MovieChat Forums > Absence of Malice (1981) Discussion > That was a bad ending (spoilers)

That was a bad ending (spoilers)


I thought most of "Absence of Malice" was pretty good. But a bunch of things just didn't make sense to me and pretty much ruined what the film had going for it. Most of those things came at or near the end.

1. Why did Paul Newman and Sally Fields get together? She was responsible for the suicide of a very close friend. She prints whatever she wants in the paper because it's "news", and only considers the ethics of what she did retrospectively if it hurts someone. How is that someone you want to sleep with?

2. Why did PN set up the DA with those messages on his machine and everything? I know he was getting the strike force guy too, but the DA was basically the only guy who didn't do anything wrong. If the PN was so innocent, why did he screw that guy over? Also, why, after he performed that setup and knew that someone in the press would get the story, did he get mad when SF wanted to know if he really was paying off the DA? He knew she might get that info - he's the one who fabricated the story.

3. Why was the DA pressured to resign, but PN, who was incriminated to an equal degree by the evidence he set up, gets to walk?

4. Why was the strike force leader fired, but the FBI guy who placed the taps for him wasn't? At least not immediately by Wilford Brimley.

5. Why does SF appear to have a happy ending? She acted irresponsibly through the entire movie up until the end, when for some reason she decides to protect the FBI guy, who was her source. It was mentioned that she could go to jail, but at the end when she was talking to PN on the dock, she hardly seemed worried: taking some time off, tanning at the beach - life is good, eh?

All of this seemed very goofy to me. Kind of a ridiculous ending to a decent movie.

reply

I just watched the movie for the first time and thought it was almost perfect for the genre & time.
------

1. I think we can chalk this up to a typical Hollywood fault. You need a romance of some sort. Maybe since she had done 3 movies w/ Burt Reynolds in 3 years this was a chance to break that bond in the public eye so.

2. Regarding the DA, Gallagher(Newman) didnt really know the DA's role in pushing him in the first place. Either the DA was responsible and deserved it or he knew about it and did nothing to stop it and therefore deserved it. He did the latter and let an innocent man get smeared. All of this lead to Teresa's suicide. Everybody but Gallagher and Teresa were guilty as far I'm concerned. Regarding Saly Fields character, he said he knew someone in the press would get hold of the fake story. I think he really wanted her to stay out of it so that afterwards they could salvaged whatever it was that they had together.

3. Technically PN did nothing illegal, why should he get in trouble. DA's are essentially politicians. Quinn was appointed by the President and then doubly disgraced. His disgrace tarnishes the President eventually.

4. Rosen first tries to force an innocent man to become a governemnt informant, which was where all this trouble began. Then he illegally orders the tapping of of a Presidential appointee and the innocent man. He deserved to be fired. You can bet the FBI guy got a a serious spanking but illegal wiretaps happen all the time and Wilfords character knows that. PLus he probably understood the he was another person caught up in the B.S. that Rosen started.

5. Wilfords character wanted all this wrapped up neatly and quickly. Putting her in jail would just extend the dilemma. And I doubt she gets the editting job she was offered. She loses the guy , loses the Editing job, and she probably is cut back to crap coverage which gives her more time to sit around and think about what a mistake she made.

All in all this is typical of many older movies. The studios want everyone to feel good about life so they add a little sugar coating. Thats why I don't mind remakes. The sugar coating is usually the first thing that goes. If this were made today. Gallagher and Teresa would have been involved, making her death more tragic, We would see Carter disgraced and Gallghers plan would backfire with his 'uncle' believing he is snitch leading to him sharing a grave with Diaz. Full circle, Roll credits.

reply

None of it makes sense. A Miami D.A. is NOT appointed by the President. A U.S. Attorney is, but he is called the D.A. in the film.

