Oppenheimer

 SPOILER ALERT. The plot will be discussed.

Oppenheimer (2023), winner of the Best Picture Oscar, is based on the book entitled America Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer, the nuclear physicist who helped create the atomic bomb in 1945. In mythology, Prometheus defied the gods and gave fire to humanity. For his transgression he was tortured by having a giant bird chew at his liver while he was in chains. It is a rich metaphor for daring to defy the order of things by reaching above the human realm. (A similar theme is in the tale of Icarus and Daedalus). Oppenheimer harnessed the basic power of existence and for that he suffered psychological punishment through guilt and the persecution of the political system when he advised against developing and using the weapons he helped to create.

The first image in the film is water rippling on the ground in the rain. That shot combines with depictions of atomic particles and an explosion due to atomic fission as Oppenheimer stares with a frightened look at the metaphorical consequences of his work. The result is the suggestion that there can be an escalating chain reaction once humans tamper with the building blocks of the universe. The water image repeats in the film as a reminder of consequences.

The film jumps to when Oppenheimer (Cillian Murphy, in his Oscar-winning role) undergoes scrutiny for his past political associations with communism. This great scientist receives praise for his achievements for America and then, as if needing a scapegoat for the destruction the United States unleashed, his country blames him for being unpatriotic. (Murphy’s gaunt appearance – he lost weight for the role – and his voice trying to stay steady, along with subtle facial changes transform the actor, and he is totally convincing in this performance).

The film then focuses on Lewis Strauss (Robert Downey, Jr, receiving the Best Supporting Oscar for this role. He is great at presenting surface calm with anger simmering below). Strauss was a leader on the Atomic Energy Commission. He is talking with an aide in connection with his nomination for a post with the Eisenhower Administration. He appears reluctant to be associated with the Congressional investigation into Oppenheimer. We get an immediate insight into Strauss’s personality when he corrects the aide by stating he should be addressed as “Admiral.” As we see he is negatively impacted by what he considers slights.

As he testifies before a committee, Oppenheimer states that when he was studying in England, he was troubled by images of a hidden universe, possibly a precognition of the awe and danger of the nuclear world. Christopher Nolan (Winner of the Best Director Oscar for this work) depicts shifting time periods and is adept at cutting to Oppenheimer’s viewpoint here, with visions of the atomic world, which he depicts in color. He said it was to stress the scientist’s point of view, which was subjective and the camera is closer to Oppenheimer, making the face a landscape, according to the cinematographer. The screenplay was in the first person, a very unusual technique, to stress Oppenheimer’s take on things. Strauss’s scenes are in black and white, supposedly an objective viewpoint, at least as Strauss sees the facts, and the camera shoots farther away to suggest objectivity. Nolan said, despite the back and forth shifting of time periods, structured it first as an origin story, then a kind of suspense film in making the bomb, and then a trial sequence. Nolan combines old school with new school technology. He does not prefer CGI, and still uses film, but IMAX has visual resolution superior to digital photography. This film is the first to do black-and-white in IMAX.

Back in time, Kenneth Branagh plays famous scientist Neils Bohr, who advises Oppenheimer to leave Cambridge since Oppenheimer is not great at lab work and should delve only into theory. Bohr says that to truly understand the science he must not only read the music he must “hear the music.” Oppenheimer says he can. The musical score in the film echoes his ecstatic insights and the deeper tones of those revelations.

Oppenheimer poisoned an apple for his demeaning professor but stops Bohr from eating it. The apple has Biblical references, showing that knowledge kills innocence and can lead to a fall from grace. It also shows the darkness inside of Oppenheimer that here manifests in a personal manner and later in a global one.

He throws glasses into the corner of his room as if the broken, dangerous shards mimic what happens when matter is fractured. He stares at a cubist painting which depicts various sides of reality in the same viewing, which is what Oppenheimer sees as he considers the totality of existence.

Back at the confirmation hearing, Strauss notes he first met Oppenheimer for a position at Princeton University. He corrects Oppenheimer by saying his name is pronounced “Straws,” another example of Strauss’s wish for proper recognition. He says that no matter the pronunciation, “they know I’m Jewish,” which may accurately stress a reason for his insecurity. (Oppenheimer was also Jewish, although his parents moved away from the religion toward a more secular belief system). Strauss asks why Oppenheimer didn’t recruit Albert Einstein (Tom Conti), who also is at Princeton, for the Manhattan Project which initiated the research to develop the atomic bomb. Oppenheimer says that Einstein was the best scientist of “his time” for his theory of relativity published many years prior. Oppenheimer seems superior in his manner here. When he asks Strauss if he was a physicist the latter says he was a “self-made man,” implying the scientists had an unfair advantage in life. He says he was a shoe salesman. Oppenheimer says the successful Strauss was once a “lowly shoe salesman.” Strauss takes offense at the adjective and corrects by saying, “just a shoe salesman.” Oppenheimer has an unheard conversation at this point with Einstein near a pond on the campus. Afterwards Einstein walks past Strauss as if oblivious of the man being there. Strauss later says to the Congressional Committee that Oppenheimer must have said something which caused Einstein to “sour” his feelings toward Strauss. Also, the fact that Oppenheimer is not jumping at the position offered at Princeton irritates Strauss. All these details about what Straus perceives as slights show how he will eventually undermine Oppenheimer.

Oppenheimer met Isidor Rabi (David Krumholz) in Holland. Rabi is amazed at Oppenheimer’s brilliance because he learned Dutch sufficiently in six weeks to give a lecture in the language. (He also knows German and Sanskrit). They are both New York Jews but are very different. Oppenheimer seems aloof and formal, whereas Rabi knows Yiddish and is down-to-earth. He asks about prejudice against Jews, but Oppenheimer says where he works the scientists are all Jewish, so he didn’t sense bigotry. That statement also shows how Jews were exploited for their intelligence but also were subject to bigotry outside of the academic community. It is interesting that unlike Rabi who is connected to his Jewish New York roots, Oppenheimer takes positions at Cal Tech and Berkeley and there is a place in New Mexico that his brother owns. Oppenheimer is a traveler who seems rootless in his scientific quests except for a longing to return to the United States when away.

He starts out with a class with just Rossi Lomanitz (Josh Zuckerman) and more students then attend the study of quantum mechanics. However, political issues infiltrate the academic world. Ernest Lawrence (Josh Hartnett), working on practical applications such as a particle accelerator, warns Oppenheimer to keep political views, like being against the fascists in Spain, out of the classroom. The flashforward to the investigation into Oppenheimer’s life notes that the FBI had a file on the scientist before he even worked on government projects. Strauss testifies that there was suspicion about Oppenheimer’s left-wing views. Downey said that Nolan saw Strauss as a type of Salieri figure in Amadeus, jealous of someone who was considered a genius, like Mozart.

