SIMILARITIES
1) Wigand did actually stay in a hotel across the street from the Brown & Willliamson corporate offices. In the movie he was in room 930, but in real life he actually stayed in 1108. His physical proximity to the corporation he detests, one that has essentially made his life a living hell, is an interesting dynamic in the film. At one particularly poignant moment, he tells Bergman, "You manipulated me into where I am now - staring at the Brown & Williamson Building. It's all dark except the tenth floor. That's the legal department, where they f**k with my life!"
2) The movie accurately depicts how Lowell Bergman came into contact with Jefferey Wigand. Bergman was doing a story on cigarette fire safety hazards and was looking for someone who could translate documents he had. A friend in the FDA suggested Wigand as "just the guy".
3) Wigand accepted a teaching job at DuPont Manual Magnet school. He was the Kentucky "Teacher of the Year" in 1996.
4) With the exception of a few name changes, nearly all of the named characters in the movie are actual people. Wigand had two daughters, but requested that their names be changed for the film. Mann also changed the name of the CBS general counsel and CBS News President, but the characters represent real people.
5) Wigand was charged with shoplifting. According to The Vanity Fair, after receiving the death threats, Wigand went to liquor store, placed a bottle of liquor in his pocket and then forgot about it as he went out to his car. He was arrested and charged but the case was later dismissed. In the movie, during the scene of Wigand being smeared on the evening news, the anchor mentions Wigand being charged with shoplifting and an image of a liquor store is shown.
6) The courtroom in Mississippi where Wigand gave his deposition is the actual court in Mississippi where the real Wigand gave his testimony. The Attorney General of Mississippi, Michael Moore, plays himself in the film.
7) The interview Mike Wallace does with Wigand, including the montage of the operations of a tobacco factory, and the video of the "Seven Dwarfs" testifying, are nearly identical to the actual 60 Minutes report. The reason Wigand says Brown & Williamson gave for firing him - "poor communication skills" - is also accurate. The movie uses actual portions of the original 60 Minutes piece.
8) Wigand did actually have bodyguards with him, as depicted in the movie. He has stated that they started his car in the morning and took his daughters to school.
9) CBS was negotiating a multibillion-dollar sale to Westinghouse Electric Corporation in 1995, as the movie depicted. Eric Ober (named Eric Kluster in the film), President of CBS News, and Ellen Kaden (named Helen Caperelli in the film), general counsel for CBS, stood to make substantial amounts of money from the sale (in our section "Q&A with Lowell Bergman" , Bergman mentions another sale that may have had an impact on CBS's decision not to air the interview).
10) The deposition Wigand gave in Mississippi, though shortened for the film, was accurate. Richard Scruggs was Jefferey Wigand's attorney. His actual home appears in the film, and Wigand's decision on the lawn of Scruggs' home to "f*** it, let's go to court" was the very same spot the real Wigand made that decision.
DIFFERENCES
Many of the the discrepancies between the movie and the actual events relate to the timeline of when they happened. Most of them generally happened but at a different time, or they were not as dramatic as Mann portrayed them. Many people associated with the film have more or less said that though not entirely accurate, the film is true to the emotion of the actual events, especially the pressures and stresses that Wigand and Bergman were under at the time.
1) Wigand's confidentiality agreement: In the movie, seemingly immediately after Wigand has his first in-person discussion with Bergman, he is called into Brown & Williamson headquarters. Thomas Sandefur makes fun of Wigand and makes veiled threats toward him and his family. Sandefur and his lawyer inform Wigand that they have expanded his confidentiality agreement to specify exactly what he can and can't talk about. They threaten to sever his current benefits (including the medical coverage he needs for his daughter) and initiate litigation against him if he refuses to sign the new agreement. Wigand is furious and storms out. He accuses Bergman of screwing him over and violating his trust.
In actuality, Bergman hadn't even met Wigand at the time these events transpired. Several months after Wigand was fired in 1993, Brown & Williamson sued Wigand and suspended his severance and benefits because they accused him of breaking his confidentiality agreement. After a settlement in court, Wigand's benefits were reinstated only after he agreed to sign an expanded confidentiality agreement. In the movie, the expanded agreement seems to be Brown & Williamson's retaliation against Wigand for talking with Bergman. In real life, Wigand had already signed the second agreement when Bergman first contacted him, which was made him initially hesitant to speak with Bergman.
