Unclear and Present Danger - A Few Good Men

Episode Date: December 23, 2025

On this week’s episode of Unclear and Present Danger, Jamelle and John marked the unfortunate death of Rob Reiner by watching his 1992 military legal thriller A Few Good Men. In their conversation, they discuss Reiner’s career, the underlying liberalism of a film like A Few Good Men, and the continued relevance of Jack Nicholson’s performance as Colonel Nathan Jessup.After this, we’ll be off for a few weeks, but then we’ll see you again in the new year with an episode on Murder at 1600. We’ll then finish out 1997 with an episode on G.I. Jane. It’s been a busy and chaotic 2025 for both Jamelle and John, but they both hope the schedule will return to some regularity for 2026.And do not forget the Patreon, where in addition to a twice-monthly show on the political and military thrillers of the Cold War, we do a weekly politics show. Our next Patreon movie episode will be on the 1984 adaptation of John Le Carre’s The Little Drummer Girl, starring the late, great Diane Keaton.

Did you assault Santiago with the intent of killing him? No, sir. What was your intent? To train him, sir. A few good men is a masterpiece. The first true classic of the 90s. It's a drama of compelling power. This is Tom Cruise at his best.

Jack Nicholson gives his finest performance, and Demi Moore has never been better. I want the truth! You can't handle the truth! A Few Good Men, a Rob Reiner film. At theaters now. Hello and welcome to unclear and present danger, the podcast about the political and military thrillers of the 1990s and what they say about the politics of that decade. I'm Jamel Bowie. I'm a columnist for the New York Times opinion section.

I'm John Gans. I'm going to see if I can get this right, because it's been a little while. I write a column for the nation. I write the substack newsletter on popular front, and I'm the author of when the clock broke, conmen, conspiracists, and how America cracked up in the early 1990s. I did it. Congratulations. Thank you. We're recording this in December 18th, and so by the time you hear this, Christmas will not have happened yet, or holiday celebrations will not happen yet. So if you need a present for the politics-loving book reader in your life, John's book is great. Yeah, please, please buy it.

It's a great gift for a history buff, for a politics junkie, for a young person who's interested in learning more about the country. Yes, very much, though. I think a sharp teenager would enjoy this book. Me too. All right. So our original plan for this week's, episode was to record on murder at 1600, fairly mediocre, but I think kind of entertaining

murder mystery thriller starring Wesley Snipes, part of the kind of mini genre of what if the president were horny and killed somebody. That was a thing around this time. But then unfortunately, on Monday, news came down that Rob Reiner, the actor and director, was killed in his home. And so we figured that we would do a Reiner film this week, kind of in, in memoriam. And because there is a Reiner film of the 90s that basically fits the mission of this podcast, that we sort of skipped over. And so that film is 1992s, A Few Good Men, which is a legal drama produced and directed by Reiner with a screenplay by Aaron Sorkin, although if you had no idea who wrote this, 10 minutes in, you could probably

guess it was Aaron Sorkin. It is an adaptation of Sorkin's 1989 play, which was first produced on Broadway by David Brown. I've never seen the Broadway production or any kind of, I've never seen the play version, so I don't know what changes have been made. But this is based off of a play. If you could have been stars a big cast of actors, both well-known and legendary. We got Tom Cruise, a very young Tom Cruise, Jack Nicholson in probably maybe his most famous role of the 90s. I mean, yeah, because Batman was in 89. So this, this I think stands as Nicholson's probably most famous role of the decade. Demi Moore, Kevin Bacon, Kevin Pollack, J.T. Walsh, who is an actor I like a lot. Oh, he died young. I just looked at him. He died 54.

That's rough. That's sad. J.T. Walsh, if you see him in a movie, you're like, oh, this guy is either, he's either a heavy of some sort for the villain. Yeah. He is, works for the government in some nefarious role. Or he is, I don't know, that's just like his vibe. He's sort of like a little sinister.

Yeah. But he's great. And I've enjoyed him and everything. I've seen him in. and he's been in a couple of movies we've covered already. I mean, Keith for Sutherland, the great key for Sutherland, who plays, who was, he, he does a time to kill a couple years after this. He was sort of playing like rednecks a bunch.

Yeah. In the mid-90s. Film shot by Robert Richardson, who shot a previous film in this podcast, The Dog, shot the Horse Whisperer, Redford Picture. that comes out in 98. He worked with Scorsese on Casino, as well as the Aviator, and work with Tarantino a bunch. Shot, let's see, he shot Kill Bill,

The Hateful Eight, which I actually, one of the ones I've not seen, once upon a time in Hollywood, Yeah, prolific cinematographer, work for Oliver Stone, John Sales. Yeah. So it is a good, this is a good-looking movie. This is a very, this is a really movie. Score by Mark Scheiman, who I don't know all that well. A few good men was a huge hit.

