Der Moment der Wahrheit

Cate Blanchett stars as Mary Mapes, producer of the CBS 60 minutes programme hosted by Dan Rather (Robert Redford), in Truth. The story takes place during the Killian documents scandal when allegations arose that George Bush Jr went AWOL during the Vietnam War to dodge the draft. The controversy gets out of hand causing the resignation of Dan Rather as anchor of CBS news, and the dismissal of Mapes as producer. The film is based on the book by Mapes titled Truth and Duty: The Press, the President and the Privilege of Power.

There are multiple messages the film tries to get across. One could be that people in positions of power can get away with certain things pretty easily. Another is that people can take advantage of the chaos that ensues after the outcry of a loud minority on the internet, with the help of other media outlets, to distract from the main story. The main theme, I would say, is that bullies come in all forms, and can be highly destructive.

I think that the film-makers wanted to elicit from their audience opinions about power imbalance and accountability, and maybe even sensationalism. Clearly the other news agencies depicted in the movie were guilty of sensationalist behavior. Perhaps the writers and directors and actors wanted to simply tell a true story about a brilliant journalist who had to struggle very hard to combat the gravity of hyped up nonsense. It was an insult to Mapes' professionalism to have to deal with lame bloggers who weren't accountable to anything (assuming this is even true). Maybe that's the movie's biggest flaw. I don't know what it wanted me to believe. I'm not going to think that Mapes and Rather were innocent just because Quaid whispered a cliché monologue about why they're so compatible with each other (the plane scene).

An original draft of this review had me ranting about the political landscape of 2005. I (sort of?) learned about an important part of American media history. But the focus of the film kept changing. Some themes would come and go while others would resurface in little intervals (three to be exact). For example, the movie started out strong, with high hopes about evidence of the scandal being strong and hard hitting. Then quickly the plot takes a 90-degree turn, and now we're watching Mapes struggling to resolve one measly discrepancy that's grabbing all the media attention. After that disaster subsides, we begin watching a movie about a corporate investigation into false journalism. The storytelling was incoherent, finding myself with unanswered questions as the next big event came.

Most of my questions regarded the documents. The technical military jargon in the dialogue was difficult to follow, adding to the confusion. I found myself repeatedly asking: "who's that guy? Why is he mentioned all of the sudden? John Kerry was a thing back then?" That last question speaks to my ignorance, but still, the dialogue was clunky.

If you watch the film conscious of the underlying theme, it'll be less painful. The theme whose undertones influences all of Mapes' actions is her relationship with her abusive father. She admits at one point that he's the reason she needs to stand up to bullies. And in each of the three stages described above, that is precisely her motivation. First, she "asks questions" about a possibly incriminating aspect of Bush Jr's military history. But what happens? The bully strikes her down. She fights back by proving that the stupid discrepancy wasn't a problem after all. All is good, except now everyone forgot what the story was about. The bully returns with an investigation into her conduct. She didn't do anything inherently wrong (she makes some mistakes though), but she's treated with a disproportionate level of scrutiny. Meanwhile, a man who possibly went AWOL during wartime is winning a presidential election.

When you go to watch the movie, perceive it as a series of acts, like in a play. Act one, the scandal gets out. Act two, the haters launch their attack. Act three, the investigation. On a road which begins with covering the news, and ends with covering your butt, one thing holds; bullies suck.

I'm not watching it again, C grade

Check out our other reviews at http://thefilmlawyers.wordpress.com

This film tells the story of a journalist who uncovers irregularities in the military service reports of President Bush. The news report she makes understandably sends shock waves through the nation, but for the wrong reasons.

"Truth" tells an intense story, and it captivates my attention throughout. Mary is passionate about her work, and yet she stumbles upon the wrong story to report. I feel so sorry for her and her colleagues for having worked on such an explosive story, that would backfire on them no matter whether the documents were true or not. Mary is right in saying that when the noise is so loud, people forget what the original purpose is about. That is the one sad truth highlighted in this fascinating and engrossing story.

Truth is a thoughtful, subtle, quietly powerful movie - something you don't see much of these days. Yes, it's about the rights of wrongs of a journalistic investigation, part All The President's Men, part Shattered Glass. But it is also charts what has happened to news in recent decades, in particular how it has become a game of "Gotcha!", as the real issues, arguments and truths get lost in superficialities that better lend themselves to headlines and 30-second grabs, and how the news agenda is buffeted by politics, corporate demands and entertainment values. The films chief assets are a smart, snappy screenplay and an another astoundingly nuanced performance by Cate Blanchett. If she had not won an Oscar nomination for her riveting performance in Carol, then she should surely have been nominated for Truth.

James Vanderbilt's feature debut "Truth" assembles the likes of two- time Academy Award winner Cate Blanchett, alongside Oscar-winner Robert Redford, in a story about how Mary Mapes and Dan Rather lost their careers following a "60 Minutes" story about George W. Bush's military records. While professionally and passionately executed with the performances of its cast, Vanderbilt's film doesn't quite have a strong enough handle on the material or the story he's trying to tell. What is left by the credits, is a duo of stellar turns, alongside often forced and unnatural dialogue. If anything, it'll be the work of those two veterans that will pull you through successfully but most importantly, it does spark a needed interest on the state of modern journalism. Vanderbilt should be applauded for that at minimum.

"Truth" begins with Mary Mapes (Blanchett) producing a "60 Minutes" special, in which host Dan Rather (Redford) presented documents of George W. Bush's military records, showing that he went AWOL during his time in the military and received special treatment. After the episode airing, bloggers and experts make accusations that the records are indeed fake. As Mapes and her team try anxiously to retrace their steps, inaccuracies and possible corruption is brought to light.

