Horrible Ending - Nothing But the Truth (2009) Discussion

[–] randybyrd-1 13 years ago

Even before the ending the film lost me when you have a trained CIA operative just lets some idiot come up to her and kill her? I saw it a mile away and I haven't been trained by the CIA. The film was a total insult to anyone's intelligence.

reply

[–] nandanghose 9 years ago

She was a mother after all. I think that was reason enough for her to not to reveal Kid irrespective of how ruthless she could be as a professional.

reply

[–] solidsnake9116 13 years ago

I agree on the stupidity of the ending. Especially because her so called "integrity" and "sacrifice" means a lot less when you find out the freaking kid was the leak. So pathetic on her part and certainly over exeggerated on Hollywood's part.

reply

[–] pinta70 13 years ago

Maybe she refused to reveal the child as her source out of embarrassment or people questioning her journalistic tactics by preying on a child. Do you think she would have been nominated for a Pulitzer if her original source was known? And her boss at the paper was cool with the kid being the source too. Absolute ZERO integrity on the newspaper's part.

I found nothing redeemable about the writer. She should have been the one killed, not the CIA operative. And what's with the CIA - hello, protect your own?

reply

[–] schwarzman 13 years ago

1) Of course the child wasn't going to prosecuted for being the source, because she's eight years old. I don't believe that's why refused to reveal the source. I'm guessing she thought about what that child's life was going to be like after the world found out that she unknowingly revealed to a reporter that her mother was a CIA operative and that her actions lead to her own mother's death. That girl had no idea what she was doing even after everything. But if the reporter revealed her as the source she would have the weight of all that on her conscience for the rest of her life.

2) The boss had no idea who the source of the story was. I don't know how they could have been more clear about that. That's why it was unfair that the paper be held responsible (fined) since they had no idea who the source was.

3) Although she was a CIA-trained operative, that doesn't mean she was in the field. She was bringing in the fraking groceries. What was she supposed to do, dodge a bullet?

"What makes you think you're stronger than the very momentum of history? "

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] saucyminxx 13 years ago

Yes, but she'd been in jail for months before the mother died. What kept her from talking then?

Also... I can kill you with my brain

reply

[–] Dennis_Cooper 13 years ago

What kept her from talking before the death of the mother was her own shame and professional embarrassment for manipulating a child into giving information about her parents that she then used for the story.

reply

[–] Ikari9 13 years ago

Where in the movie is there even a slightest hint about that? The one thing that routinely bugs me about forums on this site is how many people justify occurrences in movies with poor script writing with reasonings that never occur or are hinted at whatsoever. You can also say her husband left her because he realized the embarrassment he has over his small penis that the woman he left his wife for doesn't guilt trip him about. Emotions analyzed and reasonings deduced in films have to be done so under the emotions present on screen and words spoken. In none of the film is there any insinuation that she feels any shame or guilt over it. The closest thing to it is in the interrogation room she says "my source didn't know" but the way it's spoken isn't with shame but rather the desire to protect that source because of her lack of knowledge about it all. Which is why this ending makes ZERO sense and is simply the product of bad writing and a forced twist.

reply

[–] alex-cardo 11 years ago

Yes, big secrets are often revealed by very small things, sometimes so laughable that the one revealed big facts from that wouldn't want to say where it all started.

And yes, I too think that at first Rachel didn't want to reveal the source because it would spoil the story.

But ultimately, seeing how government destroys her life for pointing out at the govs mistakes, for revealing the truth, Rachel's will gets stronger and it does become question of principals and honor.

What is more, in real world the strongest defenders of justice are exactly ones who had seen, took part and did not-quite-perfect things themselves, felt ugly, and the fought with all strength against injustice.

I agree that the movie's script might be not quite intuitive for some people (who expect to be told everything and/or just don't have bigger life experience), but for others, especially who does have bigger life experience, the whole movie makes perfect sense. Moreover, it reminds a lot of thing we do or don't do in out life...

reply

[–] neomaxcom 11 years ago

The confirming source was (as in the Valerie Plame incident) the VP's chief of staff. Consider that Judith Miller kept the identity of Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney's chief of staff, secret for what, 85 days.