Cost about $35 million to make grossed $243 million. So a big hit. A very quick plot synopsis. A few good men follows Lieutenant Daniel Caffy, a Navy judge-advocate general lawyer, who is known for negotiating plea deals rather than trying cases. He is assigned to defend two young Marines who are accused of murdering a fellow Marine, William Santiago, at the Marine Barracks at Guantanamo Bay. The defendants admit to carrying out a code red, a violent disciplinary action, but they insist that they were acting under orders. The first half of the film is basically trying to get Caffy to actually defend the two Marines rather than try to plea them out. And on the other side, pressuring him to actually defend these Marines is Lieutenant Commander Joanne Galloway, played by Demi Moore.

And so the first kind of half of the film is this Moore and Cruz back and forth about whether or not Cruz is actually going to. step up and defend these guys. All the while, we are sort of seeing in bits and pieces the truth of what happened and also the cover-up, which is very clearly being orchestrated by Colonel Nathan R. Jessup, Nicholson's character, who is the colonel at the Guantanamo Bay Base in a hard taskmaster. It's also up for a high-level position and the administration. I'm going to be moved over to serve as Director of Operations with the National Security Council. All right. half of the movie, sort of the turn after the turn, when Kathy accepts the challenge and the obligation defending these two Marines, is the more or less the lead-up to the trial

and the trial in which Kathy and Galloway and his other colleague, Lieutenant Sam Weinberg, played by Kevin Pollock is they are trying to show that these Marines were following orders had been given to them and were not guilty of just a wanton assault. And this leads us into kind of the climactic moment in the trial where Jessup is brought to the stand. This is where you get the very famous moment of Caffey, of Cruz demanding that he wants to know the truth. and Jessup screaming that he can't handle the truth and defending his actions. Yes, he gave the order to carry out a code red against Santiago. Yes, he'd do it again. Yes, he sees this thing as necessary to maintaining the integrity of the Marine Corps. The film ends on a somewhat somber note. The two Marines who are tried are acquitted of murder, but they are dishonorably discharged for conduct on becoming a Marines.

One of the Marines, Dawson, the one who kind of speaks the most, does sort of learn, realize that he can still be honorable without blind obedience. And there's a moment between him and Cruz to underscore that. And then the film ends with Cruz having shown his ability, or Kathy having shown his ability, but the resolution not being a happy ending. but being something a little more complicated. The tagline for a few good men. In the heart of the nation's capital in the courthouse of the U.S. government, one man will stop at nothing to keep his honor

and one will stop at nothing to find the truth. I already spoke about how the film grows, so we'll just get to a number's release. A few good men was released in the United States on December 11th, 1992. So let's check up the New York Times for that day. Well, the Clinton transition team is coming in because it's shortly after the election. It says Clinton team takes shape with Benson and four

others named to economic posts. President-elect Bill Clinton began to give shape to his cabinet today with the appointments of an economic team of old hands from Washington and Wall Street to help him fulfill his campaign proposes of fundamental economic change. The distinctly mainstream array of advisors that Mr. Clinton introduced at the old Arkansas State House led by Senator Lloyd Benson of Texas as Treasury Secretary seemed intended to mobilize lawmakers and executive behind his economic program and to signal that Clinton will be as serious about reducing the deficit about it as any spending programs. Okay. So basically, they've got Benson, Leon Panetta, Alice Rivlin, Roger Altman, from Morgan Stanley, I believe.

Robert Rubin from Goldman Sachs, this is interesting because there was a very fascinating book that I think both you and I read that came out last year or this year, maybe, no, it was last year. It was last year. Yeah, about Clinton's economic policy called The Fabulous Failure. And it was about like the struggle inside the Clinton campaign and administration between, let's say, kind of the neoliberal faction that he seems to be elevating here. and a more social democratic faction. And the book makes an interesting argument that it wasn't faded that the neoliberals would

win out, but they managed to for a bunch of different factors, economic, political. But yeah, it's just an interesting argument. I think it complicates a picture of Clinton as being like, oh, it was just a straight up, like the plan from the get-go was going to be like, okay, we're going to continue deregulation, continue neoliberal forms. So it's a usual, I'll say it's a usual book that brings contingency back into the narrative. Yeah, yeah, for sure. There's a lot of contingencies happen, one of which is just, my, my favorite one is just

