Ending? What will Stephen do? - The Ides of March (2011) Discussion

[–] ravikant21490 12 years ago

Of course not. The whole reason Stephen did all of this, the entire reason Stephen even blackmailed the governor was so that he could have that post. He is a careerist and that is very clear in the film. Why would he destroy it by revealing all at that point?

reply

[–] johnston.scot 12 years ago

A vote for Ravi's point.

It didn't really occur to me that he would do anything other than ride the Morris campaign as far as he could. While we don't know everything that happens after the movie ends (it's fiction, right? Nothing really happens ...), if I were forced to supply a longer-term outcome, I'd say Morris wins the Presidency, and Stephen becomes his press secretary, or possibly takes some other high-powered advisory role in the White House.

reply

[–] Flosive 11 years ago

He is a careerist and that is very clear in the film. Why would he destroy it by revealing all at that point?

No, it's the opposite, Stephen is an idealist and that is made very clear in the film. His actions at the end have nothing to do with self advancement, he's aware that both he (and Morris) played a part in Molly's death and believes they need to make serious amends with the world.

Although now thoroughly cynical about the system Stephen is still an idealist desperately wanting to do the right thing, he's realised the right thing is to play the system as hard as it needs to be played in order that good political ideals may flourish. He is sacrificing his happiness, his ego, his peace of mind, for this. His sense of guilt for Molly's death will mean he doesn't feel deserving of those anyway. That is why he's going to keep quiet.

Politics is lying and deceit, we all know that, only the most ruthless rise to the top. At the close the movie is showing us a man of good conscience ruthless enough to swim with the sharks.

[edit] Additions, copied into it's own thread.

reply

[–] Treg1980 11 years ago

No, it's the opposite, Stephen is an idealist and that is made very clear in the film. His actions at the end have nothing to do with self advancement, he's aware that both he (and Morris) played a part in Molly's death and believes they need to make serious amends with the world.

Although now thoroughly cynical about the system Stephen is still an idealist desperately wanting to do the right thing, he's realised the right thing is to play the system as hard as it needs to be played in order that good political ideals may flourish. He is sacrificing his happiness, his ego, his peace of mind, for this. His sense of guilt for Molly's death will mean he doesn't feel deserving of those anyway. That is why he's going to keep quiet.

Politics is lying and deceit, we all know that, only the most ruthless rise to the top. At the close the movie is showing us a man of good conscience ruthless enough to swim with the sharks.

Just watched this movie tonight and I knew, just knew this topic would be on this board and I totally agree with your response. You really hit the nail on the head here, I couldn't have said it any better myself!

reply

[–] Flosive 10 years ago

Just watched this movie tonight and I knew, just knew this topic would be on this board and I totally agree with your response. You really hit the nail on the head here, I couldn't have said it any better myself!

Cool, thank you. I thought I was the only one who saw it that way, but now there's two of us and I know we're right about this.

reply

[–] shanayneigh 10 years ago

If he was an idealist, would he have made the deal with Jeffrey Wright's character? That didn't seem very idealistic in my eyes. Sure, one could argue that he made the deal in order to win the election, enabling Clooney's character to win the presidency and carry out his idealistic policies in that office. But it was clear that the ideals of Wright's character on the one hand, and Clooney's and Gosling's on the other, were in some respects diametrically opposed. So it's hardly idealistic of them to sacrifice their ideals in order to win the election. I'd say it's precisely the opposite of idealistic.

Working in the movie business since -92

reply

[–] Flosive 10 years ago

It's been a while now since I've seen the movie so I'm afraid I can't discuss the finer plot points with any accuracy, what Thompson stood for and so on.

I wasn't suggesting that Stephen was a perfect man who stood true to his beliefs throughout the movie. Yes, he got into politics for good idealistic reasons but he was weak sometimes, he was living in the harsh real world of politics and he made mistakes, but at heart he was always the idealist and his idealistic heart was his driving force at the end, his idealist heart inside a hardened political shell that had been moulded by his bad experiences throughout the movie.

reply

[–] d.lodewijks 10 years ago

I believe Stephen is a careerist who subtly pretends to be an idealist, just like he was a player pretending to be seduced by the intern. He admits to the latter directly. The first, well, why else would he keep quiet about his meeting with the opposite campaigner? It didn't seem important? Really?

