What stood out to you most about All the President's Men? What were your impressions of the film's representation of historical events? According to David Cook (in Lost Illusions) what impact that "bankable stars" such as Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford have on the film industry? After reading Chapter 8 of Lost Illusions, which of the various forces that affected the film industry do you see as being the most important and/or as having the most significant impact?
Friday, November 16, 2007
On All the President's Men
What stood out to you most about All the President's Men? What were your impressions of the film's representation of historical events? According to David Cook (in Lost Illusions) what impact that "bankable stars" such as Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford have on the film industry? After reading Chapter 8 of Lost Illusions, which of the various forces that affected the film industry do you see as being the most important and/or as having the most significant impact?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
43 comments:
Nicholas Naber
11.16.07
What stood out the most in All the Presidents Men had to be the pace of the film. It starts off slowly, and continues to pick up speed as they gather clues. This type of pacing allows you to learn more about the character of both Woodward and Bernstein, and how they go about gathering evidence and reporting the story. The representation of historical events is what the whole film is about. Without the Watergate scandal there would not have been this film. The events depicted in the film may be a bit embellished but for the most part it seems like the film is doing a good job or reporting on how these journalists got the story.
As Cook describes “bankable talent” Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman are on the top of the list. The “bankable talent” is stars that the public knows and has seen in many other films. The studios hire these actors because they help draw in an audience. They aren’t the driving factor of people going to see a film but just having them in it makes the film appeal to the public instead of having a film with a bunch of no names. Then as Cook discusses the constant use of these stars caused burn outs like Elliot Gould who did many films in the early seventies and fizzled doing. He did very few films in the late seventies and early eighties. One of the most important factors of the seventies for films was how the studio distributed them. As the Cook book talks about how the studios started to release films in multiplexes and showing the film as many times as they could in one day. This technique allows the studio to saturate the market with the film and get as much return on it as they possibly can.
This film is in my top 5 favorite ever and for good reason. My first impressions of this movie started at a very early age, when I was around 12 or 13. At that age I found it hard to understand (Of course), but I watched it with my brother who dissected it for a class, and to me I felt like him and I were the reporters (Cute isn’t it?). The mystery, the suspense, and paranoia are what drew me in. The details and records of what really happened are exact, and not fabricated. This might turn viewers off, because it might seem boring and dull. But I found it intriguing. I think it’s no surprise why I find the film “Zodiac” as my favorite film of this year. It follows the same format.
In the case of “All the President’s Men”, the star actors are the most important element that drives this film. I don’t know if it works that way with every film (“Jaws” didn’t have huge actors), but with this one it does. As I said before, people already find this film long and dull. To give it as much juice as they could, the producers found star quality in Redford and Hoffman. Certain films (Such as “President’s) need star quality to keep it afloat, but that doesn’t mean star quality is the most significant. Steven Spielberg was banking on a star actor for “Close Encounters” but ended up with Richard Dreyfuss (Who I loved in the film anyway). “Close Encounters” key elements were special effects and story telling, rather than actors.
plus, regardless of what people think of "Presidents", i find the movie one of the most pure entertaining films of our time. I'll take it over any special effects film. If people realize the significance of what two people went through to get to the truth then they'll understand. The film captured the realistic facts and quality (Even the feel of Washington D.C. look). If people still don't understand then screw it. You got my word. I'm done.
My favorite moments of All the President’s Men were when Robert Redford repeatedly had to meet his secret man on the inside, codenamed “Deep Throat”, in that dark parking lot. Each time they got closer to the center of the scandal, the scarier and more threatening that space became. The film did a good job on the conspiracy level behind the events, trying to replicate the first glimpses of what it was like to wake up and question the government in the 70s. The film also showed a portrait of what it’s like to work as a reporter in a big newspaper; never straying too far away from Hoffman or Redford. In fact these actors could have been the reason the film got distributed in the first place despite its controversial material. Lost Illusions sites Hollywood’s dependency on bankable stars as a signaling assists to a films success. Without assets such as these the film might’ve not been be picked up, at least by that producer. Cook writes, “Deal making replaced filmmaking as the principle activity of Hollywood.” Whatever yields the most money is the choice they will go with, sometimes even if it means sacrificing artistic integrity.
The film has definitely got to be in the top 10 political films of all time, if not just plain movies of all time. Actually, this is the first time I have ever seen this movie so I get to freshly dissect it!! After reading through Mr. Pakula's filmography, which started as director Robert Mulligan's producing partner on such flicks as FEAR STRIKES OUT (1957) and TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD (1962), I have decided he is one of the most political filmmakers ever. His credits include the FBI-investigative thriller KLUTE (1971), the conspiracy thriller THE PARALLEX VIEW (1974), and the supreme court justice assassination flick THE PELICAN BRIEF (1993). Of course it was a bit slow and tedious, but they were able to build the tension slowly as the film progressed.
I firmly believe that Pakula has what it takes to deal with a vast ensemble of newcomers and veterans in a film such as this. Not one single actor is miscast, not Hoffman, not Redford, not Holbrook, not Robards, not even Stephen Collins, of SEVENTH HEAVEN fame. I especially find it interesting that they showed a dimly lit face of Deep Throat (Hal Holbrook), when only a select few people even knew his true identity (he only recently came out of the woodwork). I hope that Hollywood continues to churn out movies as rare in artistic value as this in decades to come. The cinematography as well, although not as luscious as something like THE THIN RED LINE or SCHINDLER'S LIST, is very raw. In one scene, shot in a continuous 6-minute tracking shot, features star/co-producer Redford make a blooper at the end but he manages to stay in character. That, with the editorial choice to keep that take was one of artistic luck and genius. It makes the film all the more raw.
