Difference between revisions of "329--Week 15 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
(→6 Overall Comments on Movie) |
(→3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre) |
||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
One revelation that the movie showed through Woodstein's work that I think is important is how the dirty tricks had been going on since long before the Watergate break-in, back at least to the formation of CREEP. At one point, Bradlee told Woodstein that only half the public polled had heard of the name Watergate. We know that by the time Nixon resigned, the whole nation knew about it, but they may not have known just how far back it went. With all Woodstein's investigation and the stated realization of how much larger the issue was than the break-in, this shows that CREEP's workings had been successfully kept secret for a long time. -Whitney Holcomb. | One revelation that the movie showed through Woodstein's work that I think is important is how the dirty tricks had been going on since long before the Watergate break-in, back at least to the formation of CREEP. At one point, Bradlee told Woodstein that only half the public polled had heard of the name Watergate. We know that by the time Nixon resigned, the whole nation knew about it, but they may not have known just how far back it went. With all Woodstein's investigation and the stated realization of how much larger the issue was than the break-in, this shows that CREEP's workings had been successfully kept secret for a long time. -Whitney Holcomb. | ||
| − | I feel like it would be tough for this movie to be considered as a primary source on the scandal itself. It was focused much more on Woodward and Bernstein, as we were warned, and although it did discuss the scandal, it didn't really cover all of it. A lot of it was based on the early findings and discoveries and how long it took Woodward and Bernstein to piece everything together and kind of breezed over everything that happened in about 30 seconds at the end of the movie. But it could definitely be used as a source looking at Woodward and Bernstein and their interactions at the ''Washington Post''. -Kelly Wuyscik | + | I feel like it would be tough for this movie to be considered as a primary source on the scandal itself. It was focused much more on Woodward and Bernstein, as we were warned, and although it did discuss the scandal, it didn't really cover all of it. A lot of it was based on the early findings and discoveries and how long it took Woodward and Bernstein to piece everything together and kind of breezed over everything that happened in about 30 seconds at the end of the movie. But it could definitely be used as a source looking at Woodward and Bernstein and their interactions at the ''Washington Post''. But I think that the movie can also be worked into that "Best Years of Our Lives" genre in that it was made around the time of the actual event. The clothes were authentic and it nearly killed me, as was Dustin Hoffman's beautifully feathered hair. -Kelly Wuyscik |
== 4 Public reaction/impact == | == 4 Public reaction/impact == | ||
