MovieChat Forums > The Informant! (2009) Discussion > How did he become a COO again???

How did he become a COO again???


At the very end of the film, it reported that Whitacre is COO & President again at another company. People of power whom know him obviously do not view him as untrustworthy or as a liar. They obviously trust him enough in order to have hired him a few years ago, and then promoted him to a COO. It has to be one of two possibilities: Either the movie did not portray Whitacre in the same light that powerful people view him as--even the FBI are talking extremely favorable about him in recent interviews. Or powerful people viewed him to be mentally ill twenty years ago while at ADM, and today view him as treated and mentally stable. It has to be one or the other, because one cannot reach such a powerful position that Whitacre holds today unless everyone in that organization trusts him completely. The Whitacre portrayed in the film would never have become a CEO ever again, and certainly not so quickly after serving 8 or 9 years in prison.

reply


He really is an amazing character... the capacity he has to inspire trust is incredible. On the other hand, you could say this movie is about how easily most people are fooled by a smile and some charm. PT Barnum was right. There's a sucker born every minute. Without meaning to offend anyone, I could say, look at Sarah Palin.

I keep thinking this movie might need a sequel someday.



reply

I think it would take tremendously more than a smile and charm to become a COO of an organization. Surely, there are many employees & executives with plenty of smiles and charm, and they all do not become COO. In other words, he must be smart and he must be bringing value to the company to be promoted, especially after he had such a big public scandal in his past. There has to be an intelligence factor involved and/or innovation & creativity. No way to become a COO just with a smile & charm. Overall, I find most people in power to be liars. They have such a sense of entitlement. I did not buy Tiger Woods's apology one bit today. He is a liar and a cheat just like John Edwards, Bill Clinton and Martha Stewart. But, like Whitacre, they are also very intelligent and learn how to overcome their shortcomings.

reply

I agree with you on many of your comments, but I do not like Sarah Palin. To me, she is no different than any of the others you listed, "sense of entitlement". Didn't she spend like a million dollars (???) on clothes from the campaign's fund? I recall seeing that in media during election.

reply

Actually, they (ie the GOP and the McCain campaign) shelled out about 180K on her and her family, most of it on wardrobe, but I think it would be pure speculation on your part to imply that she felt entitled to that. I think all clothing items and accessories were returned and/or given to charity.

To be sure, Palin generates passion on both sides, evident by the comments generated by us on this post about Whitaker becoming a COO.

reply

You make a good point about Palin, in that she was probably not behind the clothes purchase idea.

reply


People in positions of power have all the same weaknesses as everyone else, they are not inherently better or worse. We all have feet of clay. As regards Sarah Palin, I have read a great deal on early American history and I cannot imagine a single founding father being encouraged by her ascendancy. Rather, I think it a triumph of marketing over substance. Our founding fathers did not seek people who were indifferently educated and had an elusive grasp of national and international affairs. Imo, she has first rate charm and a second rate mind.


reply

That same argument could just as easily be applied to President Obama. We could argue that the founding fathers probably didn't envision someone with as little executive or national political experience being elected to be the chief executive of the nation.

reply

It's my view that the founding fathers would have preferred inexperienced but competent people running the government rather than lifetime politicians. After all, how much executive experience did any of our first few presidents have? Washington was a general, sure, but what did he know about leading a newborn nation? Jefferson envisioned an America that overthrew its government in revolution regularly, in order to avoid tyranny. These guys were that afraid of absolute power. They would be horrified at what America has become. Franklin had that famous line about those who would trade essential liberties for temporary security deserving neither. Of course, none of the founding fathers could get elected today--they would be seen as ultraliberal hippies with no sense of national security, what with caring so much about constitutional rights over the safety of the masses and all.

reply

Well how do you know someone is competent without having any experience? Now I admit having experience as an executive is not golden pill that is going to ensure that someone is a good leader. But at least that someone has developed a managerial and leadership style.

True, many of the early presidents were lawyers but most in the early part of our history were military officers too. And yes, it was not surprising that if Washington could lead a newborn army to victory, those skills might be transferable to leading a newborn nation.

