the craft of journalism than to the art of storytelling” he says it like it is negative. In my opinion, it is this that makes the movie more intriguing. The film takes us through the process and brings the story of writing the articles and investigations to life in the manner they actually happen, setting it apart from other movies. Had they attempted to change the story to make it more of towards the art of storytelling, they would have been forced to stray from the way the events truly occured and changed the story alltogether. Now, i cant say whether or not that would have improved or ruined the film if they made it differently, but i prefer the unique narrative the story has and how brilliantly the filmmakers portrayed Woodward and Bernstien’s story.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Roger Ebert's review on this film, especially when he writes that it "is truer to the craft of journalism than to the art of storytelling" however I disagree with the fact that he says "that's the problem". I feel like there are too many movies today that are storytelling and changing story lines to make us entertained. Journalists are constantly being turned down and criticized for their claims and views on various aspects of life. As these two "normal" men set out on a case that some don't believe, we get to see their growth as people and journalists. This film would have been very boring if their case turned out to be wrong but we are pleased to see at the end that their clues finally come together. After seeing so many people who would not share any information with the men, when we finally are faced with people willing to talk we are eager to see what secrets are about to be disclosed. For those who knew how this scandal turned out, we were eager to see which characters would step up to the plate to share the information that was due to come out.
ReplyDeleteAs I do mostly agree with Ebert's review of All the Presidents Men, there are still aspects that I disagree with as well. Ebert is right in the way that he sees the film as hard to follow at times, since it has many instances in which it is a bug mix of specific dates, names, numbers, truths, lies, and small details. These aspects of the film are what i found uninteresting and difficult to keep up with, which left me with an unsatisfying movie experience. I also agree with Ebert when he says that this film does not play up the excitement during the scandal, which leaves the audience with a more boring view of the film. I believe that although this scandal was an important time in American history and should be able to stand on its own, in order to have a successful movie with the maximum number of views possible, the director needs to put in more excitement that would appeal to the maximum number of audiences.
ReplyDeleteWith this, I believe that this film may be very entertaining and successful to those who enjoy or are involved in journalism. People like this would have a very satisfying movie experience and would most likely be happy with the directors choices. Personally, I am not one of these people and therefore did not enjoy the film as much as others might. Although this is true, I believe, along with Ebert, that the acting and editing of this film is fabulous and was greatly produced. It is just the topic that was less interesting/entertaining for me.
I think that “All the Presidents Men” was a good movie but I also agree with Roger Ebert’s accusations of the film. It very closely followed the actions of Woodward and Bernstein who live the lives of average reporters who finally get a break on a big story. Yet, this is all we get from the characters as they don’t develop into more than an increasingly paranoid version of themselves. There are various lulls in the film, such as two of the three Deep Throat accounts, where names and ideas are brought up that I can’t remember or connect later. Since Deep Throat can neither confirm nor deny these statements with the tell-tale “you’ll have to find that out yourself” it only makes everything more confusing. While the film is meant to show the Watergate incident and these two reporters told the story, I learned more about journalism than the event itself. Although I greatly appreciate a true to the story film, it was difficult to understand to the point where I didn’t feel a sense of relief at the end because I had watched them jump through all these hoops but for the reason that I knew those headlines were supposed to mean they succeeded. I am not saying they should romanticize real events like so many movies do because on average they lose their meaning. Yet, in this very realistic account I feel as though they also didn’t achieve what they wanted to in making this film.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Roger Ebert’s review on All the President’s Men in the sense that the “success of the techniques” carried the movie more than the narrative. The narrative between the characters is not what draws the viewer into the film but the quick transitions between each conversation and the desperation of finding the truth that the character’s exhibit. Although this is true, I do not think that this “a problem” as Roger Ebert considered it. I think that the movie was still interesting to watch, even suspenseful at some points. Maybe this is due to the fact that I have minimal knowledge of the history behind Watergate, or because I watched the movie in multiple parts so it did not seem to drag on as much like Ebert described it.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Roger Ebert’s opinion that All the President’s Men is not reliant on the narrative, but rather the “success of technique,” however, Pakula’s technique mimics the reporter’s feelings, thus enhancing the narrative for the viewer. Ebert is spot on in his assessment that “the reporting cycle is repeated several more time just because the story grows longer and the sources more important.” And Pakula distracts us from the monotony of repetition with his conscious manipulation of music and lighting to stir up the viewer’s emotion. The scenes with Deep Throat are dramatic in the way that Pakula creates suspense, even if there is no real threat. The story is inherently frustrating because the reporting is a constant stream of names and setbacks, with little reward. The relief that the technique offers makes the movie bearable, but is also what made the actual reporting bearable. It does not manipulate the story in any way, but rather allows the viewer another look inside the reporting, by synthesizing the same feelings of excitement that carried the reporters on throughout the process. Working with a well-known scandal and a tedious narrative, Pakula did not use the technique to simply drum up a threadbare story, but rather illuminated the real emotions at the heart of it.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Roger Ebert's review of the film "All the President's Men", I agree with almost everything he had to say about it. The pace of the film ranged from dull and slow to fast paced, exciting and tense. Particularly, in scenes when Woodward and Bernstein would be on the verge of gathering new information, or when they would get a lead on a big piece of their story, I could really feel the excitement from the actors. Particularly, when the two of them got the okay to run the story, and Bernstein ran out of the office to tell Woodward. I also very much agree with what Ebert said about how most, if not all movies that portray journalism often show the hard hitting, fast paced, exciting side the journalism world, and never the lulls or the digging for more information. This movie did a good job of portraying both, especially the slower moments.
