"The Big Short" and "Spotlight" Tackle Uncomfortable Truths Enroute to Screenplay Oscars

The Big Short uses Jenga to explain the unsound structure of CDOs.

Late in The Big Short, Brad Pitt, who gets to play a voice of reason and anger in a landscape of sly schmucks just as he did in 12 Years A Slave and Killing Me Softly, chastises his compatriots, saying, “If we're right, people lose homes. People lose jobs. People lose retirement savings. People lose pensions. You know what I hate about fucking banking? It reduces people to numbers. Here's a number - every 1% unemployment goes up, 40,000 people die, did you know that?” It’s a sobering moment, one that is undercut by the character’s willingness to go along with the scheme he's involved with, as well as his assurance that excitement is ok as long as you “just don’t fucking dance.”

That scene perfectly highlights the fact that while the featured players in The Big Short pride themselves on being anti-Wall Street crusaders, they're actually worse than all the amoral scum that started the problem by banking on high risk subprime loans, because they know better and still opt to short the investments. No matter how you slice it, these are men who looked at a terrible situation and decided to profit off of it instead of doing something about it, making the situation 10 times worse in the process. They may have thought they were sticking it to the big banks for screwing the American people, but by trying to profit in the offing, they guaranteed the American people would be left holding the bag. 

The Big Short doesn't shy away from the issue, even while it's courting viewers to root for all these shifty characters. Michael Burry (Christian Bale) opts to leave hedge funds behind because "business kills the part of life that is essential," while the film's smug narrator Jared Vennett (Ryan Gosling) cops to being a douche, saying “I can feel you judging me. It’s palpable.” Vennett admits he's not the hero of this story, right after which a quick cut to Mark Baum (Steve Carrell), the most incensed of our protagonists, acts as movie code for "here's your hero."

And he is... sort of. He's the lead of the film, the one with a tragic back story that has filled him with anger and made him obsessed with taking on the system. He's hubristically convinced he can hurt the big banks where it counts, but in doing so he fails to account for just how sneaky they can be. When he finally realizes that type of victory is impossible – when he dines with a particularly vile piece of work and learns the banks have responded to the short sales on their collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) by shorting the shorts with synthetic CDOs comprised of credit default swaps – he decides if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. He tells his team to "short everything that man has touched," further adding to the mounting crisis. Later, when he finally opts to sell, the movie asks us to sympathize with Baum, because the banks got bailed out and he rightly predicts that in a few years everyone will just "be blaming immigrants and poor people.”

I don't know how to respond to that -- part of me loves that the film coaxes us to root for these guys, making us complicit in their scheming, only to have us come out the other end incensed and angry at everyone, these characters included. But most of me just wants to take a bath. There’s an ingrained desire in a film like this to have a character to gravitate toward, someone who distances him or herself from all the hustlers and sort of condemns them for what they've done, ala Bud Fox in Wall Street. But ultimately, I think writer/director Adam McKay made the right call avoiding that type of plotting, and that's specifically because it left me so much more outraged as a result. 

Like The Wolf of Wall Street before it, The Big Short employs a flippant dark-comic approach in its depiction of financial corruption, even going so far as to break the fourth wall with multiple celebrity cameos to make the financial terminology easier to understand. The tone works, and so too does the disdainful and cynical mood that is engendered by an ending note that warns CDOs have come back into the current market as "bespoke tranche opportunities," not to mention the ludicrous moment in which the leads are mentioned in the same breath as Robert Redford in All the President's Men.

Dogged investigative journalism unearths a major Church sex

scandal in Spotlight.

That Redford comparison would be far more apt for the characters of Spotlight, which takes a far more serious approach to what is essentially a very similar story. Sure, The Big Short takes aim at the 2008 financial crisis brought on by the U.S. housing bubble, while Spotlight tackles child molestation cover-ups by the Catholic church, but both function as cinematic activism about uncomfortable truths, or, put another way, as dramatized public service announcements about renegades railing against entrenched institutional villainy. The main characters in each film even sit on their scandalous information for an extended period of time, but while analysts in The Big Short do so to reap the financial benefits (and because the banks won't allow the other shoe to drop until they distance themselves a bit from the fallout), the reporters in Spotlight do so to ensure they write a strong story built on evidence so they can truly make a difference and enact change (and because of delays related to the tragedy on September 11).

