Spotlight (2015)

[A Boston Gal]

Hands-down, the best movie I have seen all year to date. Following the Boston Globe's coverage and research into the Catholic Church pedophile scandal ( courtesy of a nudge from the paper's new editor ) this film focuses on the four reporters who make up the Boston Globe's Spotlight team. The reporters are not portrayed as heroes, but rather dedicated professionals trying to do the best job they can under increasingly difficult circumstances, with seemingly everyone from the church to the Statehouse stonewalling them.

Sharp writing, fast paced direction, and fantastic acting from all concerned. Even the extras are meticulously cast. It truly deserves the Oscar buzz it's been getting.

Edited November 11, 2015 by A Boston Gal

[Shannon L.]

I can't wait to see this movie.  I really hope one of the local theaters shows it when it opens for wide release on the 20th.  I'm sure it will be a tough one to watch given the subject matter, but even the trailers look fantastic. 

[choclatechip45]

One of the best movies I've seen in awhile. Mark Ruffalo does a really good job.

[Sharpie66]

I first heard about this on MSNBC last night. It's coming to my local theater this weekend, so I'm going to check it out on Saturday or Sunday.

[AimingforYoko]

Probably the last big movie about the newspaper business.

[KittyS]

Fantastic movie! Wonderful cast, great location, riveting story. This was the best movie I've seen in a long time and I felt wistful that this type of journalism is likely a thing of the past.

[AimingforYoko]

What I liked was that they didn't portray the Globe as an underdog. The Globe was an institution like the Church. The problem with the paper being an institution in an insular town like Boston is that they tended to hobnob with the people they needed to keep an eye on. That said, I was sure it was Bradlee, Jr. that spiked the earlier story.

[attica]

Even the extras are meticulously cast.

 

ITA. The hockey player that Robby interviews in Providence? Watching his face dissolve and morph at the mention of the priest's name was really something fantastic.

 

Loved how McAdams approached her interviews, so dry. I think that's an effective way to get people to talk about sensitive topics, because they don't feel like they're grossing you out. That she almost broke, but not quite, when meeting the priest, showed that this was something they were paying attention to.

 

There were shocked cries in the showing I attended when the final title cards of locations went by. I only wish I were shocked. Sickened, but not shocked.

 

Excellent direction by McCarthy, whom I know as a 'hey-it's-that-guy' actor. Well paced, well acted, beautifully scored.

[Mars477]

For a two hour movie that consists of solely of people sitting, talking, and running from place to place to talk some more, this movie was pretty damn propulsive.

I had to laugh at the computer monitors.  It was indeed 2001.

 

It felt especially noticeable that pretty much nobody was Hollywood attractive in this movie, except for Rachel McAdams.  And even then, she's not that far off from the real (10+ years older now) Sacha Pfeiffer.

 

I thought Michael Ruffalo was overacting a bit with regards to his character's tics, although much of the rest of the cast was great.  Watching the abuse victims as they broke down reliving their abuse was heartbreaking.

 

Stanley Tucci was the clear MVP, though.

Edited November 22, 2015 by Mars477

[NoWillToResist]

What I liked was that they didn't portray the Globe as an underdog. The Globe was an institution like the Church. The problem with the paper being an institution in an insular town like Boston is that they tended to hobnob with the people they needed to keep an eye on.

 

I got chills when the new editor met with the cardinal and the cardinal was talking about working together etc., and the editor was all "...yeah, I feel like the papers work best when kept separate". Hell yes!

 

I got strangely emotional at the reaction from Sasha's gran when she read the article. You could see that she had been shaken to her very core by the revelations.

 

This movie was so well done but it just...makes me so angry and I have nowhere to funnel that rage. At least this didn't hit me as hard as the documentary "Deliver Us From Evil" that I saw years ago at a film festival. That shit fucking broke my heart.

 

I just cannot believe that ANYONE, let alone alleged men of God, could justify this shit and let it go on unchecked/unpunished. I was horrified at the priest who confessed to Sasha that he'd molested boys and was all "well, I didn't get off on it, so it's ok", like, what in the actual fuck????

