'Spotlight' wins Oscar for Best Picture

41 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
'Spotlight' wins Oscar for Best Picture

+

Issues Pages: 
NorthReport

Oscars 2016 live: Spotlight, Iñárritu, DiCaprio and Larson take top honours

Chris Rock skewered Hollywood’s race problem. Mad Max: Fury Road monstered the technical prizes. Sam Smith and Ennio Morricone made sweet music. There were supporting gongs for Mark Rylance and Alicia Vikander. Alejandro González Iñárritu won best director, but Spotlight took best film

 

http://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/live/2016/feb/28/oscars-2016-li...

NorthReport
NorthReport
josh

Spotlight won the SAG and Critics Choice awards, while The Revenant won the Golden Globes.  While I didn't see The Revenant, the betting sites shouldn't have been surprised that a picture like Spotlight, based on fact, journalistic and on a contemporary topic, would win.

NorthReport
lagatta

Alain Gravel, now host of the Radio-Canada Montréal early morning show and veteran investigative reporter at Enquête, really enjoyed Spotlight, so I may go see that, little as I like Hollywood movies. I thought it would have little to tell us here; our Church is as powerful and opaque as its counterpart in Boston, but who knows. It is always good to see films about work, although they are always romanticised.

No interest in survivalist stuff like the Revenant, or much else on offing.

swallow

Quote:

Reactions from the Catholic Church[edit source | edit]

Vatican Radio, official radio service of the Holy See, called it "honest" and "compelling" and said it helped the U.S. Catholic Church "to accept fully the sin, to admit it publicly, and to pay all the consequences."[33] Luca Pellegrini on the Vatican Radio website wrote that the Globe reporters "made themselves examples of their most pure vocation, that of finding the facts, verifying sources, and making themselves—for the good of the community and of a city—paladins of the need for justice."[34] In February 2016, a Vatican Citycommission on clerical sex abuse attended a private screening of the film.[35]

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotlight_(film)#Reactions_from_the_Catholic_Church]Wikipedia entry on the film[/url].

So the thread title is pretty misleading, the Catholic church was happy for people to see the film, and virtually endorsed it. 

Personally, I'm more bothered that the Oscars usually only like white people and won't honour fi;ms that show the US government's foreign policy in a bad light. 

Rikardo

"Why Spotlight is a Terrible Film" at Counterpunch.org by an author who was there in 2002

"moral panics are hysterical...they jetison reason for emotion.."

 

NorthReport

Yes Spotlight is primarily about the Boston area of the USA, but since when did this become just a USA problem?

And since when do people believe comments coming from the RC Church?

It is international, in other words worldwide, in scope.

Did people not see the names of the different countries involved including Canada where Antigonish, NS was one location. 

And it appears the people in charge in some countries at least, the cardinals, have been relocaed as well.

Pell’s Rome identity missing in the Australian abuse debate

http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2016/02/24/pells-rome-identity-is-missing-...

swallow wrote:

Quote:

Reactions from the Catholic Church[edit source | edit]

Vatican Radio, official radio service of the Holy See, called it "honest" and "compelling" and said it helped the U.S. Catholic Church "to accept fully the sin, to admit it publicly, and to pay all the consequences."[33] Luca Pellegrini on the Vatican Radio website wrote that the Globe reporters "made themselves examples of their most pure vocation, that of finding the facts, verifying sources, and making themselves—for the good of the community and of a city—paladins of the need for justice."[34] In February 2016, a Vatican Citycommission on clerical sex abuse attended a private screening of the film.[35]

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotlight_(film)#Reactions_from_the_Catholic_Church]Wikipedia entry on the film[/url].

So the thread title is pretty misleading, the Catholic church was happy for people to see the film, and virtually endorsed it. 

Personally, I'm more bothered that the Oscars usually only like white people and won't honour fi;ms that show the US government's foreign policy in a bad light. 

NorthReport
NorthReport

Should the RC Church be allowed to continue it's existence? Of course it will, but should it? I have serious reservations about that. No wonder they had to pick someone like Francis as the Pope.

Researchers quoted in Spotlight I believe suggested 50% of priests were not celebate and 6% of priests or 87 priests in the Boston Archdiocese were sexual abusers, which I presume would translate to 6% of priests worldwide. How many priests would that be?

 

NorthReport

That means there are approximately 24,000 sexual abusers masquerading as priests in the RC Church.

NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport

Using data from John Jay College of Criminal Justice’s 2011 report on sex abuse in the church, BishopAccountability.org estimates that there have been at least 17,200 victims in the US. The site warns that this is a conservative estimate.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/10/pope-francis-us-visit-cat...

NorthReport

It is obvious that my guestimate of 24,000 priests who sexually abuse has seriously underestimated the numbers.

Data on the Crisis

The Human Toll

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/AtAGlance/data.htm#accused_priests

NorthReport
NorthReport
swallow

voice of the damned wrote:

Well, my guess would be that the RCC would have preferred that the film not be made, but when it was a box-office hit, they went along with it because, well, King Canute.

