Post a response to this discussion thread
1. What was the purpose of Affleck's character going to church and speaking to a priest? Was it to show remorse or guilt, or just to extemporaneously have him spout out what he's thinking? I didn't see any purpose to it.
The purpose was to show him looking for some place of morality, because he could not find the morality within himself to stand up and do what's right.
2. Couldn't the Jackson character be the slightest bit tempted to take the check? Looks like he could have used the money, asked for a ride to court and talk about insurance while in the car.
Jackson's character is an alcoholic in AA; he HAS to do things EXACTLY right or they WILL come back to bite him in the ass. This is one part of the movie which IS correct; he has to watch his P's and Q's right now, really carefully.
3. Where can I find a beautiful wife that will tell me to screw morality, screw my secretary and screw a dead man by taking the money?
Simple, marry a rich, inherited-wealth bitch; all the actions above are what they *expect* from their man. They'd be both surprised and upset if you *didn't* act that way.
4. Why didn't the affleck character ask for a quick recess, take the other lawyer by the side, explain he'll need some more time instead of looking ridiculous in front of the judge? Where was Sam L's lawyer? Clearly, he was smart enough to have one? And how can a judge make a snap judgement without both sides there? It doesn't happen in real life.
If Affleck took the other lawyer off to the side to "explain" the situation, the other lawyer would have, quite rightly, asked the judge to rule immediately. These are sharks, man, and it's an adversarial system.
As to b) Sam didn't have a lawyer because he thought he would look more vulnerable and sincere. And the judge, making an off-the-cuff decision? Happens all the time, bro, all the time!
5. Didn't Jackson's loan for the house get approved? That's under the assumption that the downpayment was made and the bank has already set aside money for the house - it also assumes that papers have already been signed by both Jackson and the bank. So even if his credit was shot to hell, how can the bank reverse what it's already agreed to in paper? Maybe it would have made more sense if the realter turned him away instead of the bank because it did a credit check before the final agreement and found out that he was busted.
The bank was doing a whole *set* of checks before actually issuing the money. The 24-hour wait would be a normal thing.
6. Would an law intern REALLY wait all day for an interview, even until after 5pm?
With a law firm which can pay its partners MILLION DOLLAR bonuses? You bet! I'd wait for a measly 8 hours to get near to a million dollars!
7. The school incident was strange as well. You have a school teacher or administrator that knows the details of Jackson's boys and the family. Then a stranger walks in and says he's gonna attack the boys or take them away. We already knows he's a good father and he attends PTA meetings and school activities wiht them. But they take Affleck's word at face value and arrest Jackson. And Jackson isn't startled that he's being arrested - he just wants to see the boys.. Does that make sense?
They take Affleck's word at face value because they cannot take the risk otherwise. If Jackson came in and kidnapped or harmed the boys after the authorities had been warned, no matter how specious or flaky the warning, they would have been sued up the ass.
8. Affleck's answer to his morality question and the tangible question of his job's future comes at the end, at the dinner table: he has the original document, which should have been filed in court but instead, the doctored one is. So the original document is incriminating evidence that the firm has plagerized documents. it's his ace in the hole. As long as he has it, he has control of the game. Ok. question: what's to stop a moral deprived law firm from killing Affleck and taking the document to keep the money wheel rolling? And can he really continue to work in a law firm that he can't trust? I'm sure the wife wouldn't mind doing daddy a favor and poison her husband..
Stealing is one thing. Murder is another. It is harder and more expensive to get away with murder. And as well, because Affleck is a lawyer, he could have made lots of "information bombs" to explode in the firm's face if he were to suddenly disappear or die.
9. Speaking of arrests, why wasn't the Jackson character arrested when he threw a computer monitor across the the room in a bank?
If he left quickly enough, he may not have been detained. And the bad publicity (including a bunch of cops entering the bank) would have been bad for business.
10. So what's the de-nu-mount? (or however the french say it) The moral is: control your anger and don't be a part of the problem - be part of the solution? The Jackson character seems to be punished for trying to do right: had he taken the check, he would have still been late for court, but he would have still had his credit plus some extra cash to perhaps get a real vehicle and still get his woman back (when they talked on the phone, she seems pretty much swayed with his getting the home). But he does right, gets screwed, goes berzerk, screws the other guy, gets arrested (which the arrest record will affect his custody suit in the event the couple breaks up again), and is told by his AA man to just relax. The Affleck character tries to do right (in his way) by handing over a blank check. Had he really tried to do right, he would have been even more late than he had been and probably wouldn't have found his AAA card anyway which wouldn't have helped the Jackson character. And when he received the fax, he could have earnestly tried to get the file back instead of trying to squeeze Jackson's nuts and complicating Affleck's life even more - and affecting his conscience. If Affleck were a better actor, we could have seen a better balance of the two men and actually feel a balanced link between the two. Instead I see a white guy trying to feel good about himself while having a lush job and screwing another guy because he forgot his own folder - and I see antoher guy continually trying to do good and being justifiably angry - and being told in the end that he's a junkie for chaos and that he should calm down. Can anyone feel sorry or compassion for the Affleck character in the end? Can anyone justifiably say that if we were in Jackson's shoes, we wouldn't be just as pissed as he was?
By the way, I liked the movie.
I agree with your last two statements. And the moral of the story is that every immoral act we do has a multitude of unpredicted consequences.
Just my 2 cents.
Post a response to this discussion thread