Oppenheimer, who declares that he is not a communist, talks about the dying of stars at a gathering of communist sympathizers. He says that when a star cools it collapses and the “gravity gets so contracted, it swallows everything.” His description of a black hole could symbolize his own rise and fall from public and private grace. At the party he meets Jean Tatlock (Florence Pugh) who wants him to become engaged more in practical solutions instead of theories, but he resists dogma. They become lovers. She has him read from one of his books which are the words of the Hindu God, Vishnu, who says “and now I am become Death. The destroyer of worlds.” She is having sex with him while he speaks. Dying and sexual climax are joined in often in poetry, and the scene is effective here in that aspect, and how Oppenheimer eventually sees himself in the same light as Vishnu.

The scene switches to a dark, desolate landscape in the howling wind in New Mexico which is a nice follow-up to the apocalyptic vision in the Sanskrit text. Oppenheimer and his brother Frank (Dylan Arnold) camp out. Oppenheimer says that when he was young, he thought that if he could combine physics with New Mexico his life would be good. He reaches that goal at Los Alamos, where his ideal situation also becomes the birthplace of enormous destruction.

Prior to the above time, there was no thinking of developing a bomb. But at Berkeley there is news that the Germans split an atom by bombarding it with neutrons. Oppenheimer says the math doesn’t show it’s possible, but Luis Alvarez, (Alex Wolff) working with Lawrence in the practical engineering department, replicates the German experiment, showing, as Lawrence says, that theory only takes one so far, and it doesn’t always predict reality. The fact that energy is released with fission points to the possibility of making an atomic bomb.

Oppenheimer is trying to live in the world of science along with elements of romance and politics to show some connection with Jean. He is not successful combining these parts of his life. She is unhappy with his lack of attention. He shows up with Alvarez to union meetings and argues with Lawrence about unionizing professors, which brings backlash from the university. On September 1, 1939, he co-publishes an article on black holes, a scientific breakthrough. It is in the theoretical world, divorced from the practical one, where he is most fulfilled.

The Nazis invade countries outside of Germany and the looming possibility of perverting pure science encroaches on Oppenheimer’s life. A quick shift to his interrogation shows that he did not like the communist view of noninvolvement toward the Nazi menace and did not join the Communist Party. He mentions that his wife, Kitty (Emily Blunt), was a communist a long time ago for a period because of her prior marriage. The committee tries to exploit the pasts of himself and those of others he was involved with.

We then shift to his meeting Kitty, and her rejection of the Party because of what to her was the senseless death fighting the fascists in Spain. They become lovers, she becomes pregnant, and both end their prior romantic involvements. But Kitty experiences the same detachment from her new husband as Jean did with her lover. Oppenheimer is not there as a husband or a father as his home is in the world of science.

Lawrence, being the practical one, which fits his engineering application job, warns Oppenheimer that his attachment to unions that are “filled with communists” alienates him from the Federal Government and inhibits his fight against the Germans who may develop an atomic bomb, as Einstein warned. So, Oppenheimer said his association with unions would not interfere with working on a nuclear deterrent to the Nazis. At that time, he was not persecuted, but when the McCarthy era began, his past came back to haunt him.

Strauss later says, “Genius is no guarantee of wisdom. How could this man who saw so much be so blind.” Again, Oppenheimer may see the unseen world, but it obscures his vision of the overt one. He can visualize the chain reaction of atomic particles, but not the cause and effect of his social actions.

However, he shows he can apply his scientific mind to making an atomic bomb before the Nazis developed one. He convinces the dubious head of the Manhattan Project, Major General Leslie Groves (Matt Damon) that he can coordinate the development of a nuclear weapon and run the lab at Los Alamos. (Damon has a small mustache, like the real Groves, but here it reminds one of Hitler’s, and one scientist calls him “Generalissimo,” referencing Spain’s fascistic Franco, so there is authoritarianism present to a degree here, too). Groves tries to question Oppenheimer’s resolve by implying that nobody will receive a Nobel Prize for making a bomb. The scientist wittily responds that Alfred Nobel invented dynamite, which suggests the two sides of the coin that can come from inventions. Groves, however, does try to protect Oppenheimer from persecutions in the future. Oppenheimer knows that Groves can leverage him because of his left-wing past. Oppenheimer says that one thing they have going for them is “antisemitism,” implying the great scientists who are under Nazi rule are Jewish, and that might alienate the scientists and Hiter from each other.

Oppenheimer recruits American scientists, saying the government needs them, but as Alvarez notes wisely, “until they don’t.” We have here Oppenheimer’s dismissal of how politics works. Rabi does not want to join. He sees the bigger picture. He says, “You drop a bomb and it falls on the just and the unjust. I don’t want the culmination of three centuries of physics to be a weapon of mass destruction.” However, the immediacy of the problem wins him over. As Oppenheimer says, they might not be wise in the use of the atomic bomb, but he knows that the Nazis can’t be trusted with it. In this case, Oppenheimer is being realistic about the threat of Nazi world domination.

Edward Teller (Benny Safdie) hypothesizes that the detonation of a nuclear bomb could create a chain reaction that is unstoppable, destroying the world. Oppenheimer consults with Einstein. Einstein says that if widespread destruction is possible, then they must share the findings with the Nazis, because they would not want to obliterate what they want to conquer. After running through theoretical possibilities that world destruction was near zero the practical Groves says, “Zero would be nice,” an understated sarcastic statement given the horrific potential involved.

Another incident that haunts Oppenheimer at the investigation involves his friend, Haakon Chevalier (Jefferson Hall) who wanted the physicist to pass on information about the atomic bomb project to the Russians, who were our allies in WWII. Oppenheimer notes that act would be treason, but he did not report it as a security problem at the time, as he was caught between loyalty to his friend and his country.

The investigation attacks Oppenheimer, as he was warned by fellow scientists would happen. The government used him and when they were done, they went after him because of ties he had with others who were communists at one time. He had another liaison with Jean and Nolan puts in a stylized shot of a naked Oppenheimer making love to her while at the committee hearing which shows us what is going on in Oppenheimer’s mind. A livid Kitty watches as he admits to the one-night-stand. The image suggests that he is being exposed for not realizing how his past would resurface in his future. Later Jean commits suicide and Oppenheimer is plagued by guilt, here on a personal level, and later on a much wider scale.

The film shows several nasty individuals who saw the opportunity to better themselves at Oppenheimer’s expense after the scientist was no longer useful. One is Boris Pash (Casey Affleck) described by Groves as a man who has threatened to kidnap, interrogate, and kill possible allies of Russia. There is Roger Robb (Jason Clarke) who spearheads attacks in the committee questioning Oppenheimer’s loyalty. An example is his asking why Oppenheimer brought his ex-communist brother to Los Alamos, a politically naïve act on the part of the scientist. Another is William Borden (David Dastmalchian) who gets a hold of Oppenheimer’s classified file and accuses the physicist of helping Russia.

