Denial

 SPOILER ALERT! The plot will be discussed.

Denial (2016), which is based on a trial revolving around a claim that the Nazi Holocaust did not take place, speaks to us today because in a world with deep fake technology and the difficulty to determine fake information in social media from fact, it has become increasingly difficult to determine what is true and what is a lie.

The movie is based on the book, History on Trial: My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier by Deborah E. Lipstadt, who is played by Oscar-winner Rachel Weisz. Lipstadt is an American professor whose specialty is The Holocaust. The film opens with a grainy clip that implies authenticity showing a sarcastic and dismissive David Irving (Timothy Spall), who writes about Nazi Germany. He states that “more women died in the back seat of Senator Edward Kennedy’s car at Chappaquiddick than ever died in a gas chamber at Auschwitz.” That there is laughter from the audience giving agreement to the man’s words is very chilling.

The story begins in 1994 at Emory University. The movie shows that although we know the Holocaust occurred through the existence of mass graves and testimonies, it is difficult to prove details of the horrors. For instance, Lipstadt tells her class that the Nazis made sure that there was no evidence of killings in gas chambers because they blew them up.

The camera shows Lipstadt running, gathering materials, basically in constant motion which establishes her as a person of action.

We get immediate evidence of the story’s conflict when Irving, lurking in the shadows exhibiting a demonic face, interrupts a speech by Lipstadt in Atlanta Georgia. She is stating that she will not “debate facts” with a Holocaust denier. It is ironic that is exactly what she must do because Irving sues her in 1996 for libel for calling him a Holocaust denier in her writing. The extent to which denial of The Holocaust is accepted is shown by the fact that Irving has done his own extensive biased research and has been published by prominent publishing institutions. Irving films his stunt so he can use the media to promote himself and his fake argument.

Lipstadt watches the news and her sad face shows her reaction to seeing Irving speaking to Neo-Nazis in Germany, saying they have nothing to feel ashamed about in their past. His audience responds by giving the Nazi salute. It is frightening to realize that some people find community in shared hatred of others. (It is notable that just recently there has been a resurgence of extreme right-wing political forces in Germany and other European nations).

The trial takes place in England where rules are a bit reversed compared to the United States. There a defendant is considered guilty until proven innocent. The same goes for a libel case. Irving deliberately chose England because it makes Lipstadt appear guilty from the start. It is another way of stacking the deck against truth. The film details the legal strategies that Lipstadt’s lawyers, Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott) and Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson) use. Julius points out that Irving wants to gain scholastic respect by defeating Lipstadt, and many scholars don’t see the fact that Irving is an anti-Semite to be a disqualifier. Julius is reading a book about how the renowned poet T. S. Eliot was anti-Semitic. Indeed, he was, yet he wrote great poetry. Sometimes the person deserves condemnation, but that individual’s work is laudable. Irving is no Eliot, but he aspires to gain scholarly recognition.

Lipstadt says her mother’s name means “warrior,” and she always felt that her daughter was meant to fight a great battle. She sees that the confrontation with Irving is the war she was destined to fight. Here we see that the battle against evil is a generational one. IMDb points out that while running Lipstadt stops to observe the statue of “Boadicea and her Daughters.” She was a warrior who led a failed uprising against the Romans. That image links to Lipstadt and her mother, but it implies a warning that a noble fight can still be lost.

The story jumps to 1998. Lipstadt’s legal team delivers discovery information to Irving, who tries to gain sympathy for his cause by depicting himself as a David against the Goliath-sized law firm representing his adversary. Irving is charming, smart, and mannerly. He plays with his granddaughter. What Hamlet says fits here: “that one may smile, and smile, and be a villain.” The legal team wants Irving’s personal diary for discovery evidence. They find that one must be careful what one wishes for. The diary consists of volumes which fill a whole room, making it an immense undertaking to plow through.

It is raining heavily and there is thunder outside the London law firm as Lipstadt arrives, symbolizing the storm to be weathered in the courtroom. What might seem an obvious defense is not necessarily what works in an actual courtroom. Lipstadt thinks it should be necessary to have holocaust victims testify to substantiate her remarks about Irving distorting the facts. But Julius points out that Irving will attack the victims if he gets the chance to question them because he will represent himself. Julius says the survivors do not “remember every detail. They forget something. They say the door was on the left when it was on the right.” Irving will say that they are liars and can’t be trusted. It’s like looking at the tiniest flaw in a work of art and condemning the whole painting.

