Trailer: Mark Felt
Posted on September 1, 2017 at 7:23 pm
I am a longtime Watergate junkie and can’t wait to see this movie about the man who was Deep Throat, starring Liam Neeson.
Posted on September 1, 2017 at 7:23 pm
I am a longtime Watergate junkie and can’t wait to see this movie about the man who was Deep Throat, starring Liam Neeson.
Posted on August 8, 2014 at 8:00 am
Forty years ago today, Richard Nixon became the first and so far only President of the United States to resign from office. Elected easily just two years before, he was about to be impeached for his role in the Watergate break-in and the obstruction of justice in attempting to cover up what had happened.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzXL7C0JQDMHis Vice President, Spiro Agnew, had already resigned in disgrace for unrelated corruption charges, and so, appointed as a replacement and without ever having been elected to national office, Gerald Ford became President, telling us that “the long national nightmare is over.” Nixon continues to fascinate us as a man of enormous strengths undermined by deep flaws. He has inspired shelves of books, award-winning films, and even an opera.
Some of the best documentary and feature films about Nixon are:
All the President’s Men Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman play Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein in this brilliant film about the investigative journalism that first informed us about Watergate. Screenwriter William Goldman and supporting actor Jason Robards won Oscars, as did the production design and sound.
Frost/Nixon Frank Langella and Michael Sheen star in Ron Howard’s film about the interviews that Richard Nixon thought would help to restore his reputation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lP_l2IFiQzsThe interviews themselves are also on DVD: Frost/Nixon: Complete Interviews
Our Nixon The home movies and recollections of the White House staff provide the basis for this 2013 documentary.
NBC News Presents: Deep Throat – The Full Story of Watergate This is a good basic introduction to the history of Watergate.
Nixon Anthony Hopkins plays Nixon in this Oliver Stone film.
And here some historians comment on the accuracy of the film.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJ3b8lJaQn8I’m sure by the time we observe the 50th anniversary, there will be more.
Posted on June 22, 2013 at 6:54 pm
Mike Canning generously took the time to answer my questions about his marvelous book, Hollywood on the Potomac: How the Movies View Washington, DC. It is a comprehensive and completely fascinating discussion of more than 50 movies set in Washington, from the silly to the serious, with comedy, romance, drama, and of course a lot of politics. This week’s release of “White House Down” is a good reminder to check out some of these other films. In addition to the ones he mentions, I’d suggest “Without Love” (Tracy and Hepburn decide to have a loveless marriage in WWII-era Washington) and “Houseboat” (widower Cary Grant hires Sophia Loren as a nanny).
What’s your favorite Washington movie?
My view combines part of “favorite” and “best.” It’s “All the President’s Men” (1976) both because it was, and remains, a completely engrossing suspense film plus it is rigorous in both sticking to the real events of the Watergate cover-up and using actual Washington locations. I still love “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” (1939) because it is an absolute classic and “Being There” for its singular, sardonic look at our politics, but “All the President’s Men” leads the list.
Which Washington movies have the most outrageous mistakes?
I highlight a couple in my book: “No Way Out” (1987) because of its corkscrew chase sequence where lead Kevin Costner tries to escape two hit men by dropping off the Whitehurst Freeway, sprinting along the C & O Canal, only to run into the “Georgetown” subway stop—which, most famously, has never existed. Once inside the station, he jumps on to the Baltimore subway, only to emerge into the Old Post Office Pavilion—where there is no subway either! Another multiple-abuser of DC occurs at the end of “The Contender” (2000). President Jeff Bridges, eager to name his new vice president (Joan Allen), “calls” a joint session of Congress (oops, it’s the other way around), misidentifies the Speaker and the president of the Senate in their chairs, and then calls for “an immediate roll call” to confirm his nominee (whatever happened to separation of powers?). He performs these egregious acts in a painfully small House chamber with visible windows (it’s actually the Virginia State House).
How does the portrayal of Washington change over the decades?
The principal way it has changed physically is that mounting security concerns have restricted more and more the access to some major iconic sites, such as the Capitol building. In the early post-war years, access to the Capitol and the legislative office buildings was ample, but security concerns gradually limited location shooting in and around the Capitol to where now commercial filmmakers can only shoot blocks in front and back of the building. That’s why, since the 1980’s, so many movies have scenes at the Grant Memorial in front of the Capitol’s reflecting pool—it’s as close as productions can get. Access to other monuments (like the Lincoln Memorial) has also been limited. One location exception is the use of the Metro system. Since the Metro began in 1976, access to shooting was confined to entrances to stations, never down inside. That limitation was lifted in 2007, and some recent Hollywood films (like “State of Play”—2009) have been allowed to shoot down the escalators and on to the station floor.
