- The
opening scenes reveal little about why and how Brown & Williamson fired Jeffrey Wigand. Instead, the film intercuts between
scenes of Lowell Bergman working on a "60 Minutes" interview in Lebanon
and scenes of Wigand's life after he lost his job. Is this an
effective storytelling technique? What do we learn about the two men?
- As the story unfolds, we learn that Wigand is the "witness who has been betrayed, and Bergman is the righteous crusader who has been hung out to dry." Does this story have clear-cut heroes and villains? If so, who are they?
- The Variety reviewer calls the movie "borderline
pretentious"? What does he mean? Do you agree? He also writes that, "at
157 minutes, pic feels at least 20 minutes too long." Do you agree? If
so, what parts would you cut and why?
1 hour ago
The movie is very vague as it starts out. We know of the two main characters and who they are going to be, but we have no understanding of how their two different scenarios are going to come together.
ReplyDeleteAs a movie viewer I personally like how they set this movie up. Sure it's confusing and puzzling, but that is exactly why I want to keep watching. I actually got very absorbed in the first minutes of the film just wanting to figure out what the whole plot was going to be about. I'm still left guessing what Lebanon has to do with anything, but this was a smart move on the producers. We know the movie is about some sketchy tobacco practices which at face value might not be the most entertaining plot line. But it's obviously an issue the producers wanted to be out there and let the world know about. By making the movie puzzling and scandalous the producers will draw in a larger audience and the message of the movie will get across to more people. Even though it might be a dramatization on Hollywood's part the point is to get the message across and that's exactly what this movie is so far successfully doing.
Katherine Harper
Insider begins with a somewhat complicated series of scenes that provide insight into the respective lives of both Wigand and Bergman. We can gather certain details about each of them that are somewhat intimate in the sense that they provide a peek into both their professional and personal lives; Wigand more so than Bergman. We can assume things about them and gather the information given up until the point they meet; in which case, its obvious they will be the leading roles of the movie. So far though, there is really no telling who the protagonist/antagonist are. I think the gist is that everyone, everyone has both good and bad in them and it is all about which side of ourselves we choose to embrace, at specific times in our lives, and in our careers.
ReplyDeleteThis story does not have clear-cut heroes and villains, but we can assume on the surface, with certitude, that the villains are the Tobacco company. We can assume this because they betrayed one of their best and brightest. That is the problem, when you cultivate within your company, a bright shining star who thinks outside the box, they will always be a liability to your company if you choose to do something that they are too smart to overlook. I think one of the most interesting aspects of this movie is that there isn’t a clear cut villain yet.
-Maddie Wigle
It's interesting to see how the two stories about Bergman and Wigand intertwine. We start off seeing scenes depicted in Lebanon where Al Pacino tries to interview the Sheik for a CBS show on 60 minutes. All of a sudden, the scene shifts back to America where Wigand loses his job. I do believe there is a connection between Wallace with the tobacco company and what is done in Lebanon because he is in both scenes with similar dramatic ventures.
ReplyDeleteWhile watching the movie, I will honestly say I did not like the over dramatic tone of the opening scenes with the sad melodramatic music and the sudden changes between each scene. However, it is what kept me glued to keep watching more and wonder what could happen next to Wallace and Wigand.
I feel the plot line has a lot to do extortion and unlawfully scripting information to either please executives or the public. There has constantly been a battle between Tobacco companies and the media with a similar situation in Lebanon. I was able to visit that country two summers ago and I have seen firsthand the unfairness with the media and how they get treated by the government.
-Sarah Hasnain
I agree with Sarah in her opinion of the beginning of the movie in that, I too, feel that it was a little over dramatic and the music helped influence and add to that impression. I am also confused about how the two plots will eventually come together. I think this type of plot line works really well for some movies. It's a little too early to tell for this one, however, I will say that it keeps me interested enough to want to continue watching. I'm not sure that I would be as interested if the depictions of Bergman in Lebanon had not been shown first.