By associating Bergman directly with Wigand's confidentiality agreement issues, Mann is able to develop the underlying distrust in their relationship that they spend the whole movie overcoming. Mann takes similar liberties again when he conveniently has CBS's decision not to air the interview happen at the same time that Wigand's wife leaves him. The ensuing phone call depicts a near hopeless Bergman wanting to help Wigand but quickly running out of options, as well as a distraught Wigand who realizes that everything he sacrificed may ultimately be for nothing.
Their "tough love" relationship is a central theme in the movie. They both give their all to each other, but are hit with the reality that no matter how noble their "best" is, it can't protect them and it won't solve their problems. Bergman has to personally deal with the realization that Wigand hasn't told him everything while still maintaining the motivation to protect his source. Wigand has to come to terms with the fact his life has irreparably changed, and that no matter how much Bergman persuaded him to do the interview, it was ultimately his decision. Their trust in each other comes hard-fought, out of necessity rather than convenience. By overlapping many of the critical events these two undergo, Mann is able to ratchet up the emotional intensity of their interactions.
2) Death threats: According to Wigand and his wife, they received several threatening phone calls in which an unidentifiable male voice said things such as "Don't mess with tobacco anymore. How are your kids?" and, "Leave tobacco alone or else you'll find your kids hurt. They're pretty girls now." As a result, Wigand began to carry a handgun. These threats happened in 1994, soon after a Democratic Congress and the FDA, who were doing an investigation of their own into the tobacco industry, contacted and spoke with Wigand.
The events in the movie are a bit more dramatic. A man stalks Wigand while he is at a driving range. One of Wigand's daughter tells him that there was a man outside and he goes out with gun in hand to look for him. He sees a footprint in his garden. After talking to Bergman on the phone, a visibly shaken Wigand receives an ominous phone call with no voice. Later, Wigand's wife receives an email with a blood-red background that says, "We will kill you. We will kill all of you. Shut the f*** up." That same evening, Wigand arrives home and finds a bullet in his mailbox. The FBI agents that arrive hassle him about his personal gun use and haul away his personal computer without question. It is implied throughout the movie that these FBI agents are being influenced by Brown & Williamson.
While Wigand did at some point receive threatening emails and a bullet in his mailbox, no one was ever arrested or charged with these crimes. The FBI, and even Wigand's wife, have suggested that he sent the email and put the bullet in his mailbox himself. These details were likely left out of the movie to help the audience sympathize with Wigand; had they been included, he would have appeared more dishonest and less like a victim.
3) Bergman's departure from CBS: The movie made it appear as if Bergman quit CBS immediately after he realized he could no longer work for a company he believed had lost its journalistic integrity; this is his final, dramatic act of heroism. While Bergman claims the Wigand story and subsequent CBS coverup was the reason he eventually left CBS, he did not leave until two years later. Wallace claims that he later came "crawling on his knees" to ask for his job back.
WHAT WAS LEFT OUT
1) More information about the relationship between Lowell Bergman and Mike Wallace:
One of the most interesting things that we found out is that Lowell Bergman not only was a consult for the film, but that he was actually communicating with Mann about what was going on at CBS as the events depicted in the movie were transpiring. This obviously raises the question of how much bias exists in the movie based on how personally involved Bergman was with the its creation. Some have even questioned Bergman's credibility as a journalist.