Lipstadt tries to raise money for the defense team from the Jewish community in London. She encounters another argument among those Jews she dines with. One says that instead of giving Irving a spotlight it would be better to settle. She uses the words “appeasement” which brings up bad memories among the British because that is what Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was accused of in giving into Nazi demands at the beginning of WWII.

Lipstadt is frustrated by others shutting her out of what she wants to accomplish, telling her what she can do and say, or not say. Legal finesse and roundabout ways of dealing with the situation are out of sync with her straightforward way of confronting the situation.

Lawyer Rampton, who will argue the case, travels with Lipstadt to Auschwitz. Rampton takes pictures and the audience gets shots of the misty, hushed place that looks haunted. The moisture that drips from an iron structure implies droppings of blood. There are huge piles of survivors’ belongings with names on them and dates which resemble grave markers. Lipstadt seems tentative as she walks on what remains of the killing factories.

Those who tried to discredit the existence of the Holocaust attributed the cyanide present at Auschwitz to killing of lice. The area where that was done had evidence of high concentrations of the poison. Lipstadt points out that residue was higher at that location because it takes twenty times more cyanide to kill the lice than it does to kill humans. But for Rampton that does not prove that cyanide was used on people. He is outraged that in-depth scientific studies were not made of the area after all this time. One possibility is that it would have seemed disrespectful to assault the shrine-like area with investigators.

When Lipstadt and Rampton share a drink afterwards he admits to feeling shame. He worries that if he were a soldier at the camp he might have carried out orders given to him. He says that the world is full of cowards. His statement suggests that people, out of fear, will not stand up against tyranny. He quotes the poet Goethe who said, “The coward only threatens when he feels secure.” The implication is that it’s easy to be courageous when there is no threat to oneself for opposing what is wrong.

Other decisions that seem logical to Lipstadt are not practical in the courtroom against a manipulator like Irving. The lawyers want the case to be tried by a judge, not a jury. They don’t want Lipstadt to testify. They later get Irving to agree to a judge hearing the case by appealing to his massive ego, saying the regular juror couldn’t comprehend his scholarship. Rampton wants to keep the focus on Irving and “starve” him of any attempt to shift the argument away from his misrepresentations. Lipstadt is afraid that she will look like a coward for not taking the stand. He says it’s the “price” she must pay for “winning.” What seems right may not be so in the long run. And, the question of when to be brave depends on the circumstances.

Lipstadt has support from celebrities, but she also receives threats from onlookers in the crowd on the way to the courtroom. Julius warns her to alter her jogging route, which implies enemies could be tracking her. She must have courage in her fight against the fanatics who see her as a threat to their warped way of thinking.

Irving in his opening statement tries to connect being labeled a Holocaust “denier” to someone who wears a “verbal yellow star.” He is saying that being singled out to society as a “pariah” is what the Nazis did to the Jews. The implication here is that he, an anti-Semite, is comparing his plight to the Nazi discrimination against Jews. Lipstadt, and, of course, we, find the comparison loathsome, as well as being ironic. The film stresses the remark by focusing on the court recorder typing Irving’s words, making them part of the official record.

Rampton shows how historical books do not always show what really happened. He points out that in an earlier text, Irving included The Holocaust and then in a later volume, those references disappeared. He calls Irving not a historian, but a falsifier of history, a “liar.” Rampton said Irving embraced a report that nullified the idea that Hitler ordered the extermination at the camps. Rampton said Irving embraced this invalid report because “he wanted it to be true.” That statement is an accurate insight into how false conspiracy theories become accepted, how bigotry spreads. It’s a defiance of evidence to reinforce twisted notions that somehow give comfort to the believer, absolving him of the responsibility of his own actions and ideas. These warped beliefs may have been propagated among family and friends. The emphasis here is that we must perform due diligence, especially today, in verifying what we decide to accept as facts.

A female holocaust survivor confronts Lipstadt outside the courtroom, shows her numerical tattoo, and tells her that survivors should be allowed in court. Lipstadt already wanted that to happen, so she is torn. She promises the survivor that the stories will be heard, which is in direct contradiction to the defense’s strategy. She tells Julius about her meeting. He says the trial is not therapy for the victims to process their trauma. Lipstadt says it is not for them but for the families of those that did not survive. He is adamant and tells her she must break her promise to the survivor since his main goal is to win the case, while Lipstadt’s motives extend beyond the success of a personal verdict.

