'If it takes a village to raise a child, it takes a village to abuse one'
'Its like everybody already knows the story'
Spotlight 8.7
The first scene shows the attitude of most people at the time. A priest is in police custody, his defense arrives and asks for the press to be kept away, and the police dismiss the case as if there will not be a trial. Significantly the next thing we see is another priest talking to two to children about removing the priest in custody from the church. This could be to show only a small minority of the clergy are bad, or that they all defend eachother to maintain the coverup, by the end of the film we will have a better idea. The suggestion is that priests don't really need to worry about being guilty or innocent - God, and by extension they, are essentially above the law, or rather not subject to the same scrutiny. They think they are untouchable. From the public perception if a priest or the church does something, then almost by definition it is of course noble and proper. If people can't rely on their church then what can they rely on.
A crack team of reporters, the Spotlight department, are looking for their next story when the new editor suggests following up a column about local priests molesting kids. They know of the odd historic case of individual priests' abuse but none of them are prepared for the scale of this. The reporters have sources, some are happy to talk, some aren't. We see them talking to a few victims and hear their stories. They are all so convincing it somehow feels like one of those film scenes where they use the real people playing themselves. Things start to heat up in the second half once their estimates of guilty clergy spike and suddenly people stop talking to them, they are being frozen out, maybe they are digging too far. It becomes more personal for some of the team, one realising this is happening just round the corner, another that they knew one of the names on the naughty list.
The main story of the film is Spotlight exposing the huge scandal, but it also explores how the catholic church in Boston is so ingrained in the community, it's influence is everywhere. The church is so massive in size and influence, and unavoidable, it has the power to hide in plain sight. For alot of people it is as reliable and important as food. Interestingly, early on the new editor Marty is invited to see the cardinal as a matter of course. The cardinal expects to be worshipped, or at least appeased. He wants the paper in his pocket, he says to Marty; 'If I can be of any help, don't hesitate to ask. I find that the city flourishes, when its great institutions work together'. Marty shuts him down, for the whole film he is quietly and politely very assertive. The fact that Marty is new to the paper, and crucially the city, adds another angle to the story. Maybe it took a fresh, nuetral perspective to really see what this story could be, and to have no prior knowledge of the local church means he isn't easily swayed by their influence.
I like how the film, based on actual events, and the team (who we learn were all raised catholic) start off pretty nuetral, we see parties from both sides which is important. Even when they team talk to a survivor representative they question his agenda, they're not just looking to make the story if it doesnt exist, there is no sensationalism here, and the same goes for the film itself. I thought it was nice to have a straight forward factual drama with no Hollywood twists. There are dramatic plot points of course but there's no increased drama for drama's sake.
At no point is there any effort to explain why the priests abuse children, which is the right move. This is about the journalism and the overall church story, not details or motives. The directing is very straight forward and shows alot of conversations. The story swells gradually but the storytelling is fast paced and the editing extra sharp. For a film with no action atall it does a great job of grabbing you and keeping you engaged, part of that I think is how the story deepens as the team find out more and more. It starts to resemble a mob/police cover up story with all sorts of people having a small part to play in keeping it under wraps to protect the church's good name, and of course make money.
Everything about the filmmaking is fairly quiet and reserved, as is the acting for the most part. This may be about a great true story, but it works because of the great central ensemble performances, there isn't a bad one, they are all convincing as individuals (although I would probably say the weakest is Rachel MacAdams) for me Mark Ruffalo, Stanley Tucci as the lawyer and Liev Schreiber as Marty all smash it. They all have an interesting way of talking to eachother, most of the time they are very unexpressive, which makes it stand out more when there is a passionate speech from anyone, which happens a couple of times. Marty has a great, perfectly written and delivered speech 'show me it was systemic, that it came from the top down'. And Ruffalo has one when he can't understand why they are waiting to print the story. Although the dialogue is never simplified, it is so well written that it is always easy to follow. I didn't have anything I didn't like about the film overall.
I have mentioned before in other reviews how I don't personally appreciate religion as a positive subject or influence in films but I appreciate it affects almost everybody's life in our world. This film is a bit different, it's the kind of story I like about religion. Thankfully the UK is a much more secular society where religion stays in its particular corner and doesn't get everywhere like in the US.
There is another great film about the same theme but one particular case of a particular priest in a school, as opposed to a nationwide issue; Doubt is a very different film and would make a good companion piece to Spotlight and probably get a slightly higher rating from me.
Comentários