ReplyDeleteUp to this point, it is not very clear who the heroes and villains are in this movie. The only one that seems set in his role is Wigand's boss, who just comes across as very corrupt and somewhat creepy. We assume it is he who also sends the stalker/spy to follow Wigand. I get the impression that though Wigand is portrayed as a family man with values, he has some secrets that he isn't proud of. It does seem that this movie addresses one of the many "gray" issues that riddle our country, and therefore, involves many people who are human in the fact that they are good and do bad things, or bad and do good things.
Though I cannot label the movie as "pretentious" quite yet, I can definitely see it heading in that direction. The over-dramatizing in the beginning gives me the impression that the movie had the potential to be over-dramatized throughout. I am hoping the theme and plot prove this to be otherwise.
Wendy Knight-Nutty
I think that by not being direct in showing why Wigand got fired, and instead showing pieces from his life after he was fired is an effective way to build Wigand as a character to the audience. By not flat out saying, “this is why he got fired,” we instead see how he composes himself to his family and to his former co-workers back at the office when they want him to sign another confidentiality agreement. The scene about the confidentiality agreement builds suspense. After that, we really want to know what he has seen or knows about this company. When he is meeting with Bergman, we see that he still is complying to the confidentiality agreement he had made, but was, after some persistence from Bergman, willing to talk about anything not protected by his contract. He is shown as an honest man who cares about his family, as seen in his concerns about health insurance for his daughter’s asthma.
ReplyDeleteI think that setting up the plot and characters in this way is very effective. It draws the viewers in to want to know more, but only gives a little at a time. The dual story aspect, which can either be spectacular or fail miserably, hasn’t quite come full circle yet, so its hard to say if complements the broader story. If the two stories either start showing some parallels that bring the two characters together, or actually come together into one story, I think that it would have been a good technique for the story.
I think this story does lay out a very clear idea of who the heroes are and who the villains are. Wigand and Bergman are presented as the morally righteous crusaders of truth and despite the major corporations they're working for, they have a deep civic duty to tell the truth which guides their actions. We also see the tobacco companies as the evil corporate giants who will risk the health of consumers for increased profit.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do believe for the most part these roles are correct, I think there can be more to the story if you dig deeper.
Wigand is admirable for putting his life at risk to out the tobacco company's corruption, but he is also putting his entire family at risk as well. While many may see his actions as noble, it can also be seen as irresponsible. Wigand says throughout the movie that he as problems dealing with his emotions and does not like to be told what to do or to be put in a corner. His rash decisions to go on 60 Minutes or to testify against his former employer can be seen as selfish acts to get back at those who angered him and make them pay for their mistakes. Since the price of his actions not only affect him, but his wife and children, it can be hard to view all his actions as heroic.
Bergman also presents himself as an honest reporter who will stop at nothing to get the truth. We see him bending over back to help Wigand, getting him legal representation, hiring body guards him Wigand and his family, and acting like a true friend. However, the truth is that of course Bergman is going to do everything in his power to make sure Wigand is safe and comfortable with his decision. Wigand's appearance on 60 Minutes would be monumental for Bergman's career and for the show. While Bergman may have a kind heart and honestly be looking out for Wigand, he also has a reputation, a career, and an intuition to do whatever it takes to get the story that will attract the most viewers.
So while this movie does do an excellent job of showing the big corporations as the bad guys and these two men as the relentless crusaders for truth, I believe there is more to the story. Wigand is also an angry ex-employee who wants his corrupt employers to pay and Bergman is a savvy producer who wants his show to have the top news story of the year.
I do not think that the opening was very effective for the story.
ReplyDeleteI recognize the fact that 60 Minutes interviewing Hezbollah says a great deal about 60 Minutes, but throughout the rest of the film there really is not much mention of 60 Minutes methods and why 60 minutes has such a huge reputation. Most of the film seems to be about how Wigand dealt with a very difficult situation and how Bergman helped him. The film also seems to be more about how the Tobacco companies are keeping whistle-blowers quiet. I mean maybe you could see the death threats as credit for 60 Minutes reputation as a major news show, but still I would rather have known how the Tobacco company had known about the interview and how they were getting away with the illegal harassment of Wigand. ____Ethan Hughes
I am going to take my comment in another direction and talk about The Variety reviewer article.
