2
hrs & 37 min, color, 1999
The
making of a docudrama is quite a challenge.
I am speaking of a true story that demonstrates the old adage that fact
can be, if not stranger than fiction, then at least as amazing and startling. There are of course those movies that purport
to be true but are little more than contrived tributes to factual persons or
groups of persons. This is especially
the case when the tale told is cast in the form of a musical. Al Jolson, Eddie Duchin, Glenn Miller, and
the composing team of Bert Kalmar and Harry Ruby, and several other show biz
figures, have had the supposed stories of their lives emblazoned on the screen,
but dig a little and you will find that at least 90% of the details portrayed
come from the fertile mind of a Hollywood scriptwriter. All of these above showy productions took
great liberties in cleaning up the person’s act, making sure they came out
smelling sweet for a family audience.
But just Google any one of them, and you will see just how phony the
whole shebang really is. “Based on the
life of - !” So the credits read. Those two little words, “based on,” can mean
nothing more than a faint suggestion of what might have been fact, if only, or
what we would like to believe was fact.
A
docudrama is something else. It is a
serious and concentrated attempt to tell the unvarnished truth about a living
or historical subject or event. It is
not created in order to sell anything; it is not propaganda. See how the word breaks down: docu -
drama! It falls somewhere between a
newsy documentary and an entertaining but serious depiction. A documentary is concerned with facts; a
docudrama is concerned with truth. It is
an attempt at least to get at the truth by way of the facts. Scenes and even characters are created out of
the screen writer’s imagination “for dramatic purposes.” But no attempt is made to clean up the
undesirable elements. Dialogue more
inspired than the conversation that actually occurred can heighten the salient
points in a historical reenactment.
These additions can give clearer definition to what was at stake in the
course of events under examination.
In
my estimation “The Insider,” released in 1999, is a superb example of how to do
it right, with honesty and integrity and with first rate film-making
skill. (“All the President’s Men” from
1976 is another.) The quality
screenplay, adapted from Marie Brenner’s
Vanity Fair article “The Man Who Knew Too Much” is the work of Eric Roth and Michael Mann
under Mann’s firm direction. Russell
Crowe plays Jeff Wigand, the biological chemist hired by the Brown and
Williamson Tobacco Company (manufacturer of Philip Morris Cigarettes) who,
after he was fired, blew the whistle on the company’s insidious process of
deliberately enhancing the addictive effect of its product. He did this by way of an interview with Mike
Wallace (Christopher Plummer) on 60 Minutes in 1996, thereby taking the bold
step of violating his severance agreement not to talk. At first he resists opening his mouth to anyone
in keeping with that gag order, but when Brown and Williamson starts tracking
his every move and spying on him and attempting to add more severe conditions
to the agreement, ones that are threatening to his wife and two little girls,
he changes his mind and begins corresponding with CBS program supervisor Lowell
Bergman (Al Pacino) and soon agrees to the interview with Wallace, after which
his troubles and heartaches are just beginning.
Oddly
enough, it is not just the tobacco industry and its underhanded behavior that
is scrutinized so much in this tense probe, but also television journalism
itself and its ethical quandaries. It
seems that Bergman’s enrolling of Wigand into telling all gets him entangled in
a dilemma of his own. The top officials
of the network balk at running the expose, once filmed, for fear of being sued
by Wigand’s former employer. When the
other news people besides Bergman concur in the decision, thereby leaving
Wigand hung out to dry, Bergman must use his wits to get the decision reversed
and save Wigand from total despair, his marriage having already failed. After the full interview is broadcast,
Wigand is gratified to know that his children are able to learn why he had put
them through all that crisis. He then
became a high school chemistry teacher, a job that led to other opportunities.
Questions
are raised that defy easy answers – about free speech and privileged
communication. And they are handled in
good taste, with excellent pacing. The
film may run a full two and a half hours, but it is inconceivable to me that
any caring person would be bored. Every
scene without exception is gripping; there are no drags or lags. And after fifteen years it remains quite
relevant and contemporary. We are still
hearing much about the subject of tobacco’s addictive power and about efforts
to lobby Congress to increase the excise tax on this product. A recent editorial in the Washington Post
took issue with those who feel that we should just let the long time smokers
smoke themselves to death and concentrate on saving the younger crowd. It maintained that lung cancer is a very real
danger. It kills people by very slow
degrees. My own father was “lucky” in
that he was dead within less than three months after he was diagnosed. Most victims are not so “lucky.” When Humphrey Bogart was watched lighting up
with his leading ladies in all those movies he made during the 1940s, few
people knew at the time that those weeds were killing him. He finally died a very horrible death in 1957. If anyone wants to know how horrible, just
let them read Lauren Bacall’s autobiography.
The good news: Recent polls have
shown that while in the 1950s a full half of the U.S. population were smokers,
today less than one fifth are. But the
push stays on for reducing that figure far more. And we all know now that smokers have become
a segregated minority in public with smoke free public places. How sweet it
is! Wigand enjoys his share of the
credit for that.
The movie benefits from three
strong male performances, each one a sturdy example of the acting craft.
Christopher Plummer does not
attempt to imitate Mike Wallace’s manner of speech or reconstruct his
personality. Such an attempt would have
been a fool’s errand. But he does capture
the man’s tenacity and unapologetic attack mode, smartly and cogently. You can hear the spirit of the man at work,
and that is enough. The character we see
can cut someone down in a few words when he picks up the scent of mendacity. Plummer must have spent many hours watching
footage of Wallace doing his thing.
Great supporting work!
Russell Crowe is magnificent
in the shoes of Wigand. He brings a lot
of vulnerability and snap and controlled fury to the part. The character he embodies can be a bit fast
on the draw, but he can also seethe until tempered by the input of calmer
individuals. According to reports from
those at the CBS network who have seen the film, his interpretation of Wigand
is quite accurate. This remains in my
opinion his best work on screen. Only “A
Beautiful Mind” would compete for the honor.
Al Pacino as Bergman comes
forth with another of his brassy, take-charge, no-nonsense depictions,
combining sincerity and dedication to the art of journalism with the voice of
rationality amidst pending calamity. No
one else I know of could handle that better.
His scenes with Crowe are letter perfect and tone perfect, two vastly
different warriors trying to find a common strategy.
Though her part is quite
small, I need to put in a word for Diane Venora, who plays Wigand’s wife. She does a splendid job, bringing her share
of heart to the picture. One of the most
stirring moments is the one in which she announces to her husband that she is
leaving him. She does not stage an
uproarious scene; she just simply confesses to him, meekly and tearfully, that
“I don’t think I can do this.” She knows
she should stick with him, that a wife’s place is at her husband’s side in a
crisis, but she has to back out. This confession
follows a death threat which she herself has read on their e-mail. A little too much for her!
There are many memorable
moments of confrontation in this masterpiece.
I have seen it about a half a dozen times, and I hope to again. It is easy enough to obtain from Netflix.
To read other entries in my
blog, please consult its website:
enspiritus.blogspot.com. To learn
about me consult on the website the blog entry for August 9, 2013.
No comments:
Post a Comment