MovieChat Forums > The Pelican Brief (1993) Discussion > Why not publish the brief?

Why not publish the brief?

posted 5 years ago by jackronner (61)
7 replies | jump to latest

Only saw it when it came out, so I can't remember all the details. I do remember thinking that, given that someone(s) were trying to kill the to prevent the brief becoming common knowledge, why not concentrate on reproducing the brief she wrote and mailing it to various newspapers, judges, law professors etc., along with details of the "coincidental" string of assassinations and attempts on her and Denzel's lives. The latter would lend credence to their theory, and might persuade the evil powers to not kill them for fear of validating their story. I mean, since the whole point was preventing the brief coming to light, once the brief (the Mcguffin) was out there, what would be the point of killing them? They weren't the only ones, e.g., newspapers, etc. who could complete the investigation, and even if he bad guys got them, why let their info and theory die with them?

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8712) 5 years ago

Darby gave the brief to Callahan, who gave the brief to the FBI. From there it disappeared.

You may ask in that case why she didn't just print off a new copy. Well her friend inspected her house and told her that "they took your computer and your floppy disks."

At that point, essentially, SHE was the brief. But even if she could recreate it from memory, the brief was largely speculation based on circumstantial evidence. She and Grantham needed to do the hard work necessary to prove her assertions, and doing that is what most of the film is about.

[–] jackronner (61) 5 years ago

Yet she and he both had some credibility; enough to entice some large paper to shelter/aid them. As I said, the very string of killings, bombings, etc.and attempts on their lives lent credence to their assertions and would be a huge story. After all, they were on their own and pretty desperate. At least the should have had the papers turn them down to close off this point and make the film more credible.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8712) 5 years ago

The Washington Herald in the film is a fictional paper, but I got the impression that it was a large one. I think it was basically a fictionalized version of the Washington Post, one of the largest papers in the country.

If you recall, initially the editor asked for evidence before running with the story, which is entirely normal and reasonable.

After that, here is the plot summary from Wiki starting from the car bomb:

"After barely escaping death by a car bomb, they reach the Washington Herald building, where they review the documents and a videotape recovered from Morgan's box. The tape confirms Darby's theory, as Morgan's documents prove his own discovery that Mattiece ordered the assassination of the Justices. With this evidence, Grantham writes his story. He gives the FBI a chance to comment and FBI Director Voyles confirms that Darby's 'Pelican Brief' was delivered to the White House. He reveals the President ordered the FBI to 'back off,' and that the CIA is investigating Mattiece, with one of them killing Khamel to save Darby's life. A plane is arranged for Darby to flee the country."

So as you see, once they successfully escape the bombing they DO go to the Herald, who gives them the go-ahead on the story, and the bad guys get taken down soon after.

[–] jackronner (61) 5 years ago

Ahhhhh. Thanks to you and Wiki for the clarity.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8712) 5 years ago

No problem.

Out of curiosity, what did you think of the film as a whole? I had never seen it before until last night, even though I remember when it hit theaters and that it was a big film at the time.

I have been doing a tour of all the Grisham films. Some I am rewatching; others I am watching for the first time.

[–] jackronner (61) 5 years ago

Some of them I quite liked, but after a point they began to pall. Somewhat like James Patterson, whom I first read before the movies started, and whose style I quite liked. Tho' I liked Along Came a Spider in both forms, after fame, his writing seemed to devolve, with a liberal sprinkling of exclamations points and every page. So I stopped reading him.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8712) 5 years ago

At this point I've seen them all but The Chamber and The Gingerbread Man. I agree that they are a mixed bag and some are better than others.

Personally, I think that The Rainmaker is my favorite of all the adaptations. A Time to Kill is probably the second best in terms of sheer quality but, for me, The Client may be #2 in terms of entertainment value.

I enjoy A Time to Kill, and the entire cast is excellent and knocks it out of the park, but all the racial stuff is a little off-putting to me and also unrealistic. The Klan simply would not have been marching down the street of any town in the 90s, even in Mississippi. The Client, on the other hand, is just sheer entertainment and Susan Sarandon is amazing in it.

The Pelican Brief I'd say falls somewhere in the middle of the pack.

Have you ever watched a movie and, while you're watching it, you feel like you're watching a pretty good movie but at the same time you have to fight to keep your mind from wandering and you keep looking at the clock? Well for me this was one of those movies. I thought it was a good film but it didn't rivet me to my seat.

Denzel and Julia both do a good job, as does the supporting cast. The story takes some good twists and turns and was comprehensible despite its complexity.

One thing I noticed was this is only tangentially a legal thriller. There are lawyers, but them being lawyers isn't especially important to the plot. It is really more of a journalism movie than it is a legal film, and in fact the director also directed All the President's Men.

I guess to rank it I'd first need to rewatch The Firm and also check out The Chamber and Gingerbread Man, but for now I'd put it below The Rainmaker, A Time to Kill and The Client but well ahead of Runaway Jury, which I just did not like at all.