Alan J. Pakula's political thriller All the President's Men (1976) was met with immediate critical and commercial success upon its release, finishing second at the box office and earning seven Academy Award nominations.
Through a close reading of key scenes, performances and stylistic decisions, Christian Keathley and Robert B. Ray show how the film derives its narrative power through a series of controlled silence vs. noise; stationary vs. moving camera; dark vs. well-lit scenes and shallow vs. deep focus, tracing how these elements combine to create an underlying formal design crucial to the film's achievement.
They argue that the film does not fit the auteurist model of New Hollywood film-makers such as Coppola and Scorsese. Instead, All the President's Men more closely resembles a studio-era film, the result of a collaboration between a producer (Robert Redford), multiple scriptwriters, a skilful director, important stars (Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman), a distinctive cameraman (Gordon Willis), an imaginative art director (George Jenkins) and ingenious sound designers, who together created an enduringly great film.
I was perusing the Berkeley Art Museum bookstore and come across a series of British Film Institute (BFI) film essays. This one on ‘All the Presidents’ Men’ spoke to me.
These short books, are focused on how cinematically a great film develops ideas. In this case the idea is how to make a detective film when everyone knows the outcome? This film did that by putting the viewer in the confused and disorienting position along side the journalists Woodward and Bernstein.
Now that is more than fifty years out from Watergate, I can’t assume people know about this watershed Presidential scandal. Nixon famously said if the President does it it’s not illegal. Watergate involved a US President using the powers of the incumbency to illegally and secretly undermine his Democratic opponents.
The book, All the President’s Men, was Woodward and Bernstein account of breaking the Watergate story almost in real time. It was published before the scandal resulted in Nixon’s resignation. The film came out two years after that.
This film shows how the film intentionally confuses the viewer via disorientation providing only glimpses of where the action is, who is speaking and what they are saying. The viewer is forced to concentrate to simply stay oriented in the story. Interest and engagement is maintained via a series of start contrast: Bernstein and Woodward, our proponents are the chief examples of contrasts, one tall and one short with the tall one blond with the short having dark hair. Plus famed Gordon Willis shot scenes that set up sharp contrasts between light and dark. These keep the viewer engaged and created tension.
I learned I. This book that Robert Redford was the key figure behind the film. He both bought the rights to the book and also kicked started the project and brought on Alan Pakula to direct. This was clearly a passion for Redford and it feels like one in every shot.
I didn't expect to like this book so much, to be honest. I don't usually pay attention to filmmaking, but ATPM got my attention, so when I saw this book I decided to give it a shot. It's easy to understand (as someone who doesn't know much about shots and movies), but still very interesting, and it highlighted things I didn't notice when I watched the movie. The timeline at the end of the book was very useful too.