MovieChat Forums > Nothing But the Truth (2009) Discussion > Horrible Ending

Horrible Ending

posted 13 years ago by marydaleed-is
73 replies | jump to latest

::::::SPOILER ALERT:::::::::SPOILER ALERT::::::::::SPOILER ALERT:::::::SPOILER ALERT:::::::SPOILER ALERT:::

This entire post is about the horrible ending, so if you continue to read, you've been warned...

I missed the first few minutes of this film, so I didn't see the set up for what others are terming the "obvious" ending. As a result, I didn't see the ending coming, so it wasn't obvious to me and I was stunned by the end.

My being stunned, however, was not in a good sense. My first thought was one that, though alone, I actually said out loud, "You've got to be kidding me."

The kid? Are you kidding me? She went through all of that to protect the kid? That made absolutely NO SENSE. How stupid was that?

Especially before the death of her mother, there would have been no backlash upon the child if she had been outed as the source. There would have been no repercussions for that child. The mom might have been called on the carpet for not having taken more care to keep her daughter from knowing, but if Rachel points at the little girl as the source, nothing happens.

What did the writer expect us to think was going to happen - that the little girl would be jailed? That her parents would be jailed because their five-year-old heard something and innocently repeated it? This was ridiculous.

Then, to have to buy that this woman gave up her job, her freedom, her marriage, her own child and basically her life just to not give a name of a child is ludicrous. I cannot believe I watched that entire show just for THAT ending. How stupid.

And before someone replies to this saying, "She was protecting the child," No - she WASN'T protecting the child, because the child was never in danger and the child never needed protecting.

This was SO stupid.

[–] Mr Blue-4 13 years ago

Wow, you did NOT get it.

First of all, I thought it was quite obvious that it was going to be the daughter of the CIA agent. Esp. if you had seen it from the begining.

The point is not whether an 8 year old is in "danger". It never was. It starts on the basic principle of not having to identify your sources. Later, at a time where she MIGHT have done it to the judge or someone else, she didn't do it CLEARLY because she was afraid of the guilt that daughter would feel over her mother's death.

Not to mention how it would look that the basis of a big national security was an 8 year old girl on a school bus. EVEN if it turned out to be true.

BTW it's a movie, not a "show."

[–] dagaul101 12 years ago

I think the ending was something of a shocker simply because it destroyed Rachel's impressive determination not to reveal her sources, and we realise she's not as noble as it panned out for the majority of the movieSource:Movie Reviews - Nothing But The Truthhttp://moviereviews.noskram.com/2009/09/movie-reviews-for-nothing-but- the-truth

[–] tudormon 12 years ago

I actually think the ending was great because it matched the rest of the movie in stupidity.

I actually felt avenged when I saw it because I understood them movie maker may have actually wanted to send the message that the whole thing was stupid and not worth it, just shy of printing it in bold letters on the screen.

[–] blade025 12 years ago

You missed the entire point of the movie. The whole reason she wouldn't give up her source wasn't because she was trying to protect the source but rather the principle behind confidentiality and what it stood for. The speech the lawyer gave before the supreme court basically outlined the entire moral of the movie..which is that if there is no protection for these journalist to protect their source than no one would trust them.

I'm not talking about random stories but rather stories dealing with the atrocities the government commits behind closed doors. If someone who witnessed these atrocities wants to tell someone the story but doesn't wanna go to jail for treason than they'll tell a journalist because journalists also have an agenda despite what they say..everyone wants to be the next woodword or bernstein..but they'll make it known to the public and usually someone will be punished for their crimes

Sources that have secrets about the government usually don't tell anyone because of the fear of their punishment..treason is a VERY VERY serious crime in the US and many other government. Their only option is to tell a journalist..because they know that journalists will protect them (in most cases) and they'll be able to get their story out

So..she didn't go through all that for a little girl..she's not that stupid. She went through all that for what she was preaching..the "principle" behind the matter...if you can't trust a journalist to protect you..than there's no reason to tell anyone what you know..and if that happened then you wouldn't find out about these crimes the government committed

[–] Lawdent 12 years ago

You are absolutely right, blade025. The other posters who hated the ending and/or the movie simply do not understand real journalism or the First Amendment -- which frightens me as a citizen.

