| All the President's Men | |
|---|---|
 Theatrical release poster | |
| Directed by | Alan J. Pakula |
| Screenplay by | William Goldman |
| Based on | |
| Produced by | Walter Coblenz |
| Starring | |
| Cinematography | Gordon Willis |
| Edited by | Robert L. Wolfe |
| Music by | David Shire |
Production company | |
| Distributed by | Warner Bros. |
Release dates |
|
Running time | 138 minutes |
| Country | United States |
| Language | English |
| Budget | $8.5 million |
| Box office | $70.6 million[1] |
All the President's Men is a 1976 Americanbiographicalpolitical thriller film about theWatergate scandal that brought down the presidency ofRichard Nixon. Directed byAlan J. Pakula, with a screenplay byWilliam Goldman, it is based onthe 1974 non-fiction book byCarl Bernstein andBob Woodward, the two journalists investigating the scandal forThe Washington Post.
The film starsRobert Redford andDustin Hoffman as Woodward and Bernstein, respectively. It was produced byWalter Coblenz for Redford'sWildwood Enterprises.
The film was nominated in multipleOscar,Golden Globe andBAFTA categories;Jason Robards won theAcademy Award for Best Supporting Actor for his portrayal ofBen Bradlee. In 2010, it was selected for preservation in the United StatesNational Film Registry by theLibrary of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant".[2][3]
On June 17, 1972, a security guard at theWatergate complex finds a door's bolt taped over to prevent it from locking. He calls the police, who find and arrest five burglars in theDemocratic National Committee headquarters within the complex. The next morning,The Washington Post assigns new reporterBob Woodward to the local courthouse to cover the story, which is considered of minor importance.
Woodward learns that thefive men—James W. McCord Jr. and four Cuban-Americans from Miami—possessed electronic bugging equipment, and are represented by a high-priced "country club" attorney. At the arraignment, McCord identifies himself in court as having recently left theCentral Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the others are also revealed to have CIA ties. Woodward connects the burglars toE. Howard Hunt, an employee ofPresidentRichard Nixon'sWhite House CounselCharles Colson, and formerly of the CIA.
Carl Bernstein, anotherPost reporter, is assigned to cover the Watergate story with Woodward. The two young men are reluctant partners but work well together. Executive editorBenjamin Bradlee believes that their work lacks reliable sources and is not worthy of thePost's front page, but he encourages further investigation.
Woodward contacts a senior government official, an anonymous source he has used before and refers to as "Deep Throat". Communicating secretly, using a flag placed in a balcony flowerpot to signal meetings, they meet at night in an undergroundparking garage. Deep Throat speaks vaguely and with metaphors, avoiding substantial facts about the Watergate break-in, but promises to keep Woodward on the right path to the truth, advising Woodward to "follow the money".
Woodward and Bernstein connect the five burglars to corrupt activities involving campaign contributions to Nixon'sCommittee to Re-elect the President (CRP or CREEP). This includes a check for $25,000 paid byKenneth H. Dahlberg, who Miami authorities identified when investigating the Miami-based burglars. However, Bradlee and others at thePost still doubt the investigation and its dependence on sources such as Deep Throat, wondering why the Nixon administration should break the law when the president is almost certain to defeat his opponent, Democratic nomineeGeorge McGovern.
Through former CREEP treasurerHugh W. Sloan Jr., Woodward and Bernstein connect aslush fund of hundreds of thousands of dollars to White House chief of staffH. R. Haldeman—"the second most important man in this country"—and to former attorney generalJohn N. Mitchell, now head of CREEP. They learn that CREEP was financing a "ratfucking" campaign to sabotage Democratic presidential candidates a year before the Watergate burglary, when Nixon was laggingEdmund Muskie in the polls.
While Bradlee's demand for thoroughness compels the reporters to obtain other sources to confirm the Haldeman connection, the White House issues anon-denial denial of thePost's above-the-fold story. Bradlee continues to encourage investigation.