Yeah, well, fair enough. ALso, I like the phrase "because, well, King Canute" a lot. 

Quote:
All that said, there isn't a lot to be said in defense of the RCC's handling of sexual-abuse cases.

To put it mildly, yes. 

So, anyone watch that train wreck of a show last night? Or have any thoughts on the travesty that are the whiter-than-white Oscars? 

voice of the damned

swallow wrote:

Quote:

Reactions from the Catholic Church[edit source | edit]

Vatican Radio, official radio service of the Holy See, called it "honest" and "compelling" and said it helped the U.S. Catholic Church "to accept fully the sin, to admit it publicly, and to pay all the consequences."[33] Luca Pellegrini on the Vatican Radio website wrote that the Globe reporters "made themselves examples of their most pure vocation, that of finding the facts, verifying sources, and making themselves—for the good of the community and of a city—paladins of the need for justice."[34] In February 2016, a Vatican Citycommission on clerical sex abuse attended a private screening of the film.[35]

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotlight_(film)#Reactions_from_the_Catholic_Church]Wikipedia entry on the film[/url].

So the thread title is pretty misleading, the Catholic church was happy for people to see the film, and virtually endorsed it. 

Personally, I'm more bothered that the Oscars usually only like white people and won't honour fi;ms that show the US government's foreign policy in a bad light. 

Well, my guess would be that the RCC would have preferred that the film not be made, but when it was a box-office hit, they went along with it, following the lesson of King Canute.

But yeah, the phrase "the film that X did not want you to see" usually implies that X made an effort to get the film suppressed. Which as far as I can tell, didn't happen with Spotlight.

As for the Counterpunch article, obviously I don't know what happened in any individual case of alleged abuse. But I'd be pretty careful about affirming any convivtion that relied on recovered-memory. And one thing that struck me as a little dodgy was how at the end of the film, the Globe sets up a hotline to solicit allegations of sexual abuse by priests, and then the closing credits tell us that the hotline received allegations about X number of priests, a figure substantially higher than the estimates given by credible-sounding characters earlier in the film.

It apparently didn't occur to the writers that a tip-line of that nature would attract a certain share of pranksters and score-settlers. Otherwise, I don't think they would have given its numbers such prominent place in the credits.

All that said, there isn't a lot to be said in defense of the RCC's handling of sexual-abuse cases.

voice of the damned

"ALso, I like the phrase "because, well, King Canute" a lot."

Oh, I'm sorry, I just edited it!

I did so because the usage "Because Whatever" seems to imply that the person isn't thinking about his arguments, just repeating a few catch-words. But "King Canute" probably wasn't a catchword the church was using, but rather a metaphor I was using

NorthReport

For goodness sakes, obviously the massive cover up is continuing.

It is so big the RC Church would have to close up shop if they seriously wanted to address the issue of sex abuse within their organization.  

I think most people have already figured that out by now.

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
And since when do people believe comments coming from the RC Church?

Let's all suspend such belief for a moment so that you can provide us with any links suggesting that the Catholic Church has been suppressing this movie.  And then we can decide whether they're against it or not.

You evidently believe that they don't want me to see it.  Give me something I can click on.

NorthReport

The RC Church still has thousands of abusers working for them, and some of the people involved are holding, next to the pope, the highest positions in the vatican.  

The Church seeing as it has not properly dealt with the issue, obviously does not want people to see their dirty work winning the main Oscar award of the year. 

 

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
The Church seeing as it has not properly dealt with the issue, obviously does not want people to see their dirty work winning the main Oscar award of the year.

Can you share some of the "obvious" links where any of them "obviously" said that"?

Rikardo

This author was there in 2002,

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/29/oscar-hangover-special-why-spotli...

"The “Spotlight” team got almost everything wrong. The movie doesn’t even try to be right."

NorthReport

 Come off it. Of course they would not come out and say that as that would just send more people to watch Spotlight.

Are you suggesting there was no sexual abuse by priests?

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
The Church seeing as it has not properly dealt with the issue, obviously does not want people to see their dirty work winning the main Oscar award of the year.

Can you share some of the "obvious" links where any of them "obviously" said that"?

quizzical

lagatta wrote:
No interest in survivalist stuff like the Revenant, or much else on offing.

i'm not sure how you  got a notion the Revenant was a survivalist movie.

NorthReport

Read some of that but studies show less than 2% of sex abuse accusations are false. The RC Church presently has approximately 25,000 priests that sexually abuse others.

The victims will never get proper redress.

Lked the movie because it exposed the systemic hiding of sexual abuse in the church which I am sure is still going on today.

It is unfortunate for the victims that priests could circumvent the law for decades or more, by being transferred to another parish sometimes out of the country.

Banks too big to fail and churches too big to get caught, eh!

Knowing what we know now about the RC Church what do you think of parents who are bringing their kids up roman catholic?

Rikardo wrote:

This author was there in 2002,

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/29/oscar-hangover-special-why-spotli...

"The “Spotlight” team got almost everything wrong. The movie doesn’t even try to be right."

