Is it true?

Rating: Null/10 (14 August 2003)

Russell Crowe plays Dr. Jeffrey Wigand, an intelligent yet difficult and imperfect (i.e. normal!) man who decides to go public although he is extremely publicity shy. For this performance the movie can be highly recommended. It reminded me of some of Rod Steiger's best acting feats. Dr. Jeffrey Wigand is mad, and his anger is somehow related to moral issues. In venting his anger publicly Wigand thinks he can reduce his inner pressure and cherish hopes that he may have a future life in peace with himself and with the world. The presentation of this character was very credible. It enables you to take Dr. Jeffrey Wigand at face value.
A possibility to get release materializes for Wigand like a miracle in the form of Lowell Bergman, played by Al Pacino. Bergman is the producer of a TV show - the very instance of truth and honesty. Bergman is zapping through the real world. Today Beyruth, tomorrow the backwoods of Montana (the UNA-bomber, you know!), and in between Kentucky, where Wigand lives. Why is Wigand interesting for Bergman? Well, the guy worked for the tobacco industry and has to tell something! Tobacco related stuff promises the station high ratings. So the moral issue gets married with commerce.
Pacino's character is one of those media-man sterotypes that annoy me since The Killing Fields. The mixture of arrogance, moral suprematism, pretentiousness and sham soul baring is really sickening. This feeling is augmentated by the all too smug suburban patchwork breakfast-cereal-commercial-family life as depicted in this movie. What's more, Pacino at all time looks as if he is just dying for a fag.
After watching this movie you will know that smoking cigarettes can endanger your health. That's not really news, is it? Moreover, you will gain the impression that the big business tobacco industry is no better than a criminal organisation. Purportedly, the story of The Insider is based on actual facts. And yet I wonder how much of it is true. Putting a "gag" into Wigand's mouth seems for the tobacco industry like shooting in one's own foot. And the media's getting at the tobacco industry looks like the shooting of an already badly wounded animal. I know, I could be totally wrong about those issues, but the movie is made in a way that in the end you feel almost sorry for the poor tobacco guys who just want to earn an honest buck.
There is in this movie a consistent muddling up of motives, causes and effects for the sake of dramatization and a message which seems to be made for simpletons. In my opinion this is bad when real moral issues are at the core of the whole thing like here.