Finally saw this, after just "I want the truth!" and "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"
Very good, entertaining and intriguing throughout, and it just goes to show how grey morals can be.
Lazy writing.
So the prosecution breaks down an egotistical, aarogant, misogynist, Marine officer by pissing him off on the stand. NOT by any trick in his story. NOT by any creative discrepency in the facts. Just plain old "I'm pissed off so let me out of here" bullshit.
This is a movie for grunts and their thought process.
I always had the same thought. Though the scene was very good - acting and filming wise - it made no sense. An experienced soldier, in charge of one of the country's most important military outposts, simply breaks down on the stand because of something a pissy lawyer said - how did he finish boot camp, let alone get to the position he's in right now?
shareIt's for all the Jack-offs who can't see enough of him and masturbate imaging themselves being as big a douche as his characters.
sharetalking about Nicholson or Cruise?
shareNicholson.
Very over rated and mostly one note.
Jack Nicholson is an amazing actor, who is cursed with the one thing no good actor should have - very characteristic looks and mannerisms. Especially with age, as they become more pronounced, like Al Pacino has, basically, started reprising colonel Slade. That limits his scope of roles, but, nevertheless, he was great in drama, comedy, horror, thriller, action... Saying that - this wasn't a necessary role for him. Jessup was a character anyone could have played. Although Jack made him a bit more arrogant and annoying.
shareNicholson.
Very over rated and mostly one note.
Wow, I don’t know if I’ve ever been witness to a person being more wrong than this. 😂 share
Not necessarily lazy writing. The script also sets up throughout the film that putting him on the stand was going to be a huge risk and a huge long shot. They didn't hide the fact they didn't have much to go with, hence the debate with even going through with it in the first place. The cleverness was to have the airmen witnesses present on deck, which was a complete bluff and would scare Jessup into thinking they had proof. That, and added the fact they were backed into a corner, having exhausted all their other avenues and getting punched in the nuts at every turn. It was a hail-mary heave that antagonizing him into breaking down on the stand could possibly work.
shareThat's exactly my point.
I find it unbelievable that this officer could be broken down so easily.
This was MUCH better done in The Caine Mutiny.
But of course, Wouke was a MUCH better writer and Bogart a much better actor.
I feel it was shown it was easy to break him down because he ultimately WANTED to break down. He couldn't wait to yell at somebody about *Insert entire speech.*
Galloway even suspects as much
His ego and position was so heavily emphasized to show that he thought of himself as untouchable. He truly believed that breaking down wasn't really going to result in any significant consequences, as demonstrated by his behavior right after the speech
share"breaking down wasn't really going to result in any significant consequences"
That's a different approach. I must say I never thought about that. However, to make it the crux of your story is what I still call "lazy writing".
I mean, they literally address that in the movie as their strategy. Kaffee thinks that Jessup wants to say it, because he eats 300 yards away from Cubans who are trained to kill him. Deride the choice if you want, but the fact that you never thought about that sounds like you didn't really pay attention to the movie. I wouldn't judge the film based on your own standards and expectations for a courtroom genre if you're not taking the time to see what the movie may be doing instead.
shareIm glad my post irritated you enough to show your ignorance.
Keep em' coming.
Dumb fucks like you keep this site runing. (Even though most have you blocked).
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think potential witnesses are allowed to be in the courtroom prior to testifying.
So in fact this was poor writing, not a lawyer being clever.
Real life rules and dramatic movie rules are always different. It's not lazy writing. Take ANY professsion in any movie, and real-life counterparts will tell you things are out that are laughable. That doesn't mean it's lazy writing. As long as it adheres to what the movie is establishing in its own rules, you can make all sorts of exceptions. Take the best dramatic cop thriller, or military drama, or sports flick. It could be a movie about a innocent money laundering banker in prison. It could be about an adventuring archology professor. It could be about a heist in Vegas casinos. It could be about a prodigy drummer getting abused by his teacher. Really anything. Its not going to line up with reality. That's a fact. It doesn't mean it was lazy. Those are two different concepts you're trying to equate.
Well, I disagree. They could have done the same thing without the two airman showing up in the courtroom.
I don't recall exactly, but did Kaffee even intend to put the airman on the stand knowing that they had nothing of value to testify about?
He had them there simply to rattle Jessup before he goes in on him. Make him think he's got something Jessup didnt know. He was going for broke. If he wasn't successful, he's toast, and probably would've just asked the airmen generic questions, or just forgo the testimony all together.
share
Kaffee does trick Jessup. He does so by pointing out the contradiction in his testimony. And that is what pisses off Jessup.
Add to that the fact that Kaffee will be in deep shit if Jessup doesn't incriminate himself and it creates more tension.
And overall it demonstrates that Kaffee is capable of more that just getting a plea bargain.
There's a bit more to this scene than Jessup just getting pissed off because he is, in your estimation, annoyed by the whole procedure.
And, by the way, Kaffee was the defense, not the prosecution.
Jessup's expression at the "why was he in any danger" line was excellent. I think it was his one moment of confusion in that sequence. Kaffee's subsequent jab about the court reporter was great, which yeah, just pushed him over the edge.
shareLawyers have immunity in court. Kaffee would not be in trouble for defending his clients by asking questions that could be deemed disrespectful to a superior officer in court.
shareIt was still a great courtroom drama. This was written as a play at first.
What are other movies you’ve seen with courtroom dramas do you think were done better. Anatomy of a Murder comes to mind for me.
Lazy writing was The Titanic.
No, no, no, no, and no.
Colonel Jessep “broke down” because he was unable to hide his contempt for snotty lawyers in “faggoty white uniforms” who, he feels, neither understand nor appreciate his responsibilities and what he feels he must do regardless of what the army code technically states. His arrogance is his undoing, because he can’t see what he did as wrong nor how formidable a legal opponent Kaffee turns out to be. He is also a liar and arguably a coward. If he truly believes Code Reds are an “invaluable teaching tool” then why not say so and take the consequences? Instead he tries to have it both ways by lying about his ordering it while defending the practice hypothetically.
There are two genuine sides to the central moral quandary here, and the movie orders a surprisingly deep and thorough exposition of both. Jessep may have been incapable of seeing the other side, but at least one equally gung-ho Marine was not: Lance Corporal Harold W. Dawson. When asked after sentencing by PFC Downey why they were dishonorably discharged for doing nothing wrong, he had this:
“Yeah, we did.
We were supposed to fight for the people who couldn’t fight for themselves.
We were supposed to fight for Willie.”
That line was moving and real, and made for a hell of a final gut punch.
I like this movie better than when I first saw it.
Unlike so many others, it seems to acquire more weight with each viewing.