All the President's Men (1976)

Let me tell you readers something about newspaper movies. They are generally about the excitement of the events that is occurring, but seldom do these kind of movies allow the audience to know that the majority of retrieving information is dull and tedious. In 1976's All the President's Men, that is exactly what it's all about. This is a newspaper movie that takes you through the finer points of the newspaper business accurately as possible with very little action and mostly dialogue. I see that as a good thing……and a bad thing. See, there are some movies that should be accurate as possible and this is one of them. This movie is about how the Washington Post uncovered the Watergate Scandal and accuracy is about the best you'll see in any film. But does that sacrifice the entertainment value of the movie? It depends on the moviegoer you are. If you like movie with lots of exposition, then you'll have no problem. I think it also depends on your historical knowledge of the film and the more you know, the more interesting it can be. That being said, the movie has a reputation of being one of 1976's finest films. I may not think so, although I thoroughly enjoyed the film. The story lends some historical value and it can grow tense at times. This film needs strong acting and it received excellent performances from everyone down to the last man. We can also credit the director for the relative success of the movie. William Goldman's screenplay is all dialogue, and director Alan J. Pakula was able to take those words and bring them on screen while keeping the movie's tempo at a fast pace and getting performances out of all his actors.So to understand this movie means you need to understand what led up to the infamous Watergate Scandal. That is essentially the plot of the movie. Heading up to the 1972 presidential elections, Bob Woodward (Robert Redford)-a reporter for the Washington Post, uncovers what seems to be a minor break-in at the Democratic Party National Headquarters. He grows suspicious when he sees that top defense lawyers are on the case already. The editor of the Post, Ben Bradlee (Jason Robards) wants to run the story and he assigns Woodward and Carl Bernstein (Dustin Hoffman) to do so. As they uncover more information, they see how high up the Republican Party is involved in this cover up.Another reason why this movie worked is because of the charm and pedigree of the cast. The movie is given an unusually stacked cast given the time period of the film. What I really liked about this cast is how they become so immersed in their roles. I wasn't watching Robert Redford or Dustin Hoffman, but instead I was watching Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. They truly became reporters on screen, and that is the mark of a good actor. To become the person the actors are playing. Redford and Hoffman were outstanding and they show great chemistry with each other. Let's not forget about the smaller characters though. Jason Robards did an excellent job as the executive editor Ben Bradlee who always shown support in his reporters even if things went south. Martin Balsam does a solid job as the managing editor, Howard Simons. Then we have Jane Alexander as the woman who provided the men with their best leads. Last but not least, we have the great Hal Holbrook as Deep Throat, the mysterious source of the men. Everyone was able to take the words from William Goldman's screenplay and make it their own words, which it's very hard to do in the movies.On the whole, All The President's Men is a fine movie. Although I feel this could have been an instant classic that could have been destined for greatness. In some eyes, it is. Given its long length, this film could have been overly dull and tedious, but the cast, Pakula's incredible direction, and a really interesting story were able to make this a taut, entertaining thriller. We get to learn about the journalistic process given that its repeated in several cycles, which can grow tiresome at some point. I liked this movie enough to give this movie a recommend, especially if you're interested in seeing how the Watergate Scandal came to be with the utmost historical accuracy. Also this movie is just a good vehicle for the starpower of Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman.My Grade: B

We're in June 2017 and "All The Presiden's Men" from 1976 reminds us that film, sometimes, is the strongest historical document we've got. The Washington Post raising alarm signs then and now. Alan J Pakula is one of the greatest directors of his generation. Jane Fonda during her AFI Lifetime Achievement Award told us that working with Alan J Pakula was like dancing with Fred Astaire. Here the chemistry between Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman is such that, at times, it feels like a romantic comedy, warts and all. Astonishing. Hal Holbrook as Deep Throat gives the feeling of "thriller" to this incredible story. We know how the story ends but that doesn't diminish our nervousness that it's perhaps a bit of impatience, just like now in 2017, to see justice be done.

