Skip to main content

I thought our job was to provide oversight and accountability. Not middle ground.

The Report
(2019)

(SPOILERS) It’s a recurring problem for today’s politically-inclined movies, and even more so for politically-inclined movies dealing with coverups and unconscionable establishment acts, that you can no longer surprise or shock the audience, let alone elicit anger. Which means they tend to function as mutual pats on the back of the privileged but cause-conscious Hollywood in-crowd, a vouching of just how decent and concerned for the welfare of us all they are, despite being safely ensconced in their ivory towers. The end products are usually the kind of ineffectual fare George Clooney puts his name to, and despite no one having any interest in seeing them, they continue to get greenlit to keep the stars and creatives sweet. Short of a Truther account of 9/11, which you would never get – you wouldn’t even get a Capricorn One-style retelling, and no, Star Trek Into Darkness doesn’t count – it takes the irreverence of The Big Short to muster wider interest (and when that’s repeated as a formula, as with the limp Vice, it’s back to the drawing board). Even Best Picture winner Spotlight elicited little more than polite nods and shrugs of approval. And so, a similar fate awaits Scott Z Burns’ The Report, a worthy, solid but mostly unremarkable account of exposing the CIA’s post 9/11 torture – or EIT, enhanced interrogation techniques – programme.

Burns is a repeat collaborator with Steven Soderbergh, and unsurprisingly, the latter’s name appears as a producer. This is the sort of topical fare Soderbergh takes an option out on between completing his latest event series and a movie shot on an iPhone. It’s commendable, but like almost everything Soderbergh attaches himself to, apparently on a whim, you end up wondering why precisely it needed to be made and who exactly will be wanting to see it (luckily, it has fetched up on Amazon, cherished home of such unloved offspring, so the answer remains in limbo). Is The Report telling anyone anything they didn’t know already, in an either incisive or illuminating manner?

Perhaps if there had been more attention to the CIA’s history of torture, rather than presenting events as an episode borne of extreme circumstances, The Report might have been more memorable. But alas, it is not dedicated to bringing down an institution. Hence, the best we get is a passing reference to “You yourself said, the CIA knew this shit didn’t work in 1978, and it didn’t stop them doing it again”. The Senate Intelligence Committee investigation at the centre of the film bore that out, in its references to the KUBARK manual, but Newsweek was surprised that the CIA’s Vietnam efforts merited little comment in the report. Perhaps it did; only a 500-page summary was eventually released, rather than the full-length version (“It’s 7000 pages, Dan. The Bible tells the history of mankind in less than that”).

Burns’ best work with Soderbergh resulted in the couldn’t-make-it-up delirium of The Informant! and more recently the slightly underwhelming The Laundromat (he also has a credit on the forthcoming No Time to Die, perhaps owing to his Bourne experience). A little more the flair of those two might not have gone amiss, to make the movie stand out, on the basis that we all know the CIA torture people and we all know those in the government isn’t really that outraged and we all know, because we’re one and the same, that the public, instilled into a state of herd-like fear or antipathy went along with all measures deemed necessary. The closest we come is the two CIA contractors promoting the EITs, suitably heightened in their enthusiastic application of their techniques – Douglas Hodge, on something of a roll right now, is especially odious – but in a picture otherwise so buttoned down, their behaviour actually feels more absurdist than it should.

Driver is appropriately zealous and indignant as intrepid Senate staffer Dan Jones, dedicated to outing the truth, and kept in something approaching check by an also very dependable Annette Bening as Diann Feinstein. The picture hits the closest it comes to a stride after Burns has laid out the bits we already know and he’s digging into the attempts to smear Dan and so get the report buried. This is the kind of push-pull tension you want and need from such a yarn; Jones teetering on the brink of becoming a Snowden-esque whistle blower comes across as very real (although, his pull back from the brink could be viewed as a disavowal of such behaviour). It’s also nice to see a nod to Zero Dark Thirty being bullshit – a vastly overrated film – with the political capital of Bin Laden’s offing laid out in no uncertain terms, vis-à-vis the relationship between the CIA’s “triumph” and Obama securing a second term.

There’s solid support in small roles from Ted Levine, Michael C Hall, John Hamm, Corey Stoll and Scott Shepherd. Maura Tierney makes for a particularly chilling composite of Gina Haspel, current CIA Director. You can’t fault the performers, or Burns’ intentions, but the picture fails to build up an air of legitimate paranoia about the agency’s unchecked sanction, even when pushing through the reading of the report ends up hinging on the view that “The CIA cannot spy on the US Congress”. Perhaps Burns felt more explicit thriller elements would detract; a carpark scene provides the obligatory nod to All the President’s Men, as does a brief appearance by Tim Blake Nelson prodding Dan on the right path, but the proceedings are otherwise a little too sure and steady.

Everyone involved in The Report – as antiseptic and forgettable a title as Truth – surely felt proud of a job well done, but the job itself was redundant. Full marks for taking a position that should be a given, and furnishing some detail beyond the headlines, but ultimately, the picture will be consigned to the scrapheap of forgettability of almost every other War on Terror movie Hollywood has diligently choked out.


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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.