Flawed film about the Catholic sex abuse scandals

Rating: 5/10 (23 November 2015)

I wanted to like "Spotlight." The epidemic of sexual abuse in Catholic parishes deserves all of the attention it can get, but the execution of this film just simply did not cut the mustard. Those extolling the virtues of this film, and clamoring for Oscar nods, seem blind to just how ill-conceived the story is.
The leads were one-dimensional; sure, they wanted to break the story of sexual abuse within the Catholic diocese in Boston, but there was never any sense of dilemma, conflicting desires, or backstory which could provide a stronger motivation for the goal. Everything was straightforward and on the nose.
The characters had a deliberate way of of speaking, and a deliberate interest in breaking the sex abuse scandal, but their motivation was entirely unclear. I suppose we ought to just believe that journalistic integrity dictates that any crime or scandal must be broken to the world, but there was never any appreciation for the dilemma of the characters or the stakes they faced. Basically, the stakes were as follows: if we break this story, the Catholic church might be mad at us. Those could very well have been the stakes in the actual, real-life story, but they don't make for good cinema. A strong cinematic dilemma might be that one of the journalists is a personal friend of one of the abusive priests, and thus is faced with the conflict of doing the right thing versus protecting his/her dear friend. Or, perhaps by breaking the story, the journalists are jeopardizing their own physical well-being. Again, adding such dilemmas might be violating the veracity of the story, but it's a film, and if the drama and the dilemma aren't there, then maybe a documentary or non-fiction book are a better means of telling the story. The war epic, "Gladiator," is hardly historically accurate - Marcus Aurelius was not murdered by his son Commodus (the driving force behind the film's revenge plot) - but it makes for great cinema.
In the same vein as murky character motivations, is the problem of obstacles. There was not a strong source of antagonism behind preventing the scandal from being released. The writer of "Spotlight" could have written the Catholic church as a more menacing and formidable force. I was never concerned that our hero journalists would fail in their mission. And more importantly, I was never worried that the truth would continue to be obfuscated by the Church. The writer could have expanded the Cardinal Law character into an active enemy of truth, and someone whose cunning and entitlement is sickening. The Cardinal Law character could have been as menacing and nuanced as Noah Cross in "Chinatown." In fact, "Chinatown" is a great example of everything that is missing in "Spotlight." If you recall the line in Polanski's magnum opus, when Cross says to Gittes: "You may think you know what you're dealing with, but, believe me, you don't." In that scene, the audience truly feels the gravity of the moment, and the truth that Gittes is embarking on something bigger than himself, and that he should tread softly.
Another point about this story, and it may be the biggest point, is the medium. Every story has an appropriate medium for telling. The Catcher in the Rye, for instance, does not lend itself to a cinematic retelling, to say nothing of Salinger's steadfast refusal to sell the book rights. Likewise, "Spotlight" is not a story that is best told through a visual medium. There is just simply not enough action. Each scene in the film consists of characters talking to each other, hoping to gain new information. While this can work in films where the dialogue is an art form in-and-of itself, it is not the case in "Spotlight." The dialogue and characterization was not nearly strong enough.