Irving interrogates a historian about Auschwitz’s gas chambers. He does what falsifiers do, he focuses on one aspect that doesn’t jive with the rest of the evidence to falsify an opposing argument entirely. There were supposedly columns that protruded through the roof of the gas chamber into which cyanide was deposited. Irving says there have been no observations of holes in the now dilapidated roof. Irving then escalates the rhetoric by calling those who claimed the openings were there are “liars!”

Irving orchestrated the latter testimony to occur at the end of the day so there would be no instant rebuttal. Despite photographs taken from airplanes that indicated openings on the roof, Irving will say that they do not verify holes. They could be shadows, or worse, forgeries. Lipstadt says Irving got his “viral” idea across, which definitely connects with how the internet works today. She says that Irving is suggesting that alternative views of history can be accepted. She wants to testify and wants the testimony of survivors to be part of the trial. Julius points to prior trials when those who were in Auschwitz were humiliated under interrogation, with Irving mockingly stating how a Jewish survivor made money over the years profiting from her tattoo. Julius is suggesting how character assassination undermines broader arguments.

Rampton confronts Irving in the courtroom with evidence of the grating over the gas chambers that contained cyanide residue. Irving says the only gassing was fumigation of cadavers to kill “typhus-bearing lice.” Rampton counters by saying then what was the need to have a secure door with a viewing portal. Corpses don’t have to be viewed or secured in a mortuary. There is a shot of the people inside the gas chamber looking terrified, which is what Lipstadt sees in her mind, the truth compared to what Irving describes. Rampton notes the ridiculousness of gassing corpses and then incinerating them, undermining Irving’s testimony. Why must these obvious contradictions be pointed out? Same answer as before, because truth can be a threat to closed minded beliefs.

Rampton has a private meeting in Lipstadt’s flat. She sees that what appeared from her perspective as coldness at Auschwitz was, as he puts it, checking out “the crime scene.” Her emotionalism must give way to a logical way of handling the problem in a legal manner. It has been difficult for her to give up autonomy. She says, “I have never trusted anyone to do anything on my behalf since I was a child. All I have is my voice and my conscience.” She has had to compromise. As Rampton says, “What feels best isn’t necessarily what works best.” She must engage in “self-denial” and hand over her conscience to another to “win.”

The defense presents a historian who shows that an order came from the German High Command that ordered to not have an individual train carrying Jews be liquidated. Irving altered the translation to say that Hitler himself ordered that no Jews at all were to be killed. The testimony shows how just the alteration of a few words can distort fact.

Rampton in court shows speeches that Irving gave that are bigoted and misogynistic. Irving argues sarcastically that there should be important news on the TV, and that nobody cares about The Holocaust which took place so long ago. Yet, he says, the Jews keep dwelling on it. He says that important news should be read by a man, less important new by a woman, and that a referenced Black newscaster should read about the muggings and other inner-city crimes. He is announcing the hierarchy of his prejudicial ranking. What is frightening is how many in the audience laugh at his ridiculing.

Irving brought the legal action because he believes he was labeled a racist incorrectly. But Rampton reads from the man’s diaries that show he told his own child a bigoted ditty that labels anyone who is not Aryan as being subhuman. Indoctrination into hate and derogatory attitudes towards others starts early on.

The point about leeway in historical texts is raised in court. Rampton argues that there is a difference between “negligence, which is random in its effect, and a deliberateness, which is far more one-sided.” He is saying that Irving intentionally falsified what actually happened in history in a textbook that is supposed to be taken as factual. However, the judge questions that if Irving believes in his antisemitism, then the implication is that he is being honest by saying what he believes. The defense maintains that belief in something should not condone altering the facts of what actually happened.

We get more bad weather. Well, it is England, and it is not ominous at this point. The judge announces that the defense wins the case. Those who refuse to change their slanted beliefs say Lipstadt is guilty anyway and shout out “Filthy Jew” as she walks through the streets with her lawyers. Bystanders also harass Irving, pelting him with an egg, but he receives cheers as well, which is very disturbing.

In a news conference Lipstadt says free speech means you can give your opinions, but you can’t lie and then expect not to be held accountable for those falsifications. Later Lipstadt watches Irving on TV, and the man acts like the judge was incapable of understanding his argument. To the bigot, all contrasting beliefs are invalid from the start. Everything must fit into the warped world view. Lipstadt says of Irving, “he used to be a Holocaust denier, and now he is a verdict denier.”