As far as how the portrayal of Washington has changed in thematic terms, I would say that, while commercial cinema has almost always treated politicians (executives or congressional) negatively, the cynicism about politics has escalated over the years, Politicians in films of the 1940’s and 1950’s (perhaps reflecting the national mood) were relatively benign figures, but, since the 1960’s and onward, their depiction (esp. in Congress) almost universally treats them as either simple-minded or venal. Many, perhaps most, Washington-themed movies feature political themes and characters, and the predominant spirit for years has been a depressing sourness about all things political, even more so since the 1990’s.
To note: what rarely appears anywhere in current DC films is any representation of how real politicians work or how regular citizens of the city live.
Who are some of the biggest stars who actually filmed on location in Washington?
Clint Eastwood comes immediately to mind. He has made three significant DC movies, “In the Line of Fire” (1993) in which he starred as a Secret Service agent, and two films he directed, “Absolute Power” (1997) and “J. Edgar” (2011). Eddie Murphy was a mega-star when he made “The Distinguished Gentleman” (1992), as was Arnold Schwarzenegger in “True Lies” (1994), Michael Douglas in “The American President” (1995), and Will Smith in “Enemy of the People” (1998). Denzel Washington has appeared in several Washington-themed movies (“Pelican Brief” – 1993), “Courage Under Fire” – 1995) and “The Manchurian Candidate” – 2005)) and Tom Hanks in two, at each end of his career: “The Man with One Red Shoe” (1985) and “Charlie Wilson’s War” (2007). Tom Cruise has two DC movies under his belt, “Minority Report” (2002) and “Lions for Lambs” (2007).
In earlier times, major stars included Cary Grant (“Houseboat”- 1958), Kirk Douglas (“Seven Days in May” – 1964), Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman (“All the President’s Men”), and Peter Sellers (“Being There”).
Other than the White House, Capitol Building, and the monuments, what are some popular DC locations that show up in movies?
Certain thoroughfares that regularly allow location shooting are persistent in Washington movies, such as Pennsylvania Avenue (also because it lines up with the Capitol) Memorial Bridge, and the National Mall. There are a few stand-in sites, like the DAR building and the Mellon Auditorium of the Smithsonian, which are used because access cannot be gained to more prominent locations. Identifiable and picturesque neighborhoods also figure often, such as Georgetown and Capitol Hill, while many others are ignored. As noted above, the Grant Memorial—because it has become the western boundary on shooting the Capitol—features surprisingly often in Washington movies.
The fact remains that there are many lesser-known DC locations that could enhance Hollywood stories that are never or rarely used because filmmakers who come here have to obligatorily capture the Big Dome–if nothing else.
This year features three different movies about attacks on the White House. Why?
Serendipity. I think it’s just a fluke; such clustering sometimes happens when Hollywood’s commercial minds run in the same grooves. It could also be a hangover from action films spinning off popular TV shows like “24.” It should be noticed that two of the latest—“Olympus Has Fallen” and “White House Down”—were not shot (or barely shot) in DC; they were essentially filmed in Shreveport, Louisiana, and Montreal.
Attacks on the seat of executive power are a recurring trope for DC movies, from as far back as sci-fi movies in the 1950’s (“Earth vs. the Flying Saucers” – 1956). Other clobberings of the White House occur in “Superman II,” “Independence Day,” and “2012.”
What are some other classic portrayals of the White House in movies?
Though no movie has ever been permitted to shoot in the White House, some films have produced convincing re-creations of the mansion, especially its Oval Office. An early attempt (which was a bit too grandiose) was in “Wilson” (1944), but a better exemplar was the fine office fabricated for “Seven Days in May.” More recent excellent examples of the Oval Office appear in “Dave” (1993), and “The American President.” In the former case, Warner Brothers studio not only crafted good interiors but constructed a convincing scale model of the building seen from the South Lawn. In the latter case, director Rob Reiner and his production team gained ample access to study the White House and then carefully duplicated the Oval Office as well as a number of other important internal spaces. The most convincing display of authentic White House political action was in “Thirteen Days” (2000), a study of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
A classically bad portrayal of the White House was in “Gabriel Over the White House,” a strange Depression-era picture starring Walter Huston as a near-fascist reformer. His “White House” is an absurd studio set.
Who is the best film President?
Hands down, Daniel Day Lewis as “Lincoln” (2012). Not only is the performance commanding but the president portrayed is magisterial. Plus, he is the only “president” to win an Oscar! In its day (1944), Alexander Knox’s interpretation of Woodrow Wilson in “Wilson” was also deemed superior. Bruce Greenwood did a fine turn as JFK in the documentary-like “Thirteen Days” as did stalwart Henry Fonda in “Fail Safe” (1964). A couple of recent kick-ass presidents were flyboy Bill Pullman in “Independence Day” (1996) and Harrison Ford fighting some Russkies in “Air Force One” (1997).