Bohr is able to escape to America. He says that Heisenberg is now working with the Nazis, which shows how dangerous the blooming nuclear age will become. Bohr is not there to help but to look beyond the current situation and urges Oppenheimer to use his influence to warn the U. S. Government that the world has moved into a frightening phase. He calls Oppenheimer a Prometheus figure. That image stresses the cause and effect of how discovering powerful tools can be used for terrible reasons. Maybe to convince himself, Oppenheimer repeats what Bohr said to him earlier by now saying, “You can’t lift the stone without being ready for the snake that’s revealed.” Bohr meant it as a warning, but Oppenheimer uses it as a natural consequence for the need to open a Pandora’s Box.

With the hydrogen bomb researched by Teller, there is the possibility, later realized, of a device a thousand times more powerful than an atomic bomb. As the scientists along with Strauss and government official Vannevar Bush (Matthew Modine) argue the need or danger of developing a hydrogen bomb, we get an intense subjective view from Oppenheimer’s perspective. The resounding sound of stomping feet resembling soldiers marching off to war echoes in his ears. He urges restraint in further development of nuclear arms and says that there should be restriction of an arms race with Russia, who has replaced Germany as an enemy. The implication here is that there will always be a foe to justify the further development of weapons. However, metaphorically, he is trying to defuse an explosive after he has already set it to go off.

Back to the Los Alamos lab, Oppenheimer uses a quote from John Donne who said in a sonnet, “Batter my heart, three-personed God.” So, he names the test “Trinity” to see if the A-Bomb will work. The reference is full of contradictions. The poem is a plea by a person who states the only way he can be saved is through force from a supreme being. Oppenheimer’s naming the test suggests that he sees salvation from evil (Nazism) only through submission to a greater power (atomic).

However, the Allies defeated Germany and Hitler was dead. The question is whether it is necessary to drop the fury of atomic bombs on Japan. Oppenheimer, along with Bush and Groves, meet with the Secretary of Defense Henry Stimson (James Remar) concerning this decision. Oppenheimer wants to backtrack now since the Nazis are no longer a threat. Why not show the Japanese the force of the bomb before dropping it? A lame excuse is that it might fail and that will reveal our plans. That would assume that Japan could somehow prepare for an atomic attack, doubtful at best. The military members there and the Secretary talk about the many thousands that will die in abstract terms. Stimson says he took the city of Kyoto off the list because he went there on his honeymoon. He is playing God with innocent lives based on nostalgic memories. A merciless Groves wants to drop two bombs to show the effectiveness of the blast and then to force a surrender. This strategy is based on the nonempirical conclusion that the Japanese will never surrender otherwise.

Nolan takes his time to depict the Trinity test detonation, building suspense by focusing on the different roles of those involved. The furious sound of violins on the soundtrack adds to the tension. Teller only uses a pair of sunglasses and sunblock on his face while he sits outside in a beach chair, as if he is watching for his own amusement a fireworks display. It shows his apocalyptic tendency, which is frightening in its cavalier attitude toward this event. IMDb notes that he resembles Dr. Strangelove, the mad scientist in the Stanley Kubrick film. Nolan does not give the audience the sound of the explosion here, only the fireball looking like a hellish inferno which ends in the dreaded mushroom cloud. The emphasis instead is on the breathing of those that developed this monstrous creation. Afterwards, there is cheering and applause, which is understandable given the intense work over three years to which the large group committed themselves. One who does not feel elated is Rabi, who was reluctant to participate on the project.

After all the intellectually detached scientific work, what they have made is a tangible weapon, and as it rides away on a military transport, the harsh reality of that fact sinks in as Oppenheimer hopes that the terror of the atomic bomb will stop all wars in the future. History has shown that although the far more destructive hydrogen bomb became the nuclear weapon of choice, there has been no use of it so far because of fear. But wars still rage on, and the potential for mass destruction looms over them.

After the bomb is dropped on Hiroshima, we then meet up again with the sound of those stomping feet in celebration now at Los Alamos. Oppenheimer says, “The world will remember this day,” but will it be in celebration or in infamy? That question is what exists inside of Oppenheimer’s mind. The background shakes and he gets a vision of the patriotic cheering of the project’s workers and their families turning into one of melting corpses. Oppenheimer concludes that he has become, like Vishnu, “Death. The destroyer of worlds.”

Oppenheimer meets with President Harry Truman (Gary Oldman) who acts like the Russians will not get the atomic bomb despite Oppenheimer’s belief that an arms race is possible and should be prevented. Oppenheimer wants nothing else to do with developing weapons and says they should give Los Alamos “back to the Indians.” Instead, despite the President’s position about the lack of the Russian nuclear capability, the administration wants to expand the New Mexico town to pursue the making of a hydrogen bomb. When Oppenheimer says that he feels he has blood on his hands, a dismissive Truman gives him a handkerchief as if he should wipe the blood off. He says that the use of nuclear weapons was his choice and its not about Oppenheimer. He then says to an aid to not let that “crybaby” back in his office. Truman here seems callous about the horrific effect of nuclear war and the emotional toll that weighs on those that contributed to it.

Scientists and those associated with Oppenheimer who were against further use of nuclear technology paid the price for their views. Oppenheimer’s brother was blacklisted by all the universities in the country and Lomanitz wound up laying track for the railroad. Chevalier went into exile most likely because of the shift to anticommunism in the United States

But Oppenheimer pushed for arms control instead of pursuing development of the H-Bomb, trying to compensate for that blood on his hands. The movie depicts Oppenheimer as a conflicted man, trying to navigate the morality of helping to create monstrous weapons for the immediate Nazi problem while at the same time advising against their construction in the future.

Strauss tells Oppenheimer that Klaus Fuchs (Christopher Denham), a scientist at Los Alamos, was providing information to the Soviets. Once there was confirmation of a spy at the test site, the FBI stepped up surveillance on Oppenheimer. The view here is that people can become guilty by association, not by fact.

Some of those government officials who supported Oppenheimer now try to bury him in the public view. Secretary of Defense Stimson now says the bomb was developed for an enemy that was already defeated. Strauss uses the press to step up his positive publicity by sending out the message through a reporter that Strauss fought Oppenheimer and America “won.” It turns out Borden, who lies when he says he had no contact with anyone from the AEC, received Oppenheimer’s private personnel file from the inferiority-complex-ridden AEC ranking member Strauss, who devised the way the scientist would be ruined. Borden, in a letter to J. Edgar Hoover, accused Oppenheimer of being a Russian undercover agent. Strauss didn’t want to give Oppenheimer a platform to be a “martyr.” He wanted a closed hearing in a small office, with no burden of proof needed to be established and no discovery of evidence for the defense, since the committee is not charging the physicist with a crime. The committee revokes Oppenheimer’s secret clearance, thus labeling him as a threat to United States security. Kitty knows it is Strauss behind the conspiracy, labeling him as being vindictive for perceived slights, and admonishes her husband justly for not fighting enough. He even shook Teller’s hand after Teller said he thought Oppenheimer was not a good security risk. All the while, Strauss, the proverbial snake in the grass, acts like he is helping Oppenheimer navigate the attack Strauss devised.

