Skip to main content

Is CBS Corporate telling CBS News "Do not air this story"?

The Insider
(1999)

(SPOILERS) The Insider was the 1999 Best Picture Oscar nominee that didn’t. Do any business, that is. Which is, more often than not, a major mark against it getting the big prize. It can happen (2009, and there was a string of them from 2014-2016), but aside from brief, self-congratulatory “we care about art first” vibes, it generally does nothing for the ceremony’s profile, or the confidence of the industry that is its bread and butter. The Insider lacked the easy accessibility of the other nominees – supernatural affairs, wafer-thin melodramas or middle-class suburbanite satires. It didn’t even brandish a truly headlines-shattering nail-biter in its conspiracy-related true story, as earlier contenders All the President’s Men and JFK could boast. But none of those black marks prevented The Insider from being the cream of the year’s crop.

There are those who tout the film as Michael Mann’s best movie, and it undoubtedly has many admirable qualities, but I don’t think it can quite scale to the heights of Heat or Manhunter, or even The Last of the Mohicans and Collateral, come to that. The chief problem is that aforementioned subject matter. The idea that Big Tobacco should collude in collective denial that they’re spiking their product to make nicotine even more addictive while denying that cigarettes do any such thing is probably the biggest “Like, duh” shrug going, and no degree of ratcheting up the tension and paranoia and threats against Russell Crowe’s whistle-blower protagonist can truly mitigate that. Mann has thus rather shot himself in the backfoot he’s started out on, so it’s quite an achievement that he manages to make as engrossing a movie as he does.

Indeed, it’s no coincidence that The Insider, as absorbing as it is during the first ninety minutes, only really kicks into wholly compelling gear during the last half hour. Post the fact of former Brown & Williamson exec Jeffrey Wigand (Crowe) agreeing to be interviewed on 60 Minutes (thanks to Al Pacino’s producer Lowell Bergman), he gives testimony in Mississippi, in so doing ignoring a Kentucky gagging order. It’s an electric scene, as Wings Hauser’s attorney repeatedly instructs Wigand to be mindful of his Brown & Williamson agreement, to the incensed reaction of Bruce McGill’s prosecutor gathering evidence against Big Tobacco (“Wipe that smirk off your face!”) The most consistent edge-of-the-seat stretch is still to come, though.

Bergman: Are we going to air it? Of course not. Why? Because he’s not telling the truth? No. Because he is telling the truth. That’s why we’re not going to air it. And the more truth he tells, the worse it gets!

It’s ironic that, with all the previous time spent on Wigand’s domestic, financial and of-conscience trials, the picture hits its stride dealing with the internal wrangling at CBS, as Bergman must face the company’s corporate controllers capitulating to the pressures of the tobacco companies, fearful of being sued (Brown & Williamson could own CBS at the end of it, he is told), but really because they don’t want anything to adversely impact the company’s potential sale.

I don’t necessarily think Pacino was the best pick for Bergman; this came at a point in his career when he was no longer disappearing into parts, which was perfect for something like Heat, but here, there’s a tonal mismatch between Al essentially being Al and Crowe sinking into a part or Christopher Plummer’s subtle restraint (fantastic as Mike Wallace, ethically compromised by his desire to shore up a legacy). Don’t get me wrong, Pacino and Plummer are fascinating together, and Pacino at his most combustible, angrily facing down boss Philip Baker Hall (as Don Hewitt), is enthralling stuff. But his presence doesn’t quite offer the seamless immersion the story demands.

Crowe, though, is quite extraordinary as Wigand, without any recourse to vanity playing his nowcurrent age and not just looking it, but inhabiting a puffy, problematic, withdrawn, difficult, easily enraged man; indeed, the rougher the edges, the better. Mann starts out by making Wigand’s wife Diane Venora appear unreasonable for thinking about money while he’s wrestling with a moral quandary, but by the time we’re through, her decision to leave him seems not only entirely reasonable but the only sensible course of action (Mann appears to be repeating his Heat approach, to an extent, by contrasting his male protagonists’ personal lives, but unfortunately, Lindsay Crouse is entirely wasted in a nothing part as Bergman’s wife).