"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
... "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance"

[–] GardenStatement 12 years ago

Whatever. You can justify the ending and/or her not giving up her source whichever way you want but when it comes down to it, no one would stay in jail that long to protect a kid, thereby ruining her own life in the process.

Maybe she takes her source to jail to protect the principle, but in the end, it's a dog eat dog world, and a person would not destroy her own life for something as simple as making a kid she barely knows feel bad or protecting her job/integrity.

[–] giantpandaa 12 years ago

How do you STILL not understand? it's not about who the source is, it's about protecting the 1st amendment. the film also indicates that selfish reasons, such as the Pulitzer, may have played a small role too.

and to the person who saw that the shooting was coming from a mile away...that's because you're watching a movie. for the character the incident was an extremely brief moment in her life.

[–] Pandemonia19 12 years ago

REMEMBER!! This film was based on a TRUE STORY....

[–] ferreira0665 12 years ago

People still don't get the irony of the movie. They all talked about national security being threatened when it turns out that it was threatened by an 8 year old girl that didn't even really know what she was saying other than she knew it was as secret. She asked the journalist not to tell anyone. The journalist didn't. It was also a bit ironic due to the conversation that happened right before that between the journalist and her son about how both tattling on someone and putting up with bullies is wrong.

You would also be surprised what people will do for a principle as well as integrity. My father always told me that once you lose your integrity you can never get it back. It doesn't matter that the source was an 8 year old girl. It just matters that she made a promise and kept it. She didn't even seem to care that she almost won a Pulitzer for it when it was all done and over with. It wasn't important.

Let me give an example:

Let's say that your daughter moved away and was sending you specifically letters and didn't want your spouse/other parent to read them. As ridiculous as this request is, you fulfill it. You keep your integrity. No its not fair to the other parent but that is really irrelevant.

This is not the same as choosing not to rat on a friend and getting in trouble for his crime. Because if your friend was really your friend, he wouldn't have asked you to do it the first place. Now if your friend tells you not to rat on him and you just say I don't know who did it. You keep your integrity but you are also not taking responsibility for his actions.

Children misinterpret that rule of friendship constantly. You don't have to tell the cops who did it if you know and it's your friend, but you also don't take the punishment for a crime you didn't do either. That's not honor, that's not respect, that's stupidity because now that crime is on your record for the rest of your life.

What the journalist did in this movie was taking responsibility for a crime she specifically committed even though it was ridiculous charge. She chose not to give the source of an article she wrote with reasoning based on principle. There was plenty of other things the government and investigative services could have done to find out the source than what they did and to even find out if it was serious. This movie was further proof that this country wastes resources, money, and time other things aren't really important. You would figure after a year in prison that whatever damage the article had done to national security was moot at that point. It was ridiculous. Yes Matt Dillon's character was doing his job, and he may not have had a choice, we don't blame his character, we blame the agency and govt that forced him to do it.

[–] cmcurrie2 12 years ago

You fail to understand the need to protect the daughter? How inhuman are you?!!! You fail to understand the principle of protecting a source. The mistake was to write the article, but when she did, she was required to protect exactly as she did.

[–] thonyjohann 12 years ago

she was not protecting the SOURCE but the JOURNALISTS IDEOLOGY. Showing the world that no government could take it from her.

[–] cmcurrie2 12 years ago

Journalist's have a responsibility to protect a source. You do not think their ethics are important, but you have no ground to stand on.

You'd advocate waterboarding Bernstein and Woodward! Yowzer!!!!

