Spotlight

Der Film sah genau so aus, wie ich erwartet habe. Super geschrieben, die Zuschauer*innen gehen trotz vielen Namen und Figuren nicht verloren. Die Informationen werden so dosiert, dass der Film dadurch präzise gesteigert wird. Die Schauspieler*innen genießen die Rollen so, als ob es sich um das wichtigste Theaterspiel ihrer Karriere handeln würde. Umso mehr tut es mir leid, dass seine Figuren nur die Rolle von investigativen Journalisten erfüllen, aber keiner von ihnen zu dem untersuchten Subjekt eine engere Beziehung hat. Aber es stimmt wiederum, dass mit ihr der Film ein ausgeklügelter Thriller wäre, worum es Spotlight nicht geht. Spotlight bleibt den echten Begebenheiten treu, er erweist eine mutige Ehre den richtigen Journalisten-Helden und äußert sich vor allem zu einem verdammt ernsten Thema. Dass er politisch daran nichts ändert und in ein paar Jahren in Vergessenheit gerät – das ist schon eine andere Geschichte. (15.04.2016)

Crime investigation is surely an interesting thing, but once the movie is based solely on that (and there’s far too much talking, too) then it’s really hard to get into it. However, I must admit that Mark Ruffalo was absolutely unparalleled. I liked him the most out of the list of interesting actors. And the story? It’s almost unbelievable. It’d be different if it were a single person, but a whole group of people? And the end credits with the list of churches all around the world that were involved in this prove that it isn’t just an American issue. That makes it even more terrifying… (29.02.2016)

Procedural minimalist journalistic drama par excellence, which is about journalism and journalists as much as about the topic of that coverage. In a way, it's a movie coverage, how an honest investigative coverage is made, rather than a journalistic thriller that you might have expected based on what the coverage is about and what it reveals. With few exceptions proving the rule, no room for background or personal issues. Only a few months of obtaining source after source, confirming the credibility of sources, documents, statistics, statements, spending endless hours in the archives, and gradually completing the puzzle piece by piece until a complete disturbing picture emerges. Whoever likes this way of brief portraying things where the events are observed from distance, will clearly enjoy it. It called for being captured and build purely on that case, to focus more on the emotions or the priests, the Church and the victims, and the genre rules of the journalistic thriller could be respected, but there are other movies to do this job. And it is precisely this seeming impartiality and civility that makes it even more impressive and, as a result, more disturbing, as only the simple facts can do, and how it could have never been achieved by too emotional movie. (06.01.2016)

As the hours pass since watching it, I find it to be better and better, because although the topic tempted tabloid controversy or impartial coverage from both sides, the chosen format of investigative journalistic procedure ultimately suited it best. The film can be accused of being detached and of the absence of the other side's perspective, but the captivated reporters, working on minimally sketched personal levels, are so fascinating that it is hard to accuse them of anything else. The only flaw I actually see is the "wannabe Fincher style," where they go for precise camera axes and the targeted coldness is too tight at times, not intrinsically lively. In any case, investigative journalists could not have asked for a better compliment; the painstaking work, the fact-checking, and the willingness not to go after the headlines are actually admirable. (16.02.2016)

I just have a soft spot for these chamber dramas. Especially when I feel like I'm not wasting my time watching them because it gives me something. Whether it's quality entertainment or new knowledge. More films like this and I'll like that American cinema a lot more. The actors act because they have something to act. And that's the best part. (06.03.2016)