“The Insider” is a brilliant suspenseful thriller that drives head deep in the issue associated with real life power struggle and corruption in both media and government. Al Pacino plays the cunning and loyal Lowell Bergman, the star producer of “60 MINUTES”, as he puts everything on the line for, not only the story of the century, but for the man that risked it all to give it, Jeffrey Wigand. The critically acclaimed film paints the realities of decision making in this country as issues boil down to the things that big shots care about most: money, power, and fame.
Lowell Bergman is a man of his word. He prides himself on that key trait throughout the entire film whether he speaks about himself or his sacred show “60 MINUTES”. From the first
…show more content…
Then to only confirm Wigand’s suspicion he notices more and more men following him to the most remote places like the late night golf game, which explodes into a panicked argument with Bergman, who sternly replies, “Story. No Story. F*** your story. I don’t burn people.” When Wigand and Bergman meet again, the wheels start turning as Wigand began sharing the dirt on the tobacco industry or as he said “the seven dwarfs” of big tobacco and how they do not care and neglect anything that would hurt their market such as issues with addiction and illness. That is the nature of the greedy, power hungry executives that want to take as much as they can without thinking of anyone they hurt. Now the only way to put a stop to the tyranny is for Wigand to choose between sticking to his confidentiality agreement or releasing the truth for the …show more content…
Wigand was heading down the worst hole of his life. After making so many strides to end this chapter of his life, he was pulled back further from where he started and his only hope was in Lowell Bergman. Bergman had to make miracles to save his integrity of his word to Wigand. Bergman was on the edge pushed back from airing his masterpiece against the tobacco industry by the greed of the corporate CBS and their want to maintain status while making a few bucks in the process. Bergman is outraged by the not only the corporation selling out on one of the biggest stories of the century, but for doing the one thing that he said he would not do--”burn people”. Wigand life was in shambles and Bergman could not just sit there and admit defeat. He became courageous and put himself on the line to get whatever time or information to push the story, the interview, and everything that Wigand risked to say and show it to the public. Bergman is a man who sticks to his word and in the end managed to keep it. Though the risk was too great this time and to avoid from ever tarnishing his word again, he resigned. He showed how much he valued integrity as he knew his limit to have another incident like
This point is illustrated by the heated controversy surrounding the director’s Lifetime Achievement Award, which was presented to him at the 1999 Academy Awards. Kazan’s importance to the world of cinema is undisputed, but Hollywood remains divided by a single political affair that took place over half a century ago. The Academy Award was therefore protested by some and supported by others. But should Elia Kazan still be regarded with such contempt by his peers and contemporary members of the Hollywood community? Should his legacy be based on this one transgression, rather than his long history of cinematic achievement? And has Kazan already put the entire subject to rest in On the Waterfront, perhaps the best work of his entire career? I hope to answer these questions in an essay that will discuss the t...
In Hollywood political conflict was also paving the way for what would later occur in Hollywood as the HUAC would attack the industry. Big business controlled the lucrative industry and the companies that controlled the market were eight major studios in Hollywood. The Metro-Goldw...
Stephen King’s short story "Quitters, Inc." involves a smoker trying to kick the habit, and getting results no matter the means. Dick Morrison meets Jimmy McCann, an old friend, in the bar of the Kennedy International airport. McCann has stopped smoking, gained a promotion, and become physically fir since the last time they met. He tells Morrison about an agency that helped him quit smoking and gave him a business card for Quitters, Inc., which Morrison just put in his wallet. A month later he sees the card fall out of his wallet and decides to go see them. Upon going to Quitters, Inc., Morrison meets Vic Donatti, the man in charge of his case. Morrison signs a contract saying that he won’t reveal anything they do in the course of his treatment. Donatti tells Morrison that he will never smoke again after that day. When he goes back for his next appointment, Donatti starts by punching the cigarettes Morrison had on him whilst still smiling. Donatti then reveals how much they know about their clients by referencing Morrison’s handicapped son who he told them nothing about. Donatti tells him that he is a pragmatist, or someone who is oriented towards the success or failure of something through practical means. Donatti shows Morrison that a rabbit can be taught that eating food will cause an electric shock to occur and therefore after enough aversion training the rabbit will starve itself to avoid the shock. Donatti then explains the various ways they discipline their clients for slipping up, the tenth and last being death. They guarantee you won’t ever smoke again. After a series of non-smoking, Morrison slips up, his wife is kidnapped, and he is called in to watch her get electrocuted for thirty seconds. Afterwards she tells him that she understands what they are trying to do. After months of not smoking Morrison gains weight and Donatti says that if he can’t lose it they will cut off his wife’s pinky finger. After that Morrison passes on the Quitters, Inc business card to a man known only as Crony, and tells him they changed his life. Years later Morrison and his wife meet McCann and his wife at a theatre. When he shakes the hand of McCann’s wife he notices something is wrong. Later the realization hits him that she only had four fingers; her pinky was missing.
