From: barrus@cod.nosc.mil
Subject: Re: Q on A Few Good Men: Poison???
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego, CA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 00:41:43 GMT


In article <2B4A1933.9459@news.service.uci.edu>  writes:
>In article <C0Dx4L.yx@gabriel.keele.ac.uk> phd69@seq1.keele.ac.uk (R.D. Hayler) writes:
>>From article <2B432CC3.14456@news.service.uci.edu>, by jdooley@maemaster.eng.uci.edu (John R. Dooley):
>>> 
>>> This movie really was weak - a major disappointment.  
>>> Virtually nothing about it made sense. The top performance
>>> (by a long shot) was by the Texas A&M military drill team.
>>> One great (though maybe unintentional) metaphor for the
>>> entire movie - the magazine stand owner and Cruise 
>>> talking in cliches.  
>>> 
>>> John D.
>>
>>	The ONLY weakness I thought the film had was in the way it made
>>it all a bit too easy for the viewer - explaining everything as it went
>>along and basically teeling you plot and motives right away. In
>>particular, the "flashback" to before the victims death near the beginning,
>> when Nicholson is discussing with Sutherland and the other guy (whose
>>real name I can't remember) the letter sent by Santiago and over-rules
>>Markinson's decision to have him transfered.     Why bother with this
>>scene: IMHO it would have been better to find out what happened as the
>>film developed. OK, it was a useful scene in that it established the three 
>>characters and their relationship, but this could have been achieved
>>without presenting a nice guide to the rest of the film.
>
>Spoilers follow.
>
>
>I agree that the flashback was not very effective, but 
>the whole plot was a muddle.  First, would a lieutentant commander
>(implying at least 10 years in military service) be assisting
>a lieutenant (one year of experience.)  Pretty damn unlikely.  
>Even more so when you consider the military's rank structure.
>

First of all, a lieutenant is about 4 years in minimum and LCDR
about 9 years in.  However, Lawyers come in as Lieutenants, not
not as ensigns and you promote from LT to LCDR, so there could
be as little as a few days difference in time in service.  Since
they come in as lieutenants, there may only be as little as 5 years
difference in on the job experience.  As far as jobs go, it could 
have little to do with rank.  A LCDR could easily be in a reporting
position to a LT on an assignment or even in permanent duty.


>Then, the worst possible scene (which is saying something)
>is when Cruise decides to quit because his client won't 
>plea-bargain.  Moore pleads with him to stay on the case, 
>because if he won't defend them "no one else can" do it.  Yeah, 
>right.  First of all she wanted to do the defense, and was pushed
>aside for Cruise, so it's unlikely she'd object too much if he quit.
>Two, it's even more ridiculous when you consider that up to
>that point his investigative skills had been totally 
>incompetent.  Only Moore showed either the desire or capability 
>to defend the defendants.  From everything that had happened up 
>to that point, the only logical response from her would have 
>been "good riddance".
>

I think you missed something here.  Cruise didn't want to do it
in the first place, and Moore wanted him out.  Cruise was given
the assignment because he lacked trial experience and was good at
settling out of court and it was hoped that he could keep this under
wraps.  Moore, after watching him after awhile, saw that Cruise had
the talent to defend them, even better than herself but was reluctant
to show it due to the pressure of living up to his father's legendary
status and posthumous expectations.  She knew he was better than she
was and she worked hard to get him to come out and be what he could be 
(at the risk of sounding like a Marine Corp ad).

>Markinson's testimony at the trial would have be.