Trivia: The telephone number that Robert Redford dials for the White House is the real number of the White House Switchboard: 456-1414.
The thing that stood out most for me about “All the President’s Men” was the story. The movie is really only about a couple of reporters doing their job. Yet, as boring as watching two people at work, the film was able to keep my attention and made me want to know what would happen next. I thought the film went to great lengths to keep historical accuracy. The best example to the film’s representation to fact was its representation of deep thought. Deep through was always shown in shadow obscuring what he looks like. The film makers didn’t go to liberties to create an identity for him, they just shown that no one knew who he was, which for a long time was actually the case.
Bankable stars in the 1970’s were used to cut risk in the film industry. At this time, the studies debated whether any movie star would attract people to the movie theater. However, star appeal does help a movie better in rentals than a film that doesn’t, so studios began to use stars that haven been well received in the past in hopes to bring more money in the future. I think that the new way studies managed its money (both incoming and spending) was the most significant change of the time. It dictates nearly everything about the business and can be seen in the film industry today.
All the President’s Men was interesting for me because, unlike most of the films I’ve seen recently, nothing seemed to be left out. They followed every step of the story, even if it rendered the film nigh- impossible to watch, (at least for me.) This leads me to believe that, whatever else they added to the film in way of drama and personality, they followed the real events the film is based on pretty closely.
It was interesting to read in Cook how conflicted the results really were regarding the success of films with “bankable stars.” It’s nice to know that people didn’t all immediately roll over for a famous face regardless of the movie.
From what I’ve read in Cook, what really effected American cinema in the 70’s was, perhaps obviously, money. As things got better financially in Hollywood, bankable stars took the place of talented unknowns. It makes it somewhat ironic that so many of our big stars these days got their starts as unkons back in the 70’s. Sigh…
Dan Boville
I think one of the best parts of this film is the depth in which it covered the Watergate scandal. Before seeing this film, I felt that I knew a good deal of the scandal and what it entailed. There were many names and themes that contributed not only to the Watergate scandal but to the movie itself. I think the complexity of itself, along with character struggles made this movie excellent. I feel ‘bankable’ stars became big during this time and have influenced casting to this very day. I think the knowledge of talent that Redford and Hoffman had and the performance they proved showed that actors can be bankable, and pointed out prior to production. I feel money played the biggest role in the industry at this time. After the success of many movies, the industry realized the potential for bankable movie actors, directors, writers, etc. Money was being raked in at this time like never before and really showed the potential to make a buck. That to me seemed to be the biggest theme at this time in history.
It's interesting that I cannot think of one aspect of All the President's Men that stood out more than anything in the film. This doesn't mean I thought it was boring in any way, but this may be the first movie we've watched that doesn't have a large outstanding scene to be remembered by. I'll mention Woodward's parking garage meetings with "Deep Throat" since that has been imitated before, yet that didn't even seem like a stand out moment. All the President's Men is dealing with such a hot topic of that time that there was no real need for a lightning bolt scene. The material is so important and how the filmmakers handle all the information is what might be the most stand out point. In regards to the films representation of historical events, it seemed to play it straight, not glorifying anything. Since the film is dealing with fact there was no room for over dramatization, no female love interest, just WoodStein and Watergate. The story of the reporters is the historical event unfolding, not so much the changes in the government. We get a rush of events following the story being printed that fill us in on how the government's story plays out and it leaves you thinking about how much WoodStein influenced the change that occured.
The idea of having bankable stars was a hit and a miss at the time. Whoever was considered bankable was moreso than someone you've never heard of. People like Redford and Hoffman who were strongholds in the 70's, were able to make the films they wanted sculpting their "image". In the book, the stars are compared to actors in a television commercial, the movie being the product sold and putting Hoffman or Redford's face on it was a way to sell it. The bankable stars could have been "in charge of the studios," since they were calling the shots as to what movie would get made. An example lies in "The Missouri Breaks", whereas the film would not have even been made without Jack Nicholson and Brando being attached to the picture. They each recieved $1.25 million and a portion of the returns on a film that was a flop. So even when the product doesn't work, the stars are more than happy to hold it up and tell you buy it, because they're getting paid regardless.
I think the most significant impact to come out of the 70's was the package deal of agent, star and director (or producer). The drastic shift that agents went through alone has shifted the industry just as much. They started as middle men being paid mediocre wages until star bankability was seen as a selling point. The agent became the star behind the camera if you consider the percentage of what they made between their actor and the actor's film. Selling a team of people for a film, as in Jaws although Spielberg cast the film, assured the agents company would be making as much money as it could having three or four their members inside the production of a film.
The thing that stood out the most to me was that no one wants to be the rat because they feared for their lives from the US government. I thought this is America. I’m not to familiar with the event but I guess its pretty intense being a reporter. Everyone is against you including your boss and the law but at the same time is afraid of you as well. No one wants you to find out the truth but yet don’t want to get rid of you in fear of the public as well. “Bankable stars” skyrocketed the price to higher them. They are able to demand what they please such as not overexpose themselves. I believe that “The Agent Package” have the most impact on Hollywood because they are able to demand more money for their service as well as higher commissions.
