"Spotlight" is a slow-building objective procedural

If there's one thing that could probably be considered a "flaw" of "Spotlight" (2015, USA), it's that its portrayal of the victims of sexual abuse by Catholic priests here (and there are 2 such victims who "reveal" themselves in the film) make them as more of symbols than of full-rounded human beings. Yet, if we're to think about it, this really serves the over-all tone and purpose of the film. But we'll get to that shortly. Otherwise, the film is a thoroughly meticulous and engrossing news procedural, a testament to the power and integrity of responsible journalism. 

Fellow Oscar-nominated directors Alejandro Iñárritu may have endured unimaginable harsh conditions in the filming of "The Revenant", George Miller may have gone all-out bonkers in the making of "Mad Max: Fury Road", and Adam McKay may have utilized creative narrative devices in "The Big Short", but Tom McCarthy's low-key and slow-build approach, by contrast, in "Spotlight" works well to its advantage as it only goes in accordance with the steadfast and unwavering attention provided by the journalists to the delicate subject that they're working on. The film's title refers to The Boston Globe's 4-men team of print journalists (Michael Keaton, Mark Ruffalo, Rachel McAdams and Brian d'Arcy James) dedicated to investigating and reporting hard-hitting news items, which usually takes for them months to do so. And one such news item that comes their way, back in early 2000s, is the numerous cases of sexual abuse committed by Catholic priests against children in a Boston community. It's a controversial and harrowing subject, something that can undoubtedly tarnish and shake one's respect for and faith in the Catholic clergy. 

One would expect that being the means through which such cases of abuse are brought to light once more, the journalists will register as unqualified champions of justice and truth. But McCarthy's and Josh Singer's tightly-woven screenplay refuses to give in to such leanings. Except probably for a single dramatic "highlight" involving Ruffalo's character, the journalists here are not afforded any grandstanding moments or raging rhetorics. There's no conceit as well to squeeze in a revelatory backstory to each of them which may "explain" their motivation or "affect" their perspective in writing about the abuse cases. What we can sharply see is the passion, guts and drive of the journalists in carrying out their sworn duty: taking down notes, contacting possible resource persons, making follow-ups, doing manual research. It's the dirt-and-dust basics of journalist work, before the internet and social media have made, for better or for worst, everything virtually easier and more accessible. It's simply fascinating to watch the journalists deep in their objective work (and there's a feeling of nostalgia too, as proven by a sequence in the film showing the morning papers bearing the controversial news being printed in a press). 

True to how a journalistic endeavor should be, McCarthy maintains an objective and distant tone all throughout the film. It's pure reportage, not colored by any myopic vision or shady motive. And this may explain why the very few victims who come out in the film to tell their story (told in a vivid way) register as mere symbols, as stand-in voices for the many others, which doesn't give the viewers the opportunity to delve into the psychology of the abused and the abuser (which, I think, isn't really the director's and the screenwriter's main agenda). This is to avoid sensationalizing the delicate matter at hand, something which in the hands of less-sensitive directors is not likely to happen, the end-result being rather than us learning a lesson from the plight of those involved, it makes them placed in a shameful position instead. Wisely enough, no such scenes of rape and molestation are explicitly shown, instead we see the journalists talking to one another or to other people in regards the issue being investigated, either face-to-face or by phone. Even so, the beauty of the film is that there's a slow-building tension being gathered from such interactions. 

The line-up for this year's Oscar nominees for best director may have excluded or overlooked the likes of Denis Villeneuve ("Sicario"), Hou Hsiao-hsien ("The Assassin") and Ridley Scott ("The Martian"), but it can't be dismissed that the line-up remains pretty strong, that is, anyone deserves to win (though I've yet to see in the cinema this week Lenny Abrahamson's work in "Room"). But with his taut and no-frills direction, greatly helped by a no-nonsense ensemble of actors and a tightly-structured screenplay, I don't mind McCarthy grabbing the trophy from the more showy Iñárritu and Miller. On the technical side, Masanobu Takayanagi's cinematography ("The Grey") and Stephen Carter's production design (art director for "Birdman") are worthy of note as they efficiently capture the environment of a newsroom and the atmosphere of a small town. Certainly, "Spotlight" is that rare procedural film that, perhaps, brings our faith back to the credibility of responsible news investigation and reporting. 

A great ensemble that doesn't usurp one another in Tom McCarthy's "Spotlight"