Journal of Popular Film and Television
ISSN: 0195-6051 (Print) 1930-6458 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjpf20
All the President's Men as a Woman's Film
Elizabeth Kraft
To cite this article: Elizabeth Kraft (2008) All the President's Men as a Woman's Film, Journal of Popular Film and Television, 36:1, 30-37, DOI: 10.3200/JPFT.36.1.30-37
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JPFT.36.1.30-37
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 78
View related articles
Citing articles: 1 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjpf20
Download by: [Cankaya Universitesi] Date: 07 November 2016, At: 07:12 All the President’s Men as a Woman’s Film
Bob Woodward (Robert Redford) and Carl Bernstein (Dustin Hoffman) on the steps of the Library of Congress.
By Elizabeth Kraft
Abstract: The author reads Alan J. lan J. Pakula’s 1976 film All the remained fascinated to this day by the Pakula’s 1976 film as a “woman’s President’s Men fits loosely into way the reporters, Carl Bernstein and film.” The vignettes focused on A several generic categories, firmly Bob Woodward, pieced together a case, women witnesses to the cover-up of into none. It is most often referred to as episodically and daily. the Watergate burglary reveal the pat- a detective film or a conspiracy thriller, The film partakes of other genres as tern of seduction and abandonment and certainly the whodunit narrative well. The “buddy film,” for example, common to soap opera and melodra- pattern is catalyzed by the quiet, dark provides another structuring device. ma. The “woman’s film” is a suitable scene of the break-in and developed Woodward and Bernstein develop from genre through which to address the throughout the film by scenes reveal- rivals into collaborators in a challenge deep distress suffered by the nation at ing periodic discoveries adding up to to power on two levels—the hierarchy the discovery of presidential (patriar- a revelation of guilt in the end. The of influence in national politics and the chal) betrayal. narrative tension of the film is driven hierarchy of influence at the Washing- by our willingness to forget what we ton Post. We think of them as buddies, a Keywords: Stanley Cavell, Molly know and participate in the mystery, mismatched pair but a workable team— Haskell, Emmanuel Levinas, melodra- the accumulation of evidence, and the such as Butch Cassidy and the Sun- ma, Alan J. Pakula, Washington Post, unmasking of villainy. We wanted to dance Kid or Joe Buck and Ratso Rizzo. Watergate, “woman’s film” know in 1972 and 1973 whether or not These associations would have occurred President Richard Nixon would be held to audiences in 1976, as Robert Redford accountable for the Watergate break- and Dustin Hoffman were linked in the Copyright © 2008 Heldref Publications in; we were fascinated then and have imaginations of moviegoers of that time. 30 All the President’s Men as a Woman’s Film 31
Each had enjoyed individual success as All the President’s and there is very little attempt to appeal a half of another buddy team, but, per- to women in either regular films or night- haps more significantly, the two films in Men is basically a time television. (29) which they earned buddy renown were “woman’s film,” a This argument can be supported by produced in the same year, 1969, and exceptions that prove the rule. In 1970, both were nominated for Best Picture. suitable genre in which the “weepie” Love Story was a box Midnight Cowboy won the award, but office hit and a critical success, garnering Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid to address the deep seven Academy Award nominations and won a place in the hearts of the Ameri- distress suffered by the making Ryan O’Neal and Ali McGraw can moviegoing public. Robert Redford genuine Hollywood superstars. Signifi- was the closest thing the 1970s had to a nation at the discovery cantly, however, from 1964 to 1969, matinee idol, and Dustin Hoffman was of presidential Ryan O’Neal enjoyed a measure of fame the decade’s artiste. Between them, they as a soap opera star in television’s first defined American male stardom, and (patriarchal) betrayal. prime-time soap opera, Peyton Place, in their “buddiness” was inherent in their which he starred as Rodney Harrington, crime melodrama or the Western” (21). opposite looks, roles, and performance opposite Mia Farrow’s Allison MacKen- The “woman’s film,” also known as the styles. zie and Barbara Parkins’s Betty Ander- “weepie,” offered the woman viewer Another genre alluded to early in the son. Farrow and Parkins also starred the chance to purge frustration at her lot film is the “common man” genre or the in “woman’s films”—Rosemary’s Baby in life through vicarious identification “David and Goliath” narrative that Frank (1968), a soap opera/horror hybrid, with a victimized, suffering female. As Capra perfected in Mr. Smith Goes to and Valley of the Dolls (1967), a pure Haskell notes, the genre, like any genre, Washington and It’s a Wonderful Life. “weepie,” respectively. Haskell’s general has highs and lows. At the lowest level, These allusions occur early in