MovieChat Forums > The Pelican Brief (1993) Discussion > why didnt griminski(spoilers)

why didnt griminski(spoilers)

posted 11 years ago by lisabwp
6 replies | jump to latest

so the cia and fbi and white house were all aware of the brief. at the end when darby asks denton, the head of the fbi, who killed the man who masqueraded as the fbi friend, he said that is was really the assasin khamel and the killer was an operative hired independently by the cia.(rupert) when asked by graham why he was following darby, denton replies that the brief "initially scared griminski[the head of the cia] more than the rest of them and he sent rupert to watch darby and to protect her.

there is also a scene about half way through the movie when the cia, including griminski is watching darby at the hotel. they state that "they're looking under rocks, shes using credit cards, she'll be dead in 48 hours" and then griminski says "i guess this means that little brief of hers, is true after all"

so, at this point griminski believes the brief to be accurate and darby to be in danger. so right there the head of the cia, with support is within 100 feet of darby.

my question is this: why didnt griminski just send his agents over there and grab darby. they could have easily gone into her hotel room, surrounded her with agents and guns and said 'hey we're with the cia, we're going to take you in and protect you." then take her to a secure location until everything else is sorted out? why leave her out in the open when they knew she was in danger and correct in her assumption about the justices?

[–] nihatb48 11 years ago

Well, since this was a domestic affair, CIA could not be openly involved in anything, that's why they couldn't expose themselves and had to remain in the shadow.

[–] lisabwp 11 years ago

thanks, thats a good point nihatb48.

but griminski and the head of the fbi obviously had an...unpleasant relationship with cole and the president. why didn't he hold her until he could get some fbi guys there?

if he had, especially since again they were so close to her(even just watch her through the night and get some fbi agents over there by the morning) i guess she wouldn't have had to go on the run with denzel and the rest of the movie wouldn't have mattered haha.

i guess its just the thing that bugs me sometimes about john grisham stories, they depend on this secrecy that everyone kind of already knows. for instance if she had contacted every newspaper and government agency rather than going to just one, at least one of them, esp a republican leaning one that hates the president, someone would have jumped at the story, if only to embarress the administration. also the client, if mark just said where the body was, the feds would have it and it wouldn't matter, they wouldnt need to kill mark anymore because the feds have the body, the piece of info they needed to stay quiet. its not like he's a snitch that was working for the mob and the mob needed to send a message. hell he could have called the papers and news annonymously and they would have found the body and mark wouldnt have needed to testify

[–] nihatb48 11 years ago

Hi Lisa, thanks for your follow-up on my response, yes, you're right, to hold her there until he could get some FBI guys would be the logical thing to do, but then again these things are never that simple, there might be protocols to follow, it can lead to inter-agency conflict, etc..

And, you're right again, both Gminski and Voyles had a strained relationship with the White House, especially with Fletcher Cole, under whose strong influence the President seemed to be acting, they openly showed their disgust for him on their way out. I think the only reason Gminski was involved in this affair was because he was afraid that if something were to happen to Darby, the President might try to pin it on him again and might even ask for his resignation, remember when they first met in the Oval Office, the President asked whether the CIA was involved in any way in the killings of Rosenberg and Jensen, and Gminski emphatically denied it..

[–] AccidntlTourist 11 years ago

Thanks for the questions and answers.

I'm slightly perplexed by this too (partly because I had some trouble keeping up with "who's who").

I can see why the CIA may have kept some distance, but if they went so far as to kill the assassin to protect Darby - I would have thought they would have continued to shadow and protect her and then such scenes as the shootout and bombing in the parking garage might not have happened.

But, I suppose the head of the CIA was conflicted as to what to do (doing the right thing vs the greater good, etc)? Serving "at the pleasure of the President" - the boss who could fire him or to serve the nation.
I will have to watch it again and watch for the subtle signals between the Prez and head of CIA.

thanks

[–] oubrioko 8 years ago

I can see why the CIA may have kept some distance, but if they went so far as to kill the assassin to protect Darby - I would have thought they would have continued to shadow and protect her and then such scenes as the shootout and bombing in the parking garage might not have happened.

Rupert was unable to intervene at that point because Grantham got away. Grantham assumed the person following him was a baddie, so he ditched [Rupert] by suddenly getting out of the cab during the crowded protest.

[–] PaladinNJ (21784) 7 years ago

The CIA was using Darby as bait to draw the killers out into the open. Hey it worked.