Difference between revisions of "329--Week 15 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
(→a Right:) |
(→b Inaccurate/issues:) |
||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
== b Inaccurate/issues: == | == b Inaccurate/issues: == | ||
| − | Perhaps things have changed since the 70s, but how did Woodstein never get caught in traffic? I mean this is DC we are talking about here. -Bryan Mull | + | Perhaps things have changed since the 70s, but '''how did Woodstein never get caught in traffic?''' I mean this is DC we are talking about here. -Bryan Mull |
| − | I am curious as to whether the safety of Woodward and Bernstein was played up for the sake of the film? Certainly they were being spied on, but did they really have to fear their lives? That whole fear aspect seemed a bit awkward in the film and I am curious if it was a real fear or something played up to add tension in the film?- Bryan Mull | + | '''I am curious as to whether the safety of Woodward and Bernstein was played up for the sake of the film?''' Certainly they were being spied on, but did they really have to fear their lives? That whole fear aspect seemed a bit awkward in the film and I am curious if it was a real fear or something played up to add tension in the film?- Bryan Mull |
In response to Bryan-- I think that when a dude who works for the FBI makes you meet him in a parking garage in the middle of the night over a period of about 8 months and finally tells you that people in every part and in every level of the government are involved as conspirators to do illegal bidding for the President, anyone would get freaked out that he was being watched or bugged or possibly endangered. So even if Woodward and Burnstein weren't being spied on--I think they at least had just cause to fear that they might be in the context of the movie.-- Jackie Reed | In response to Bryan-- I think that when a dude who works for the FBI makes you meet him in a parking garage in the middle of the night over a period of about 8 months and finally tells you that people in every part and in every level of the government are involved as conspirators to do illegal bidding for the President, anyone would get freaked out that he was being watched or bugged or possibly endangered. So even if Woodward and Burnstein weren't being spied on--I think they at least had just cause to fear that they might be in the context of the movie.-- Jackie Reed | ||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
In the book and in the movie, Woodward would put the flag up whenever he wanted to meet w/ Deep Throat, and DT would mark the NY Times in case he wanted to meet w/ Woodward. However, the movie primarily showed Woodward making an effort to meet DT. How often did DT request to meet w/ Woodward? - David F. | In the book and in the movie, Woodward would put the flag up whenever he wanted to meet w/ Deep Throat, and DT would mark the NY Times in case he wanted to meet w/ Woodward. However, the movie primarily showed Woodward making an effort to meet DT. How often did DT request to meet w/ Woodward? - David F. | ||
| − | I have a hard time believing that it was so easy to get into contact with high ranking White House officials. I am fairly certain that White House security was not that lax. Woodward and Bernstein would need to get into contact with someone and could just call the direct lines to their secretaries. I may be wrong but this seems unrealistic to me. --Mallory C. | + | '''I have a hard time believing that it was so easy to get into contact with high ranking White House officials.''' I am fairly certain that White House security was not that lax. Woodward and Bernstein would need to get into contact with someone and could just call the direct lines to their secretaries. I may be wrong but this seems unrealistic to me. --Mallory C. |
Like Mallory, it concerned me how easily Woodstein was able to call and either get secretaries of very high ranking White House officials or even the officials themselves. And the way people would just give up information on where someone was amazed me. You would think that someone who was the Special Council to the President wouldn't be able to be tracked down with the ease of just "oh he's actually in this office right now, let me give you that number." It seems really odd to me. -Kelly Wuyscik | Like Mallory, it concerned me how easily Woodstein was able to call and either get secretaries of very high ranking White House officials or even the officials themselves. And the way people would just give up information on where someone was amazed me. You would think that someone who was the Special Council to the President wouldn't be able to be tracked down with the ease of just "oh he's actually in this office right now, let me give you that number." It seems really odd to me. -Kelly Wuyscik | ||
| − | The officials, hell! Maybe this is just my reaction to a post-9/11 world, but would Bob Woodward REALLY have been able to call THE WHITE HOUSE ITSELF directly back then? -Cash Nelson | + | The officials, hell! Maybe this is just my reaction to a post-9/11 world, but '''would Bob Woodward REALLY have been able to call THE WHITE HOUSE ITSELF directly back then?''' -Cash Nelson |
| − | My issue with the movie is that the film portrayed Woodward and Bernstein as the heroes of the investigation: the only guys willing to bring down the high-ranking bullies of the government. Although the film alludes to the on-going special investigation by the Grand Jury, "Woodstein" seem to get all the credit for the discovery of the cover-up and the ultimate downfall of President Nixon.~Juliann Boyles | + | '''My issue with the movie is that the film portrayed Woodward and Bernstein as the heroes of the investigation''': the only guys willing to bring down the high-ranking bullies of the government. Although the film alludes to the on-going special investigation by the Grand Jury, "Woodstein" seem to get all the credit for the discovery of the cover-up and the ultimate downfall of President Nixon.~Juliann Boyles |
Another issue I have with the film is the lack of mention by Woodward or Bernstein of Nixon's involvement. Their investigation seems to end when they finally get confirmation of Halderman.It doesn't make sense to me that this ruthless reporting team would just stop at Halderman and not link the trail to Nixon. Since the legacy of Watergate is centered around President Nixon, why wouldn't the movie at least allude to the President's involvement? ~Juliann Boyles | Another issue I have with the film is the lack of mention by Woodward or Bernstein of Nixon's involvement. Their investigation seems to end when they finally get confirmation of Halderman.It doesn't make sense to me that this ruthless reporting team would just stop at Halderman and not link the trail to Nixon. Since the legacy of Watergate is centered around President Nixon, why wouldn't the movie at least allude to the President's involvement? ~Juliann Boyles | ||
