Truth

source: Truth

"You're supposed to put yourself out, seek the truth, and take what comes from it." During the election of 2004, 60 minutes producer, Mary Mapes (Blanchett) uncovers a story saying that President Bush went AWOL from the national guard for a year. Thinking she has enough evidence and enough verification Dan Rather (Redford) reports it to the world. Almost immediately the report is called into question and the careers of everyone involved are in jeopardy. This movie hits all the right notes for me is is a true story, it's political and historical. I was looking forward to this movie, and was not disappointed at all. I knew most of the story that took place, but this movie deals with the behind the scenes events that no one knew about. Regardless of your political beliefs this is a hard movie to ignore the facts of. I'm not talking about the facts of the report, but the events and the "witch hunt" that essentially took place. For example, none of the events were investigated but the font of the letters were. This is just a great movie and reminded me of All The President's Men. I highly recommend this. Overall, tense and anger inducing. A movie I highly recommend. I give this an A.

Blanchett is one of Hollywood's biggest assets, and she rarely, if ever, has disappointed. She is a true chameleon, a woman who transforms herself from the inside out. Her portrayal of psychological deterioration rivaled Leigh's "Desire" in "Blue Jasmine". She crumbled in front of our eyes. She's tremendous in "Indiana Jones IV" playing her villain with ultimate gusto. She is wonderful in "The Aviator" a movie that needed to be much better to match her talents, and she's top-notch in "Notes from a Scandal", and the little seen, "The Gift". I could go on for a while about her enormous talents, but I have to admit that I wasn't ready to see her in "Truth." Here she gathers the best of previous performances to put together a character that is based on real events and has managed to grow stronger and confident, reach professional heights that fall apart as she begins to take her investigation into places that could be a bit problematic. The title represents a play in words because the film does deliver the truth behind certain events, and it's the truth that imprisons and basically ruins her career for she seeks to deliver it, but there are elements around that will not permit that to happen. In fact, even her prosecutors become aware of the fact that she doesn't lie. It doesn't matter because there must be a sacrificial lamb, and it's her professional life that fall victim to some of the most unethical maneuvers politicians and lawyers can design. There are many amazing moments in the film, all of them showing her magnetic force. She gains our empathy when we discover how difficult it's for a woman to survive the constant abuse of her family. It's worse when we see that it's almost impossible to gain respect in her line of work. It's horrible to see how some people are not hesitant to destroy one person's life if it pleases some privileged members of the establishment. In fact, her big scene, during the closing parts of her testimony will have everyone in awe for a long time. There's truth there, and we should treasure it. She is now in my top 3 actresses of all time.

No. Thank you. Such an interesting story absolutely destroyed and made nearly unwatchable by the presence of actor Robert Redford. He is just not believable as a national reporter of the type that was Dan Rather. Dan Rather, was, and remains, a hard working passionate advocate for news journalism. None of that comes across in Redford's performance. We may be lead to believe that Redford wanted to honors Mr Rather, instead we have yet another film where Robert Redford only honors Robert Redford, he is just not believable in this sensitive part. As the viewer endures so many scenes with Redford, the historical details, and the guts of the conspiracy to silence all the known facts about GW Bush's disturbing personal history seem lost. The great "Truth" trumpeted in the title is lost in the trivia of personalities and we have instead of a story about "Truth", a boring story about Robert Redford pretending to somehow be relevant as both an actor and an observer of the ills of our society. The remaining cast does very well, yet they struggle to anchor their connection to Redford. Blanchett is just fine in her important part. We learn more, much more, from observing the rest of this cast, and the backgrounds, for that matter, than we do by following the Redford performance. If Redford had produced this work, instead of acting in it, it would have been a better film. His "interpretation" of a hard working, legendary journalist does not ring authentic at all. Disappointing. Redford spends so much time in his own private bubble, he is just no longer believable as a real, working class person. A great actor, in my view, takes you inside the character, and you want to follow him or her in this process. Redford is unable to get out of his own way here, so we just see yet another "Robert Redford" performance. If, like so many, you just love Redford and whatever he does, you might like this film. If you want to know about the dedicated, outstanding life and motivations of a very influential journalist in the real world of Bush Protectionism, that film has not yet been made.

