![]() For once, he sounds introspectively thoughtful, and not like some kind of kook. ![]() An early scene between the bamboozled FBI agent(Scott Bakula) and Whitacre has the distinction of containing a voiceover that's incongruously appurtenant to the situation, in which the whistleblower comments on Brian's overall affability and nice guy-ness, instead of going off at a tangent on, say, high-end sushi and matadors, after his second interview. The judge doesn't go so far as to call Whitacre's manic depression an outright fabrication, which for him is being tactful, since he irrevocably disreputes the defense's theory of cause and effect, a viewpoint that may prove to be the same as the filmmaker's. But what if his palaverous fact-based discourses are actually calculated flights of fancy what if the voiceovers are a symptom of fallible narration, coded talk about money-laundering and embezzelment schemes masquerading as wide-eyed gibberish? At Whitacre's sentencing, the presiding judge can't help but roll his eyes at the ADM executive's mentioning of his own bipolar disorder, because the robed man deems this whistleblower's actions as nothing more than a case of "garden-variety greed". Are Whitacre's ramblings triggered by his manic-depressive condition are his interior monologues an involuntary occurence, a voice made intrinsic by psychosis which he has no control over? Does the film side, or disagree with Whitacre supporters, who contend that their man, this convicted felon, got an unfair sentence? Did he put the ly-(lie) in lysine? Corn and its prevalence in our lives almost has a literal effect on this husband and father of three(or is that one?), an executive-turned-whistleblower who can rattle off a CORN-ucopia of facts at will, as perhaps, a quasi-semblant means of self-preservation. Are Whitacre's ramblings triggered by his manic-depressive Those voiceovers, those digressive voiceovers: What is the moviegoer to make of them? Understanding the functionality of Mark Whitacre's non-sequitirs is what makes "The Informant" such a beguilling film to watch. Those voiceovers, those digressive voiceovers: What is the moviegoer to make of them? Understanding the functionality of Mark Whitacre's non-sequitirs is what makes "The Informant" such a beguilling film to watch. Whitacre's ever-changing account frustrates the agents and threatens the case against ADM as it becomes almost impossible to decipher what is real and what is the product of Whitacre's active imagination. Unfortunately for the FBI, their lead witness hasn't been quite so forthcoming about helping himself to the corporate coffers. ![]() But before all that can happen, the FBI needs evidence, so Whitacre eagerly agrees to wear a wire and carry a hidden tape recorder in his briefcase, imagining himself as a kind of de facto secret agent. Even as he exposes his company's multi-national price-fixing conspiracy to the FBI, Whitacre envisions himself being hailed as a hero of the common man and handed a promotion. But before all that can What was Mark Whitacre thinking? A rising star at agri-industry giant Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), Whitacre suddenly turns whistleblower. Summary: What was Mark Whitacre thinking? A rising star at agri-industry giant Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), Whitacre suddenly turns whistleblower.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |