The Great Flaw in this story.... - The Pelican Brief (1993) Discussion

[–] sbwiley 18 years ago

Yea, but in 1993, when this movie/book came out, we weren't nearly as dependent on email and Internet as we are today. I was in college when this movie came out and each student at my school was given a free email account. In four years, I used that address once and it was for a class assignment.

So if the movie was coming out today, sure she probably would have sent out a mass email, but back then...doubtful.

reply

[–] indira_ran 18 years ago

I absolutely agree with SBWILEY! I was (no kidding) a Tulane Law Student in 1993 when this movie came out and we were given a free account which I never used. No one was using e-mail those days as we do now. Also, the information the character would have gotten would most likely have been from Lexis-Nexis which is an incredibly expensive info aggregator which law students have free access to (so that they'll pay for it later when they're working!) On a sidenote Julia Roberts sat in on classes with my Constitutional Law Prof Keith Werhan who is a consultant on this movie. All the guys in the class really dressed up that day ;)

reply

[–] amikelhenry 18 years ago

Thankyou for the personal insight. I enjoyed it.

reply

[–] Robert_A_Fett 17 years ago

I am a current law student (Not at Tulane) paying a tuition of nearly 35k, and I can promise you that Lexis and WestLaw are NOT free. :)

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] thestilettoman 17 years ago

To me, the greatest flaw in this movie was the interview at the end. If a story of this magnitude broke in a major newspaper and caused all the repercussions listed, Darby Shaw would be the talk of every law professor and law student at Tulane, and shortly after, every law school in the country. There would be photos of her everywhere and she would be a huge celebrity. There would certainly be no doubt she was real. It would be very difficult for her to hide.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jgroub 12 years ago

It was free for students in law school in 1993. I know, because I wasted hours and hours on it.

I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

reply

[–] tstallw1987 17 years ago

Yes it was an enormous flaw, and she didn't need email. She could have gone to a library and gotten a list of all the newspapers and TV stations and addresses in the country and started sending regular mail. At least one of them would have believed it and ran it, and eventually everyone would.

The other big "dumb character" flaw is that it seemed few if anybody thought that two SCOTUS judges would be murdered, and people wouldn't be analyzing the heck out of what they had in common, especially if as I recall they were mostly opposites (liberal/conservative or whatever) which would really highlight what they agreed on.

reply

[–] jolburke 17 years ago

Another flaw in the story is the reason Rosenberg was selected to be killed was his defense of the environment. But, the movie says he would (almost surely) be dead of natural causes by the time the case reached the Supreme Court.

reply

[–] rudypepper 17 years ago

They covered this in the book. They wanted to make sure that Rosenberg died while the current President was in office. They didn't want to take the chance of him dying under a new Administration, who would certainly nominate someone less sympathetic to their cause.

reply

[–] usrbin1 17 years ago

greatest flaw is Darby and Graham never kissed, that seemed strange. Kinda like Kevin Costner and Whitney houston in the body guard, there was no kissing.

reply

[–] schoollydee11 17 years ago

...greatest flaw is Darby and Graham never kissed, that seemed strange. Kinda like Kevin Costner and Whitney houston in the body guard, there was no kissing.

Good point, especially about Bodyguard. People in certain parts of America would have rejected it.

In fact, it was supposed to be made with Ryan O'Neal and Diana Ross but it was scrapped because of the interracial overtones.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hathor008 16 years ago

That is ridiculous that people are still so racist. I guess as a woman who was in an interracial LTR myself, I really don't understand why a black guy and a white girl kissing would be taboo.

---
Jesus wasn't a homophobe.

reply

[–] Yorick_Brown 16 years ago

THAT'S a flaw???

"Ah! Strip clubs: where all men are created equal."

-The Philanthropist (NBC)

reply

[–] TheHypnotron 17 years ago

That was covered in the movie as well. They explicitly stated that they wanted the current President to be able to appoint both Justices because there was uncertainty whether the current President would get re-elected.