 

The line "it takes a village to raise a child; it also takes a village to abuse one" really stayed with me.

Edited November 23, 2015 by NoWillToResist

[Rick Kitchen]

 

Stanley Tucci was the clear MVP, though.

 

Stanley Tucci is the MVP in everything.

[moonb]

Loved this movie. I also felt Mark Ruffalo's acting took me slightly out of the story, but cried at the victims' stories, and at Sacha's grandmother reading the first Globe article and wanting a glass of water - just a sign of how thoroughly the church failed all of its members. 

 

I enjoyed the feeling of it being a thriller without the usual payoff - I too was expecting to find out why there wasn't the earlier story from the Globe and who was responsible, other than general bureaucratic inertia - and I liked the tension without fearing for the reporters' safety. And I appreciated the subtle job loathing and tempered anger on the part of Eric Macleish and Jim Sullivan - the what took you so long? business. Well done from everyone there. 

[A Boston Gal]

Although Stanley Tucci and Mark Ruffalo had the flashier parts, I have to say that to my mind, Liev Schrieber as editior Marty Baron had the performance of the film. So incredibly understated (as Baron was in real life - he admits to being more outgoing now), but you could see the tension fly across Schrieber's face just for a moment at a time, as he had to press his case to his new staff and bigwigs whom he just met. And he had to do it not only as the new guy in town, but the new guy in town who was Jewish.  So much unspoken tension, history, and conviction that Schrieber portrayed with just a few glances.  He's amazing, and I hope he isn't overlooked this awards season.

[NoWillToResist]

Although Stanley Tucci and Mark Ruffalo had the flashier parts, I have to say that to my mind, Liev Schrieber as editior Marty Baron had the performance of the film. So incredibly understated (as Baron was in real life - he admits to being more outgoing now), but you could see the tension fly across Schrieber's face just for a moment at a time, as he had to press his case to his new staff and bigwigs whom he just met. And he had to do it not only as the new guy in town, but the new guy in town who was Jewish.  So much unspoken tension, history, and conviction that Schrieber portrayed with just a few glances.  He's amazing, and I hope he isn't overlooked this awards season.

 

He was fantastic. He knew that he'd be vilified for going after the Catholic Church but, really, who else was going to do it? Seems like most of the active Catholics in the movie were friggin' complicit. You *needed* an outsider who wouldn't fall prey to friend/family/community pressure to back off.

 

I'm still horrified at the people who wanted the reporters to back off. I mean, wouldn't you rather get rid of the bad apples? Sure, scandal sucks, but to allow such atrocities to continue...to practically CONDONE them by allowing it all to be swept under the rug...ugh. Makes me sick.

[Mars477]

He was fantastic. He knew that he'd be vilified for going after the Catholic Church but, really, who else was going to do it? Seems like most of the active Catholics in the movie were friggin' complicit. You *needed* an outsider who wouldn't fall prey to friend/family/community pressure to back off.

 

I'm still horrified at the people who wanted the reporters to back off. I mean, wouldn't you rather get rid of the bad apples? Sure, scandal sucks, but to allow such atrocities to continue...to practically CONDONE them by allowing it all to be swept under the rug...ugh. Makes me sick.

People always seem to forget the second half of the proverb of the bad apples: that failing to remove the bad apples spreads the rot throughout all of the good ones.

[Shannon L.]

I saw this this morning and wow, was that a great movie.  Simply heartbreaking. 

 

I don't know how much more I can add. I agree that the acting was stellar all the way around--including, as stated above, the more subtle roles as well as the minor characters. 

 

 

I thought Michael Ruffalo was overacting a bit with regards to his character's tics, although much of the rest of the cast was great

I'd never seen a movie that Mark was in until The Avengers.  Now, if I see him listed in the cast of a movie, my interested is automatically piqued--even if it wasn't already.  At first his acting bothered me a bit, but I got used to it because I have to wonder if the Michael Renzendes was a bit hyperactive--almost a bull in a china shop type of person.  One question, though (I had to run to the bathroom once, so I don't know if I missed it):  What happened to his wife? 

