Spotlight (2015)
R
5 Stars out of 5
Director Tom McCarthyWriter Tom McCarthy, Josh Singer
Cinematography Masanobu Takayanagi
Editing Tom McArdle
Music Howard Shore
Mark Ruffalo Mike Rezendes
Michael Keaton Walter Robinson (Robbie)
Rachel McAdams Sacha Pfeiffer
Liev Schreiber Marty Baron
John Slattery Ben Bradlee, Jr.
Stanley Tucci Mitchell Garabedian
“Spotlight” begins with a priest in trouble with the law for
child abuse. He is being held in a Police precinct holding area while in
another room, a second priest “counsels” the family of the children abused by
the first priest. A telling conversation takes place in an outer office by two
policemen; the older, more experienced policeman evinces little hope to the
younger cop that any real justice will take place in the back rooms. Shortly
thereafter, we the see accused priest being driven off with the second priest
in a dark limousine. No further views of the family are to be seen.
The movie jumps to the first day for a new editor at the
Boston Globe, Marty Baron (Liev Schreiber). The introduction of the new editor
unsettles the staff at the Globe as they are already fearful of layoffs, and
Baron coming as he does from Miami brings both the persona of the Outsider and the
reputation of a corporate axman, someone with a history of cutting costs by cutting
people. The use of the Outsider in this early phase and indeed throughout the
movie is extremely clever as it helps define the insularity of Boston. Despite
being in the Top 25 largest US cities, Boston (at least in this movie) is seen
to be a very homogenous city where the various powers in the city, the police,
the district attorney’s office, the press, and the Catholic Church all work so
closely together there is none of the expected checks and balances between
these forces. As this movie progresses, it becomes increasingly clear that
those working to (say) enforce the law or to prosecute the law in the name of the
city’s victims will instead in some cases work just as hard, perhaps harder to
help protect the name of the Catholic Church. The abuse victims that come to light as
the movie moves forward will be the unnamed collateral damage in the fight for
some greater good that by protecting the Church’s reputation will allow the
Church to provide.
As the staff of the Globe get to know their new editor it is
made quickly clear that while he is indeed there to review staffing versus
costs, he is also very interested in pushing the Globe’s investigative team,
Spotlight, into pursuing hard hitting stories. Early in his tenure, he wants them
to drop what they are doing and work on a story he had recently read in a Globe
column concerning a pedophile priest, Father John Geoghan. More to Baron’s
point though is the article’s coverage of a local lawyer’s, Mitchell Garabedian
(Stanley Tucci) assertion that the local Catholic Archbishop, Cardinal Bernard
Law (Len Cariou) has known of Geoghan’s activities for years and has been
covering them up. This dual focus of Spotlight’s investigative team (i.e.
individual priest pederasty vs. systemic cover-ups) will create some dramatic
tension on the Spotlight team as the members do not always have the same target
in mind. However, it also raises many disturbing questions; not the least of which
is “what are the Church’s priorities”?
“Spotlight” will now begin a fascinating journey as the
movie employ’s many Newspaper Movie clichés in its efforts to demonstrate the
tenacity and the tedium needed to research a problem. In this case, the team
will discover that the abuse of children by Catholic priests is an old problem,
one kept secret via the efforts of the Church and the complicity of the city’s
power brokers. They will discover that there are patterns in the choice of
victims, the heretofore successful efforts at cover-up, and the oftentimes
knowing decisions by those set up to protect the innocent to turn their gaze,
their concern away from the problem right before their eyes; worse, within
their power to do something about. Also complicit in the cover-up is the Globe
itself as the movie reveals that they have had in the past five years
information that they should have followed up on, but didn’t. Another curious
point made by the movie is that the Globe had less obviously incriminating
information in their own basement; they just needed the right stimulus to get
them to review the data. When they did start looking for patterns in those
basement books of the Church’s records for each priest in the Boston diocese,
they could see that the Church was moving certain priests far more frequently
than the average and they were using code words (e.g. sick leave) to conceal
the true reason for the move.
This is an excellent movie – there is no other way to
describe it. Director Tom McCarthy has set the pacing and use of camera angles
to expertly create a kind of tension that would not normally be expected from a
team of reporters poring over books in the Globe’s basement. McCarthy has also
in his command some of the year’s best acting. Michael Keaton as the Spotlight
team leader, “Robbie” Robinson is asked to portray a wide range of emotions as
he skirts his own loyalty and history to the Church as well as that to the
Globe and investigative journalism. He is shown to be torn as he realizes his
own role in the history of the problem; consider for example, the scene of his
return to his high school (ironically, directly across the street from the
Globe) to discuss with one of this former classmates a third classmate that had
been abused by a priest while a student at that school. The pull of his
conflicting loyalties play across his face in an astonishingly clear manner.