The movie warns us to be on guard against those who appeal to our unfounded fears and the hatred they spawn.

Spotlight

 SPOILER ALERT! The plot will be discussed.

Spotlight (2015) won the Best Picture Oscar for its story based on actual events involving widespread child abuse by Boston Catholic priests and the cover-up perpetrated by the Catholic Church. It builds tension and outrage as the revelation of the horrors become real for the reporters, and thus also the audience.

The film begins in Boston in 1976 at a police precinct. The police and the District Attorney’s office are trying to keep secret the child molesting incident by a priest of small children. They are keeping the press away. One of the cops says about an arraignment, “What arraignment?” Obviously, there will be none. A representative makes affirmations to the victim’s family about all the good that the Catholic Church does and that the offending priest will be transferred, as if that is supposed to lessen the effect of the abuse. The film then shows the conspiracy to cover up the atrocity.

We jump to 2001, which shows the length of time that the crimes have endured. Walter “Robby” Robinson (Michael Keaton) heads up the Bostone Globe’s Spotlight division which does in-depth investigative reporting. He tells the new editor of the newspaper, a somber Marty Baron (Liev Schreiber) that it takes several months to find a story the four-member team will work on and publish, which points to the thoroughness of the work. (Schreiber’s Marty is a quiet, deliberative speaker and is described sarcastically as “a barrel of laughs).

The fact that many reporters are from Boston and some are Catholic makes the following revelations even more upsetting. They report to Ben Bradlee, Jr. (John Slattery), who has the investigative gene since his father was Ben Bradlee who was the executive editor of the Washington Post during the Watergate scandal. Unfortunately, the newspaper’s circulation is down and there may be more cuts, already showing the impact of online news.

 Marty wants to explore why there hasn’t been an attempt to get sealed documents that show priest John Geoghan molested eighty children and Cardinal Law (Len Cariou) did nothing about it.

Spotlight reporter Mike Rezendes (Mark Ruffalo, in a Supporting Oscar nominated performance) is a passionate and sometimes annoying character as he constantly questions everyone, even fellow reporters, about what’s going on. He says he runs to blow off steam, but Robby points out that he “runs to work,” so even his leisure time meshes with his job. He is interested in furthering the investigation. However, they all know there is going to be considerable blowback, including from the wide Catholic subscribership.

Mike meets the loud lawyer Mitchell Garabedian (Stanley Tucci) who is not a diplomatic guy. He is also paranoid, rightfully so. The Church has tried to get him disbarred. He’s concerned about Mike wearing a wire and doesn’t even want him to take notes.

Robby and journalist Sacha Pfeiffer (Rachel McAdams) meet with attorney Eric McLeish (Billy Crudup). Eric reveals how difficult it is to prosecute the priest. It’s not a class action suit, which makes any adverse action a nightmare to handle given how each case is handled separately. There is a time limit of three years on bringing charges, and most victims don’t want to admit what happened until long after, since they were from tough neighborhoods and Catholic. Also, there is a cap of only $20,000 in a child molestation case which creates a lack of motivation to engage.

The Spotlight team digs and finds stories about abusive priests who were accused and being moved around by the Church. There is also the existence of a survivors’ organization. However, the newspaper must get solid evidence given the sensitivity of the issue, so they are resistant to move without solid evidence. The Church’s advocates stress the importance of faith, but here it is used to evade responsibility, to believe in something no matter the negatives.

As a tradition, Marty, a new editor, meets Cardinal Law (an ironic name given the situation). More irony in that the cardinal was once an editor. He gives Marty a copy of a book detailing Catholic catechism, as if to indoctrinate him?

The reporters meet with Phil Saviano (Neal Huff), who runs the survivor group, SNAP. He says, “when you’re a poor kid from a poor family, religion means a lot. And when a priest pays attention to you, it’s a big deal.” Phil is trying to get these lapsed Catholic reporters (and also the audience) to empathize with the victims and understand the context of the situation. He says, “It’s like God asking for help,” when the priest wants favors. When the priest pushes for sexual favors, “how do you say ‘no’ to God?” Phil says. He says it isn’t just physical rape, it’s also “spiritual” violation. The priest here, “robs you of your faith.” Victims will turn to alcohol, drugs, commit suicide, and some are survivors who are in SNAP. Phil says he sent information five years prior and he is angry because even the Boston Globe didn’t pursue the story earlier.