 

 

I just cannot believe that ANYONE, let alone alleged men of God, could justify this shit and let it go on unchecked/unpunished. I was horrified at the priest who confessed to Sasha that he'd molested boys and was all "well, I didn't get off on it, so it's ok", like, what in the actual fuck????

I think that scene also came after they ex-priest (?) said that his studies showed that most priests were emotionally stunted at about age 12.  It fit....and yes, it was sickening.  I can't believe that nothing more was done except relocating them. 

 

 Did anyone else notice in one of the outdoor scenes--I believe it was when Renzendes had hailed the cab and was driving through the city--that the camera passed a park and there was a father pushing his little boy in a swing.  I'm pretty certain that was the same man that he'd interviewed with Mitchell Garabedian as a representative.  It was a neat way of showing just how big this tragedy really was. 

 

Also, am I the only one who thinks that Renzendes was somehow connected with a molestation case?  His anger seemed personal when the others were able to keep it toned down a bit.  Admittedly, I'd probably be doing a fair amount of yelling myself, but still.....it seemed to run deep---like an old wound had been opened.  I know he said that he'd been raised catholic and had always thought he'd eventually go back, but the others were catholic, too. 

[NoWillToResist]

Did anyone else notice in one of the outdoor scenes--I believe it was when Renzendes had hailed the cab and was driving through the city--that the camera passed a park and there was a father pushing his little boy in a swing.  I'm pretty certain that was the same man that he'd interviewed with Mitchell Garabedian as a representative.  It was a neat way of showing just how big this tragedy really was. 

 

Yes, it was one of the guys who spoke to them. I thought it was more haunting that he was pushing his son on the swing in the playground, with a church in the background. That poor man must be reminded of his abuse everywhere he goes in Boston...

[Mars477]

I'd never seen a movie that Mark was in until The Avengers.  Now, if I see him listed in the cast of a movie, my interested is automatically piqued--even if it wasn't already.  At first his acting bothered me a bit, but I got used to it because I have to wonder if the Michael Renzendes was a bit hyperactive--almost a bull in a china shop type of person.  One question, though (I had to run to the bathroom once, so I don't know if I missed it):  What happened to his wife? 

Was he married?  I know the other guy (Matt Carroll) was married.  For some reason Carroll wasn't the guy who got the blow up scene, despite being the one with kids who lives a few blocks from a bunch of pedophile priests.

 

He may have gotten absolutely no characterization or even a clear name, but I liked how Sacha's husband took one look at Renzendes at the door and he's like "Tough day at work, huh?"

[Shannon L.]

 

Was he married?  I know the other guy (Matt Carroll) was married.  For some reason Carroll wasn't the guy who got the blow up scene, despite being the one with kids who lives a few blocks from a bunch of pedophile priests.

I'm pretty sure I heard one of the other characters ask about his wife and his answer was something that implied "it's complicated".  I'm also pretty sure I saw a ring on his finger.  A friend of mine really wants to see this movie, but I didn't want to wait for her to be free because I was afraid it wouldn't last in our theater that long.  I may have to go with her so I can see it again.

Edited November 24, 2015 by Shannon L.

[NoWillToResist]

I'm pretty sure I heard one of the other characters ask about his wife and his answer was something that implied "it's complicated".  I'm also pretty sure I saw a ring on his finger.  A friend of mine really wants to see this movie, but I didn't want to wait for her to be free because I was afraid it wouldn't last in our theater that long.  I may have to go with her and so I can see it again.

 

Yes, Ruffalo's character mentioned his wife. He's asked whether his wife is fine with the long hours he works; he says 'no', and both men laugh. I believe that when one of the characters visits his crappy apartment, there's a mention about how "they're" working on getting a better place.

[A Boston Gal]

I could be completely wrong, but I got the feeling Ruffalo's character was separated from his wife; hence, the lousy apartment situation.