The takeaway with Crowe’s eventual Oscar glory is the old one of right actor, wrong performance. This has happened numerous times, of course, sometimes, as here, through neglecting an immediately adjacent role that should have won; Joan Fontaine was given the award for Suspicion, when it was abundantly clear it was in recognition for being passed over for the previous year’s Rebecca. So Crowe won the following year for Gladiator, where he’s commanding to be sure, but his achievement is mostly notable through giving substance to cardboard character. I think it’s fair to say that, with the possible exception of Romper Stomper, the actor hasn’t come close to Wigand, for which he was nominated but passed over in favour of a much flashier performance, elsewhere in his career.

There are some nice supporting turns besides those I’ve mentioned, including Gina Gershon as a smooth corporate lawyer, Michael Gambon as a silky Brown & Williamson CEO and Colm Feore, now forever consigned to villains, it seems, leading the good fight against Big Tobacco.

One does end up feeling that Mann’s eye isn’t always on the ball with his choices, since his natural inclination is towards neo-noirish extravagance, which sometimes actively fights against the gritty tale The Insider wants to be; there’s a great scene that nevertheless feels entirely inappropriate, where Bergman’s on his chunky cell phone, walking into the ocean in an attempt to get better reception while instructing a hotel manager to break into Wigand’s room because he suspects he may be suicidal. It’s all kinds of excessive, and in a different film would have been a classic. Still, he’s always ready with striking compositions, such as Wigand making a call in a room of plastic-wrapped furniture, or sat silently in an intensely muralled hotel suite. Contrastingly, while Mann’s admirably focussed throughout on Wigand’s whistleblowing, there’s an entirely superfluous and distracting thread concerning Bergman’s Unabomber story that really should have been shorn; presumably, the director felt that, in the name of diligence to the bigger picture, it had to stay.

As usual under Mann, the marriage of music to image is striking and memorable, courtesy of, respectively, Lisa Gerrard and Pieter Bourke, and Dante Spinotti. David Milch, meanwhile, must have been a fan of the use of Iguazu by Gustavo Sanataolalla, as it also shows up in Season One of Deadwood.

Wigand: You believe that because you get information out to people, something happens? … Maybe that’s just what you’re telling yourself all these years to justify having a good job. Having status. Or maybe for the audience, it’s just voyeurism, something to do on a Sunday night. And maybe it won’t change a thing. And people like myself and my family are hung out to dry. Used up, broke, alone.

There’s an additional irony to the manner in which the reporter side ultimately provides the dramatic main course; it’s almost a reflection of the conversation in which Wigand imagines he will be screwed over (and is). And also because this side is only more resonant in light of state vilification (and the fugitive or incarcerated status) of whistle-blowers in recent years, adding to the idea that not only does it not pay, but that the public doesn’t really care. The Insider was nominated for seven Academy Awards, and like several other Best Picture nominees that night (The Green Mile, The Sixth Sense), it went home empty handed. It’s a shame that it remains the best of those up for consideration that year and yet its profile has not risen at all in the last two decades.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

You were this amazing occidental samurai.

Ricochet (1991) (SPOILERS) You have to wonder at Denzel Washington’s agent at this point in the actor’s career. He’d recently won his first Oscar for Glory , yet followed it with less-than-glorious heart-transplant ghost comedy Heart Condition (Bob Hoskins’ racist cop receives Washington’s dead lawyer’s ticker; a recipe for hijinks!) Not long after, he dipped his tentative toe in the action arena with this Joel Silver production; Denzel has made his share of action fare since, of course, most of it serviceable if unremarkable, but none of it comes near to delivering the schlocky excesses of Ricochet , a movie at once ingenious and risible in its plot permutations, performances and production profligacy.

He’ll regret it to his dying day, if ever he lives that long.

The Quiet Man (1952) (SPOILERS) The John Wayne & John Ford film for those who don’t like John Wayne & John Ford films? The Quiet Man takes its cues from Ford’s earlier How Green Was My Valley in terms of, well less Anglophile and Hibernophile and Cambrophile nostalgia respectively for past times, climes and heritage, as Wayne’s pugilist returns to his family seat and stirs up a hot bed of emotions, not least with Maureen O’Hara’s red-headed hothead. The result is a very likeable movie, for all its inculcated Oirishness and studied eccentricity.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Well, something’s broke on your daddy’s spaceship.

