What do you know about the Spotlight movie?

  • Thread starter Thread starter badnewsbarrett
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m sure that more people will see and remember the movie than will have read the John Jay Report. Screenwriters write dialogue; that’s their job. They combine disparate actions into one scene and change timelines to create drama. But when they are portraying actual people they have to be careful not to unfairly portray them.

At least this movie deals with real events which actually happened. Back in the daycare child abuse panic in the 1990’s, which is mentioned in this review, a similar media fury was created over crimes which never happened. People went to prison, and many of those responsible have never admitted to the false prosecutions. That’s off topic, but I found it interesting.
 
JimG said:
I’m sure that more people will see and remember the movie than will have read the John Jay Report. Screenwriters write dialogue; that’s their job. They combine disparate actions into one scene and change timelines to create drama. But when they are portraying actual people they have to be careful not to unfairly portray them.

At least this movie deals with real events which actually happened. Back in the daycare child abuse panic in the 1990’s, which is mentioned in this review, a similar media fury was created over crimes which never happened. People went to prison, and many of those responsible have never admitted to the false prosecutions. That’s off topic, but I found it interesting.
Click to expand...
I vaguely remember that day care abuse incident which took over the headlines.
 
JimG said:
I highly recommend the book “No Crueler Tyrannies,” about those cases. People went to prison for years for crimes which never happened.
Click to expand...
thanks. have never heard of the book. I never heard anymore about what happened. the accusations were horrible. I forgot how they happened to be proven innocent. wasn’t a family run daycare? false accusations are made all the time as well as real ones. that is why the investigations have to be thorough.
 
7_Sorrows said:
thanks. have never heard of the book. I never heard anymore about what happened. the accusations were horrible. I forgot how they happened to be proven innocent. wasn’t a family run daycare? false accusations are made all the time as well as real ones. that is why the investigations have to be thorough.
Click to expand...
Oh, these investigations were quite thorough. They just happened to be about crimes which never happened. The prosecutors were like a dog with a bone; they would not let go of it. Dorothy Rabinowitz, a reporter for the Wall Street Journal, wrote the book based on her reporting. Sorry to go off topic, but when there is a media frenzy, it is easy to send innocent people to prison. Even with the priestly abuse crisis, in which the majority of the claims were true, I know of at least one innocent priest who remains in prison, tossed under the bus by his diocese in order to get the whole matter settled.
 
JimG said:
Oh, these investigations were quite thorough. They just happened to be about crimes which never happened. The prosecutors were like a dog with a bone; they would not let go of it. Dorothy Rabinowitz, a reporter for the Wall Street Journal, wrote the book based on her reporting. Sorry to go off topic, but when there is a media frenzy, it is easy to send innocent people to prison. Even with the priestly abuse crisis, in which the majority of the claims were true, I know of at least one innocent priest who remains in prison, tossed under the bus by his diocese in order to get the whole matter settled.
Click to expand...
I know of a priest recently cleared also this year. False accusations are bound to happen sometimes. I don’t want to go off topic either, but there are many men who have been convicted of rape or murder who served many years only to be exonerated later and proclaimed innocent. I can’t imagine being accused of something I didn’t do. what a terrible thing to go through. Innocent until proven guilty, but sometimes proven guilty has proved to be incorrect.
 
7_Sorrows said:
I don’t know either. Now the pendulum has swung completely in the opposite direction which I think has resulted in some false accusationd and quick judgments. I am glad more precautions are in place.
Click to expand...
Agreed. It’s unfortunate a few innocents get caught up in it, but frankly when it comes to protecting the most vulnerable, children, I’d rather they err on the side of over caution. The idea of sweeping abuse of any kind like what happened under the rug as yellowbird describes is frankly vomit inducing.
 
We finally were able to see Spotlight today; it just started at the small “art house” theater in our downtown, as none of the major theaters here is showing it.