[Shannon L.]

 

I could be completely wrong, but I got the feeling Ruffalo's character was separated from his wife; hence, the lousy apartment situation.

That could be given how she's not ok with the long hours.

 

Thanks for the confirmation, NoWillToResist.

[Sharpie66]

I just got home from seeing this. When you spend the entire drive home just repeating, "OMG was that a great film!" you know you saw something special. I am a big fan of the book All the President's Men, and think the movie is an acceptable adaptation if a bit confusing, probably because they assumed that everyone knows all of the main characters from the press. I think that this was a much superior film--everything is laid out clearly, from the legal to the political, the clerical to the psychological, and giving us glimpses into both the victims and the predators, with the appropriate emphasis on the victims.

I think all of the actors were just about perfect. Keaton has his best performance in years, Ruffalo was as usual fantastic, and the victims were all incredibly moving to watch. Liev Shreiber has been one of my faves since I saw him A Walk on the Moon with Diane Lane, Viggo Mortensen, and Tovah Feldshuh (another fave of mine!) about 15 years ago, and his low-key Marty Baron was terrific here.

Just so so good!

Edited November 25, 2015 by Sharpie66

[choclatechip45]

This movie should be shown in journalism classes. I didn't think this movie would move me as much as it did.

[Sharpie66]

For anyone who hasn't seen this yet, check out this interview on Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell, with one of the film's writers and the real Phil Saviano: http://www.hulu.com/watch/869936-- it's where I first heard about this movie. (BTW, Paul Guilfoyle went to BC High, the same school that is featured in the film.)

[moonb]

Also, am I the only one who thinks that Renzendes was somehow connected with a molestation case?  His anger seemed personal when the others were able to keep it toned down a bit.  Admittedly, I'd probably be doing a fair amount of yelling myself, but still.....it seemed to run deep---like an old wound had been opened.  I know he said that he'd been raised catholic and had always thought he'd eventually go back, but the others were catholic, too.

 

Yeah, I couldn't decide if Rezendes was just THAT driven an investigator, or if I was supposed to interpret his drive as having some kind of near-miss with an abusive priest.  The first is totally possible: Rezendes is in that very early scene when Marty Baron first starts at the Globe and has that meeting with staff, and he asks the other reporter why Eileen McNamara is in the meeting, when her column first tipped Baron to the sex abuse issue. And Rezendes is the most gung-ho about investigating when Robby announces Spotlight's new investigation of the Geoghan case. So the film could have been saying he felt it was a promising story.  

 

But I also thought the film made the point about being raised Catholic and "dodging a bullet," so to speak, when Robby has the meeting at BC High and talks to the other alum about just happening to play the right sport, so as to miss being abused by the hockey coach.  I watched a keynote appearance by the RL Spotlight team on Youtube, and one thing that RL Sacha Pfeiffer mentioned was after publication of the stories, getting calls from Catholics who already knew the open secret about the abusive priests, and simply kept their kids away from them. But the families who knew already were more prominent in the parish and usually better off than the families from which abusers targeted their victims. Yeeecch.  

Edited November 25, 2015 by moonb

[Sharpie66]

I forgot to add that the list of places that have reported having pedophile priests at the end of the film was just gut-wrenching in its length. I did see my hometown listed, but I was already aware of the case that had been reported in the local news, so it wasn't a surprise, just a rueful, "Yep" nod from me when I saw Joliet mentioned.

 

Since it takes place in 2001-2002, they didn't go into the fact that the scandal was a big part of what forced Pope Benedict to resign, so yes, Phil Saviano was absolutely correct in that it went all the way to the Vatican. If you haven't already seen it, I can recommend The Secrets of the Vatican, a Frontline episode that delved into the priests scandal, the banking scandal, and a lot of other stuff that was brewing at the top levels of the Church.

[A Boston Gal]

Liev Shreiber has been one of my faves since I saw him A Walk on the Moon with Diane Lane, Viggo Mortensen, and Tovah Feldshuh (another fave of mine!) about 15 years ago, and his low-key Marty Baron was terrific here.