All the sense that by the 1970s the “woman’s the “woman’s film” functions as “soap President’s Men, and they provide more film” was the province of television opera” or “soft-core emotional porn for emotional than structural guidance. We serials—or, more specifically, of soap the frustrated housewife” (21).1 At the root for the “hungry” young journal- opera television serial actors and audi- highest level (as in Max Ophuls’s Let- ists, but we do not expect—nor do we ences—seems fitting. ter from an Unknown Woman or King get—a confrontation between the pow- From mid-May to early August of Vidor’s Stella Dallas, for example), the erless and the powerful. In a film about 1973, soap operas (as well as other day- genre exhibits an acute sensitivity to media, everything, including confronta- time programming, that is, game shows women’s concerns, dignity, and even tion, is mediated by the newspaper and and cartoons) were preempted by the power. The best “woman’s films” are the television. These are journalists, not Senate Watergate hearings. The high centered on “the woman who begins as senators or businessmen; they write, drama (and high stakes) represented by victim of discriminatory circumstances and their war is a war of words. the congressional inquiry found a ready and rises, through pain, obsession, or Without denying the importance of audience in soap opera enthusiasts. One defiance, to become mistress of her each of these genres to the overall study found that 85 percent of American fate” (23). Further, Haskell argues, “her effect of All the President’s Men, I households tuned in to some portion of ascent is given stature and conviction suggest another way of reading this each day’s proceedings, aired on a rotat- not through a discreet contempt for the film—one that accounts more fully for ing basis on the three networks, ABC, female sensibility, but through an all-out all its dimensions, especially for its CBS, and NBC.2 Demographics and belief in it, through the faith, expressed emotional impact and cultural signifi- domestic habits of the 1970s guaran- in directorial sympathy and style, that cance. In the following pages, I will teed that the primary viewing audience the swirling river of a woman’s emo- argue that All the President’s Men is for the hearings was composed largely tions is as important as anything on basically a “woman’s film,” a suitable of women who did not work outside earth” (23). genre in which to address the deep the home and young people—college Haskell ends her essay on the “wom- distress suffered by the nation at the students, especially. All the President’s an’s film” by noting its demise: discovery of presidential (patriarchal) Men addresses both of those audiences, betrayal. As Molly Haskell notes in her Eventually women-oriented films, like appealing, as do all thrillers and detec- 1974 essay on “the woman’s film,” the the women-oriented plays from which tive stories, to the young person’s desire many of them were adapted, disappeared term itself is used in genre studies “as a from the cultural scene. The derisive to master knowledge and unseat power, term of critical opprobrium . . . [which] attitude of the eastern critical establish- but invoking as well the emotional dis- carries the implication that women, and ment won the day and drove them out of tress caused by betrayal, lies, cheating, therefore women’s emotional problems, business. But at one time the ‘matinee and arrogant disregard for the rights and are of minor significance” (20). But, she audience’ had considerable influence on feelings of others—the distress, in other movie production and on the popularity continues, “in the thirties and forties . . . of certain stars. This influence has waned words, typically examined and catharti- the ‘woman’s film’ . . . was as regular to the point that the only films being cally exorcized in soap operas or in the an item in studio production as the made for women are the afternoon soaps, melodramatic “woman’s film.” 32 JPF&T—Journal of Popular Film and Television
It is hard to imagine any viewer actu- nevertheless, the implication about devi- beneath the surface of male posturing. ally crying during a screening of All the ant sexual behavior necessarily involves There is some sense as Bernstein leaves President’s Men, and Pakula was cer- a woman acting or being acted on inap- the office that the domain into which he tainly not attempting to create a “weep- propriately. She is the whore of patri- wanders is one that is not fully under ie” in the conventional sense of the term. archy, the mother whose sexuality pro- Harry’s control. From the patriarchal All the President’s Men, despite a title vokes anxiety and contempt from her view that the film will eventually sub- that would suggest otherwise, pays trib- sons, especially her sons carrying phallic vert, this world is gendered feminine. ute to women’s emotions, knowledge, symbols confronting other sons holding It is a world of darkness, mystery, and and power on a number of levels. In the other phallic symbols. deception, a world eventually brought beginning, however, we are definitely