Xiong, Koua
My favorite scene of the film is when Woodward and Bernstein's boss Ben Bradley says basically, "Screw it, we stand behind our boys." If one did not know about Watergate (although that would be VERY difficult when it was released), the audience wonders whether or not these reporters are on a fruitless search for the first half of the film. When Robards' character gives in and finally believes the two, the audience feels more at ease (or at least I did). I don't know why, but this moment sticks out in my mind.
I think the use of "bankable" stars certainly had the greatest impact on this film. Cook writes, "stars represent on of the few "brand names" in this business, and their appearance in a film is effectively a form of "character licensing" whereby they "endorse" that particular product." Watergate was certainly a controversial issue during the 1970s. A filmmaker had to be very careful to make the depiction of the scandal tasteful. The use of big names such as Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford was an endorsement of types. People who had viewed their previous work knew they were stars who picked films of substance. Thus, the public could be assured that this was going to be a well produced, well constructed film. If it was not, how could the film star such reputable actors?
All The President’s Men:
Aliya Shah
All The President’s Men are a conspiracy film about the Watergate scandal that depicts historical events that have severely impacted the American way of life. The film has various points that stand out to an audience in an obvious manner. For example, the split screen effect on a single take made it easier for an audience to focus not only on the main shot but also to clearly see everything happening in the background and surroundings. Objects such as doors and desks were used to separate what viewers should focus on from the background occurrences. The film was very dark, a majority of the shooting of the film made it hard to distinguish whether it was day or night.
I believe the film portrayed a good starting point depicting the Watergate scandal; however I was disappointed to see the major events of the revelation of the tapes, indictment, followed by the resignation of President Nixon to be cut out and simply put in teletype headlines at the end. The main focus of the interest to audience would have been to view a film remake of that particular portion of events.
According to David Cook in Lost Illusions, bankable stars such as Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford at times brought in the return of extremely high profits in the film industry as they were associated with the types of actors to make commercially successful films. They were a guaranteed success. After having read chapter eight of Lost Illusions, I felt the various forces that affected the film industry as having the most significant impact was the industry’s ability to relate to the general public with their fears after Watergate that oppressive forces were at work against individual liberty and the law could not have done anything to protect the citizens from them. A majority of Americans felt betrayed and the conspiracy film placed blame for American Society’s corruption on plotters pursuing secret agendas to control national life.
Shiraz Bhathena
One thing has and always will stand out to me in ‘All the President’s Men’, and that is the last shot of the film right before the typewriter sequence begins at the end. There is something odd about the way that it’s constructed. If you look at the left portion of the frame, the television is in complete focus, and the objects behind it, about 20 feet away, are completely out of focus. Yet, on the right side of the screen sit Woodward and Bernstein, both completely in focus and at the same distance that the objects that are out of focus behind the television are. It’s probably one of the most debated shots in film history, in terms of whether or not breaking that convention of focal points within the frame is allowable for a director of photography. The representation of historical events would be hard for me to judge, only because I know so little about the history that it’s based on. I will say this, however. I think that when a person sees a film, he or she usually takes for granted the events that occurred, if not the dialogue as well, not necessarily thinking about the fact that things are concocted sometimes to make the film move faster. For example, the second meeting with Deep Throat in the garage, where the car catches the two of them always makes me jump because I always think that Woodward is going to get caught, even though I know as a viewer that he never did get caught, and also that it probably never happened, and I should know better as a film student because of the overdramatic angles and overuse of the parallel editing that takes place. The director wishes me to feel nervous, and even though I don’t believe all that he is telling me, I allow it because I want him to let me capture that emotion of the events, even if it means over dramatizing them. Bankable stars in the industry, according to Cook, seemed to change the way the industry moved forward- all of a sudden actors were guaranteeing film success. The film’s about a midget who flies planes and has a sock fetish? No problem, Dustin Hoffman’s the main star! It’s sure to make this amount of money, so we’ll make it within this budget. A new way of thinking, of planning what the profits were going to be on a film, took place, and in the minds of many, destroyed Hollywood as we know it.
What stood out the most to me was the way that the story was presented. I've always kind of had a dislike for history and this movie does a great job of pulling you in. Like someone said earlier it starts out slow and it begins to build. There's this exhilarating sense of wonder and suspense as you, along with the reporters, learn what is really going on behind everyones back. The historical events are represented nicely throughout. There are many parts that build off what actually happened and the using of sound clips and video footage from the actual events give the movie more realism and believability. The "bankable stars" are the ones that everyone knew. They were the actors that the companies could fall back on to really sell their movie. If the movie itself couldn't get someone to see it then maybe their favorite actors could. Although the book goes on to state that this plan didn't always work. A well-known actor couldn't always save a horrible and doomed movie such as Fox's Cleopatra. I feel that the event that had the largest impact on the industry was the control the agencies. These entities were responsible for getting bankable stars and selling the movie to as many different theaters as possible. It was the switch from "creativity to deal making" that caused the biggest stir throughout the industry.
The thing that stood out the most in All the Presidents Men was the suspence. In the beginning of the film when they first start their investigation the film is very slow and keeps you interested because you want to know whats going to happen next. As the movie goes on they start getting more clues and then it picks up and I got really into it.
According to David Cook, Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford are considered to be "bankable stars" and they are important to the film industry because they are popular among films. By bringing in popular actors and having them in the movie, they will attract people to want to watch that movie, and therefore raise the sales of the movie.