Just so so good!

Sharpie66, me too! That was my first time noticing Liev Schreiber, and I also thought the rest of the cast was terrific in that film. :)

[attica]

There's an aspect to this scandal that I think many non-catholics don't quite get. Child-raping priests are unlike coaches or teachers or other authority figures who behave similarly in that they are, dogmatically speaking, the Actual Gatekeepers between a person and heaven. The expression "God's Representative on Earth" isn't just a slogan: it's meant literally. So if molested by a priest, a devout person is perfectly reasonable in feeling spiritually bound to submit, to keep secret, to make excuses for, to forgive. I think it's also why many outside the church (including parents of abused kids) may have felt that however the church sought to handle it was capital R Right. Questioning the authority of a priest, or a monsignor, or a bishop really puts your immortal soul in real peril.  This has been drilled into you since birth. Not easy to overcome all that conditioning.

 

So, imo, the depravity of priests who view their parishioners as objects to be used in this way and who think their power justifies it is particularly grievous. Downright evil.

[Sharpie66]

In the Frontline episode I referred to upthread, one of the victims interviewed in a woman who was raped by her priest in the church when she was nine years old. After he was done, he told her that not only would no one believe her if she told them, if she did tell anyone, her parents would burn in hell. She said that when she left the church, she sat under a tree sobbing her eyes out--in pain, confused, and frightened beyond belief.

[wlk68]

I saw this yesterday and thought it was very powerful. Everyone gave an excellent performance but I wish that Ruffalo had toned down his mannerisms just a notch. I found him somewhat distracting. 

 

I live in MA, was raised Catholic and remember when this story broke. As kid you're taught to respect the priests as authority figures and your eternal soul is in their hands as they have a direct line to God. It sounds silly now but when you're eight or nine years old? 

 

These days I'm not a fan of any organized religion and consider myself something of an agnostic, leaning towards atheism.

[Rick Kitchen]

I hope Ruffalo gets an Oscar nomination for this.  I was thinking that I'd hate to have to work with Mike Resendez on a regular basis, but man, Ruffalo had him, or a version of him, down pat.

[galax-arena]

I found Eric MacLeish to be one of the most fascinating characters in the movie. We start off thinking that he's yet another smarmy lawyer who's only concerned with making a cottage industry (to quote the movie) out of abuse victims, and then we're hit with the revelation that he alerted the Globe years ago about those twenty abusive priests. Here was a guy who initially tried to do the right thing, only to have it buried by the newspaper. So then he eventually capitulated to the system. The long-held resentment and anger we saw from Billy Crudup when MacLeish confronted Robby about the newspaper clip was really well-acted, IMO.

 

ETA: The real Eric MacLeish says that the movie negatively mischaracterizes him. (He also admits he hasn't watched the movie and that he still recommends the film despite his perception of his character.) But what I find interesting is that the "I told you about twenty priests, and you buried it" scene apparently never happened. Neither did the "cottage industry" conversation. So the movie did fudge specific moments, and maybe MacLeish came off badly in the "cottage industry" scene, but I thought the "twenty priests" moment put him in a much more favorable light. Especially since the real Robby says that MacLeish most likely only did it to get himself some new clients.

Edited November 29, 2015 by galax-arena

[wlk68]

I hope Ruffalo gets an Oscar nomination for this.  I was thinking that I'd hate to have to work with Mike Resendez on a regular basis, but man, Ruffalo had him, or a version of him, down pat.

How do you know that Ruffalo has him down pat? I've never seen the real Mike Resendez so I have no frame of reference. Are those mannerisms legit or simply an affectation on Ruffalo's part? 

[Rick Kitchen]

I read that he watched Resendez and copied all of his mannerisms.

[Mars477]

I read that he watched Resendez and copied all of his mannerisms.

Watching the real Renzendes in interviews and what not, he doesn't have anything resembling the mannerisms Ruffalo had.

