In the Spotlight

This is sort of a review of the (relatively) new film, Spotlight. Go see it (or wait for it in some other format, it doesn’t need to be seen on the big screen to be appreciated). I expect it to have more than a few nominations when it comes to awards season. That, however, is NOT why I’m writing this review.

The movie is the story of the Boston Globe’s coverage of the sex abuse scandal in the archdiocese of Boston. Although the abuse went back decades, the story itself plays out during 2001-02. The best journalism-based movie since All the President’s Men, with lots of good character actors, many recognizable from popular television shows, Spotlight is a compelling story that does a fine job of showing the nuts and bolts of investigative journalism, as well as clearly demonstrating the importance of those nuts and bolts. Finally, and most important in my view, the movie should sound an alarm.

That is my main point in writing this. The precipitous decline of print journalism, of the daily newspaper (and news magazine, RIP Newsweek) , almost ensures that we may never see this kind of reporting again. With print journalism being either a small “profit center” of a larger media conglomerate or a fragile independent entity that has almost no chance of remaining economically viable, stories like this will be more likely to stay in the shadows.

That worries me. I’m a dinosaur who continues to subscribe to my daily paper, at least in part because I think it’s important. There aren’t enough of us to sustain what Post-Dispatch columnist Bill McClellan calls the “buggy whip factory.” I fear the print journalism industry has long-since reached critical mass, with declining readership requiring more cuts, resulting in skimpier product, resulting in even fewer readers and more cuts.

Add to that the seemingly increasing need of people to live in echo chambers, to only see and hear what they already believe. Disagree with an editorial position? Cancel the subscription. See an article critical of a pet politician or cause? Cancel the subscription. Think the paper has it in for people like you? Use that confirmation bias to cancel your subscription. Why entertain contrary points of view when you can limit yourself to Fox News or MSNBC?

But we all lose. As creepy as the Catholic Church abuse scandal was, it needed to be covered. That story needed resources (think reporters, time, and money) dedicated to unveiling the layers of secrecy. But that story, in and of itself, is not the point. The point is, there are more stories, at least equally important, out there, stories that remain shrouded because there is no more newspaper willing or able to help us see what’s behind the curtain. Instead we’re left with agenda-driven bloggers with questionable ethics and objectivity. As a former journalism teacher, this frightens me in terms of the future of information in this country.

Whenever and however you see it, take the time to view Spotlight so that you at least remember what you’re missing.

The Week

I don’t get a kickback and I have no vested interest, but for those of you who would like a news source that doesn’t confirm your own biases, might I suggest The Week. In a world of opinion masquerading as news, this magazine does an excellent job of providing reaction to events from both the left and right. You’ll see opinions from the (for example) Wall Street Journal and Weekly Standard as well as Mother Jones or Salon. 

Is it completely objective? Well, I like to think so, but I also admit to drifting left of center. If you believe everything emanating from the talking heads from the right or left, perhaps you’ll detect a bias. I don’t know how you could, but if you’ve perjoratively used the phrases like “liberal media,” “mainstream media,” “lame stream media,” “right wing talk machine,” “Faux News,” etc., then perhaps you’re not a candidate to make a judgment about objectivity. The same is true if you think only MSNBC/Fox (pick one, if you feel you must) can report news.

If you’re interested in trying it out (remember, I get no commission, I’m just trying to offer an option, as well as do my bit to preserve print media), I get inserts and other offers to give 4-issue trial subscriptions (or you can just go to their website, where there’s a standard banner or sidebar ad). Just let me know and I’ll make it happen.

Oh, and may I also suggest PolitiFact.com and PunditFact.com to follow or consult on the issues of the day. Again, I find both these sites useful sources in weeding out the partisan hyperbole from reality. 

On the other hand, if you’re constantly repeating and reposting partisan shots, whatever the agenda, well, “Move along, nothing to see here.”

Holiday Movie Reviews -- 3 for 3

Yet another snow day or just looking for a good movie?

We probably saw more movies in the last four weeks than we have in the last four months (well, no probably about it; maybe more than in the last 8 months). Three winners in a row is definitely a record (and that doesn’t count Frozen, which we saw with Becca in 3-D -- the three could also have stood for how many people were in the theater, including us, or Hunger Games 2, again, the number standing for how many people were in the theater, including us; both of them were good, as well). 

So, in reverse order, here are three quick reviews of non-blockbuster films which we felt were all worthy of our time and money:

 The Book Thief -- I read the book and enjoyed it (well, enjoyed might be a stretch for a (sort of) Holocaust book narrated by Death) and wanted to see the movie. I didn’t think the book was an easy read, but I think it helps to have read it if you’re going to see the movie. I guess it’s not really a Holocaust book, but it is set in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust plays an important role. Geoffrey Rush is (as always) great and Sophie Nélisse, who plays the heroine, Liesel, is also spectacular. The relationship (from the book) between Liesel and her only friend, Rudy (Nico Liersch), gets short-changed, I think. Actually, I thinkalmost  all the relationships get a little short-changed, but that’s common in book to film transitions. In short, good movie, better book (hardly a unique assessment). Still, a look at the war from the POV of German non-combatants makes it unique.

