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

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.

Mike Smith: Why did you get into journalism?

Dan Rather: Curiosity. Why'd you get into it?

Mike Smith: You.

These three simple lines cut right to the heart of Truth, the new movie from established writer and first time director James Vanderbilt (Zodiac, The Amazing Spider-Man). The news used to consist of hard hitting investigative journalism, a public service that would expose relevant stories to shed light on the true condition of a deceptive world. Now, instead of covering stories like The Watergate Scandal or what was really happening in Vietnam, newscasters have become mouthpieces. They have become the personalities on TV who we look to for a recap of what happened last night on American Idol or what President Obama had for breakfast this morning. Truth attempts to shed light on the corruption of investigative journalism by corporate greed and political agendas which make it impossible for respected newscasters and their producers to do their jobs, and in so doing it shows us a dangerous future of smoke and mirrors that is already taking hold. Despite some of the film's minor faults, Truth is a beautiful and moving Requiem for The News.

When a scandal does come along that could rock the foundation of American politics, such as the surfacing of the so-called Killian Documents, there are factions that will try to kill the story no matter how much evidence of proof exists. This is the story of Truth, based on the book written by...

Check out the full review on David 'n the Dark! https://davidnthedark.wordpress.com/2015/10/25/a-requiem-for-the- news/

"Absolute truth is a very rare and dangerous commodity in the context of professional journalism." Hunter S. Thompson

Every journalism student should see Truth, a true version of a true event that included liberal CBS; liberal anchor, Dan Rather (Robert Redford); and liberal producer for 60 minutes, Mary Mapes (Cate Blanchett). The latter two sacrificed their jobs possibly for the ideal of bringing down George W. Bush in his campaign to become president for the second time.

The journalists thought they had a story about Bush slacking in his National Guard tour, but what they had was forged documents that eventually cost them their jobs and credibility. Mapes was the prime agent of the fiasco, pushing to get a story on 60 Minutes when it was too close to deadline and more substantiation was needed for the source and his documents.

First-time director and seasoned-writer James Vanderbilt takes an almost cool approach, not quite as weighty as All the President's Men or as frenetic; the journalists young and old struggle with the profession's verity: Vet your stories and your sources until they bleed truth. Mapes and her vigilantes are up against a deadline, so more verifying of documents and sources is not possible. Thus, they should not have run with the story, but they did. Dan Rather, for all his experience as CBS news anchor, should not have trusted in Mapes' research, but he did.

Most of all they should not have trusted Lt. Colonel Bill Burkett (Stacy Keach), who provided the documents purporting to show Bush's slacking. Because Burkett was a known liar and fervent Kerry supporter, no one should have trusted him before corroborating his information. Journalism students, beware of cutting corners on the road to truth. The film is an excellent primer on best practices.

Truth is a classy, almost unbiased rendition of a true story, an entertaining thriller filled with first-rate actors. If there is one flaw, I submit for your consideration that the film is too reverent of Mapes and Rather, who made a blunder unworthy of their status and experience. They are more heroic than they deserve. As cautionary players on the big media stage, they are the finest examples of flawed human beings.

"I think journalism gets measured by the quality of information it presents, not the drama or the pyrotechnics associated with us." Bob Woodward

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.