It is a STAR vehicle. The press criticized the film vociferously for its lack of fidelity.

reply

the press criticizes a film that criticizes the press

ha, i love it!

reply

[deleted]

In response to weejogs: The reasons Gallagher turned around and kept company with Megan was that he was conning her in order to get back at everybody involved in both the irresponsible investigation and the newspaper's vile and cruel exposĂ© that resulted in Melinda's suicide. So not only wasn't it far fetched a possibility, it made complete sense and the hidden motives were handled with so much expertise as to fool even you. I do agree with you however as to the paper thin motivations and actions of Sally Field. As to the DA, his mea culpa was in heading an investigation based on innuendo, personal bias and lack of evidence. He didn't have to commit a crime per se, just occupy the government's offices with false allegations and misleading and incompetent failure in its duties. The ending not only made complete sense, but it was rather nice to see Gallagher get even with the politicians Quinn and Rosen at work with their typical unfounded raisons d'ĂȘtre that many in that office involve themselves in.
The real villain that needed more comeuppance was Sally Fields' boss, McAdam. It was his insistence and persistence that led to the irresponsible report on the Melinda's abortion. It's funny that McAdam was the only one left unscathed when his involvement was the most heinous and cruel. But I guess reality's like that - the wrong people receive the bulk of the blame and punishment while others whose involvements are less prosecutable receive little to no recompense whatsoever..

reply

He might have realized that; that's why she's allowed to keep her job. I suspect they'll have a conversation about all of this later.

reply

I thought most of "Absence of Malice" was pretty good. But a bunch of things just didn't make sense to me and pretty much ruined what the film had going for it. Most of those things came at or near the end.

First of all,you have to consider that this film was released in the 1981.It was the 80's.There would be a lot of things that would really turn off a viewer especially things have changed for the past 30+ years from how the films were made that decade to the films made in the present.Cheesiness was normal during the 80's. LOL

1. Why did Paul Newman and Sally Fields get together? She was responsible for the suicide of a very close friend. She prints whatever she wants in the paper because it's "news", and only considers the ethics of what she did retrospectively if it hurts someone. How is that someone you want to sleep with?
In the 80's,romance was obviously essential in movies especially among the lead stars.Writers would always lead to have a romantic element in the film.Also,I do believe that Paul Newman's character somewhat used her for his agenda later on after a fake story was written about him.

2. Why did PN set up the DA with those messages on his machine and everything? I know he was getting the strike force guy too, but the DA was basically the only guy who didn't do anything wrong. If the PN was so innocent, why did he screw that guy over? Also, why, after he performed that setup and knew that someone in the press would get the story, did he get mad when SF wanted to know if he really was paying off the DA? He knew she might get that info - he's the one who fabricated the story.
I think that the DA was somewhat an accomplice in fabricating the fake story due to the publicity it would get considering that Paul Newman's family particularly his dad was into crime and it was subtle in the movie that the police and the Justice Department weren't able to put him in jail nor capture him in his illegal activities.Getting Paul Newman's character involvement in the murder would somehow provide publicity for the DA via media since he is running for re-election.Politics and political motivations were somehow a reason for this.

3. Why was the DA pressured to resign, but PN, who was incriminated to an equal degree by the evidence he set up, gets to walk?
I think that there was no evidence for Paul Newman about the $9,000 he gave to the DA since it was anonymous and it was stated in the film that he gave them as a contribution for his campaign fund.There is no evidence to incriminate him.Also,he never validated the DA's admission to the crime he committed.The DA was forced to resign since he admitted that he was at fault for receiving the money given to him to clear Paul Newman's character and his guilt in the fake story.


4. Why was the strike force leader fired, but the FBI guy who placed the taps for him wasn't? At least not immediately by Wilford Brimley.
The strike force leader was definitely guilty on the invasion of a person's privacy considering that Paul Newman's character wasn't a principal suspect for the murder committed.Also,part of the deal was that Paul Newman's character was cleared as a suspect to the murder BEFORE these illegal wire tapping happened.Also,Sally Field's character did not mention the identity of the FBI men involved during the hearing.

