Skip to main content

National security and crack cocaine in the same sentence? Does that not sound strange to you?

Kill the Messenger
(2014)

(SPOILERS) Is Kill the Messenger Peter (“I think that any rational person would think that Oswald acted alone”) Landesman’s atonement for whitewashing the JFK assassination as the actions of a lone gunman in Parkland? Probably not, but leaping from one adaptation that is extremely anti-conspiratorial to one that is extremely pro- (to the point where it includes an impartial-but-leading end text about it’s real-life protagonist’s death, although screenwriter Landesman believes it to be suicide) is at least curious. Maybe, as a former journalist, he just likes provocative texts (although most found Parkland dissatisfying to some degree, regardless of its take on the events at Dealey Plaza), since he’s now moved on to his sophomore directorial piece, also based on reportage and cover-ups, Concussion. Michael Suerra’s film, though, whatever one might have been led to expect from an “Oswald did it” guy, has its undeniable knives out for an establishment naturally disposed to cover up their dirty deeds and destroy the lives of anyone who dares to question such behaviour.


The process of public dismemberment Gary Webb (Jeremy Renner) is subjected to, in the aftermath of the Dark Alliance story that (in the movie) garners him journalist of the year, is pretty much exactly the kind of tactic set out in Owen Jones’ The Establishment with regard to the machinations and closing of ranks between media and government; its de rigueur when the latter’s dominance comes under thereat. Sure, Jones’ is at pains to poo-poo the dirty word “conspiracy”. But then, he has to; this is an age where anyone merely implying its possibility in any context will be instantly smeared. It’s a dirty word. Even Landesman (who, to re-emphasise, since it cannot be enough, backed the “Oswald did it alone” version of events, a stance also backed by all-American boy Tom Hanks as producer) uses stock footage to emphasise the ludicrousness of making this an off-limits conversation when he shows former CIA officer Duane Clarridge claiming “There’s never been a conspiracy in this country!


Landesman adapted the books of Webb and Nick Schou (with which the movie shares a title), centring on Webb’s investigation that exposed the complicity of the CIA in facilitating the supply of cocaine (and consequently crack-cocaine) to the US as a means to support and arm the Contra rebels in Nicaragua. The machinations of the CIA are portrayed as predictably morally inert, of course, but despite ploughing a well-worn furrow, Suerra ensures the first part of the picture, documenting an intrepid journalist getting a nose for a good story and following it wherever it goes, is gripping and energising, the way this sort of exposé should be.


The real meat, and outrage, though, comes during the second half, much less to do with an agency which no one has any illusions about than it is an indictment of the media behemoth, undermining any notions of integrity or indeed its entire raison d’être through failing to support Webb, willingly consorting with CIA puppet masters, and conspiring to destroy his reputation in an almost offhand tried-and tested fashion.


The are, of course, doubters as to Webb’s facility with facts, and it probably doesn’t help here that the movie compresses the range and extent of his on-going investigation (the way it appears, Webb posted the one piece and was then hamstrung in his efforts to follow it up, with his editors were very quick to give him to the wolves, although they undoubtedly did eventually). But then, this is a movie, not a documentary (although repositioning Webb’s Pulitzer Prize as related to his reporting of the Dark Alliance story goes rather beyond creative licence).


The movie coda suggests Webb was vindicated by the various official reports into his allegations, although their conclusions were actually very far from an endorsement. But, as the history of official investigations has a tendency to show, “They would say that, wouldn’t they?” Webb’s awards speech in the movie appears to be taken from a chapter he wrote in an anthology of press criticism, where he observes that his naivety about the rigour of the newspaper industry was down to the simple fact that “I hadn’t written anything important enough to suppress”.


After all, the Afghanistan opium trade has bloomed since the US military took charge there, and before Nicaragua there were the CIA’s operations during the Vietnam War. Webb may merely to have been unfortunate enough not to realise that it’s unwise to pursue a story unless someone somewhere in the establishment has an interest in that story getting out. As noted, Landesman has come down against the idea that Webb was killed as retribution for his investigation (admittedly, all that time later does put him in the ballpark of no longer being pertinent or a threat, although who knows how long grudges are held), but it’s also implied that any validation for Webb’s claims in the Justice Department report went ignored due to the suspect timeliness of Monica Lewinsky scandal.


