All The President's Men

I understand why this movie was chosen in the last week of our class.  It is a film "documentary" that the two individuals who experienced it wrote it and were very pleased with the film.

I watched the film several times. Why? I had a very, very difficult time staying awake through this one.  It is still a goal of mine to watch this film without falling asleep.  I have not viewed the entire film in one setting ever.   I decided to watch the film with Robert Redford commenting on the making of the film hoping that this would interest me enough to view the entire movie, but no such luck. 

This film again is a part of our history in America and was portrayed in the point-of-view of both men who reported the story.  Is it accurate?  I honestly cannot say for certain.  I didn't study much about Watergate in school and have no memory of it when I was young.  When I was younger any political topic that came up with was not understood. As an adult and going back and finding the truth, you realize that there are many sides to every story or event. Very rarely is there an absolute in the perception or outcome. There are at the very least three sides or more to any one given event. It is amazing how we could all be in a room and although we experienced the same thing our perceptions would be different and some very different. I think that the childhood game of whispering a sentence and then going from one to the next is a great example. The President's Men was a factual story that the Bernstein and Woodward experienced but that was their story. I am certain that there is another version but who from that side of the story is going to talk factual about the actual breakin and how they did it or planned it.  They may be a documentary but I have had not luck researching this. 

The main thing about this film that was most notable was the lack of music of any kind.  It was all typewriters and phones.  After watching it a few times it finally came to me that there is no "noise" it was all very monotone.  I don't do well with monotone, that is what I fall asleep to.  After watching it with Redford's commentary, he addressed his lack of music.  He said he wanted it to be the typewriter and phone creating the mood and music.  I don't agree that this was a good move neither did others in the production of the movie.  It was a successful movie and most consider it accurate to history that we know.

As to the question of whether a director has an obligation to film the facts or create an unbiased film, I don't think so.  With any art or writing, you do what you know.  The movie was not made to be a history book but this type of film is made to demonstrate a side of a topic that is somewhat unapproachable in some circles.  Should the facts be accurate?  What is accurate? So much that one thinks is subjective may be objective to another.  In the Blind Side, Michael Orr talks very openly that there were several liberties taken because it made for a better movie draw.  He was really good at football and never needed anyone telling him how to hit!

Cider House Rules

This week's movies were Cider House Rules and All the President's Men which were chosen I suspect because of the text readings and because of their subject matter.
As you probably already know, Cider House Rules is based on the novel by John Irving.  The movie is two hours and eleven minutes, which as you can image is an extremely condensed version of his 1985 and 592 page novel. 

This is one movie where I wish I had I read the book before watching the movie.  Now I am so curious of the characters and how much more depth there is to them and to know more about them.   
The text reading for the week has to deal with the influence movies have on our social and cultural issues and often times political issues. 

 Often times, what we imagine we create and bring to life.  We watch movies and read for various reasons and that is the purpose of different generes.  We are information gatherers and if we do not read it, we listen, we watch or we communicate with each other to help us with whatever it is that is concering or consuming our thoughts.

The Cider House Rules was a great film demonstrating the different sides of a topic. Although it is fictional the story is real and those decisions are faced by many men and women and it helps bring the topic up for discussion. How often is there the argument that continues because neither can see each other's point of view or the real root of the problem. Films like the last two force you to listen to both sides, it may or may not change your opinon about abortion or for that matter Mrs. Robinson's lifestyle but it will allow you to develop converstation or cement your convictions. Very wise individuals have warned about judging others or situations until you have experienced them yourself or that you may think your situation is dire but honestly there is someone out there somewhere who has it much worse than you. In the films you were given a chance to think about different situations and how you might react. It can really be a learning experience, just like reading a book or attending a speaker.

 

The Cider House Rules is a movie that demonstrates the very controvertial topic of abortion.  It gave the arguement pro and con and the very real dilemma and different circumstances that can make the black and white go completely gray.  Will watching the movie change a person's stance on the topic of abortion?  Maybe and maybe not.  Using the stories of the orphans, the war, the incest/rape, all were displaying stories/considerations that should be considered before assuming all or no side to the argument.  It was not a propaganda film or a political documentary but a way that an author brought a very controversial topic before a very large and diverse segment of society. 

 

It was a very, very good movie and the part that stands out to me more than any part to the entire film that touch me in ways that I cannot express was Curly and his feeling like he wasn't good enough and wondering why.