Jorda Robbins
Melissa Neumann
November 20, 2007
The whole story of “All The President’s Men” is what really grabbed me. I never knew much about the Watergate Scandal and never really learned about it. After watching the movie, I became really fascinated with the whole subject, especially with the two reporters who broke the story. I was surprised with how secretive people were and how they feared for their lives if they talked much. The way the story was told was really good. It built up as it went along, and that really got me more and more into it. More could be learned about the reporters and the story. When I was told that it was about two reporters, I wasn’t sure how interesting it was, but I was wrong. The film really kept me interested and fascinated.
With bankable stars, movies in the 1970s were provided “a hedge against” (339). By using the popular stars of the time, the general public would be interested in seeing their favorites, causing them to be interested in seeing that movie. (With some of the movies of today, having a favorite actor or actress in a movie is a big reason I’ll see it.) These “bankable stars” gave the movie more attraction. And in the case of “All The President’s Men.” Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman were top actors of the decade. By using the “hot actors,” the movie was mostly guaranteed more profit, making “bankable stars” an important aspect.
Brian Cooney
The realism of the story stood out most to me. The director exchanges an always exciting story for an honestly told story. Most directors would try and make an entertaining movie with a few Hollywood liberties, rather than tell the true tale. This film represented the historical events perfectly. They didn’t make up a character for Deep Throat, and they executed the secrecy of the meetings very well. The scene that was most Hollywoodized for me was when Redford is talking with Deep Throat and they get caught. Redford turns around for a second, and when he turns back, Deep Throat is gone. That is very conventional of action and horror films in Hollywood today. Bankable stars come in handy for one reason only, money. They bring in the audiences. I think bankable stars have a negative effect on the film industry. Back when studios used to own actors, they would put them into movie after movie, no matter what the part, just for the name. This negatively affects the actors’ attitudes and the quality of the films themselves. Cook comments on the immense profits the big-name actors brought in for the films. Success was basically guaranteed, even if the film was awful. I think the way of booking movies was the most significant force because saturation booking is almost universally used today with new release films.
Christian Turckes
I think what stood out most in this movie, or at least in my opinion was how well it showed the United States Government being a corrupt power. I think it was a big part of the movie, because I think back in the 70s, people probably blindly trusted the government, and they actually believed that our government could do no wrong. I believe that if this movie was made today, about a more recent president, saying it had the same plot, it wouldn’t have that big of an effect on people.
I think that having “bankable stars” in this type of movie, a political movie, helps greatly, because people probably wanted to see the movie regardless of who is in it, but having two big name actors in it gives more people an incentive to go see it. I believe that even a person who isn’t a fan of political movies could see this movie, and appreciate it for the acting performances of both Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford, who in my opinion did an amazing job in this movie.
I think that obviously money had the most significant impact, because movies were making more money, and being played in theaters to ridiculous amounts throughout the day. I believe that money was really the main focus of the people making the movies, and the theaters, and there’s nothing wrong with that, they are just trying to get as much back as possible, so they can continue to make more movies.
The fact that this film shows a representation of a historical event, Watergate, is what stood out to me most. This was the biggest story of the 1970's and one of the biggest stories in the history of the United States. I like the way they showed how journalist worked. I was a young child when Watergate happened and remembered see the senate hearings on television. In 1976, the nation was trying to get over Watergate. The nation was celebrating the bicentennial and had elected Jimmy Carter President of the United States. I think the fact that you had two of the most bankable talents of this time and a story everyone knew about made this film popular. The idea of having a bankable talent became an important part of packaging a film. Movies in the mid-1970's and after became more dependent on having that edge that would bring people into the theater to see the film. Having a bankable talent was one of those things that gave a movie and edge but it was not sure thing. A movie could have a bankable talent and still be a flop.
What stood out about All the Presidents Men is the way in which it drew itself out. It was not your fast paced “Hollywood” movie that one normally sees. The movie just comes at its own pace, we meet the characters at the movies pace, we get introduced to a some characters in a somewhat awkwardly, for example Redford’s character on his bed talking on the phone or Hoffman being introduced as kind of a dick in changing Redford’s work. I think the film accurately represented the events of what was at least known at the time.
Cook listed the bankable stars and Redford and Hoffman fit the mold, what these people do is build the movies hype which can make it do much better at the box office. As many have said before me, it’s about the studios making more money while trying to not over saturate the stars.
Was such a good movie, a lot of noteable qualities, great cast or actors, gripping story,
All the President’s Men was a fine movie with many notable qualities. Its great cast and gripping story are probably what sticks out the most to me. There was an authentic feel throughout the film in its representation of historical events, everything seemed accurate. Having bankable stars in a picture made the studios more comfortable in making said picture because the popularity of the actor would increase awareness of the film and give viewers another reason to see it. Bankable stars would help ensure returned investments, especially through rentals. The money which poured into Hollywood after their extended drought is a hard factor to ignore when determining exactly what had the most significant impact on the film industry at this time. The resources helped reinforce the tactics of saturation booking with bankable stars, since they could see how well it worked. And this really impacted the shift in the way films were made. Making money became the top priority in filmmaking, and creativity and quality took a back seat. Hollywood didn’t care, as long as they were profiting.
Nathan Pratt
What stood out most to me in All the Presidents Men was the increasing pace and suspense that added up as the movie progressed. The pace speed up as they received more clues which lead them closer and closer to solving the case which kept me as a viewer intrigued by the film. The historical elements of the film were portrayed accurately and didn't change to add to the film, which was all that was needed to show the scandal of Watergate.
