The night before the last day of the trial the Tom Cruise character says what he's going to do and predicts how the Nicholson character will react. The next day it all happens exactly as he said. Were they afraid we wouldn't understand what happened? Was it this way in the original play as well?
shareI think the only thing people remember from this film was the iconic Jack Nicholson vs. Tom Cruise dribble.
I honestly can't remember anything else from the film.
But Rob Reiner was always overrated as a director.
Please don't derail the discussion with off-topic comments.
shareSure, there may have been a little spoon-feeding to the audience...leading-up to the big showdown scene, but I think that was wise. Yes, some of the viewers would NOT have surmised that it was strategy to bate and goad Jessep into blowing-up and speaking his truth....and the only way they win this trial is based on that Hail Mary.
Many viewers probably just got caught-up in the drama of the moment and felt it was a surprising accident that Jessep actually spilled it. Or at least a lot of viewers would have felt that way, had it not been discussed as a strategy by Kaffee and his team.
I didn't mind that little bit of spoon-feeding. It was consistent with other scenes in which strategy was discussed...and I felt those little insights about legal strategy in general were interesting. (Like how they prepared their witnesses). Also, discussing the whole plan for Jessep created some additional suspense...(in that, if the plan failed...it would backfire on Kaffee and could cost him his career). Not too many people would have been aware of those potential consequences for Kaffee.
Also, there were still a few tricks they DIDN'T exactly telegraph...(but rather led subtle breadcrumbs about).....like the clever use of Airmen Cecil and O'Malley.
Agreed.
shareVery well put. Nothing more needs to be added. You've stated it perfectly.
share"Please don't derail the discussion with off-topic comments." - SO much "this".
Agree with Ripkens. Sorkin has used this with dialogue more in his later writings. He will repeat and repeat dialogue to ensure the audience is tracking.
It's OK to telegraph a strategy that risky ... we then get to watch in anticipation, wondering whether it'll work or not, instead of wondering what the hell he's doing.
In standup comedy, some of the best punchlines are telegraphed well in advance, especially the last joke of a set.
same notion - this particular strategy didn't have to be a surprise
Besides, from this board and its IMDB predecessor, I'd guess a good number of folks actually forgot Kaffee's plan (odd, since it included Cruise's hilarious Nicholson impression)
I had little doubt it would work. Tom Cruise is the hero of the movie. Of course he's going to triumph! Just like he does in every heroic movie he's in. Exactly *how* he could do it was the only interesting part.
shareDude. Kevin Pollack literally asks him how he's going to get Jessup to admit it. And Tom Cruise straight up says "I don't know". And then you see him go get his bat, look at this clothes, and then run out of the house.
So you know his general strategy, but you don't know the specifics of how he's going to pull this off beforehand. He didn't even know how to do it until he got his bat, and he was still kinda winging it in the courtroom.
The details would seem uninteresting. We pretty much have an idea that the character is an explosive one and can figure out that it won't take that much to set him off.
It seems this scene was not in the play. Apparently for movie audiences things need to be dumbed down.
They discuss the strategy around the table, where KP asks how will they get Jessep to admit it. That's when Kaffee says something to the effect of: "We coax it out of him. We take him to where he has wanted to go along. Remember, (does an imitation of Jessep)....he eats his breakfast 100 yards from enemy soldiers that want to kill him....."
It is during that discussion that they discuss a strategy of goading Jessep into admitting it. It is also discussed by Kaffee and Joanne in a small room moments before they enter the courtroom. Again, just to spoonfeed us a bit, and help us (the audience) understand the magnitude and ramifications of what Kaffee will be attempting.
The scene you're referring to (when Kaffee goes to get his bat, sees the clothes hanging in the closet, and then runs out of his apartment: That scene was him simply realizing....Willie had not packed any of the clothes out of his closet, yet he was supposedly planning on catching a flight early the following morning.
Did I misremember then? My bad.
I thought that whole scene with the bat occurs right after the "I eat my breakfast 100 yards away" spiel.
I know that he was discussing about how they need to goad it out, but when asked, he didn't know.
Wait, I just looked up the script:
SAM
And you think you can got him to
just say it?
KAFFEE
I think he wants to say it. I think
he's pissed off that he's gotta hide
from us. I think he wants to say
that he made a command decision and
that's the end of it. He eats
breakfast 80 yards away from 4000
Cubans who are trained to kill him,
and no one's gonna tell him how to
run his base. Least of all the pushy
broad, the smart Jew, and the Harvard
clown. I need to shake him and put
him on the defensive.
SAM
That's it? That's the plan?
KAFFEE
That's the plan.
SAM
You're gonna trip Jessep and he's
gonna confess.
KAFFEE
I'm not gonna trip him. I'm gonna
lead him right where he's dying to
go.
SAM
And how are you gonna do that?
KAFFEE
I have no idea. I need my bat.
The very next scene has them going into the courthouse leads him into the courthouse. But the realization you just described about the clothes...the viewer doesn't know the significance of his epiphany until the court trial itself.
This is what I mean. The viewer knows that their strategy involves goading Jessup. But we don't know exactly what how he's going to do so. And while they're discussing it, Kaffee straight it says he doesn't know how to do so.
We didn’t need to know the specifics of how. We (the audience) simply got to be a fly on the wall when they said that was the goal/strategy. Likewise, we were tipped off on what the repercussions could be for Kaffee.
It was good that they spoonfed us on those two things, but not the specifics of how. That…was much cooler to watch as it unfolded.
I'm not really why you're arguing with me, or what you're arguing at all.
OP says:
"The night before the last day of the trial the Tom Cruise character says what he's going to do and predicts how the Nicholson character will react. The next day it all happens exactly as he said." and
"I had little doubt it would work. Tom Cruise is the hero of the movie. Of course he's going to triumph! Just like he does in every heroic movie he's in. Exactly *how* he could do it was the only interesting part."
He's implying there is no surprise when the actual climax happens. I am saying that implication is incorrect because we don't know the specifics of how, so the climax is still surprising and exciting.
I didn’t think we were arguing at all. I believe we’re saying essentially the same thing.
shareOhhhh, lol my mistake. I was so confused to the point where I doubted my own memory and looked up the script. My apologies.
shareI’m relieved this was your culminating reaction. I was interested in what each of you were saying and seeing no argument but instead, two posters having an interesting chat about the scene in the movie
shareWhat you've observed is exactly what Roger Ebert was most critical about in his review:
Rob Reiner's "A Few Good Men" is one of those movies that tells you what it's going to do, does it, and then tells you what it did. It doesn't think the audience is very bright.
Hmm, you're well informed!
share