A third-rate burglary, occasionally discovered because of a taped-over bolt and exposed because the unskilled operation of CIA agents, is assorted to a inexpereienced but hungry jounalist Woodward. Stranges coincidences follows: first a high-priced attorney represented the five burglers; then the five burglers all related to CIA. Until now the case, the reporters, the burglers, and the attorney all present some contingent incidences or persons that seems to lead to something unusual and fundemental, in other words, the neumenal. The connection, that is, the link between surface representations and deep truth, could go easily without being noticed, but thanks to some inexperienced but hungry reporters.
Thus, leading from the representations or semblable to the neumenal is not some necessary link, but some contingent subjective vision which would turn some common incidents into something meaningful and fundemental. Those two reproters, through endless search through numerous tickets of one of burglers, through door-to-door visit of thouse people who have worked for the Committe for Re-election of President, through talking and recording to different key persons by phone, and also some personal charms and tricks, wants to chase to final person behind the scene , that is, the presidnet Nixon himself. However, this very person, the final truth itself, only appears on the TV screen. This screen forever seperates all these efforts to discover the neumonal from the real person himself.The audience is but left to wonder whether there is a real event in the history or a mere fictional construction.
This is to say, what leads to the neumenal is some subjective judgement first, and then the final truth is forever shielded by a screen, which confuses our sense of reality and fiction. The final truth, though caused devastating consequese, that is, the resignation of the president, is constructed for its position in the whole structure, that is, the whole American democratic system. Therefore, it also explains why the real person never appears because he is not important, but the place he occupies. What really confuses us is not just the difference between the final truth and the president himself, but also the real difference between the incident of burglary and the man behind the secen. What matters for us, maybe the final imprint left on us the audience, is just the incient of burglary itself,the occaional conincidences and mistakes themselves which lead to further investigation.
There are two scenes of quarrel between two partner reprots that follows the case persistently. The first is after they get some framented information: they know the general attorney of CREEP has presented himself in a raincoat while some paper, which is considered important to the investigation , was shredded. Berstein, one of them, thinks it is enough as evidence to show the president's main team member is involved in the plot, while Woodward, the other, thinks that there is not enough fact to write about in the news. Again , this is an unrecoverable past event, which, although involving many suspicious detail, cannot be used to trace the truth behind the phenomenon. The truth, again, is lost in the presentation of these people involved, but end up being just a phenomenon that seems to lead to someting big,but just shows us some sembled persons in a common secene.
View more about All the President's Men reviews