Japan's economy, the bubble bursting. And then Japan is not as big trade threat anymore or, or nor is their model of kind of protectionism and industrial policy viewed as so wonderful because of the, the, so that kind of changes things. Yeltsin declares political impasse on economic plan, demands a referendum, dispute with Russian Congress stirs mutual disunciations in protestant streets. So this situation, a few months later, would become literally explosive as Yeltsin shelled the Duma, which was being held, was besieged and was being kind of held by a rogue group of

lawmakers, there was a kind of attempted coup and counter coup in Russia over the economic plan. And it's a very interesting thing that happened. And a lot of people attribute the kind of decline of Russian democracy to this moment. I actually wrote about this. I wrote a series about this in October, 23, a series of subs stack pieces about this attempted coup and the siege of the Dumas. It's really interesting history that I think is a lot of Americans don't know very well. He wins the referendum, by the way. But the way it's set up is

extremely convoluted and it leads both sides to claim legitimacy and victory setting up the stage for the showdown. Let's see what else. I thought this was interesting. This is below the fold. Across the U.S. immigrants find the land of resentment. On her way home from school, recently a Chinese immigrant girl was attacked by other teenagers who spray painted her face black. She and her guidance counselors at the Sword Park High School in Lower Manhattan were horrified, but they were not shocked. Attacks on newly arrived immigrants are a routine occurrence at their school. Similarly, a Salvadoran dishwasher assaulted and robbed recently on his way into a money transfer agency in Hempstead, Long Island. It was frightened, but not surprised by the

message of his assailants who are black. You steal our jobs, we steal your money. Tensions have been building between the entrenched black community and the Central American newcomers to the town. And on Staten Island, when a group of junior high school students repeatedly vandalized the House of Indian Indian immigrants smashing the windows and sputtering blue paint on the facade, the final message chalked on the driveway was sadly predictable to the family. Indians go home. I mean, you know, you see you see the backlash against immigration crystallized in the 1990s. begin to crystallize in the 1990s. I mean, Reagan was a conservative, but was fairly liberal on the issue of, of, um, of, um, of, um, of, um, of, um, and you know, he was a, a big believer that

the U.S. was a nation of immigrants that would welcome people. And he also passed a, um, a, a, um, a, an amnesty. Uh, this was not popular on the right wing of the Republican Party. And, you know, I think that the, the sense that the, um, the sense that the, um, a, um, a, um, the sense that the country did not have room for a lot of people was, you know, was also a big part of it. Because at the beginning of the decade, there were a lot of economic tensions. So you see the beginnings of an immigration backlash, which obviously kind of comes to its horrible fruition in recent years. Let's see, what else we got here?

I think those are the ones that I found really interesting. There's something about Somali gunmen that obviously was going to. also explode with Black Hawk down and the U.S. intervention in Somalia. But, yeah. I wanted to note that in the story about immigrants, if you read the whole thing, this paragraph, two politicians, Patrick Buchanan and David Duke made nativism a key element of their campaigns with a particular concern that new immigrants would dilute, as Mr. Buchanan said, the country's European character. Yeah, well, that's my book right there. I got nothing to observe.

This piece about immigrants is quite interesting. Nativism, of course, a long-extending part of the American experience going all the way back to the no-nothing party. Yeah. But, which was, its technical name was the American Party. Right. But there's a long and pretty shameful history of just virulent anti-immigrant sentiment in this country. We live in an interesting time where there actually doesn't appear to be that, like, the level of popular anti-immigrant sentiment isn't especially high. It's so weird what keeps happening, though.

It's very thermostatic. It's like, it's like the, you know, when Trump comes into office, immediately public. support for immigration rises. And then when he leaves office, there's a big concern about immigration. And then he comes back in and he starts enforcing it the way he does. And then it's almost a 70, 30, 60, 40 issue again, against him. You know, like, it's just very strange. I think people are basically like, they want border enforcement and they want something, but they don't really like the way Trump pursues immigration policies. That's the clearest way to see it. And everyone who was like, oh, the argument on immigration was settled, apparently not.

I don't think the American people are really happy with what anybody's offering because maybe their, maybe their desires don't make a lot of sense. I mean, I mean, like, I think that basically Americans, you know, when you ask an American, do you think an illegal immigrant should be here, they say, well, they listen to that and they say, well, illegal means bad and they should not be here. And, you know, okay, on some, by definition, yeah. But then if you say, well, this person's been working here peacefully has a family that have been working here for 30, 40 years, they're going to be like, well, not that person. Right, right. You know, so like, yeah, so there's a, people have very contradictory views on it. Like, in the abstract, yeah, like, I don't think people like the idea of illegal immigration

because it's illegal and it seems unfair. But when you actually put it to them either cruelly enforcing the laws or people who have just like lived in this country peacefully productive lives they don't particularly like you know attacking those people part of the issue is that i think americans or the general public imagines the existence of an immigration system that doesn't exist right they imagine a line right and that there are people who cut the line and they don't like that um they imagine that there's sort of orderly system and the fact that there really is no line there's no particularly orderly system it's very haphazard and difficult to navigate and i've long thought that if you could

