Skip to main content

You’re really going to do it this time? Your evil corporate overlords will let you?

Truth
(2015)

(SPOILERS) Two notable films on the subject of journalism were released in 2015, one concerning dogged reporters successfully exposing the cover-up of decades of institutional wrongdoings, the other about still-diligent reporters tripping up and having knives sharpened at the expense of their perceived shoddy workmanship. One went on to win Best Picture Oscar, the other received mostly tepid reviews and made only a couple of million dollars at the box office. Truth admittedly veers towards the tepid, truth be told, but it didn’t deserve such an unmarked interment. I’m just not so sure there’s any conspiracy theory to be fashioned from its failure.


The problem lies firmly at the door of writer-debut director James Vanderbilt, who previously delivered a sterling piece of factual screenwriting for David Fincher’s Zodiac. His direction is unconvincing and underdeveloped, and not in the unshowy, understated vein that worked for Tom McCarthy’s Spotlight; the results feel movie-of-the week as, sadly, does his lead-by-the-nose writing and characterisation.


Vanderbilt adapted the memoir Truth and Duty: The Press, the President and the Privilege of Power by Mary Mapes (played here by Cate Blanchett), the producer of CBS Dan Rather’s 60 Minutes, detailing the fallout from their 2004 investigation into and report on Dubya’s military service, which everyone knows (I say everyone, hosts of people still voted for him not once but twice, at least that’s what the polls tell us) shows him to have been in dereliction of duty. He’s just that kind of guy. If he could get away with it on account of daddy, he would. And did.


There’s more than enough juice here, and Vanderbilt has assembled a strong cast, although Blanchett is possibly the least impressive of the line-up, tending towards caricature when something subtler might have played better. It doesn’t help that Vanderbilt has gone overboard in embroidering Mapes’ home life (what a good mommy she is, what a supportive husband she has), to the point of insipidness; some of that is probably necessary, but it shouldn’t be distracting from the story.


Redford’s great though, bringing the weight of a guy who actually did make a classic movie about investigative journalism, the classic movie about investigative journalism (All the President’s Men), even if one might conjecture conspiracy within the uncovering of that conspiracy (as in, Woodward and Bernstein were, some posit, the convenient players in a sanctioned ousting of Nixon). I don’t really know Rather’s style and approach, and I’m not especially familiar with 60 Minutes, but Redford effectively portrays a bastion of old-style, when-it-meant-something journalistic pride (not that such an era ever really existed, but it appeared to exist, and that’s what counts) that hearkens to the like of Clooney’s Good Night, and Good Luck. Indeed, Rather’s retired signoff “Courage” sounds straight out of that era.


Both Truth and Spotlight share a very real eulogising for the passing of prioritising the actual nuts and bolts and hard graft of the job in the age of the Internet, and the political motivations of CBS and its parent in firing Rather –  I have little time for the argument that it was all fair and above board – only highlight the farce of those vouching for real news being the very ones fanning the flames of its death; the situation now really is to “just read out what is handed to us”).


There are problems with the Rather presence, in as much as the likes of Topher Grace’s Mike Smith is given to rapturous veneration of the man as the reason he entered journalism, but because he isn’t centre stage, the character succeeds in the main as an iconic form. Likewise, Grace’s young firebrand is good fun, invigoratingly unpersuaded by the wheels and processes of the corporate system and given a particularly barnstorming rant at the man firing him (David Lyons’ Josh Howard), pointing to the political links between Viacom and George W before being led from the building with a parting “They’re going to screw you too, you know”. In the interests of balance, one wonders slightly why Viacom wouldn’t have put the kibosh on the story earlier had that been their plan, although the conspiracy view holds that the story was put out there so doubt could be cast on it.


The doubt being the veracity of the memos purporting to detail Bush’s military indiscretions, which despite having seemingly entered lore as fakes, have neither been proved or disproved, as the originals have never been provided to inspect (the font argument certainly doesn’t hold up as a case for dismissal). Grace’s outburst leads into the best section of the picture, ironically the last 30 minutes, as Mapes is hung out to dry by her bosses. Maybe it’s because a courtroom, even a kangaroo courtroom, scene is always good value, but the picture almost kindles something approaching a fire under it at this point.


Vanderbilt is actually quite good with depicting the way factors that became decisive on her fate were casually batted off by Mapes; it’s the way he underlines other aspects with treacly music and characters pronouncing how amazing they are that rankle, or clumsily introduces a brief subplot about Mapes dad (“What about my father?”) And, when the bottom line is voiced (“The system is rigged. It always has been. You know that”), you’re left wishing the whole picture had been as unflinchingly cynical. It doesn’t need bow-wrapped gushing like “Hey, Mary. I believe you” from her lawyer (Andrew McFarlane).