in The third reference places us again into view by frightened, faceless (and a “man’s world.” Within the first six min- in the realm of sexuality, but a domes- often female) witnesses, many of whom utes, the film makes explicit allusions ticated, comfortable (albeit threatened) are on the other ends of telephones to the cultural roles—angel (or lady) sexuality. This instance occurs at the “worked by” Woodward and Bernstein. and whore—conventionally assigned to Post on the Saturday morning after the The investigation begins, however, women in a patriarchal society, a society break-in at Watergate. Managing editor in the world of men. Woodward attends such as the one doubly referenced in the Howard Simons (Martin Balsam) enters the indictment hearing of the Watergate film by the White House hierarchy and the office of city editor Harry M. Rosen- burglars. He shows up, expecting to the bureaucratic pecking order at the feld (Jack Warden) and says: “Harry, I cover the story of some common thieves Washington Post. got something for you. Couple sleeping represented by the court-appointed The opening sequence shows a tele- in bed, car hits the house, goes through attorney, and he finds the burglars have vision news report on Nixon’s June 1, their bed and comes out the other side.” their own lawyer—a “country club 1972, speech to the joint houses of Harry responds: “Good morning. Crash.” type” named Markham. “Burglars have Congress, with the announcer inton- Significantly, when Harry says these their own counsel? Kind of unusual, ing the familiar “Ladies and Gentle- words, he reaches for the phone. Bob wouldn’t you say?” Woodward asks. men, President Nixon will in a moment Woodward, aroused from sleep, grabs “For burglars it’s unusual,” he is told. address the Congress and the people of for a notepad to take down Harry’s news: For soap opera fans, it is par for the the United States”—a curiously formal a burglary at the Democratic Headquar- course. Once Nicholas Coster appears announcement. Who are these “Ladies ters. “Woodward, that’s National Demo- and Gentlemen”? The home viewing cratic Headquarters.” The cadence is audience, if watching, is not playing very much like “Good morning. Crash,” those roles. They are distracted televi- as is the sense of the scene. Woodward’s sion viewers, snacking on potato chips, domestic space has just been invaded by watching or half-watching between the equivalent of a car that has crashed domestic chores—putting the kids to through the wall and gone out the other bed, washing dishes—listening or half- side. The phone is the car in this case, listening between remarks they make to and if we miss that point, there is a poster each other. These fictional ladies and hanging on Harry’s office wall that reads gentlemen addressed by the announcer “Telephone” in big bold letters above are nowhere to be found. In the House two figures—a woman facing left, back- chamber you see only gentlemen, row to-back with a man facing right. We see after row of men in suits, with perhaps the poster come into full view as Carl one exception—in the grainy image one Bernstein enters the scene offering to can make out a figure with coiffed hair aid the Watergate investigation. His offer and no sideburns, possibly a woman. rebuffed, he leaves saying, “I’ll work the The second reference to women in phones.” Harry’s sardonic “Yeah, you the opening sequences of the film is also work the phones” is indicative of a dis- indistinct. One of the arresting officers dainfulness that will change as the film encountering the burglars in the Water- progresses and Bernstein moves to the gate building shouts, “Hold it, you moth- center of the action. It is significant that erfuckers! Police! Put your hands up!” in this scene Bernstein stands beneath the but his voice is loud and hurried; it is woman in the telephone print, his long- somewhat difficult to hear the epithet for ish hair and thin, small, jeans-clad body what the script reveals it to be—a word seeming frail and effeminate compared that situates women at the opposite end to the burly, middle-aged, rumpled-shirt- of the spectrum from the “Ladies” listen- sleeves-and-loosened-tie look of the edi- ing to Nixon’s speech. “Motherfucker,” tor. There is generational tension here, of course, refers to a man, not a woman; but there is also gender tension rumbling All the President’s Men as a Woman’s Film 33 on the screen, the film announces itself connection with the Watergate burglars, Bernstein’s insistence that the object of the as a film that takes women seriously. but he is not the lawyer of record. He is “burglary” was bugging. “You really think Coster, who from 1972 to 1975 starred present with no clear purpose, and the they were trying to bug O’Brien?” “Well, as lawyer Robert Delaney in the soap audience senses he is up to something. I think it’s obvious,” Bernstein responds. opera Another World, gives a tour de Soap opera characters hide something “They weren’t out to bug secretaries.” force performance as Markham in his that the next scene will reveal. By cast- “I’m not interested in what you think is scene with Redford, filmed