At Strauss’s Senate confirmation hearing regarding his nomination as Commerce Secretary, he is concerned he will be tainted by his connection to Oppenheimer. He makes sure he lets the Senate know that he disagreed with Oppenheimer about letting President Truman know about the possibility of a hydrogen bomb. Strauss also says that the Russians wouldn’t have known how to make an atomic bomb if there wasn’t a spy at Los Alamos, another attack on Oppenheimer because the physicist was the leader at Los Alamos.

However, Dr. David Hill (Rami Malek) testifies that American scientists, who rally around Oppenheimer, would like Strauss not hold any government position. He says that Strauss led the attack against Oppenheimer when the latter opposed the sale of isotopes to Norway in a manner that seemed to humiliate Strauss. Hill reveals that it was Strauss who had the hatchet man Robb appointed as the interrogating attorney. The confirmation hearing on Strauss ironically becomes the same type of defamation panel that Strauss concocted for Oppenheimer, with no burden of truth needed and no official trial administered. When Strauss thought that Oppenheimer said something negative about him to Einstein the truth was that they were not even talking about Strauss. The film implies that a person like Strauss who thinks everything going on is about them is very selfish in their insecurity. The Senate denies Strauss’s confirmation, with Senator John F. Kennedy being one of the deciding votes against Strauss.

The film ends as it began with that conversation by the pond with Einstein. He was telling Oppenheimer that government officials persecute you for their own guilt and years later give you an award to ease their consciences. We get a flash-forward of that scene as Oppenheimer, now an old man, receiving in 1963 the Enrico Fermi Award from President Lyndon Johnson. What shook Einstein into silence at the pond and his ignoring of Strauss was that Oppenheimer said to him that they had put into motion the chain reaction that would cause the inevitable destruction of the world.

Darkest Hour

 SPOILER ALERT! The plot will be discussed.

The title of the film Darkest Hour (2017) refers to the saying that it’s always darkest before the dawn, implying that sometimes to reach a goal one must endure hardship. This movie focuses on England when Adolph Hitler’s Germany threatened the country, and specifically on Prime Minister Winston Churchill's role in escaping defeat and pushing forward to victory in World War II.

The story has several historical inaccuracies, as critics have pointed out, which must infuriate those that hope for accuracy in such a story. Apparently, Churchill had some ethnic purity beliefs of his own concerning the British people. However, this post will focus on the moviemaking aspect of the film.

The first images we see are those of countless soldiers and tanks, with Hitler and his military leaders plotting conquest. It is May, 1940, and Germany has already invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, and Norway according to onscreen notes. The shots set the stage for the daunting task of resisting such a formidable enemy.

The film shows the ensuing days by presenting the month and day in large print on the screen, with the days rolling down with loud thudding. The effect is to show the importance and weightiness of what is transpiring. (Think of the opening of All the President’s Men and how the typewriter keys are huge and noisy, showing the impact of what is written). There is a shot from above accompanied by shouting showing how the British government is under siege and not capable of exhibiting traditional restraint. Parliament has blamed Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup) for what has become known as his appeasement, allowing Germany to become stronger. The story depicts how sometimes accepted norms of behavior will not work when dealing with unstoppable aggression.

Chamberlain meets with other members of the Conservative Party and admits that they need a coalition with the opposition party. Those in attendance want Lord Halifax (Stephen Dillane) to be Prime Minister. However, Halifax declines, saying it is not his “time.” Chamberlain admits that only First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill (Gary Oldman, in an Oscar-winning performance for Best Actor, looks unrecognizable in the make-up and prosthetics, and inhabits the role) will be accepted by both parties. Churchill’s combative personality is not admired by those in attendance. The scene shows these men (no women in government at this time) dressed in stiff, elegant formal clothes, mirroring their superior attitude, divorced from the average citizen.

The next scene contrasts with these upper-class men by starting with the servants preparing to ready breakfast-in-bed for the fussy and demanding Churchill. He demeans his new secretary, Elizabeth Layton (Lily James), by harshly criticizing her while she takes dictation. The audience can see that Churchill can be overbearing and condescending. Churchill’s wife, Clementine (Kristen Scott Thomas) sees how upset Elizabeth is and says how her husband can be a brute, like all men. She adds a strong female aspect to this time ruled by war-waging men. She tells Churchill that he has become “rude” and “overbearing” lately, and if he does become Prime Minister, he will have to use diplomacy. He says that choosing him now is more like revenge. He has had setbacks in the past, including the lives lost at Gallipoli, and maybe that has soured him. She mentions that he has a “lack of vanity” and a “sense of humor,” (unlike the stuffy men shown earlier). She tries to make him show his finer parts. He hopes that, being old now, he can still be useful, saying when “youth departs, wisdom will be enough.” Later, Clementine says that they are financially broke due to his personal excesses. But he can be charming with her, recalling past lovely times, and funny, as when she asks if they are old, and he says to her, “you are.”

The film shows everyday people walking in slow motion in the streets, picking up trash, or going to the office. These are the individuals who will have their lives destroyed if Germany invades. Churchill seems to recognize his upper-class status and how it is divorced from the multitudes. He says he has never ridden a bus or been in line to purchase bread. The one time he tried using the English subway, he became lost.

King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn) summons Churchill after telling Chamberlain how much he regrets accepting his resignation, and how much he dislikes dealing with Churchill. (Chamberlain concedes that Churchill was right about the dangerous Hitler). When Churchill arrives, he and the King talk at quite a distance, showing their lack of common ground. They speak minimally as the King offers the leadership of the nation to Churchill, who must, reluctantly, approach the monarch and kiss his hand. George VI then wipes his hand on his back, so adverse he is to being in Churchill’s presence. The King says they will have to meet, “once a week, I’m afraid.” Churchill seems to agree about the visits being disagreeable, since he will not concede his four pm naptime. He later says meeting the King will be like having a tooth pulled once a week.

Clementine acknowledges that she knew from the start that Churchill would mainly be preoccupied with public life. She accepted that, as did their children. She unselfishly says that their sacrifice was for “the greater good.” The film is implying that not all members of a family can accept a subservient role honorably as did the Churchills. (It is interesting that Churchill critiques his own father for his lack of family attention, telling the King that his father was like God, because he was “busy elsewhere”).