There’s fine support on hand from Dennis Quaid as a seasoned ex-colonel on the team and Stacy Keach as the crucial witness, not enough of Elisabeth Moss and Bruce Greenwood (but can that guy leave an impression in just a few seconds), but Truth leaves a general feeling of a missed opportunity. Other cases involving the press and politics have run aground at the box office while nevertheless making good pictures (Fair Game), but Truth is merely middling. It needed to be angry to make an impact, but Vanderbilt directs with indifferent resignation. This is the way things are going and there’s nothing that can be done. Probably true, but he could have been more impassioned about it.



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930)
(SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds. Juno and the Paycock, set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

I mean, I am just a dumb bunny, but, we are good at multiplying.

Zootropolis (2016)
(SPOILERS) The key to Zootropolis’ creative success isn’t so much the conceit of its much-vaunted allegory regarding prejudice and equality, or – conversely – the fun to be had riffing on animal stereotypes (simultaneously clever and obvious), or even the appealing central duo voiced by Ginnifier Goodwin (as first rabbit cop Judy Hopps) and Jason Bateman (fox hustler Nick Wilde). Rather, it’s coming armed with that rarity for an animation; a well-sustained plot that doesn’t devolve into overblown set pieces or rest on the easy laurels of musical numbers and montages.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded
The Premise
George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

You know what I think? I think he just wants to see one cook up close.

The Green Mile (1999)
(SPOILERS) There’s something very satisfying about the unhurried confidence of the storytelling in Frank Darabont’s two prison-set Stephen King adaptations (I’m less beholden to supermarket sweep The Mist); it’s sure, measured and precise, certain that the journey you’re being take on justifies the (indulgent) time spent, without the need for flashy visuals or ornate twists (the twists there are feel entirely germane – with a notable exception – as if they could only be that way). But. The Green Mile has rightly come under scrutiny for its reliance on – or to be more precise, building its foundation on – the “Magical Negro” trope, served with a mild sprinkling of idiot savant (so in respect of the latter, a Best Supporting Actor nomination was virtually guaranteed). One might argue that Stephen King’s magical realist narrative flourishes well-worn narrative ploys and characterisations at every stage – such that John Coffey’s initials are announcement enough of his…

We live in a twilight world.

Tenet (2020)
(SPOILERS) I’ve endured a fair few confusingly-executed action sequences in movies – more than enough, actually – but I don’t think I’ve previously had the odd experience of being on the edge of my seat during one while simultaneously failing to understand its objectives and how those objectives are being attempted. Which happened a few times during Tenet. If I stroll over to the Wiki page and read the plot synopsis, it is fairly explicable (fairly) but as a first dive into this Christopher Nolan film, I frequently found it, if not impenetrable, then most definitely opaque.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985)
(SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and gleefully distr…

Just make love to that wall, pervert!

Seinfeld 2.10: The Statue
The Premise
Jerry employs a cleaner, the boyfriend of an author whose book Elaine is editing. He leaves the apartment spotless, but Jerry is convinced he has made off with a statue.

It looks like we’ve got another schizoid embolism!

Total Recall (1990)
(SPOILERS) Paul Verhoeven offered his post-mortem on the failures of the remakes of Total Recall (2012) and Robocop (2013) when he suggested “They take these absurd stories and make them too serious”. There may be something in this, but I suspect the kernel of their issues is simply filmmakers without either the smarts or vision, or both, to make something distinctive from the material. No one would have suggested the problem with David Cronenberg’s prospective Total Recall was over-seriousness, yet his version would have been far from a quip-heavy Raiders of the Lost Ark Go to Mars (as he attributes screenwriter Ron Shusset’s take on the material). Indeed, I’d go as far as saying not only the star, but also the director of Total Recall (1990) were miscast, making it something of a miracle it works to the extent it does.

Seems silly, doesn't it? A wedding. Given everything that's going on.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I (2010)
(SPOILERS) What’s good in the first part of the dubiously split (of course it was done for the art) final instalment in the Harry Potter saga is very good, let down somewhat by decisions to include material that would otherwise have been rightly excised and the sometimes-meandering travelogue. Even there, aspects of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I can be quite rewarding, taking on the tone of an apocalyptic ‘70s aftermath movie or episode of Survivors (the original version), as our teenage heroes (some now twentysomethings) sleep rough, squabble, and try to salvage a plan. The main problem is that the frequently strong material requires a robust structure to get the best from it.