[Rick Kitchen]

Gee, I guess I'm a liar, then.

[Irlandesa]

Gee, I guess I'm a liar, then.

Listening to the interviews of the real life people, they all seem to think the actors nailed them. Not just Ruffalo but Keaton, Liev and McAdams. And people who have seen the movie and know them feel similarly.

As for mannerisms...I think the reporters in interviews are different than the environments under which they were observed by the actors.

[avecsans]

I loved this movie but I thought Mark Ruffalo was the weak link. He is always so intense and over the top. I feel like I can see him acting whereas a Stanley Tucci or a Liev Schreiber disappears into his role.

I thought that in most of the outdoor shots, a church was visible in the background. It symbolized how the church was such a presence and loomed so large in the lives of Catholics. I happened to be in the theater at the same time as a couple of nuns I know. They were so angry and disgusted. We had quite an interesting conversation about whether things would be different if women had full participation in the church.

[SeanC]

I just got back from seeing it.  Quite meticulously made, and extremely well-done; one can definitely see why it's being compared to All the President's Men.

 

I was vaguely amused that the Spotlight team is a four-person group composed of Michael Keaton, Rachel McAdams, Mark Ruffalo, and...other guy.

 

That said, I was sure it was Bradlee, Jr. that spiked the earlier story.

I think the movie was trying to make you think that shoe was about to drop, what with all the conversations involving him seemingly trying to tamp down the story.

Edited December 5, 2015 by SeanC

[thuganomics85]

Really good film.  I obviously heard all about the scandal involving the Catholic Church and the priests, but I was unfamiliar over how they were exposed, and I found it fascinating seeing how the Spotlight group took finally proved it.  I liked that it was mainly due to just great journalistic work, and not dumb luck or, worse, some kind of form of them going to the "dark" side or something.  Overall though, the pacing was on point, the directing was well done, and they managed to make mundane tasks like typing and interviews, very intense and emotional.

 

The acting was fantastic of course, but I'm surprised that Mark Ruffalo is the one being singled-out (from what I can tell), because I found him to be one of the weaker parts.  I just found his performance to be showy and more obvious that he/the film was trying to go for an Oscar.  Stanley Tucci had a flasher role too, but I thought he managed to pull it off much better, and wasn't as distracting.  In general though, I appreciated the more understated work from Michael Keaton, Rachel McAdams, and Liev Schreiber.  Then again, the Academy does tend to go for those type of performances, so maybe Ruffalo was onto something.

 

This film did make me realize that pretty much every current actor is or has been in some kind of superhero film.  I mean I counted Batman, Hulk, Sabertooth, Howard Stark, Dr. Abraham Erskine (Tucci), Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup), and the future female lead in the upcoming Dr. Strange film.  They are everywhere! 

[Eyes High]

I got serious Ned Weeks (The Normal Heart) vibes from Mark Ruffalo's performance: the outrage, the furrowed brow, the frantic urgency, the rants, etc. He needed to take it down about 15 notches. Given the careful underplaying of pretty much every other actor playing the journalists, it was as if he was in a different movie. To be fair, the writing made him do things--the running around, the desperate phone call in the car, etc.--that the other characters didn't have to do. Sacha was walking at a brisk pace knocking on doors while Mike was running around like a loon. In a movie when everyone else was toning it down several notches, his performance stood out even more for its stridency.

 

It seems like the Stanley Tucci roles that stand out to me all involve him playing iterations of the same character: sly, wise, humane, radiating warmth even when he's angry, shoving epiphanies in people's faces, five steps ahead of everyone else and aware of it, trapped in the workings of a bigger system and unable to change it, blah blah blah. He does this type of character very well, so I understand why he keeps getting cast in these sorts of dramatic roles, but it's getting a little repetitive.

 

Rachel McAdams was a bit of a blank in this movie. I appreciate her efforts to be subtle, but I got "warmly sympathetic" from her and that was pretty much it.