He got everything he wanted. Because that is what he played for. He ended up being good at it...

reply

[–] Smoku 9 years ago

The ONLY reason he did that was chain of events:
1.Stephen gets wrongly fired
2.So Stephen wants to take revenge and join opposite team
3.But is denied so what he has left- blackmail the original guy and respect girl's last will but in a oppurtunistic way. That was the only way to either keep the job or to destroy Morris. Keep in mind that this was originally a play and it is supposed to have an open ending. He probably wouldn't reveal much but the question is what would he do with Morris, cause he surely kept everything in the loop to potentially use that asset later. I think that he probably would plant the phone to the new intern girl so that she would get a new phone like it was in the movie and she would find out about everything. Morris is politically dead, Stephen is cleared, truth went out. The key to understand Stephens character is what he said that he would only follow Morris if he would believe is case was just. Without that job Stephen would have no chance for his ideals to win in this case so he had to get dirty for his ideals to win in the end. You might think that this is a stretch but its just my opinion what would happen in the end.

http://thebest-of-times.blogspot.com/

reply

[–] buxton9 12 years ago

This is why the film is so clever. we've been shown several sides to Steve's character that we cannot possibly know his choice. The film has shown us enough evidence that he could easily do both.

Steve has become everything he hated. Morris, his idol, full of values and ideologies that Steve believed in, betrayed them. His respect for Morris has gone. More than enough reason for him to reveal all. Also Steve's comment, 'we're the best of friends' to the reporter at the end could indicate that he is going to reveal all. A subtle plea to the reporter to back Steve's side in light of the truth maybe?

Then again, Steve has got what he ultimately wants. Politics is his life and his career. He said he liked molly in the hotel, however he sacked molly off quickly enough when the truth came out. He knew then that Morris has betrayed his own values but Steve still stuck by him, he over-looked the mistake for his own career prospects. Also Steve now has power, he now has experienced both sides of politics, he can play well in politics now.

A well-oiled machine.

reply

[–] TrickPixels 12 years ago

Nope. I think Steven will tell everyone what happened. Steve worshipped Morris until he found out about what he did. He believed in Morris' message. Honesty, integrity. That all went away when he found out about Morris and Molly. Steven blackmailed Morris so he could be in a position to tell the truth and be taken seriously. Instead of just being fired and telling the truth....which no one would believe. Remember Morris' line "who is going to believe a just fired, disgruntled employee?"

He had to be in a high position in the campaign for the public to believe him.

There was even some hints in Steven and Paul's last conversation...meaning Steven really respected Paul and knew he was right about honesty.

The obvious giveaway is right at the end when he is sitting in the chair just before going live in the interview and he is listening to Morris' sound bites about integrity, truth and honesty, which is the same thoughts that are going through Steven's mind.

"this information is the truth"

reply

[–] better-than-clinton 12 years ago

The obvious giveaway is right at the end when he is sitting in the chair just before going live in the interview and he is listening to Morris' sound bites about integrity, truth and honesty, which is the same thoughts that are going through Steven's mind.

Obvious giveaway? You're saying there's no other possible meaning for that scene? There is no chance he's reflecting on his previous idealism with new-founded cynicism, dismissing them as being naive? Steven has proven himself quite the ruthless little bastard when his job depends on it, but what motivations does he have for telling the truth and losing it all?

I think its absolutely ridiculous to think he would have thrown away his entire career just for the sake of being honest, no matter how much he "respects Paul". Think about how devestated he is when Paul fires him, and then Tom won't hire him, I believe he says something to the effect of "Politics is my life". Why sacrifice his life for the sake of some ideals he has already discarded?

I actually think you missed the point of the entire movie.

reply

[–] johnston.scot 12 years ago

Oui.

reply

[–] TrickPixels 12 years ago

Dude. You can't be serious. New found cynicism??? Steven was in revenge mode ever since he was fired by Paul. He rushed right over to Tom Duffy and said I'm ready to work for you. He never wanted to work there. Otherwise he would have taken the job offer upon their first meeting. He refused. He believed in Morris but since he was fired and Morris turned out to be just like every other politician, he wanted him to lose.
Seems you forgot that the girl Molly, killed herself over the matter. Steven liked Molly. This weighed on his decision to out Morris.

