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!