When Churchill enters Parliament, it is like going into the lion’s den. Bells chime in the background like somber knells. There are intercut shots of Churchill giving his speech with scenes where he earlier edits it while dictating to his secretary. He alters words to make it more palatable to the government representatives, which shows the new Prime Minister exercising diplomacy as he ascends into his new role. He admits the huge task ahead and says in pursuit of defending the nation he will give his all, offering his “blood, toil, tears, and sweat.” Churchill makes no attempt, however, at disguising that they will be waging war and that victory is the goal, no matter the cost. Despite the menace of Naziism, the members are reluctant to show enthusiasm for going into all-out battle, and Chamberlain and Halifax plot to remove Churchill for not allowing for peace talks. Others consider him just a great orator whose ideas are dangerous, and that he is an alcoholic.

 There is a difficult choice to be made by Churchill. The Germans are moving swiftly through France, and he must decide whether to tell the public how dire are the circumstances, or to rouse the French and his own people to fight. He chooses the latter, but the French leaders call him “delusional,” given the Nazi onslaught. He wants to inspire with his speech to the English so as not to give into despair. The film poses the question as to whether it is ever an appropriate time not to be totally honest with the public. He speaks his words which contrast with the depiction of the casualties in France.

The film points to another instance of Churchill having to connect to the masses. He flashes what he considers the victory sign, but he initially does so with the palm of the hand turned inwards. His secretary, Elizabeth, reluctantly tells him that means “up your bum,” to the “poorer people.” They both have a large laugh about this mistake, which shows Churchill’s sense of humor, and his ability to adapt.

The story shows the enormity of the sacrifice that a leader must inflict in a large-scale war. It shows Churchill willing to sacrifice four thousand men at a garrison in Calais to divert the Germans so 300,000 soldiers can be rescued at Dunkirk. This decision, along with President Franklin Roosevelt not being able to act because of the passage of the Neutrality Act in the United States, and the fall of Belgium and soon France, stress how this is the darkest hour for Britain. Churchill makes his decision as Halifax and Chamberlain push for peace talks with Germany, with Italy as an intermediary.

Churchill plans Operation Dynamo to rescue the army at Dunkirk by utilizing as many seacraft as possible for the evacuation while the Calais garrison is suffering terrible losses. Halifax says fighting to the end means “the destruction of all things,” and he does not see that resistance against evil is worth that. Churchill obviously disagrees. He also realizes that “you cannot reason with a tiger when your head is its mouth.” However, Churchill eventually agrees to hear German terms of a negotiated peace when under extreme pressure exerted by Halifax and Chamberlain. Whenever Churchill hears Hitler in the background talking on the radio he becomes infuriated by the voce of repression.

Secretary Elizabeth breaks down in tears while Churchill dictates. He listens to her when she says nobody tells citizens the truth about what is happening. He takes her into the secret map room and explains the deadly situation at Dunkirk. Here we have an example of Churchill connecting with an everyday person, trusting her with the truth. She discovers that her brother died at Dunkirk, and he shows compassion towards her, while she encourages his ability to communicate.

He also receives encouragement from Clementine who says his life has prepared him for the burden he now shoulders. The King visits Churchill and the latter is honest about how dire is the situation. The King surprisingly supports Churchill and tells him to seek out the feelings of everyday people, as Churchill had advised him in the past.

As the evacuation of Dunkirk proceeds with unexpected great success, the slow-motion movement of the citizens is again presented as Churchill observes them from his car. He bolts out of the vehicle and descends literally and figuratively to the Underground to connect with his fellow English citizens. He jokes with them, saying to a new mother that all infants look like him. He learns their names and vocations. He asks them what they would do if the Germans invaded. They say, “fight the fascists!” He asks if they would accept a peace agreement with Hitler, and they say, “Never, never, never!” The final connection to the people occurs when he quotes a poem and one of the passengers finishes it.

Churchill goes to members of Parliament and quotes the people on the subway who said they felt that England would turn into a slave state if Germany invaded. He says how would they feel if the swastika flew over the houses of Parliament. The members now echo the feelings of their constituents in not giving into Nazism. He tells the war cabinet that they will not negotiate.

He invites Elizabeth to hear the words that she typed so as to cement the connection between them. Later Churchill gives his famous rousing, “We shall fight on the beaches,” speech. Even Chamberlain concedes. His speech foresees America entering the war that would eventually bring victory over hatred, which is what free and enlightened people fight for, a fight that is ongoing. The note at the end quotes Churchill who said, “it is the courage to continue that counts.”

The Contender

SPOILER ALERT! The plot will be discussed.

On one level, this 2000 film, written and directed by Rod Lurie, is a liberal argument for the acceptance of a woman in one of the highest offices in the United States government. But, it doesn’t depict its characters as being totally good and bad, since it deals with the nature of politics, and the liberals here also have their flaws. In addition, the film is a mystery, as the plot not only entertains, but also plays with the audience, making it culpable by allowing prejudices against women lead the viewer to possibly wrong conclusions.

The opening of the film shows Governor Jack Hathaway (William Petersen) fishing while being interviewed. A speeding car then crashes over the side of the bridge above Hathaway’s boat. The governor immediately dives into the water and attempts to rescue the female driver, but he is unsuccessful, and the young woman drowns. The general response is that Hathaway has the heart of a hero. But, we are already led into the stereotypical viewpoint of seeing the man in the role of saving a woman. Many in the Democratic Party consider Hathaway a rising political star, and assume the president will nominate him to fill the vacancy of the recently deceased vice-president.

Hathaway meets with President Jackson Evans (Jeff Bridges) and his adviser, Kermit Newman (Sam Elliott). The president is a quirky fellow who is always either asking people if they want to eat something, ordering food, or is eating himself. He appears to be complimentary in a folksy and friendly way, but many times his engaging manner is just a diversion to put his opponents at ease while he undermines them. Evans praises Hathaway for his heroism, but then says he can’t give him the vice-presidency because he actually didn’t save the woman. Kermit says it looks like he let the woman die. The president and Kermit appear cold in their assessment of Hathaway, who looks like a decent man who Evans unfairly dismissed from consideration. We have a scene between Hathaway and his wife, Fiona (Kristen Shaw), which demonstrates that the movie is not just a feminist manifesto. Yes, Fiona does not play the role of the smiling, supportive wife. But, she is overcompensating in an almost too masculine way by being brutal as she questions her husband’s masculinity in not being more aggressive in trying to claim his right to the vice-presidency. She tells him not to act like a little girl, which shows Fiona stereotyping her own gender as fearful. She says he needs to grow a pair of “balls,” and might as well bend over, since he was “screwed.” Her recounting of their plans for success reveals a bit of a Lady MacBeth personality.