I disagree that they could not get elected today, they were all talented politicians and articulate learned men. I think you could just as easily assume that they would be considered ultraconservative libertarians without compassion who would seek to dismantle the Nanny State we created and would do away with policies like affirmative action because it favored once citizen over another.

reply

Actually Washington was a terrible general. He lost many more battles than he won. And the ones he did win were at a greater loss than the enemy. The reason the revolution succeeded is because Britain was too busy fighting other battles.

reply

Tactically he wasn't great but given that he held together a little insurgency poorly supplied, equipped, and trained against the world's top military power says enough about his generalship. and It was not atypical to take more casualties in victories than the loser. Let's be accurate: there were several reasons GB lost, not just one.

reply

They were a top military power that was half-hearted about keeping the colonies. To Britain the colonies were more of a drain on the treasury than a benefit.
Contrary to what is taught in history classes the colonists were taxed less than any british citizen at the time yet they were allocated greater part of the budget in per capita terms. Britain ended up expending more on protecting the colonies than was getting back from them. That is why they let it go.

reply

yep. Ok. Let it go. Took an expensive route to letting it go.

reply

Here is same thing as I posted before but expounded. This was not written by me but I was too lazy to write all this up and this covers exactly what I wanted to say

There were four conditions that made a colony within the British Empire profitable:

1. low to modest settler populations
2. almost no secondary industries
3. high value commodities within that colony to export
4. defence/sovereignty issues that could be solved by either the Royal Navy or a proxy merchantilist company (ie The East India Company, the Hudson's Bay Company)

As soon as you started changing any of those conditions, the colony became less worth keeping. In the case of the colonies that became the US, all four of these conditions were severly compromised by the time of the revolution. There was plenty of settlers with their own autonomous society; there was industry there to produce clothes, books, tools, ships etc; there wasn't as much to export because the colony needed it for it's own use and what was worth shipping out (premium timber, tobbacco, cotton) was not high value stuff; and with the growth of the farming hinterland, threats from the French and the Indian nations, and huge policing needs, it wasn't enough to have a ship and few marines around anymore. They needed soldiers, and they needed a lot of them.

With all that said, look at what happened. Parliament started levying unfair taxes and suspending rights that had been part of the English tradition for hundreds of years because it was EASIER and it would make running the colonies CHEAPER. They started putting soldiers in people's houses cause it was CHEAPER. They started restricting settlement because it was EASIER to keep the Indian nations on side than it was to fight them.

Then the colonists rebelled....

All of a sudden you needed more soldiers. You needed to build barracks, you needed to fortify harbours, you needed to put more soldiers on the streets.

Then France got involved and the other European powers started tinkering with the situation as well...

Now those really expensive Royal Navy ships are under threat. Now the trade that is helping you pay for this very expensive war is threatened. Now the war is more expensive.

Winning, losing, coming to a draw. Who cares? The whole mess was bleeding them dry. They could shoot as many colonists as they wanted. More would show up next week to shoot. They could station troops in a town to keep it "loyal" and make some money. They were still getting robbed blind by the patriots.

And then that's when the colonists actually started winning battles!

Given that circumstance, would you have wanted to stay?

In comparison, look what happened to the relationship by the end of the War of 1812. When they signed the Treaty of Ghent, it had been made plainly obvious that Britain wasn't going to ever have the rebellious colonies back nor did they want them. It was obvious that they were not going to be able to keep the Americans out of the colonies they did have left in North America because the political will was not there to do so. On the American side however, there was a realization too that the British were not to be toyed with either. Sure you could take Canada from them whenever you wanted, but was it worth the Royal Navy levelling New York, or Boston, or Philadelphia, or Charleston, or Washington, or Baltimore or.....??? Instead they just let each other be and got the trade between themselves going again. In the process, the British had all the American tobbacco, cotton, timber, grain, furs, fish, etc they wanted without the paying to keep troops around some remote farming town on the Ohio or on the streets of New York. The US did that for themselves now.

Seems like a pretty smart decision to me.....

reply

He was a sitting Senator, former state senator, lawyer and constitutional law professor at the university of Chicago. It's not like his prior experience was "farmhand" or "coal miner".

reply

[deleted]

Without meaning to offend anyone, I could say, look at Sarah Palin.


