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.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.