I thought it was a well done, gritty, truthful depiction of what happened in the Archdiocese of Boston (my home.) It was painful to watch, especially as the locales they showed and the parishes they mentioned, are familiar to me. I didn’t see any gratuitous Church-bashing, but instead a sense of shock and sadness. There was one line which seemed to indicate celibacy as the root cause of the abuse from a character (based on an actual person) only heard in a phone conversation, never seen. (I, too, believe that celibacy played a part… but only insofar as a celibate priesthood provided a safe, respectable place for those with tendencies towards pedophilia or ephebophilia to hide and have ready access to victims.)

At the end of the movie, there was a list of all the dioceses/archdioceses in which clerical sexual abuse has been discovered; the list was extensive, including the archdiocese in which we now live. Let us hope that the measures which have been taken address the issue successfully. However, the damage done to the Church - not to mention the victims - is immeasurable and profoundly sad.
 
dixieagle said:
We finally were able to see Spotlight today; it just started at the small “art house” theater in our downtown, as none of the major theaters here is showing it.

I thought it was a well done, gritty, truthful depiction of what happened in the Archdiocese of Boston (my home.) It was painful to watch, especially as the locales they showed and the parishes they mentioned, are familiar to me. I didn’t see any gratuitous Church-bashing, but instead a sense of shock and sadness. There was one line which seemed to indicate celibacy as the root cause of the abuse from a character (based on an actual person) only heard in a phone conversation, never seen. (I, too, believe that celibacy played a part… but only insofar as a celibate priesthood provided a safe, respectable place for those with tendencies towards pedophilia or ephebophilia to hide and have ready access to victims.)

At the end of the movie, there was a list of all the dioceses/archdioceses in which clerical sexual abuse has been discovered; the list was extensive, including the archdiocese in which we now live. Let us hope that the measures which have been taken address the issue successfully. However, the damage done to the Church - not to mention the victims - is immeasurable and profoundly sad.
Click to expand...
there is a new scandal in New York. It will be investigated. If true, another black eye against the Catholic church in America. there are so many good priests out there who are holy men. we need to pray for our priests.
 
(SPOILERS) The scene where one of the bad apples openly admits what he did and that it was no big deal - to him - because he didn’t get enjoyment from it - did that really happen, or was it written into the story? You could hear a pin drop in the theater at that scene.

Also, the movie went out of its way to emphasize that the Boston Globe, even with the new editor, did not want to publish the stories at all. First, because it was alleged that the newspaper buried the story in the local section (before the Michael Keaton character was promoted to “spotlight” editor) and that they sat on the list of 20 names sent to them by the lawyer. Secondly, because they didn’t want to publish more ‘bad news’ after 9/11. And thirdly and fourthly and most pertinently, not until they got the legal paperwork from the judge and Keaton’s lawyer friend to corroborate the story (the spreadsheet of names.) Those don’t seem like the hallmarks of an “anti-Catholic hit piece,” and it didn’t seem like this movie was “anti-Catholic,” either - the accused priests and Cardinal Law were barely in any scenes.
 
dixieagle said:
I am grateful to the journalists of the Globe for shining a light on the abuse and cover-ups
Click to expand...
As it was portrayed in the movie, the Boston Globe really didn’t want to publish the stories. The timeline mentioned in the movie - the lawyer who settled hush-hush with the alleged victims sent a list of names that the paper sat on for a while - then a columnist (not a reporter) wrote about it - then, after 9/11 hit, they had to get the story corroborated and all-clear from a judge.
 
randomuser said:
(SPOILERS) The scene where one of the bad apples openly admits what he did and that it was no big deal - to him - because he didn’t get enjoyment from it - did that really happen, or was it written into the story? You could hear a pin drop in the theater at that scene.