When someone fakes a document with computer font that didn't exist until decades later, it's a lie. No matter how bad you hate Bush or how hard Redford emotes, facts are not changed and lies do not become the "Truth". It amazes me at how many people with watch a fictional movie "based on" actual events and get sucked into the revision of history. No, I am not a Republican or a Bush apologist. I did see the movie and it was boring and tiresome, especially if you know the facts and have to watch them be distorted and twisted in a politically charged revisionist farce. If you want to see the truth, research the Dan Rather fraud yourself. If you want to be entertained, choose another movie. This film offers neither.

The movie is about a reporter played by Cate Blanchett, who uses some really questionable documents as proof for a story she wants to believe, then gets stung by the blogosphere. Cate is doing a piece about Bush in the National Guard, but proof pivots on some really ghetto looking documents. It doesn't help that the guy providing the them looks like the kind who would run over your foot at Walmart on his rascal scooter, then you would feel too sorry for him to complain because his oxygen tank fell off the cart. The docs sort of look like they were faked by an 8th grader too. The movie is not so much a historical piece, because it is so biased toward Dan Rather and Blanchett's characters. It is more of a feminist statement gone haywire.. It would be like if Blanchett entered a teen bikini contest to protest it's objectifying women, then was aghast when she didn't win. No matter the crowd ran out screaming, she entered to make a point, damn it, and you had better look!!! "OK, OK, maybe I can't prove the story, but I just know it's true!!!!!" The reporter is the type Blanchett was was born to play. Big , bossy, brutish bitchy and blonde, she not so much works but more elbows her way thru the film . In addition she has all the props- wimpy house hubby, special needs type son (only ONE kid, natch), bad knock off of a Tudor house and sensible shoes--YIKES! It's no wonder she got fired, I kept worrying she was gonna get murdered. She has issues, MAJORLY, and they are of the deep rooted Daddy variety. She wasn't gonna ever end up on a * pole ( for obvious reasons), so instead she goes out hunting for revenge, but instead of her bod uses a pen, with mixed results. I remember when Dan Rather got his first mega media star contract, decades ago but well into seven figures. In the film, they ask him why he went into "journalism". He should have answered "you call this journalism"? but instead quipped "curisosity"......yea, right. ? Remember that line from the film " Broadcast News", when the guy asked his father "what can you do if all you can do is look good?" A square jaw and veneer job can sure come in handy. hey Danny?

Acting, writing and production values were mediocre, at best. Music and cinematography were frequently overdone to the point of being cheesy. These problems could be overlooked, since a lot of dramas coming out of Hollywood are just as mediocre. The real problem with this movie is the political left trying to spin the story to make themselves look like heroes and martyrs. Big, bad W and the Conservative Conspiracy are running rough-shod over the noble press, which is trying to do its best to make sure the "truth" is revealed right before what will be a close presidential election. What a bunch of horse spit! I found most of the storyline hard to swallow, and I was downright insulted at times by how stupid they must think I am for believing some of their assertions. Even with their heavy-handed script, it becomes obvious that there are large chunks of information missing. Did George W. Bush shirk his duties during Viet Nam? Maybe. Is that the most important aspect of the story? Not in by a long shot. The most important aspect was the attempted smearing of a candidate and subsequent cover-up by people with an agenda that are supposed to be presenting unbiased, well-research facts to the American public. They got caught because of the rise of the Internet that quickly allowed people to examine the evidence and report that it was fabricated. It makes me wonder how many other stories we've been presented with that were equally warped but we did not yet have the ability to examine the fact and raise a stink about it. They got caught in their lie, and went about trying to fling poo on everyone else so no one would notice the stench coming from the reporters and producers of this political hit piece. This was pure liberal fantasy. If you watch it, take it with a grain of salt the size of Mount Everest. About me and my bias: I have never joined any political party and do not believe either major party has the American people's best interest at heart, only themselves. I have voted for Democrats and Republicans. My stance on issues is all over the map depending on the issue, but would average out to moderate-to-conservative. I am intelligent according to standardized test scores. I earned a college degree with highest honors. I am well-read and well-traveled. I take pains to get my news from a variety of sources to avoid the echo chamber effect. I do NOT watch Fox News, and I do NOT listen to conservative talk radio. I firmly believe that on the whole, American media and news is slanted left, quite severely in some cases. I find this especially troublesome, since the constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press should protect the people from the lies from a tyrannical government. The press has utterly and willfully failed in this responsibility. I love this country and the principles on which it was founded. I am proud of the accomplishments of my fellow Americans. I take pride in the fact we have been a shining beacon for the rest of the world for most of our history. I am horrified by how much American ideals have been perverted in the last several decades.