propose an immigration system that work like the way most Americans think it works, it would be understood to be a, like a massive liberalization of existing immigration laws. I also sort of think that if you could, I mean, and this was on the table 10 years ago, a path to citizenship, and then if you skip the line, if you came in illegally, you just had to pay like a stiff fine, that would satisfy most people. I think most people just want some affirmation of a sense of you can't just like break the law and come in here yeah and if you can affirm that for people then they're other then as you say they're like yeah well if you're going to come here and be productive I got no problem with you right right uh yeah and I think like

pretty much everybody also like knows immigrants and likes immigrants except I mean again I think like there's a lot of we've talked about this so a lot of people with prejudices but like I think that the really truly bigoted is a fairly small population. So you can probably have somebody who is anti-immigration and maybe a hard line about it, but then we'll have a cut out for some friends that he thinks are fine people. Yeah. Yeah. So anyway, that's the paper.

All right. A few good men. Now, when I suggested this to you, John, you were reluctant because you don't like this movie. Yeah. You want to know the truth? I want to know the truth. You can't handle the truth. No, I mean, you know, I don't.

I don't. I struggle with it. So I, it's a funny story. When I was young, I really wanted to watch a few good men because it had to do with the military. And I didn't know it was like a courtroom drama. I just saw Army uniforms and I was like, I want to watch that movie. My parents were like, that's not for you. And then I only watched it, I think, in adulthood, finally got around to it.

And I found the movie really puzzling. Like, I got to tell you, like, and, okay, we're saying this in the aftermath of the death of beloved filmmaker, comedian and actor Robert Reiner, whose work, in many cases, I do admire. I just want to put that out there. But this film to me is really almost like, I feel like an alien watching it. I'm like, what is the drama in this film? why is this interesting what what is the psychology of the characters whom I'm supposed to identify with is there a tragic or tension between value systems in this movie here's what I just don't get it I'm like okay look these main these guys committed a murder they followed

in a legal order they killed a a defenseless person in a very heinous way and the movie would have us sympathize with them on some level. And I don't understand that at all. And it's articulated by one of the characters at one moment. Okay, so they follow orders. And yes, maybe they don't have full agency in a military situation. And then, you know, you have this ethos, even promoted by Demi Moore's character that's like, well, I'm sympathized with them because they serve the country. They stand on the wall, you know, and then, you know, a more extreme version of that ethos is Jack Nicholson's favorite monologue, which is a great piece of acting and a good, the best piece of writing in the movie. It's good. But I just struggle to find anything, like, I'm like, what is the point? And I just

don't get the movie. I, like, really need it to explain to me, like, what's the dramatic center of the movie. What is the conflict? What is the psychological conflict? What is the conflict of values? Why are we supposed to sympathize with these characters? It's just really, and this is the second time I watched it. And I thought, and the movie began, and I was like, oh, you know what, I'm actually kind of enjoying this more. And then it got into the movie and I was like, I'm having the same problem. I don't get it. I have like a weird almost, and is beloved. And people think this is a great film or a great example of Hollywood filmmaking. But I watch it. It's like, I'm like, I feel like I'm tone deaf or something.

I'm like, I, this completely fails to move me in any way and I don't understand the story. Like, it's literally almost like I'm looking at a like a page of and it looks kind of like letters, but it's, you know, like when they describe what people that have dyslexia, like it's kind of like a jumble. Like that's how I feel watching this film. I'm like, I don't get what this is about. So anyway, that's my feeling. I don't know. Please explain it to me. No, no, so I, this is, this is maybe my third time watching this movie.

I think I saw this movie as a teenager. Then again, maybe like seven or eight years ago, and this is my latest watch. And I would say that, I mean, I think you're right to note that the actual, like, moral valence of the Marines being defended is sort of like, they, they are guilty, like, straightforwardly. And although they were following a terrible mortar, a murder. Right. It's a moira. It's a moira. It's a terrible murder. It's a, it's a, it's a, it's a killing of someone who couldn't defend themselves. Um, yeah. And although, yeah, they were following in a legal order. That is true. It doesn't absolve them, first of all. It just means that the culpability is greater than simply them. And the film just like doesn't really get into that at all. And so when I think about kind of the conflict here, this is why the way, the way I framed it at the top. I think this is much more a movie about whether or not the Tom Cruise character

is going to actually do its job and live up to the expectations or the memory or what have you of his father, who is, we learn was the former former attorney general and something of like a living saint type guy, you know, whether this, I mean, so real quick, Tom Cruise sidebar. So this is 92. This is filmed in 91. Tom Cruise at this point is one of the biggest stars in in Hollywood. And he is, he had been in a series of movies that you could basically describe as Tom Cruise is a young hot shot blank. That's sort of what he's been doing film wise. So let me just pull up a quick filmography. So top gun.