5. Why does SF appear to have a happy ending? She acted irresponsibly through the entire movie up until the end, when for some reason she decides to protect the FBI guy, who was her source. It was mentioned that she could go to jail, but at the end when she was talking to PN on the dock, she hardly seemed worried: taking some time off, tanning at the beach - life is good, eh?
I think it was subtle in the movie that she got suspended from her job for acting responsibly despite the fact that it was her editor who pushed her to do the story.She even asked Paul Newman's character about whether if her former employer at 16 is going to accept her when he mentioned his destination to her while on the boat.I think that what was happening to her at work was not good for her since her integrity was somewhat harmed after a series of stories were made after the hearing.Aside from that,I think that mentioning that she was taking some time off or tanning at the beach was probably what she was doing during her suspension.Or worse,if she probably got fired if not suspended at all although the movie did not make clear about it since 80's movies were all about happy endings.

All of this seemed very goofy to me. Kind of a ridiculous ending to a decent movie.

Just like what I said,Absence of Malice is goofy especially when you watch it at present since film-making in the 1980's is a lot different as compared to the present.But still,it was a great film BUT OBVIOUSLY NEVER STOOD THE TEST OF TIME.


http://www.ronpaul2012.com/

RON PAUL 2012

reply

Well actually the film is generally regarded as having a very good ending.

1. Why did Paul Newman and Sally Fields get together? She was responsible for the suicide of a very close friend.
I agree that it was unlikely, but the film shows that they liked each other and Megan does give him an early come on of which he doesn't take advantage. As The Arizonian says, he ended up using her, after giving her an oblique warning.
Why did PN set up the DA with those messages on his machine and everything? ... the DA was basically the only guy who didn't do anything wrong.
Not true! The DA reluctantly approved Rosen's investigation into Gallagher. That's why Wells tells the DA he needs to consider his position.
3. Why was the DA pressured to resign, but PN, who was incriminated to an equal degree by the evidence he set up, gets to walk?
Gallagher wasn't incriminated at all. Wells acknowledges this. He didn't admit to any thing, so didn't self - incriminate himself.
4. Why was the strike force leader fired, but the FBI guy who placed the taps for him wasn't?
Only Megan and Rosen could have fingered the FBI guy and neither did. Megan tells Wells she won't name her source.
5. Why does SF appear to have a happy ending?
Well that's a moot point. ( I think)She leaves her newspaper and announces she plans to leave Florida, with a hint she may look Gallagher up in the future.
Kind of a ridiculous ending to a decent movie.
That's your opinion. Megan was never likely to be indicted, despite Wells' huffing and puffing...the whole point of The Absence of Malice. Gallagher achieves some sense of retribution for the hurt suffered by him and Teresa that IRL would arguably have been a lot harder to come by and Megan learns a few lessons the hard way. I thought it was a really neat denouement.

reply

As to comment one, I would like to have seen the Paul Newman character tell the Sally Field character exactly what he thought of her, her lack of ethics and her profession in general rather than extremely lame "Maybe we will see each other later". The character had already shown himself to be clever and adept, far too clever to seemingly become interested in the woman who had done a great deal of damage to his life.

reply

1. Simple, they were attracted to one another. After his initial violent reaction to Theresa's suicide, he realized that it happened because both women were trying to help him in their own inept ways. Theresa sought out Meg and told told her the story, and Meg wrote it to help clear Gallagher. She did wrestle with including the abortion information in the article, but her editor convinced her that it was the only aspect of the story that made it believable.

Blaming Meg entirely for what happened was wrong, and Gallagher admits that when he goes to her apartment to give her a new blouse and says in effect "I took it all out on you...it isn't that simple. That's not an apology, I just want to set the record straight." He knew Theresa was unstable and fragile and that Meg could not have foreseen what happened.