In the movie, the mother was killed before that source was named. It was only when the Matt Dillon character questioned the former chief of staff that he realized that she knew the mothers' CIA connection before she talked with him.

Beyond that, do you really believe that if in real life she had said that her source was the child this 'headline hardliner' would have accepted the notion that US national security was compromised by an eight year old?

However, from the moment that the mother was killed, there was no way that she could reveal the child's name ... she really had no choice at that point.

While it had some odd twists, I find the twists in the plot a lot more reasonable than you skeptics.

The only unbelievable aspect is that when she came to the office with the story initially, she didn't tell the editor that "you wouldn't believe what this kid told me on the bus yesterday" ... Why? Journalists like to talk.

reply

[–] ronopolis 13 years ago

I 100% agree. I just finished this movie. I enjoyed it, but the ending completely ruined it for me. Retarded.

reply

[–] busila_razvan 13 years ago

IT WASN'T ABOUT THE SOURCE,it was about the principle,it was mainly about this: Ms Armstrong could have buckled to the demands of the government. She could have abandoned her promise of confidentiality. She could have simply gone home to her family. But to do so would mean that no source would ever speak to her again, and no source would ever speak to her newspaper again, and then tomorrow when we lock up journalists from other newspapers, we'll make those publications irrelevant as well, and this will make the First Amendment irrelevant. And then how will we know if a president has covered up crimes? Or if an army officer has condoned torture? We, as a nation, will no longer be able to hold those in power accountable to those whom they have power over.

"In 1972 in Branzburg v Hayes, this court ruled against the right of reporters to withhold the names of their sources before a grand jury, and it gave the power to the government to imprison those reporters who did. It was a 5-4 decision. Close. In his dissent in Branzburg, Justice Stewart said, 'As the years pass, the power of the government becomes more and more pervasive. Those in power,' he said, 'whatever their politics, want only to perpetuate it, and the people are the victims.' Well, the years have passed, and that power is pervasive. Ms Armstrong could have buckled to the demands of the government. She could have abandoned her promise of confidentiality. She could have simply gone home to her family. But to do so would mean that no source would ever speak to her again, and no source would ever speak to her newspaper again, and then tomorrow when we lock up journalists from other newspapers, we'll make those publications irrelevant as well, and this will make the First Amendment irrelevant. And then how will we know if a president has covered up crimes? Or if an army officer has condoned torture? We, as a nation, will no longer be able to hold those in power accountable to those whom they have power over. And what then is the nature of government when it has no fear of accountability?"We should shutter at the thought. Imprisoning journalists-that's for other countries, that's for countries who fear their citizens, not countries that cherish and protect them. Some time ago, I began to feel the personal, human pressure on Rachel Armstrong and I told her that I was there to represent her and not her principle. And it was not until I met her that I realized that with great people there's no difference between principle and the person.

reply

[–] GuyLumbago 12 years ago

She promised the little girl she would never tell anyone her secret. In these days of casual promise-making and widespread promise-breaking, it is no wonder no one on this post came up with the actual reason she wouldn't reveal her source: a promise is a promise, and she kept it. I think it was a brilliant ending, just too deep for most of the posters here to comprehend.

reply

[–] Roetger-1 10 years ago

I agree totally. I also why nobody came up with this. A promise is a promise. Doesn't matter how old the person is you promise something to.

reply

[–] busila_razvan 13 years ago

IT WASN'T ABOUT THE SOURCE,it was about the principle,it was mainly about this: Ms Armstrong could have buckled to the demands of the government. She could have abandoned her promise of confidentiality. She could have simply gone home to her family. But to do so would mean that no source would ever speak to her again, and no source would ever speak to her newspaper again, and then tomorrow when we lock up journalists from other newspapers, we'll make those publications irrelevant as well, and this will make the First Amendment irrelevant. And then how will we know if a president has covered up crimes? Or if an army officer has condoned torture? We, as a nation, will no longer be able to hold those in power accountable to those whom they have power over.