According to Cook stars such as Hoffman and Redford or "bankable stars" are known actors who are used to bring in the audiences from their previous films because of their fan base. I Believe that the introduction of the agent, star, and director combo that changed the industry drastically by introducing the middleman or agent into the deal to discuss the actors terms for the movie which showed the change from creativity to moneymaking schemes in the industry.
What stood out to me was the subtle comedy in the film. I should have chosen something aesthetic, but compared to the rest of the films we've seen, this was the only film I could think of that didn't have obvious jokes or comic relief characters, it just real life comedy, especially from Dustin Hoffman, and it worked well in the film because it still stayed dramatic but didn't become somber or straightlaced.
And as others have said, it went well with the pace of the film. The director knew when to take his time with a scene and the delivery of the actors was dead on.
"Bankable stars" are beneficial to the film industry because it brings awareness to otherwise little seen films. Film geeks and those in the industry would most likely see a film because of the story or an article they read, but to the general public who enjoy a movie every now and then wouldn't want to take a chance to see a little known film. When actors that the public are familiar with are the stars, it brings a sense of familiarity, and the audience are willing to give the film a chance because of a previous film they saw with that particular actor.
What is ironic is how some of these 'bankable' actors were virtual unknowns early on in that era of filmmaking, including Dustin Hoffman and Gene Hackman. It usually took a little film that could to bring awareness to them and then they became bankable and studios were willing to shell out the money.
I think the driving force around this time was these actors. The first few films we watched did include famous actors, but they weren't in conventional roles or convential films. Peter Fonda in a trippy 'Easy Rider' and 'Warren Beatty' as an impotent robber. People didn't want to see it, and although those films are highly regarded, they weren't 'hits' compared to 'Chinatown' and 'THe Godfather' who had stars such as Jack Nicholsan and the comeback of Marlon Brando and so on.
I agree with Nicholas that the pace of the film stood out to me. When I first saw the film in high school film class (far too long ago!) I knew what it was about and was slightly frustrated about the beginning being on the slower side. I was like get to the meat of it already. But once I saw it and seeing it again, I feel that the pace is great and it keeps you engaged and you learn about the characters a bit more. It's also a film where if feels like you're following Woodward and Bernstein around and you're in on the action. It draws you in and it's very real feeling.
I think the impact of using Redford and Hoffman was obvious, to get people in the theatre. The Cook book states that Hollywood depended on "bankable stars" to move films along, to get them out. I think the fact that those two bigger names were in the film helped with distribution being that the subject was troublesome to the country. Without bigger names in the film it might not have been picked up.
~Tara L. Vickery~
What really stood out for me in "All the President's Men" was how appealing the story of two news reporters could be. I have seen reality or factual based films about news reporters before in which they would do their typical investigations and find something crazy like in this film. However "All the President's Men" was so fast paced it kept you on the edge of your seat throughout the film. What impresses me with this however is how historically accurate it is. After leaving class I was sure this story had been twisted around quite a bit to intensify the story and to increase drama. But after reading the Cook book I was simply amazed and how accurate the story really is.
The use of “blankable” stars is huge in this film because as the Cook book states, actors are like brand names, and when those names are on the film, it just looks and comes across better. With actors like Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford the audience knew what they were getting. Both had somewhat established film careers prior to this film, and with a film with such delicacy, it was almost needed to have actors that had been established so that rather than focusing on acting school, the storyline and the pulp of the film could be delivered. Around this time film companies started using a strategy called multiplexes releases, where films were shown as much as often as possible to gain the maximum return on all their expenses.
What struck me the most about All the President's Men was the way in which it stands out almost like a documentary. Pakula took a very objective approach to the film, which one would have to do considering the subject matter. However, it is shot with a documentary feel, in which we are always simply sitting over to the side and watching events unfold as they did in real life. The viewer is shown small glimpses into how the story affects the lives of Woodward and Bernstein, but overall, the film never shows more than it needs to. We are given the facts of the case and are able to go from there.
There were many new attributes to the filmmaking business in the 1970s, and I feel that star power has proven to be the most effective and remains so to this day. Redford and Hoffman contributed to this aspect of the business when they became A list stars who could get a film made simply because of their name. The same idea continues today, only on a bigger scale, with stars demanding a large upfront salary and a small, yet significant percentage of the film's profits.
What stood out to me was the pacing and the characters in "All the President's Men". It's amazing to me the wide encompassing characters that Dustin Hoffman has portrayed, just looking back to Straw Dogs alone. The pacing starts pout slow to allow for character development. This is definitely a plot driven movie, though there is much character development throughout. Even the end is well know, the viewer can get caught up in the action as the drama unfolds.
Cook describes "bankable talent" as stars that have become well known through their success with other films. This became a draw to the audiences because they then expeted the same phenomenon in their next film. This became a good marketing ploy and actuallydrew audiences in raising sales, contributing to the success of blockbusters, even today.
--Jennifer Campbell
Tegan Olness
All the President’s Men was one of the most interesting films that I have seen. It was a great way to present the Watergate scandal through the eyes of a newspaper. The most intriguing thing about this film was the perseverance of the two newspaper writers. The development of the characters progresses throughout the film. When turned away at the door, these reporters would keep going. There struggle is well preserved and identified in this film. I think that this film accurately portrayed the characters. The film was made shortly after the Watergate Scandal. Everyone in this film and participating with it was around during the Watergate Scandal. They all had personal reactions and ideas relating to this situation. I believe that these ideas are minimally displayed with the main historical content staying true to its origins.
