Transcription
Matt Graver. "Have a seat."
Matt is in a tough spot. He is literally surrounded by people with more authority than him. He doesn't say a single word for the first 40 seconds of this meeting, but by the end completely dominates the discussion. This scene from Sicario is an incredible example of conversational precision. These films are noted for their very human characters, and it seems like this proves why. This is how you walk the tightrope of expertise and tact.
"What do you think is the most valuable commodity that cartels move across our borders?"
This is a question about what's changed, which is why he answers like this. "20 years ago, cocaine. Uh, today I'd have to say it'd be people. It's a resource they don't have to cultivate or process, and they don't make it across; they can pay it across again at three times the price of a kilo."
Matt first looks to his boss, a subtle acknowledgement of the existing chain of command. He then answers comfortably and matter-of-fact. He represents that he has a solid factual understanding of the situation, and the rest of his body language indicates this as well. More than his words, notice his posture. He's sitting open, completely relaxed. His answer mirrors the tone of the question. He's direct, clear, and backs up his statements with substance by describing the value of why cartels made this change. This subtle nod is also very strong. Because the brain associates the vertical head movement with "yes" and "truth," the physical act of nodding can actually add credibility. When the body's non-verbal gestures match the verbal communication, the brain processes this information more efficiently. This makes the speaker look and feel more authoritative.
"How would you define terrorism, Mr. Graver?"
A second question that also frames the conversation. We're talking about cartels and terrorism. Clearly, this group has had a discussion and wants to learn Matt's knowledge base and how he thinks. Really, what they want to know is what kind of man is he?
"I think that's your job, sir."
Instead of attempting a definition, Matt knows his interpretation doesn't matter. Instead, he captures an opportunity. By deferring back to the secretary, he signals that he is here to follow their lead. In a conversation with superiors you're meeting for the first time, this is incredibly useful to indicate early. Because these guys don't know if you're on their team yet. Add in this smile, and the subtext is that I will follow your lead with a smile. The secretary goes on to define terrorism and shares their thoughts on how to proceed, but it's all very vague. Matt sits quietly and listens, which is an underrated superpower. There is even this pause where Matt waits to make sure they're done before he speaks.
"Striking your enemies is a whole hell of a lot easier if they're fighting each other. I'll do whatever you need. Just point the way."
"Point the way" is a subtle ask to be more clear about what it is that they want, framed in the language of cooperation. Matt is saying he doesn't know what they want him to do yet, but will follow orders.
"Do you have any thoughts?"
Now Matt's purpose is clear. They didn't just call him in to execute a plan; they want him to come up with the plan, too.
"No, wouldn't take out a cartel leader and turn one cartel into 50. Besides, killing kings doesn't start wars, it ends them."
Matt says, albeit in a convincing conversational tone, that all too familiar AI cadence. Not this, but this: "Killing kings doesn't start wars, it ends them."
Psychologically, the human brain favors information that is clear, smooth, and predictable. When people use this rhythmic structure, it triggers the fluency heuristic, a cognitive shortcut where our brains automatically assign higher credibility and engagement to clear, well-structured output. Though it can work, like the way I did it just a few seconds ago, they didn't just call him in to execute a plan; they want him to come up with the plan, too. It's a widely recognized pattern. AI has made this cadence sound inauthentic. It might be best to avoid this cadence unless you sound like a robot. But speaking to the substance of what Matt is saying, he's calling out what will not work, which is where he gains authority. Similar to the cadence, if that is the wrong answer, the audience will be asking, "What is the right answer?"
"That's our concern."
"Mhm."
"That statement is a subtle turn of authority. This gives Matt the leeway to ask some questions about surveillance, and he learns that they are watching one of their targets' families."
"Any kids?"
Matt's hand covers his mouth when he says "kids," which is such superior acting from Josh Brolin. In character, it's like his body is moving independently, as if to stop his mouth from saying "kids," but it moves fast, indicating that he understands the morally dubious thing he's about to suggest, and is prepared to move past that and do it anyway.
"Two. What's the age of the youngest?"
"16."
"16."
A heavy silence goes over the room because they all understand the implication. That is until Matt breaks it with what everyone is already thinking. "Yeah, if you want to start a war, kidnap a prince. Kang will start it for you."
Kidnapping a child as part of a US operation has massive geopolitical consequences, and it's just generally an intense way to solve a problem.
"You did this sort of thing in the Middle East."
"Mhm."
"You think those tactics will work here?"
The secretary's face says it all. He is morally conflicted, but just like Matt, he isn't conflicted enough to stop the meeting or change directions. He just wants reassurance.
"If you wanted to, sir."
Matt is willing to do this, but does not back down from directly stating that this is your decision to make. He holds direct eye contact, but notably without judgment. He is just making clear where the responsibility of this operation will land. Silent acceptance from the secretary increases the tension of this meeting, but it's stemming just from him. The other officers don't appear to have this issue.
"It's..."
"You're going to hire on the outside. And the same goes for your supply train and for air support."
The guys on the couch quickly move to logistics, clearly unbothered by the morality of the operation. The secretary, though, is still considering consequences.
"And I don't need to remind you what happens if they figure out that it's us."
Matt has a read on the whole room and is unfazed by the tension. It doesn't throw him off at all. His concern is everyone on the same page about what the ask is here. So he goes to look for verbal confirmation.
"Just to be clear, you want to see this thing through? I'm going to have to get dirty."
"Dirty is exactly why you're here."
This conversation is a masterclass of how to command a room when you know more than your superiors. He starts confident to the point of almost playful. As the seriousness and tension rises, he meets the moment by listening first, then removing options. This says, without saying, "I heard what you want, and I have the answers you seek." This goes a long way to increase his value in the meeting. He then describes a path forward but does not tell anyone what to do. In the end, he did everything. He identified the problem, he came up with the solution, and didn't overstep or overshare more than necessary.
But if you take one thing from this video, let it be the power of strategic deference. Matt is constantly reaffirming he is the subordinate here, here to do whatever the group decides. He says this outright three times. By affirming this over and over, he builds cumulative credibility. By the end of the meeting, his subordinate framing makes his plan feel like their idea. This shows you're on the team, but goes deeper to make it very clear you're on their team. This puts you in the best position to either accept or refuse their mission, job, or offer. 'Cause it doesn't really matter who makes the final decision if it's your plan executed your way. Thanks for watching.