The title refers to one of the defenses against libeldefamation. It is used in journalism classes to illustrate the conflict between disclosing damaging personal information and the public's right to know.[1]
Plot
Miami liquor wholesaler Michael Gallagher, the son of a deceased criminal, awakens to find himself a front-page story in the local newspaper. The paper indicates that he is being investigated in the disappearance and presumed murder of a longshoremans' union official, Joey Diaz.
The story was written by Miami Standard newspaper reporter Megan Carter. She acquired it from reading a file left intentionally on the desktop of federal prosecutor Elliot Rosen, who is doing a bogus investigation. He leaked it in order to squeeze Gallagher for information.
Gallagher comes to the newspaper's office trying to discover Carter's basis for the story, but the reporter does not reveal her source. Gallagher's business is shut down by union officials, who are suspicious of him since he has been implicated in Diaz's murder. Gallagher's uncle, local crime boss Malderone, has him followed in case he talks to the government.
Teresa Perrone, a friend of Gallagher, tells Carter that Gallagher could not have killed Diaz because he took her out of town to get an abortion that weekend. A devout Catholic, she does not want Carter to reveal the abortion, but she includes it in the story anyway.
The paper's editor tells Carter that Perrone has died by suicide. Carter goes to Gallagher to apologize, but he physically assaults her. She attempts to make it up to him by revealing Rosen's role in the investigation.
Gallagher hatches a plan for revenge. He arranges a secret meeting with District Attorney Quinn, offering to use his organized-crime contacts to give Quinn information on Diaz's murder in exchange for the D.A. calling off the investigation and issuing a statement clearing him. He also makes anonymous contributions to one of Quinn's political action committee backers and then he and Carter begin a love affair.
Rosen is mystified by Quinn's exoneration of Gallagher, so he places phone taps on both and surveils their movements. He and federal agent Bob Waddell obtain evidence of Gallagher's donations to Quinn's political committee. They also find out about Gallagher and Carter's relationship. Waddell, as a friend, warns Carter about the investigation, but she breaks the story that the federal strike force is investigating Gallagher's attempt to bribe the D.A.
The story makes the front page again and causes an uproar over the investigation of the district attorney. Assistant US Attorney General Wells
calls the principals together and offers them a choice between going before a grand jury or informally making their case to him. Rosen questions Gallagher but it becomes apparent that he has no case, and Carter reveals that Rosen left Gallagher's file open on his desk for her to read.
Wells suggests that Quinn resign because Gallagher's legal donations to Quinn’s political committee cast suspicions on his motives in issuing his statement clearing Gallagher. Wells also suspects that Gallagher set everything up but cannot prove it, so he will not investigate further. Finally, he fires Rosen for malfeasance. The newspaper prints a story written by a different reporter revealing details of the incidents.
The final scene shows Carter and Gallagher having a cordial conversation on the wharf where Gallagher's boat is docked before he sails away and leaves the city.
The movie was written by Kurt Luedtke, a former newspaper editor, and David Rayfiel (uncredited).[2] Newman said that the film was a "direct attack on the New York Post," which had earlier published a caption for a photo of Newman that he said was inaccurate. Because of the dispute, the Post banned Newman from its pages, even removing his name from movies in the TV listings.[3]
Reception
Critical response
Absence of Malice received mostly positive reviews. Newman and Dillon's performances were praised, as was Brimley's cameo. Many reviewers compared the film to the 1976 Oscar-winner All the President's Men. In his review, Time magazine's Richard Schickel wrote "Absence of Malice does not invalidate All the President's Men. But with entertainment values – and a moral sense – every bit as high as that film's, it observes that there is an underside to journalistic gallantry."[4] Similarly, Variety called it "a splendidly disturbing look at the power of sloppy reporting to inflict harm on the innocent."[5]
The Chicago Sun-Times' Roger Ebert wrote that some may take the approach "that no respectable journalist would ever do the things that Sally Field does about, to, and with Paul Newman in this movie. She is a disgrace to her profession." Instead he preferred a "romantic" approach, writing that he "liked this movie despite its factual and ethical problems" and was not "even so sure they matter so much to most viewers".[6] Janet Maslin of The New York Times found the movie "lacking in momentum", but praised its "quiet gravity".[7] Dave Kehr of the Chicago Reader disliked Absence of Malice, writing that "the picture has a smug, demoralizing sense of pervasive corruption".[8] Although Pauline Kael described the film as only "moderately entertaining", she offered higher praise for Newman's "sly, compact performance" and particularly for "the marvelously inventive acting of Melinda Dillon".[9]
Rotten Tomatoes gives the film a score of 81% based on reviews from 27 critics, with an average score of 6.8/10.[10]
Academic use
Absence of Malice has been used in journalism and public administration courses to illustrate professional errors such as writing a story without seeking confirmation and having a romantic relationship with a source.[11][12][13]
Box office
The film was a box office success. Film Comment said "It was the first picture in ages that had Newman playing opposite a strong female co-star in a romantic vein and Columbia astutely capitalized on public desire to see Newman in such a role again."[14]