in an inti- ing Coster at this point in his career, obvious,” Harry Rosenfeld snaps back. mate medium-range shot that focuses on when every soap opera fan would have “I’m interested in what you can prove.” the actor’s upper body, face, and hands. recognized his face and would have been What Bernstein and Woodward eventually Markham’s expressions are indicative of accustomed to reading that face with find they can “prove” comes mostly from a mind at work; his reactions to Wood- a certain degree of skepticism, Pakula “secretaries.” ward’s intrusive questioning indicate a signals a movement from one sort of From this point on, the film moves double register of information conveyed detective story to another. Whereas all beyond the gender stereotyping that seeps and information hidden. With patri- investigative reporting depends on col- into casual remarks by all the Post’s men, cian camaraderie and infectious affabil- lecting and analyzing data, interview- for it turns out that power in Washington ity, Markham twice laughs along with ing sources, and testing testimony, this in 1972 is undergirded by women with a Woodward as he feigns ignorance of the investigation is going to require unusual lot of information in their memories or at entire proceedings. The contrast between skills and attention to matters that usu- their fingertips. Woodward, on making Markham’s gravitas when alone, his ally go unnoticed. the first significant phone call, delivers fleeting annoyance when he senses Hoffman’s Carl Bernstein reinforces a line over his shoulder to a person off- Woodward’s presence behind him, and that impression in the next scene, in which screen: “You can dial the White House his geniality when he actually speaks the reporters meet in the editor’s office to direct, can’t you?” “Yes,” says a female would be instantly readable to audiences discuss the arraignment. Here a certain voice. “What’s the number?” he replies. familiar with soap opera characteriza- amount of incredulity is evident. What Without missing a beat, the voice answers tions. We do not know what Markham were these burglars doing and why? Nixon “4561414.” He does the calling, but she is doing in that courtroom, and we never is ahead in the polls. In fact, the senior knows the number. And when someone really find out. He is obviously there in Washington Post staff seems dismissive of at the White House answers Woodward’s
call, it is again a “secretary” who provides Bernstein (Hoffman) “seduces” the truth. the next clue, the next source for Wood- ward to pursue. Bernstein and Woodward were not particularly well connected as they began their investigation of the Watergate bur- glaries, although Bernstein “knew a lot of people.” Pakula’s own sense of the story was not so much a “David and Goliath” battle of strength and will (although there are aspects of that paradigm) as it was a narrative about journalistic labor—the goal being “truth” and the adversaries being those who wish to hide the truth.3 In fact, most of the people Woodward and Bernstein encounter face-to-face in the film fall into the latter category. Gen- uine obstruction and obfuscation gener- ally occur over the phone lines. Even the lawyer Markham, who does not wish to talk to Woodward, allows his face to communicate that he has something to hide. Letting anyone see that much invites him to ask for more. Therefore, it is no surprise that many of the face- to-face interviews between reporters and subjects in this film have the structure of a seduction-abandonment narrative, one of the typical patterns of a “woman’s 34 JPF&T—Journal of Popular Film and Television film,” which often features a vulnerable know something. She knows the “scuttle- sonal responsibility. When confronted heroine rejected by the man she loves. butt” that Howard Hunt (also secretive— by Bernstein, Woodward, or both, these The pattern is established in the first “Now, he’s secretive, but a nice man”) women have hard choices to make, and interview Bernstein has with a potential was “investigating Kennedy,” taking out the film highlights the difficulty of mak- source, played by Penny Peyser. This books from the White House library on ing the decisions, also implying some- character is called “girl” and “secre- Chappaquiddick. When Bernstein asks thing about the personal cost exacted as tary” in William Goldman’s prerehearsal why, Sharon Lyons says, “The White a result of “doing the right thing.” screenplay, but in the film she has a House is real paranoid about Teddy Ken- Two of these women—neither of name, Sharon Lyons (Goldman 248). nedy.” The seduction has been successful; whom appears in the prerehearsal As the scene begins, we seem to be in what has been shared is not sexual plea- screenplay—are colleagues of Bern- stein and Woodward. The scenes that feature them take place in the news- room, filmed on the brilliantly lit set that Pakula requested of cinematogra- pher Gordon Willis: One of the first things I said to Gordon was, “I want very deep focus in this film. I want it sharp and hard. It’s about reporters who try to see everything, who are always looking. So you’ve just got to have that kind of mentality behind the cinematography. [. . .] I said that I wanted a world without shadows; I wanted a world where nothing is hidden. The hub of this film is what they do, and what newspapers do and what investigative reporters do is try to expose the truth about everything. Nothing can be left secret or hidden. (Pakula 30–31)