Saving Mr. Banks -- I struggled briefly in the middle with this movie about Walt Disney’s (Tom Hanks) courtship of P. L. Travers (Emma Thompson) to secure the rights to make Mary Poppins, in part because Thompson was so good that I found her tiresome and unlikable. I get that Travers had lots of baggage (Colin Farrell does a good job as her father, in flashbacks), but who wants to watch people lug around their baggage all the time? I also think (because this is a Disney studio release) that Walt Disney is, if not sanitized, at least portrayed in the best possible light, and Hanks is always good. Still, by the end, I was genuinely touched and glad we went to see it. I think Carolyn liked it even more than I did. Definitely worth your time and worthy of the award nominations coming its way (or already arrived).

Philomena -- The best of these three good movies. We tried to see it New Year’s Eve but it sold out just as we reached the ticket sales register. Judy Dench stuns (well, can Dench really stun you any more with a performance?) as an almost-70 Irish woman on a quest to find the son taken away from her and sold by the nuns a couple or so years after the unmarried teenager gave birth at their convent. Caveat: this is probably not a movie for big fans of the Catholic Church. As a recovering Catholic,* however, I had no problem with it. Steve Cougan (he also directed and co-wrote) plays a disgraced former PR flak for British Prime Minister John Major. Yes, this film is based on actual an actual story, and the “lost” son was a real person who served in both the Bush and Reagan administrations. Philomena still lives, and Dench creates a fascinating character of depth and complexity. It’s an indie film, and so far the only place you can see it is at Frontenac. (I’d love to see indie films get exposure at venues that could show them off better, although we did see The Book Thief at a “real” theater.) Oh, and if you want to eat at The Canyon Café before or after, make a reservation. With or without dinner, Philomena is outstanding.

 * Not my expression, just one I borrowed. Thanks MAM.

Book Review: The Circle

This near-future novel by Dave Eggers has generated a fair amount of buzz and generally good reviews.

What is the logical extension of a Googlesque company (rebadged The Circle) knowing even more about you than it already does? What are the implications in terms of privacy? The scary thing about this book is that it doesn’t seem at all far-fetched. Google already tells me how often I’ve visited a site, personally tailors my search results; Amazon can pretty accurately predict what I may want to buy; iTunes suggests media based on my music library. I get cheery “Hi, Bob” greetings from innumerable sites. And FaceBook’s targeted ads are just scary close.

You’re reading this on my blog, to which you’ve either subscribed or linked via Twitter or FaceBook. We’ve already voluntarily given up so much of our privacy that the next steps suggested in the novel don’t seem at all outlandish. The technology is both conceivable and existent, for the most part. It’s just a question of organizing and harnessing the data, which is where The Circle comes in.

I’m not “slippery slope phobic,” although I recognize the theory. I think the argument is most often used to hang on to the past or to try to fend off an inevitable future. I tend to be a progressive and believe that change is not only inevitable, but that the pace of change will continue to accelerate. I also think that any lines drawn in the sand will be erased by the morning tide or next storm.

The Circle posits a social media company with the power to not only influence but control our lives. It’s definitely a cautionary tale worth considering. Still, I had to plow through it to the end, and it was heavy going. The true-believer protagonist (definitely no heroine) was neither likable nor sympathetic. I finished the book not because I cared what happened to her but because I wanted to see if the train would be derailed. 

Having spent time “camping” with the true believers I understand how momentum and inertia can take over so that you stop looking at anything except the gilded end-result. I probably steam-rolled my share of doubters, so convinced was I that my idealistic goals more than justified whatever collateral damage might have resulted. (This is quite possibly hyperbole, at least from my perspective; true believers tend to overestimate themselves, but also tend to ignore others’ pain.) I eventually evolved to consider other points of view.

The Circle is too frightening and too realistic to ignore. Whether that future can (or should) be avoided, whether it’s inevitable, those are important questions. I’ve written before about the downsides of secrets. Go ahead and discuss these issues among yourselves. I don’t know that you need this book to do it, though.

Quick Movie Review -- Captain Phillips

Just got home from watching Captain Phillips, starring Tom Hanks. Bottom line – really exciting movie that grabs you early and doesn’t let you go. Tom Hanks does a great job, creating a competent, sympathetic hero. However, the men who play the Somali pirates are also more than just cardboard villains. We get at least some understanding about how these complex, varied men try to survive in a world stacked against them. The action gets rolling quickly with an adequate minimum of exposition and you stay tense, on the edge of your seat, despite knowing (sort of) how it’s going to end, because it’s based on a true story.

That fact has led to reviews critical that the story has been “enhanced” by Hollywood. Yeah, okay. So? It’s a movie, and even movies based on true stories, can’t be expected to be 100% accurate; they are, after all, only based on a true story, a story told from, usually, a single point of view (which means it’s only partially accurate in any case). It’s a movie, not history (which has multiple points of view, too), and movies, with the exception of some documentaries, are, by definition, stories.

Even the most exciting life is mundane most of the time – making a movie of it would require the judicious use of facts that would reduce its level of truth. If Captain Phillips isn’t a completely accurate telling of what happened (and I certainly don’t know, one way or the other), it is an exciting one. So don’t let that keep you from enjoying a terrific movie, a compelling story, and a good actor carrying the load. Best movie I’ve seen in a long time, worth your time and dollars, and probably better on the big screen than your TV.