We're Susceptible to being "All The President's Men" too

Rating: 8/10 (29 June 2006)

By Stephen Thanabalan
Adapted from the book by journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein by legendary screenwriter Bill Goldman and director Alan Pakula into a film with intelligible continuity in describing one of the most engrossing events in US history, this film must also be remembered as a representation of truth, and not taken as tacit fact with Wood-Stein celebrated as American heroes of the highest order even if it is tempting to be absorbed into this ostensible triumph with the film, otherwise we might be susceptible to being overreliant on the film's portrayal. And we'd become, "All The President's Men"'s men.
Let's not take anything away from the film as an entity though. This film is one of only a handful to show respect to the craft of journalism at the time and even till now, especially since the only others to do so before it went back possibly to 'Deadline USA' or even 'Citizen Kane'. How does it show this respect? It does right from the opening scene of the teletype firing typo bangs till that very epilogue where it closes with the same impact three years in progress. It shows this respect by tediously charting the very same tedious unglamorous legwork that went in behind the scenes of investigation. Some may feel that this 'meticulous to a fault' element lagged the film but I reckon showing the reporters deal with bureaucratic tape, recalcitrant obstacles (including their editors concerned with national stability) or intrepid calls and conversations with jittery sources highlighted the tenacity that lies in the heart of this true story. In doing so, the makers showcase the emotional rollercoasters and painstaking work required for journalism and tell the story about how Watergate's very story was pieced from puzzle.
As Woodward and Bernstein, Redford and Hoffman are convincing from the start- bantering in industry jargon with striking clarity and gripping Colleague-ethical-friendship dramatics. They carry this well with characters rehearsed down to a pat from image (the smoking, hanging ties, corduroys, sideburns, apartments) all the way to reportage, epitomising their real life counterparts whom they understudied at the Post itself and probably gleaned off their willingness to do anything to get to the truth. They had an air of greenhorn/underdog about them and it probably made the audience love them as much as their sub who cried, "They're hungry...don't you remember what it's like to be hungry".
The film also respects the historical context through usage of archive footage (albeit talking heads) of aides in interviews; President Nixon in congress and so on, aiding us in remembering the significance, magnitude and context of the time. Done this way, even a viewer without political interest is hooked (regardless of Redford's charm or Hoffman's charisma), and considering its a film about an event analysed in retrospect, the manner of how it reveals dynamic information excites, thrills, and surprises even if we know how it ends.
Yet, the film is always struggling between dramatisation and authenticity. The scenes with Holbrook as Deep Throat (Felt the most confidential source in history revealed only in 2005) in the parking garage with Woodward are compelling, yet is evident that drama and reality are in tension. Robarbs as editor Bradlee, plays conflicted tensions with cynical maturity that feels authentic, constantly reminding Wood-Stein to uncover solid evidence, but poignantly keeping faith with the two and sharing their frustrations, yelling, "why won't anyone go on the damn record in this country!" with his new respect for them at the end of the film as uplifting as his move to take a calculated risk with running the story. It is in these moments, the film celebrates this raw triumph of humanity through success against the odds.
Pakula does the job of keeping the movie suspenseful and intriguing. You flow with the characters and care about how they unravel the mystery, feel disappointments and rejection, stare road blocks cold and ultimately, end up celebrating their every accomplishment. Which brings me to this very question- Is it flat out accurate for people to leave this film thinking Woodward and Bernstein, inasmuch as the hyperbole and iconic praise bestowed (including the Pulitzer) they've received in the years since, at the time, really were responsible for bringing down the 37th US President per se? Sure, they pried open a scandal and showed A-G Mitchell was crooked, but film-wise, it cuts them at page 200 of a 336 page book. Furthermore, it does not cover the complex aftermath including the crucial Nixon Tapes imbroglio, possibly the most crucial piece of evidence.
This is a reminder to us the audience, to question the numbers of facts vs. fiction in the film, the bias, as well as to remember that cinema is not a substitute for thorough research as it's storytelling's nature to wind up with good guys vs bad guys, that old binary, while the actualities vis a vis Watergate are far more complex than could ever be portrayed on a 135 minute feature. However, in saying that, it certainly is no fault of the film to do so, it is us, that need to remember that we like Wood-Stein need to bear this big picture in mind. In fact it says a lot about the power of perceptible effects that this very film wielded because, as a result of this very film's (in combination with the book's) influence, Wood-Stein changed the nature of public perception in journalism and politics, forging heroes of journalists - and liars of most public figures depicted (derogatorily or not, and more importantly, innocently or not). It is simply not the scope of this review to discuss the wider implications in the fields of journalism and political relationships, public relations, trust issues or agenda setting, but just like the film, let's realise and acknowledge these issues of a bigger picture and depth to actuality really exists and not bury them like, or rather, alongside, all the President's men.