As the president confers with his staff, he shows that he has his own agenda where he wants a vice-president who will continue his policies. He doesn’t want someone who is ambitious and will try to overshadow Evans as his presidency winds down. He chooses Senator Laine Hanson (Joan Allen). Kermit questions her ability to be loyal, since she switched from being a Republican to being a Democrat, but Evans is not dissuaded. The idea of loyalty comes up several times in the movie, and Hanson seems the better person for switching parties because her loyalty to principles is more important than fidelity to a political party. She says her party has strayed from its original principles that freed slaves and gained the right to vote for women. Her father, Oscar Billings (Philip Baker Hall), a former governor, is a Republican, but he does not follow a straight party line. He hates the press, as do many current Republicans for slanted reporting, but also believes in the separation of church and state, and says that schools are there to teach, “not to preach.”

When Hanson gets the call from the White House, she is about to have sex right in her office with her husband, William Hanson (Robin Thomas). The fact that the first shot of her is a sexual one shows her to be a person who enjoys physical pleasure. In the history of film, there aren’t many instances where women can be as sexual as men. The movie plays with our prejudices that women who enjoy sex are sluts, and in the end, reveals preconceived notions about women and sexuality, and questions them. The film shows the overemphasis on a woman’s appearance because men have viewed females as sex objects for so long. The White House staff notes that Hanson looks good, and even the president makes this observation. One of the staff, Jerry Tolliver (Saul Rubinek) questions Hanson’s wearing a red dress at the press announcement. This objection refers to the prejudicial association of the color with prostitutes working the “red light” district. Kermit dismisses the issue, and Hanson does not back down, saying the dress “works.” Hermit also points out another gender double standard in the political process. He says that Hanson’s husband must be invisible during the hearings, because a woman’s presence is seen as supportive if her husband is the nominee, but in this case the man is considered the one with power, and would be perceived as a “puppeteer.”

The main opposition to Hanson’s appointment comes from the head of the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, Shelly Runyon (Gary Oldman). He accurately states the prejudice against women when he says that a woman has to look good and have perfect credentials to compete against a man. He says that the only reason Margaret Thatcher was successful was because she answered to a man, in her case, Ronald Reagan. When Kermit goes to him to seek a smooth confirmation, Runyon calls Hanson the White House’s “girl,” which is derogatory and is like calling an African American adult male a “boy.” Runyon also shows his sexism by suggesting a man, Governor Hathaway, as a person worthy of a quick approval.

Runyon promises to have Democrats represented on his committee, so a Democrat from Delaware named Reginald Webster (Christian Slater) asks Runyon to be part of the review process. At first Webster just wants the exposure, since he is ambitious, and says he is one hundred percent objective. Runyon says constituents want him for his subjectivity. When Webster again approaches Runyon he says he believes Hanson is not right for the position, also thinks Hathaway the better choice, and promises discretion in the committee’s dealings. There is a meeting with others, including Hathaway, who appears to be a gentler conspirator when it comes to the tactics Runyon wants to employ. Runyon again references Hanson’s appearance, calling her a “looker,” and she has the advantage of being a governor’s daughter. The fact that she was once a Republican makes her look not too liberal. He says they have to defeat her by depicting her as being the wrong person. They will have to “destroy” her. One man there says, in a brutally misogynistic way, that they have to “gut the bitch.” Runyon says that they should show her to be as ruthless as a man, which ironically criticizes males, but also shows that women acting in the same arena as men have difficulty being accepted.

A member of Runyan’s camp meets with one of Hanson’s, Lewis Hollis (Mike Binder) to leak what he considers objectionable material that the Republican leader has obtained. However, we are in the world of Washington politics, so nobody comes off totally noble. He hopes that he will get a job at the White House as a reward for the disclosure. Where is his “loyalty?” Is he a traitor to his party but loyal to a higher good, or just loyal to his own ambitions?  In any case, he shares photos of a college girl who looks like Hanson while she was in college involved in a sexual encounter with multiple males. Runyon also has a deposition from a woman who says she was there, and saw Hanson drunk and engaged in group sex (Is this female informer disloyal to her gender here?) Hollis shares the information with Hanson’s husband, who then shows it to his wife. Before the president even hears of the story, Kermit asks Hanson to remove her name for consideration for the vice presidency out of, yes that word again, loyalty for her party and the president. If she doesn’t withdraw, then he wants her to deny the allegations. But, Hanson’s loyalty is to her principles, and she says she will not address the issue because it would be beneath her dignity to do so. She disagrees with Kermit’s desire to get depraved evidence on Runyon because she believes that makes them no better than he is. Unfortunately, Kermit says they are no better than Runyon. This observation seems to suggest that the nature of politics in the past, and also today, entails getting in the gutter with one's opponent and using the same dirty tools to defend oneself.

According to tradition, Hanson must meet Runyon for lunch as part of the confirmation process. He exhibits his propensity for male dominance by already ordering her a steak (a “manly” choice) before she arrives, making the decision for her, regardless of her wishes. She is a vegetarian, and orders spicy penne (which is what the president previously ordered, and which implies her connection to the chief executive). Runyon says circumstances bring out the greatness (another word that is repeated in the script) in some presidents, which can’t be seen before hand. But, what he wants in a vice president who can possibly become the leader, is the “promise of greatness,” which he says Hanson does not have. However, he does not say why he does not see that greatness in her. Could it be that it is because she is a woman? He probably would attribute her lack of presidential potential to her past. He says that he has the evidence that shows she engaged in “deviant sex.” Hanson says who determines that it was deviant, and Runyon quickly answers, “I do. What I say the American believe. And do you know why? Because I have a very big microphone in front of me.” And there it is, the danger in a democracy which allows freedom of expression, but requires responsibility on what is said, especially by its leaders, because they are in a position of status and can use their fame to be either good or dangerous role models. Hanson turns the argument around on Runyon, saying that if he states that a woman being too sexual invalidates her won’t work because if she were in power, and wasn’t “getting laid,” you wouldn’t want to have her finger on the nuclear trigger. The title of the movie becomes more relevant as Hanson is tested, since she must show she can fight in order to show she has a shot at winning the title she seeks.

Webster is invited to the White House by the president who wants to persuade him, as a member of the Democratic Party, to not break ranks on Hanson’s nomination. Before Evans shows up, we can plainly see on Webster’s face that he enjoys being in the president’s home. He wraps his arms around himself, imitating the portrait of President John F. Kennedy, which communicates his own ambitions to possibly live at this residence. The president enters, again offering some food to ease his way into getting what he wants. It is interesting that he brings a shark steak sandwich, which possibly implies you have to be a predator to survive playing big stakes politics. Webster says he must follow his heart and that he can’t vote for Hanson just because she is a woman. A reasonable statement, but it also follows that one shouldn’t vote against a person just because she is a woman. The real question is whether Hanson is an excellent candidate whose qualities should not be dismissed for being a female. The president again seems to admire Webster for taking a stand, but undermines that praise by saying the congressman will feel good even though his position will destroy his political career. Evans sarcastically says you have to follow one's heart, because the heart is “never wrong,” the absolutist statement actually implying that sometimes it is. Yet, those on both sides announce that they are acting out of some higher good, which is, in a sense, following one’s heart. What we discover is that some justify twisted means to reach their ends.