The manner in which presumed bastions of journalism, the New York Post and Washington Post roasted Webb as a sacrificial lamb, whether in revenge for a story they completely missed or because the CIA bade them to (the movie flirts with both, but ultimately comes down in favour of the latter as the chief carrot) makes this something of a counterpoint to the glorious celebration of the press depicted in All the President’s Men. There are a few pictures coming out soon that illustrate an increasingly fraught world for notions of the free press (notably Truth and Spotlight, flipsides of success and failure), but Kill the Messenger has definitely got in there first.


It does lead the cynic to wonder, was Watergate such a triumph of reporting or did it become such a big story because it suited the broader establishment’s (not Nixon’s obviously) purposes. Likewise, one wonders how this corporate media bias works when one sees The Guardian riding on the acclaim of their Edward Snowden reportage, but then siding against anyone who might rock the neoliberal establishment boat (be it Jeremy Corbyn or Bernie Sanders, the latter however tentatively). Is a story allowed to snowball only when it plays into a long-term plan?


Kill the Messenger is expertly cast, wisely borrowing the Oliver Stone JFK trick (since much used in true-life tales with potentially confusing casts of characters) of populating its line up with familiar faces. Renner’s very good, a reminder that he’s a much more interesting performer when he isn’t in big studio vehicles (he doesn’t elicit the sympathy of a classic movie star, so such roles aren’t usually a good fit for him). Rosemarie DeWitt is typically great as Webb’s long-suffering wife, although, while the disintegration of Webb’s home life is entirely relevant, it does sometimes overstep the bounds of good taste (all the overcooked bits with his son doing up an old motorbike).


Tim Blake Nelson, Robert Patrick, Michael K Williams, Andy Garcia, Barry Pepper, Richard Schiff, Ray Liotta (as the inevitable Deep Throat), Michael Sheen (whose Fred Weil warns Webb of what will lie in store for him; he will be “controversialised”, such that “No one remembers what you found, and they remember you”). Oliver Platt and Mary Elizabeth Winstead are particularly good as the editing duo who initially show Webb support (the publishing of his story is depicted as the high before the inevitable comedown) only to close ranks and protect their own backs. As Webb accuses, “You become a paper that tells the truth only when you fucking feel like it”.


Director Michael Cuesta has couple of prior features under his belt, but has mostly hitherto made his bed in television, including Dexter and Homeland (is racist). Kill the Messenger is confident and economical, taking in the scope of international location hoping and a broad cast with deceptive ease. He occasionally resorts to cliché (all those shots of Webb speeding from location to location), but generally knows exactly how to exert and maintain a grip. The conversation behind the details of Webb’s story will continue to be debated (but who are those giving the CIA the benefit of the doubt trying to kid, right?) but Kill the Messenger’s main achievement is its convincing portrait of how the one reporting the story becomes the story, hung out to dry in order to preserve the status quo. One might suggest that, by making the movie about Webb, the picture inadvertently offers a continuation of that misdirected conversation. But, if it does, it’s probably a reasonable sacrifice, attempting as it does to redress the balance in favour of its maligned protagonist.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Well, we took a vote. Predator’s cooler, right?

The Predator (2018)
(SPOILERS) Is The Predator everything you’d want from a Shane Black movie featuring a Predator (or Yautja, or Hish-Qu-Ten, apparently)? Emphatically not. We've already had a Shane Black movie featuring a Predator – or the other way around, at least – and that was on another level. The problem – aside from the enforced reshoots, and the not-altogether-there casting, and the possibility that full-on action extravaganzas, while delivered competently, may not be his best foot forward – is that I don't think Black's really a science-fiction guy, game as he clearly was to take on the permanently beleaguered franchise. He makes The Predator very funny, quite goofy, very gory, often entertaining, but ultimately lacking a coherent sense of what it is, something you couldn't say of his three prior directorial efforts.

Right! Let’s restore some bloody logic!

It Couldn't Happen Here (1987)
(SPOILERS) "I think our film is arguably better than Spiceworld" said Neil Tennant of his and Chris Lowe's much-maligned It Couldn't Happen Here, a quasi-musical, quasi-surrealist journey through the English landscape via the Pet shop Boys' "own" history as envisaged by co-writer-director Jack Bond. Of course, Spiceworld could boast the presence of the illustrious Richard E Grant, while It Couldn't Happen Here had to settle for Gareth Hunt. Is its reputation deserved? It's arguably not very successful at being a coherent film (even thematically), but I have to admit that I rather like it, ramshackle and studiously aloof though it is.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …

My pectorals may leave much to be desired, Mrs Peel, but I’m the most powerful man you’ve ever run into.