Spotlight is a procedural set against the backdrop of a unique time in journalism, right when the proliferation of Internet content brought on a whole slew of cost-cutting measures and online poser "journalists" that crippled the previously prestigious and powerful print media. Long-term investigative journalism in which a reporter (or in the case of the Boston Globe's Spotlight team, a whole team of reporters) spent months breaking a huge story by rooting out actual nuggets of verifiable information used to be common practice, but now there's barely enough money to adequately staff breaking news coverage and even less time to properly confirm sources. The Globe's Spotlight team is still doing this type of work, but such opportunities are increasingly few and far between. As such, Spotlight also serves as a love-song to a profession that has fallen on hard times, but that, at its best, can expose corruption and righteously check institutional injustice as the fourth estate.

At the outset of the film, Martin Baron (Liev Schreiber), a new editor from outside the city, is brought in to take over the Globe, and immediately the newsroom is whispering about potential layoffs and apprehension over his lack of Boston roots. His first order of business is to question the staff about a column that mentioned 25 defendants have hired lawyer Mitchell Garabedian (Stanley Tucci) to bring a civil lawsuit against a catholic priest accused of sexually abusing more than 100 children. The records are sealed, and unlike the rest of the Globe staff, many of whom have ties to the church, Baron, a Jewish outsider unfamiliar with the power and influence the church wields in the city, wonders why. And so he puts the four-man Spotlight crew on the case, all of whom have a different reaction to the case, especially as the number of potential victims continues to grow.

Sacha Pfeiffer (Rachel McAdams) is so shaken by the victims and perpetrators she interviews that she stops going to mass and finds it difficult to talk with her devout grandmother. Meanwhile, Matt Carroll (Brian d'Arcy James) is alarmed that the church has a house for "retired" priests right down the block from his family home, and Michael Rezendes (Mark Ruffalo) is angry, so angry that he wants to publish the information as soon as possible to protect the public. Section editor Walter Robinson (Michael Keaton) wants to wait, mostly to get the story right (he needs to convince a source he has a personal relationship with to confirm information), but also partly because of the shame he feels because he, and anyone who came across this information in the past, deserves some blame for not exposing all of this a long time ago. As Garabedian says, "If it takes a village to raise a child, it takes a village to abuse one."

In a story like this, process trumps character, but writer/director Tom McCarthy (who shed light on the less attractive qualities of modern journalism as an actor on season 5 of The Wire) peppers in a series of effective character moments without ever tipping the scales into heavy-handed melodrama. It helps to have such a phenomenal cast giving one lived-in performance after another. Ruffalo and McAdams received nominations for their work, but everyone is on point here, especially Keaton, Schreiber and Tucci. They bring gravitas, authenticity, compassion, and a palpable sense of tenacious professionalism.  

The Big Short and Spotlight are two of 2015's tightly-structured films, and so it should surprise no one that they walked away with the screenplay awards at this year's Oscars. Both cover infuriating systemic treachery, albeit in completely different walks of life and with completely different point of views. If I prefer Best Picture winner Spotlight, it's mostly because it left me entirely satisfied by its well-oiled machinery and the win for the good guys, especially compared to The Big Short, which, by design, left me unsettled and foaming at the mouth.

The Big Short A-, Spotlight A

"Foxcatcher" Doesn't Measure Up to Bennett Miller's Previous Output

Mark Ruffalo and Channing Tatum shine, but Foxcatcher is an airless effort.

With Foxcatcher, Bennett Miller (Capote, Moneyball) has crafted yet another pensively restrained, immaculately composed and expertly acted examination of unbridled obsession and determination and held it at arms length. However, this time out, the distanced and disciplined approach that worked so well in the director's earlier films make Foxcatcher feel kind of inert and airless.

Foxcatcher focuses on the relationship between Olympic wrestling brothers Mark (Channing Tatum) and Dave Schultz (Mark Ruffalo) and John Du Pont (Steve Carrell), the creepy millionaire who served as their benefactor. Both Mark and Dave are former Olympic champs, but Mark lives firmly in the shadow of his older brother, which makes him ideal prey for the resentful and self-important Du Pont, a man who knows a thing or two about living in the shadows of family (in his case, his mother).

There's not much point in saying any more about the film's plot. A tragedy involving these men attained headline-grabbing true crime infamy, but the particulars of that incident are opaque, poorly defined, and relegated to the film's final moments. Foxcatcher is much more concerned with ruminating on its long list of themes, including isolation and repression, class disparity and subjugation, unchecked entitlement and compromised integrity, and, if all that isn't enough, the fractured male psyche and distorted American values. There's so much going on here, and yet it feels like almost nothing happens.

The film is technically accomplished, and the actors all do nice work. Ruffalo, who has made a career of breathing life and dimensionality into thinly written parts, is especially affecting as the warm-hearted, at-ease-with-himself Dave, and Tatum continues to impress with the emotional brute routine. Both actors bring an ape-like physicality to their roles, while doing a good job of communicating an innate brotherly bond.