"All the President's Men" may be more historically inaccurate than accurate but it sure details a depth of political corruption at the time seemed unfathomable. Doesn't mean one can actually do less these days though, but when people seem to be genuinely pleased that newspapers are indeed dying, what they are essentially saying is that one of major tools to monitor the proper workings of government is no longer necessary. Thus, corruption can continue unchecked, democracy eroded even further.When I first watched this film, that's over 20 years after it's release. I had no idea about any of the details of Watergate whatsoever. I mean, I was a mare child in some classy school in London.Over 30 years before that was, Richard Nixon, impeached for spying on and sabotaging his political rivals and it all came to light because a handful of burglars got caught breaking into National Democratic Headquarters, which were located in an apartment complex known as "Watergate". The story was revealed due to a couple of reporters at the Washington Post, Woodward and Bernstein. That's it, that's all I knew. I didn't even know Woodward and Bernstein's first names. Just the bare minimum (I mean, I think ANY American should know that much, no? But I'm 150% English. With added 50% of USA and rising? that's 200% from both worlds).Here's the thing though. It doesn't matter that you don't know who Bob Haldeman was, you'll figure out enough of what's going on via context, and then the rest of the movie will work its magic on you. By the time the credits roll you'll be saying, that was so awesome, even though you still couldn't tell me what John Ehrlichmans title was at the White House. I've explained the level of complexity in the story as way of illustrating all the challenges this movie overcomes. What winds up happening isn't that the complexity overwhelms the viewer the viewer picks up on the necessary elements and enjoys the movie, while the Watergate-knowledgeable viewer winds up having a film full of details and minutiae to cherish.How do they do it? By focusing on the excitement of it. The adventure. All the President's Men is a thriller, people!! This is the greatest detective story of all time. Woodward and Bernstein were on a quest for the truth, and the truth was being protected by the most powerful people on the planet, with the full force of the government behind them!Woodward and Bernstein slowly come together as a team, and then slowly come to realise exactly what they're dealing with. Their suspicion grows. Evidence mounts.But as the story builds, so does the pressure. The stakes. Other newspapers are racing them to find the truth and to break the story first. People are trying to discredit them. At one point, their editor, Ben Bradlee (portrayed by Jason Robards, who won an Academy Award for this role) tell them, Were under a lot of pressure, you know, and you put us there. Nothings riding on this except the, uh, first amendment to the Constitution, freedom of the press, and maybe the future of the country. Not that any of that matters, but if you guys f*ck up again, Im going to get mad. Goodnight.He wasn't exaggerating, either. Had the Nixon Whitehouse succeeded in blocking their investigation and remained in power, who knows what the consequences would have been for the press. It certainly wouldn't have boded well for the Washington Post, as Nixon most assuredly would have done everything in his power to bring them down."All the President's Men" is truer to the craft of journalism than to the art of storytelling, and that's its problem. The movie is as accurate about the processes used by investigative reporters as we have any right to expect, and yet process finally overwhelms narrative -- we're adrift in a sea of names, dates, telephone numbers, coincidences, lucky breaks, false leads, dogged footwork, denials, evasions, and sometimes even the truth. Just such thousands of details led up to Watergate and the Nixon resignation, yes, but the movie's more about the details than about their results.That's not to say the movie isn't good at accomplishing what it sets out to do. It provides the most observant study of working journalists we're ever likely to see in a feature film (Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein may at last, merciful God, replace Hildy Johnson and Walter Burns as career models). And it succeeds brilliantly in suggesting the mixture of exhilaration, paranoia, self-doubt, and courage that permeated the Washington Post as its two young reporters went after a presidency.Newspaper movies always used to play up the excitement and ignore the boredom and the waiting. This one is all about the boredom and the waiting and the tireless digging; it depends on what we already know about Watergate to provide a level of excitement. And yet, given the fact that William Goldman's screenplay is almost all dialogue, almost exclusively a series of scenes of people talking (or not talking) to each other, director Alan J. Pakula has done a remarkable job of keeping the pace taut. Does History still repeats itself?

One of the problems about making films about major real events - the assassination of JFK for example - is that everyone goes to see them on their release which, by definition, is as soon after the incident in question as possible, and then they become curiously 'dated'; presumably once the audience who were alive at the time begin to die out these films will have a new historical value so that around now any film made in the aftermath of the shooting in Sarajevo would acquire a new interest/audience. So, to watch this film, made in 1976, a couple of years after Watergate, is not such compulsive viewing as it would have been on release. I'm a great admirer of both the Goldman brothers (Bill and James) both as novelists and screenwriters and neither has ever let me down in either capacity - I do, in fact, wish that someone would get out a DVD of Soldier In The Rain, an early Bill Goldman novel filmed in the early sixties with Jackie Gleason and Steve McQueen) so this was a must for me as a Goldman completist. I loved the 'in-joke' of casting Robert Walden in a minor role. Walden played Joe Rossi, the star 'investigative' reporter in the Lou Grant TV series. The proprietor, Mrs. Pynchon,, of the fictional LA Newspaper where Lou Grant was City Editor, was based on Kathleen Graham, the wife/widow of the owner of the Washington Post, which for me constituted a great tie-in. Overall, the film had a fine, gritty 'feel' and is well worth seeing.