The bankable stars, Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford, had a strong impact on the film industry. These big name actors are hired by studios to draw in audiences. These stars promote the film. This way the audience is made up of fans interested in the movie and fans interested in the bankable stars. A really good movie may not sell well in the theatres if there are no bankable stars. As cook mentions, the most important factor affecting the film industry was the use of the bankable stars. Bankable stars were important, but using the same stars repeatedly caused them to be overworked and not perform as well. These actors would become burned out and stop working later in their career. This had a large impact on the actors and the industry.
On the whole, the film was a very successful mystery, especially to us young folk who don't know a whole lot about the specifics of Watergate. Focus was kept on the uncovering of the scandal by making the film itself as unobtrusive as can be--I can't remember a very prominent score, and there was no distracting editing or pretentious composition. I think the use of real footage from newscasts helped the film seem more documentary.
To an audience all-too-familiar with Watergate, the pacing and stars of the film kept interest piqued. In fact, the fact that two of the most bankable stars that year were in the film is probably one of the biggest reasons it was made. The timing doesn't seem right to me, since it was only a few years after Watergate happened, but I guess Redford and Hoffman were popular enough to overcome the fact that people were probably still sick of hearing about Watergate.
Also, that shot that Shiraz was talking about... I noticed it too and I don't understand how they did it, and it's been bugging me ever since.
The most memorable aspect of the film All the President’s Men was the subject matter. This not only applies to plot line based on real life corruption and scandal, but also on the portrayal of journalism in the film. This film contrasted the large lack of accountability from those interviewed with the responsibility the journalists felt to revealing what they felt was crucial information to the public despite the fact their investigation could have a negative effect on their personal lives, well-being, and careers. This film revealed how the press can claim responsibility for the portrayal of important events, and not only is a film about a major conspiracy, but also is a tribute to journalistic integrity. Through its portrayal, it reveals an aspect of journalism that is not concentrated on sensational stories, but rather concerned about the best representation of the general public. These concepts are portrayed very effectively through the dynamic characters played by Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman. Since this is a film and not a documentary, there are probably going to be creative liberties taken, especially when increasing the dramatization in the film. However, while a dramatized version of events, the film is still meant to be a representation and interpretation of events that actually occurred. The drama found in the film may be fictionalized, but the events in the film are not fictionalized and while dramatized, the film is meant to be an overall accurate portrayal of events that actually occurred.
The concept of bankable stars directly applies to another concept contained in Lost Illusions in regards to an interest in what were considered safe, secure films, or in other words films that contained a minimal risk potential. Based on certain financial changes in regards to film corporations, such as certain tax incentives, the film companies began to grow more interested in films that might minimize any potential financial risk. While intriguing, the subject matter found in the film All the President’s Men would not have been considered a radical or risky financial endeavor. The subject matter found in the film was of great public interest at the time, and many other conspiracy based films were popular during this time period. Therefore, a film company would probably not be overwhelmingly concerned about taking a financial risk on a film like All the President’s Men. The bankable stars would also be used to minimize any financial risk in regards to the film. Since the audience would be more familiar with stars they had previously viewed then any other aspect of an upcoming film, movie companies felt that the fact that the audience was already familiar with the star’s acting talent and involvement in other popular films would possibly serve as justification for audiences to view upcoming films. However, even these tactics didn’t always prove as effective as many studios hoped. Familiarity with popular film stars proved to be both a positive and negative attribute, mainly because this familiarity increased preconceived notions and judgment on particular actors and their work. This was effective when an audience had a favorable view of an actor, however, when audiences began to have an unfavorable view of an actor, such as a view of possible redundant portrayals, this tactic proved ineffective in attracting a main audience. For this reason, while bankable stars could increase the possible success of a movie, it was no guarantee that a film could use this tactic and always appeal to a general audience.
What I liked most about All the President's Men was the evolution of the plot from plain suspenseful to conspiracy theory. Much like Chinatown there is a whole elaborate scheme that we slowly piece together as more and more clues are uncovered throughout the movie. Different from Chinatown however, is the larger scale of the secret plot in All the President's Men. Instead of a rich man covertly and illegally trying to increase his wealth, All the President's Men has a more epic plot of the whole American government stealthily doing unlawful things that have a much greater affect on the American people than just Chinatown's plot. The pace of both Chinatown and All the President's Men was slow at first but then picked up to a pretty thrilling speed, which spices up the mystery theme.
This film seemed to ring pretty true to what it must have actually been like to report on the Watergate story. Fear, frustration, excitement, and inquisitiveness were all portrayed very well in this picture. All the employees and even 'deep throat' were afraid to go on the record, be seen talking to the reporters, and even talk about their work at all. The reporters and their editors showed frustration when nobody would talk to them or the trail turned cold. The scene after caffeine fiend Dustin Hoffman interrogates the woman about initials was great for depicting excitement. Redford and Hoffman are rattling out potential names for the initials and they get all jazzed up because they're finally getting some answers. It was getting so exciting to watch that the bit where Hoffman throws Redford a cookie only for Redford to hurriedly place it next to him saying he doesn't want it seemed like necessary comic relief. Lastly, the reporters' unrelenting inquisitiveness, the reason why Watergate was uncovered in the first place despite all the cover-up, was portrayed very well. The reporters showed nothing but dedication to their story and went to great lengths finding out the facts.