The relationship between Bergman and Wallace is a key dynamic in the film. Wallace in the film is portrayed as someone who is initially firm in his journalistic drive to uncover the truth, loses his moral compass as pressure from corporate mounts, and later finds it again with the "moral tutelage" of Lowell Bergman. When Bergman originally pitches the idea, Wallace adamantly states that Wigand "can talk, and we can air it! They have no right to hide behind a corporate agreement." The critical intrapersonal change in Wallace comes when Bergman is berating Hewitt and Kluster, and Wallace says, "I'm with Don on this." After a good deal of time, Wallace later tries to band-aid the situation by demanding a disclaimer be put in front of the edited version of the interview, so the audience knows they aren't getting the whole thing. (The movie makes it seem as if it tooks days for Wallace to begin to see the light; he claims he realized his mistake the next day.) He is frustrated with an unsatisfied Bergman when he later asks, "What do you think? I'm going to resign in protest? To force it on the air? The answer's 'no'. I don't plan to spend the end of my days wandering in the wilderness of National Public Radio. That decision I've already made." Mann chooses to frame Wallace as somewhat selfish and prideful, more concerned with his reputation and legacy than doing the right thing. In a conversation near the end of the movie, Wallace says, "History only remembers what you did last." Is all really well that ends well? To Bergman, no, because "what got broken here doesn't go back together again." The characterization of Wallace as being weak helps Mann develop the character of Bergman as someone who becomes increasingly ethically polarized from his peers as the film goes on. His heroism is in direct proportion to perceived cowardice of Wallace and Hewitt.
Wallace in particular has voiced his displeasure with how he was portrayed. He said, "Listen, I could have been a contender if I was that good-looking [talking about Christopher Plummer]. He did a good job, I thought; he got some of my tics. But, the basis of the film was that I had lost my moral compass and had gone along with the company and caved in for fear of a lawsuit or something like that. Also, Don Hewitt, who is the Executive Producer of 60 Minutes, but mainly me. That was utter bullshit. It was done for the drama involved. Then finally, at the end, I found my moral compass again, except it was not true." In the clips below, furnished from an interview done by the Academy of Achievement, Wallace discusses his version of the events that he and Bergman have butted heads over, and makes clear that he feels Bergman acted inappropriately in many cases:
Clip 1: Wallace discusses the events leading up to the controversy over the Wigand interview
Clip 2: Wallace discusses the decision to air an edited version of the interview
Clip 3: Wallace shares his feelings about Bergman leaking the story to The New York Times
Clip 4: Wallace further discusses Bergman's perceived "disloyalty"
It is clear that Wallace doesn't necessarily have the kindest feelings towards Bergman. He has implied that Bergman's motivation in helping Michael Mann create The Insider was perhaps for vindication; according to Wallace, Bergman had always felt like he had received insufficient attention for his work as a producer. According to Bergman, Wallace and Hewitt have since "blacklisted" him and don't maintain any kind of cordial relationship. On a side note, Hewitt maintains that they were bound by corporate lawyers not to air the segment; essentially, he contends that they couldn't have aired it even if they wanted to.
Bergman has suggested that Wallace is not only upset because the movie portrays him in a negative light, but because it "pulls back the curtain" on those who do the dirty work and investigative reporting behind the camera. "I think it was Mike's insecurity," Bergman said. "He respected reporting and it bothered him that he was living off of other people's reporting." The movie also cast Wallace and Hewitt essentially as pushovers who chose not to stand up to management until "the cat was totally out of the bag", and who were more concerned with profits, ratings, and reputation than public service. The movie version of Bergman is stoically heroic and ethically immovable, even unbelievably so; Bergman even admits as much, acknowledging "it's Hollywood after all." Yet Bergman claims that Mike Wallace was offered the opportunity by Mann to play himself in the film, but turned it down. When asked if he felt the movie is accurate, Bergman said, "Accurate is a funny word in this context, because this is the fictionalization of non-fiction. But it was emotionally, politically and, in general, dead-on accurate. Now as to the individual characters, I can only speak about myself. In my case, I'm not Italian, I'm not as short as Pacino, I don't have a blonde wife who calls me honey and I don't yell at my bosses regularly. As for Mike, if I were played by Christopher Plummer, I wouldn't complain."
2) Elements of Wigand's relationship with his wife: Wigand's wife filed for divorce in 1996, after the interview had aired. She cited spousal abuse as a main reason. Mann made it appear in the film as though she left because she could no longer handle the pressure; she still may have loved Jefferey, but just "couldn't do it anymore." In essence, Wigand's family is another sacrifice for doing the right thing, something that haunts him but nonetheless helps add to his characters image of being a remarkably brave man who did the right thing at any cost.
No comments:
Post a Comment