The Washington Post site dedicated to the film. Includes links to other sites with information about Watergate and the film, as well as the original news story by Woodward and Bernstein.

    Chapter 6 of Journalism in the Movies deals with films about conspiracy and paranoia. Ehrlich argues that the collapse of the Production Code, Vietnam, Watergate, stagflation, and other factors contributed to a general feeling of mistrust and angst in the 1970’s and that this feeling was reflected in the films made during the decade. To make his argument, he focuses on movies that center around the media and with journalists as crusaders against evil and corruption. Specifically, he compares the style and content of All the President’s Men and Network. While All the President’s Men portrays the men who work for the newspaper as “a shining beacon of truth,” Network focuses on a television network that is part of a larger evil involving the rest of corporate America. Additionally, while the former film was produced in documentary style, the later is exaggerated and satirical.
    More than any other aspect of the film, the image of the two young reporters remains in the minds of those who have seen it. Yet, as has been discussed at length, there is a controversy surrounding the accuracy of the portrayal of the journalists. Ehrlich analyzes the validity of this controversy by comparing he actual events of Watergate with the account of the journalists’ role in these events in the movie. According to Ehrlich, Nixon was reelected despite Woodward and Bernstein’s investigation, and he did not run into serious political trouble until the Senate hearings that occurred a year after the first article was published in the Washington Post. In fact, Nixon did not resign until after the book by the same name as the film was published. So, Ehrlich concludes, the reporters were certainly not responsible for Nixon’s fall from glory. However, the film accentuates their role by establishing the main characters as “fearless foes of corruption” in a mysterious and believable “documentary-noir” style executed by director Alan J. Pakula. The movie is relatively straightforward in its analysis of good and evil. The office of the Washington Post is brightly lit, while most of the rest of Washington D.C. is shrouded in darkness.
    As a result of their portrayal in All the President’s Men, Woodward and Bernstein have become the central players in America’s collective memory of Watergate. The screenwriter, Goldman, cut out parts of the book involving the senate hearings and many government figures who helped bring down the president, assuming that the audience could “fill in the rest of the story for themselves.” In 1976, this may have been the case. However, the movie has helped to determine which aspects of the story have been transferred “from fact to legend,” and the parts that we are expected to fill in become markedly less glamorous without the benefit of handsome actors and the infusion of drama through “shadowy scenes.” Even today, Woodward and Bernstein “remain securely ensconced in American mythology.”

An Annotated Bibliography of the film for FILM101 with Peter Decherney, Spring 2006. Researched and written by Jennifer Klein.