A piece of old fashioned journalism in a time of fact free social media

Rating: 8/10 (7 August 2019)

The film starts with the burglary in the Watergate building (head office of the democratic party). After this piece of action the rest of the film is all talking and dialogue. It is a miracle that director Pakula has made the film nevertheless so thrilling (given the fact that we all know how the Watergate scandal will end).
The film is really about two subjects: (1) The Watergate scandal and (2) journalism as a profession.
To start with the second subject. Despite the fact that the two journalist are played by the stars Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman, they are never portrayed as hero's. Journalism is hard work with many false clue's and silent witnesses. I remember one scene in the Congress library where Woodward and Bernstein are sifting out al the requests (on paper, we are talking about the pre computer era) for books by a person they suspect. It reminded me of a library scene in "The day of the jackall" (1973, Fred Zinnemann) (although in that scene a contract killer is doing research on his next victim). On top of that is the ever lasting fight for the big scoop. A fight that is fought between Woodward and Bernstein (at first), between Woodstein and the rest of the eidtors of the Washington Post and last but not least between the Washington Post and the New York Times. All in all valuable to see this piece of old school journalism in times of fact free social media.
After the arrest of the burglars in the Watergate building the Watergate scandal was not immediately front page news. It was more a peat fire maintained by Woodward and Bernstein. The film is about the first stage of the Watergate scandal. The period from june 1972 (the arrest) to january 1973 (inauguration from Nixon for his second term). It was not until august 1974 before Nixon would resign. In "All the presidents men" we learn about "deep throat", but we hear nothing about the White house tapes. I always asked myself the question why Nixon needed the faul play in the election of 1972. After all his opponent was George McGovern, who had really no chance (also without faul play). The reason maybe be sought in the character of Nixon (see "Nixon" (1995, Oliver Stone)). "All the presidents men" gives however a different answer. The Watergate burglary was part of a broader program of interference with the Democratic primaries. So was Edmund Muskie (an opponent who was far more dangerous to Nixon than George McGovern) discredited a few years earlier by a fake letter. The Watergate scandal and what it has to say about campaign financing is still relevant in the Trump era.
Up till now I commented mainly on the content of the movie. A movie who was also beautifully made. A already said something about director Pakula (made dialogue thrilling), about the actors Redford and Hoffman (made rightfully no hero's of their characters). Let me end with saying something about cinematographer Gordon Willes, which we all know from the "Godfathers" movies. Gordon Willes nickname is "Prince of darnkess" and that made him the right person to shoot the "deep throat scenes".