Steven could still get a job in politics even after he was fired by Paul. It wasn't the end of his career by any stretch of the imagination.

"this information is the truth"

reply

[–] citizenofdis 12 years ago

> Steven could still get a job in politics even after he was fired by Paul. It
> wasn't the end of his career by any stretch of the imagination.

He could have but if he goes and betrays his candidate after he blackmailed him into making him his campaign manager then his political career is over. He probably could not even land a K-Street consulting job like Paul got.

reply

[–] gamertje5000 12 years ago

ok this is a late response but still so if he was in revenge mode why did he not say annything to duffy ??

reply

[–] Kees-4 12 years ago

Agreed. Stephen's got too many career oriented reasons to stick with Sen. Morris. Yes he's probably disappointed in the people who call the shots in this line of work - including the Senator.
He's got to either walk away from it all and tell the press everything he knows (and basically say bye bye to his job), OR adept and play by the rules that come with this game. Since he practically ignores Ida at the end of the movie it seems to me he's decided to pursue his career.

reply

[–] llnerdj 11 years ago

Because, as Duffy said, it would be just a disgruntled former employee's word against the senator's. If he says it live on national television while currently campaign manager, Morris's career would be over.
I'm just playing devil's advocate...I wasn't sure what his next move was going to be.

reply

[–] TrickPixels 12 years ago

Nobody changes their way of thinking in less than 24 hours. Nobody. So, we are supposed to think that every one of Steven's beliefs and morals have changed overnight???

This also absolutely betrays his character and it would be a cheap way out for the epilogue.

Nah I don't buy it. Nice try though.

"this information is the truth"

reply

[–] gamertje5000 12 years ago

why are you so sure that he had any morales to begin with

reply

[–] imdb-19515 12 years ago

I think he gives it all away. He had vowed revenge. He walked straight to the other campaign hoping to get a job using all his inside information to defeat Morris. As Morris said, as a disgruntled ex-employee, no one would believe him. He could not get a job at the other campaign. There was only one way to get revenge and bring down Morris, and that was to be a high-level employee again. He did whatever it took (blackmail) to get there. His morals were gone.

reply

[–] jsohlx-9-788177 12 years ago

After he walked over to the other campaign he realized he was played first by them putting him in the position he was in. If that was you, where would you start your revenge? By helping the people that took the first stab in the back? I think not. He didn't reveal anything.

reply

[–] Tegwyn674 12 years ago

I agree with everything you said. Steven idealized Morris and felt let down to find out that Morris was a hypocrite. I really liked your point that people would take Steven seriously now if he told the truth about what happened. Also, he had just finished talking to Paul about the million dollar a year job he took, a job with no pressure, as a consultant, and probably figured he could do the same.

reply

[–] mcmillan-lesley 10 years ago

I agree! or why have this last scene at all... it was alluded to all through the movie, that he couldn't do what he does unless he believes in the person... and he was disgusted with him. He also kept saying you can't make big mistakes and win. And like pointed out above, he did what he had to do to be believed and bring the truh to light. He was decent - driving her to her abortion appt. and finding the money for her - he had morals and was an idealist. I like to think that he was going to tell the truth no matter what it meant because who wants to stay in that corrupt environment when you are an idealist with morals. It would have made him as bad as the others to keep it quiet. I really agree with the above comment about the obvious giveaway right at the end when talking about integrity, truth and honesty.

Side note, I did not dig how women were portrayed in this movie.

reply

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 9 years ago

Right. The key point there is, "otherwise, why have that last scene at all?".

--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250

reply

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 9 years ago

I think you make a really good case, and there's also the fact that they wouldn't even have that final scene and wouldn't have titled the movie the way they did if this wasn't at least a possibility.

There is one wrinkle, though. Apparently it wasn't known that he was fired, otherwise he would not have been able to get that meeting with the senator and get his endorsement. So couldn't he have gone to the press before the firing was announced, and then if they tried to claim he was a disgruntled fired employee, he could say they were just lying to try to discredit him after he told all?

--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250

reply

[–] pakipsi 12 years ago

Stephen has become cynical. Politics is his life. He got what he wanted and will do anything to stay in business. For me his words towards Ida at the end "we're the best of friends" are totally sarcastic. He's a cynical liar now and their collaboration has ended.

reply

[–] Flosive 11 years ago

Stephen has become cynical. Politics is his life. He got what he wanted and will do anything to stay in business. For me his words towards Ida at the end "we're the best of friends" are totally sarcastic. He's a cynical liar now and their collaboration has ended.