The ruthlessness of the light is sym- bolic of the ruthlessness of a quest for truth. Even people who help find them- selves standing in the glare, secrets exposed, privacy exploded. Both Kay Eddy (Lindsay Crouse) and Sally Aiken (Penny Fuller) have vital information Woodward (Redford) en route to a Deep that Bernstein and Woodward need. Throat rendezvous. Eddy has access through her former fiancé to a list of CREEP (Committee to soap opera territory again. The setting is sure but knowledge. The camera catches Re-elect the President, a Nixon fundrais- an outdoor restaurant with the Lincoln an expression on the actress’s face that ing organization) employees. Aiken has Memorial in the background; the camera seems almost illustrative of the old adage information that the “Canuck” letter that establishes the setting with a long shot in post coitum animal triste—a sadness, an destroyed Edmund Muskie’s campaign which we can barely distinguish Hoff- emptiness, a sort of stunned awareness of for the presidency was authored by Ken man and a dark-haired actress sitting exchange that may bring pain in the wake Clausen, special counsel to President across from one another at a table. When of the pleasure of connecting. Nixon. To elicit the information from the scene cuts to a two-shot, we seem to This facial registry speaks of knowl- both Eddy and Aiken, Bernstein and be witnessing a flirtation with smiling, edge and action with unforeseen conse- Woodward must shine their lights into side-glances, and some innuendo (“My quences, and it is an expression we will the personal lives of both women. girlfriend told me to watch out for you”). see time and again on the faces of the Crouse, in particular, is effective Whereas the tone is flirtatious, the ques- actresses who inhabit the roles of Water- at displaying a range of emotion and tions are pertinent: “Stubing said you gate informants or facilitators to the thought as her essential part in the story worked for Colson.” “Stubing’s crazy. I investigation—Lindsay Crouse, Penny is played out. Approached by Woodward never worked for Colson; I worked for Fuller, Valerie Curtin, and, especially, and Bernstein because they remember his assistant. Besides, Colson’s big on Jane Alexander. These vulnerable, but she “goes with,” indeed is “engaged to,” secrets anyway; even if I had worked ultimately strong, women seem to base a guy who works for CREEP, she is at for him, I wouldn’t know anything.” their actions not on loyalty to a person first self-possessed and confident as she However, despite her protests, she does but on principles, judgment, and per- states with cheerful, flirtatious finality, All the President’s Men as a Woman’s Film 35
“Not any more.” Her assurance crumbles be used on them. As the Canuck letter tion—and the measures Bernstein and quickly, however, as the reporters urge puts the investigation inside the White Woodward employ in pursuit of their her to see him again so that she can ask House, so does the investigation put the higher good—that is, ferreting out the him for a list of CREEP employees. She president and his dirty-tricks campaign truth about who knew what about the responds with a hurt “I can’t do that; it’s inside the private homes of everyone Watergate break-in.4 There is a crucial personal,” and as they continue to press, in the country—not only through the scene in which the film makes it clear that she begins to reveal unresolved emotions intervention and mediation of television the reporters are treading in the footsteps and vulnerability: “You’re asking me to but also through the physical presence of of the villains they pursue: the scene in use a guy I care about!” When Bernstein the reporters whose typical strategy with which they revisit a witness, bookkeeper insists that she must find a way to help CREEP employees was to knock on doors Judy Hoback (played by Jane Alexan- them, she musters the strength to say, in the evening and question potential wit- der), whom Bernstein had successfully “My only chance of getting that story is nesses there. As both Kay and Sally “seduced” the evening before. The pur- to see him, and I don’t want to see him.” illustrate, when it comes to the treatment pose of the visit is to persuade Hoback Bernstein does not yield—“Well, would of women, the Watergate investigators to put names to the initials of the CREEP you have to see him like that? Couldn’t are not so different from the “president’s employees who received money from the you just call him and ask him to have a men” who, as Deep Throat puts it in the slush fund. Before the reporters set forth drink”—but Woodward cuts the conver- film, “bugged, . . . followed people, [gave] on their quest, they agree on a plan. Bern- sation off: “Forget it. We don’t want you