Without meaning to offend anyone, I could say, look at Barack Obama. I'm not a fan of either politician (or party) but surely you can see how an out of left-field, incendiary political insult could be offensive so why make it? Especially if you don't mean to offend anyone.

Yes, I killed Yvette. I hated her sooo much. F - flames, on the sides of my face - heaving, breath-

reply


The point I was making was that people are easily fooled by charm. To me, that is one of the points of the movie, so I took a current example. My sincere apologies if I offended anyone.



reply

While defending conservative politics is certainly cause for concern, defending Sarah Palin is a blantant indication of a lack of intelligence. Your lack of social awareness bears on you like a heavy anchor, keeping you at the bottom to feed on rubbish as bottom-feeders will do. Tis a shame that idiots never recognize their own stupidity.

reply

Stonesryan...

You're pretty funny...and smart...oh, and you seem like a really nice person too.

Even though this is movie message board, are there any other personal views you'd like to grace us with?

reply

So bottom-feeders feed on the bottom? Man, that's clever.

reply

You shouldn't need to apologise if you've offended someone - you're entitled to your opinion. If others don't like it, tough.

reply

That's a recipe for a very cold and unaffectionate public life.

reply

Nonsense. It may be a recipe for a cold and unaffectionate (?) PRIVATE life, where you may be better off in some circumstances treading carefully, but this is a message board where people are entitled to express their opinions. You had made your original point in a perfectly civil manner, and shouldn't apologise just because you're worried somebody may not agree with you.

reply

I disagree with your basic premise that if I don't know or cannot see a person they are less entitled to respect than someone I am speaking to directly.

reply

No, commenting on a public message board is not the same as talking to friends and family, and I think it's very sad that you feel by just expressing your opinion you are not showing others respect. That seems like a rather insecure outlook to me I'm afraid.

reply

I am sensitive to the feelings of other people because I respect them as individuals, irreguardless of whether I know them personally. And, you will please note, in my original post, I did say exactly what I thought. I understood when I did so I might upset some people. I did not take back what I said (as a matter of fact, I expanded upon why I said it), I simply apologized for any hurt or upset I caused them when I said it. I believe civil disagreement is the core of healthy public discourse, and the root of civility is mutual respect and a certain amount of tact.

Part of the problem with message boards is in the way people perceive written language. We take it very literally, and therefore, are typically much more likely to take offense quickly. We don't have the visual and contextual cues we have when we speak directly. So, I'm perfectly happy to go out of my way to tell people I respect them, although we disagree. Because I do.

reply

It's a similar tale that we've sort of heard before.... Remember "Catch me if you Can"? Same principal here. Guy was also a criminal, but insanely intelligent. He ended up working for the government. Illustrates the theory that with intelligence anything is possible. Think about it, has there ever been a shortage of dumb people?



"Hustling jalapeno dips to the apple seeds. Go on... Dismissed. Dismissed!"

reply

Cinematek,

Thanks for complimenting my humor, intelligence, and kindness, but there's no need to highlight what is obvious. If you were smart, you'd have read the posts above mine and seen that it was not me who veered off subject and turned this thread into a political one.

It appears I cannot say it enough, so I'll repeat myself: idiots are oblivious to their own ignorance.

reply

Um, I don't know if you're replying to my post, but I definitely wasn't replying to yours. Lol




"She's my sister... [slap]
She's my daughter... [slap]
My sister, my daughter [slap]
[slap]"

reply

Stonesryn,

I guess I'm not sure if I'm smart, but I do have common sense. I did read all of the previous messages, and the poster who, I guess, started this downward spiral was atleast making a comparison between the movie...and a certain political figure. You, on the other hand, decided to make no comparison and just bash conservatives all together.

I'm assuming your views are more liberal, good for you.

I had to change the words around a bit on your signature at the end, but I guess I understand it better now...

Stonesryn is oblivious to his own ignorance...

reply

Cinematek

You're not smart. Now you can be sure, without having to guess anymore!