 

Best performance? Liev Schreiber, by far. It was beautifully understated, as noted upthread. There was so much there, but he was so unstudied about it. A naturalistic, wonderful bit of work. (On a more shallow note, I've never been as attracted to Liev Schreiber as I was when I saw him in this role. Glasses, stubble, rolled-up shirtsleeves, rumbling on about worthy investigative work in that gorgeous, deep voice of his...)

 

With that said, I also appreciated the heavy lifting done by the actors playing minor roles: the great Len Cariou wisely choosing to convey only paternal affability and harmlessness as Cardinal Law with no hint of veiled menace; Michael Cyril Creighton's sweet, sympathetic survivor Joe; Billy Crudup's suave, crisp Eric MacLeish; and even Richard Jenkins smoothly and confidently outlining Richard Sipe with only his voice. Just fantastic stuff.

 

Tom McCarthy--who had Josh Singer as cowriter, but still--writes such great dialogue. A lot of the most lauded screenwriters today write dialogue that's very stylized but unrealistic, in that no one actually speaks that way (the Coen brothers, Quentin Tarantino, Aaron Sorkin). Tom McCarthy writes beautiful, realistic dialogue that mimics how people actually speak in real life, and he does this without resorting to cliches. There was so much byplay and banter in between the "big scenes" that sounded exactly how normal people speak: one survivor nervously apologizing for ordering and eating a muffin before Sacha arrived at the cafe, the reporters at the baseball game quietly disparaging the game, the little asides between the reporters when heading into and out of the office, the pleasantries about coffee, etc. That's how people actually speak to each other. If you liked the dialogue in this movie, I'd urge you to check out Tom McCarthy's other movies if you haven't already. The Station Agent runs pretty much on its dialogue, and it's a beautiful little film. Tom McCarthy's movies also, in my experience, have a sweetness and warmth to them without being saccharine or maudlin.

 

The other thing I like about Tom McCarthy's movies is that there's a gentle nuance to them. This movie could have turned the outrage meter to 11 and filled it with 5,000 word rants at top volume. Instead of Sacha getting in some priest's face and railing at him, she ruefully admits to Mike that she stopped going to church with her nana and hasn't told her why. Instead of Brian d'Arcy James' character when being told that the story has to wait, even though there's a "treatment centre" near his house, screaming at Robby "WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!!! THERE ARE CHILDREN!!!", he accepts it. Even Mike for all his anger only has one real outburst. The movie establishes the reporters' shock, disgust and anger, but it does so quietly and gently. Also, the movie recognized that even some of the characters that could have been straightforwardly depicted as sneering villains--Billy Crudup's lawyer and Jamey Sheridan's lawyer for the Church--were more nuanced than that; Eric MacLeish was disgusted that he had tried to get a story out of the Boston Globe eight years prior and it had been buried, and Jim Sullivan's anger at Robby is revealed to be based in his disappointment that the Boston Globe failed to do anything about the issue for several years, even though it was clear something was going on.

 

I was a bit disappointed at the reporters' lack of regard for the lawyers' ethical obligations. They didn't exactly use air quotes to refer to the lawyers' professional duties to their clients, but they may as well have.

Edited December 14, 2015 by Eyes High

[anyanka323]

I forgot to add that the list of places that have reported having pedophile priests at the end of the film was just gut-wrenching in its length. I did see my hometown listed, but I was already aware of the case that had been reported in the local news, so it wasn't a surprise, just a rueful, "Yep" nod from me when I saw Joliet mentioned.

 

Since it takes place in 2001-2002, they didn't go into the fact that the scandal was a big part of what forced Pope Benedict to resign, so yes, Phil Saviano was absolutely correct in that it went all the way to the Vatican. If you haven't already seen it, I can recommend The Secrets of the Vatican, a Frontline episode that delved into the priests scandal, the banking scandal, and a lot of other stuff that was brewing at the top levels of the Church.

