Spotlight (Tom McCarthy)

[Ezee E]

http://c.o0bg.com/rf/image_585w/Boston/2011-2020/2015/08/19/BostonGlobe.com/Lifestyle/Images/spotlight.JPG

IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1895587/?ref_=nv_sr_1)

[Watashi]

http://www.impawards.com/2015/posters/spotlight_ver2.jpg

[Watashi]

Here's your Best Picture winner. Calling it now.

It's very good. McCarthy's techniques doesn't match the aesthetic scope of an All the President's Men or Zodiac when it comes to capturing the restlessness of investigating journalism, but it hits its beats well. The subject matter keeps it afloat. The only performance that really stuck with me afterwards is Liev Schrieber.

[Mal]

YES LIEV WAS SO GOOD. but this movie was sooooooooooooo been-there done-that. Just like Black Mass. Damn you, disappointingly average Boston films.
Stanley Tucci or Mark Ruffalo Oscar? One of those could happen.

[Irish]

This was extraordinary.

I think Watashi's right -- at least, it had better win Best Pic. I can't see anything else coming close to it.

Visually, it's dull. But this is an all-star cast and every single member of the ensemble does great work.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Watashi's right, there's nothing here form-busting. If anything, the style borders on banal. But like the journalists at its center, it's just good, honest work. A piece by piece accumulation, a strong story at its core, devastating in its final moments - the black text on-screen at the end brought me to tears, my eyes primed by the final image and almost-final line:

When Matt said, "They're almost all victims, Robbie," that's when composure started to drop.

Those calling it the best of the year have some cause for doing so. If this takes it over Fury Road (whose nom isn't even guaranteed), I'd disagree, but I wouldn't be upset for a second.

[Watashi]

I really disliked the subplot of the journalist finding out one of the priest was his neighbors. It was an unnecessary way of saying "child molesters are all around you!" It's only purpose was to serve as a lousy punchline at the end.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I really disliked the subplot of the journalist finding out one of the priest was his neighbors. It was an unnecessary way of saying "child molesters are all around you!" It's only purpose was to serve as a lousy punchline at the end.

It kinda touches on the underlying dilemma of how waiting on the story is tantamount to endangering kids, and it gives the guy a thing to do. You're right that it's one of the lesser threads of the story, for sure.

[Henry Gale]

Ok so this is the sort of Oscar-season movie I go into pretty trepidatiously (and back before its buzz really started, I skipped it at TIFF, and not just since it was one year after The Cobbler was there), assuming I'll start to see where its praise comes from but not connecting to it as it hits certain beats just fine, showcases enough performances and highlights social issues prominently enough, but ultimately doing very little for me. But whaddya know, it's actually a very strong film that just super-efficiently tells its story in very succinct (if not always the most ambitious) cinematic terms.

That arguably bland style you guys mention was especially a concern of mine from the ads and other footage I'd seen, but I feel like that's almost its intention in a weird way. McCarthy's never been flashy with his camera or even how he populates his frame, but I guess if we're going to go the inevitable comparison of what this year of film could represent simply using the cinematic form to Fury Road's visceral and emotional dreamscape, obviously almost anything is going to suffer on such terms.

Still, you get these sudden shots like the one where Keaton and McAdams walk from the school back to the Globe, or this one (https://pmcvariety.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/6-spotlight.jpg?w=670) that just sneak up on you and provide such a haunting, foreboding atmosphere amongst the movie's feeling of a perpetual gloomy, overcast autumn (despite taking place over months and months, working both thematically and visually) that you realize its "realism" maybe isn't very realistic at all, representing a sort of denial of social reality its 2001/2002 might've felt before this story (or 9/11) ever came about.

The performances are all, again, very efficient. Aside from Schreiber (who I do agree was very nuanced in a role that maybe could've just read as timid and calculating) I was weirdly most impressed by McAdams and Brian D'Arcy James, kinda just personifying quiet conviction, particularly in the scenes they say next to nothing speaking wonders, which not many characters in this rightfully talky movie are given the chance to do. I also really liked Tucci, and I've recently realized I kinda always do, even if his role is transparently written in a way for you to just feel the arc of how he's shown on screen, going from perceived hardass to someone fairly broken by his work.

For the first 15 or so minutes I had no idea what Keaton's accent or Ruffalo were doing in general. I eventually came around to their work in it though, particularly Keaton.


I really disliked the subplot of the journalist finding out one of the priest was his neighbors. It was an unnecessary way of saying "child molesters are all around you!" It's only purpose was to serve as a lousy punchline at the end.

I agree with the payoff being on the weak side, but the initial shot of him storming out in the middle of the night is one of the things that's most stayed with me, and definitely speaks to where I felt the movie's style being very consciously reserved let flourishes like that stand out even more.

Basically, I too won't be mad if this wins every award in sight in the coming months, but the unexpected twist of Mad Max suddenly miraculously having a chance at similar recognition is going to make my feelings a lot more complex.

[number8]

Regarding the style, I have a feeling McCarthy absorbed some of it from his time in The Wire season 5.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Regarding the style, I have a feeling McCarthy absorbed some of it from his time in The Wire season 5.

Good call. That explains why them using rulers and yearbooks is one of the most riveting scenes of the entire film.

[Spinal]

This movie should be called Button Down Shirts. So many button down shirts.

Also, it's hard to shake the suspicion that Ruffalo got an Oscar nomination over Schreiber or Tucci or Keaton because he had a scene where he was yelling and the others didn't.

[Morris Schæffer]

This movie should be called Button Down Shirts. So many button down shirts.

Also, it's hard to shake the suspicion that Ruffalo got an Oscar nomination over Schreiber or Tucci or Keaton because he had a scene where he was yelling and the others didn't.

that's probably how that whole "there are no black people nominated" uproar erupted. Over Ruffalo's yelling. I loved this movie, but that scene stood out like a sore thumb.

[Henry Gale]

Also, it's hard to shake the suspicion that Ruffalo got an Oscar nomination over Schreiber or Tucci or Keaton because he had a scene where he was yelling and the others didn't.

Take a wild guess as to which scene they've used as his awards clip on every single show so far this season!

I agree that the three you mentioned are much stronger in the movie and also with Morris that the shout-y Ruffalo scene felt tonally off from the established, rightfully muted mood it had taken on for the rest of it.

[DavidSeven]

I like that the film doesn't venture into myth-making for its characters. No one is made to be implausibly bright or humane. No invented personal scenarios to garner our sympathy or add depth. It's just normal people doing good work. It's an already-compelling story brought to life with modesty and fidelity to the facts.

The storytelling is really laudable. There doesn't seem to be many contrivances, if any. No bullshit obstacles added to manufacture tension. No Hollywood grandstanding, except for a late and unfortunately off-tone outburst by Ruffalo's Rezendes. It's stylistically boring, but you can say that about a lot of investigative journalism. Sometimes clear and concise presentation of meticulous research is noteworthy, too. Whether or not McCarthy lucked into this meta aspect is probably up for debate -- given his historically invisible personal imprint -- but it works in the film's favor regardless.

I wish the film hard more room to delve into psychological/institutional root causes of something so pandemic. It's touched on, but more substance here might have made the film more intellectually compelling and perhaps more balanced on the whole. As is, it's aggressively solid and impressive mostly for its journalistic-like consistency.

[Grouchy]

Not a particularly memorable piece of work, but for Oscar bait it's pretty good. It trumps stuff like Argo or The King's Speech at the very least.