A Few Good Men (1992)
You can’t handle the truth!
THE SUMMARY: Two Marines are court-martialed on murder charges after a ‘code red’ gone wrong, and Navy lawyers navigate principle and practicality to defend them. As one would expect, it’s very dialogue-heavy, and even though I wasn’t thrilled with the ending, its moral complexity and an excellent performance from Jack Nicholson are enough to earn high marks.
FROM MOVIE-PICKER KYLE: A play translated to the screen, it's a solid courtroom drama set in the military. Great performances from fantastic actors, it also raises questions about duty and following orders, what priorities matter to you when you're in uniform and what it means to trust in those who give orders. Plus Jack Nicholson gives an all-timer performance.
THE BEST:
Jack Nicholson as Colonel Nathan Jessup: Obviously the ‘you can’t handle the truth!’ line is what everyone remembers about this movie, for good reason. It’s a legendary performance. But every scene he’s in is similarly good: the way he dominates Markinson in giving the code red order, the hilarious way he demands ‘asking nicely’ from Kaffee in his ‘f**goty white uniform,’ and of course, the way he appreciates the services of a commanding female officer. There is no scene in which Nicholson as Jessup underperforms. In perfect portrayal of the role, he commands attention every time he speaks, and it’s completely understandable why his orders, even questionable ones, would be followed.
You can’t handle the truth!
Services from a superior officer
About the white uniform
Conscience versus following orders: The core moral dilemma for the movie is quite obvious: when you face a conflict between an order you must follow, and your own conscience, which do you pick? Which should you pick? In two different ways, this movie picks both, which I originally found unsatisfying, but upon thought, I suppose is actually correct.
The first example of picking both orders and conscience is Dawson’s reason for committing the ‘code red’ on Santiago in the first place - he has a creed. His creed is loyalty to the Corps, and loyalty to his superiors. So by choosing to obey an order, Dawson is choosing his conscience as well. His entire predicament is an odd one - he wants to plead not guilty and stand trial because he obeyed an order, not because he has a conscientious objection to it.
The second example of picking both orders and conscience is the ending. I was expecting the jury to return with a full acquittal, in decisive demonstration that it’s always worthwhile to challenge authority in pursuit of the truth. But that doesn’t happen. On the murder charges, the Marines are cleared, but are then hit with generic ‘conduct unbecoming of a Marine’ convictions, and they get dishonorable discharges anyway - all that fighting on principle to win the most significant fight, only to lose a secondary one and pay a devastating price regardless.
Indeed, the split decision is difficult to rationalize - were the Marines exonerated on murder charges because they obeyed an order, but convicted on conduct because they should have shown better conscience? How can they do both?
That’s why I first found the ending unsatisfying - they stood on principle and lost anyway, and there was no clear way to win either. What were these Marines supposed to do - submit to murder charges, and likely face the same or similar punishment? Why is that a good message? Or, what even is the message?
The message is messy, and I don’t have it square in my head, but I think it’s that there is moral value and obligation in both following orders and conscience. Following orders is necessary for group cohesion in pursuit of a common good - without it, the effectiveness of a fighting force like the Marines vanishes. However, a moral void in leadership means those orders lack value or validity, and the force’s effectiveness suffers in that scenario too. The proper balance between those interests is never conclusively defined.
There is no clear message - that is the movie’s message. Moral conflicts aren’t neat or easy - they are the toughest human puzzle. Even though I wish this movie would help me solve that puzzle a little better, I appreciate the thought it inspires to seek the proper distinctions.
Even losing fights are worthwhile: I also appreciate the theme that even losing fights are worthwhile. The truth is exposed, Kaffee learns his true potential as a lawyer, and Dawson maintains his integrity, Marine uniform or not. There is value in a fight that technically isn’t won, demonstrating that the effort of losing on your feet is always better than the surrender of losing on your knees. Unless you’re Jessup’s commanding officer - then absolutely get on your knees.
Is Jessup actually right about ‘code reds?’: We’re supposed to view him as a villain: a man lacking a moral core, a man who responds to weakness with abuse, and a man who prides himself on his advancement over others above other considerations. To the extent his approach results in an unjustified death, it certainly deserves criticism and accountability, but is it possible he’s right about his reasons too? Is it possible our culture is overcorrecting against his philosophy in a direction of weakness that will also get people killed unjustifiably?
Jessup explains his decision to Markinson using exactly this logic, that sending an underperforming Marine to a new unit doesn’t help anybody - it just puts his new unit at risk. The only solution is to bring that Marine up to standard, and the only way to do that is accountability among that Marine’s peers. Even if it produced a poor result this time, it’s a reasonable argument that is quite possibly correct in most instances.
To the argument’s broadest point, we don’t do anybody favors by catering to weakness, and certainly there’s no place where that’s more true than in a military unit. Even if Jessup’s morality is bent, I think there are worse directions for that bending - directions our military is currently exploring today.
The intro rifle routine: What discipline and performance. It was amazing to watch.
I just wanna know how many takes were needed
THE WORST:
Get ready for a whole lot of talking: I don’t fault the movie for being almost exclusively dialogue - there’s really no other way to make a courtroom drama. It’s the nature of the genre. It’s just that if you’re not in the mood for faces yapping for over two hours, even excellence in that field can drag a bit. And as the next two points explain, some talking is much more excellent than others.
Drunk-driving Tom Cruise: I think Tom did a good job in this movie, and to be fair, almost nobody will shine in contrast to what Nicholson does in it. However, there are several moments of Tom overacting. Weird abrupt rage, out of place yelling, and just erratic emotions from a character who is supposed to be somewhat careless and unconcerned. The apex of the overacting is Kaffee’s drunk scene. It comes off as more Jim Carrey-style comedy than authentically believable anger and frustration. I laughed out loud when he gnashed his teeth and shoved the papers and books off the table.
I suppose it can be defended by the heat of the moment - his case falling apart, his love interest questioning his manhood, and the pressure of having to put his career at risk in order to win. But whatever logic there is to it falls apart when Kaffee, ostensibly worried about a career-ending court martial for smearing Jessup, hops his drunk ass right into a car to chase down Galloway. Not a good career move there, either.
Implied romance not needed and goes nowhere: There’s a constant tension and implied romance between Kaffee and Galloway, including a brief date at Galloway’s request, but it never goes anywhere, it gets no resolution in the end, and it hardly serves the plot. In fairness, Galloway’s faith in Kaffee despite his flaws is clearly an encouraging factor for him, so it wouldn’t be correct to say it’s irrelevant, but their romance never really develops either. Maybe I’ve just seen enough grandma hairstyles, military-mandated or not. After Lewis in Robocop last week, I don’t need any more unnecessary frumpy love interests.
THE RATING: 4/5 Wickies. Some excellence. Some cringe. But I thought about it a lot later, and that’s how I award Wickies.
YOUR RATING: Vote here ⬇
NEXT WEEK: The Jerk (1979)
AFTER THAT? YOU PICK - VOTE! June’s movie nominations are from listener Kyle - this is the last week to vote on this list before the list refreshes for July.
Want to be the movie nominator for the month? Here’s how - fill out the form below.