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cmcurrie2 12 years ago

Yes, I agree with you on that AND, after she had made all of those mistakes, there was a child's life that would forever be destroyed also. The STORY was well done because on every layer there were non-reclaimable errors. She could not walk back on anything . . . except she could, and should have when her story was small enough to keep it quiet. Pandora had got out . . . and once the horse was out of the barn . . .

The people who say "Oh the kid does not matter -- go ahead, destroy her!" -- have achieved a level of inhumanity I hope I never consider.

This is a case of 'for want of a nail a horse was lost'.

Well done, in my book, and probably upsetting to any reporter: y'all have made the same types of errors and not had to pay OR have been tempted by them. At least that is what happens in my field of science, we make unknowing errors -- some of us find out about them, some go on Scot-free. Some of us see the error-laden opportunities, refuse to make use of them, and our career is less rewarded as a consequence.

A thought-worthy film.

[–] charlytheron-970-924999 12 years ago

She gave her word to the child. This films message above all things is about integrity, when you give someone your word, you keep it. In trying to keep her word her life came crashing down, did she know it would crash in the process? no! but what's the point of walking under the rain for an hour and then pulling out an umbrella?

[–] BennySoCrazy 12 years ago

There is a lot of very stupid comments on this thread.

Starting with the OP.

The only "SO stupid" thing here is your stupid comment to begin with.

Stupid.

----------------------------------

You're really...you're messing with my zen thing, man...

[–] circycle 12 years ago

Whoops!!!

I thought the ending was awesome. I remembered from the beginning that Armstrong had told her son not to put up with bullies even if it meant tattling to stop something from happening. But I didn't expect Van Doren's kid would be the leak. I was surprised, but the fact that the reporter is a mother is moot.

What does it matter that the source is Van Doren's 8-year-old daughter? Armstrong protected her source who wanted to remain confidential, and reported factual information, corroborated by two well-renowned witnesses. We have the right to free speech in this country no matter if loose lips sink ships. Loose lips still sink ships, and the internet has shrunk the time of the report of an event to within seconds. But when the government bullies us with threats of imprisonment for reasons of national security when we keep a secret, that's a big problem and it challenges our rights.

I'm all for national security and sometimes I wish the media would not publish a story like "this week the US Army is planning an offensive in Kandahar where bin Laden is allegedly in hiding...." No *beep* he wasn't there!!! But at the time, a reporter discovered facts of a plan, wrote a report, and her paper published it. It was her right and her paper's right to disclose the factual information, even if it was factual for a very short time. It's even her paper's right to publish *beep* and if the paper gets sued for libel, that's a consequence. But free speech is a right we have, and it's one of the reasons the US is still a great country.

And to the poster who said no one would stay in jail for a year to protect a source or do something that long for a cause, wake up! How many Tibetan monks this year have self-immolated against the occupation of China? People do unbelievable, unthinkable things for a cause every day. Pick up a newspaper now and again. Or better yet, go to BBC news, NY Times, CNN, Guardian, Al Jazeera, yadda yadda online. It's free!

[–] schimmi38 12 years ago

Of cours it was all about principle and journalists protecting their sources,but in that movie-the source didn't know she talked to a journalist and the little girl didn't tell the story to be published in Newpaper.The little girl didn't think about,what she told-she only knew,she better wouldn't have told it and so she begged Rachel not tell it anybody.And of course,Rachel didn't tell,the little girl told it,BUT nevertheless Rachel broke her promise,because she wrote the article about it and at least ruined the life of the little girl nevertheless.

And Rachel didn't think about,what it meant for all the other CIA Agents.Her two other sources were forced to tell,they were the ones sharing infos.

To me,Rachel wasn't a good journalist-she did it,because she wanted to be famous.You could see it,when she told to her attorney,why she isn't as famous and loved as men,who did the same!

She wasn't loved for her *victim*,because she didn't do it for others,she did it for herself.

If Rachel would have been such a moral and good person,she would have thought about before,what could have happened.But no,she wrote the story for herself.And the saddest part of that story is,she didn't care about what would happen to Allison nor her own son Timmy!