ReplyDeleteI mostly agree with Roger Ebert's review of the film. Ebert's first criticism, "'All the President's Men' is truer to the craft of journalism than to the art of storytelling, and that's its problem... the processes used by investigative reporters...finally overwhelm the narrative," articulated exactly the confusion I felt throughout the film. Ebert complains a viewer feels, "...adrift in a sea of names, dates, telephone numbers, coincidences, lucky breaks..." While this makes for a slightly frustrating viewer experience, it successfully portrays the frustration that must have been felt by two young reporters, and to accurately portrays journalism. The film can either aim to provide a most satisfying experience for the viewer by simplifying the truth for his connivence, or aim to portray the true story of the unraveling of the Watergate Scandal; the two goals are difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile. Although, as Ebert suggests, the film is overwhelming to watch, if the goal of the film was more to truthfully tell a story than to entertain it may be a necessary sacrifice so that the film may achieve accuracy.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ebert's review when he says it is more of a telling of the craft of journalism than it is a story. This movie was interesting in the way that a documentary is, telling us different information about one certain thing. I think that All the President's Men was certainly a very detailed movie depicting how journalism is used, and what the overall process is. Which is why I agree with Ebert. Also, there was not much of a climax, because the viewers are aware of what happens. The story is based around how the two reporters find out their information and how they go about with their jobs. It is a very in depth story based on the jobs of journalists, and they happen to be covering the Watergate Scandal. I think this movie would be considered a bio-pic on the two reporters that covered the scandal. Going into it, I think the movie would have made more sense if the audience was told it was more based around the craft of journalism, than the actual Watergate Scandal.
ReplyDeleteEbert thinks that the film is too boring, too confusing, and the technique bad for movies. I disagree. The facts in this film are the only thing that is important. While it is slightly confusing if the viewer isn't already aware of the Watergate scandal, it is incredibly important to see the journalistic approach exactly the way it is in reality. The confusion, frustration, and time it took the reporters to uncover the truth should be exactly shown as thus by the director, and in All the President's Men it was very well done. He adds suspense for the viewer, and keeps a faster pace throughout the film so the viewer is never bored. Experiencing the moments and investigation, without any fiction or exaggeration, is important to get a feel for what Watergate was actually like. All this adds to the movie experience, not takes away. Sticking to the facts was an excellent choice, and I would not change anything about this film.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Elbert's statement that the movie is "truer to the craft of journalism" because the majority of the film depicts the journalists' process in order to discover the truth about the scandal. The film lacked a driving force that engaged the audience because of its devotion to the journalism aspect of the story, and while it is a very good film on the nature of journalism, it failed to be as entertaining as it could have been. I also agree that the viewer gets confused because of the many names and dates that Pakula throws at the audience. Most of the time, I was pretty confused as to who was doing what at the White House and why that was significant to the case. While I appreciate the portrayal of the journalists journey and efforts, the film lacked a sense of intensity that was translatable to the viewer.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the argument that the article presents. While watching the film All the Presidents Men, I found that there was minimal artistic technique used in the filming process. The movie lacked an aspect of creativity, and was presented more as a documentary than a film. Though the director projected the events of the time period accurately, I found myself getting tired of the same routine events, that were repeated several times throughout the movie. I feel like the direction could have achieved his goal of portraying the actual events of the time period in a more artistic manner. This film did achieve its goal of giving as much accurate information on the subject as possible, however the direction of the the film made it not as interesting to watch. As a viewer the message of the film was lost by the overwhelming display of facts and dialogue.
ReplyDeleteI agree with many aspects of Roger Ebert’s review of the film, All the President’s Men. First of all, he claimed that the “wizardry” of Pakula in terms of technical skill and the acting saved what otherwise would have been a dull film. He was able to make a very interesting film because the technique he used was so good. He created excitement and intrigue even though the narrative was at times dull and repetitive. The film focuses almost solely on the process of investigative reporting, and recycles through many similar scenarios as the movie progresses. I agree with Ebert’s claim that the narrative of the film is not what makes it a good film. The narrative alone is very repetitive with a lack of action, leaving the viewer ultimately unsatisfied and uneducated about watergate. Ebert decided to make a film that examined the more real side of journalism, and didn’t intend to make a movie solely based on entertaining the viewer. Yet, due to his “wizardry”, he was able to make a film that was still interesting to the audience.
ReplyDelete