MovieChat Forums > A Few Good Men (1992) Discussion > Nicholson's speech at the end

Nicholson's speech at the end


Was he wrong?

reply

some, mostly no.

Mostly he was spot on.


Taken in general, not specific to the situation of the film... just generally speaking regarding A Military Serviceman vs some bitching civilian whining about the military... He is exactly right.

"Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom.

You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall -- you need me on that wall.

We use words like "honor," "code," "loyalty." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it.

I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand the post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think you're entitled to!"


As far as what happened regards to Pvt Santiago... he was completely in the wrong.

reply

I agree.

reply

"A Military Serviceman vs some bitching civilian whining about the military".

I think what Jack Nicholson was trying to say in this monologue is that "college grads" like Tom Cruise take their freedom for granted when it's people like him that are responsible for upholding that very freedom in the first place (though with questionable methods). This is what he meant when he said "I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom".

reply

That's what makes Nicholson's character so intriguing. On the one hand, he was a cruel, sadistic bastard that chose to torture the marine by forcing him to stay at a post he wasn't suited to, using it as punishment because he just assumed the guy was gold-bricking and needed a lesson taught to him. He should have taken the hint at the guy's physical performance and let him go back to the states to have a physical checkup, rather than have a marine that was a "weak link" stay on a base like that.

But on the other hand, he brought up a very true, and ugly fact of American life: the only way to preserve our freedoms is to have armed, trained soldiers standing watch and to make sacrifices so that ordinary citizens can be safe and never have to face combat themselves. The fact that a lot of people don't appreciate that, particularly certain college-educated adults who have never had to put their lives in danger to protect America, is what angers people just like Nicholson's character. He's willing to make the hard choices, even if not everyone agrees with them. And considering which base this was, a single American outpost/prison on the same island as a communist dictatorship, I don't blame the guy for being pissed off all the time.

reply

It wasn't a Prison at that Time. GITMO didn't house the Special Security Prison for captured terrorists at that time. This was well before 9/11.

reply

I know, it was the 90s, but it's still Gitmo, and it was a military outpost at the time.

reply

Realistacly. someone as forward thinking as Jessup would've seen how unfit for the Marines someone like Santiago was right from the get-go (if not through his own observations, then those of his subordinates like the JT Walsh or Keifer Sutherland characters), and would've promptly transferred or discharged him.

reply

Perhaps his words were not wrong, I honestly do not know, but he was a hypocrite by not adhering to this code he goes on at length about.

He says "We follow orders or people die", yet he disregarded an order not to do code reds and someone died.

He rants about "Honor, Code, Loyalty" yet immediately engineers a cover up of his actions and throws the two marines who followed his orders under a bus to save his own butt.

reply