MovieChat Forums > Flight (2012) Discussion > Why confess?

Why confess?

posted 10 years ago by kerryedavis
29 replies | jump to latest

There was no reason for Whitaker to respond to the question about his "opinion" on whether the flight attendant drank the booze, with anything other than "I have no opinion on that. I have no reason to have an opinion on that." The "evidence" that was provided, doesn't give any good reason to have one.

And even if one or ALL of the flight attendants had been falling-down drunk, what possible meaning could that have for the crash? None. The crash was caused by a mechanical failure due to bad maintenance.

But that wouldn't have been a "satisfying" end to the movie, I guess. And if Whitaker hadn't been drunk too at the hearing, perhaps he would have been able to not confess based on nothing.

[–] huldu 10 years ago

She saved a kid's life... so in any typical American movie with a "happy" ending that just had to happen. He couldn't take it to frame an "innocent" woman for something she had not done. That was about it. Only in the world today could anyway say that woman was "innocent".

[–] kerryedavis 10 years ago

Saying he had no opinion because there was no real evidence, etc etc, wouldn't be framing the flight attendant. She had obviously been drinking, the blood test proved that (although I don't know why that test wouldn't have been thrown out on the same grounds as Whitaker's, but I suppose the pilot's union didn't care about her). But it was just as possible that she was drinking at dinner the night before, or something, as had Whitaker.

Mostly though, just saying "you found the cause of the crash, why are you trying to hurt good people?" etc to the bitch asking the questions.

[–] Zero_Wolf 10 years ago

That's what I was thinking at the time too. The correct response was, "I have no opinion. What possible relevance does this have to anything?"

But of course, that's not what the movie is about, so that is not what happened.

______________________
Noah's Ark is a problem.

[–] Movie_Buff_Brad 9 years ago

"Only in the world today could anyway say that woman was "innocent"."

So, 20 years ago, doing nothing to anyone and dying to save a child wouldn't grant you the "innocent" label?

http://www.dorkly.com/post/73323/5-star-wars-prequel-complaints-the-internet-needs-to-retire

[–] capablecarl 9 years ago

Take a guess at how Whip's life would have turned out had he not done what he did at that hearing.

Whip had his moment of clarity right then and there, and it turned his life around 180 degrees.

[–] Mantiso 10 years ago

Here's a hint. The point of the movie is not about the crash investigation. It's about a man coming to terms with his alcoholism and taking responsibility for his actions both personally and professionally and that scene is the most important in the movie. Whether his drinking was a factor in the crash is irrevelevant. He was drunk while being responsible for peoples lives. Women, children, grandparents, babies. He's a damn good pilot and saved lives with his actions but he could just as easily have taken lives down the line. This time he was labelled a hero. But we know just as well as he does that he could easily be the villain in another scenario. This time he got lucky.

The ending is him owing up to his problem and his actions. Is it a little melodramatic! Sure. But movies don't claim to be real life. The important thing is the message.

If someone drinks and drives and gets home safely is it okay? Is it not still illegal and irresponsible? Or should cops let drunks go because they haven't killed anyone yet?

[–] kerryedavis 10 years ago

I thought at some point it was commented/stated that he wouldn't have had the nerve to do what he did, if he'd been sober. Which means that if he had been behaving according to law, THEN all those people would have died.

[–] Lawdog1527 10 years ago

Nice try but if I was the prosecutor I would point out that the pilots reckless action at the start of the flight, punching through the turbulence, was the possible factor that caused the tail bolt to snap to begin with.

In other words, if he had been sober, everyone would have lived as there would be no crash.

[–] franzkabuki 10 years ago

"The pilot`s reckless action/-/ was the possible factor that caused the tail bolt to snap to begin with".

And in all likelihood, Whip was well aware of that - and very possibly, it was bugging him. Which in turn might manifest as (thus far well suppressed) guilty feelings and the eventual breakdown... and one doesn`t usually get to pick or choose the moment when that occurs. Which is to say, it`s hardly that unbelievable he would finally fold when and where he did; much stranger things have happened.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] kerryedavis 10 years ago

Wasn't it stated at some point - I haven't seen the movie in a while - that the tail mechanism had shown wear and should have been repaired/replaced already but it wasn't?

Or am I think of the Alaska Airlines flight where that really did happen, and caused a crash?

[–] presariO_29 10 years ago

No, you're right. The jackscrew was the cause of the crash. I believe the case was the same for Alaska 261, unfortunately.

Winners don't make excuses when the other side plays the game.

[–] thisnameinuse 10 years ago

Ultimately, you have to take the script as it is.

He even vocalizes it right after that confession, after the transition into the prison.

He states that it was like he had run out of his allotment of lies. He was tired of running. He was tired of pretending. He was tired of putting on a front. And most importantly, he was tired of being an alcoholic.

The moment the dam burst just happened to be in the midst of the hearing, right at that moment, right at that question, and could have been egged on by seeing the photos of this woman that he had been involved in, that was now dead likely because of his own actions.

He confessed for the same reasons that every alcholic or addict who confesses and seeks help confesses... they want out. They want freedom from the monkey on their back.

•—•
Mrs. French's cat is missing...

[–] jfgarcia42 10 years ago

Maybe this has been said (since I did not read everything of everyone's post, my bad), but I took the line of questioning as she was throwing him softballs to hit out of the park. By phrasing for his opinion gave him an out. I felt they all agreed he saved many lives and proved the manufacturer and/or the airlines were at fault. Just a thought.

[–] thisnameinuse 10 years ago

I agree. It did seem like she was wording the questions to give him an easy out.

But that said, and of course it's fiction, but that could all be happening on the outside, while inside his head, his conscience is screaming for him to not take the out and finally bring himself to the moment of change.

You and I would hear, "THIS IS YOUR CHANCE TO GET OUT OF TROUBLE", while inside his head his inner voice is screaming, "THIS IS YOUR CHANCE TO SAVE YOUR LIFE AND CONFESS."

Hopefully either of us won't ever wind up in that situation!

————
Mrs. French's cat is missing...

[–] kjhuang17 10 years ago

Is there any evidence that the high speed during the takeoff was what caused the tail bolt's failure? Does that even make sense mechanically?

Also, was Whip's performance and thinking at all impaired at any point during the flight? He seemed pretty lucid at all times (aside from when he was asleep).

[–] Strazdamonas 10 years ago

no, it does not make sense mechanically. its true that high speed during turbulence would have caused strain to the bolt, however, if that was the cause it would have snapped there and then, but instead it snapped hours later, due to another strain, probably the one that shook the plane making the captain wake up in the movie. The screw was worn out for months beforehand as was pointed out and such wearing out was documented. it would have snapped speed or no speed.

He also seemt lucid because, as he explained and we found out gradually, it was the cocaine that kept his alcoholism away from interfering. when you mix uppers and downers you likely end up in quite lucid state, bodily damage be damned.

---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.

[–] Projekta 10 years ago

Yeah, I have no idea why that wasn't mentioned in the hearing at all. Either way, it doesn't forgive the airline for not replacing the part when it was needed.

It is undeterminable how much turbulence would have been enough to break the screw, so you can't say that if he was sober it wouldn't have happened. They would've had to fly through that storm either way. There's just no way of knowing the actual amount of force needed for the part to break. How hard he was flying the plane might've been irrelevant. There are so many unknowns in this story (which makes it compelling) and what it comes down to is finding someone to blame to protect other interests.

[–] panic100 9 years ago

Very nice post! You summed it up perfectly!

[–] Razzbar 10 years ago

HONOR

[–] kjhuang17 10 years ago

I was thinking that same thing too. Whip could've just declined to offer an opinion, without implicating Trina/damaging her good name, and skated home free. I think that in the end his conscience got the better of him and he just didn't want to lie another time, since he knew full well that he was the one who drank the vodka.

[–] brandon_j_snider 10 years ago

He explained in detail why he confessed. I guess you missed that part. Perhaps you stopped watching before the end.

[–] Nikon11 10 years ago

Totally agree.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ave_roma2004 9 years ago

Because he was a total pussy.

There is NO way I would confess to anything or answer any more questions than I had to by law. He obviously doesn't know how to make moves and is a weak person.