He's a top gun, obviously. There is the color of money, right, which is a great movie, but he's like hot shot pool, pool player. Love that movie. Cocktail. He's a hot shot cocktail. Bartender. Bartender. Days of Thunder.

He's a hot shot race car driver. So he's just like, that's just what he's doing, right? And in this movie, he's like kind of a hot shot. lawyer, Jag lawyer. And so I understand the film is being kind of like about his journey from immature, hot shot lawyer to someone who actually take seriously the weight of his responsibilities.

And that that's mean, that's like that's the dramatic arc of the film. And the substance of what actually happened is actually kind of like secondary to that, which is a very sork and this. to do right like sorkin actually isn't all that concerned about the substance of the thing he's concerned with like the psychodrama he's concerned with sort of the the the particular personalities but this was this was you know this was the nerd complaint about the west wing right we're like if you just like listen to the kinds of policies they were talking about you'd like oh this is

this shit is dumb you know um but but he's interested in personalities rising to occasion right Right. Yeah, personalities rise into occasion is the perfect way to put it. That is the through line of all of Sorkin's work. Right. And yeah. It's someone doing their professional duty. Always it's a professional duty. And so this movie is just very much about professionalism and what it means to be professional, professional soldier, professional lawyer, follow the rules, the regulations, the honor of one's calm. and task. I get that. But it's about a murder, like, they should plead, they should do a plea deal. Like, they should not plead innocent because they're not. Like, it's a perfect occasion for him to plead. Like, it would be one thing if they were substantively innocent. And he was a lazy lawyer who just wanted to be, like, cynical and was like, look, you're, you're not going to get off. And then he was convinced of their innocence. That's a drama.

Like, I know. But if they're, I mean, I'm just going to bang on this a little longer. Like, he was not wrong to be like, look, we should plea out of this. And he did get them off of the murder charges, which I don't even think is right. Is that right? Do you think they should be acquitted of murder? No. Well, they didn't intend to kill him.

Okay. All right. They didn't intend to kill him. Felony murder law means in the course of committing a felony, someone dies. I don't know what the military code of justice is, but anyway, all right. Anyway, I just think that, like, it's very puzzling to me as I've articulated to you. But like, yeah, there's a certain, there's a Sorkin-esque liberalism, which is about professionals doing their best. And that combines with the Reiner liberalism, which is, I don't know how you want to put it. Sentimental, um, good nature people are good uh some things like that yeah writer because right i wouldn't describe writer as like a political filmmaker in the least he he right but he does have he does have a liberal sentimentalism um a kind of you know he loves americana that kind of thing

it's like it's like zamechus if you took away all of zemachus's cynicism and like anarchic sensibility. And that's very much a Reiner, writer house. So I think it fits sorking quite well. Like they both, they both believe in sort of like mid-century liberalism. And this is a film that is

you know, about the triumph of like the mid-century liberal attitude, you know, upholding institutions, standing up against bullies, as you say, professionals doing their jobs and doing them well, open-mindedness, right? Like the defense team for the Marines is a, gets crews, have a woman soldier. And although

the film doesn't really touch on it, this was a time when like women in the military was like, you know, somewhat controversial. Yeah. Well, she gets like sexually harassed by Nicholson at one point. Right, right. And, and then a Jewish, Jewish soldier, Jewish Jaguar. Although, did you catch, so this is, you know, I think I caught this time is there's a scene in the court in the courtroom where Nicholson says, Weinberg. Lieutenant Weinberg. And I was like, Jesus Christ.

Yeah, no, I thought that it was pretty clearly supposed to be an anti-Semitic jab at him. Yeah. Yeah, no, I mean, it's true. It is, it is very much that. And I think this is, you know, okay, I got a little bit annoyed by some of the, the takes about Robert Reiner and what he represented as being a little over intellectualized or trying to find a take that was there. And I was like, look, he made movies that people really like. Yeah. But I think there is something to the idea that Reiner's films did reflect a

kind of consensus liberalism of the second half of the 20th century and its continuation into the 90s that people found very comforting and good and it's passing into this era of horrors is is uh has been disturbing so i think people felt a particular um sense of loss when his films uh you know uh when his film when he when he when he was murdered um in such a it's such a tragic way. So I think it's just like, and then Trump's comments about it, obviously. I think yes, yeah. It did remind people of a better time, say. Yeah. I mean, the other thing is that there's just, Reiner is the kind of director that we don't have as much anymore, which is he's not anuteur, right? There's no Reiner style per se. But there is, is a Reiner approach, which is very

much focus on the actors, very much focus on sort of crafting the form of the movie around the story and the characters. I did a roundtable on Reiner at the times, and I compared him the Sydney Lumet for this reason, a very similar kind of approach, where Lumet, who was a prolific and accomplished director, I mean, I think we've gone through this before, but like you start going on the list of Lumet films, and you're basically looking at sort of the major classics of the 60s and 70s, even into the 80s. But there's not like a singular style that you can identify with Lumet. Instead, each film has the style it needs for the story being told.

