- This topic has 3 voices and 2 replies.
-
AuthorPosts
-
-
This is part movie review, part personal reflection.
I saw Absence of Malice when it came out in 1981. I was 15 years old at the time. It’s hard to recreate in my mind just how much I knew at that age about the things I can praise the movie for now, though I knew something about each, and was already somewhat opinionated about such things. The elements that I think are objectively praiseworthy are the ingenuity of the plot and dialogue, the acting performances by Paul Newman, Sally Field and Wilfred Brimley, and the presentation of abstract issues concerning the justice system, the press, the importance of truth, institutional standards, and the moral consequences of corruption, all within an engaging story. It’s one of a very few films for which the title reveals something important about the theme, but you don’t become aware of it until the whole story takes shape in your mind.
I just happened to watch it earlier today. I’d seen it at least twice previously, but not for more than 25 years or so. The most memorable scene in the movie (for me) is the climactic scene in which a judge (Brimley) has all of the major players in a room trying to figure out who is responsible for what, and is doling out bits of wisdom, understanding, blame, and punishment as the truth unfolds. As I watched that scene today, I began to tear up, which took me aback. It’s not a particularly sad scene, and it took me a few moments to realize what I was reacting to. It was the contrast between the line that was held by that judge, and by the system in general as presented in the movie–against things like press leaks, corrupt practitioners of justice, and dishonest individuals gaming the system for some personal end–and where I perceive that line to be drawn today. Of course, the movie, being idealized, may not be a perfectly true point from which to measure the distance. But the gap is very, very large.
P.S. I decided to check HB’s movie list to see if this one made it, and there it was, right at the top of the 100 list! (The list is alphabetical.)
*sb
-
Re: Mark Peter’s post 104256 of 7/22/24
abstract issues concerning the justice system, the press, the importance of truth, institutional standards, and the moral consequences of corruption,
CNN and Fox now regard political reporting as about public opinion polls. One can listen for long minutes before even a hint of an idea is discussed. CNN has a rational style; Fox is sarcasm as self-evident truth.
/sb
-
Re: Mark Peter’s post 104256 of 7/22/24
Thanks for the recommendation! I watched it a couple nights ago and loved it.
It reminds me of several recent and ongoing defamation cases against new publishers, like the Tucker Carlson case that cost the Murdochs $787 million, and the current case against CNN and Jake Tapper for attacking and defaming a man who was willing to do what Biden was not: help innocent people escape from Afghanistan. Though in both of these cases, there is clear evidence of malice.
*sb
-
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.