The line is "You're my best friend, Ida." and he's not being sarcastic, he's being honest, he's wearing his heart on his sleeve. He's telling this journalist with whom he used to share something very near to friendship, before she tried to blackmail him for a story, that she is the now closest thing he has to a friend. He's telling her that he is on his own with no-one he can fully trust.

reply

[–] citizenofdis 12 years ago

> Morris, his idol, full of values and ideologies that Steve believed in,
> betrayed them.

Morris did not betray any values they believed in. After all, he wasn't running on a family values campaign. If anything Steven betrayed all the values he believed in.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] richardbatsford 11 years ago

'also Steve's comment, 'we're the best of friends' to the reporter at the end could indicate that he is going to reveal all. '

I dont think so - I read the cold, 'dead behind the eyes" way that Gosling delivered the line suggested more of a reference to the reporters ealier comments that they werent and never had been friends. He now realises the truth of that statement and will likely use her as she attempts to use him.

reply

[–] monolyth-lykan 12 years ago

Personally I saw this movie as a classic tale of the loss of innocence. Stephen believed in the campaign and in the candidate. And while he lost partial faith when Molly revealed the governor's secret, he remained true. However this faith was not reciprocated by the people he trusted when his own indiscretion (the meeting) was revealed.

His initial thoughts turned to revenge, but it became obvious that outright revenge would only put him out of the game. Instead he applied what his elders taught him and used it to his advantage.

What we see at the end is a deadened Stephen. The words of his candidate used to energize him. The words are now merely a means to curry favor with the audience, to win.

reply

[–] manolo611 12 years ago

This is exactly what I got out of it. I have no idea if its correct, but you literally took the words out of my mouth.

reply

[–] daimposter 12 years ago

That's EXACTLY what I thought. I'm still trying to figure out all these other's people. I think it seems pretty obvious that what you mentioned is the point of the story because of the following:

1. Up until he was fired, he was always about doing what he believed in and not winning.
2. Tom Duffy told him to get out of this game or he will become a cynic. Seems like this was a telling moment
3. All the characters were flawed and did some shady things. If you don't have a hero in the film, the point of the movie is that they are all the same. Meaning they just want to win.
4.Stephen seemed dead in the final minutes. His conversation with Ida (the journalist) showed him as a man with no feelings anymore. Then he calls her his 'best friend'.....this would seem to indicate he has no friends, doesn't care about friends, and just wants to win.
5 His conversation with Paul indicated that Stephen now knows how to play the game.
5.The audio clips of the Gov at the end....it's just indicating that what politicians say doesn't mean anything. It's all a game.

reply

[–] LearnWithGern 10 years ago

Excellent observation monolyth. I agree with you completely. To me, one of the themes of the film is that there is no innocence or idealism in the trenches of the political system. These things must be sacrificed in order to advance.

reply

[–] zillia123 12 years ago

in my opinion there is a major clue in the film's title.
We are meant to think that Stephen will bring down his boss at the end
Otherwise the film would have been called something else, wouldn't it?
I do like the screenwriters choice not to show any further than they did.
The film is about the why a fatal act of treason could come about from an idealistic person inside a powerful politician's circle, imho

reply

[–] everlone_2000 12 years ago

"in my opinion there is a major clue in the film's title.
We are meant to think that Stephen will bring down his boss at the end
Otherwise the film would have been called something else, wouldn't it?"

I had to look up what The Ides of March referred to, but havign done so, I think this is a pretty convincing point.

reply

[–] emmeliesofia 12 years ago

“in my opinion there is a major clue in the film's title.
We are meant to think that Stephen will bring down his boss at the end
Otherwise the film would have been called something else, wouldn't it?”