Apollo 13 (1995) (SPOILERS) The NASA propaganda movie to end all NASA propaganda movies. Their original conception of the perilous Apollo 13 mission deserves due credit in itself; what better way to bolster waning interest in slightly naff perambulations around a TV studio than to manufacture a crisis event, one emphasising the absurd fragility of the alleged non-terrestrial excursions and the indomitable force that is “science” in achieving them? Apollo 13 the lunar mission was tailor made for Apollo 13 the movie version – make believe the make-believe – and who could have been better to lead this fantasy ride than Guantanamo Hanks at his all-American popularity peak?

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

You think a monkey knows he’s sitting on top of a rocket that might explode?

The Right Stuff (1983) (SPOILERS) While it certainly more than fulfils the function of a NASA-propaganda picture – as in, it affirms the legitimacy of their activities – The Right Stuff escapes the designation of rote testament reserved for Ron Howard’s later Apollo 13 . Partly because it has such a distinctive personality and attitude. Partly too because of the way it has found its through line, which isn’t so much the “wow” of the Space Race and those picked to be a part of it as it is the personification of that titular quality in someone who wasn’t even in the Mercury programme: Chuck Yaeger (Sam Shephard). I was captivated by The Right Stuff when I first saw it, and even now, with the benefit of knowing-NASA-better – not that the movie is exactly extolling its virtues from the rooftops anyway – I consider it something of a masterpiece, an interrogation of legends that both builds them and tears them down. The latter aspect doubtless not NASA approved.

We’ve got the best ball and chain in the world. Your ass.

Wedlock (1991) (SPOILERS) The futuristic prison movie seemed possessed of a particular cachet around this time, quite possibly sparked by the grisly possibilities of hi-tech disincentives to escape. On that front, HBO TV movie Wedlock more than delivers its FX money shot. Elsewhere, it’s less sure of itself, rather fumbling when it exchanges prison tropes for fugitives-on-the-run ones.

Drank the red. Good for you.

Morbius (2022) (SPOILERS) Generic isn’t necessarily a slur. Not if, by implication, it’s suggestive of the kind of movie made twenty years ago, when the alternative is the kind of super-woke content Disney currently prioritises. Unfortunately, after a reasonable first hour, Morbius descends so resignedly into such unmoderated formula that you’re left with a too-clear image of Sony’s Spider-Verse when it lacks a larger-than-life performer (Tom Hardy, for example) at the centre of any given vehicle.

So, you’re telling me that NASA is going to kill the President of the United States with an earthquake?

Conspiracy Theory (1997) (SPOILERS) Mel Gibson’s official rehabilitation occurred with the announcement of 2016’s Oscar nominations, when Hacksaw Ridge garnered six nods, including Mel as director. Obviously, many refuse to be persuaded that there’s any legitimate atonement for the things someone says. They probably weren’t even convinced by Mel’s appearance in Daddy’s Home 2 , an act of abject obeisance if ever there was one. In other circles, though, Gibbo, or Mad Mel, is venerated as a saviour unsullied by the depraved Hollywood machine, one of the brave few who would not allow them to take his freedom. Or at least, his values. Of course, that’s frequently based on alleged comments he made, ones it’s highly likely he didn’t. But doesn’t that rather appeal to the premise of his 23-year-old star vehicle Conspiracy Theory , in which “ A good conspiracy theory is an unproveable one ”?

He doesn’t want to lead you. He just wants you to follow.

Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (2022) (SPOILERS) The general failing of the prequel concept is a fairly self-evident one; it’s spurred by the desire to cash in, rather than to tell a story. This is why so few prequels, in any form, are worth the viewer/reader/listener’s time, in and of themselves. At best, they tend to be something of a well-rehearsed fait accompli. In the movie medium, even when there is material that withstands closer inspection (the Star Wars prequels; The Hobbit , if you like), the execution ends up botched. With Fantastic Beasts , there was never a whiff of such lofty purpose, and each subsequent sequel to the first prequel has succeeded only in drawing attention to its prosaic function: keeping franchise flag flying, even at half-mast. Hence Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore , belatedly arriving after twice the envisaged gap between instalments and course-correcting none of the problems present in The Crimes of Grindelwald .