Or is it advisable to express patriotism by violating government laws?
If it is said that this film is not directly related to patriotism, then another question, is it worthwhile to adhere to your own moral (or professional ethics or not only professional ethics) code by violating government laws?
I think the heroine gave us a definite answer, and while I can't guarantee that everyone will approve of her, I think everyone should have respect for her! ! ! Even the one who opposes her! ! !
Originally, even if you want to write some thoughts after watching the movie, you don’t need to explain the plot here, but considering that this movie is so thought-provoking, and there are many details that determine the basis of thinking, and we tend to ignore these details, so it is necessary to clarify these details. And from these details, I can draw the following conclusions:
1. Rachel, the female reporter, did not anticipate that her reporting might lead to her being forced to ask who the leaker was, and to be detained and jailed for it. As for the female CIA, Erica Van Doren was shot to death, which was even more unexpected. Rachel really just wanted to do one big thing at first, write a news report that might get her the Pulitzer Prize. She felt that reporting the truth was what journalists were after. As for the price, at least she didn't know before.
The source of the details is that when she was considering whether to publish her news at the beginning, the legal counsel of the newspaper mentioned that revealing the identity of the CIA is a crime for government officials. Rachel said, "I am not a government official." She only thought that she should not. guilty. Later, Rachel also said that if she knew from the beginning that she would be separated from her son, then she might not make the news.
2. The reason she insisted not to name the leaker after Rachel was detained was that she regarded the little girl Allison and the White House official Stan Riggens as informants, and she had promised not to name them in front of them. What she insisted on at the time was not to name these two people and not just Allison, the detail was that Rachel said: "My source didn't know what they were doing when I got my imformation." Note, it's they, not he or she , of course some might say it might be that she used them in order not to reveal any information, but the truth is that when the White House official told her that information, he was drinking too much, although he said "you can't use that", but Rachel only promised "I won't say it came from you", so she felt that she couldn't say his name as well.
In addition, in fact, the little girl Allison did not explicitly tell Rachel that her mother was an agent (because she did not know what an agent was), but the little girl said that her mother went to Venezuela to work, to work for the government. The reporter was very sensitive. It's easy to think that Erica Van Doren is actually an agent. But this information still needs to be confirmed, so she later checked with Stan Riggens, and for her, the information of the two of them together is a complete thing. As for the FBI agent who later provided a copy of Erica Van Doren's report, it only helped her to collect corroborating information, and did not disclose the identity of Erica Van Doren's agent. (It is estimated that many people have not noticed this detail. It was explained at the beginning of the film. In order to publish this news, the news agency must ensure that the news is true. It is impossible to report it just because who said what. Based on real evidence, the editor-in-chief agreed to publish the news because he knew the source of the report was reliable.)
After Stan Riggens pleaded guilty, Rachel thought it was the end of the matter, but the prosecutor didn't give up on the "original source", which surprised Rachel. At this time, if Erica Van Doren hadn't been killed, she could still choose to name the little girl Allison, because one of the two people who were inseparable from the information had already confessed, and she insisted not to tell the little girl's name, Actually it doesn't make that much sense.
3. What Rachel's defense attorney said in the Supreme Court was only to convince the justices, and did not represent the real reason in Rachel's heart for not revealing the name of the whistleblower. There are two reasons in Rachel's mind, one is professional ethics, she promised them not to reveal their names, so she must stick to this promise; the other reason is that if the little girl finds out, it is indirectly caused by her unintentional words After her mother's death, she is likely to collapse, and Rachel thinks this is unfair, Allison should not be responsible for it, even if Allison grows up and hates her for this report, she should bear it , nor does Allison take responsibility for it.
4. Rachel finally accepted the prosecutor's suggestion, but asked to see her son Timmy for the last time. Many people didn't understand this plot. They thought that Rachel agreed to the prosecutor's condition at the end. It was a compromise, that is, she said Allison's name. No, the prosecutor charged Rachel with serious contempt of court and obstruction of justice investigation, and may be sentenced to 5 years in prison, but he doesn't want to make this matter public again and attract the attention of the media, so he wants Rachel to plead guilty directly, so that he can only Ask the judge to sentence Rachel to 2 years in prison, otherwise if Rachel insists on a public trial, then he will do anything, even until Rachel's child Timmy graduates from high school, she has to stay in prison, so Rachel chose to plead guilty and accepted 2 years sentence, but still did not name Allison.
5. There are some insignificant details, but it is also very interesting to scrutinize carefully.
Rachel's full name is "Rachel Alice Armstrong", her middle name is Alice, remember Alice in Wonderland, the one with the White Rabbit? It is likely that the screenwriter gave her this name on purpose, indicating that she is someone who likes to get to the bottom of things. Also, her last name is Armstrong (should be from her husband), but anyway, Armstrong literally means strong arm, seems like the screenwriter is implying that she is strong? :)
Rachel's defense lawyer is a person who pays great attention to his clothes. He likes to show off his high-end clothes and watches in front of others. It can be said that he is a person who seeks to enjoy life. Therefore, he can't understand the meaning of Rachel's insistence at first, but later still He was moved by Rachel. Although he didn't know the real reason for Rachel's insistence, he saw something worthy of his admiration.
At the beginning of the movie, Allison told the teacher in the car that someone was pulling her pigtails, Rachel's son said that Allison should not make a snitch (whistleblower), Rachel said: "But you can't endure bullying all the time (to reveal the truth when necessary) )”.
On the day the judge decided to release Rachel, prosecutors said, "I had a job to do, and I had every right to do what I did." Rachel replied, "I think you are confusing your rights with your power."
Rights It is only one word away from power, but in reality, power is much more useful than right, so that many people regard it as a right when they have power, and more people give up their rights because they have no power!
6. Crazy
to see comments that in some countries, Rachel may be treated more horribly, such as being beaten, such as threatening her son's safety or something, there is no way that Rachel could last that long.
In this regard, what I want to say is that if it was really in such a country, I am afraid Rachel would not dare to write that report at all! Also, I don't know what's the point of saying that, is that reality is many times darker than the movie? so what? So this movie is meaningless to watch? Then stop watching movies! ! !
Another detail is that the CIA suspected that Erica Van Doren had leaked her own identity, telling her that "the president read not only her investigation report, but also other people's investigation reports, and only her report said that Venezuela had nothing to do with the assassination of the president."
It is estimated that some people have the same doubts about whether the newspaper should report the news. The newspaper does not know whether the evidence of the investigation report is sufficient. In addition, even if the president deceived the public, people think that the reason for the attack on Venezuela was because of the assassination of the president, but the political (Especially in foreign affairs) I like to do things under a banner. The real reason is not to be disclosed. The government has relevant think tanks to provide advice. The common people do not understand the situation. undermined national security.
In this regard, I can only say that if all the civilians do not care about the government's actions and do not interfere, then perhaps attacking other countries will not do us any direct harm, but in case the government secretly signs a betrayal treaty in the future (perhaps It's not so serious, but the possibility cannot be ruled out), shouldn't the common people be involved? I have developed the habit of not intermingling for a long time. When it is time to intervene, do you know how to defend the country? Please clarify the relationship between the government and the country first. Your patriotism should not be reflected in unconditional belief in the government and unconditional love for the government!
Finally, some people may say that the world is like this, there is no perfect thing, the law can't be perfect, the government can't be perfect, accept the reality!
I admit that there are these imperfections, but the progress of society is not achieved by accepting reality!
View more about Nothing But the Truth reviews