Woodward again meets secretly with Deep Throat and demands that he be less evasive. Very reluctantly, Deep Throat reveals that Haldeman masterminded the Watergate break-in andcover-up. He also states the cover-up was not only intended to camouflage the CREEP involvement, but also to hide "covert operations" involving "the entire U.S. intelligence community", including the CIA andFederal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). He warns Woodward and Bernstein that their lives, and those of others, are in danger. When the two relay this information to Bradlee and tell him of the depth of the conspiracy, Bradlee realizes that a constitutional crisis is coming, but tells them to move forward with the story.
During thesecond inauguration of Richard Nixon on January 20, 1973, Bernstein and Woodward type the full story, while a television in the newsroom shows Nixon taking the oath of office for his second term as president. A montage of Watergate-related teletype headlines from the following years is shown, ending with the report ofNixon's resignation and theinauguration of Gerald Ford on August 9, 1974.
Unlike the book, the film covers only the first seven months of the Watergate scandal, from the time of the break-in toNixon's second inauguration on January 20, 1973.[9] The film introduced the catchphrase "follow the money" in relation to the case, which did not appear in the book or in any Watergate documentation.[10]
| Watergate scandal |
|---|
.jpg) |
| Events |
| People |
Intelligence community |
Related
|
Redford began asking about the Watergate break-in while promotingThe Candidate, then read Woodward and Bernstein's Watergate stories inThe Washington Post, while waiting to start filmingThe Way We Were. Redford first spoke with Woodward in November 1972, after the reporters' well-publicized mistake about Hugh Sloan implicating Haldeman in his testimony to the Watergate grand jury.[11]
Redford bought the rights to Woodward and Bernstein's book in 1974 for $450,000, with the idea to adapt it into a film with a budget of $5 million.[12]Ben Bradlee, executive editor ofThe Washington Post, realized that the film was going to be produced regardless of his approval, and believed it made "more sense to try to influence it factually".[12] He hoped the film would show that newspapers "strive very hard for responsibility".[12]
Redford hiredWilliam Goldman to write the script in 1974. Goldman has said that Woodward was extremely helpful to him but that Bernstein was not. Goldman wrote that his crucial decision regarding the screenplay's structure was to discard the second half of the book.[13] After he delivered his first draft in August 1974,Warner Bros. agreed to finance the film.
Redford was not happy with Goldman's first draft.[12] Woodward and Bernstein read it and also did not like it. Redford asked for their suggestions, but Bernstein and his then-girlfriend, writerNora Ephron, wrote their own draft. Redford showed this draft to Goldman, suggesting that it might contain some material he could integrate, but Goldman later called Redford's acceptance of the Bernstein-Ephron draft a "gutless betrayal".[14] Redford later expressed dissatisfaction with the Bernstein-Ephron draft, saying, "A lot of it was sophomoric and way off the beat."[12] According to Goldman, "In what they wrote, Bernstein was sure catnip to the ladies."[14] He also said that one of Bernstein and Ephron's scenes was included in the final film; a bit in which Bernstein deceives a secretary in an attempt to see someone, which was not factually true.
Alan J. Pakula was hired to direct and requested rewrites from Goldman. In a 2011 biography, Redford claimed that he and Pakula held all-day sessions working on the script.[citation needed] Pakula spent hours interviewing editors and reporters, taking notes of their comments.
In 2011, Richard Stayton,Los Angeles Times drama critic[15] and playwright,[15] wrote an article for theWriters Guild of America West magazine,Written By[16] as its editor, following his comparison of many drafts of the script, including the final production draft. He concluded that Redford's and Pakula's contributions were not significant, that Goldman was properly credited as the writer, and that the final draft had "William Goldman's distinct signature on each page".[17]
Redford first selectedAl Pacino to play Bernstein, but later decided thatDustin Hoffman was a better fit for the role.[18]
Jason Robards was always Redford's choice to playBen Bradlee. However, Bradlee had recommendedGeorge C. Scott for the role, and he was somewhat unimpressed when Robards visited thePost offices to develop a feel for the newsroom. In advance of the shoot, Bradlee told Robards, "Just don't make me look like an asshole." At first, Pakula was worried that Robards could not carry Bradlee's easy elegance and command authority.Karl Malden,Hal Holbrook (who would ultimately play Deep Throat),John Forsythe,Leslie Nielsen,Henry Fonda,Richard Widmark,Christopher Plummer,Anthony Quinn,Gene Hackman,Burt Lancaster,Robert Stack,Robert Mitchum andTelly Savalas were also considered for the role.[19]
Character actorMartin Balsam played managing editorHoward Simons. According to Bradlee, Simons felt that his involvement with the real story was greatly diminished in the script.