And I think that's very much Reiner's approach as well. And you can see that in the diversity of the films who directed, this Spinal Tap, the Princess Bride, Stand By Me, the American President, a few good men. are very different kinds of movies. Yeah, I mean, to your point about that, there's a certain sense in which I think, again, contributing to the nostalgia people have for, for Reiner's films is like, especially because they're kind of a, he made comedies obviously, but he made dramas like this one as well. It's like, there's a certain point in which his films kind of stood for not Hollywood at its best, but kind of a basic goodness and quality and competence

in Hollywood. You know what I mean? Like, these are like, these are like. like what people fondly remember as being able to go to the cinema and watch a quality movie. Right. And that was memorable and maybe you'd want to rent it and, you know, has memories associated with it. I feel like so many movies that comes out, like have zero memories associated with them. Like, but, you know, so I think that that's, if, if Harvey Weinstein is sort of the evil face of Hollywood, Reiner was the jovial kind, you know, good nature face of

Hollywood and what it could provide for people. Yeah, so I think that that's another part of the loss of it. And it's, yeah, it's just reflected in this film and the, and the politics that it has, which are, you know, very much in that spirit. And I think a lot of people, we've talked about this many times in terms of our own understanding of things and in terms of the country's understanding of things, liberals understanding of things, it's like, I mean, people make this critique of the West Wing all the time, which I think is a little unfair. But, you know, like Aaron Sorkin created a mythological notion of what happens in the country and in government that was not harsh or realistic enough about the realities and made people kind of have these, you know, dreamy fantasies about virtuous leadership, which we saw expressed in, you know, maybe stuff like people putting too much faith in Robert. Mueller or stuff like that, you know, like that. So I think that these movies did kind of

condition people's expectations for how the U.S. political system would work. I mean, it's a courtroom procedural. And it's like, oh, well, professional people doing their jobs will get it done. And that notion of competence being enough or goodwill, a combination of goodwill and competence being enough is an ethos that's obviously going to be appealing to someone who's a professional filmmaker. And it's just like, yeah, if I, you know, go through the, if I go through the motions essentially and I do the job properly, like we'll come out on the other side with something that's, that's, that's, that's, that's a quality, um, that the world is not so easily tamed as all that. The other thing is, um, in terms of Sorkin, uh, yeah, he really also,

there's something super didactic about his writing, which bugs me sometimes, like, it's so explainy. And this, this starts to bug me. And I really think that this movie would be better served by more mystery. And, yeah, gradual revelations, perhaps if there were more attractive parts of Jack Nicholson's character, right? And it was gradually revealed that he had unattractive, or he had kind of hidden views, right? It's the opposite of In Crimson Tide where, like, Gene Hackman's character has very backwards views, but it's revealed at the end that he's honorable man who, you know, is principled in certain ways. If he had the appearance, if this movie was a little just more about, played around with appearances and realities,

I mean, it kind of tries to do that because it shows, it shows crews as being immature, but ultimately very good or, like, but that's just like, I find that drama of being like, he's afraid to be his true self. I don't know. And also, like, what is Demi Moore's character even doing in the movie. Well, she's, I mean, she's very much trying, she's like the more, the voice of morality in the film. Yeah. And Weinberg, too, I guess, in his own way.

Right. The both of them. You know, the didacticism of Sorkin, which I think it's part of like, I mean, I feel like Sorkin is a very, like, love him or hate him kind of guy. Part of why he is, can be a pleasure to watch is, is that did that didathecism, the fact that he just wants to have characters do a ratat-tat tat, tat speeches back and fourth and that can be in the right in the right hands the right actors the right direction that can be like really pleasurable to watch and in the wrong hands let's say a little show called

the newsroom it's fucking insufferable they can't stand that yeah it was so lame dude um i want to you know we we need to start wrapping up sort of soon so i want to talk just real quickly about nicholson's speech at the end yeah please um because on this watch it just struck me as the kind of thing that Pete Hanksf might see and be like, yeah, that's right, that's right. And I think there's something so interesting about how this movie, Nicholson's a very charismatic performer, even when he's angry and scary, he's charismatic. And there are many people who watch this scene and take it at face value.