We know that there must be a background investigation of Hanson. It is here where the mystery aspect of the movie comes into play, along with its associated red herrings to lead the audience astray. Agent Paige Willomina (Kathryn Morris) meets with Governor Hathaway. One should ask why? He admits that he doesn’t know Hanson, after deceptively acting like he knows what an admirable person she is (don’t forget he was in on the Hanson attack meeting with Runyon, so his shiny reputation has already been tarnished). Or, is he being checked out as the possible replacement for Hanson by the president? To add to his diminishment, Hathaway asks Willomina if his “girl” (that condescending word again) offered her some coffee. Willomina picks up on the negative term, saying, yes she met his “girl.” Like the president, Willomina disarms the person she encounters by acting as if she is praising him. She talks about Hathaway’s heroics, then wonders why he was in the crabbing section of the waters when he was bass fishing. She assumed given his expensive fishing equipment he fished a great deal, but he seems to be backpedaling, saying he would like to fish  more, but doesn’t have the time.

After the president finds out about Hanson’s supposed past, he is actually on the same page as her when it comes to not caving into the sexual double standard. He says that he doesn’t care if she was involved with one guy or the whole football team while in college. Their opponents want to embarrass her, and, if approved, send her into the administration as a “virus” to infect his presidency with negativity. He tells her the best way to fight the attacks is not to be embarrassed because she has no reason to be ashamed of her sexual past. Also, he actually sees something of himself in Webster, and tells Kermit not to go after the young congressman.

We also get a clue as to why Runyon is being so combative. Runyon may be claiming it is based on ideology, and politics is war, and the saying goes that all is fair in war (a questionable tenet). In fact, he tells his staff that Hanson represents a cancer “of liberalism, of affirmative action,” and is disloyal to her country because she questions the established order. He says he wants to paint Hanson as the portrait of someone who represents the “decay of virtue.” But, Evans deprived Runyon of the presidency, so there is an element of revenge in trying to deny Evans his legacy of elevating a woman into the position of possibly succeeding to the presidency. However, director Lurie gives us shots of Hanson running, pushing herself to excel, and she finishes her run in Arlington Cemetery, showing she knows how to fight in a war, even unto death.

It doesn’t mean that Hanson isn’t shaky at the beginning of the Congressional hearing. She is awkward using the microphone, and she raises her left hand at first instead of her right when being sworn in. Runyon, too, is effective in first acting like he is on her side, when he actually is there to undercut. Webster at first is one of Runyon’s operatives, and points out that Hanson is an atheist, so she swore an oath to an entity in which she does not believe. Runyon says she has a constitutional right to show her “disdain” for God. In one sentence he seems to be acting fairly, but actually is condemning her beliefs through his word usage.

We shift back to the mystery as Agent Willomina interviews a woman who talks about her “pretty wild” sorority sister with whom she has kept in touch and who offered to treat her to a stay in Las Vegas. It sounds like she might be talking about Hanson, because we, the audience, are seduced into the scandalous news stories about the senator’s past. But, if we use our reason instead of giving into our baser impulses, we would ask why is Hanson, while in the middle of an intense confirmation battle, going off to Vegas to party with an old college friend, spreading money around?

The focus then moves to a scene with Runyon and his wife Maggie (Irene Ziegler). She talks about how she gave up her dreams of having a family to pursue his desire to do good in the world. But, she sees his character assassination of Hanson based on suspected sexual misconduct as disgusting. She says she was proud of him when he passed legislation involving hate crimes. She now says he will go down as a second-rate Joe McCarthy (which is a pretty low level of notoriety). He says Hanson is “no good,” but we know from his previous statements that his definition of no good is based on his own belief in the double sexual standard. So, Runyon has stood for certain principles in the past, but at the same time he, as a man, placed his career above a woman’s wishes, his wife, by denying her children.

The attacks against Hanson begin to intensify. While she is interviewed on a TV program, the host ambushes her with a call from a guy who said he was one of the men who had sex with Hanson at the frat party. Hanson, again not wanting to address the allegation, walks off. Runyon, at the hearing, pretending to push for internet slander laws, actually provides the name of the web site that contains the college sex story. He implies that if the story is true then her actions were pornographic and deviant. In private, he also fosters unverified stories that Hanson received money for sexual favors while in college, basically labeling her as a prostitute. (It is telling that during the hearing, Runyon, who is perpetuating lies, asks if Hanson understands that she is under oath to tell the truth, and she says that, “Yes, I understand that, between the two of us, I am the one under oath”). Webster, becoming indignant, questions the veracity of the articles. Runyon (employing what we would today label “fake news”) says he wants to put Hanson in the position to have to defend herself against phony accusations that have been planted in the public consciousness to raise doubts about her character.

At the hearing, Runyon’s sexism is obvious. He notes that Hanson took a period of absence when having a child in the past. Runyon emphasizes that she had paid leave during this time, and Hanson shoots back that we shouldn’t punish workers  for having children. Her statement unknowingly is an indictment of Runyon who believed he couldn’t have a career and also be a parent. He asks if she were to have a child if she became president, would she have to relinquish her position to her vice president? Of course this attitude presupposes the old fashioned idea that a woman has to be the one to stay home to take care of the baby, not the man. At this point, Webster, starting to get fed up with Runyon, interrupts and asks if Runyon would require that Hanson have her “tubes tied” in order to qualify for the position. Webster exposes Runyon’s double standard ideas and propensity for male domination over the most private aspects of a woman’s life.

Hanson is flawed, however, since she had an affair with her current husband while he was still married and he was running Hanson’s senatorial campaign. But, even in this instance, male bullying is evident, as the all-male committee forces the ex-wife, Cynthia (Mariel Hemingway), who was Hanson’s friend, to testify about this personal and embarrassing event in her life. The representatives say she is “among friends” but friends don’t exploit one’s past for political advantage. During this interview, Webster looks disgusted by the proceedings, showing his alienation from the process. Runyon, a strong “pro-life” advocate, drops all pretense of civility as he attacks Hanson’s “pro-choice” stance, saying she has a “propensity” for abortion, which is a slanted overemphasis of her views. He calls abortion the murder of a baby as it grows in the womb, and abortion rights are a “holocaust” against the unborn. However, Runyon’s wife goes to Hanson, and tells her that her husband’s actions are an “ideological rape of women,” and informs Hanson that when he calls Hanson a murderer of babies, ask Runyon if his wife was a murderer when she had an abortion. Runyon didn’t know of this fact, but his domineering control of his marriage and refusal to have children pushed his wife into that decision. (Getting back to the loyalty theme, is Mrs. Runyon being disloyal, or is she right in thinking her loyalty to her gender is more elevated than loyalty to her husband?) Hanson, however, doesn’t bring this fact up at the hearing, preferring to take the high road, unlike Runyon.

