I’m stuck on a Film question and need an explanation.
You are to read some articles and answer 2 questions out of 4. The questions are based on the readings.
The following questions are based on the readings(links will be provided): ANSWER TWO
Q1: An editor at the Washington Post questioned the wisdom of putting the relatively new Woodward and slightly more seasoned Bernstein (who, we learn in the film, had almost been fired) on the Watergate story. In their defense,
editor Rosenfeld stated: “they’re hungry. You remember when you were hungry?” What does being “hungry” mean in the context of this movie and these characters? Is there something you’re hungry about? (If so, explain and use an example or incident from life to illustrate your point).
Q2: According to Erlich: “All the President’s Men dispensed with the familiar journalism movie contrast between the protagonists’ professional and domestic lives to focus solely on the reporters pursuing the story, driven by their ambition to make their names at the paper.” In terms of cinematic storytelling, was this a “good” or a “not so good” decision (not to include the reporters’ personal or romantic lives)? In your response, cite a specific scene to support your point.
Q3: Compare and contrast the portrayal of Washington Post Editor Ben Bradlee
in “The Post” and in “All the President’s Men.” Which portrayal was more credible and/or effective? Be sure to back up your response with a specific scene from each movie.
Q4: According to cultural critic Michael Schudson (cited in Erlich): “When journalists are doing their jobs, they are on the sidelines, the transcribers, perhaps the watchdogs, but not the central actors, of society’s dramas. In contrast, the Post reporters made themselves the protagonists of their account of investigating Watergate.” What would the film have “looked like” had the journalists been portrayed more on the sidelines? (Would it have been a “better”movie?) Use a specific scene to illustrate your response.