stein will ask, “Who is P?” and Woodward to do anything that would embarrass you will say, “No, we know P is Porter; who or you don’t feel right about.” As the is M?” They will also ask her to “con- reporters walk away, the actress registers Seduction in firm,” not to reveal, and so they allow the an expression of conflict and confu- All the President’s impression that Porter has been named by sion. When she enters the next scene, another source (even though he has not), a day or so later, and drops a folder on Men is focused a piece of information that disarms the Woodward’s desk, the look on her face bookkeeper to the point of revealing all is more resolute, but not happier. Indeed, on the gaining the information they have come to elicit. her visage registers a kind of resigned of secret knowledge In contrast to the first interview, which self-contempt. It would be plausible to takes place between Hoback and Bern- attribute such emotion to the encoun- rather than stein in “a tiny little house” with a “tiny ter with her ex-boyfriend, but the rue- sexual favors. little living room,” the second interview ful look she shoots Woodward implies is outside, on a porch surrounded by trees another reading. As portrayed by Crouse, and bathed in “an impressionistic, almost Kay Eddy seems fully aware that her Renoir, lovely sunlight, dappled green attractive colleague’s gallantry and kind- false press leads, [wrote] fake letters, . . . light, soft light” (Pakula 32–33). It is a ness seduced her into doing something cancelled Democratic campaign rallies, “romantic” setting, according to Pakula she did not want to do, something from . . . investigated Democratic private lives (33), and the atmosphere seems to soften which she will derive no personal ben- . . . planted spies, stole documents, and on Judy Hoback. She is prettier and quieter efits. Her vulnerability made her suscep- and on.” Seduced by their righteous col- in this scene than in the first. She does not tible, and the expression on her face is leagues and driven by their own earnest resist the questions as she did the night that of a woman who wonders just how desire to do the right thing, these women before. She confirms with composure and long she will keep responding too easily divulge necessary information but are left calm. When the scene ends with her guile- to such emotional lures. feeling as though they have betrayed oth- less query, “Who told you about Porter?” Sally Aiken is in possession of informa- ers and have been betrayed in turn. we see clearly that her composure is built tion as the result of a morally ambiguous All the President’s Men as a detec- on the trust she has come to have in Ber- situation with Ken Clausen. He has told tive story pits good guys in pursuit of nstein, and by extension, Woodward. In a her about the Canuck letter over drinks in truth against bad guys who wish to hide reflection of typical gender stereotypes, her apartment. He is a married man “with the truth. All the President’s Men as a the successful seduction of the previous a wife and a house and a dog and a cat.” “woman’s film” suggests that both sets night has left her feeling an attachment He is not so concerned with the possible of “guys” are complicit in the creation and an intimacy that her “partner” does implications for the president as he is with of a corrupt world in which confidence, not reciprocate. As the scene ends, we the disruption of his domestic life. But as sympathy, and trust between individuals know her “partner” has gotten from her All the President’s Men demonstrates, the are no longer possible. Looking through what he wants and now he is prepared to two do not inhabit different domains. The a woman’s eyes, there is not a lot of dif- abandon her without regret. president’s men, by lying and spreading ference between the way Nixon’s men Seduction in All the President’s Men rumors and investigating private lives, sought out secrets and played tricks in is focused on the gaining of secret have blurred the distinction and opened the interest of what they conceived of as knowledge rather than sexual favors. the possibility that the same tactics will a higher good—that is, winning the elec- Of course, the big secrets in All the 36 JPF&T—Journal of Popular Film and Television
President’s Men are those kept by the and desired by another. In a journalistic The most important female absenc- president and his men, but unearthing register, Woodward does all that ethics es, however, are probably those of the these secrets means delving into spaces requires. His obligation is to the truth, Nixon household itself—Tricia and Julie inhabited by women and women-like not to the other as other. He protects Nixon, and Pat, the first lady. We do see men—secretarial spaces, librarian spac- his source to protect his right to other an image of Pat Nixon toward the end of es, and bookkeeping spaces. Two spe- sources. It is appropriate, therefore, that the film. It is an image of an image—the cific shots in the film visually establish Deep Throat remain in the shadows so television coverage of the inauguration the analogy between secret