The theme of The Catcher in the Rye is simple. J. D. Salinger uses this novel to draw a clear distinction between the purity of childhood and the wickedness attained when one reaches adulthood. Salinger uses multiple literary devices including diction, symbolism, tone, and even the title of the novel to drive home his ideas about the innocence of children and the corruption of the world.
Michael Mann's "The Insider" revolves around one whistle blower's true story. Jeffrey Wigand, a former Brown and Williamsons research scientist's justice. He is fired as a consequence for his poor communication skills, but he was actually dismissed because he disagreed to the method of manipulating the nicotine content in cigarettes to enhance addiction. ‘The Insider’ is predominantly an individual’s struggle for predominance, idealism, and is a reflection of Wigand’s intrinsic moral values. At the beginning of the film, Mann has used Misen-en-scene to establish Wigand's character without vocally articulating it through the frame work of spoken dialogue. Wigand is sitting in his office, completely disorientated from the work, packing boxes, juxtaposed against the busy office environment. This aids in establishing his character as well as reflects his inner feelings in this scene.
Thank you Viola for your detailed comments about the HUAC committee activities that created a devastating situation for the film industry. The issue with communistic events indeed interfered with the lives of many and destroyed the careers of actors, especially those who firmly refused to cooperate with that committee. The film Spartacus is one of the most successful films in the history of Universal Studios not only in terms of box office appeal, but it also received six Oscar nominations and was accredited for breaking the Hollywood blacklist. This film was based on Howard Fast's novel, which narrates the story of professionals who refused to collaborate with HUAC committee officials.
In film, many times the auteur often uses the medium to convey a moral or make a social commentary. In the case of Howard Hawkes’s original version of Scarface, there is more being portrayed through the characters then merely the story. Hawkes makes a statement about the façade of organized crime, and the farce of the American Dream.
While the film focuses mainly on the theme of media responsibility and covers US’s politics in the early 1950s, it also encircles around other crucial themes such as sexism. This essay discusses about how this film is used as a tool for objectivity, agenda setting, stereotyping within gender, and how these has impacted the characters in the movie and viewers.
The Godfather is the “dark-side of the American dream story” (Turan, pp2). The film follows the practices of a fictional Italian mafia family, the Corleone’s. Though most Americans do not condone the practices of the Italian mafia, they cannot deny that Francis Ford Coppola’s The Godfather is a cinematic masterpiece. This film gave insight to a mysterious way of life that the average person does not have knowledge of. As the audience is educated about the mafia they also are introduced to many stereotypes.
... shadow of his narration suggests the significant influence of Joe’s bias on the manner in which the film is portrayed. The writer claims to represent the voice of empiricism, promising to deliver “the facts…(and) the whole truth” before the story gets “all distorted and blown out of proportion”, but his personality overlays the narration and his supposedly impartial retelling of the series of events contains opinions, editorials, and literary references all too reminiscent of a Hollywood drama. Joe Gillis, being a writer of fiction with an intense personal investment in the story he is telling, cannot be expected to adhere to scientific impartiality. Instead, he illustrates an essential tenet of storytelling and Hollywood mystique, the subjective nature of facts when coupled with human interpretation. Joe Gillis shows how a road can be more than a strip of asphalt.