ReplyDeleteThough we have not reached the 157 minute mark in the movie, many things that Todd McCarthy writes can be applied to what we have seen thus far. He mentions that the movie seems to drag out and that at one point it feels as if it is 20 minutes too long. By this, he means that some parts can be done without. In earlier parts, we could cut the unnecessary scenes of Wigand's wife crying or a dragged out scene at the golf course. He also states that the movie is "borderline pretentious;" he is saying that they are trying to impress the audience even more by making an already intense and interesting story even more complicated and extensive. Sometimes less is more, especially in the case of a movie that has so many details and two story lines that eventually unite.
The format of the movie keeps me intrigued, so I guess it cannot be all that bad. Pretentious does not suit my opinion exactly, but I believe "trying too hard" does. Does anyone else agree?
-- Melissa Peale
I thought the opening of the story aided the plot line immensely. It is not beneficial to viewers to understand the entire plot line in mere minutes. If the first few moments of the film outlined the entire movie, it would leave the audience feeling bored and uninterested. By making the film vague at the beginning, I found my curiosity mounting and I had a desire to find out more. I caught myself wondering, "why," a lot. The film then fed a growing appetite present in the audience member rather than throwing the entire plot at us instantaneously. I think that this type of beginning to a movie is refreshing especially in a day where movie trailers serve more as spoilers than tantalizing tidbits of cinema.
ReplyDeleteThe slow and blurred beginnings of this film also allowed for character development. The true personalities and character traits of both men were the focus because the plot had yet to really take off. By truly seeing the raw forms of each of the main characters it was easier to decipher how or why they would react to future events in the film. For example, from the beginning of the film it is easy to see that Bergman is a persistent journalist with a distinct tenacity for investigative reporting. It is therefore no real shock to viewers that he does not give up on this lead or on Wigand. If his personality was not explored through the indistinct opening of the film it could have been assumed that Bergman was working for financial or ulterior motives instead of out of professional and moral integrity.
Katherine Parker
I think the intercutting at the beginning of the movie is very effective, especially for establishing mood and tempo. Right out of the gate, the movie seems mysterious, and we are blatantly shown that we don't know everything that is going on. It would seem like Bergman is being captured or kidnapped in the beginning of the movie, but he is actually trying to secure an interview. This theme is continued throughout the movie until we finally learn what it is Wigand knows about the cigarettes. Showing Wigand's life also helps create stakes. We know from the very beginning that they can't afford to lose their benefits because their daughter is sick and needs continuing medical care. This allows us to more strongly feel the character's conflict.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, all of the intercutting tells us a lot about the characters. We can see the comparisons, how they are both family men, and both have nice houses, which means they are both at least somewhat well off. We learn that Bergman is no stranger to being in perilous situations, and that he will go to great lengths for his work. In this same way, we see how WIgand is dedicated to his daughters. All of this information helps us understand why the characters react the way they do to certain situations.
Marisa Seitz
The opening scene of the movie was very dramatic and there was lots of suspense. I personally was very confused with the opening scene of the kidnapping and had no idea what was going on or even who the main characters were. Then once the started switching back and forth between Jeffrey’s life and Lowell’s life I realized that these two were the main characters and that their lives would soon intersect in some way. I don’t think this is an effective storytelling technique because the people and the events that were occurring confused me, and probably many other viewers. It wasn’t until later on in the movie that we got a clear understanding of each characters backgrounds and personalities.
ReplyDeleteFrom the first half of the movie we learn that Jeffrey Wigand is a man that is dedicated to taking care of his family and making he can provide them with the best house, education, and healthcare that they need. He seems to have some internal struggles going on and he appears as though he is holding something back. He is however a very brilliant man that has a lot of knowledge about his job, and his company sees him as an important asset. Lowell on the other hand, is a high-energy, slightly outspoken aggressive journalist. He is very high strung and is trying to help Jeffrey but trying to get information out of him at the same time. Both characters have a very high moral conscious and always want to do the right thing.