NorthReport
quizzical

.

quizzical

tripled the post confused how

quizzical

.

voice of the damned

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
The Church seeing as it has not properly dealt with the issue, obviously does not want people to see their dirty work winning the main Oscar award of the year.

Can you share some of the "obvious" links where any of them "obviously" said that"?

Well, like I said, we can probably surmise that, if given the choice, most people in the RCC hierarchy would prefer that the film not be made, or at least that few people go see it.

But that doesn't quite stack up to what is usually implied by the phrase "the film that X does not want you to see". I think we're pretty clearly meant to understand a scenario more sinister than clergymen passively hoping that the film does badly at the box office.

If somebndy did a TV docmentary about the Bingogate scandal in BC, you could, in the narrowest sense of the words involved, call it "The movie the NDP does now want you to see!!". But I think most of us would consider the phrase to be pretty inaccurate, given its accepted connotations.

NorthReport

What a steaming pile coming from the Vatican which obviously has the best PR firm that money can buy.

Just as in other abuse cases, Ghomeshi or Crosby anyone, it's time we paid a lot more attention to what the victims have to say.

Clergy victims doubt Spotlight's Oscar win will bring change

The film covers the Globe's work to uncover how dozens of priests in the Archdiocese of Boston had molested and raped children.

http://www.metronews.ca/entertainment/2016/02/29/clergy-victims-doubt-sp...

NorthReport
swallow

Quote:
With its win for Best Picture cemented in the public consciousness, one would think that the Catholic Church – particularly The Vatican – would be decrying Spotlight'svictory. With Thomas McCarthy's film being so critical of the church's past behaviors involving cases of sexual abuse, one could hardly blame them. Yet that's not the response the official Vatican newspaper had, as they actually praised the film's message.

[url]http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Vatican-Newspaper-Has-Surprising-Reaction...

Quote:

The Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, has praised the 2016 best picture Oscar winner Spotlight for its convincing attempt to show abuse and cover-ups in the Catholic church.

The newspaper published a front-page editorial on Monday hailing Tom McCarthy’s film and calling it “not anti-Catholic”. The editorial said Spotlight, which centres on the work of a group of Boston Globe reporters to uncover abuse by Roman Catholic priests, faithfully presented the church’s attempts to defend itself in the face of “horrendous realities”.

“Not all monsters wear cassocks. Paedophilia does not necessarily arise from the vow of chastity,” wrote the editorial’s author, Lucetta Scaraffia. “However, it has become clear that in the Church some are more preoccupied with the image of the institution than of the seriousness of the act.”

[url]http://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/mar/01/vatican-newspaper-spotlight-...

Quote:

A new film about The Boston Globe’s coverage of child sexual abuse scandals in the Church 13 years ago has drawn strong praise from the Vatican’s official radio outlet, which described the movie as “honest” and “compelling.”

A Vatican Radio commentator also said the Globe’s reporting, upon which the film is based, helped the Church in the United States “to accept fully the sin, to admit it publicly, and to pay all the consequences.”

[url]http://www.cruxnow.com/life/2015/10/23/vatican-radio-praises-movie-on-bo...

Quote:

Much remains to be done at multiple levels, especially in assuring survivors of paths to healing. But for those who, for very understandable reasons, might never sit with the millions of words that have been written about the scandal, the miles of documents that have been unearthed, nor hear the endless hours of testimony accrued over three decades, "Spotlight" provides a way to quickly grasp the essential reality of this chapter of church life.

The humiliation is stunning and fitting, given the immensity of the betrayal. It is no small irony that the Academy Awards, often a display of cultural superficiality, should be the vehicle for this Lenten truth.

What Hollywood can’t do, of course, is tap into the church’s sacramental tradition, wherein one finds all of the resources necessary to understand the humiliation and to use it as a point of conversion. Bishops and the rest of the clerical culture have the language and the training to understand that sacramental tradition and the need for true repentance.Here and there we see individuals making this attempt. But a community-wide effort has never been attempted. Writing to this newspaper in July, Bishop Edward J. Burns of Juneau, Alaska, chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee for the Protection of Children and Young People, made mention of this:

We should not regard the clerical sexual abuse scandal as a distraction from the church’s mission, as if, once we have somehow "rectified the problem," we can continue on as before. Rather, our shepherds, myself included, need to face and repent of the betrayal of trust. Authentic and heartfelt repentance by the shepherds of our church is not a distraction from our mission: It is the mission at this moment in the life of the church and her leaders.

The community yearns for healing. We wait to see if today’s church leaders have the will to truly engage this moment in the life of the church.

[url]http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/editorial-best-picture-win-spot...

NorthReport

Thanks swallow, very well said.

NDPP

Hundreds of Penn Children Sexually Abused By 'Predator Priests' - Grand Jury Report

https://www.rt.com/usa/334231-children-sex-abuse-priests-pennsylvania/

"Over the course of 40 years, hundreds of children in Pennsylvania were sexually abused by dozens of Roman Catholic priests, a new state grand-jury report said, adding that the behavior was covered up by bishops..."