"In 1972 in Branzburg v Hayes, this court ruled against the right of reporters to withhold the names of their sources before a grand jury, and it gave the power to the government to imprison those reporters who did. It was a 5-4 decision. Close. In his dissent in Branzburg, Justice Stewart said, 'As the years pass, the power of the government becomes more and more pervasive. Those in power,' he said, 'whatever their politics, want only to perpetuate it, and the people are the victims.' Well, the years have passed, and that power is pervasive. Ms Armstrong could have buckled to the demands of the government. She could have abandoned her promise of confidentiality. She could have simply gone home to her family. But to do so would mean that no source would ever speak to her again, and no source would ever speak to her newspaper again, and then tomorrow when we lock up journalists from other newspapers, we'll make those publications irrelevant as well, and this will make the First Amendment irrelevant. And then how will we know if a president has covered up crimes? Or if an army officer has condoned torture? We, as a nation, will no longer be able to hold those in power accountable to those whom they have power over. And what then is the nature of government when it has no fear of accountability?"We should shutter at the thought. Imprisoning journalists-that's for other countries, that's for countries who fear their citizens, not countries that cherish and protect them. Some time ago, I began to feel the personal, human pressure on Rachel Armstrong and I told her that I was there to represent her and not her principle. And it was not until I met her that I realized that with great people there's no difference between principle and the person.

reply

[–] busila_razvan 13 years ago

IT WASN'T ABOUT THE SOURCE,it was about the principle,it was mainly about this: Ms Armstrong could have buckled to the demands of the government. She could have abandoned her promise of confidentiality. She could have simply gone home to her family. But to do so would mean that no source would ever speak to her again, and no source would ever speak to her newspaper again, and then tomorrow when we lock up journalists from other newspapers, we'll make those publications irrelevant as well, and this will make the First Amendment irrelevant. And then how will we know if a president has covered up crimes? Or if an army officer has condoned torture? We, as a nation, will no longer be able to hold those in power accountable to those whom they have power over.

"In 1972 in Branzburg v Hayes, this court ruled against the right of reporters to withhold the names of their sources before a grand jury, and it gave the power to the government to imprison those reporters who did. It was a 5-4 decision. Close. In his dissent in Branzburg, Justice Stewart said, 'As the years pass, the power of the government becomes more and more pervasive. Those in power,' he said, 'whatever their politics, want only to perpetuate it, and the people are the victims.' Well, the years have passed, and that power is pervasive. Ms Armstrong could have buckled to the demands of the government. She could have abandoned her promise of confidentiality. She could have simply gone home to her family. But to do so would mean that no source would ever speak to her again, and no source would ever speak to her newspaper again, and then tomorrow when we lock up journalists from other newspapers, we'll make those publications irrelevant as well, and this will make the First Amendment irrelevant. And then how will we know if a president has covered up crimes? Or if an army officer has condoned torture? We, as a nation, will no longer be able to hold those in power accountable to those whom they have power over. And what then is the nature of government when it has no fear of accountability?"We should shutter at the thought. Imprisoning journalists-that's for other countries, that's for countries who fear their citizens, not countries that cherish and protect them. Some time ago, I began to feel the personal, human pressure on Rachel Armstrong and I told her that I was there to represent her and not her principle. And it was not until I met her that I realized that with great people there's no difference between principle and the person.

reply

[–] bsteward-2 13 years ago

The kid? Are you kidding me? She went through all of that to protect the kid?

The question you need to ask is NOT what would have happened to the kid but what would have happened to this reporter's credibility, with other potential sources, if she had outed her source, whether a child or not... No source would ever trust her again, she'd be known as the Reporter that would name her sources if things got tough for her... That's like a drug dealer who narcs on their suppliers, who's gonna deal with them.???

Bill Steward

reply