But he did bring down his boss… Paul was his boss, not Morris, he said so in the movie. He brought down Paul and took over his place just like in Shakespare/Roman senate.. hence the title…
I don’t think he will bring down Morris, he will play the game

reply

[–] dryslimjim 12 years ago

zillia123 called it.
For those of you who are not familiar with the meaning behind the phrase "The Ides of March" go wikipedia it or what have you.....
The Ides of March is best known as the date (March 15th, same as the film) that Julius Caesar was assassinated by a group of conspirators led by Marcus Brutus and Gaius Longinus... in this case Morris would be Caesar and Stephen and Pullman could be seen as Brutus and Longinus; as Brutus (Stephen) worked for and was part of Caesar's (Morris') inner circle before eventually taking the lead role in his assassination (demise of Morris' campaign) and Longinus (Pullman) was a Roman Senator (just like Pullman, except for the Roman part) who helped direct the conspiracy (along w/ Brutus/Stephen who tried to go work for Pullman) to assassinate (Pullman was running against Morris, figuratively trying to kill him/beat him out as the democratic nominee) Caesar....

In other words....Clooney took a classic, true event in history (the assassination of Julius Caesar) and adapted it as a contemporary, real life example, as it would play out in 21st century American politics as opposed to 44 B.C. Roman politics....

Clooney's message in the film is that politics hasn't changed much (if at all) since 44 B.C. in Rome. Its still just as dirty, corrupt and fake as it ever was.

Some genius *beep* by Clooney.

"Cause she's got a great ass... and you got your head all the way up it!" - Vincent Hanna

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Demarates 12 years ago

I don't think so.

He owns Morris now and he will ride his coat tails all the way to the White House.

"I am not a complete idiot, some parts are missing."

reply

[–] brunchie 12 years ago

I think this is left purposely ambiguous so that the audience will decide based on the information we're given about the characters. That's why it shows Gosling with a expression that doesn't betray what he's really feeling and what he's really going to do.

Es todo bueno!

reply

[–] Mandyjam 12 years ago

Stephen will bring him down, just as it was the faithful Brutus who brought down Julius Caesar. That is the point.

And Stephen has prepared the way for this by getting Paul out of the mess, because he respects Paul's integrity.

"great minds think differently"

reply

[–] Barbecue 12 years ago

Both options are plausible. It's pretty ridiculous to claim that there's only one possible interpretation of the ending, when it's so very ambiguous. And there's a third possibility as well. Stephen sets out to get revenge, but the ultimate decision, does he betray Morris or support him, may not even be made until that final moment. He may have intended betrayal, but then chickened out at the last minute.

Another possibility about the title is that it doesn't refer to a betrayal of Morris, but to Stephen's betrayal of Paul Zara.

Isn't it neat how movies can be interpreted in different ways?

reply

[–] traditus 12 years ago

Not really. I do not like movie with a 'you make of it what you will ending." It is an insult to the viewer who paid good money to view a good story (and this movie presented a good story, until the final scene) but instead is given a story without a definite conclusion. We are paying for, and expect, the total package and I feel cheated by these endings.

reply

[–] brankovulinec 12 years ago

You are so right Mandyjam. The whole story is about Stephen, and nobody else, and his selfcreation as a moral man. You have to rewind the whole movie in your head, or watch it again, but more carefully. All clues are there, Stephen will bring him down, as the title says.

That's why he get Paul sacked, to take him out of the picture because he knows that Paul's loyalty fixation would never let him betray his client, no matter what he's done. That's why he blackmailed Morris, to see if his moral will brake over will power, and the possibility to become president. When it finally brakes, Stephen knows what he have to do. Thats why he decides to switch sides, but when he becomes aware that the other side is as immoral he decides to work from inside the system. That's why he says to Ida: You're my best friend. She explained everything to him at the beginning of the movie, and it's all came true.

Stephen has nothing to lose, and nothing to win, except his soul, and that's enough. He will be true to himself, although he fell few times during the movie.

And that the point of the movie.

(Sorry for bad English.)

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Tisd09 12 years ago

I don't think Stephen is going to screw Morris in the interview, I think he's just reflecting on what he's become. Duffy's actions opened his eyes a bit. I think the movies poster eludes to this. The post up is a mash up of Stephen and Morris' face, they are very a like. Both are top guys with a high moral code. Obviously it turns out that Morris is flawed. This disgust Stephen but then the circumstances turn Stephen morally corrupt. I think he chooses his career over his ideals.

reply

[–] Jealous_Skunk 12 years ago

Seriously, guys, I don't know what Stephen will do since I think the ending is purposely created to be ambiguous, filled with innuendos and the ending has some kind of double entendre vibe to it. That is what so brilliant about this film. Genius ending. Most brilliant films are like this ;-)

But, I don't know why, I'm leaning towards the other ending where Stephen is going to reveal it all! I don't know why. He cares about Molly and has vowed revenge since his firing! Maybe he plays it cool UNTIL the interview to give the ULTIMATE PAYBACK EVER!

