Spotlight (3 paragraphs)

[August1991]

First of all, this movie is riveting. As I watched it on the big cinema screen without subtitles, I was riveted to my seat, my eyes were glued to the screen and my ears strained to hear the dialogue. The script is crisp and Keaton is not crazy; Ruffalo is not a romcom foil. Very well cast. For once, I see close-ups (and even the shakey cinema verite) used wisely. And thank God, no GGI or if there's post-production, it serves the art.

This film has a major fault: it doesn't "explain" the Catholic Church perception of these events. (Instead, American Protestant style, the film is a white hat/black hat story.) In fact, in the mind of Catholic priests or even this current Pope, they are doing God's greater work and hence they are infallible. Or God's Son will judge their weakness in His divine light. Or, what does this current Pope think exactly...

If I had to choose between Spotlight or "All the President's Men"? Hand's down: Spotlight. This is how I understand journalism and politics. But if someone asked me to explain this story accurately? I would choose "Chinatown".

Edited December 10, 2015 by August1991

[overthere]

his film has a major fault: it doesn't "explain" the Catholic Church perception of these events. (Instead, American Protestant style, the film is a white hat/black hat story.) I

It is a strength of the movie.

The reaction of the Church is central to the story. Did you miss all the numerous scenes where the Church management and its proxies exert pressure on the newspaper to deflect and shut down the story? The perception of the Church was the story of the movie, their attitude and actions were what allowed it to happen. Catch a priest buggering children? Move him. Does it again? Move him again.

Regarding black hat/white hat, how else do you depict the systematic and insitituional rape of children? Are the children somehow to blame? I'm curious to hear how you would explain the actions of the priests, and the actions of their employers, in a more positive way.

What i find interesting is the Church reaction to Spotlight, which has been mostly to thank the producers for bringing this to the attention of the public. Pretty restrained overall. Another interesting aspect is that the movie does not sensationalize the horrific events, there are no tedious repetitive scenes of assaults, tears, victims. It is an account of the story, an exposure of the means by which the Church effectively condoned the horrific activities of many of their staff, not an expllicit exposition of child rapists or their victims.

A sobering moment, not that one is needed, is the unadorned list of the very numerous places in the USA and internationally where the Boston exposure led to criminal investigations or abuse. It also notes what happened to the Catholic management involved in this instance, which was either to be shuffled off again, promoted, or both.

Good movie.

[August1991]

It is a strength of the movie.

The reaction of the Church is central to the story. Did you miss all the numerous scenes where the Church management and its proxies exert pressure on the newspaper to deflect and shut down the story?

On the contrary, the movie presents the Catholic Church reaction as a "protestant white hat/black hat" story. The good guys are the journalists and the bad guys are, well, the priests.

====

Several years ago, and maybe still now, Netflix offered a documentary: Deliver Us From Evil. This documentary makes plain the viewpoint of the Catholic Church: "Our priests exist for a higher purpose."

Sadly, the movie Spotlight entirely missed (typical of modern Hollywood, and most modern journalists) this far greater dramatic question.

Edited December 15, 2015 by August1991

[overthere]

On the contrary, the movie presents the Catholic Church reaction as a "protestant white hat/black hat" story. The good guys are the journalists and the bad guys are, well, the priests.

====

Several years ago, and maybe still now, Netflix offered a documentary: Deliver Us From Evil. This documentary makes plain the viewpoint of the Catholic Church: "Our priests exist for a higher purpose."

Sadly, the movie Spotlight entirely missed (typical of modern Hollywood, and most modern journalists) this far greater dramatic question.

No, the treatment of the Church was subdued and factual.

If they were going black hat/white hat they'd have had shots of anal rape and sobbing children clutching crosses.

The movie is pretty balanced, which makes it much better.

It is a story about a story. not the story itself.

[August1991]

No, the treatment of the Church was subdued and factual.

If they were going black hat/white hat they'd have had shots of anal rape and sobbing children clutching crosses.

Subdued and factual? My objection was that Spotlight did not present the rationalization of the priests.

Without that, as any victim of crime will say, you have no story. If you don't understand me, read Dostoievski.

Edited December 18, 2015 by August1991

[overthere]

Subdued and factual? My objection was that Spotlight did not present the rationalization of the priests.

Without that, as any victim of crime will say, you have no story. If you don't understand me, read Dostoievski.

The movie was not about the Church, the priests, or their angles, so you missed the point of it.

It is a story about the story.

If you don't understand me, watch the movie again.

[August1991]

The movie was not about the Church, the priests, or their angles, so you missed the point of it.

It is a story about the story.

If you don't understand me, watch the movie again.

Huh?

Protestants/Lutherans view Life simply as a good/bad thing: Manichean. Catholics view Life as good/bad but with a higher purpose: family or whatever.

When I have asked Muslims about Life (practicing, Shiite, Sunnite), I recall one good answer: "You Christians care about what's right. We Muslims are not afraid of pleasure."

Edited January 7, 2016 by August1991

[overthere]

Look up. Way up. It is all over your head, like a 747 vapour trail.

[August1991]

Look up. Way up. It is all over your head, like a 747 vapour trail.

What's your point? (Life is short but I appreciate sarcasm and irony.)

====

As to vapour trails, I was walking home the other day and saw a plane flying over Montreal. I saw a vapour trail and three ideas ran through my mind.

First, at 10000 metres (10 km), it's hard to see anything. (The island of Montreal is about 10km wide. If I were standing in Anjou, I could not see anything in Verdun. I might be able to see the cross on the mountain.)

Second, I understood that what I saw (the vapour trail) was cooled air: the Bernouli principle. It was not CO2.

Third, I know there's a large plane. Who are these people in this plane, and why are they going from here to there?

Edited January 9, 2016 by August1991

[overthere]

Third, I know there's a large plane. Who are these people in this plane, and why are they going from here to there?

It is one of the missing aircraft from 9/11, the one that did not hit the Pentagon. They have been flying aimlessly concealing the vast conspiracy for over 14 years now. There have been several deaths and several births onboard since, its like a flying mini-Woodstock.

[Michael Hardner]

The thread drift's drift - which had drifted away from the thread drift - has now drifted.

I will remove any post not about the movie - start a thread about cloud shapes if you like.

[August1991]

The thread drift's drift - which had drifted away from the thread drift - has now drifted.

I will remove any post not about the movie - start a thread about cloud shapes if you like.

Point well taken. As the kids say, my bad.

The movie was not about the Church, the priests, or their angles, so you missed the point of it.

It is a story about the story.

If you don't understand me, watch the movie again.

A story about a story? No, as any good newsman will tell you, it's the story.

And this movie missed the other side.

Edited January 25, 2016 by August1991