Who is the worst?
I nominate Gene Hackman as President Richmond in “Absolute Power.” Not only is he a philanderer, abuser, and liar but he uses his Secret Service detail to cover up the murder of his mistress. He’s a bad dude. On the comic side, probably Christopher Jones as the under-age Max Flatow in the execrable “Wild in the Streets” (1968). Second place may go to Dan Hedaya as a demented Nixon in “Dick” (1999).
Of the lesser-known movies in your book, which most deserve to be watched again?
I would argue for the great George Stevens’ smart war-time comedy “The More the Merrier” (1943—a smart wartime comedy), “Seven Days in May” (crisp thriller about a military coup attempt), and “The Seduction of Joe Tynan” (1978–a rounded look at a US senator). Among the more contemporary, I think these deserve a look: “Wag the Dog” (1998–a prescient, tart black comedy), “Shattered Glass” (2003–a serious journalistic drama based on real events) and “Slam” (1998–a DC movie which gets into the cracks and crevices of our city which other movies mostly ignore).
Which is the scariest movie in the book? Which is the funniest? Which is the most historically accurate?
The scariest remains “The Exorcist” (1973), a monumental horror film of its time and still the only significant effort in this genre ever made about DC.
For me, the funniest are the oldies, like “The More the Merrier” and “Born Yesterday” (1950). On the mordant side, “Being There” is the best; on the sweet side, perhaps “Dave.”
The most historically accurate are “Lincoln” and “Thirteen Days.”
Posted on April 26, 2012 at 12:16 pm
I was lucky enough to interview former Illinois senator Adlai E. Stevenson III about his new book collecting the wisdom of five generations of his family for the wonderful Viral History blog from Ken Ackerman. Here is an excerpt:
Going back further, Senator Stevenson’s grandfather held state office in Illinois and his great-grandfather was a Congressman and Vice President of the United States under Grover Cleveland. His great-great-grandfather, Jesse Fell, was Secretary of the Illinois Republican Party. He proposed the historic Lincoln/Douglas debates and persuaded Lincoln to run for President. He did not run for office himself but set his family an example of citizen statesmanship that still resonates today.
Senator Stevenson is currently active through the Adlai Stevenson Center on Democracy, with an upcoming event on the Presidential Debates featuring my father, Newton Minow, whose work with Governor Stevenson during his Presidential campaigns in the 1950s formed the basis of the current system of Presidential debates.
NM: What has been the biggest change for the worse since you were in the Senate? What has been the biggest change for the better?
NM: Do you think there is any way to limit the impact of the Supreme Court’s Citizens Uniteddecision on corporate money in politics?
NM: There are a lot of wonderful quotes in the book. Did any of the selections collected by your father surprise you? Do you have a favorite?
AES: Remember, the quotations came from everywhere and were added over four generations, probably most by me. As I say, every page uncovers a surprise that I added for illustrative, not so much argumentative, purposes. (The open letter to Santorum was ahead of its time like others). I have many favorites, for example:
Posted on February 8, 2010 at 3:59 pm
The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg, a documentary just nominated for an Oscar, is the story of the man who gave secret government documents about the Vietnam war to newspapers for publication in 1971. The impact of his leak was seismic. And it continues to reverberate today as many of the same issues of military strategy and government accountability are debated by another generation.
Dr. Ellsberg, a one-time hawk on the war who had served as a Marine and worked in the Department of Defense, wrote his own book about his experiences and his views, Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers. His dissertation, Risk, Ambiguity and Decision, is still considered a major contribution. I spoke to Dr. Ellsberg about the past, the present, war, peace, and the movie.
Are you the most dangerous man in America?
Not at the moment. Fom the point of view of the Obama administration it would be whoever leaked the secret cables of Ambassador Eikenberry, to the Times. I had not seen facsimile copies like that since the Pentagon papers. I am sure there is a tremendous search to find out who was responsible. It’s quite contrary to what Eikenberry testified to in Congress about being fully in accord to McChrystal’s recommendations for sending more troupes. The cables gave the lie to that, a warning against any such involvement.
Why were you considered so dangerous?
It wasn’t what has already been leaked that was the problem, it was their worry about what might be next. Kissinger feared I would put out material on Nixon, and that brought him down. It was that fear that led Nixon to get personally involved in illegal activity to try to stop me. And that led to his resignation and that led to the end of the war.