Bradlee teasedPost publisherKatharine Graham about who would play her in the film. "Names likeKatharine Hepburn,Lauren Bacall andPatricia Neal were tossed out — by us — to make her feel good," Bradlee said. "And names likeEdna May Oliver orMarie Dressler, if it felt like teasing time. And then her role was dropped from the final script, half to her relief."[20]
Redford and Hoffman dividedtop billing, with Redford billed above Hoffman in the posters and trailers, and Hoffman billed above Redford in the film itself (in precisely the same manner in whichJames Stewart andJohn Wayne had divided top billing forJohn Ford'sThe Man Who Shot Liberty Valance in 1962).
Hoffman and Redford visitedThe Washington Post's offices for months, attending news conferences and conducting research for their roles.[12] Because thePost denied the production permission to shoot in its newsroom, set designers took measurements of the newspaper's offices and took many photographs. Boxes of trash were gathered and transported to sets recreating the newsroom on two soundstages inHollywood'sBurbank Studios for $200,000. The filmmakers went to great lengths for accuracy and authenticity, including making replicas of outdated phone books.[12] Nearly 200 desks were purchased for $500 each from the same firm that had sold desks to thePost in 1971. The desks were painted the same color as those in the newsroom. The production was supplied with a brick from the main lobby of thePost so that it could be duplicated in fiberglass for the set. Principal photography began May 12, 1975, in Washington, D.C.[12]
All the President's Men was initially assigned anR rating by theMotion Picture Association of America (MPAA) due to multiple uses of the word "fuck" and its derivatives.[21]Warner Bros. andRobert Redford appealed the decision, arguing that the film's subject matter and historical importance warranted a lower rating.[22] The MPAA Appeals Board, requiring a two-thirds majority to overturn a rating, agreed and reclassified the film as PG (the PG-13 rating did not exist at the time, as it was created in 1984).[23] MPAA presidentJack Valenti later stated that the film would have received a G rating if not for the profanity. According to MPAA official Richard Heffner, the Appeals Board considered the language to be contextually appropriate given the film's journalistic and educational significance. The decision exemplified the MPAA's ability to exercise discretion in its ratings process, particularly for films regarded as culturally or historically important.
All the President's Men grossed $7,016,001 from 604 theaters in its first week, placing itatop the U.S. box office.[24][25] It eventually grossed $70.6 million at the box office.[1]
The film has received near-universal acclaim from many film critics, both on its release and in the years immediately following it. On review aggregatorRotten Tomatoes, the film has a 94% rating based on 64 reviews, with an average rating of 9.10/10. The website's consensus reads: "A taut, solidly acted paean to the benefits of a free press and the dangers of unchecked power, made all the more effective by its origins in real-life events."[26] OnMetacritic, which gives a weighted average score, the film has a score of 84 out of 100, based on reviews from 13 critics, indicating "universal acclaim".[27]
At the time of the film's release,Roger Ebert of theChicago Sun-Times awarded the film 3½ stars out of 4, writing: "It provides the most observant study of working journalists we're ever likely to see in a feature film. And it succeeds brilliantly in suggesting the mixture of exhilaration, paranoia, self-doubt, and courage that permeatedThe Washington Post as its two young reporters went after a presidency."[28]Variety praised the "ingenious direction [...] and scripting" that overcame the difficult lack of drama that a story about reporters running down a story might otherwise have.[29]Gene Siskel gave the film four stars. In hisChicago Tribune review, he wrote, "Director Alan J. Pakula duplicates the surprise and suspense of hisKlute while avoiding the overstatement and pandering paranoia of his more recent political thriller,The Parallax View. Pakula's greatest achievement is the way he unobtrusively weaves outside events into narrative of the reporters' story."[30] Siskel also named it the best film of 1976 on his year-end list.
