Sign up for The Media Today, CJRâs daily newsletter.
The movie poster for this fallâs The Hunting Party features a black-and-white photo of Richard Gere and Terrence Howard, press passes dangling from their necks, pasted on a blood-orange background that reads: LIARSâCHEATSâPLAYBOYSâTHIEVES. The last word in this litany? JOURNALISTS.
The poster is meant, presumably, to attract audiences through the sheer force of its irony. (Theyâre liars and journalists? How intriguing!) But the real irony, most viewers would agree, is how un-ironic these labels are: the mighty fell a long time ago. âOnce a cultural hero,â Russell Baker writes of reporters in a recent piece for The New York Review of Books, âhe was glamorized in the movies by Clark Gable and she by Rosalind Russell.â But now, on film as in life, ânobody phones the paper expecting to find a hero anymore.â
First: ouch. Second: granted. Gone are the days when a movie journalistâCitizen Kaneâs Thompson, Deadline, USAâs Hutcheson, Bob Woodward, Carl Bernsteinâoccupied a black-and-white moral landscape where Right battled Wrong with the sharp sword of Truth. But gone, too, is the post-post-Watergate disenchantment that forced celluloid reporters to fall on that sword through treatments that portrayed them, as Christopher Hanson pointed out in these pages in 1996, as amoral (Absence of Malice), callous (The Paper), credulous (Bob Roberts), cartoonish (I Love Trouble), sensationalist (Network), ambitious (Broadcast News), manipulative (Hero), manipulated (Wag the Dog), murderous (To Die For), or some dastardly fusion thereof. Hollywoodâs Janet Malcolmesque indictment of journalists as âmorally indefensibleâ has had its fifteen minutesâwell, fifteen yearsâof infamy. Its time, thankfully, is up.
In its place, we have Capote, which The New Yorkerâs David Denby called âthe most intelligent, detailed, and absorbing film ever made about a writerâs working method and character.â And Good Night, and Good Luck, whose portrait of Edward R. Murrow is as reverent as it is finely wrought. And Veronica Guerin, whose journalist heroine is murderedâmartyredâfor her dogged reporting of Dublinâs illegal drug trade. And In My Country. And Infamous. And Blood Diamond and Zodiac and A Mighty Heart. Recent films, from 2003âs Shattered Glass to The Hunting Party, donât glorify their journalist figures; neither do they reduce them to big-screen villainy. Perhaps taking a cue from journalismâs increasing expansion into mass culture, or perhaps simply sick of all the gloom, these films trade the traditional hero/villain archetypeââmass-mediated myth,â the film scholar Matthew Ehrlich calls itâfor nuanced studies of the social, familial, financial, and sometimes ethical compromises journalism demands of its practitioners. With the odd exception (Perfect Stranger, in which Halle Berryâs status as a journalist is a mere plot device, or All the Kingâs Men, in which Jude Lawâs columnist is as flat as the film he narrates), Hollywood is replacing symbolism with sympathy. And its films are better for it.
Take Capote and its (criminally overshadowed) sister film, Infamous. The movies are not portraits of Truman Capote himselfâthey offer only snippets and insinuations of his life as a wholeâbut, rather, biographies of his most famous piece of journalism. They depict In Cold Blood from conception (Capoteâs serendipitous sighting of a headline about the Holcomb murders), to gestation, to eventual development into a nonfiction novel that is, as Infamousâs Truman purrs, âas dazzling and unique as a FabergĂ© egg.â The films study the economy-of-two that develops between a reporter and a source, one that transforms truth and trust into valuableâand tradableâcommodities. In Capoteâs case, those transactions can be turbulent. (âI never judge my characters,â Infamousâs Truman informs Perry, the murderer who is also his key source, by way of encouraging the exchange. âI am not a character,â Perry retorts. âI am a human fucking being.â) The films question the relationships Capote brokers with Perry and his other sources: the way he manipulates their trust. The way he exploits their pain. The way he views them as vehicles for the poetry of his prose. But they also celebrate the journalism In Cold Blood represents, a ânew form of reportageâ that, as New Yorker editor William Shawn predicts in Capoteâcorrectly, it turns outââis going to change how people write.â
The Capote films are exceptional in their deconstruction of the journalistic process, but theyâre certainly not alone in that. Shattered Glass is as much about the editorial process at The New Republicâand answering the âhow could that have happened?â question at the heart of the Stephen Glass fabrication scandalâas it is about the fabricator himself. Zodiac studies, through the lens of reporters covering northern Californiaâs Zodiac murders, the obsession that can haunt journalists when their attempts to fulfill their most basic mandateâto find out what happenedâare continually thwarted. Scoop, Woody Allenâs nouveau-screwball tale of an investigative reporter (Ian McShane) who returns from death to help a living journalist (Scarlett Johansson) chase a story, makes a brief departure from its overall intellectual thinness to consider the nature of the scoop itself. (âYou have to get the story first,â the reporter-wraith tells his protĂ©gĂ©, âbut first you have to get the story right.â) Good Night, and Good Luck, which many critics reduced to a morality play, is even more a study of journalism in practice, a smoke-swathed tableau of the daily decisions, revisions, and compromises by whose alchemy information becomes news. Good Nightâs chief action, as Salonâs Stephanie Zacharek observes, is decision-making. âIâve searched my conscience,â Edward Murrow (David Strathairn) says as he announces his decision to editorialize against Senator Joseph McCarthy, âand I cannot accept that there are two equivalent sides to every story.â