Cook refers to bankable stars as actors who've been in many movies and are well known to the public. Any movie is more appealing so long as it has an actor you're familiar with and who has done other good films. Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman certainly fit the bill and helped draw many to the film as basic celebrity spokesmen.
This far into the course, the most significant impact on the film industry to me is still saturation booking. Playing films in multiplexes as many times a day as possible to generate as much revenue as possible seems to be why the film industry plays such a significant entertainment role in our society. Saturation booking helped to make movies a staple in our society, and thus created a vast market for film makers to tap for revenue. All this available revenue means more competition between the best film making companies. In the end, the viewers win because this competition breeds great films since great films make the most profit. Dinner and a movie wouldn't be such a mainstream date line-up if A) diverse movies weren't available in one convenient multiplex and B) if movies weren't conveniently playing at virtually any time at night.
Dylan Statz (301-004)
What stood out the most for me was the setting and time. It kept jumping from day to night to day to night. Both of the main characters did most of their research at night when they suspect that no one will follow or watch them. I thought that this film was very interesting because of all the facts and connection to history. It was very slow at first but once they started researching, the pace picked up and it just started rolling till the end. It was very exciting just to see the two main characters doing their research and getting sources for the Watergate scandal. Since the film doesn’t seemed as exciting if one haven’t seen the movie, I think that the big name stars like Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford would give the film an extra boost. “Stars can be counted on to bring money into the box office” (Cook 399). People would want to watch a film because they are familiar with the actors and actress and it appeals to the audience more. I think that the distribution of the film makes the most impact in the film industry because it determines the income of a film during the late 70s and 80s.
I think the most noticeable aspect of the film had to be the darkness. A lot of the shots were not super bright and there were a lot of heavy shadows. And then of course there were the garage scenes with Deep Throat that had a very mysterious lighting aspect, but that was more expected than others. For instance, when Hoffman and Redford walk into the homes of some of the other men, the homes are dark and badly lit. It feels like something is wrong in them. i like how the film just focused on the beginnings of the scandal. It shows the prelude to the Nixon stuff. The end sums up the more well known names in the scandal by showing the printing press. It is also more intriguing to watch this film in the last few years because we finally know who Deep Throat really was and that it kind of makes the movie more powerful knowing that a man hid his identity for so long after helping expose a huge scandal in washington.
As for talent, major actors help sell. In the case of All The Presidents Men, of course it had major attractions, its Hoffman and Redford. They still get a huge buzz around their works today. It's almost common knowledge that if they are in a movie, it's going to be good. More recent ones have been debatable, but that's because tastes are changing. It's like the Departed, how many well known actors are in that movie? Why are they well known? Cause they are good at what they do. Leo has come a long way since Titanic, it's true.
As for studio success, multiple showings and allowing greater public access to their films definitely helped the rise of their success. Larger audiences are more possible, smaller ticket prices could happen grabbing more people to make a bigger profit. Marketing became stronger with the rise of well known actors the new generations could relate to. Change helped every aspect of the studio productions.
I love how the movie builds and builds as you grow further and deeper into it. The movie starts off kind of slow but it kind of just steps into the heart of things right away. You learn about the main characters, Woodward and Bernstein, as they interact with each other and people surrounding the investigation. You come to understand the dedication and lifestyles of two young reporters during some troubled political times. I felt the movie did a good job of staying on the Watergate subject while still allowing the viewers to get a feel for the different people working for the Washington Post and for Nixon. As for 'bankable talent,' this film didn't disappoint. Both Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman were in the prime of their respective careers and were very noticeable to movie goers of this time period. These men had done a number of big time movies prior to this and it probably helped draw crowds, even if the crowds weren't into a political movie. People would go just to see their favorite actors in a well done and interesting movie. It was important that the studio get some bigger name and actual GREAT actors for such a serious movie. It's not a very 'flashy' movie in terms of buildings blowing up, a giant shark, a man with a chainsaw slaying kids. This made it all the more important to bring in some of the best actors of the time to carry it through and still be extremely entertaining. Chris Krombach
What stood out most to me was the level of suspense that the film was able to conjure up. I had never seen this film before and I must say that I felt a level of paranoia right along side the two main characters as the plot continued to unfold.
I can't say that I know all that much about the watergate scandal so I don't know how accurate the film is to the actual event but it definitely kept my interest throughout the whole film.
Having "bankable stars" as Cook described, was a way that the studio that would be the best way of getting audiences to come to a film. Even today, the idea of "bankable stars" still effects the productions of movies.
~Jonathan Porter
"All the President's Men" was a great movie because it had the perfect balance of truth and suspense. The truth of the movie is based on the fact the the events are real and the audience knows where the story is going more so than the characters in it. And the time of the release was only shortly after the real scandal and the public must have been hungry for the dramatized version. The suspense was also intense because you felt the same fear as Redford and Hoffman's characters feel. All though you never see any danger you can't help but feel the inherent danger that these men must have felt.
Cook's discussion about bankable talent is very relevant to All the Presidents Men. Both of the leads in the film were on the list of bankable stars because of their stellar performances. Regardless of plot of a film I will see any movie with Dustin Hoffman because i love him as an actor. Its this mindset that makes bankable stars so important. People will follow the stars they like. On top of this many movies need that clinching factor and the star studded cast provides just that
brennan olena
As one of the first films about such a controversial event, it did a phenomenal job displaying the facts and they way they were discovered. That is really what stood out the most to me about All the President’s Men. The way that the film grabs the viewer and brings them right into the search for answers it makes the audience feel like Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford.