Meanwhile, Carrell is buried under prosthetics and definitely a world away from his typical roles. He's pretty solid throughout, and great in isolated moments, but his acting calls a lot of attention to itself and not in a good way. His approach stands in stark contrast to his more natural costars, and the fake nose threatens to overpower his performance. I'd say there's more good than bad in the portrayal, but there's definitely something off-key about it.

Foxcatcher is a major comedown for Miller, which maybe isn't fair given just how good Capote and Moneyball were, but the film isn't some major catastrophe. It's certainly worth catching -- Ruffalo's performance alone is worth the time, and there is a ton of other stuff to admire about the film besides. The thing just feels a little empty to me, and ultimately this is one of those films that I'm bummed I didn't like more. B-

The Avengers Proves Worthy of the Buildup



The Avengers possess some amazing talents, but none more so that their abilities
to strike heroic poses in the midst of a world-threatening battle.



The Avengers is not so much a film as it is a spectacle. It doesn’t offer much of a story for the superheroes it pulls together, as much as it provides a generic doomsday scenario that allows them to come in and play off one another.

I don’t mean that in a bad way. There’s a lot of value in what this movie offers. It’s a fun and witty crowd-pleaser, an entertainment of the highest order. And, because of the way Marvel studios has approached their whole business plan, the movie has the leeway to get by on the charm of its writing, performances and special effects.

Seeing all the box office records The Avengers is obliterating, it’s difficult to remember how much of a chance Marvel was taking when they first journeyed down this road of interweaving franchises. Outside of the Hulk, none of these characters had previously proven to have major crossover appeal, and his recent foray into theaters (Ang Lee’s Hulk) had been met with great indifference.

However, in hindsight, the approach was ingenious. In Iron Man, Thor and Captain America, the studio offered up three great films, each one of which was highlighted by a nuanced and character-driven story brought to life by a well-chosen director and a nicely distinguished lead performance. The Incredible Hulk was satisfactory at best, and Iron Man 2 buckled under the weight of shoehorning S.H.I.E.L.D. into the narrative as a set up for The Avengers, but having now seen the culmination of the plan, it’s hard not to be impressed with what was accomplished here.

Most of the heavy lifting was done last summer by Captain American and Thor. With those films offering up MacGuffin (the Tesseract from Captain America) and the main villain (Loki from Thor), Joss Whedon was able to hit the ground running with The Avengers.



Nick Fury doesn't really get in on the action in The Avengers,

but does get to blow up a plane with a rocket launcher.

And he certainly does just that. With most of the plot already nailed into place, Whedon devotes the bulk of the runtime to character interaction and action sequences, the two things fans really want from this thing anyway. I had a slight problem with how much of the film felt like kowtowing to Marvel mandates (the fights between our superheroes aren’t entirely organic to the script and feel included solely because it would be cool), but if not for that, most of the movie would’ve just been discussions on an airship, and, in the end, the fights are cool, so what the hell?

Whedon delivers exactly what he aims to with this film. The action sequences are uniformly fantastic, especially the finale, which uses some impressive camera trickery to create the illusion of a long take that interweaves throughout the mayhem occurring throughout Manhattan.

Even more importantly, no character feels marginalized. Yes, by and large, the star is Iron Man, but everyone gets a chance to shine. With so many characters, there are a lot of various story threads in play in the movie. I thought it best to take them one at a time.

·    Captain America vs. Iron Man: A lot of time is dedicated to the stylistic clash between the humble, patriotic Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) and the flashy, egotistical Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.), both of whom are at the forefront of the action for much of the movie. Rogers feels largely out of place in this modern and cynical world that Stark very much personifies, and I think this was a great dynamic to play up in the film especially given Cap’s familiarity with Stark’s father. The whole thing works really well, but the one bit of this thread that bugs me is the conclusion of Rogers’ whole thesis about Stark being a selfish man who can’t make the truly heroic sacrifice. The script literally takes the ending of Iron Man, substitutes a nuclear device in place of Warmonger, and calls it a day, which seems a bit uninspired.

Robin Scherbatsky has some pretty big shoes to fill.