Thank you for smoking is a satirical comedy about a lobbyist whose job is to promote tobacco use at a time when the disease burden secondary to smoking threatens to cripple the nation. The film presents how industries, media and the government interact to influence the consumers’ decision. While the use of rhetoric, such as fallacies and twisted truths, is evident throughout the film, it is most evident midway when the chief spokesman, Nick Naylor, assists his son with his assignment. The son, Joey Naylor, enquires why the American government is the best and in response, the father argues it is because of America’s ‘endless appeals system’ (Thank you for smoking). His response seamlessly captures the tone of the movie as much as it represents the extensive use of a combination of fallacious arguments and twisted truths.
I will begin my essay by looking closely at the narrative of Sunset Boulevard to see where and how the film represents the Hollywood Studio System. At the beginning of the film the audience is introduced to Joe Gillis, a script writer who is struggling to pay his rent as he in unable to sell his scripts to the ‘majors’ of Hollywood. The film follows Joe to ‘Paramount Pictures’ one of the major studios in Hollywood, which the film pays a large self reference to as the producers of Sunset Boulevard as well as representing the studio system.
They have typical traits only they are highlighted and exaggerated to provoke humor. The Captain is a perfect example of a stereotypical character representing Big Tobacco. The scene begins in The Club After Nick has just gotten off the plane and his presence in the form of a voice-over enters. In a pan shot, the scene is set with rich men sitting on leather chairs while African Americans serve drinks in their waiter suites.As Nick makes his way through as he gives an overview "The captain is the last great in tobacco, he introduced filters when cigarettes first got slammed by Readers Digest. Later he founded The Academy of Tobacco Studies...here the captain is a legend a self-made man who started with nothing and ended up with everything except evidently a son." in Nicks point of view shot the Captain looks up and says "Nick my boy, just in time for mud. sit down there." The Captain reveals the secret to judo to Nick and follows by telling him how he learned it from Fidel Castro. The captain asks "Do you remember 1952?" Nick responds he wasn 't alive then and the captain goes off to mention how he was in Korea shooting Chinese in that year.In a medium close up shot he states, "Today they are our best customer, next time we won 't have to shoot so many of them will we? ' Nick responds "no sir". The captain goes on to explain how "1952 was the year Reader 's Digest nailed us with the whole health aspect. The goes on and finally asks Nick, "Tell me do you enjoy your current work Nick?" he answers in a medium shot " Yes sir it 's um challenging, If you can do tobacco you can do anything." In this scene it is clear that Nick idolizes not only the whole tobacco system but really also The Captain.He is similar to Nick since both of them are pro tobacco figures and they have both aspire to keep tobacco around. Yet it is also evident that the Captain has usual characteristics that are hightened and comical
One of the emotions Siegel uses is fear through the statement that antismoking movement keeps “trying to convince people…transient secondhand smoke is a deadly potentially hazard, smoking opponents risk losing scientific credibility” this could cause a backlash that would affect the entire movement’s goals. If this event happens the bans would be questioned and even reverted, therefore smokers would be free to smoke everywhere. Siegel also incorporates good intentions to the argument stating “Instead, antismoking organizations should focus on extending workplace protections...to the 100 million Americans still denied the right to work without having to breathe in secondhand smoke.” With this Siegel shows that he is pursuing a positive change for the people. Consequently, the audience will be able to come up with a stronger opinion rewarding what the antismoke movement should be focusing on to prevent the audiences’ fears becoming a
that never aired. The plot puts Dr. Jeffrey Wigand (Russell Crowe) at odds with Brown & Williamson, the third largest tobacco companies in the country. Wigand was fired from his position as Vice President of Research and Development, at which he was instructed to hide information related to the addictive nature of nicotine. The plot takes off when Lowell Bergman (Al Pacino), producer for 60 Minutes, discovers that Wigand has a story to tell. The best way for Wigand to tell that story is with the help of Bergman, via an interview aired on 60 Minutes. However, tobacco companies have a history of viciously defending their profits, by whatever means necessary, and Brown & Williamson does just that. The story hits a climax as the interests and incentives of the television station CBS, 60 Minutes, Dr. Wigand and Brown & Williamson are played out.