Mike’s persistence makes him a good reporter, and he gets the lawyer Garabedian to let him interview Patrick (Jimmy LeBlanc), a victim in one of the cases. He doesn’t want Mike to use his name because he has a child now, and he wants to keep the story hidden out of shame. His father committed suicide and his mother was schizophrenic. Here we have a vulnerable person that can be groomed at the age of twelve. The priest took him for ice cream and then started touching the boy. Mike observes that there are needle marks on Patrick’s arm, which verifies what Phil said about the effects on victims. Patrick here confesses to a journalist instead of a priest, and it is cathartic. He then allows Mike to use his name and says to get “these assholes.”

Mike’s interview alternates with Sacha talking to Joe (Michael Cyril Creighton), who realized he was gay at a young age, and when the priest urged him to have sex with him, Joe felt it was like a holy man was saying it was okay to be gay. Later in life the realization that he was abused selfishly by the priest traumatized associations he had with men, even though it was his sexual orientation. Just walking by his neighborhood’s Catholic church brings back awful memories, showing how he can’t escape the pain of the past. She also finds out that Joe talked to lawyer Eric McLeish who discouraged lawsuits, which he didn’t mention before. More covering up the truth.

Mike and the others thoroughly research the information and realize there has been an epidemic of sexual assaults by priests on children who had “shame” in their lives, so the pedophiles knew the children would not want to add to that feeling by exposing their predators. Mike discovers that the Church began smear campaigns to discredit anyone who tried to expose these priests. In an archive that lists the priests by name and when they arrived and left parishes. Matt (Brian Darcy James) notes that the priests under investigation all were discharged on “sick leave,” or reassigned, blanket cover-up designations. There is a bad smell which turns out to be a dead rat in the room, a symbolic addition that comments on how the whole situation is rotten.

Sacha and Robby go back to McLeish and find out he was part of sweeping the abuse under the Church’s rug. He didn’t even file action in the court system but kept the meager settlements between his office and the archdiocese, who have the records that the Spotlight team can’t access. There were confidentiality agreements so McLeish can’t divulge names. As Sacha later says he received a third of all the settlements and the rest of the information was hidden by the Church.

Marty is treated like an alien when he goes to a Catholic Charities Appeal dinner. Pete Conley (Paul Guilfoyle), on the board of the Charities, vouches for his attendance there, trying to ingratiate himself and by extension, the Church. Robby is also there, and although he is not part of the organization, he has friends who are, and he went to the Catholic school across from the Boston Globe. The connection is ironic, showing the pull of the past versus the current outlook on those ties. Later Robby finds that a suspected priest was at his high school and molested a friend. Adding to this irony, Robby does investigating at this affair by interrogating Jim Sullivan (Jamey Sullivan) about his activity in helping a priest. Sullivan dismisses the questions and says that the people there in connection with the Church have done a great deal of good for the city. The film raises the question, without announcing it, does that good justify the atrocities that the priests perpetrated?

Mike meets with lawyer Garabedian, who is Armenian. Mike is Portuguese, but was born in Boston. Garabedian says that Marty is Jewish, and it takes an outsider in this case to investigate an entrenched, sacred institution. He also says that if it takes a village to raise a child, it also takes one to “abuse” that child. He sees this insulated Catholic Boston world as a fortress that must be attacked. When asked, Mike says that his wife does not like that he spends so much time working, and it turns out he is separated. The lawyer says he never married because what he does is “too important” to be distracted by a married life. Here we have the tradeoff between one’s own personal happiness and social purpose. Later, Garabedian tells Mike that he had a priest, who was threatened with exile to South America unless he kept quiet about abuse, who confessed to the lawyer. But the archdiocese stopped legal documents attesting to the cover-up to be made public, so powerful is the Church in Boston at this time. (Garabedian is eating often when he meets with Mike, attesting to how he must get nourishment on the run to fit his always busy work. And Mike is always running, which shows he has the same mindset).

On a telephone call, Richard Sipe (the voice of actor Richard Jenkins), a psychotherapist, gives statistics from a report as far back as 1985 that the Church knew about, including Cardinal Law, that there could be 90 priests (research indicates the number is 87) who are pedophiles in Boston. Sipes says he may not be a member of the Church anymore, but “the Church is an institution, Mike, made of men; it's passing. My faith is in the eternal. I try to separate the two.” The film implies that is the conclusion of many Catholics that keep their faith in their religion even if they have lost that faith in the Catholic Church.