knowledge that others in possession of dangerous shows Pat Nixon holding the Bible for and femininity. First is the crane shot truths know they too can talk in the her husband’s second inauguration. Her focused on the reporters in the Library dark in order to bring truth to light. The expression of serenity is rendered tragic of Congress. The shot moves upward “woman’s film” is not about ethical by the foreknowledge of every viewer until the point of view mimics an over- exchange in the philosophical sense. The watching the 1976 film. Although we as seeing deity looking down from the genre that best conveys that sort of ethics a nation never saw her in tears, we have rotunda into the womb of the building is the comedy of remarriage.7 Women’s felt the anguish of the other women in in which men labor to bring knowledge films, melodramas, weepies, are about the movie to this point; we know what forth. The second shot is a long shot that the imbalance of power and the cost awaits the first lady, and the pathos reveals a male figure that we take to be of knowledge. And that is what All the is almost overwhelming before the Woodward descending the staircase into President’s Men is about as well. soundtrack takes over.10 What we hear the depths of the earth (the basement All the President’s Men in its title as the film ends is the incessant sound floor of a parking garage), where he will seems to exclude women from the pic- of a teletype machine spitting out the encounter his most important source of ture—the movie and the general portrait news briefs that lead up to the president’s knowledge. This source is, of course, of power. Our attention is drawn to the resignation in August of 1973. In the Deep Throat—both the narrative’s most absence of women so clearly in the early background, we see Woodward and Ber- important access to secret informa- scenes that, if we are paying attention, nstein working, typing the stories that tion and its most secret secret. The we begin to focus on their presence as will become fodder for the news agen- name “Deep Throat,” also the title of a well. Robert Redford’s wedding ring, cies. In contrast to the opening sequence notorious pornographic film, alludes to transferred to the ring finger of his right in which the striking of typewriter keys illicit intimacy. The seduction scene in hand (as Bob Woodward was unmarried sounds like ten clear shots being fired in which Woodward convinces his source at the time), calls attention to itself as rapid succession, the teletype soundtrack to reveal information for the first time a sign of absence, a sign of singleness evokes the clacking of chatter, idle talk, is constructed around the phrase “you and loneliness—a lack. The newsroom gossip. It is an appropriate ending for a can trust me,” not a false promise in itself is presided over by an absence. film that has emphasized the power of this case, as Woodward kept his closely Ben Bradlee is important to be sure, chitchat, scuttlebutt, and secrets passed guarded secret for thirty years.5 Never- but he answers to Katharine Graham, from person to person. theless, the fact that we never see Deep whose appearance in the film occurs Peter Brooks has argued that melo- Throat’s face clearly is not as important only in our imaginations, and then in drama is a response to “the loss of con- as the fact that we see his half-profile, a salacious sense.8 Over the phone the viction in a transcendent basis for the a glowing cigarette, or a dark shadow voice of John Mitchell threatens: “Tell distinction between good and evil” (dis- through point-of-view shots that equate Katie Graham she’ll get her tit caught cussed by Cavell 41); Stanley Cavell is our vision with Woodward’s. Certainly in a wringer if you print that.” Mitch- less pessimistic about the genre, reading the historical Woodward could see the ell reminds the viewer of 1976 of the it in dialogue with comedies of remar- historical Deep Throat more clearly women Bernstein and Woodward would riage in which we discover “that our than we do. However, it is important to call in the printed account of this inves- intelligibility to one another is so far a remember that a face-to-face encoun- tigation “the Greek chorus of the Water- match for the heydays of chaos reaching ter has ethical implications that are gate drama” (Bernstein and Woodward our ears” (Cavell 45). All the President’s evaded here.6 93). Martha Mitchell was probably the Men is not a despairing film; good In a philosophical register, to meet most colorful of the commentators on does, after all, prevail; intelligibility is another face-to-face is to recognize one’s Watergate. She was a source for Wood- achieved amid the noise of obfuscation. obligation to another as an other whose ward, Bernstein, and many others, but This film documents that it was largely identity must not be violated or appro- she never makes an appearance. Nei- women who provided access to truth, priated in any way. Ethical meetings, ther does Rose Mary Woods, Nixon’s who lit the path on which the reporters in a philosophical sense, are meetings personal secretary, famous for her