Cook talks about “bankable talent” and how they were used in many films to make sure the films they were in would not fail. When audiences look at a movie poster and see a well-known actor/ actress, they are usually more attracted to the movie then they would be if they did not know of the actor/actress. Many people did not know who the directors were because they were all new to the industry and these are the films that made them into the great directors that we know them as now.
Nathan Radoszewski
What I especially appreciate about "ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN" is the idea that within the parameters of a true story, the filmmaker was able to incorporate a historically accurate film, a psychological thriller and a paranoid delve into the political workings of a governmental institution. Usually, the more historically accurate a film is, the more it loses the narrative hooks and cinema-friendly twists that keep audiences riveted. Throughout the entire film, it stays grounded enough to remind people that the story is true (as some "true stories" take so many cinematic liberties that it feels made up...braveheart, for instance, would qualify), while maintaining the feeling of governmental power and paranoia of a overwhelming strength.
"Bankable Talent" is what the studio does when it wants a character to draw an audience, regardless of the film itself. Certain actors that the public knows and likes have the ability to draw people, as they have a certain celebrity and popularity. Some actors simply have a built in audience...for instance, I will see any Angelina Jolie movie...regardless of how crappy the movie it is. ANY. If a film has a large cast of A-list recognizable talent, it gives both an big-budget authenticated appeal of hollywood movies. This goes with the idea in Cook's book of oversaturation of movies playing at multiplexes to get as much return of films as possible, multiple screens and screenings per day. Besides, even in film, the answer to 99 out 100 questions is simple...money.
Colin Stone
Kevin Stephan
11.21.07
What stood out most to me that wasnt in many other movies except jaws in my eyes, was that we saw the characters develope in front of us. Most of the movies we watched earlier didnt concentrate on this but in all the presidentes men, they lead us to what the characters were really like. I think they chose the right "bankable" stars because those two are very reliable to give a good perefromance, and i think it made there careers start out in the right place. The main thing that is now coming in hollywood movies, is def the money, companies are now being able to get more and more money for everything, which means they can hire good well known actors instead of nobodys, that people dont really care about.
The thing that stood out the most in the film, I believe was the slowly developing tension both Redford and Hoffman began to feel as they dug deeper into the conspiracy. You could tell that they began to fear for their lives near the end of the film. For example, the scene where Deep Throat tells Redford that his life may be endangered and he begins to run home thinking somebody is following him. If this happened to both Woodward and Bernstein I do not know, but it sure did have me clinging to the seat waiting to see what would happen next.
As for the bankable stars, I really do not feel that this film necessarily needed to resort to having not only 1 bankable star but 2, because this was such a hot topic during the 70’s. However, Cook did say that using bankable stars was merely a safety measure used to ensure that the movie would at least attract enough to break even.
According to Cook, television pushed cinemas to enhance the experience of movie viewing. With television in almost every household, possible movie goers no longer had to leave their houses to watch movies. To enhance the experience of watching a movie at the theatre, as apposed to watching it at home, cinemas introduced surround sound. They also advertised that one was able to view the whole movie instead of only a shorter version which you would see on television due to time slots and editing.
News media is different in the Network then in All The President’s Men because it is showing how corrupt news can be and how evil it is. By only showing one point of view and only certain news segments, news and television corporations are able to control purchasing habits of the viewers. In All The President’s Men, the news is shown as the hero of the movie. If it was not for the Washington Post, then the Watergate scandal would have never been broken and the crooks would have gotten away.
Watching this movie made me realize how many cliches and stereotypes spawned from this film and iconic moments, like when redford is being followed by someone matching his footsteps. genius.
Anyway, what really caught me in this film was the pace and the finely crafted story of the film. It really shows that even a film that has big names can impress on script alone, (ala' Network, a film with not so big names, and has one of the best scripts ever conceived by a pen and paper) The pace of the story builds and lets you find out what really makes hoffman and redford click, you get to see corruption turn people around and it keeps building until the final climatic charge that nixon is in on it. this film really glamorized the whole ordeal but i think it fits with the times, a country in no stable status, really needed something informational but exciting and productive to raise sense in the people and gain more moral for things going on such as vietnam. The events in the film are very historically accurate for a film made at this time, now its no period film like chinatown, but it really comes across as one at times.
Cook explains that the actors used were Bankable, meaning that it the film was a flop it would still be a hit. redford and hoffman were vary well known, and very public, that this film even with its go no where title still could appeal to a large range of audiences. In reality though financially the success of this film is probably due too their presence but the film is good because of the film, its more gripping then straw dogs, and more suspenseful then texas chainsaw. this really defined a new era for spy thrillers and conspiracy movies all together.
Many films of the 1970s echo Watergate, or make allusions to government corruption. However, the fact that All The Presidents Men deals directly with the events surrounding the Watergate scandal make it stand out, even against the other politically tinted films of the era such as The Network or The Conversation. Having not experienced the cultural events the film deals with, it might be hard for someone of this generation to comment on the film's use of historical events, however they seem to be well researched, and at the very least, used in an interesting and entertaining way.
Historical facts not withstanding, through the 1970s, despite the fact that many banks and executives were wary about spending money on star-talent in films, "bankable" stars still helped bring people in to see a movie. Especially in a movie like All The President's men that could be seen as long, dull, and overly complex, some amount of star talent ensured a certain level of box office revenue. The major studios were willing to hedge their bets and spend the money on stars wherever they could.
Post a Comment