They don't see it as a villain speaking something terrible. they see it as sort of an expression of a truth about the world. Like a joker-fied, literally the joker. Literally the joker, right? But I think the film wants you to take away that this is bullshit. Right, right, that this notion that defending one's way of life demands and requires cruelty is just wrong. and that the people who do cruelty and you get you get you get touches of this

from Nicholson are doing it for its own sake and that all of this is just a rationalization he's sadistic right and it's I think this I think I think you hecks Seth and the people like him imagine themselves as the sort of Nicholson character but we can kind of see that they're really quite pathetic

right that they're cruel impulses that the desire to cause harm itself stems from some sort of like deep inadequacy and that like their pretences to masculinity and manhood and honor are just that pretences. And likewise with this, I mean, the thing about this scene is that once it's clear that he's just dug his own grave and he's being arrested, he lashes out like a child, that all of the self-righteousness, all of the, you know, pretense goes away and you just have like an angry, cruel man. Yeah.

No, I think that's right. I'm like, yeah, he's not supposed to be a hero in the movie by a stretch of the imagination, although people find something admirably truth speaking about his outburst. But I do think the movie does play around a little bit with giving his worldview some kind of credence with Demi Moore's character having a similar kind of speech about standing on the wall and like this idea that these people are protecting our freedoms. But then the movie ends with this very liberal conceit of, well, you have to protect the freedoms of the weakest, like the person who was killed in the film, the private who was killed. So yeah, I mean, I understand

why people look at, yeah, it's like this movie is the most anti-hags. movie and the world. And it's so funny, again, like, this is what's so disorienting about the time is, like, this movie seems so commonsensical in its wisdom about the ethics of the military and, you know, what made a good man and a good soldier and proper behavior that now this kind of explicit rejection of the ethos and replace it with this kind of thuggishness is so disorienting if you're a little older you're like dude this is not the way it's supposed to be it was supposed to be like a few good men so haggseth is very much opposed to this it would call it woke you know this movie right it's definitely pre-woke uh in a lot of

ways um but you know is would it's like it's like that's what I always thought was like, oh, well, this is going to just be used to attack the barest liberal proceduralism eventually. And that's going to be called woke. And it's funny that like if you described, maybe if you didn't show somebody a fugue man and they didn't have the associations with it, but if you just described the plot and the themes of a few good men to somebody like Hexeth, they would be like, that's a woke movie. Yeah. Which is absurd. Well, I mean, it's just, I that just gets to the extent to which the the anti-woke types they imagine this stuff to be some sort of imposition from without but it's sort of a lot of this stuff a lot of the you know the commitment

to equality to inclusion it kind of like it bubbles naturally from the american from at least many american cultural traditions it kind of just it's a thing people genuinely believe right and that's reflected in in the media that's produced right um yeah they're like it's not, you know, yeah, the consensus didn't, wasn't Hollywood, enforcing on people. Hollywood was reflecting a national consensus or trying to, a very, you know, they were creating ideological pictures, not from without enforcing ideology, but it was the national ideology that they were reflecting. Right, right.

And especially this movie and a lot of, arguably all of Sork and stuff. I mean, yeah, I think that Sorkin's commitment to professionalism, his commitment to personal virtue of the professional class is a little grading. But I can see also why it's nostalgic and appealing to people, especially now when those things are really undervalued. And personal virtue is not held to be important by a lot of people or the virtues that people. lionize really more vices. Yeah, so I mean like the film, to me, I can see it's pull. I can see wanting to get into it like a warm bath of 90s nostalgia for times when things seem better.

But I do also think that maybe this moral gap that I feel in the movie, I don't want to overread it, but may just kind of point to something that was, I mean, I can't develop this in fullness, but that was kind of empty about the whole thing in the first place. I mean, we keep talking about this. There's like, maybe this stuff looked really good and had a superficial plausibility to it, but then it had certain gaps and contradictions and weaknesses that made its eventual replacement kind of like, oh, well, this thing that barely stands on its own, according to its own terms and principles. So yeah, I just don't, I don't know, the idea that it's about, I don't care about Tom Cruise becoming a better lawyer. You know what I mean?