loy- pursued the secrets the president’s men between two individuals on terms of alty and inventiveness in explaining wanted to keep in the dark. However, equal exchange. But that is not what an eighteen-and-a-half-minute gap in a instead of being collaborators who share Woodward’s meetings with Deep Throat taped conversation between Nixon and in the victory and feel the ecstasy of are about. They are about the search for his aides, recorded three days after the success along with the reporters, these hidden information, possessed by one break-in at the Watergate.9 women are the “forgotten women” of All the President’s Men as a Woman’s Film 37 melodrama. It is true that their stories American Film Institute. The “David and Brooks, Peter. The Melodramatic Imagina- do not take over the film text as they Goliath” image of the film, he said, was tion: Balzac, Henry James, Melodrama, do in films that are firmly placed in the “Bob Woodward, a little figure in the back- and the Mode of Excess. New Haven: Yale ground, with this tiny, silly little typewriter, UP, 1976. melodrama genre; but Pakula’s attention plucking away at it” (Pakula 64). Cavell, Stanley. Contesting Tears: The to the cameo performances, as well as 4. Although the film is seen as a cel- Hollywood Melodrama of the Unknown the repetition within those cameos of ebration of investigative journalism and a Woman. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1996. the melodramatic pattern of seduction triumph for the reporters, the performances Edmondson, Madeleine, and Alden Duer and abandonment, creates an emotional of the actresses allow the film to record Cohen. The Women of Watergate. New the emotional realities of those on whose York: Stein, 1975. countercurrent to the arc of the narrative. information that triumph was built. As Garay, Ronald. “Watergate,” The Museum of Therefore, it is important to see this film David H. Richter states, “Historical films Broadcast Communications 7 Oct. 2007. as a “woman’s film.” The achievement inevitably say more than they can possibly Goldman, William. “All the President’s celebrated in All the President’s Men know about the past” (142). On the film as Men.” Five Screenplays with Essays. does not come about by traditional mas- a celebration of American journalism at the New York and London: Applause, 1997. expense of historical accuracy, see Robert 219–338. culine prowess and mastery; it comes Brent Toplin (180–201), and William E. Graham, Katharine. Personal History. New from attention to activities normally Leuchtenburg. York: Vintage, 1998. presided over by women—the banal, the 5. In late May 2005, this secret was Haskell, Molly. “The Woman’s Film.” Femi- quotidian, the ordinary things of life. As revealed by Deep Throat himself. He was nist Film Theory: A Reader. Ed. Sue this moment in history is appropriately Mark Felt, who, in 1972, was the second- Thornham. New York: New York UP, ranking official at the FBI. 1991. 20–30. recalled as a triumph for journalism, 6. For the ethical implications of meet- Krebs, Albin. “Networks to Rotate Water- this film reminds us of the sadness of ing another “face-to-face,” see Emmanuel gate Hearings.” New York Times 26 May the moment as well. In the end, the rev- Levinas (79–81). 1973: 1, 63. elation of truth is not enough to repair 7. See Cavell on the melodrama or Leuchtenburg, William E. “All the President’s a world in which intimacy serves as a “woman’s film” as a genre which is derived Men.” Past Imperfect: History According from and which negates the “comedy of to the Movies. Ed. Mark C. Carnes, Ted pretext for exchanges that ultimately remarriage” (1–10). Mico, John Miller-Monzon, and David end up in the public domain. In such a 8. For Katharine Graham’s reaction to Rubel. A Society of American Historians world—a world we still inhabit—every the making of the film, to the film itself, and Book. New York: Holt, 1995. 288–91. story is potentially a story of loss, heart- to her absence therein, “except for the one Levinas, Emmanuel. Totality and Infinity: famous allusion to my anatomy” (502), see An Essay on Exteriority. break, and tears. Trans. Alfonso her Personal History (500–03). Lingus. Pittsburgh: Duquesne UP, 1969. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 9. Woods died on January 22, 2005 and Pakula, Alan. “American Film Institute was remembered in obituaries as a loyal Seminar with Alan Pakula, held May 27, I thank Megan Atwood, Adrienne Spain friend to Nixon and his family. Her testi- 1976.” Center for Advanced Film Studies. Chu, Pamela Murray Winters, and the edito- mony as to how the erasure accidentally Beverly Hills: AFI, 1978. rial staff of JPF&T for help in shaping this occurred is generally regarded as prepos- Richter, David H. “Keeping Company in argument. terous, but as the London Times reported at Hollywood: Ethical Issues in Nonfiction NOTES the time of her death, “Although the pros- Film.” Narrative 15 (2007): 140–66. ecution said her account was implausible, “Rose Mary Woods.” London Times 25 Jan. 1. See Linda Williams, who discusses they were not able to disprove it” (“Rose 2005. 22 Feb. 2006