FYI: Before I chimed in, "dedoc1967" insulted Barack Obama without making any reference to any film, yet you didn't scold that person. Why? Why, it's because you likely share the same political beliefs as dedoc1967 and thus were not offended! Anyway, I've no need to justify myself to you, the self-imposed internet police - besides, doing so would be like attempting to explain quantum mechanics to an infant.

You're assuming my views are liberal? Nice work, gumshoe... To be a conservative is to be ignorant. I know you, and many others, would disagree with such a statement, so to prove my point I remind you once again that idiots are blind to their own ignorance - therefore, expecting a conservative to see his or her own intellectual limitations would be the same as expecting an infant to understand quantum mechanics. Please pardon my redundancy.

Despite what you think, you do not have common sense either. You've merely survived as long as you have on Circadian rhythms, but sadly it seems that is the extent of your brain's functioning.

reply

Ohhhhhh, now I get it. You can't accept fault. As for your personal views...whatever you can live with I guess, but when it comes to the board you're completely wrong.

pbstuckey posted before dedoc1967...

First, pb said...

"He really is an amazing character... the capacity he has to inspire trust is incredible. On the other hand, you could say this movie is about how easily most people are fooled by a smile and some charm. PT Barnum was right. There's a sucker born every minute. Without meaning to offend anyone, I could say, look at Sarah Palin."

Looks like pb started the political references...

ok, no keep up! You can do it...

Then a few posts later, dedoc1967 said...

"Without meaning to offend anyone, I could say, look at Barack Obama. I'm not a fan of either politician (or party) but surely you can see how an out of left-field, incendiary political insult could be offensive so why make it? Especially if you don't mean to offend anyone."

Dedoc1967 claims not to be a fan of either party or politician...says right up there...take your time...go back and read it...so why would I scold him when he already claims to hold no affiliation to either view point. That would be stupid on my part.

Your entire argument is "I'm right, and you're wrong." That's a very childish claim, so it's I who will avoid trying to explain quantum mechanics to you...

reply

Cinematek:

You're an idiot. Your initial claim against me was essentially that my post had nothing to do with a film and that I'd strayed when I incorporated my "personal views". Pbstuckey's post did concern the film, whereas dedoc1967's post did not. Hence the reason I used dedoc1967 as the example to show that it was not me who got off topic. But enough arguing the trivialities...you're so typical of a stupid conservative. I am always first to admit my faults, but most unfortunately, in this instance, I AM right, and you are quite wrong.

"That would be stupid on my part" Pssst! Hint: That was stupid on your part.

No need to attempt explaining quantum mechanics to me, friend. It's unlikely that you could educate me on the subject, and besides, I prefer facts to misinformation - unlike you and your neocon bosom buddies.

Yrs,
Ryan

reply

Ryan,

I know I'm not an idiot, and I know Conservatives aren't stupid...so for that you are wrong. It's your opinion, and opinions are far from fact. Especially when they come from a pompous prick like yourself. That also is an opinion by me, so you don't have to take that as a fact, if you don't like.

I couldn't begin to describe energy and matter to you on an expert level, let alone quantum mechanics. I was under the assumption that you bringing up qm's was simply an analogy on our discussion. I'm sorry we can't shoot the shtuff on qm's...truely sorry...

I get the feeling you don't care why I feel the way I do, but I'm curious to why you think the way you do. I really don't understand how you can have the views you do. There are so many liberal or Democratic views that amaze me. But, I guess talking with you is helping me to understand.

reply

BTW: Google "Cypress Systems INC. the company that he is COO of...yeah. They sell vitamins. Supplements. Not exactly fortune 500. He is a highly trained bio-chemist. His skills are of use. As for him being overly intelligent, I don't agree. He is a pathological liar. He couldnt help himself. He maybe overly booksmart hence being a bio-chemist, but while watching that movie there were a MILLION ways he could have embezzaled that money without ever being caught. Try NOT bring the FBI into an investigation of you company for starters.