·    Agent Coulson Gets a Spotlight: One of the pleasant surprises of The Avengers is the enhanced role of S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent Phil Coulson (Clark Gregg). The character has featured in more of these Marvel movies than any other character, and because of that (and Gregg’s winning performance) he has endeared himself to fans while also helping to tie the films together. Here, Whedon shows Coulson to be a fanboy of a Captain America, which at first works on a cute level, but later becomes far more meaningful. When Coulson dies attempting to thwart Loki, his death becomes the catalyst for the group – particularly Stark and Rogers – to put aside their differences and come together. Although, I wasn’t a fan of the line “they needed something to Avenge,” particularly because dozens of other agents were being killed, it certainly works for the movie audience. Coulson is a beloved figure in the Marvel movie universe and a fanboy to boot, and so his death actually hurt. It’s sad that Gregg won’t be dropping in and out of these movies anymore (especially if the plan is for Agent Maria Hill to fill that slot, since as good as she is on How I Met Your Mother, Cobie Smulders was totally blah here), but it was an expertly crafted mini-arc.

·    S.H.I.E.L.D’s Motives: As I indicated above, I wasn’t the biggest fan of S.H.I.E.L.D’s involvement in Iron Man 2, but Marvel did successfully use what was established there to set up an interesting arc in The Avengers. The familiarity Tony Stark has with Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) and his mistrust of the agency’s intentions gives the piece a sort of lived in feel, while also justifying all the mistrust and turmoil that keeps the team from stopping Loki’s (Tom Hiddleston) meddling earlier in the film.



Hulk Equation: Mark Ruffalo > Edward Norton + Eric Bana.



·    A Rejuvenated Hulk: Whedon and star Mark Ruffalo’s handling of the Hulk has received a lot of press since the movie’s debut, focusing on the idea “finally, they got the Hulk right!” There’s a lot of truth to that – the decision to play down the tortured element and have Bruce Banner be more put-upon and world-weary was a wise call. The movie embraces the fact that he is the most badass, dangerous and indestructible member of the team, playing it for some quick pathos (we learn Banner tried to commit suicide but found it an impossible task) and big laughs (“Puny God” is the best one liner in a movie choke full of good ones). All that being said, I do have a problem with the consistency of the character. The big secret Banner carries throughout the film and reveals at the end is that he is always angry and thus has learned to control the Hulk within (to the point that he can cooperate with a team and even save Iron Man on his fall back to Earth). However, earlier in the film, he loses control and attempts to kill Black Widow, a defenseless woman who has done nothing to him. I’m sure there’s a way to explain this away (i.e. if he chooses to turn, he can control it, but if not, look out…), but it seems like a cheat of some kind that allows the film to have its cake and eat it too (not only do we get a throw down between an unstable Hulk and Thor, but we also get an awesome, in control Hulk who can fight alongside his pals).

·    Brotherly Interactions: Even though his brother is the main villain of the piece, Thor (Chris Hemsworth) takes a back seat for most of the movie. He doesn’t show up until the midway point, and when he does, he gets very little time devoted to him outside of fight sequences. What he does get is a few choice scenes with Loki that prove to be the most emotionally resonant things in the piece. Even though Loki’s tried to kill Thor and his father, is now attempting to destroy a world Thor holds dear, and isn’t even his real brother, Thor wants to move past all that because he truly cares for Loki. It’s a good angle for the film to take, because unlike the humans, Thor doesn’t have as much at stake personally – it’s not really his world, and he’s indestructible. As such, even though his is far from the flashiest part, Hemsworth is my pick for best in show because of how much complexity he brought to his limited screen time (and now with the success of Snow White in the Hunstman, I hope the guy blows up in a big way and gets offered some good parts– he has loads of movie star charm).

They just get each other.

·    Mere Humans: Both these heroes were sort of doomed to seem second rate. Not only have they not gotten their own showcases before, but both seem like mere mortals in this compared to the big boys on the team. Making matters worse, their introductions in other movies were a botched (Black Widow in Iron Man 2) and a pointless easter egg (Hawkeye in Thor). Here, Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) is brainwashed by Loki and Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) feels an obligation to get him back due to a complicated history together. This thread is only okay, but I do think it was a wise decision to lay these seeds if Marvel wants to do a combo spinoff down the line. Also, while Renner is underused, it was nice to see Johansson deliver here, both as eye candy (a confrontation between her and Loki lingers on a shot of her ass for a knowingly and humorously long amount of time) and as a real presence. Her standing as one of the great actresses of her generation has taken a hit in recent years, but she’s definitely a major talent, so it was nice to see her putting forth an A-effort here.

That’s a lot of words on The Avengers, so I’m going to wrap up now. In the end, the film isn’t the best Marvel film, but it’s a ridiculously fun ride that successfully rehabilitates it’s previously problematic characters (Hulk and Black Widow), while bolstering the Q rating of its moderately successful ones (the sequels for Thor and Captain America will probably make twice as much as the first entries after getting spotlight roles here). At the end of the film, every character is left in a pretty interesting place, and I’m excited to see where Marvel goes from here in expanding their ambitious movie universe.