Also, the movie went out of its way to emphasize that the Boston Globe, even with the new editor, did not want to publish the stories at all. First, because it was alleged that the newspaper buried the story in the local section (before the Michael Keaton character was promoted to “spotlight” editor) and that they sat on the list of 20 names sent to them by the lawyer. Secondly, because they didn’t want to publish more ‘bad news’ after 9/11. And thirdly and fourthly and most pertinently, not until they got the legal paperwork from the judge and Keaton’s lawyer friend to corroborate the story (the spreadsheet of names.) Those don’t seem like the hallmarks of an “anti-Catholic hit piece,” and it didn’t seem like this movie was “anti-Catholic,” either - the accused priests and Cardinal Law were barely in any scenes.
Click to expand...
Here’s a link which references the Fr. Paquin segment; it apparently did happen largely as portrayed: boston.com/entertainment/movies/2015/11/09/the-story-behind-the-most-disturbing-conversation-spotlight/t5SbGuomxxqdjOFi0B95GP/story.html

It is, indeed, true, that the initial information provided by the lawyer, MacLeish, was ignored for years. I don’t, however, agree that the new editor didn’t want to publish the story. In fact, I believe it was the new editor who pushed for it. My take on things was that when 9/11 happened, it was an “all hands on deck” situation to cover that huge story. Then, I think they were being very careful to get things right, with corroboration, before they published what they knew would be a blockbuster story. If it wasn’t airtight, then it could have been dismissed or ignored.

You’re right; it certainly was not an anti-Catholic hit piece; any damage to the Church from this movie would derive from the sad facts themselves.
 
The bond of trust is forever broken. Who in their right mind would even consider leaving a child alone with a priest after these scandals?

The famous actor Sir Alec Guinness converted to Catholicism from Anglicanism whence one day on his way to a set playing the part of a priest, he was dressed in full priest’s regalia, a child spotted him and ran to him and immediately held his hand. This experience had such an impact on Guinness that he became a Catholic. There are many today who have stopped attending for the opposite reasons, and how can anyone blame them?

The world is rapidly changing. I needn’t go into any details. Everyone who has posted on this blog has brought great opinions and excellent insight with their own observations.
These scandals have led to multitudes questioning the Church’s infallibility (even though it’s only the teaching that’s infallible) and having a damper put on their faith.

I do not believe that a vow of celibacy leads to pedophilia or predatory behavior; however, when someone like Mother Angelica suggests that those with same sex attraction may be called to the priesthood (I seen it live on one of her shows) I think goes a little too far and is not being realistic. I will never forget a gay co-worker of mine who came back from a gay cruise and how all he could say was that the trip was so great, because the ship was full of so many men and hardly any women. I do believe that the majority of the sex abuse
in the Church involves children past puberty, I may stand corrected on that, which would lead one to the conclusion that a lot of this is pent up homosexuality. Regardless, it’s disgusting, and what’s even worse is those who try to cover it up.

Anyway, enough of a rant. I wonder if this post will survive. I’m just speaking my mind at the moment.

God Bless to all and thanks for the reviews on the movie. I look forward to seeing it.
 
The scandal in New York (my home) involves a gay priest who was using church funds (the complaint alleges close to a million $$$) to finance his drugged fueled homosexual
fantasies with his boy-toy who charged him $1,000 per romp. This case has been filed by the parishioners who also allege that they notified Cardinal Dolan who did nothing. While these are all allegations, any judge in a civil action must view the complaint filed by the plaintiffs in the light most favorable to them.

While Pope Francis is over-hauling the way the Church’s finances are being handled
and has condemned sex-abuse in the church, and there has been new procedures put in place to protect children, there needs to be more done in regards to the priesthood. What? I have no idea. The apostles were married. Even Jesus said that not all are granted to live a life being unmarried. I’m sure if priests were married, there would be other types of scandal. Of course, being gay is not a sin, just the homosexual act, but a boy’s only club seems to be an open invitation for those looking to perpetuate this kind of evil behavior, even if it’s only four percent of the clergy. One act of gross negligence is too much.
 
GiveTheTruth said:
The scandal in New York (my home) involves a gay priest who was using church funds (the complaint alleges close to a million $$$) to finance his drugged fueled homosexual
fantasies with his boy-toy who charged him $1,000 per romp. This case has been filed by the parishioners who also allege that they notified Cardinal Dolan who did nothing. While these are all allegations, any judge in a civil action must view the complaint filed by the plaintiffs in the light most favorable to them.