As for why Darby didn't spam the internet with her theory, you're forgetting that Darby thought her idea was hair brained, and it was her boyfriend who thought it was interesting enough to pass on to his FBI buddy. What should have taken the FBI months or years if ever to uncover (remember, they were originally just following leads related to domestic terrorists (anti-abortion extremists, various other home grown nut cases), Darby had provided in a tidy brief complete with names and motives.

Another poster commented that "somebody else would have come up with it." And to that all I can say is, almost no chance in hell. Why? First of all because there were dozens if not hundreds of theories and leads being followed by both reporters and investigators. Second, because the only link between Justice Rosenberg and Justice Ginsberg (one Liberal and one Conservative) is that they both cared about the environment. That is why Mattiece thought he could get away with it.

There were no actual cases involving either Justice that directly linked them to Victor Mattiece or any of his dealings and the ONLY case to which Victor Mattiece would potentially benefit from having two friendlier Justice's on the Supreme Court in their place was 3 - 5 years away! That's an extraordinary leap to make. Darby's theory was based solely on intuition and the only reason it gained any traction was because it was prepared as a brief and passed directly to the FBI. It was so far fetched, the only way it gained real traction in her own mind was when they first tried to kill her with the car bomb and after she got confirmation from FBI Agent Gavin that he did indeed receive the brief from Thomas Callahan and that it had been passed through the FBI and to people outside the FBI (i.e the White House).

If you're asking "Why didn't Darby just start spamming the internet AFTER they tried to kill her, all I can say is, why does that even matter? She'd sound like a complete kook and in the best case scenario, it would have just lead her to Denzel's character since he was the only person who had contact with any person who had ACTUAL evidence... Kurt Morgan. And in that way Darby was able to provide Denzel's character the incentive and information to determine who Kurt Morgan was. Because otherwise all he knew was that some lawyer at a law firm claiming to have information on the assassinations contacted him, but he didn't know if it was legit

As far as crime thrillers go, I found the actions and motives of all the characters to be pretty good and I'm one of the first people to call "bull***" when people start acting in completely unreasonable ways in film.

reply

[–] SeanMarshall 16 years ago

Best post in thread.

reply

[–] nginx 13 years ago

Nailed it.

/End of discussion.

He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither ~ B. Franklin

reply

[–] silikon 12 years ago

Mattiece's plan was ridiculous is the most fundamental flaw in this story. Far too complex to expect it to work. But that's ok, maybe Mattiece is crazy. Howard Hughes was kind of whacky. No SCOTUS judges have ever been assassinated (still). They might get away with one, but two *murders*? No way because unless they have proof an alleged anti-abortion group did the murders, the search for motive would continue. And there can't be proof the anti-abortion group did the murders, because they didn't.

That the only thing the justices agreed on (beside apparently abortion) was the environment wouldn't help the plan because that's exactly what would draw everybody's laser focused attention.

And basing a plan like this on predicting exactly how the appeal would proceed is ridiculous. There are still far too many things that could go wrong. With two pro-environment justices murdered, that President would be under considerable pressure to replace at least one with another pro-environment justice and that would even be dressed up as some noble thing like "let's do it in memory of x and y!" And justices often vote quite differently on cases than what's anticipated.

We can forget the internet/email thing because it was before that stuff was common.

Darby may have thought her theory was hair brained, but her BF didn't, and once the car bomb meant for her killed him she would realize she was right. At this point she should have contacted all the media and spilled everything. They may or may not initially believe she's crazy, but with the physical evidence of the car bomb (and later theft of her computer), she would find some receptive ears. Additionally by giving that info to the media, if she then died mysteriously, they would definitely believe it was likely true. And for that reason, once she gave the info to media sources, there was no longer any need to kill her and doing so would backfire, so they probably wouldn't do it.

Another problem is the FBI's actions. They have someone shadowing Darby to keep her safe? Makes no sense. If the FBI believed the brief well enough to keep her shadowed, they most likely would have put her in protective custody or dealt with her in some other way. And once more, if they are buying the Brief's story, the cat is out of the bag already.