The movie doesn’t make really clear why I was regarded as the most dangerous man. Krogh referred to the fact that they thought I had documents on Nixon. That was why they went into my doctor’s office. That was the part that involved the president himself, in the case of the actions against me they had a number of witnesses that he ordered that himself. If it weren’t for that, he would not have had to cover up because the trail didn’t lead to him. The important thing was not to find out what I had as much as to keep me from putting it out.
They knew I had some material directly from Nixon’s office, because I had given it to Senator Matthias who wanted to be a Republican white knight. They had to worry about it without knowing exactly what it was, they had to take extreme measures including sending people to beat me up or possibly kill me.
The movie portrays you as a hero to many people. Who are your heroes?
Howard Zinn, one of the greatest human beings on earth. Noam Chomsky. People who have openly refused to go to war. Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King. I met met Rosa Parks on the way to my arraignment. I took a toothbrush and went off to a football field where they were meeting in New Orleans. If it weren’t for Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King I wouldn’t be where I am today. I was talking to her and said “You’re my hero,” and she said, “You’re my hero.” You can imagine what that meant to me.
Why this time? What made the difference? She said, “I had given up my seat to a white woman a number of times but had never been asked to give it up to a white man. I asked myself what I would do? I didn’t know what I would do.” When the moment came, she knew, and she said no. It is the way things happen.
You don’t know what you are doing or how you will respond until you get into it, but it helps to think about it beforehand. The situation has arisen before and people think about it and then they are cocked like a pistol and ready to do it. Now is the time.
You were a team player and then decided to play for a bigger team.
That’s well put! A much bigger team in numbers. The key thing there was meeting people who were on the larger team like Bob Eaton. We stood in a vigil line for him, he was going to prison for draft resistance. Stepping into that vigil line, standing in front of the post office on a hot day, when I had been writing something for Nixon, I could not do both. It was like the first date with Patricia, marching around the White House and worrying that a picture of me might appear in the Post.
I didn’t have a good excuse for getting out of going to the protest. I thought of saying I was sick that day but I was shamed into standing in that line. Once you’re in the line it was like stepping over the line at a recruiting station. I had stepped over a line and was recruited into the anti-war movement. Passing out leaflets instead of writing memos for the President, in my mind I had shifted sides from being an insider to being a citizen. Days later I had the experience of seeing Randy Keeler, but I don’t know if it would have had the same effect except for having been at that vigil.
Pastor Martin Niemoller was testifying while I was at the vigil, and he had a big influence on me. I was at the same war resister’s conference. I am still not a total pacifist. He had been a U-Boat commander in WWI. He was imprisoned in 38 or 39 and spent the war in Dachau. The famous quote always puzzled me.
In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Catholic. Then they came for me — and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.
He did speak out, so what is he talking about? He is describing the attitude of the average German. He told me that he had not been a pacifist in the second World War. He thought Hitler should have been opposed. He didn’t become a pacifist until 1950 when Heisenberg informed him about the coming H-Bomb. And that made him a nuclear pacifist. I was having lunch with a couple of pacifists and arguing with them as I had often done, a strong argument against total pacifism is the Brits who fired at the bombers over London.
Why do you oppose our military strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan?
The last thing that you do is the thing that Al-Qaeda wants to you to do. Osama bin Laden wanted us to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, which was his enemy anyway. Even better would be to attack Iran, his enemy, to get the Muslim world against us. We fell right into Obama’s trap, born and bred in the brier patch; he wanted that oil. I have no doubt that he prefers us to be fighting in Afghanistan forever. I would have cooperated with the rest of the world including people we do not like, make it easy for them to cooperate with us and share their information about those who want to attack us. There are ways to respond without generating recruits for the terrorists. Getting the oil was more important than Al-Qaeda, so that is where Bush went.
But you said you are not a complete pacifist. So how do you decide when force is necessary?
I was giving Niemoller my example of the Brits, etc. You could not stop Hitler’s blitzkriegs with non-violence. Non-violence would not have saved the Jews. As in the old cartoons a light bulb appeared over my head — violence didn’t save the Jews, nothing saved the Jews. They all died. Here was the cruncher, the ace up the sleeve, partly because we didn’t use our violence to save the Jews. It made me remember something by Raoul Wallenberg. The Holocaust could not have been carried out except in wartime conditions. You need the secrecy. I went to Neimoller and said is it possible that the resistance that people put up to Hitler was at the expense of the Jews? I thought he would take time but he said right away, “It cost the Jews their lives.” I have always realized that. It doesn’t mean that people weren’t justified in resisting but far from saving them, it doomed the Jews.
I asked what else am I wrong about?
What do you want from the movie?
If more people see the movie we will have more leakers like the Eickenberry cables and that will be for the good.