Which reflects another shift. Recent films study not only journalism, but journalistsâthe simmering stews of arrogance, insecurity, idealism, and cynicism who filter news to the public. Consider, again, Shattered Glass: even as it condemns Glassâs transgressions, the film considers the obsessive need for approval that led him to commit them. At the opposite extreme, Veronica Guerin complicates the martyrdom of its eponymous heroine (Cate Blanchett) by suggesting, through its focus on Guerinâs family as much as her profession, that Guerinâs life wasnât entirely her own to sacrifice. A Mighty Heart, similarly, studies the murder of journalist Daniel Pearl through the eyes of his wife, Mariane (Angelina Jolie), and the family and friends he left behind. Even the act of martyrdom, dying in the name of reportorial pursuitâformerly a guaranteed ticket to journalistic heroismâis a complex proposition in these films. The death of a journalist is not the demise of an empty symbol, but rather the loss of a human life. Itâs a small change, but a noteworthy one.
Thereâs one exception, however, to this insistently prismatic view of journalist characters, one way in which the hero/villain paradigm still applies: in postmodernityâs quintessential antihero, the commercial profiteer. Good Night, and Good Luckâs real villain isnât McCarthyâthe filmâs reduction of the demagogic senator to mere archival footage suggests this even as it adds a touch of vĂ©ritĂ© to George Clooneyâs cinĂ©maâbut, rather, CBS advertisers and the corporate management that caves to them. Those composite commercial interests, invisible yet omnipresent in the newsroomâs hermetic haze, present the greatest obstacle to Murrowâs eloquent editorials. In Blood Diamond, Maddy Bowen (Jennifer Connelly) views her reporting of Sierra Leoneâs civil war as a weapon against the commercial diamond trade that foments the bloodshed she observes. In My Country, whose journalists (Juliette Binoche and Samuel L. Jackson) navigate memory in South Africa, pits the pithy, sound bite-happy reports their organizations demand (âtwenty secondsâŠthatâs all weâve got to grab the listeners by the balls,â one radio editor puts it) against the vast landscape of Apartheidâs atrocities.
Which brings us back to The Hunting Partyâthat, despite the fairly tasteless collisions it forces between the grim and the glib, offers insights into both the preservation of memory and the commercial influences that can confound that effort. Based on Scott Andersonâs Esquire story about real-life reporters chasing (and, in the film, finding) war criminals in Bosnia, the film bridges the cinema of the past and the present by juxtaposing two facets of the journalistic prism: The Mediaâthat vague, institutional, and often commercially motivated forceâand the individual journalist. While The Media often miss the mark in pursuing truth, The Hunting Party suggests, the individual journalist can still be trusted to get the story, in every sense, right.
In this issueâs Research Report, Michael Schudson and Danielle Haas give scientific backbone to The Hunting Partyâs message: However low the institution of The Media may have plummeted in the mass imagination, they write, reporters close to home remain figures of faith. And, therefore, figures of fascination. Itâs no coincidence that so many of the journalists Hollywood has given us of lateâTruman Capote, Veronica Guerin, Stephen Glass, Zodiacâs Robert Graysmith, Daniel Pearl, Edward Murrowâare based on real-world reporters. Contemporary films reveal a cultural desire to understand journalismâs realities, to appreciate, on a basic level, the work that goes into writing the first draft of history. They also suggest the fact that the pool of those writers has been, in recent years, steadilyâexponentiallyâexpanding. (Superman Returns, whose Lois and Clark are two of pop cultureâs most famous reporters, gives a playful nod to citizen journalism. âThese are iconic,â the Daily Planetâs editor barks at his staff, holding photos of Superman, âand they were taken by a twelve-year-old with a camera phone.â) Journalism is evolving, and Hollywood, cultural mirror that it is, is reflecting its growth. Todayâs celluloid journalists may not be forged in the stark contrasts of the past, but their complexity makes them stronger characters, more empathetic and more tantalizingly, identifiably humanâmore, in short, like their audiences. On the big screen, as in life, theyâre still worth looking up to.
Has America ever needed a media defender more than now? Help us by joining CJR today.