Talk:All the President's Men (film)

Reagan Assassination Attempt

During the scene where Robert Redford (portraying Bob Woodward) leaves the parking garage, after a fast moving exiting car scares away Deep Throat, Woodward walks away from the parking garage and right through what appears to be the street and sidewalk near the T Street exit of the Washington Hilton Hotel.

While the location of the actual meeting with Deep Throat may be, and probably is, in a different location. The location of the filming of this event appears to be the same location as the Reagan assassination attempt by John Hinckley, Jr. on March 30, 1981.

If this is correct, perhaps an editor with good knowledge of this location could add a passage about this historical coincidence to the main article. After all, if the location is the same, then that means that the place where a film was done about the end of one U.S. Presidency was, five years later, the place where another U.S. Presidency almost ended as well.

72.82.179.96 23:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Deep Throat and W. Mark Felt

I've removed the name of Mark Felt from the cast, because at the time of the film the identity of Deep Throat was not known to anyone involved in it. Hal Holbrook was not playing Mark Felt but an anonymous informant. Also, it's known that his most famous line "follow the money" was invented for the film and was not part of anything Deep Throat said to Bob Woodward. Sam Blacketer 10:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 15:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Original research

I've removed the following section from the main article as it was unsourced and is original research. --J.D. (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Ethical Dimensions

Sometimes this film is assigned in journalism ethics classes for the heavily-disputed ethical dilemma of using anonymous sources when they are central to the reporting of a story. Revealing the Watergate scandal in its entirety would have been impossible without the help of Deep Throat. Furthermore, much of the information gained from government officials was printed unattached to the name of its provider. To continue moving the investigation forward, the promise of anonymity had to be made, but outside of a case connected with high ups that rise all the way to the President, how can the use of anonymous sources be deemed necessary and ethical?

The use of unnamed sources usually occurs in light of extraordinary circumstances when no other way can be found disclose information to the public that is crucial to their well being. In addition, for most papers to quote or use anonymous sources, other requirements usually need to be met. In a letter sent out to all AP associated papers in 2005, Mike Silverman and Kathleen Carroll, AP Managing Editor and AP Executive Editor, respectively, reminded news staffs across the country that AP policies state anonymous sources are only to be used when the information provided is fact and not opinion; the information is not available unless anonymity can be provided; and the source is in a position to provide credible information. Furthermore, when anonymous sources are used, an explanation to the readers must be given to describe the reasoning behind using unnamed sources in order to prevent any damage to the reputation of journalism's credibility.

Even with these requirements, about one in four editors around the country said, in response to a survey done by the AP and the APME, that they won't use anonymous sources under any conditions because it promotes the use of incredible information. To escape the dagger of incredibility, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein used secondary sources to backup the information given by anonymous sources. This practice has become the benchmark in contemporary journalism in getting the okay from editors to use unnamed sources. Another practice that gives credibility to an anonymous source based information is inserting an appropriate and honest representative title to replace the name of the unnamed source--such as "a Senior Official said..."

Joe, FBI Agent

Jess Osuna - FBI Man. See at http://www.starpulse.com/Movies/All_the_President%27s_Men/Cast_and_Crew/ or

• http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0652600/
• and http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074119/fullcredits?ref_=tt_cl_sm#cast

Jess Osuna ... Joe, FBI Agent . --Schwab7000 (talk) 11:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Historical Accuracy?

I re-watched this film last night, and wanted to know about its historical accuracy. If there's a historian who could add a section about that, I'd be grateful. It would also be nice if there was a discussion of its cultural significance outside of the world of film; what kind of impact did the film have on the public's perception of Watergate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.15.240.111 (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

---

Other differences from the book. I suppose this counts as 'original research' since I watched the movie and then read the book over the past week, but I don't think it should be hard to find a source for these (I could look myself, but not now.)

1.The way Carl Bernstein got in to see the Dade County District Attorney (States' Attorney) is not in the book. In the movie (as in the book) Bernstein is kept waiting all day, and pretends to leave the building of the D.A's office, but then calls the D.A's secretary telling her that a package is waiting for her and she needs to pick it up (thereby getting her out of the office.) With the D.A's 'gatekeeper' gone, Bernstein (Hoffman) then walks right in to the D.A's office. This was obviously purely for dramatic effect in the movie.

If I recall correctly, in the book, Bernstein, while waiting all day, happens to see the D.A's main investigator and decides to talk to him instead, and is subsequently introduced to the D.A.

2.The main difference between the movie and the book is an important change in the timeline. In the movie, its dramatic climax is where Deep Throat tells Woodward in regards to the inaccurate reporting that Haldeman was identified in grand jury testimony as one of the five people with authority to make pay outs from the Nixon slush fund that this reporting 'has set the investigation back months.' Robert Redford as Woodward responds angrily to Deep Throat "I'm tired of your chickensh*t games, I need you to tell me what you know."

In the book, Woodward asks Deep Throat about Haldeman and Deep Throat replies something like 'I'm not discussing Haldeman at all." And it is then when Woodward says "I'm tired of your chickensh*t games..." After that, Woodward and Bernstein make their reporting error. (Haldeman was one of the five, but this was not mentioned in the grand jury testimony.)

This IS the point where Deep Throat tells Woodward 'you've set the investigation back months, but Woodward doesn't say anything, and, in fact, agrees with Deep Throat.

As an aside, this was more than just an alteration for dramatic effect, at least in my opinion. The movie suggests that what Deep Throat told Woodward after Woodward complained about the 'chickensh*t games' was critical in cracking Watergate, but from the book, Deep Throat was probably correct that this mistake set the investigation back (it could also have been the reelection of Nixon which caused Watergate sources to stop speaking) and it was the admissions by James McCord regarding what he knew about Watergate and where the money for it came from as part of his admission of perjury to Judge Sirica followed by the Grand Jury testimony of Jeb Magruder, along with an admission by the Nixon Administration that it was aware of and took part in campaign dirty tricks (ratf*cking) along with the U.S Senate hearings which involved subpoena power which caused the tight bond of the Nixon Assistants to break down, that caused the Watergate case to crack.

In the book, the final instance of the significance of Woodward was that he asked a Justice Department investigator involved in the case if he could check into what one of the Nixon Assistants meant by that his job was 'internal security.' This 'internal security' was for the previously unknown recording system that Nixon had set up in the White House.

The investigator calls Woodward back and tells him 'that was THE tip, congratulations.'

Woodward replies "for what?"

Release

This page should probably have a Release section. Some links that might help (and that verify the April 4 premiere)

https://www.washingtonian.com/2016/04/03/all-the-presidents-men-movie-oral-history/ https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/watergate-two-hollywood-reporters-break-washington-post-coverup-59775/

Title

Does the title refer to the Humpty Dumpty rhyme from Alice in Wonderland: "And all the king's horses, and all the king's men, couldn't put Humpty together again"? Or what else does it refer to? Thank you, Maikel (talk) 11:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't know of a secondary source offhand and I haven't tried to research it, but I'd expect the answer to be definitely yes, i.e. the phrase intentionally evokes the nursery rhyme. I'm pretty sure that the rhyme didn't originate in Alice in Wonderland but was only repeated there. See Humpty Dumpty. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:94F6 (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Hornaday article

[1] Article by Ann Hornaday about the film development, attributing a lot to Robert Redford. Maybe too Redford-centric for neutrality, but still seems like a good additional source for this article. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:94F6 (talk) 00:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)