And what exactly is Mattiece's plan? Murder anybody that figures it out? Murder Darby with a car bomb because she figured it out, despite the fact that a stationary car bomb murder would simply draw more attention to her theory?

reply

[–] oubrioko 10 years ago

Another problem is the FBI's actions. They have someone shadowing Darby to keep her safe? Makes no sense. If the FBI believed the brief well enough to keep her shadowed, they most likely would have put her in protective custody or dealt with her in some other way. And once more, if they are buying the Brief's story, the cat is out of the bag already.

I realize that I am responding to a 2 year old post, but:

>> Spoilers below <<

The CIA hired the operative ('Rupert') that Shadows Darby Shaw, not the FBI.

This is easy to miss, but it was explained to Shaw and Grantham by FBI Director Denton Voyles near the end of the movie. CIA Director Bob Gminski was initially much more eager than Voyels to corroborate the Pelican Brief. For this reason, Gminski proactively hired 'Rupert' to follow and ultimately to protect Shaw. An initial skeptic on the conclusions proffered in the brief, FBI Director Voyles was more interested in simply using it as leverage to pressure White House Chief of Staff Fletcher Coal. Specifically, he used it to get the president to stop Coal from continuing to blame the FBI for the security lapses that allowed the two supreme court justices to be assassinated.

For a more detailed explanation of CIA Director Gminski and his actions, see the reply to a post from several years ago here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107798/board/nest/159735533?d=185167093#185167093

reply

[–] alialmoore 16 years ago

The movie also stated that thought he might have predeceased the case reaching the Supreme Court, there might have been a new sitting President and the outcome of the new appointments could not have been predicted.

reply

[–] chasingfiction 16 years ago

The one thing I didn't understand was why Darby went into hiding at the end. By then she didn't need to b/c the story was broken and they wouldn't be after her anymore. Unless she did it for anonymity but that sounds strange as something like this would surely guarantee her a great job at some prestigious law firm or perhaps she could just write a book about her experience, either way, her career would have been set.

I also agree that since they were using her real name in the article, journalists would no doubt be able to locate her friends and family and interview them and run photos of her.

reply

[–] bonnie-shumate 16 years ago

I thought about this too, but I believe that Darby believed that Mattiece was so wealthy that he could have her taken out even if he was indicted. So she's taking the safe route by staying out of sight. She had the money to do so (left to her by her father).

reply

[–] RugGuy 15 years ago

At the end of most (if not all) of Grisham's 90's novels the hero goes into hiding in one form or another. It was formula that worked very well for him. This isn't a criticism of his writing, just a fact which he admits to.

reply

[–] nginx 13 years ago

You never know. There can always be someone out there looking to take revenge on her for exposing so many high profile crooks including the President.

He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither ~ B. Franklin

reply

[–] MysticYoYo 12 years ago

The one thing I didn't understand was why Darby went into hiding at the end.

Darby had altruistic motives. She wasn't in it for the fame (unlike anyone else in her position would have been.). Darby was special! Darby was different!

----------
"I miss Dwight. Congratulations, Universe. You win."

reply

[–] lenlarga 13 years ago

"But, the movie says he would (almost surely) be dead of natural causes by the time the case reached the Supreme Court."

Right, but he would not necessarily be dead by the time of the next presidential election.

I think the major flaw in the story is that someone would kill 2 Supreme Court justices without at least trying to make the deaths look like accidents.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tempestnam 15 years ago

"I've always liked this movie (and the book). But I always thought the great flaw is that email and the internet were readily available, especially for a Tulane Law student..."

1993...? Internet was not all that available really. And even where it was, it was notoriously unreliable.