Webster meets privately with Hanson. He is moving further away from his initial stance, and, asks why she isn’t fighting back in the presence of what has become bullying. When she says it isn’t anybody’s business about her sexual past, he says the American people think it is their business because leaders should stand for a moral code, and she should do so for young girls. Even though he appears to be helping here, he is actually still presenting the double standard by saying that “young girls” have a separate rule book. Hanson says she shouldn’t have to say it, but states the obvious in her mind when she tells him that if it’s not relevant to ask about a man’s sexual history in college, then it’s not relevant to ask about a woman’s past.

The president has been publicly supportive of Hanson, telling reporters that people shouldn’t judge unless they don’t mind being judged, and he wouldn’t mind having the support in an election of all those who had sexual issues in their past, because he would win by a landslide. He isn’t differentiating between male and females, but puts all under one standard. However, when he meets with Kermit and Hanson privately, his frustration is growing because Hanson is not fighting back. He says she appears to be a sex-crazed home-wrecker in the way Runyon is portraying her. But in terms of her affair with her future husband, he says that all the committee did was catch her “being human.” It is important here that the president did not say being a flawed woman, but instead put her in the same category as men. Evans and Kermit say it is okay to confess to the past, to show that there shouldn't be a double standard, and maybe to show how indulgence in alcohol can lead to lapses in judgment. But sexism even appears here, as Kermit says, like Webster, that she should warn girls of what can happen if not careful. Hanson says she will step down if the president wants, but she sticks to her guns that the sexual issue is not anybody’s business. Evans continues to support her, but urges a strong closing statement at the hearing.

Hanson finishes with a speech that emphasizes the issues. She believes in a basically liberal agenda: insure a woman’s right to choose; eliminate the death penalty; get rid of privately owned guns; maintain a strong military to fight genocide; make selling cigarettes to minors a Federal offense; institute campaign reforms and term limits. She goes on to say that she believes in the separation of church and state to protect the state from religious fanaticism. She says she may be an atheist, but she has faith in freedom and attends the church of democracy.

We have another bit of red herring flung our way as Webster again meets with Hanson and gives her Runyon’s file which contains a letter from someone who has come forth concerning the college scandal. He tells her she must publicly address the issue. (Once again, we have an act that one could say is disloyal as Webster becomes an informant, and again, the question arises is it possible that immediate allegiances must be put aside for the greater good?) The mystery is heightened when Willomina hands her report to the director of the FBI, but then also gives it to Kermit, who insures that no one else be informed of her findings. What is her assignment? Willomina pleads that Kermit not dump Hanson. Has she dug up dirt on her, and she doesn’t want it used?

The president meets with Runyon for dinner. (Runyon eats his masculine dish - steak). Runyon seems to have the upper hand, and tells Evans that a vote will just embarrass his presidency. He should just move on and pick someone else. Evans says he may have denied Runyon the chance to be president, but Runyon took away Evans’ legacy. Evans asks who would get a smooth confirmation, and Runyon says Hathaway. Evans says to ensure that Runyon won’t double-cross him, he says Runyon must come out ahead of time for Hathaway, and stake his reputation on supporting him. Runyon agrees, and the president says they will meet with Hathaway and Hanson before a state dinner. Runyon tells the press that he stakes his reputation on Hathaway being the best person for the job.

We now find out what has been really going on, and we are given a quick hint it isn’t good for Hathaway, since Kermit escorts his wife out of the meeting room. The president is still being disarming as he again orders food, and this time succeeds in his game of catching the chef unprepared because there is no muenster cheese for a sandwich. Evans drops a file which shows that Willomina’s investigation found that Hathaway had advertised in a magazine called Soldier of Fortune for someone to help him. He hired the woman, who was ex-military, to drive off of the bridge so he would be a hero when he saved her. Of course, the plan went wrong. He had placed sums of money for her in Las Vegas, and Willomina was investigating the drowned woman and Hathaway, not Hanson. The FBI director arrests Hathaway for negligent homicide. Runyon now realizes the president set him up. At the end of the scene, Evans comically says, “It’s a goddamn shame - about the muenster.”

After the dinner, the president and Hanson walk on the White House lawn in private as they share cigars, symbolic of accepting a woman on equal footing with a man. Evans says he would like to know, off the record, what really happened in college. Hanson admits that she was lonely in college and was willing to be recruited by the sorority. The initiation was to have sex with two frat brothers. She at first refused, but after some beers thought if men were supposed to have a sexual ritual to join a fraternity, why not the same for a woman. But, when she got there, she didn’t go through with it, and the naked woman in the photos couldn’t be her because she has a large birthmark on her thigh which was absent on the female in the pictures. Webster gave a copy of the same letter that he gave to Hanson to Evans. It contains a statement from a male who was there on the night of the sexual encounter which states that Hanson was not the woman involved. The president says that Webster may not know his right from his left (referring to political party allegiance), but he knows right from wrong, which again supports the film’s plea for allegiance to ideals that transcend party lines. Evans wants Hanson to use the evidence to refute Runyon’s allegations. But, Hanson continues to refuse to address the claims. She says that if it is okay for her to answer the questions of her sexual past, then it makes it okay for them to have raised the issue in the first place, and that would justify the double standard. It would be easier to get out of the situation if she refuted their claims, but she says that “Principles only mean something when you stick to them when it’s inconvenient.” One could argue that to really push the argument for obliteration of the double standard, the film could have made the allegations true and held that her past did not disqualify her from being vice president even in the audience’s mind.

Since Hanson will not prove publicly that the sex story was not true, Evans addresses a joint session of Congress. He knows that Runyon has the same letter as he does, and is thus, being deceitful. Runyon may be thinking that he is adhering to his principles, but the bad guys here are those whose ends do not justify their nasty means. Evans publicly calls out Runyon, who walks out, saying “have you no decency,” which was the accusation made against Joe McCarthy. The president says (and he could be addressing our situation today) that Congress was a traitor (disloyalty?) to truth, and allowed the possibility of making it difficult to “separate the demagogue from the truly inspired.” Runyon had said that Hanson did not show greatness. Evans now quotes Napoleon who said that “to get power you need to display absolute pettiness; to exercise power, you need to show true greatness.” He says that Hanson asked that her name be withdrawn, “not because she isn’t great, but because she isn’t petty.” He goes on to say that greatness sometimes “comes in the form of sacrifice.” That sacrifice is what Hanson is willing to endure. He says that there is no ego or hate in her, as opposed to those who would try to bring her down, and Evans can’t accept her withdrawal. He says nothing can stop an idea whose time has come, and it is time for a woman to reside in the executive branch of the the government. He says he should have exerted his will before, but now he asks for a roll call vote to confirm his nominee, whose acceptance is no longer in doubt.

The film ends with Hanson jogging at top speed, showing her will to succeed. In order to fight bigotry, you need a contender.

The next film is Rashomon.