Putting politics aside, I've never read Mary Mapes' "Truth and Duty," the memoir on which the film is based upon. Going by what the film shows, Mapes' account of the aftermath following the "60 Minutes" special becomes a dog chasing its tail. Unsure if they were trying to portray an incompetent producer/journalist, or a misguided woman, led astray by false information. Nevertheless, Vanderbilt's script, at times, portrays a compelling argument in favor of the accuracy but leaves the audience wondering what he or anyone firmly believes. There is some great things happening in the story, that would have made a smarter, more interesting complete film. Vanderbilt explores the relationship of Mapes and her family, which makes for an interesting perspective to see her actions. Rather's tumultuous relationship with CBS is touched upon, but little else outside of the compounds of the cameras.

Calling back to a film like "Shattered Glass," Blanchett often feels like Hayden Christiansen, desperately believing the "story" but giving everyone around her doubt. Cate Blanchett's work explodes on screen, jolting in and out of coherent thoughts and persuasion, often never letting the viewer feel secure about their how they really feel about her. In one dynamite scene, and we'll call it her "Oscar scene," Blanchett controls the screen and her cast members with a bull-like charge, invoking and bringing to life, the best written scene of the film. It's one of her very best performances ever, and something that will courageously keep her in the Oscar conversation for Best Actress.

Robert Redford's stoic and reserved take on Dan Rather is a quiet storm, and likely the unsung hero of the film. He takes on the man's mannerisms but inserts his own sensibilities about how we perceive him to be. Dennis Quaid shines as an ex-Military personnel working on the story while Topher Grace goes a little bit overboard as a manic and shrill young journalists trying to find the conspiracy theories. Elisabeth Moss is regulated in general inquiries about the players behind the documents but offers little else in her underwritten role. Bruce Greenwood, as the president of CBS, is fantastically present. David Lyons also surprises as Josh Howard, a role that boils right to the top without going over. Same goes for the always diabolical Stacy Keach.

"Truth" excels in many of its technical merits. Brian Tyler's score offers depth and suspense to certain scenes while Mandy Walker's camera work softly maneuvers through the film. Richard Francis- Bruce's editing almost nailed a perfect ending to the film, but for whatever reason, was taken to one extra scene that the viewer truly didn't need.

"Truth" may not be an all-out homerun for Vanderbilt, but its a fine example of the exceptional work that Blanchett and Redford are capable of doing in any role they're given. Though not magnificently executed, I can't help but still ponder on its findings, and the questions that it brings up in its first few moments. He gets the mind thinking, and the juices flowing, before ultimately resting on the merits of two journalists that may or may not have been duped.

Greetings again from the darkness. The film is based on the book written by Mary Mapes, "Truth and Duty: The Press, the President, and the Privilege of Power", and plays like a desperate attempt at rationalizing the actions of a TV producer, a TV news icon, their team of reporters and researchers, and the endless drive for ratings by a network news organization. Telling only your side of the story when a significant conflict is involved, does not encourage thinking people to take up your cause.

In 2004, Mary Mapes brought in her team to dig into the rumors that President George W Bush had received preferential treatment in military assignments and that his military service records were either incomplete, had been altered, or proved that he did not fulfill his service requirements. Ms. Mapes professional relationship with Dan Rather allowed her to bring him into the fold, and resulted in significant air time on CBS and "60 Minutes". Most of us know how this saga ended … Mapes and her team were let go, and Mr. Rather's time as the network news anchor was unceremoniously ended. While there may very well be substance to the story they were chasing, both the book and the movie act as Ms. Mapes defensive pleas of innocence.

In the film, Cate Blanchett plays Mary Mapes, and Robert Redford plays Dan Rather. Ms. Blanchett, as usual, is exceptional; and Redford is solid in capturing the essence of Rather (though the hair color variances are distracting). The other key players are: Topher Grace as reporter Mike Smith, Dennis Quaid as researcher and former Marine Lt. Colonel Roger Charles, Elisabeth Moss as Lucy Scott, Bruce Greenwood as Andrew Heyward (President of CBS News), Stacy Keach as Mapes source Lt. Colonel Bill Burkett, and Dermot Mulroney as CBS attorney Lawrence Lampher. The film is well cast, but it's not enough to make up for the weak script and the less-than-stellar direction from first timer James Vanderbilt (who did write the screenplay for Zodiac, and is the great-grandson of Albert G Vanderbilt).

Rather than provide any proof that the story was properly documented and confirmed, Mapes and Rather decry the loss of reporters who ask the "tough" questions. Their defense seems to be that they were brave enough to chase the story and ask questions. A sequence is included that positions these two as the last bastions for true news reporting, and that these days news organizations are more concerned with profits and ratings, than breaking a story. This argument conveniently omits the fact that information flows much more freely today than in "the good old days". The actions of politicians and industry leaders are constantly being questioned and scrutinized by the endless stream of bloggers and reporters – both amateurs and professionals. There is no shortage of questions being asked, and the ease with which accusations are leveled actually fits right in with the Mapes approach.

The frustrating part of the movie is that it's a missed opportunity to detail how "legitimate" news organizations go to extremes to document and verify their information and sources, and this is where Ms. Mapes' team fell short. Without intending to, the film plays more similar to Shattered Glass (2003) than All the President's Men (1976) … getting a story being more important than proving a story. We are left with the feeling that Ms. Mapes believes asking a question is more important than proving the facts. The cringe-inducing shot of Dan Rather's final broadcast leaves the viewers with the impression that the objective of the film was to place Mapes and Rather on a pedestal of righteousness. The only thing actually confirmed here is that heads rolling at CBS was the right (and only reasonable) call.