The Avengers 2.23: The Positive-Negative Man
If there was a lesson to be learned from Season Five, it was not to include "man" in your title, unless it involves his treasure. The See-Through Man may be the season's stinker, but The Positive-Negative Man isn't far behind, a bog-standard "guy with a magical science device uses it to kill" plot. A bit like The Cybernauts, but with Michael Latimer painted green and a conspicuous absence of a cool hat.

The possibilities are gigantic. In a very small way, of course.

The Avengers 5.24: Mission… Highly Improbable
With a title riffing on a then-riding-high US spy show, just as the previous season's The Girl from Auntie riffed on a then-riding-high US spy show, it's to their credit that neither have even the remotest connection to their "inspirations" besides the cheap gags (in this case, the episode was based on a teleplay submitted back in 1964). Mission… Highly Improbable follows in the increasing tradition (certainly with the advent of Season Five and colour) of SF plotlines, but is also, in its particular problem with shrinkage, informed by other recent adventurers into that area.

Dude, you're embarrassing me in front of the wizards.

Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
(SPOILERS) The cliffhanger sequel, as a phenomenon, is a relatively recent thing. Sure, we kind of saw it with The Empire Strikes Back – one of those "old" movies Peter Parker is so fond of – a consequence of George Lucas deliberately borrowing from the Republic serials of old, but he had no guarantee of being able to complete his trilogy; it was really Back to the Future that began the trend, and promptly drew a line under it for another decade. In more recent years, really starting with The MatrixThe Lord of the Rings stands apart as, post-Weinstein's involvement, fashioned that way from the ground up – shooting the second and third instalments back-to-back has become a thing, both more cost effective and ensuring audiences don’t have to endure an interminable wait for their anticipation to be sated. The flipside of not taking this path is an Allegiant, where greed gets the better of a studio (split a novel into two movie parts assuming a…

Bring home the mother lode, Barry.

Beyond the Black Rainbow (2010)

If Panos Cosmatos’ debut had continued with the slow-paced, tripped-out psychedelia of the first hour or so I would probably have been fully on board with it, but the decision to devolve into an ‘80s slasher flick in the final act lost me.

The director is the son of George Pan Cosmatos (he of The Cassandra Crossing and Cobra, and in name alone of Tombstone, apparently) and it appears that his inspiration was what happened to the baby boomers in the ‘80s, his parents’ generation. That element translates effectively, expressed through the extreme of having a science institute engaging in Crowley/Jack Parsons/Leary occult quests for enlightenment in the ‘60s and the survivors having become burnt out refugees or psychotics by the ‘80s. Depending upon your sensibilities, the torturously slow pace and the synth soundtrack are positives, while the cinematography managed to evoke both lurid early ‘80s cinema and ‘60s experimental fare. 

Ultimately the film takes a …

What a truly revolting sight.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar’s Revenge (aka Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales) (2017)
(SPOILERS) The biggest mistake the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels have made is embracing continuity. It ought to have been just Jack Sparrow with an entirely new cast of characters each time (well, maybe keep Kevin McNally). Even On Stranger Tides had Geoffrey Rush obligatorily returning as Barbossa. Although, that picture’s biggest problem was its director; Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar’s Revenge has a pair of solid helmers in Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg, which is a relief at least. But alas, the continuity is back with a vengeance. And then some. Why, there’s even an origin-of-Jack Sparrow vignette, to supply us with prerequisite, unwanted and distracting uncanny valley (or uncanny Johnny) de-aging. The movie as a whole is an agreeable time passer, by no means the dodo its critical keelhauling would suggest, albeit it isn’t even pretending to try hard to come up with …

Believe me, Mr Bond, I could shoot you from Stuttgart und still create ze proper effect.

Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)
(SPOILERS) Some of the reactions to Spectre would have you believe it undoes all the “good” work cementing Daniel Craig’s incarnation of Bond in Skyfall. If you didn’t see that picture as the second coming of the franchise (I didn’t) your response to the latest may not be so harsh, despite its less successful choices (Blofeld among them). And it isn’t as if one step, forward two steps back are anything new in perceptions of the series (or indeed hugely divisive views on what even constitutes a decent Bond movie). After the raves greeting Goldeneye, Pierce Brosnan suffered a decidedly tepid response to his second outing, Tomorrow Never Dies, albeit it was less eviscerated than Craig’s sophomore Quantum of Solace. Tomorrow’s reputation disguises many strong points, although it has to be admitted that a Moore-era style finale and a floundering attempt to package in a halcyon villain aren’t among them.

The Bond series’ flirtations with contemporary relevance have a…