Like, that's not, it would have to make me invest in the character that just knowing that his father was a great lawyer and he's having trouble matching up to that. I mean, look, look, I want to be sensitive about this, but it is interesting. Carl, you know, Rob Reiner had a very, very famous successful father, Carl Reiner, and, you know, he obviously had a very troubled relationship with his son. So I think the relationship between fathers and sons and taking over, you know, once the, you know, standing in the shoes of a successful and important father was obviously something that he had in the back of his mind. Yeah. And like this, this evil Jessup is like an evil father figure to his marines. He's a kind of obscene, what Freud might have called an obscene

father, like a primal father. Which, as we have seen over the last decade, is something that quite a few people are attracted to. They like it a lot. Yeah. Yeah. So, and I think that Trump, although I don't think he's as articulate or as tough as the Jessup character, obviously would be like that guy. I like that guy, what he said. He said the truth, you know? You can't handle the truth. But I don't know, Jamel, I got to tell you, I think that the movie weirdly weirdly allows for Nicholson's character to have his say and doesn't present him in pathetic enough of a way, you know? Like, it does kind of show him as a tough guy. Yeah. He's not a loser. He is really that guy. It's just wrong. Yeah. Like he did,

committed a crime, but he like, but he lived, he didn't betray any of his values. He wasn't It wasn't totally pretences because it wasn't like he was being self-interested entirely, and then he was claiming these tough guy values, and it turned out to be full of shit just as a show. Like, he is kind of a real tough guy, and he was prepared to face the consequences, and he did admit what he was doing. He didn't lie. So I think that, weirdly enough, I could see, although he is a villain in a certain way, maybe there's something that I could understand someone finding something admirable about it. Because he's not fully, totally full of shit. He was in combat, you know, I think that maybe you got to reflect on what the the kinds of people, institutions committed to violence create.

But, you know, I don't know. I think that his character is obviously crude and rough and is committed to does something bad in the terms of the movies. But he's not dishonest in a weird way. He's not, I mean, he tries to get away with it, I suppose, so he's, but he thinks that he's following the proper, that's what I'm saying, I'm not so sure I agree that he's totally sadistic, although it does seem to be kind of like that. He does have a resentment. He resents, he wants this respect, right? He wants to be respected by Tom Cruise's character. He wants to

put down Demi Moore's character, put her in her place. So yeah, there isn't it, there is a degree to where there's this kind of entitlement resentment thing going on with him. So I suppose it's not just a matter of him following his values. There is a sense of like his self being needing to assert itself in that way in order to feel good about himself. Okay. So I'm I'm more convinced by your interpretation now talking talking it through it. But I could see how somebody would be like this guy is just living by his values. Right. Right. Yeah. All right. I think it's a good place to wrap up. That is a few good men. I would, I think this is a perfectly enjoyable Hollywood picture, so I would recommend it. Um, my sense, Jonathan, you wouldn't recommend it,

but that, that, that, that, that's sort of, you know, you just would. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, like, look, I mean, I am not my recommendation. People have their, this is a beloved movie and people are going to watch it and like it. Uh, I think I'm in the minority who doesn't particularly care for it and you know that's just one man's opinion listen i you know every so often i make people mad mad by saying i think rogue one the star wars movie is bad i've actually watched it it's not good um so you know you like and or which is based on the same ideas right right and or is like what if you did that except it was good it was good okay um okay real quick uh thank you for listening as always uh this is

probably our last main feed episode of the year. So thank you for listening. Patreon listeners, you'll get a few. You'll get, you'll get two more things, I think this, or maybe even three more things this year before we're out. So stay tuned for that. But main feed listeners, we'll see you next year. And if you want to hear more of us,

join the Patreon. Patreon.com slash unclear pod, $5 a month. And there's plenty of content over there. If you want to leave us feedback, you can just reach us at the feedback email, unclear and present feedback at fastmail.com. We have one feedback, quick feedback email. It's just from Andrew recommending the film, A House of Dynamite.

That's a new Catherine Bigelow picture. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Andrew says it falls outside the time frames with the two podcasts, but I felt the tension and the vibes were rubbing the sin of 80s fears and wonder if you'd seen it and whether you'd be covering it on one of the podcasts. I've seen it. I don't know if we'll be covering it. I think it's fine.

Okay, I haven't seen it yet. It's totally fine. Okay. But maybe we'll talk about it on the podcast, maybe we'll talk about it on a non, like not a proper episode, but we'll just discuss it. Thank you for the email, Andrew.

Episodes come out every two weeks, just about. So we will see you in two weeks, roughly, with this episode on murder at 1600, followed by an episode on G.I.J. And then we'll be in the year, 1998, where there's a lot of fun movies to cover. and we're coming. We're like we're reaching the end in the 90s. We'll be there soon enough

and we'll soon enough be in the 9-11 era where the podcast will continue, but the movies will get worse. Yeah, gradually they'll get worse. They'll gradually get worse. They'll peak and they'll get worse. All right. For John Gans, I'm Jamel Pui, and this is unclear and present danger. We'll see you next time. We're going to be.