Question about the ending to A Few Good Men (1992).

Tools    





Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
I liked the movie up until the end possibly, where I am sure, but I just find it hard to believe

SPOILER


That the antagonist, Jessop (Jack Nicholson), would get so worked up that he would actually admit the crime on the stand. I mean he didn't seem that dumb and if pride really was his flaw, wouldn't he just take pride in not admitting it, and be proud that he was smarter than his cross-examiner?

But what do you think?



i think he was cornered by that time when it was found that he was responsible so filmaking decision was that he admits it, for me it s a great courtroom drama



That's not how pride works, though. Especially when it's trapped in a logical contradiction, which he was. When proud people get called out in a high stakes environment, it's not unusual for them to lash out. Common? No. But then, the whole point of movies is to show us uncommon (read: interesting) things.

Cruise's character knew Jessop was insulted by the mere position he was put in, of being questioned by someone new and inexperienced. He recognized he was itching to tell him off anyway, and simply needed to be moderately humiliated in order for it to come out.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Yeah I guess, it's just that I didn't think that Jessop was actually trapped per say. It seems all he had to do instead of saying he did it, was just answer the question with the word 'no', and that would have been the end of it, and the Cruise's goal would have been ruined right then and there.

I mean it's pretty easy to get away with a crime, when all you have do is just say the word no, when asking if you did it.



Yeah I guess, it's just that I didn't think that Jessop was actually trapped per say.
He was trapped logically. He said his orders are never disobeyed (an obvious point of pride for him, since it speaks directly to his leadership), but he also took precautions that would not be necessary unless he worried he would be disobeyed.

At that point, the only way out is to admit he exaggerated or lied about the effectiveness of his leadership. But his leadership and authority are core parts of his identity and pride, and he'd be admitting to exaggerating them on the record, exposed by some smarmy kid he has no respect for.

I mean it's pretty easy to get away with a crime, when all you have do is just say the word no, when asking if you did it.
In reality, people break under interrogation all the time. It's specifically designed to get people to react emotionally rather than rationally, so it's a bit odd to say "why don't they just act rationally?"



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Yeah I guess so. It's just that the lawyer didn't really have anything, and Jessop seemed tough enough to take it, especially since he made his way up to colonel, which I would assume he would have to be tough for. So I thought that since the lawyer didn't have anything that Jessop wouldn't break.

I mean sure it's a contradiction but why didn't just say just finally say that his men must have taken matters into their hands without his knowledge and that he was just exaggerating his control? Wouldn't that have just been better?



Yeah I guess so. It's just that the lawyer didn't really have anything, and Jessop seemed tough enough to take it, especially since he made his way up to colonel, which I would assume he would have to be tough for. So I thought that since the lawyer didn't have anything that Jessop wouldn't break.
That's exactly why it would work. His toughness and his rank are the source of his pride. Nobody would crack if you attacked something about them that wasn't core to their self-image. It's when people undermine what we believe are our core attributes that we're most likely to lash. Frankly, this is the only kind of situation where someone like that might plausibly break. He wouldn't care if he logically proved he wasn't a great golfer, or whatever. But being a high-ranking officer who commands respect and loyalty is who he is.

Authority is kind of a big deal in the military, so a proud man exaggerating his authority, under oath, in a high-profile case, exposed by some smart ass kid like Cruise's character, would really bristle.

Also worth noting that the whole premise of the ending is that they've run out of options and have to do something high-risk and unlikely to work to have any chance of winning. What are movies about if not unlikely or uncommon events?

I mean sure it's a contradiction but why didn't just say just finally say that his men must have taken matters into their hands without his knowledge and that he was just exaggerating his control? Wouldn't that have just been better?
Like I said:
In reality, people break under interrogation all the time. It's specifically designed to get people to react emotionally rather than rationally, so it's a bit odd to say "why don't they just act rationally?"
A better question is why you often expect characters to behave in perfectly rational and emotionless ways, even though people in reality often don't.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Yeah that's true, I guess his toughness is his flaw, but he did realize that him admitting it, would mean the end of his career, and possible jail time, didn't he?



Depends on what you mean by "realize." Obviously he understands the implications of the decision, though he presumably wasn't thinking of that in the moment.

It may be hard to believe if you're just analyzing it from afar, dispassionately, but it's pretty hard to put yourself in the shoes of someone being actively interrogated. People can and do break in those situations, all the time.



Also, even people who do awful things usually have consciences. At least a part of us wants to confess, which throws a wrench into any attempt to boil it down to the goal of simply avoiding jail. Holding onto large secrets is unpleasant, and that probably goes doubly for someone, like Jessup, who still has a moral compass and (in this case) believes he's doing a bad thing for some greater good.



He was trapped logically. He said his orders are never disobeyed (an obvious point of pride for him, since it speaks directly to his leadership), but he also took precautions that would not be necessary unless he worried he would be disobeyed.

At that point, the only way out is to admit he exaggerated or lied about the effectiveness of his leadership. But his leadership and authority are core parts of his identity and pride, and he'd be admitting to exaggerating them on the record, exposed by some smarmy kid he has no respect for.


In reality, people break under interrogation all the time. It's specifically designed to get people to react emotionally rather than rationally, so it's a bit odd to say "why don't they just act rationally?"
Agree with you