This film is full of puns and double entendres. It seems like loyalty and integrity are the main plots and points of this film. You have seen Stephen's face in one of the last scene where Morris gives his hypocritical speech about integrity and crap. That is one of the biggest point and revelation to me!

Although, I'm not sure at all but I think he's going to reveal it! 55 - 45 margin!

The other important key point is the title! How come no one hasn't noticed this!?!? THE IDES OF MARCH has some kind of meaning or some relations to THE SLAYING OF THE KING or something like that. In other words, THE DOWNFALL or THE FALLEN!

It leans toward THE FALL OF MORRIS ( KING / THE SLAYING OF THE KING ) ! That makes the most sense!

It is also possible that it means THE FALL OF STEPHEN
( BUT HE"S NO KING OR ANYWHERE NEAR THAT IN THIS FILM ) from a decent man of honesty, integrity and purity into a demonic, lying, cheating, sick ba$tard! But that's very unlikely and that's why I'm leaning towards the 2nd ending! Still not sure at all though. Only 55 - 45.

HAVE A NICE DAY, PEOPLE =)

JeSkuNk

reply

[–] 1btb 12 years ago

After reading this chain of comments I have come to agree with the ending that Steve reveals everything and the whole house is about to come crashing down. Go back to the very end when he sits down for the interview. Take a close look at the expression on his face. It is not his usual expression of supreme confidence, coolness, self-assuredness. He looks more like he's about to be ushered to the gallows or guillotine. That look of semi-horror on his face was a very deliberate and telling thing for me.

Does anyone know how to find a copy of the script? Certainly the direction given during that last scene would reveal why that expression on his face had to be just so.

reply

[–] yeslugosi 9 years ago

I do. But you will not find what you're looking for in it. I'd be glad to share it. Send me a private message if you want to see it.

reply

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 9 years ago

It's a really good point about the title; it also doesn't even make sense to have that final scene play out and end the way it did otherwise.

--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250

reply

[–] brownguy2004 12 years ago

oddly enough even though he corrupt

I think he still thinks his campaing can do some good.

Reviews..reviews and MORE reviews
http://streamingrevies.blogspot.com/

reply

[–] yeslugosi 9 years ago

You would be correct! Great post.

reply

[–] gtbarker 12 years ago

The whole point of the film was that there is no room for sincerity and the true idealist in politics shown by the leads journey from experienced but still believer campaign manager to a hard nosed insincere political backstabber.

reply

[–] yeslugosi 9 years ago

Stephen, who is optimistic wanting to right the wrongs of the country and wanting to do the right thing learns the hard way how the political game is really played and succumbs to the reality of it. He then becomes jaded and synical as he was warned would happen. That's it. Really there is nothing deeper to it than that.

Yes, it's been awhile since the last posting... but it took that long to read all the comments! I did find everyone's interpretation interesting. It's amazing how one scene can invoke some many takes on "What's Stephen gonna do?" That's what makes interesting cinema for sure.

Stephen's quick look to the camera really reads; "Holy s**t... what have I just done. I'm no better than those other clowns but, I'm still here. Role camera!"

reply

[–] Shadowjack1965 12 years ago

I distinctly got the feeling he would tell all. Gosling kind of reminds me of John Cusack's character in City Hall where he plays the mayor of New York's (Pacino in another great role), right-hand man. Cusack is enthusiastic, politically savvy, and fiercely loyal to Pacino up until it is revealed the Mayor has a skeleton in his closet.

At that point Cusack's character takes the high ground and insists his boss confess everything and resign.

Since Gosling supposedly threw a temper tantrum when he was fired, (we didn't see it but the other character shared the knowledge with us), and he was hell bent on smearing his former boss, it seemed to me all his actions afterward were still motivated by revenge.

That was my impression anyway and the film's title kind of supports that conclusion. Having said that the other argument that he's changed into a cynical individual willing to play dirty politics in order to further his career makes sense too.

Interesting discussion from both sides.

reply