And...those were my TWO CENTS proudly presented...

reply

The book, The Informant, described that is what ADM also produces, vitamins and food additives. The ADM website lists that ADM produces lysine, vitamin E, Vitamin B-2, etc. Sounds like a similar business. The book also stated, and the film eludes to, that Whitaker's wife started the case, not Whitaker. Forbes Magazine described his position at Cypress Systems, Inc. in the following article.
http://www.forbes.com/2008/03/25/whitacre-adm-cypress-face-markets-cx_ra_0325autofacescan03.html

reply

I agree, I don't think it's a matter of him continuing to buck the system and decieve everyone. I think that if you have high-level experience somewhere, it's easier to get a job somewhere else and that the people who were hiring him probably noted his past troubles, but needed someone of his expertise.

Donald Rumsfeld, Dan Quayle, Karl Rove are all getting jobs in the private sector somewhere. It's a large, large world and plenty of jobs are available if you have the right experience. If you're a somewhat controversial figure, a large percentage might not hire you, but someone will.

Also, I imagine people saw it as him paying his debt to society and he said he was back on medication. He probably also worked his way up the ladder to that position.

reply

http://tinyurl.com/yg4gzsq

fully explained.

reply

That's what I don't understand, he embellazed money and he was a snitch yet today he's president of another company....weird.

reply

[deleted]

The dude has like 50 degrees ...he is a genius...why wouldn't you want him as a COO?

-Spoilers are for the weak

reply

Everybody in this thread is missing a big point.

ADM is a huge company. His new company, Cypress Systems, is a small niche company. He might as well be President and COO of the pizza shop around the corner.

reply

The book, The Informant, described the products that ADM produces, as vitamins and food additives. The ADM website lists that ADM produces lysine, vitamin E, Vitamin B-2, etc. Sounds like a similar business to me. Forbes Magazine described his position at Cypress Systems in the following article, and Forbes Magazine would not have written about Whiatker's new position if he worked at a corner pizza place. I googled Cypress to get background and found following links. It stated that Cypress was a division of a large company like ADM, known as Fleishmann's Corproation, and that division was purchased in the mid-1990s and became Cypress Systems. The following links describes the Forbes article and more info about Cypress Systems, and describes facts about Flieshmann's:

http://www.forbes.com/2008/03/25/whitacre-adm-cypress-face-markets-cx_ra_0325autofacescan03.html

http://www.cypsystems.com/aboutus.html

http://www.abmf.com/aboutus

And Whitaker being compared to the likes of Martha Stewart and Michael Milken:
http://reentrysuccessstories.com/successstories.html

reply

irisheyez7:

EXACTLY. Educated, yes. Intelligent, maybe not so much. Absolutely no social or interpersonal skills.

"There's no such thing as an original sin."

reply

Compared to ADM, Cypress Systems is small as hell.

reply

By reading the information in the link below it appears that the film portrayed Mark Whitacre in a different light.

According to Cypress Systems President Paul Willis, Mark Whitacre "has proven to be a valued asset to our management team" and "openly admits to his mistakes." The company promoted him to COO after being "fully aware of the details of this case and Mark's specific involvement" and the company says they are "strong believers in second chances and Mark most certainly has earned the right to a second chance."

This above information is contained in this link found in the Wikipedia entry on Mark Whitacre
http://newsblaze.com/story/2008032422530100001.sp/topstory.html

Wikipedia also has an entry for The Informant! that provides a link to an article on herald-review.com. That article notes that Cypress Systems has a prison outreach program and developed a relationship with Whitacre while he was in prison, first visiting him in 2001. "It was five years of relationship building" said Willis. "There were numerous times we visited him. By that time, it was a very easy easy decision to offer him a job."
http://www.herald-review.com/news/local/article_3526d361-9cea-509a-944a-3ed48fc44e88

reply

You mean liars Ted Haggard, Mark Sanford, any given member of the Bush Administration or more corrupt like Ted Stevens or Randall "Duke" Cunningham?


Right, because only Republicans are lairs or corrupt.

reply

[deleted]

Did you even bother to read the post I'm replying to? Y'know, the one where the poster lists only clinton, edwards, marhta stewart and tiger woods as the powerful decision-making liars?

No? Not surprised "Xboxguy15". Becoming informed before answering a question is not a strong suit for cons.


Whatever. I'm not going to belittle myself by getting into a flame war with you.

reply