To show how this abuse hits close to home, reporter Matt sees the address of one of the probable priests in treatment down the block from his house.

Robby confronts McLeish again and threatens by saying they could write a story about lawyers who made money off the settlements unless he gets the names of the priests and the victims. McLeish says he sent a list a while back to the Globe because he needed the newspaper’s backing if he was going to go public. Saviano, who heads up SNAP, also said he sent information to the Globe before. Apparently, the story was buried. So, the newspaper is not without sin in this story.

McLeish resends the list he forwarded before with 47 priests noted. Marty says it’s more important that they show the system is corrupt, that the cover-up was systemic, instead of just focusing on the individual priests. The implication here is that the problem will have a limited focus unless they expose the wider conspiracy.

A montage showing Sacha hitting the bricks, interviewing residents, including a policeman who says nobody wants to put “cuffs” on a priest. They show how it wasn’t just those in power who kept a lid on the abuse. Neighbors exerted peer pressure to keep things silent. One victim said his mother “put out cookies” for the clergy. The movie shows the darker side of religion when its grip on people’s lives becomes dark instead of enlightening.

Sacha has a breakthrough when she talks to one ex-priest, Ronald Paquin (Richard O’Rourke) who admits to “fooling around” with boys. But he says he received no “satisfaction” from the experiences. He didn’t rape anybody because he knows the difference because he himself was raped. So, the film shows that abuse perpetuates itself, and here is a priest who doesn’t even understand his own pathology or the harm he inflicted on others. As Sacha leaves Paquin’s house, two boys ride by on bikes, emphasizing how close possible victims can be to predators.

The tragedy of 911 puts a major delay on the Spotlight story, but Mike works on getting the documents that Garabedian mentioned made public, and Robby and Sacha go to Robby’s old high school where a Father Talbot molested his friend. They find more obstruction of information. It seems to Robby that everyone in power knows the true story, except them, and they are the newspaper, the emphasis here is on “news.”

Mike gets a judge to finally allow the public records to actually become public. The records show that Cardinal Law quashed the evidence on the notorious Father Geoghan who molested several children. Make is angry that Robby doesn’t want to run the story until they get information on the covering up of more than one priest’s actions. The implication here is that Robby doesn’t want the Church to get the chance to shut the story down before its implications show more widespread atrocities.

The story not only affects Robby personally because of the molesting priest at his high school. Sacha won’t go to mass anymore with her grandmother. Mike says he liked going to church when he was younger and always thought he would return to it before this story came to them.

Conley, the Catholic Charities board member, meets Robby and tries to put a wedge between Robby and Marty, saying the latter doesn’t care about Boston and is just trying to advance his own career and move on. He then subtly threatens Robby by saying how Robby will still be in Boston. The suggestion here is that Robby could suffer the fallout of the investigation into the Church. Robby retaliates by saying they will be running the story.

Children sing “Silent Night” in the background since it is approaching Christmas. The voices of the innocents contrast with the crimes against youths as Mike types up parts of the story. Robby gets lawyer Sullivan to acknowledge the priests who he helped protect for the Church. The reporters note that the festival of the Epiphany approaches in the Catholic calendar, which they say is an appropriate word for the revelation that is coming.

Robby tells the others, including Marty and Ben, that he was the Metro head at the time when the information came to the newspaper in 1993 and didn’t follow up on the priests’ abuse. So, it was his and the Globe’s fault along with the others that contributed to the news not getting out. Everyone was involved. Marty says that sometimes we “stumble” in the “dark” until a light shows us the “blame” that goes around. The title of the news outfit and the name of the movie points to that epiphany, where the spotlight shows us the truth. But, it’s better late than never to right wrongs.

The effect of the story is widespread and personal, as the impact hits Sacha’s grandmother. Matt says he has been writing a horror novel, fiction as opposed to the actual horror in life. The film ends with the Spotlight team receiving numerous calls from victims who now feel safe enough to tell their stories.

The end notes state that the Globe published close to 600 stories on the abuse. 249 were accused of abuse in the Boston archdiocese. There were well over 1000 victims. Cardinal Law resigned, but instead of punishment he was assigned to a high-ranking post in the Church in Rome which shows how the Church still refused to acknowledge its part in the scandal.

Mark Ruffalo in one of the extras attached to the film states that you can’t have a free society without a free press.