I miss the Ottoman Empire.

Rating: 6/10 (29 April 2017)

So, this film raises a good question: should the genre of a film be taken into account when considering the overall quality?
I understand that for the horror genre, it's generally well accepted that dumb characters and logic gaps are par for the course. The reason being that most people don't take horror too seriously, especially in the mainstream market. So with that in mind, does this film cement the standard for the "journalism" genre as one which requires no real direction or anything even remotely exceptional on a visual level? The blocking, cinematography, and art direction feel just flat out lazy and uninspired. All the scenes are constructed as though it were a Star Wars prequel. Just have a couple of characters stand around and talk to each other, and to spice it up we'll have them walk to a different part of the office. No effort is made to arrange the characters or the camera in a creative way which makes any scene distinguishable from the others.
So of course a natural counter to these complaints would be that the film is portraying the story with the realism it requires. The idea is that it's showing the journalists doing their jobs without exaggeration or sensationalist elements. It should be as it actually happened. May I ask though, in what way the plot would be seriously altered by creative cinematography or having the characters do something interesting while they're having dialogue? The lines don't have to change. The sequence of events don't have to change. The screenplay doesn't even really have to change. The director simply has to put in the effort to make it look even just a little bit interesting. Why not have a scene where one of the characters is putting together a jigsaw puzzle while the other is pacing around the room try to solve their own mental puzzle? I know that example is kind of dumb but it's a simple change that I think would make just about any scene in this film more interesting. Of course if it's shot in the same flat style as the rest of it then there wouldn't be much of a difference.
I want to clarify that I don't think this film is bad. It's just not really exceptional. If you like it then that's fine. There are things to like about it. The point I'm trying to make is that this is a film and not a radio drama. It takes more then having your actors stand there, having them recite some logistical dialogue, and call it good. Just because this film is about journalism doesn't mean that it just has to be people talking and nothing else. If you don't want to tarnish this story with the utilization of film making techniques then maybe you shouldn't bother with adapting it to begin with. Since this story was adapted into film however, I am going to consider it the same way I would consider any other film. As such it is not very good. It's okay. That's it. There is no excuse for mediocrity in film, whatever the story. Spotlight doesn't get a free pass because it's about reporters.
Wouldn't really recommend it.