Later, when Meg sends him the preview of her article exonerating him from the front page of the paper (which she most likely pushed for), not buried in the back, he had decided to put it behind them. That's why he is waiting for her outside her apartment that night.

2. The D.A. was not innocent. He allowed Rosen to continue his smear campaign against Gallagher out of ambition. He didn't call off the investigation because it was wrong, he only did it because Gallagher agreed to give him what he wanted directly, so he could cut Rosen out of the loop and take all the credit for solving the Diaz case. The only way to ensnare Rosen was to give him a new target. In both cases, Gallagher simply played on their blind ambition and let them hang themselves.

He walked out on Meg because she showed no faith in him and refused to stop being a reporter with him. He said to her, "You want to know the truth? Ask me as a person, I'll tell you...Ask me as a reporter, I got no comment." Even later, when she asks him, "Who are you?" he is taken aback and says "You mean you aren't sure yet?" she says "No". At this point he knows she is onto the story. She could have told him what she knew, and he most likely would have told her what he was up to. Someone else could have written the story, but she wouldn't do that. He asked her to take him on faith and she refused.

3. Gallagher wasn't incriminated at all. He hadn't done anything other than give two anonymous donations to an action committee. But he did it because he knew the FBI and Rosen were watching him, that they would find out, and would jump to the conclusion that he was laundering a payoff to the DA through the committee. But the DA had no idea he gave money to the committee, and Gallagher never accused him of knowing. That was the point of his "Prove it" statement to Rosen. He gave Rosen the rope to hang himself and he did.

However, the DA had been accused in the news of taking a bribe. Even though he would be "officially" cleared, much of the public still wouldn't believe it. He was now damaged goods ("You got a hell of a publicity problem"), and of no use as a DA anymore.

4. We don't know he wasn't. Wells told him he would talk to him shortly. But he was basically a decent guy, and watching him get fired wasn't as satisfying as seeing Rosen get the axe. He was really the malicious force behind the whole mess. Did you really need to actually see the FBI guy get fired too?

5. She didn't have a happy ending. The fact that she became part of the story and had been used as a dupe to push false stories damaged her reputation, and probably that of her editor.

It was clear that Wells wasn't going to try to put her in jail once the meeting had ended, so why would she be worried about it?

reply

Huh - that wasn't clear. The DA didn't know about the checks? How was that made clear that he didn't know?

So what was his motivation in making a statement to clear PN? Just his desire to have PN help him in his investigation?

reply

1. Gallagher seduced Carter. He did this deliberately, to get further leverage on her, and to make it look like he was sleeping with her in exchange for a sympathetic article.
2. The State Attorney for the Southern District of Florida is a Presidentially-appointed position of a federal jurisdiction. He is as guilty as Rosen, in that he allowed Rosen's bogus investigation of Gallagher to continue ('I should have shut you down earlier, Elliot... I'm shutting you down now.'). He foolishly entered into an exclusive arrangement with Gallagher, to protect his own ass, and get solo credit for the Diaz investigation.
3. The State Attorney's reputation is destroyed. He was being wire-tapped by his own people, for Christ's sakes! AAG Wells was only suggesting he resign... but it's a good suggestion. As for Gallagher, what evidence? It's all circumstantial, and further investigation would only further damage the federal law offices. Absence of malice works both ways.
4. Rosen gets fired because he's an amoral a-hole who forgot the rules. Who says his investigators don't get the boot as well? Wadell looks plenty worried in his final scenes; after all he's done, if I were him I'd be worried, too.
5. I'm pretty sure she has no future as a journalist in Miami, her specific fate is simply unimportant to the narrative. Like she said to Gallagher, 'You got us all.'; as Gallagher replies, 'You got yourselves.'.
'Goofy' and 'ridiculous' are characters in Disney animations; as descriptors of dramas they are quite useless. The film ends with at least five lives ruined, one ended outright, a union official still missing (and presumed dead), and the Federal Attorney's office in shambles. I don't think anyone is laughing, do you?

reply