Difference between revisions of "329-2010--Week 15 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
(→Questions asked in class) |
Celiacroft (Talk | contribs) (→Things the movie got right) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Uncovering the Watergate scandal was a mess. Woodward and Bernstein had many pieces of an ugly puzzle to put together before the whole picture was seen. The way the movie portrayed events, I found myself even more confused than the reporters. It was quite interesting to me how the “entire intelligence community” was involved and manipulated everyone involved. The way the people at the top implied possible deadly consequences of those who snitched was telling. This movie exposed the way in which people only answered questions they were asked. They were not willing to volunteer any information, but if asked specific questions, they would have answered those. Once the reporters and prosecutors knew to come straight out and ask the obvious questions, the scandal broke wide open. Without “Deep Throat” this scandal would never have been exposed and Woodward and Bernstein would never have kept their jobs.—Debbie M. | Uncovering the Watergate scandal was a mess. Woodward and Bernstein had many pieces of an ugly puzzle to put together before the whole picture was seen. The way the movie portrayed events, I found myself even more confused than the reporters. It was quite interesting to me how the “entire intelligence community” was involved and manipulated everyone involved. The way the people at the top implied possible deadly consequences of those who snitched was telling. This movie exposed the way in which people only answered questions they were asked. They were not willing to volunteer any information, but if asked specific questions, they would have answered those. Once the reporters and prosecutors knew to come straight out and ask the obvious questions, the scandal broke wide open. Without “Deep Throat” this scandal would never have been exposed and Woodward and Bernstein would never have kept their jobs.—Debbie M. | ||
| − | I'm with Debbie M. I found myself struggling a little bit to keep track of the names and what new scandal was getting discovered, but I liked that the movie didn't slow down to explain - we just had to go with it. I loved how much of the movie was made up of phone calls, and that we never saw the face of the people on the other line. The film went against a lot of traditions (or cliches) in what it showed us and didn't show us - a modern audience expects, when they see the main character making an important phone call, to see a split-screen or to cut back and forth to see both ends. But this way, we were left as much in the dark as Woodward and Bernstein. I also appreciated how straightforward the essential plot was - there weren't any distracting subplots, it focused on one story the whole time. | + | I'm with Debbie M. I found myself struggling a little bit to keep track of the names and what new scandal was getting discovered, but I liked that the movie didn't slow down to explain - we just had to go with it. I loved how much of the movie was made up of phone calls, and that we never saw the face of the people on the other line. The film went against a lot of traditions (or cliches) in what it showed us and didn't show us - a modern audience expects, when they see the main character making an important phone call, to see a split-screen or to cut back and forth to see both ends. But this way, we were left as much in the dark as Woodward and Bernstein. I also appreciated how straightforward the essential plot was - there weren't any distracting subplots, it focused on one story the whole time. The script was full of information and LOTS of names and confusing things, but the acting and cinematography was so engaging that it kept you hooked. When I saw William Goldman's name in the opening credits, I knew we were in good hands. - Celia |
The movie definitely included many of the names in the long list of people who had some kind of involvement in the Watergate scandal, hearings, or investigation. The movie was a little confusing because there were so many names being thrown out left and right. I know the movie did only focus on Bernstein and Woodward's contributions to the investigation of the scandal, but I enjoyed watching the relationship between the two men grow throughout the film and how they worked together to investigate the scandal. I liked how "Deep Throat" actually appeared in the film and wasn't just another person that was mentioned. He did appear very mysterious during his scenes in the film and I think that accurately portrayed the way in which his identity ''was'' such a mystery to everyone that up until the 1990s/2000s, no one knew who "Deep Throat" was. -Amy V. | The movie definitely included many of the names in the long list of people who had some kind of involvement in the Watergate scandal, hearings, or investigation. The movie was a little confusing because there were so many names being thrown out left and right. I know the movie did only focus on Bernstein and Woodward's contributions to the investigation of the scandal, but I enjoyed watching the relationship between the two men grow throughout the film and how they worked together to investigate the scandal. I liked how "Deep Throat" actually appeared in the film and wasn't just another person that was mentioned. He did appear very mysterious during his scenes in the film and I think that accurately portrayed the way in which his identity ''was'' such a mystery to everyone that up until the 1990s/2000s, no one knew who "Deep Throat" was. -Amy V. | ||
