Ok I am really confused RE: Garvin
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Disclosure
Wardman3 — 10 years ago(March 10, 2016 04:14 PM)
So Garvin is in on the whole deceitfulness from the beginning.. He is involved in a ploy to get ride of Sanders. Correct? So why does this seemingly get swept under the carpet at the end. It makes it seem like he bears zero responsibility. He appoints Stephanie and all is well in Digicom land So why didnt Sanders call him out on this? Why would he continue to want to work under his authority? The ending seems out of place completely. Everyone is happy with the outcome
-
DeviousPheonix — 9 years ago(April 06, 2016 06:43 PM)
All multi-million companies get rid of staff. It didn't matter at all if Sanders was doing a great job. It's all about profit, down-sizing and getting caught in the middle.
It really didn't matter that they wanted Sanders gone, it was about how they were going to achieve it. -
Wardman3 — 9 years ago(April 07, 2016 11:12 PM)
You and I are on the same page, Trespalmas It just didnt make any sense to me. The whole Garvin involvement seemingly got swept right under the rug..If we were to imagine a continuation of life at Digicom after the party ended, why would Sanders want to stay knowing all this What would make him want to put his faith and trust into Garvin?
-
Okeelani — 9 years ago(April 13, 2016 08:05 AM)
Why would he want to remain working for Garvin?
Simple, what choice does he have? Garvin is the boss. He may be a jerk.but he is still the boss, and if Tom wants to work at DigiCom, he's stuck working for a jerk. Happens all the time. The end. -
Goose Boy — 9 years ago(April 20, 2016 12:08 PM)
I always thought they wanted to get rid of Sanders to cover for Meredith's mistakes. She made those changes to their line that saved money, and impressed some people leading to her big rise, but ended up being more costly in the long run. When those costs started to become known they had to cover the rising star before the merger and since that was technically Sanders responsibility they wanted to put it on him (after he was gone and couldn't defend himself). That was the impression I got.
As for Garvin's involvement, I think he wanted Sanders gone to protect Meridith but wasn't in on the whole scheme that Phil and Meredith were working. Also, I think in the book Meredith presented herself a little bit like Garvin's dead daughter, so he may have had some blinders on concerning her until everything came out at the end.
It's been a while since I saw the movie, and even longer since I read the book so my memory of it may be fuzzy. -
mmitsos-1 — 9 years ago(May 21, 2016 01:37 PM)
Don't bother wracking your brain over this worthless piece of pulp film fiction CRAP. I usually like Barry Levinson, but this is one of the most ridiculous, over-the-top portrayals of Corporate America, including the whole sendup of the fictitious company "Digicom", and ball-breaking femme fatale Meredith (Demi Moore).
-
al666940 — 9 years ago(November 20, 2016 09:34 AM)
"So Garvin is in on the whole deceitfulness from the beginning"
WRONG. He was not in on it. The book clearly spell out that he told her to close the deal any way she had too, and then she got the idea of:- sleeping with the Connely & White main negotiator (not in the movie)
- cutting corners (to cut costs) and blaming them later on Tom after the merger.
Garvin was simply pushing hr to get it done, but she didn't fill him in on those details, only Blackburn. Which is why he also gets sacked in the book.
If he were in on it, why would he demand Meredith to tell him EXACTLY what happened? Even tossing aside her answer "Already told that to Phil (the lawyer)" with "You're not talking to Phil, we believe there's a recording".
And once she's forced to come clean, THEN he picks up Sanders to dive him to the hearing so that both can have their private chat.
I mean, he clearly found out about the sexual harassment charge being bogus then and there.
That's why Sanders can still afford to stay there.