Moderately dramatic results

Rating: 5/10 (6 June 2016)

Hi everybody, in case you didn't know - this film is overrated.
Scriptwriter William Goldman's name is so often bandied about or name-dropped as the par excellence of great screen writing, and this film is supposed to be an example of how creative and subversive the seventies were in film, euphemistically dubbed Hollywood's "second golden era" by movie historians, but mostly because the eighties were so disposable and crass.
Goldman's writing is definitely in shape, and he has a great ear for dialogue, but there's little in this film to really engage a viewer; there's two reasons the film isn't going to impress modern audiences, and I'll outline them here:
Firstly, 80% of the film details failed and attempted interviews with faces or just telephone voices around Washington leading up to the Watergate scandal, and they are just what they are - conversations, anonymous office memorandums, conversations-whilst-driving, conversations-on-peoples-doorways, conversations-outside-government- buildings. Everyone of course either has fears for their identity, lies outright or is just too vague to attribute in a proper news vehicle, and basically the sheer repetitiveness of the scenes becomes stifling, rather than growing in dramatic tension in any meaningful way.
The second reason this film doesn't hold up much today is because times have changed so radically. Discovering a politicians connections, work contacts, previous relationships, investments and properties can be done by anyone, whereas back then audiences were supposed to see the film as a struggle by Bob Woodward (AKA: The Little Guy) taking on Washington . . . and . . . winning!!!
My last reservation about this film is that (to it's credit) it explores both the hypocrisy and abuses of power in so-called democratic societies, but at the same time rewards the viewer with inherently bogus ideals about the power of the individual. In the 2010's, after decades of deregulation and stage-managed electoral campaigns, all of which are hired or paid off by corporate elites, its completely obvious to any thinking person that the ideals of modern democracy are a sham, and that this film is about fairy-tale wish fulfillment, not the power of investigative journalism. To clarify, on any given policy debate issue, the actual power of the citizenry to effect the outcome process is zero, regardless of their strong support, indifference, or alarm. So, in effect, this film makes theater out of the idea of greater individual liberty when no such liberties make genuine effect for our common good.
As a final note, this film never really shows any significant characters outside of the white male demographic anywhere at the Washington Post, let alone anywhere operating in Washington, with a few female office assistants aside. I would call it a well written film, with a few excellent scenes featuring an anonymous source (famously nicknamed Deep Throat) and basically a lack of narrative range and of course a predestined outcome. Some things age badly, and this film definitely has, I would recommend reading the screenplay alone if Watergate is a pet interest of yours, or the so-called "political thriller" genre.