I can't believe this movie is rated a 6.3? It's one of my favorite all time conspiracy movies.

reply

[–] srvrocks 15 years ago

The big flaw was the inteviewer at the end suggesting that Darby was a made up person. You would think that it would have been very easy to prove her identity considering she was a student at a university.

reply

[–] rlsmcrain 15 years ago

Random comments: It seems to be common in movies like this--where there is a man or woman in trouble--that it appears they have absolutely no family or friends. Darby does say she's using money her father left her, so he's obviously dead, but where is her mother, her sister, her brother, etc.? She does have the scene with the classmate/friend, but she just seems incredibly isolated. I'm glad there was caring, but no romance between the two main characters. That usually spoils it for me (in this type of movie). A man and a woman can have a good relationship without romance/sex and it's nice to see that portrayed now and then. Overall, I thought the movie was fine, but I'll admit I was a bit confused by all the guys in suits, all the guys watching. Who were they actually? It was confusing to me trying to figure out who the good guys were and who the bad guys were. I didn't fully understand who the guy was who ordered the killings. Or Rupert. I did get sleepy at the end, so maybe it was all explained and it was lost on me. One more thing: when Darby first goes on the run, she's in the elevator with a bad guy. The elevator is going down. When she hops off, why does she go down, knowing that's the way the bad guy is going? Why wouldn't she go up and hide somewhere on an upper level?

reply

[–] nginx 13 years ago

Where can she hide in the upper level? Its a dead end and she would be found sooner or later. Best approach is to always escape a building and head for the streets when someone is after you than to hide in the building isn't it?

And yes it did become confusing in the end. It seemed like there were guys everywhere in suits following the duo but they weren't always the same person. At one time the FBI director seemed to be in it too but he proved to be a good guy in the end. Confusing indeed. One of those movies that requires a second viewing I guess.

He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither ~ B. Franklin

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] brupey-1 13 years ago

yeah, especially if GWB had sent in good old bin baby to take OUT the upper levels
____________________________________________________________

Evidence?

reply

[–] laurence_dang 15 years ago

Well I too was student back in 1993 and even though I did use emails and even posted papers online and made websites, I was one of a few since I had a special interest as an engineering major. While it is possible that she could have posted her paper in one of the many little forums which popped up at the time, it most probably would have been buried unless it was discovered by someone who knew exactly where to look for her paper.

One must rememher that the internet was far from being as widespread and widely read as it is today. First of all, there were very few websites and of these, many were of doubtful content and questionable sources. In fact this very site (imdb.com) was still in its infancy at the time and the authors of the site had to exert an extraordinary amount of research and effort in order to ensure that its content was as accurate as possible. This meticulous attention to accuracy and detail is what made imdb.com a reputed and successful website which, unlike many of its contemporaries, survives and thrives to this day.

Add to this, the fact that search engines were far less effective and powerful than they are today and we can see that unless Grantham had prior knowledge or intuition on where Darby Shaw posted her material, he could easily have missed it.

It is possible however, that had Grisham been more interested in the current technologies of those days, he could have indeed transformed his book into an exciting electronic game of cat and mouse performed at the digital level.

However this would have been an entirely different novel, which would certainly have been as riveting to read, but perhaps not as action oriented as having a man and a woman running down a garage pursued by killers, while their car is exploding. :)

reply

[–] jalenxa8 12 years ago

Not a flaw at all.

I was a freshman in college when this movie came out in 1993, and trust me, almost nobody had internet let alone email. Computers were still crazy expensive back then and not many people had one.

Whenever ya actually saw the internet it was a thing were ya looked at it for a few minutes then went on to tradition sources of information. Nobody really trusted stuff they saw on the "internet," back then anyway.

I dont remember internet really getting widespread until 1995 or 1996. PCs had dropped enough in price to where most middle-class families could get one and another phone line to get the GREAT service that was America Online.

Then if you factor in the movie takes place before 1993, and we have to go even farther back where internet use was even less.

reply

[–] jones8557-1 13 years ago

I was a freshman in college when this move came out and email was not readily available. My college didn't use email at all the four years I was there. I had a personal account with Prodigy which was mostly like instant messaging. Most people didn't own a computer and didn't have a clue what email was. My father, a postal worker, would ask why would someone open your mail, type it up and then send it to you. It still cracks me up thinking about it.

reply

[–] yj270 13 years ago

psaxe-2,

While what you contend is logical, that was then and this is now.

Back then, if I suggested that I email information to someone, or store the data on a server myself, people would have looked at me either if they thought I was crazy, or a show-off.

Back then, the average person did not have such experience or knowledge of computer technology, compared to today.

reply