Vincent Canby ofThe New York Times wrote, "Newspapers and newspapermen have long been favorite subjects for movie makers—a surprising number of whom are former newspapermen, yet not untilAll The President's Men, the riveting screen adaptation of the Watergate book by Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, has any film come remotely close to being an accurate picture of American journalism at its best."[31]Rex Reed wrote, "Just to think about Watergate (and there are those, I'm told, who prefer not to) is to chatter the brain with a million details, telephone conversations, notebook jottings, investigations and technical problems that could be very dull indeed on film. Awesomely, and with tremendous intelligence, Alan Pakula, the director, has assembled each element with the panache of a mystery novelist. The result is a movie that literally keeps the audience glued to the edge of the seat with nail-biting tension and excitement."[32] Kathleen Carroll of theNew York Daily News gave the film a full four-star rating and wrote that it "offers a rousing argument for the preservation of freedom of the press that precious right that allows reporters like Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein to ferret out the truth."[33]Charles Champlin of theLos Angeles Times called it "quite beyond anything else, an engrossing mystery movie, with atmosphere, suspense, surprise, conflict, danger, secret messages, clandestine meetings, heroes, villains and a cast of leading and supporting characters that might have emerged from an unlikely collaboration of, let us say,Gore Vidal andRaymond Chandler."[34]
Desmond Ryan ofThe Philadelphia Inquirer called it "not only a stunningly accurate account of the way big-city newspapers operate, down to the last paper clip and derisive curse, but it is also a superlative movie by any standard. The acting from Redford and Dustin Hoffman as Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein is immaculate and understated, and it is matched right down to the last bit part. It is equalled by Alan Pakula's high-tension direction and William Goldman's tautly accurate screenplay."[35] Stanley Eichelbaum of theSan Francisco Examiner wrote, "People should enjoy it, since it has the knockout force of an AmericanZ, without the heavy doses of manipulative melodrama. It's eminently entertaining, providing much the same fascination and wry humor asThe Front Page, a romantic treatment of the same aspects of competitive, relentlessly aggressive journalism. The film's brilliance largely emanates from the lean, astringent, compellingly realistic, quasi-documentary style brought to it by director Alan J. Pakula (Klute,The Parallax View, etc.) and screenwriter William Goldman. Like the book, the film has the hypnotic impact of a detective thriller in its sharp, subtle retelling of the involved story of the Watergate break-in and Woodward and Bernstein's role in unraveling the cover-up."[36]
Susan Stark of theDetroit Free Press wrote, "The circuitous, sometimes perilous, nearly always frustrating adventure of the two newsmen who broke the conspiracy of silence about the Watergate scandals makes one terrific chunk of material for a movie, Wisely, Robert Redford, who acquired screen right to the book even before it was published, stuck to his gun, leaning hard on the dramatic, as opposed to the political elements in the material. The hard dramatic approach of the film, envisioned by Redford and executed with consummate skill by Alan J. Pakula, works wondrously well, from just about any point of view. In aesthetic terms, it works because the film carries no unnecessary expository baggage. No one is preaching here; no one is pushing a message, except by implication."[37] Joe Pollack of theSt. Louis Post-Dispatch wrote, "Making a movie hero out of an investigative newspaper reporter is an extremely difficult task. Investigative reporting simply isn't very exciting, nor very dramatic. It involves a lengthy search for sources and tedious checking and cross-checking of facts, combined with an amount of telephone-calling and door-knocking that can become very dull.All the President's Men has turned these potential minuses into gigantic pluses, and comes through as a wonderful motion picture, one that explores the abuses of power and the work of the free press with a mighty magnifying glass. It glorifies the work of the reporter without making it glamorous."[38] Sally Smith ofThe Atlanta Constitution said, "A 'reporter' movie in the tradition of the '30s and '40s it is not. There are no fast-talking, cigar-chewing editors, no screaming telephones and no thundering presses. 'Scoop' is never mentioned. Instead, the film is close to a dramatized documentary. For those in the audience expecting an emotional catharsis it may be slightly disappointing, but this low-key realism – as opposed to being a shrill polemic against Nixon – is why the movie works."[39]
