Image by OpenClipart-Vectors from Pixabay Another film from the book “1,001 Movies You Must See Before You Die” by Steven Jay Schneider that I expected to enjoy but ended up disappointing me is the 1976 political drama: All the President’s Men.
[NOTE: This blog will contain spoilers for “All the President’s Men.” You have been warned.] The History While doing promotion for the 1972 political comedy The Candidate, Robert Redford (The Sting, Out of Africa, The Old Man & the Gun) became curious about the Watergate scandal. After reading stories in the Washington Post by journalists Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, he purchased the film rights to their 1974 non-fiction book on Watergate for just under half-a-million dollars with the hopes of adapting it on a five-million-dollar budget. In 1974, Redford hired William Goldman (Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Princess Bride) to write the script. Once Goldman’s screenplay was shown to Warner Brothers, they agreed to finance the project. Due to Redford disliking Goldman’s first draft and offering up an alternative draft by Bernstein and his at-the-time girlfriend, Nora Ephron (When Harry Met Sally…, Sleepless in Seattle), Goldman was incredibly offended (Redford later admitted he disliked the Bernstein-Ephron draft). Alan J. Pakula (Sophie’s Choice, The Pelican Brief) was hired to direct shortly thereafter, and he requested rewrites from Goldman as well as spent hours taking notes of comments from journalists while interviewing them. Ultimately, Goldman received sole writing credit for the movie. Initially, Redford wanted to cast relative newcomer Al Pacino (Dog Day Afternoon, Scarface, Scent of a Woman) as Bernstein but decided that Dustin Hoffman (The Graduate, Kramer vs. Kramer, Rain Man) fit the role better. Several actors were considered for the role of Washington Post executive editor Ben Bradlee, from Henry Fonda (The Grapes of Wrath, 12 Angry Men) and Christopher Plummer (The Sound of Music, Knives Out) to Gene Hackman (Mississippi Burning, The Royal Tenenbaums), but Redford’s first choice for the role was always Jason Robards (Tora! Tora! Tora!, Philadelphia). Both Hoffman and Redford spent months immersed at the offices of The Washington Post, sitting in on conferences and researching their roles. However, the Post prevented any filming to be done in their actual newsroom so the production team for the project spent $200,000 building an exact replica at Burbank Studios based on photographs they took of the real newsroom. This included buying 200 desks from the same firm that sold desks to the Post to furnish the set. Filming took place in Washington, D.C. during the summer of 1975. Filmed on a budget of 8.5 million dollars, All the President’s Men was released on April 4, 1976 and ended up grossing over 70 million dollars at the box office. It was also mostly praised by critics for its genuine portrayal of the work of journalists and the importance of a free press. While some criticized the writing, the movie did earn an Academy Award for Goldman’s screenplay (in addition to two other Oscars for Supporting Actor for Robards and Art Direction). In 2010, the film was selected by the Library of Congress to be preserved in the National Film Registry for its cultural, historical, or aesthetic significance. The Cons This blog is gonna be short and sweet, because my primary objection to All the President’s Men can be boiled down to this: it’s boring. For many film fanatics and cinephiles, the worst cardinal sin that a movie can commit is boring you to the point of wanting to turn your TV off or walk out of the theater. And that was my experience watching this movie. To be clear, I have enjoyed plenty of other films about journalism. Specifically, I love how Zodiac portrays the manhunt for the “Zodiac Killer” in the 1960s and 70s. I enjoyed Spotlight examining the gritty work done to expose a sex scandal in the Boston Catholic church. I really liked how Frost/Nixon dramatized the 1977 Frost/Nixon interviews while also retaining the contemporary imperative of hearing the former President of the United States speak on his legacy. I even liked Steven Spielberg’s The Post, which highlights the journalism of The Washington Post during the 1970s! What did all of those movies have that All the President’s Men does not? I’m not entirely sure, but I know that whatever they had it made those films interesting to watch. I wanted to keep watching, and I cannot say that I felt that way during this movie. Ultimately, I think it comes down to compelling characters that feel both grounded in the reality of their job and their passion for the story coming through to make me have a vested interest in their work uncovering the truth for the benefit of all. I never really felt that during All the President’s Men. The Pros I have very little nice to say about this movie. If anything, I am glad I watched it to see Robert Redford on screen some as well as the infamous “Deep Throat” scenes. But, at the end of the day, I just wanted more out of a movie exploring the journalism behind the Watergate scandal and am hopeful that we will get one at some point. I want to see this story done well, but I firmly believe that All the President’s Men lacks that timeless quality needed to make it a true classic. So, what are my final impressions of All the President’s Men? Honestly, very little because I was bored. It left virtually no impression on me and only reinforced my preference for modern movies because they appeal more to my sensibilities regarding what I need out a film (are likeable protagonists and compelling narrative too much to ask? 😊). What do you think about All the President’s Men? Do you think I am being too harsh on it? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Austin McManusI have no academic or professional background in film production or criticism; I simply love watching and talking about movies. Archives
July 2024
Categories
All
|