State Of Play Review

Aimed High, Shot Foot

The last great film that was set in a newsroom was 'Zodiac' by David Fincher. It's a brilliant film that tracks the investigations into the Zodiac murders in the late 1960s into the 1970s. One of the more interesting aspects of 'Zodiac' was how stylistically, it drew on the other classic newsroom film, 'All The President's Men'.

Maybe the benchmark was set too high on both films. 'State of Play' starring Russell Crowe and Rachel McAdams is a big swing for the fences by Director Kevin MacDonald, but I'm not convinced it's as good as the crits are saying it is.

What's Good About It

Anytime somebody gives you a film with a certain amount of character complexity and plot complexity, you take it on board with pleasure. In this day and age where Batman has evolved into a critique of Neo-Con ideology, and Iron Man is a critique of the war machine within the state's need to tie up with capitalism, then it's a relief to see your main character who is not going to don a suit or leap into the sky to take down a helicopter.

The gritty realism is in its own way, a reward for people who can remember a more mature kind of cinema that seems to have vanished off the radar. Maybe our whole civilization is headed for infantilism; or perhaps Hollywood is now entirely peopled with idiots and mediots born after 1985. In any case, it's good a to see a film that wants to talk about adult ideas. And when I say adult, I don't mean porn.

Also good is the flat earnestness of the performances. The entire cast has a somber delivery that gives you the impression of a world that is a little short on charisma except for the Ben Affleck's congressman character. The figures seem to bumble and stagger towards the truth in a haphazard manner, which is indeed reminiscent of the moments with Dustin Hoffman's portrayal of Carl Bernstein. The issue is not the glamorising of the newsroom so much as the eulogising of the past glories of newsrooms.

Newspapers are doing it tough right now. I don't buy them but I consume them in spades on line, and I wonder how on earth they're going to survive. The almost sentimental awareness of the past glories in the film makes the characters plausible.

What's Bad About It

I'm usually good at following complicated plots and deciphering the motivations of the characters who involve themselves in such stories. This film actually had me confused at the end. And I never get confused. I've been toying with the ending and how it got there, over and over again since the viewing and I just can't bring myself to a satisfactory point where I understand what the issue is at the end that gets Ben Affleck's character arrested, and if indeed the conspiracy is real or not.

That's weird. In 127 minutes, the film manages to posit a whole lot of possible motives to people that might have a reason to commit a crime, and you follow that story through some significant points, only to find Affleck's congressman  hired the scary guy with the gun, and that this might have been the reason this scary guy shot an innocent bystander; which is meant to implicate Affleck's character.

And I just don't think that outcome works for me at all. After all the great song and dance about the military industry complex and a jab at Halliburtons, the film suddenly decides it's about a cheesy little affair getting covered up by a lone heavy. It's a cop-out in league with the Warren Commission. Maybe that's what the point is with this film, but it still left me cold.

Also... What is Helen Mirren doing in this film? She's so imperious and HELEN-MIRREN it made me laugh. I don't know if I'll ever see another film where all I could see was the actor acting, but not the character.

Also 2... How many times does Russell Crowe's character get to delay the press? It seems like an interminably long time followed by two more lots of long delays. It just lost me then. The urgency of the press is to just do it, and put it out there. The nuances are nice if you can get it, but newsrooms I've had the privilege in knowing are all, print facts first, worry about the nuance later.

What's Interesting About It

I'm trying hard to think of something to say here. Considering it's adult fare, it's actually not stimulating many thoughts about the media or journalism or the death of newspapers. It makes me ponder more about the nature of Hollywood re-makes and why so many of them hit a false note.

The twists and turns in the plot in the original TV series probably had more rationale that explained itself but in the context of this film, they add to the incredulity you feel about the characters' motivations and actions. Instead, you're left with a numb feeling that maybe the film makers missed something.

When the head credits roll at the end (and what a weird trend that is at the moment) you see the printing presses and how the newspaper is printed. So the film is some kind of homage to the medium of newsprint, but if you're any way savvy about film history you know that Orson Wells has done the most important film about the press and the rich men who control it. Consequently, you wonder if any of what you have seen has added anything more to our awareness about newspapers and how they are run.

How Many Stars Does It Get?

People are handing this film 4 out of 5 stars. I find this ridiculous. It's 2 stars in my book, and that's if I'm pressed to giving stars. It's not an impressive film at all - save your precious money for something else.