Skip to main content

Shining a Spotlight

In 2001, the Boston Globe’s “Spotlight” team of investigative journalists uncovered a plethora of cases of child sexual abuse within Boston Catholic churches. They won a Pulitzer in 2003 and their findings led to thousands of victims coming forward and a worldwide scandal for the Catholic Church.
The movie Spotlight tells their story and it’s discomforting in the best way. The film is told with a seriousness that almost feels like a documentary, the performances are very straightforward -never too passionate, and the tone is incredibly grim. But this is a story that really warrants that kind of presentation.
The Spotlight team of the Boston Globe are investigative journalists whose stories are deeply researched and can take almost a year to publish. When the paper’s new editor (Liev Schreiber) takes over he encourages the team to follow a small story about a paedophile priest. The team played by Michael Keaton, Mark Ruffalo, Rachel McAdams, John Slattery, and Brian d’Arcy James, eventually find a larger pattern of priest sexual abuse cases and a cover-up by both the Archdiocese and their legal authorities. Also that their own paper may have had evidence of these revelations that was ignored in the past.
This is one of those movies that despite not having a lot of action or major stakes for the protagonists, is unbelievably engrossing and as I said, very uncomfortable. It has one of the most disturbing opening scenes in a film and from there on it just flows so naturally. The tone is concerned with presenting the facts as they come up and in frightening details. The scale of the discoveries is never compromised and as the journalists and audience learn more about the situations from various victims, it’s easy to become enraged. I also appreciate the portrayal of the actual journalism. It does get tedious at times but that is investigative journalism. There’s a lot of research to be done, verifying of sources, being sure they get all they need and that it’s correct before publishing. And because of the magnitude of this kind of uncovering you really feel that they were right in taking their time, that they pursued more allegations even after they’d discovered more than enough, as it paid off all the more in the end. And there’s a need for justice to be brought to the victims.
The performances of the victims are really good. The psychology and behaviour of these characters almost convinces you they really were victims of molestation. Particularly so is a gay man who recounts a disturbing story about coming out to his priest and a tortured man who explains the spiritual ramifications he felt at the hands of his abuser. The main performances are very toned down and real. When the team reacts they do so with genuine but subdued expressions of shock that aren’t over-the-top. Ruffalo, Keaton, and McAdams still stand out and deliver terrific performances. In fact the ensemble itself is absolutely superb. The cast also includes Stanley Tucci, Billy Crudup, and Len Cariou.
But something else I really admire is how easy it could have been for this film to be anti-Catholic, yet it stays away from attacking Catholicism. Religious beliefs rarely factor into this film and they make it clear it’s more the people and institution they’re after. Many of the characters come from Catholic backgrounds and actually have fond memories of the church making their discoveries harder to take. There’s also a development that lays some blame on the Globe itself. With a story that could easily vilify and alienate the Catholic church, it’s great that this film tried its hardest not to do that.
Spotlight is the next generation’s All the President’s Men. Only it’s more dramatic and disturbing. Director Tom McCarthy really constructs this film smartly with a focus and tone that is perfect for the subject matter. It’s straightforward and effective without being exploitative or underplayed. It’s one of the best executed films of the year, it’s got a great ensemble, excellent writing, and it’s cringe-worthy -which for a film like this is actually a compliment.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...
Post a Comment
Read more