I understand why The Variety calls the movie “borderline pretentious” because some of the events that happen seem to be over dramatized and the editing and music that goes along with it also make it more dramatic. I feel like the basic plot and events that are happening in the movie though are not actually as dramatic and intense as they make it seem.
Kristen Hotz
Regarding the second question, I have to agree with Janelle. The impressions I have gained from the movie so far are that Bergman and Wigand are trying to protect the interest of the public with their knowledge of the truth, and the tobacco companies are trying to profit from the sales of their products. Brown and Williams were promoting the use of coumarin (“the rat poison” lung carcinogen) in the development of their products, and because of this Wigand put up resistance due to its negative health effects and got fired.
ReplyDeleteEven though it’s evident they are the protagonists in both the movie (as well as real life), it is not quite as clear cut and obvious.
To expand more on Wigand’s side, he was not forced into the tobacco industry; he made the choice to seek that particular sector for employment. As admitted on the film, the “money” he made was a great motivation because it made his wife happy, gave him a big house, and sent his kids to good schools. Okay, I can see how money was a nice motivator because he could provide comfort for his family.
But he also had to remember, that getting into a big tobacco business also meant dealing with bigger consequences. There’s a reason he had to sign a confidentiality agreement. The companies are working within ethical boundaries. I don’t know much about the legality of what substances are allowed to be used in cigarettes, but the big tobacco companies probably knew that public exposure of their manipulation of certain substances into their products would harm their business. Wigand knew going in he would be working in an environment that would test his moral ethics. In the protagonist view, he finally let his conscious guide him instead of the incentive of money. On the other hand, it was not a wise decision to work for Brown and Williams if he knew he was against promoting harmful products to the public. It was only natural that lawsuits and stress would occur in his situation. He should have stayed with a pharmaceutical company, as in the example in the movie; Tylenol pulled their products off the shelf when they realized some of them were tampered and potentially harmful to the public.
Kristin Silver
I disagree with Kristen H. on her belief about the opening scene of the movie, but agree with her reasoning on why the movie is called “borderline pretentious.”
ReplyDeleteI personally enjoyed the opening scene because of its suspense, and felt like that aspect really drew me into the film from the very start. As a DVC concentrator, I feel that if you want to gain interest in your story, you have to be able to capture your audience within the first couple of scenes in your movie since this can set the actual pace for the rest of the movie (not always), and will determine whether someone will bother to sit and watch the rest of it play out or just leave the theater/turn it off. The suspense shows the seriousness of the journalists in getting all the information they need in order to deliver a detailed and accurate story for the public, and is exactly the kind of information the public should hear in order to be well-informed citizens. And, I do like the parallel between the Lebanon story and the main court case, but I think the main issue regarding confusion may be due to the fact that we have been watching the film over a few class periods instead of in one sitting. Even though we haven’t finished the film yet (and having never seen it before), I can only hope that we get to see more on the Lebanon story and how it connects with the entire film (and, if the filmmakers did a good job with this film, it should make a strong connection towards the very end).
With all that in mind, I do agree with the idea of “borderline pretentious” referring to the film’s events being unnecessarily over-dramatized and oftentimes to the point of annoyance. The opening scene makes sense to be dramatic since the setting takes place in Lebanon and the culture and intensity of the action taking place can be seen through the images. But, a court case would obviously not be blown up to the extremes that we saw with the attorneys, it’s basically there to keep interest with the audience (since a court hearing isn’t exactly the most interesting thing to watch). If I could cut some scenes, I would consider reducing some of the golf scene since it dragged on a little too much just to show paranoia, and the scene where Wigand grabs his gun from the safe in order to investigate what his daughter (the girl who used to do ads for “Pepsi”) heard/saw in the backyard. That scene was played out to be a lot more intense than it probably should have been, and I was lead on to believe that Wigand was actually going to shoot someone (and then, I thought the house was going to burn down, it was really awkward for no reason). This film reminds me a lot of “Flash of Genius” (which dealt with the intermittent windshield wipers case), but the main difference between the two films was that this film has over-dramatized many of the events into an almost “action-film” style whereas “Flash of Genius” did not go to the same extremes (which is why it probably didn’t do as well, but is still one of my favorite true story films).