| − | I agree with Mallory sort of. It was surprising to me in the beginning that a librarian would be perfectly willing to look up and divulge the for any old person calling up on the phone the requested materials or checked out materials of patron of the library... and the White HOuse library! Really? She quickly gets intercepted and told to change her story but what was she doing giving that information in the first place. Even in regular old public libraries, personal check-out accounts are supposed to be private. Did people not care as much back then? Also in Juliann's point about where the movie ends... I think it gets cut off there not to say that Woodstein stopped their investigation and journalism on the topic but that that was the key piece of the puzzle that lead to the house of cards falling down. Once they get the magnitude of the scandal revealed, other reporters, newspapers, and the public investigations are probably on equal footing with them and the movie can't continue with them as the courageous, lone detectives. But I do find it interesting that, except for in the closing typewriting scene, they really don't go as far as accusing Nixon of being a major conspirator or knowingly involved-- was it because the movie was made practically in the then-present day?--Jackie Reed | + | I agree with Mallory sort of. It was''' surprising to me in the beginning that a librarian would be perfectly willing to look up and divulge the for any old person calling up on the phone the requested materials or checked out materials of patron of the library... and the White HOuse library! Really? She quickly gets intercepted and told to change her story but what was she doing giving that information in the first place. Even in regular old public libraries, personal check-out accounts are supposed to be private. Did people not care as much back then?''' Also in Juliann's point about where the movie ends... I think it gets cut off there not to say that Woodstein stopped their investigation and journalism on the topic but that that was the key piece of the puzzle that lead to the house of cards falling down. Once they get the magnitude of the scandal revealed, other reporters, newspapers, and the public investigations are probably on equal footing with them and the movie can't continue with them as the courageous, lone detectives. But I do find it interesting that, except for in the closing typewriting scene, they really don't go as far as accusing Nixon of being a major conspirator or knowingly involved-- was it because the movie was made practically in the then-present day?--Jackie Reed |
| − | I think probably the biggest fault of the movie for me is how it ends. For one, it’s very abrupt. However, the largest issue is that there is no recognition of the other contributions made to the Watergate case. Of course the movie is about Woodstein investigating Watergate, so I expect it to be about them rather than other aspects of the investigation involving the courts and Congress and what not. I don’t even think the other investigations necessarily had to be mentioned during the movie itself. The problem comes with the ending where it’s not even acknowledged that there was more investigation going on other than Woodstein’s. The movie makes it appear that only the ''Washington Post'' reports brought light to the corruption in the White House. All it would’ve taken was an informational card at the end to satisfy me. --Taylor Brann | + | I think probably the biggest fault of the movie for me is '''how it ends'''. For one, it’s very abrupt. However, the largest issue is that there is no recognition of the other contributions made to the Watergate case. Of course the movie is about Woodstein investigating Watergate, so I expect it to be about them rather than other aspects of the investigation involving the courts and Congress and what not. I don’t even think the other investigations necessarily had to be mentioned during the movie itself. The problem comes with the ending where it’s not even acknowledged that there was more investigation going on other than Woodstein’s. The movie makes it appear that only the ''Washington Post'' reports brought light to the corruption in the White House. All it would’ve taken was an informational card at the end to satisfy me. --Taylor Brann |
I rather liked the ending, Taylor. Much like No Country For Old Men, it was an ending that left the viewer to reflect on the preceding events and make their own conclusions as to how everything panned out. -Cash Nelson | I rather liked the ending, Taylor. Much like No Country For Old Men, it was an ending that left the viewer to reflect on the preceding events and make their own conclusions as to how everything panned out. -Cash Nelson | ||
| Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
To harp on the same thing I did last week: we are the heroes of our own lives. A movie can not be made without overplaying Woostein's role in the investigation if it is based on a book written by the two journalists. - JT Newcomb | To harp on the same thing I did last week: we are the heroes of our own lives. A movie can not be made without overplaying Woostein's role in the investigation if it is based on a book written by the two journalists. - JT Newcomb | ||
| − | I realize that everyone has commented on this but I can't believe that Wood ward or Bernstein could have gotten a hold of these officials so easily. Which leaves me to wonder why the would a High ranked official would even talk to these guys. They do seem to be attack there friends already. I am pretty sure they are going to do the same thing if they talk to either of these guys.--- Matt DeMarr | + | I realize that everyone has commented on this but I can't believe that Wood ward or Bernstein could have gotten a hold of these officials so easily. Which leaves me to wonder why the would a High ranked official would even talk to these guys. They do seem to be attack there friends already. I am pretty sure they are going to do the same thing if they talk to either of these guys.--- Matt DeMarr |
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre == | == 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre == | ||
