Truth: Le prix de la vérité

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.

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

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.

Powerful non-fiction drama about the modern-age tactic of tearing apart someone else's news story for fear of its validity--or rather, finding a vulnerable link in that story and attacking it, dissecting it in the public eye, until nobody remembers anymore what the point of the actual story was supposed to be, only that a flaw was found and therefore it's a crock. Cate Blanchett is excellent as "60 Minutes" producer Mary Mapes who, just prior to the 2004 presidential election, thought she found a tasty piece for the television news program on CBS: questioning whether President George W. Bush received preferential treatment during his time in the military. With hard evidence in the form of letters and documents that Bush did skate by (going AWOL for one year), Mapes and her team beat a five-day clock to produce the story news-anchor Dan Rather (Robert Redford) reported on the air. All appears to be fine after the segment airs, but when pro-Bush camps go after the accuracy of the documents--perhaps smelling a liberal bias--Rather, Mapes and her crew are all called on the carpet by nervous network executives. An investigation of journalism, of television news and its ethics, of politics in the business of TV news and the internal workings of breaking a story about a story all come to the fore here, in generally grand fashion. Redford, initially, seems a curious choice for Rather; he looks nothing like the legendary television personality, though he does have Rather's cadence down and you come to believe in the performance. Blanchett and her support, Dennis Quaid, Topher Grace and Elisabeth Moss, are all terrific. Director James Vanderbilt, who also co-produced and adapted Mapes' book, "Truth and Duty: The Press, the President and the Privilege of Power", does fluid, engrossing work. While the theatrical film faded fast at the box office, it plays very strongly on cable or home video. This might have been the perfect HBO event movie, the intimate medium of television a better fit for the material. *** from ****

"Truth" is one film that's not great still it's an eye opening film that makes you think as each and every viewer must inform his or her own call no matter how you see the issue or what political side of the table your on. It questions in today's modern world of media do or can we really as people believe and trust documents and phone conversations and word of mouth. It pays so much to investigate and dig and dig real deep for information for sure when it involves a president's war record and service time and it's critical to get it right just before the reelection campaign of the one in question. Anyway you know the facts and this film portrays the real life story of the newsroom drama that took place in 2004 as it involved the report on President George W. Bush's military service record and brought to light was he really present or away on some of his air national guard service and was he a draft get away guy of war was he a son of special privilege. All of this in question would bring down and cut short the jobs of CBS news producer Mary Mapes(Cate Blanchett) and CBS legend evening news anchor and reporter Dan Rather(Robert Redford). Overall a film that grips with drama and searches for answers still you the viewer make you own call about right or wrong or "Truth".