MovieChat Forums > Spartan (2004) Discussion > A (very specific) question about the end...

A (very specific) question about the end.

posted 15 years ago by inspector_todd
11 replies | jump to latest

This is a great movie, seen it a couple of times.
Does anyone find the newscast at the end confusing at all?

Of course i understand the Rovian spin the administration puts
on the kidnapping for their benefit, fear mongering etc.

But the WORDS used in the newscast with david paymer before ed o'neal character takes the podium:

- "the administration forced by this terrible abduction..."
- "and thank god they had that ability..."
- "yes. to capitalize on the unfortunate deaths of those two people sailing."

I cannot get my head around this dialogue...

[–] g3pro 15 years ago

First of all, I would call it more "Barackian" or "Husseinian" spin than anything else. Second, it's not the spin of the administration but by the two network TV news anchors.

Regarding the meaning of the dialogue, basically the remark is saying that, in order to avoid a worldwide search for the girl which would have put the girl's life at risk (the abductors would be more likely to dispose of her rather than risk getting caught), the administration used the drowning deaths of two random people to decrease the media attention and let the rescuers do their job without disruption.

[–] russdaren 15 years ago

Uh, way to wear your politics on your sleeve?
It's a political machine-esque spin at teh end of the movie. In typical understated Mamet fashion. Rove(Cheney/Bush) has been on the scene for a while now so it is fair to use that comparison. Especially given the context of 2003/2004 with much misinformation coming out of the white house.
Obama hasnt yet occupied the white house and had handlers spin events for him. so your comment is just sour grapes. hey how do you think democrats felt when Bush and company somehow remained in the white house for a second term?
Be a good sport.

[–] jamesl9 15 years ago

Look whose wearing the politics on their sleeve. The Bush admin. was never good at spin. Barack, meanwhile, has perfected the move. And he doesn't need to be in the WH to do it. Just one example, Wright, his hate spewing pastor of 20 years. A great guy he wouldn't toss under the bus...er, until he didn't need him and thew him under the bus, all within two weeks! Nobody spins like Barack. Nobody. No sour grapes, just the truth.

[–] russdaren 15 years ago

Its okay, you guys will get your chance at the white house in 2016.
But more on topic, Obama wasnt even in national office when this movie came out. The movie's premise revolves around presidential handlers and the spin they put on stuff before the politician is even aware of the events.
In 2004 ok?
But yeah, Bush doesnt spin, he just lies.

[–] firstwinsgop 15 years ago

The film isn't about "spin" at all. It's about a conspiracy to get rid of an embarrassing relative of a powerful man. Stop trying to put your jackarse partisan spin on anything. The film has nothing to do with either Bush (whose attractive daughters were key assets to his campaign) or Obama (whose daughters are largely ignored) and both men were/are godawful Presidents who deserve nothing but contempt.

[–] russdaren 15 years ago

I agree it has nothing to do with either.
However I took offense from one posters comments about "barackian" "husseinian" spin.
In a few plot points of the movie, it is definitely about non-elected machine types manipulating events and people. In the end its just the newsmedia regurgitating a talking point they are fed by white house handlers (or an intelligence agency). Mamet is a highly intelligent very well read guy. We could argue ourselves blue in the face here and never touch on his intended meaning. One thing is sure. If you watch his other movies, he has a lot of contempt for power stuctures and controlling people in general. Like the Hollywood types in "Red Belt". But he also likes byzantine complexity of motives like the interlocking interests in "Heist".

[–] inspector_todd 15 years ago

I think you should watch this movie again. It really is well crafted and you missed the point entirely if you think it is not about spin. That's like saying Wag the Dog isn't about Spin control.

I did not mean to lean politically as much as i did in my initial post. I would say that all power institutions incorporate SPIN. This movie happened to be made during the bush presidency, and traditionally Rove is looked upon as one of the greatest players of politics of all time. For better or worse.

[–] wilhemb 12 years ago

it isn't spin; it's a LIE that the media accepted without questionning...just like the reasons to start a war in Iraq!

-You may have a coronary..
- A coronary? My heart wouldn't dare attack me!

[–] I_Created_U 7 years ago

When have they ever entered a war in good faith? This is not their first lie, nor their last. They will lie their way through as always right until the final collapse.

People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs

[–] Jakealope 11 years ago

He didn't literally throw him under a bus. Nor was Wright spending all his time spewing hate. Wright lived in a time when blacks were truly 2nd class citizens, so I can begrudge him some vitriol. BTW, even MLK. every cons fave dead black, was very down on US wars and greed too. Compared to some redneck evangelicals and the rubbish they spew. Like Palin getting blessed by some African witch doctor preacher against witch craft, while at home the same so called preacher led bloody hunts against gays. I means no one beats the right when it comes to religious draped political nonsense, be it a recent candidate who follows 19th con man and his Freemasonry inspired cult

[–] armenianmovieman 9 years ago

Back to the movie... I assumed the ultimate narrative coming out of that White House would be that the First Daughter was kidnapped and they did not want to make it public for (pick a reason): the kidnappers said she'll be killed if they did, they thought it was a private matter and did not want to make it public, etc.

The White House narrative will also be that as a result of them not wanting to make it public, they had to use those 2 dead bodies as a scapegoat.

Now, whether the White House caused that boating accident and\or her actual professor was on their\killed is something I can't remember, as I haven't seen the movie in a while....