Clyde Gilmour of theToronto Star called it a "fascinating movie from Warner Bros. [that] vividly but scrupulously dramatizes the almost mythological exploits of the men who uncovered the Big Cover-Up. And it does this while portraying the often-distorted world of a big-city newspaper with an honesty and fidelity seldom, if ever, approached in previous films about the press."[40] Martin Malina of theMontreal Star called it "the biggest and the best portrait of newspaper reporting that Hollywood has yet achieved."[41] Dave Lanken of the MontrealGazette called it "a good picture and one that will undoubtedly do very well. It will both satisfy and create continuing interest in the comeuppance of the world's highest elected crime overlord."[42] Michael Walsh ofThe Province wrote, "Watergate challenged the free press and produced one of journalism's finest hours.All the President's Men insures [sic] that its lessons will be understood and remembered."[43]
Internationally,Patrick Gibbs ofThe Daily Telegraph wrote, "Mr Pakula planes implicit confidence in this story, tightly scripted by William Goldman, with only an occasional fictional touch and in his experienced actors led by Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman as the two reporters, though no great feats are called for in the way of interpretation."[44] Colin Bennett ofThe Age wrote, "Documentary is the best way to tackle a story that's so incredibly close, if it is to be made into entertainment at all. So it's a handicap that two film stars, rather than unknown faces, were deemed necessary to mime Woodstein's astonishment as each new fragment of thread in the pattern is revealed. Characterisation is totally unimportant, however; and the two actors play it straight, sans heroics, concentrating on the stunning business in hand, the only business that really matters."[45]Romola Costantino ofThe Sun-Herald remarked, "This movie is sure to be a great success, but it won't necessarily be because of its brilliant reconstruction of the Watergate story. Most people have forgotten about that by now. As for the impressive skill of direction, the realistic, clear dialogue, or the fact that it relives, with mounting suspense, one of the most incredible scandals of this century not even these could have ensured this film's success away from America. There's no sex, no violence, and most of it is telephone calls or takes place behind office desks. But it can't miss, because it also offers two hours in the company of those charismatic stars, Dustin Hoffmann [sic] and Robert Redford, as the dedicated newspaper reporters, Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, from the Washington Post, who were responsible for the whole shake-up."[46]
The film continued to receive acclaim long after its release. Chris Nashawaty ofEntertainment Weekly, reviewingBlu-ray releases of both this film andNetwork in 2011, called it "a victory lap for American journalism – the triumphant flip side toNetwork's self-loathing take on the media. It also anticipated our currentWikiLeaks era, with Robert Redford (Woodward) and Dustin Hoffman (Bernstein) milking anonymous sources and burning shoe leather to speak truth to power. These films are timeless and essential, raising thorny questions we're still struggling to answer 35 years later. That must have been heavy stuff to be hit with at the multiplex in 1976. Maybe that's whyRocky walked away with Best Picture."[47] In a rare dissenting review published in 1985,Dave Kehr of theChicago Reader was critical of the writing, calling the film "pedestrian" and "a study in missed opportunities".[48]
Sundance Productions, which Redford owned, produced a two-hour documentary titled"All the President's Men" Revisited.[67] Broadcast onDiscovery Channel Worldwide April 21, 2013, the documentary focuses on the Watergate case and the subsequent film adaptation. It simultaneously recounts howThe Washington Post broke Watergate and how the scandal unfolded, going behind the scenes of the film. It explores how the Watergate scandal would be covered in the present day, whether such a scandal could happen again and who Richard Nixon was as a man.W. Mark Felt, deputy director of the FBI during the early 1970s, revealed his identity as Deep Throat in 2005, and this is also covered in the documentary.
Footage from the film is included, as are interviews with Redford and Hoffman, as well as with real-life central characters, including Woodward, Bernstein, Bradlee,John Dean,Alexander Butterfield andFred Thompson, who served as minority counsel to theSenate Watergate Committee, in his first major public appearance. Contemporary media figures, such asTom Brokaw (who wasNBC News' White House correspondent during the scandal),Jill Abramson,Rachel Maddow andJon Stewart are also featured in the documentary, which earned a 2013Emmy nomination for Outstanding Documentary or Nonfiction Special.[68][69]
on the Watergate Anniversary
Police Sgt. Paul Leeper in front of Watergate. This is how he was dressed. when with two other officers of the 'bum squad' he made the five ...
retired D.C. police sergeant Paul Leeper, Walltower's former supervisor who is now chief of police in Grafton, W.Va.
| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
| Other | |
