All the Presidentâs Men (1976); AFI #77
The next review marks the halfway point through the AFI 100 and it is of the political âthriller,â All the Presidentâs Men (1976). The source material was created by reporters involved in the uncovering of the Watergate scandal and one of these reporters contributed to the writing of the screenplay. The film was in theatres and earned Oscar nomination only 4 years after the Watergate incident occurred which made the film a Hollywood dramatization of the news. I am not aware of another film quite like this as far as release vs. incident dates that wasnât a documentary. Even documentaries, although filmed during or immediately after events, do not often come out in theatres so soon. They definitely donât get nominated for 8 academy awards like this film did. So what was behind this movie that made this a one-of-a-kind film that landed it on the list of the top 100 American movies? I want to go over the basic events, since that is the plot of the film, and then discuss the good and bad aspects of this quick production:
SPOILER WARNING!!! I AM GOING TO SPELL OUT ALL OF THE CONTENTS OF THE MOVIE!!! IT CAN BE BETTER SPOILED BY A HISTORY BOOK, BUT I WILL GET TO INACURACIES WHICH MIGHT RUIN THE FILM! SO SPOILER ALERT IF YOU WANT TO WATCH THE FILM FIRST!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The film begins with a lot of stock news footage and then a reenactment of the break-in at the Watergate hotel in 1972. Five men who were connected to the CIA and the Committee to Re-Elect the President (nicknamed CREEP) were caught with wire tapping equipment in the Democratic Party headquarters at the hotel. More stock footage of news reports lets the audience know that there is something fishy about this break-in.
At the trial for the five burglars, a young Bob Woodward (Robert Redford), who is a reporter for the New York Post, notices that a high priced lawyer is representing the five and yet it has been stated earlier that none of the burglars had used their phone call. Woodward keeps finding this lawyer and attempts to question him about why he is there and how exactly the burglars are attached to the CIA. Through consistent pressure, Woodward is able to connect the burglars to CIA agent E. Howard Hunt and a member of the White House Counsel, Charles Colson.
Woodward attempts to take on the story but finds that another reporter keeps taking his submitted drafts and altering them in an attempt to take over the story. This reporter is Carl Bernstein (Dustin Hoffman), a much more seasoned reporter at the Post that believes he should get the story. The editor puts them both on the case noting a lack of reliable sources, but tells them to keep digging.
Here is where it gets a little weird because Woodward talks about a secret source that he cannot name that was a senior government official. He went by the codename âDeep Throatâ and Woodward meets him in a parking garage in the middle of the night. The sources does not say anything specific nor does he give any names, but he famously tells Woodward to âfollow the moneyâ which means to find out who paid the burglars to break in.Â
Through basically unreliable resources, Woodward and Bernstein are able to make connections between CREEP and the money that was paid to the burglars. This is weird because it seems pretty assured that Nixon would easily defeat his competition to secure re-election, so the editors at the newspaper have doubts about putting the story on the front page.
Woodward and Bernstein are able to contact the CREEP treasurer Hugh Sloan, Jr. and are able to connect a slush fund to White House Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman and former Attorney General John Mitchell, the current head of CREEP. It is discovered that this wire tapping and sabotage had been happening since Nixon was trailing during the primaries.Â
The editor demands thoroughness in obtaining reliable resources, so Woodward and Bernstein go around to employees of the the treasury for CREEP, and they are all young ladies that are afraid for their safety but are compelled to give up information to the reporters. I somewhat question the accuracy of the story at this stage of the film, but I will address that after the summary.
Woodward goes out and meets Deep Throat again and the source reveals that Haldeman was behind the Watergate break-in and cover-up. This cover up was not just to deny CREEP involvement, but to hide covert operations involving US intelligence agencies like the CIA and FBI. He warns Woodward that the two reporters could be in danger.
The Washington Post runs the story and the White House vehemently denies the allegations and chastises the press for shabby reporting. Woodward and Bernstein go and meet the editor in the middle of the night and decide to keep running with the story...and that is basically the end of the movie.
There is some footage of the two typing vigorously and then stock footage of the news reports and teletype printing out what happened in the news. It is not much of an ending, but this is likely because the story had not finished when the movie went into production.Â
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So I have some major issues with this film and these problems have revealed themselves over multiple viewings. The first time that I saw this was in class as a senior in high school. I was in Mr. Slyâs Government and Economics class and we watched the movie over two class periods with many breaks for explanation and a lot of forwarding through the filler. At the time, the teacher was very excited at the topic (he hated Richard Nixon) and the movie was fascinating because he only showed and subsequently explained the good parts. Also, his enthusiasm for the topic was contagious. He was a very good teacher.Â
The next viewing was a full 15 years later when going through the AFI list for the first time. I could not figure out what I liked so much about it and had to rewatch multiple parts because I kept falling asleep. There were no thrills and there was so much filler, I remember thinking that this should have been a 20 minute film and it would have been almost completely newsreel stock footage.Â
This final time I can see what the problem is with the film...and I like it even less. The film is over 2 hours long and more than half of it is stock footage from the news, walking around quickly (there is some running in the newsroom for no reason), extended conversations due to fear of âsomebody finding outâ (the threat is never established as real so it is just annoying), a lot of parking lots (it shows the same car driving from the same parking spot out into the street on 3 separate occasions), intense research and typing, and establishing shots of buildings. It has as much filler as a B movie and costs about the same, but because it was so close to the event with big name actors, it was treated as something special. In fact, it is talked about like a documentary in many reviews that I read with words like âimportantâ and âpowerfulâ scattered about, but I donât see it.Â
Robert Redford bought the book rights because he knew it was an interesting topic that people would want to know about. He was correct, but it wasnât enough fact to make a full movie, so he let one of the reporters, Carl Bernstein, punch up the screenplay with his stories of how he enchanted female story leads into giving out information. Those conversations are completely unnecessary. At some point, the writers realized that there was no clear and present danger so they had the secret source bring up safety and Woodward becoming paranoid...but absolutely nothing happened.Â
This movie needed to be a 30 minute documentary with some re-enactments or it needed to wait until more details became available to replace the filler. I respect that it was different from anything prior or since, but it doesnât make the movie good or even interesting. It kind of broke me when the two main characters were going over a list of people that they needed to visit as possible leads and all they did was read names over a shot of the city. You might as well read out the phone book for 2 minutes as it was just as boring.Â
The poster calls this the most devastating story of this century and I agree... devastatingly boring. No other film on the AFI list has less story than this film. Some of the other films have annoyed me more, but I could see why some people liked it or at least why it was interesting. This is not interesting and it is presented like a documentary when it is not. Variety magazine said this film was âingeniousâ and overcame the difficult lack of drama that a story about reporters running down a story might otherwise have. Disagree vehemently.Â
Roger Ebert gave it 3.5 stars, so critics I have the utmost respect for seem to have enjoyed it. I was not alive when the film came out and agree more with Dave Kehr who called the film âpedestrianâ and âa study in missed opportunities.â For my money, National Geographic TV did a one hour special that was just the facts and it was so much more interesting. Here is a link to that and I would suggest skipping the Hollywood version.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWkS-sOia-Y
So does this film deserve to be on the AFI 100? Well...I guess maybe? It was something different and likely the most accurate and up to date Hollywood film like none before or since. It used real names and was written by the actual people involved. It just wasnât that interesting to me. Would I recommend it? If you are suffering from insomnia. Otherwise, no. If you want to see an accurate retelling of the story in one third the time, click the link above. Let the Robert Redford film be an experiment that made for very uninteresting results.
