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

Nanobots aren’t just for Christmas.

No Time to Die (2021) (SPOILERS) You know a Bond movie is in trouble when it resorts to wholesale appropriation of lines and even the theme song from another in order to “boost” its emotional heft. That No Time to Die – which previewed its own title song a year and a half before its release to resoundingly underwhelmed response, Grammys aside – goes there is a damning indictment of its ability to eke out such audience investment in Daniel Craig’s final outing as James (less so as 007). As with Spectre , the first half of No Time to Die is, on the whole, more than decent Bond fare, before it once again gets bogged down in the quest for substance and depth from a character who, regardless of how dapper his gear is, resolutely resists such outfitting.

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.

Big things have small beginnings.

Prometheus (2012) Post- Gladiator , Ridley Scott opted for an “All work and no pondering” approach to film making. The result has been the completion of as many movies since the turn of the Millennium as he directed in the previous twenty years. Now well into his seventies, he has experienced the most sustained period of success of his career.  For me, it’s also been easily the least-interesting period. All of them entirely competently made, but all displaying the machine-tooled approach that was previously more associated with his brother.

I’m giving you a choice. Either put on these glasses or start eating that trash can.

They Live * (1988) (SPOILERS) Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of They Live – I was a big fan of most things Carpenter at the time of its release – but the manner in which its reputation as a prophecy of (or insight into) “the way things are” has grown is a touch out of proportion with the picture’s relatively modest merits. Indeed, its feting rests almost entirely on the admittedly bravura sequence in which WWF-star-turned-movie-actor Roddy Piper, under the influence of a pair of sunglasses, first witnesses the pervasive influence of aliens among us who are sucking mankind dry. That, and the ludicrously genius sequence in which Roddy, full of transformative fervour, attempts to convince Keith David to don said sunglasses, for his own good. They Live should definitely be viewed by all, for their own good, but it’s only fair to point out that it doesn’t have the consistency of John Carpenter at his very, very best. Nada : I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick a

Ladies and gentlemen, this could be a cultural misunderstanding.

Mars Attacks! (1996) (SPOILERS) Ak. Akk-akk! Tim Burton’s gleefully ghoulish sci-fi was his first real taste of failure. Sure, there was Ed Wood , but that was cheap, critics loved it, and it won Oscars. Mars Attacks! was BIG, though, expected to do boffo business, and like more than a few other idiosyncratic spectaculars of the 1990s ( Last Action Hero , Hudson Hawk ) it bombed BIG. The effect on Burton was noticeable. He retreated into bankable propositions (the creative and critical nadir perhaps being Planet of the Apes , although I’d rate it much higher than the likes of Alice in Wonderland and Dumbo ) and put the brakes on his undisciplined goth energy. Something was lost. Mars Attacks! is far from entirely successful, but it finds the director let loose with his own playset and sensibility intact, apparently given the licence to do what he will.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

It's something trying to get out.

The Owl Service (1969-70) I may have caught a glimpse of Channel 4’s repeat of  The Owl Service  in 1987, but not enough to stick in the mind. My formative experience was Alan Garner’s novel, which was read several years earlier during English lessons. Garner’s tapestry of magical-mythical storytelling had an impact, with its possession theme and blending of legend with the here and now. Garner depicts a Britain where past and present are mutable, and where there is no safety net of objective reality; life becomes a strange waking dream. His fantasy landscapes are both attractive and disturbing; the uncanny reaching out from the corners of the attic.  But I have to admit that the themes of class and discrimination went virtually unnoticed in the wake of such high weirdness. The other Garner books I read saw young protagonists transported to fantasy realms. The resonance of  The Owl Service  came from the fragmenting of the rural normal. When the author notes that he neve

Isn’t sugar better than vinegar?

Femme Fatale (2002) (SPOILERS) Some have attempted to rescue Femme Fatale from the dumpster of critical rejection and audience indifference with the claim that it’s De Palma’s last great movie. It isn’t that by a long shot, but it might rank as the last truly unfettered display of his obsessions and sensibilities, complete with a ludicrous twist – so ludicrous, it’s either a stroke of genius or mile-long pile up.

Beer is for breakfast around here. Drink or begone.

Cocktail (1988) (SPOILERS) When Tarantino claims the 1980s (and 1950s) as the worst movie decade, I’m inclined to invite him to shut his butt down. But should he then flourish Cocktail as Exhibit A, I’d be forced to admit he has a point. Cocktail is a horrifying, malignant piece of dreck, a testament to the efficacy of persuasive star power on a blithely rapt and undiscerning audience. Not only is it morally vacuous, it’s dramatically inert. And it relies on Tom’s toothy charms to a degree that would have any sensitive soul rushed to the A&E suffering from toxic shock (Tom’s most recently displayed toothy charms will likely have even his staunchest devotees less than sure of themselves, however, as he metamorphoses into your favourite grandma). And it was a huge box office hit.

What’s so bad about being small? You’re not going to be small forever.

Innerspace (1987) There’s no doubt that Innerspace is a flawed movie. Joe Dante finds himself pulling in different directions, his instincts for comic subversion tempered by the need to play the romance plot straight. He tacitly acknowledges this on the DVD commentary for the film, where he notes Pauline Kael’s criticism that he was attempting to make a mainstream movie; and he was. But, as ever with Dante, it never quite turns out that way. Whereas his kids’ movies treat their protagonists earnestly, this doesn’t come so naturally with adults. I’m a bona fide devotee of Innerspace , but I can’t help but be conscious of its problems. For the most part Dante papers over the cracks; the movie hits certain keynotes of standard Hollywood prescription scripting. But his sensibility inevitably suffuses it. That, and human cartoon Martin Short (an ideal “leading man” for the director) ensure what is, at first glance just another “ Steven Spielberg Presents ” sci-fi/fantas