While Pope Francis is over-hauling the way the Church’s finances are being handled
and has condemned sex-abuse in the church, and there has been new procedures put in place to protect children, there needs to be more done in regards to the priesthood. What? I have no idea. The apostles were married. Even Jesus said that not all are granted to live a life being unmarried. I’m sure if priests were married, there would be other types of scandal. Of course, being gay is not a sin, just the homosexual act, but a boy’s only club seems to be an open invitation for those looking to perpetuate this kind of evil behavior, even if it’s only four percent of the clergy. One act of gross negligence is too much.
Click to expand...
I feel so sorry for these parishoners who are going through this in New York. I believe their lawsuit is against the Archdiocese and Cardinal Dolan. Why does it take so long for someone to listen?
 
GiveTheTruth said:
The famous actor Sir Alec Guinness converted to Catholicism from Anglicanism whence one day on his way to a set playing the part of a priest, he was dressed in full priest’s regalia, a child spotted him and ran to him and immediately held his hand.
Click to expand...
I’m not quite certain that, in this day and age, that is necessarily the best conversion story to be broadcasting to people. Especially not in a thread about a movie about the investigative journalism that exposed the abuse of children by priests.
 
dixieagle said:
It is, indeed, true, that the initial information provided by the lawyer, MacLeish, was ignored for years. I don’t, however, agree that the new editor didn’t want to publish the story. In fact, I believe it was the new editor who pushed for it.
Click to expand...
Yes, that’s correct. I was referring to when they were ready to publish it but the main editor didn’t want anything that could be deemed critical of Cardinal Law but wanted to prove something “systemic.” That right there disproves the notion it’s anti-Catholic movie - if they (the Boston Globe or/and filmmakers) were so anti-Catholic, why the heck didn’t they just go press with what they got even if it was immediately after 9/11?
 
Randomuser,

Do you work for the media? Did you read the second half of what I said? Today many people are leaving the Church for opposite reasons, i.e., they are disillusioned with the priesthood (that’s putting it mildly). I don’t hold any punches when it comes to the Church, but use of vulgar language is prohibited not only on this site, but also my faith.

I would like to see a movie about the Orthodox Jewish community coverups involving the Beth Din in Brooklyn and elsewhere, just as sad and shocking as the Catholic situation. Who knows, maybe Mel Gibson will make a movie.
 
Randomsuser,

“I’m not quite certain in this day and age that is necessarily the best conversion story to be broadcasting to people especially not in a thread about a movie about the investigative journalism that exposed the abuse of children by priests.”

Do you have a bias against the Catholic Church as a whole? Does the movie demonstrate every single priest in the entire Catholic Church was involved in molestation?

Have you, yourself, ever investigated the insurance companies that insure all denominations and churches for allegations of sex abuse and molestation? Are you aware of what the numbers reveal?

ANY conversion story is worth posting, especially for the many good apples that are spoiled by the few.

I see your religious affiliation is left blank. It speaks volumes.
 
randomuser said:
Yes, that’s correct. I was referring to when they were ready to publish it but the main editor didn’t want anything that could be deemed critical of Cardinal Law but wanted to prove something “systemic.” That right there disproves the notion it’s anti-Catholic movie - if they (the Boston Globe or/and filmmakers) were so anti-Catholic, why the heck didn’t they just go press with what they got even if it was immediately after 9/11?
Click to expand...
We seem to understand that part differently. My take is that the new editor, Marty Baron, was in no way afraid of being critical of Cardinal Law, but senses that the story was much bigger than just Law, and was, in fact, a systemic problem. They were, sadly, right.

9/11 was such a big story that it drained resources from everything else they were doing. And then, they wanted to be sure that they’d done all their homework - crossed all the Ts and dotted the Is - so that the story couldn’t be dismissed as flawed. It was too important that they get it right.

I think that the important thing to the Spotlight team was the enormity of the story; if there had been systemic abuse and coverups in, for example, the public school system, they would have pursued it aggressively, as well. The fact that it was the Church, which is supposed to do God’s work on earth, made the whole thing particularly odious and shocking.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top