- That's what Rachel Armstrong's lawyer said when she defended her in the Supreme Court
"Nothing but the Truth" is about a man of integrity and morals, a journalist and a mother, In order to adhere to their own principles and morals, to what extent can they be destroyed by those in power in the name of safeguarding national security; and to what extent can law enforcement force a firm and brave person to demonstrate their power? A woman may lose everything she has in the process of sticking to her own ideas and principles, job, family, husband, children, freedom... But she will not be regarded as a hero, in a patriarchal society she is just " Monster".
In my opinion, it may be easier to see death as home. The hard thing is to be deprived of the most cherished people and things one by one in the name of the law in the life where the dawn cannot be seen.
However, Rachel, as a media personality, stuck to her original principle of not reporting the source of her leads under any circumstances, no matter how political and family pressures she faced, until the end.
Another message conveyed by the film is that the principles upheld by life should be higher than the role meanings given to women by traditional society, which is why the remarks defended by the Supreme Court at the beginning of the article, Rachel's adherence to principles in the film, will not be accepted by her family. , and it is not understood by the society. She is not praised as a hero. People are indifferent like watching Don Quixote who is trying to overcome the windmill, struggling with all her strength until she loses everything.
In the film you can see the independent prosecutor using his enormous power arbitrarily to force Rachel to plead guilty in the name of national security in order to achieve career success. Can we do anything in the name of national security? Why is it legal to punish terrorists? Is it illegal to punish murderers, arsonists and rapists?
For the benefit of the majority, sacrificing the rights of a small number of people is in line with the balance of interests to some extent, but this should not be the spirit of the law. "Two evils are the lesser of the two evils", and when and who should decide which is more important? And what is the difference between the majority and the minority? GIBBS in NCIS also threatened suspects. If you don't cooperate, they will directly lock you in Guantanamo. There is no lawyer, and there is no right to keep silent. Even the use of torture is legal. As long as you are defined as a terrorist, without trial, you are already guilty and any illegal means against you is legal.
The most difficult part of the film is that when you stick to your conscience, ethics and professional standards, the law tells you that the professional ethics you observe are worthless in the face of so-called national security! And if the will of each of us submits to the law under any circumstances, power will be abused, and when the state machine goes wrong, there will be no fighters to stand up to resist, because it is not legal; there will be no more revolutions, and state power will become state violence , Absolute power leads to absolute corruption, corrupt power only breeds new corruption, and corrupt Go-vern-ment will not correct itself if they do not feel the pressure of resistance.
Students who like American TV series will also find many familiar faces in the film, ROSS in Schwimmer's "FRIEDS"; Republican presidential candidate in Alan Alda's "The White House", Dr. Carter, Law and Noah Wyle in "ER" The black prosecutor in Order: Criminal Intent; Matt Dillon, as always, plays a nasty character, an independent prosecutor who uses all means to force the heroine to submit in order to make a name for himself (at least he is not described in the film as standing All these actions are taken from the perspective of safeguarding national security and safeguarding the law).
If you like "THE WEST WING", if you like "BOSTEN LEGAL", please watch "Nothing but the Truth", the same wonderful debate, the same to Supreme Court, but the film is not a comedy, the ending is sad and powerless . And if you have read BL and agree with ALAN SHORE's point of view in BL, you should understand that the so-called national security should not be based on constantly amending the law to endlessly trample individual rights.
Justice - should it be fair or just?
In the face of powerful power, no one can be really fearless. After losing everything that can be lost, Rachel once said in the film that if she knew that the family would be broken and her husband would be separated, she would not choose to do it. Publish this report - between a good and conscientious report and a mother, probably all mothers would choose the latter.
The truth in life is often cruel, even crueler than we expect, to those who make it and to those who reveal it. The only consolation is that the girl may never know that her unintentional remarks caused her mother's death. But the ending is still sad. Nothing but the Truth left two families torn apart. One of the two mothers became a prisoner for her ideals, losing custody and the right to see their children grow up; the other lost everything forever. Yet there are still many people who rush to find the truth, from celebrity gossip to political scandals, self-inflicted and irrelevant, and until the truth is revealed, we won't know how much damage it will cause.
Nothing but the Truth, nothing but the Hurt.
View more about Nothing But the Truth reviews