It hit very close to home for me.  I'm a lapsed Catholic and, like some of the journalists, have parents who are active churchgoers.  My parents live south of Milwaukee, where almost 60 clergy were accused of sexual abuse.  During the first round of settlements between 2005 and 2009, multiple parishes were shut down and the land sold to fund the settlements.  I have relatives who were regular churchgoers at one closed parish and today are Xmas only Catholics, if that.  The closure of their church embittered them towards the church, which was more progressive and liberal than the norm.  The rightward turn of the Catholic church away from the Vatican II reforms isn't a subject of the film, but there is some evidence that parishes that learned more to the left were closed, even though they were on sounder financial footing than more conservative parishes that stayed open.  There's another settlement in the works that was delayed by the Milwaukee archidiocese filing for bankruptcy in 2011 for that very reason.  Schools and parishes are being shut down, but in smaller numbers than before.

[Rick Kitchen]

 

It seems like the Stanley Tucci roles that stand out to me all involve him playing iterations of the same character: sly, wise, humane, radiating warmth even when he's angry, shoving epiphanies in people's faces, five steps ahead of everyone else and aware of it, trapped in the workings of a bigger system and unable to change it, blah blah blah. He does this type of character very well, so I understand why he keeps getting cast in these sorts of dramatic roles, but it's getting a little repetitive.

 

Check out Tucci as Puck in "Midsummer Night's Dream" - he's amazing.

[Mrs. P.]

Check out Tucci as Puck in "Midsummer Night's Dream" - he's amazing.

Is this the same Stanley Tucci who played Julia Child's husband in "Julia and Julie"?

[Rick Kitchen]

Yes

[Bruinsfan]

I can only think of one Stanley Tucci performance that I wouldn't recommend to people (Undercover Blues). He was even great in The Core, and if that wasn't making a silk purse out of a sow's ear I don't know what would be!

[ChelseaNH]

I finally got around to seeing this.  I didn't notice the passing of time -- I was surprised when it ended; I could have gone for another hour easily.  I still want more.

[Nidratime]

Something no one has mentioned that I wonder if anyone else felt.... When the attack on September 11 happened in the movie and everyone at the Globe had to stop what they were doing and report on that story, I became annoyed if not downright irritated. In real life, of course, I would've been upset with my paper and other news outlets if they hadn't done all they could to cover the attack, especially as I live in D.C., but in the context of watching this movie and being immersed in what they were trying to do, September 11 was like a distraction that I just wanted to get pass so they could get back to investigating the church.

[hendersonrocks]

Just saw this today, and wow. It took my breath away even though I know the story itself so well, as a Catholic living in Boston at the time of the Spotlight story. (And sadly, now living in another major city that has been stunned by archdiocese neglect and, now, bankruptcy.)

 

I was also surprised to hear they took (at least) six weeks away from the story for 9/11. Since I was living there, it was interesting to think back to what I actually remember happening in 2001-2002...I clearly remember John Geoghan's arrest, and then shock and deep sadness every time another priest's horrific crimes were revealed and the extent of the archdiocese's involvement became clear. And I do remember the local news focusing on 9/11 exclusively for a long while, as two of the flights originated from Logan and all the questions that came up as a result. I also remember when Patrick McSorley died - the young guy who was shown in the movie being interviewed (with a camera shot to track marks on his arm) and then pushing his kid in the swing. He OD'd in 2004.

 

The most striking thing I realized after leaving the theater was that there was just one person of color I remember from the whole film - the cop Sacha interviewed in a diner. Ruffalo & Tucci's characters are both from immigrant families, but as Portuguese and Armenian they can also pretty easily "pass," if you will. It says a lot about how segregated Boston is that it actually feels pretty accurate to me in the context of this particular story - the Catholic church and journalism aren't exactly bastions of diversity, and maybe especially so in Boston.

 

Extraordinary acting from all involved, even the twitchy-if-adorable Mark Ruffalo. The one actor that seems to be consistently overlooked is Brian d'Arcy James, who isn't in big letters on the poster nor mentioned anywhere else I've seen. I thought he was great.

 

Please please please pleaaaase let this win the awards it deserves.

Edited December 31, 2015 by hendersonrocks