Another good pair of performance are by Spotlight team members Mike Rezendes
(Mark Ruffalo) and Sacha Pfeiffer (Rachel McAdams). McAdams must like Robbie balance
her own relationships to the Globe and in her case, to her Nana’s touchingly played
devotion to the Church. Ruffalo has a more influential role as he is the
ultimate author of the article. Additionally, he is apparently also battling
some internal demons. What these demons are is never made clear. Ruffalo plays
Rezendes as a man determined to expose the priests involved in the various
abuse cases. He flies from room to room, from airport to Justice Department
buildings and on to the Globe. His demeanor is of one possessed at times as he
screams out his frustrations at the slow pace of the investigation.
As good as the above acting is the best is by Schreiber. He
comes into the Globe and immediately takes charge. He is the Outsider, not a
Bostonian, not a Catholic, but he is in charge. What is most delightful about
his acting is the manner in which he takes control. An excellent example is the
initial meeting between Schreiber’s character, Marty and the Spotlight staff.
They want to stay on a story they working on the Boston P.D. Marty most clearly
wants them to move to the child abuse story. He does not rant, he does not
command, he suggests and comments. It is clear what he wants, and despite the
ever present reluctance of every Bostonian in this movie to challenge the
Church, that is exactly what he wants them to do. Schreiber’s character will
get his way with the Spotlight crew as he will with many others in the film,
but it is his calm, clear thinking and decided leadership that win him his
arguments. It is so refreshing to see actors acting like real people. This is
done from beginning to end in “Spotlight”.
“Spotlight” is as close to a perfect movie as I have seen in
several years. My only gripe is the casting of John Slattery as Chief Editor,
Ben Bradlee, Jr. His role is not critical to the movie’s success. It is
possible I cannot avoid seeing Slattery as “Madmen” executive Roger Sterling
due to my own limitations. Unfortunately, Slattery seems to be still playing
Sterling on several occasions in “Spotlight”. That being said, this movie is a
gem. It is worth seeing for the many technical merits of acting, directing, and
editing. But it is also quite clearly worth seeing for the questions it raises
regarding the Catholic Church’s decisions during this period. It is tempting to
condemn Cardinal Law’s behavior, but I came away wondering at his promotion to
the Church’s most prestigious church (Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore) following
his public disgrace in the wake of the Globe’s reporting. Was he rewarded with
the Rome posting for doing his job? If he was, what are the Church’s values
when they balance off the need to maintain the Church’s reputation with the
harm done to the abused children? I cannot fathom their motives. It is strongly
to McCarthy’s credit that “Spotlight” raises these questions. It is also curious
to examine the Church’s generally positive public responses to the movie. It
really leaves the viewer with the hope that these abhorrent problems are truly
a thing of the past and that the Church has learned from its errors. Time
will tell.
We saw it too - interesting enough, Thomas brought it home. The abuse of a child is horrific, to be done by the hands of a trusted adult brings it to a whole new level of hell. While I find the church's response depressing and alarming, is it much different than what is done in a family situation? Do families not try to deal with the abusive relative without call to attention for fear of shame and personal discomfort? Not to say these actions are positive and they only hurt children all the more, but it does seem to be the way so many deal with this issue.
ReplyDeleteWe liked it and hope to see some reform done - hopefully in the time of Pope Francis.
But as a movie, I detested Ruffalo's acting. Was he chewing gum? Did he have a marble stuck in his cheek? Weird mannerisms that were only a distraction in my opinion.
Several good points re the Church's behavior and Ruffalo's acting. Let's take first the easier one, Ruffalo's acting. I agree he was really agitated for reasons never explained in the movie: was he, too an abused child? It seems the best answer, but it is never made clear. Anyway, I chose to accept his agitation and just watched his actions to evaluate how well Ruffalo played a man on the edge - my opinion, he played him quite well. The harder point you raise is the Church's behavior. I choose to wonder about their agenda and priorities that are propelling their behavior. I think your explanation is a good one for the lower level officials that colluded in the cover-up, but from Cardinal Law upward, I am very skeptical. I think there was a plan, I just don't understand why it was decided that their priorities for the Church's reputation trumped the rights of the affected children. Anyway, that was to me the central point of the movie.
ReplyDelete