When the movie ended, I just thought "Wow." It brought back memories of "All the President's Men" with its buildup of drama, shocking revelations, and exquisite performances by Cate Blanchett and Robert Redford. Blanchett's performance was explosive, showing a full range of emotions and taking viewers along with the ups and downs. Although Redford's role was small, compared to most of his movies, he played it superbly, and the plot seemed well-fitted to his inquiring mind. The build-up of the music at the end, along with the plot of the story, is powerful. We are once again reminded of the importance of unbiased reporting and thorough fact-checking in investigations, and how politics can obscure the real purpose of an investigation. Did anyone ever document George W. Bush's activities during the period when he was supposed to be on military duty? I can't remember.

Truth is a polemic, the title is ironic as it tries to justify shoddy journalism. In the year 2000, the producer for 60 minutes Mary Mapes (Cate Blanchett) wanted to investigate whether any strings were pulled for George W Bush to evade doing combat in Vietnam and instead got himself a nice number with the National Guard where he rarely showed up for duty and got extended period of leave. However because of personal circumstances she could not go much further. In the run up to the 2004 elections by which time Bush is President and assembled a formidable dirty tricks brigade, Mapes who was an award winning producer was hit by a sucker punch which owed more to her stupidity and arrogance. Mapes was given some photocopies of memos that confirm Bush was rarely in attendance at his National Guard unit. Time factors meant that fact checking was erroneous and Mapes and presenter Dan Rather (Robert Redford) ran with the story. The memos were forgeries and some serious players were apparently behind it although maybe the newsroom needed some old timers who could remember whether typewriters in the 1970s could type a certain raised font. CBS put together an independent panel to investigate Mapes and her team but we are presented to view them as a kangaroo court. The film really ties itself in knots to justify sloppy journalism and laments the course of television news in America. Blanchett is centre stage here surrounded by an all star cast. Redford provides subtle support as Rather. As it has been said, 'an icon playing an icon.' However this is no 'All the President's Men.' The film was mainly shot in Australia and this harms the film with a lack of location shooting in the USA. I also think it needed a more experienced director to handle the material better as it gets lost in the second half when it becomes plodding and loses sharpness. As for television news in America, like the UK and other countries it has become lazy or maybe in the age of the internet we can gather news from various sources ourselves and like an old black and white puppet movie, we can see the strings being pulled. Truth wants to justify that the 60 Minutes team were prepared to ask difficult questions. The team could not answer why they did such poor fact checking when investigating a sitting President who was by then involved in two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and some elements of the American public were in no mood to rock the boat.

Typical Robert Redford liberal-focused point of view. Rather was a liberal journalist and this untruth only makes him look like the folk hero of a 1970s Billy Jack movie. Redford's makeup makes him look like a corpse. Why does he still act in these A&E quality movies? It's not helping his acting legacy. In fact, his heavy-handed political views only get in the way of any entertainment value. I'm surprised Redford doesn't ask Chris Matthews to star with him in one of these low-budget political propaganda pieces. I was equally disappointed in Elizabeth Moss' performance. Stitled at best, Stay away, save your money and watch the three stooges on Netflix.