-Kaitlin Silver
The mood in the beginning of the film is very tense and it immediately pulls the viewer in. At least, I was on the edge of my seat waiting to find out what exactly was going on. Starting a film in this manner can be effective because it does grab the viewers attention and they are instantly intrigued to find out more about the situation. However, if it’s executed poorly, I believe they could lose the viewer as soon as any questions they created in the beginning are answered. If other questions and plot twists appear, then the viewer will stay interested. I also think that cutting between scenes of great intensity and more calm scenes like the interview, make it more suspenseful. A while ago I saw another movie that used this technique, The Drew Peterson Story. I believe it started out with an interview and immediately started creating questions in my mind. Then it cut to the beginning of the storyline, which I don’t think was as intense as Insider, but the intrigue created in the interview scene made me want to keep watching in order to get answers. Therefore, I do think that this is an effective storytelling technique.
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning we learn about the character of the two men, like in any film. Wigand is a family man who wants to provide for his family. There seems to be tension between him and his wife. He is a very intelligent, practical man that tries to do the right thing. On the other hand, Bergman is very aggressive and persistent in his efforts. He won’t stop until he gets what he wants. These characteristics really frame our ideas of the men so it is easier to predict how they will react in future situations.
-Kelsey Fisher
The beginning of The Insider was effective. We learn about the details of Wigland’s work with the cigarette company later on in the film. At the beginning, all we know is that Wigland is under intense stress. The intercutting with 60mins gives us a glimpse into the importance of that show, and the impact it can have in the world.
ReplyDeleteBig tobacco is a clear villain in this movie. By extension, anyone working for or with them is a villain. Wigland and Bergman are sacrificing a lot for what they believe to be the public health. The tobacco industry is doing the opposite. The scene where Wigland is brought back to Brown and Williamson clearly paints the head of the company as a classic villain.
I believe the Variety reviewer is speaking to the tone of the film, how at times it feels a little like they are treating every action with extreme importance. It seems like the film is saying, “look this film is important!” They do draw out some of the drama of the events, but I don’t think it’s overdone. Clearly they thought that they needed to shoot as dramatically as possible because most of the actual action took place on paper and in a courtroom.
- John Huffman
There are very clear cut "villains and heroes" in this movie. The entire movie makes Wigand out to be the unsung hero who is afraid to speak out because of the repercussions that may effect his family. The entire movie makes big tobacco to be the over-ruling and scary villain whereas Wigand is the savior of all and wants him to speak up about what he knows about the company. Wigand is pursued even though he knows he may face jail time and potentially destroy what he's built with his family. Though, on the other side of you the story, big tobacco is trying to preserve their image and use scare tactics and bullying to keep Wigand from telling the public about what he knows. The entire film is a clash between a man trying to protect his family and a big company trying to preserve their (already distorted by the media) image. This is what makes it hard for an every day citizen to believe what is true and what isn't.
ReplyDeleteBig tobacco wants to make sure that people continue to buy their products so that they continue to make money and Wigand wants the public to know that what they are buying into is extremely dangerous and very detrimental to their health. This is what makes it very hard for an everyday citizen to see the problems between the two. The film itself though very clearly indicates Wigand as the hero and the big tobacco as the villain. I feel that this film is very strong in its message and that people should be very wary of their consumption of items distributed through a company that is so willing to threaten a simple man that wants nothing more than to protect his family. In a normal persons mind there wouldn't be a clear cut villain and hero but this film clearly indicates that big tobacco is a threat to society and people should be clear on what they are buying into.
- Josh Stevens