The State of Play of "State of Play"
Trailer for the 2003 BBC miniseries State of Play, source of the new American remake by the same name.
State of Play is a political thriller wrapped inside a journalistic thriller that works better as the latter.
It's a good, big movie that doesn't look like a big hit, with a strong cast that is based on a better BBC miniseries which was better cast than this American remake. Which is not the same as having a better cast.
The big bad here is a Blackwater-like security outfit called Pointcorp. In a sign of how the mighty have fallen, Blackwater already had to change its name to the faintly prepostereous Xe, so bad has its reputation become in the wake of being banned from Iraq. In a further sign, a Blackwater equivalent called Starkwood is the big bad -- so far, at least -- on this season of the longtime hit thriller series 24.
Which starts to get at a problem with the movie. There's something very familiar about it, which may be inevitable as the story gets condensed into the customary thriller elements.
The trailer for the new thriller opening this weekend, State of Play.
In the 2003 British miniseries, the big bad was an energy corporation. Which may actually be more timely than poor old Blackwater at this point, though it probably seemed very timely a few years ago when the American remake was being conceived.
Not that the original premise for the BBC was unique, either. But what that show had that this does not was space in which the characters could breathe and live in the midst of the thrill ride and shear off one another in intriguing ways.
This season of the longtime hit series 24 features a Blackwater-like corporation wreaking havoc.
It may be that the television model of storytelling -- in episodic series and miniseries -- is best suited for serious drama. And that the theatrical film format now works best for big extravaganzas.
That said, this State of Play is a worthy effort. It's gotten some strong newspaper reviews, perhaps in part because it is a celebration of old school newspaper culture at a time when the newspapers are dying.
Russell Crowe is in strong form as a star investigative reporter definitely of the old school, deftly handling the time-honored cliches of being poorly-dressed, ultra-messy, overweight, and driving a decidedly unstylish car. Rachel McAdams plays up the clash between the classic newspaper culture and the blogosphere as the Washington paper's political gossipeuse a la Wonkette. Crowe nails her with some apt zingers about blogging stereotypes -- all attitude and opinion, sensationalism and shallow facts -- and they develop into a good team.
But since she does remarkably little, um, blogging for a blogger -- we expect the old-school reporter played by Crowe to view his word output to be as precious as his last bottle of Jameson's -- it's a little on the unrealistic side.
As is their boss, played by the great Helen Mirren. Why is a Brit editing a daily newspaper in America's capital? A lifestyle magazine, sure. Mirren's character gets off some more zingers about the sad state of today's journalism regarding the paper's new corporate owners, who are heavy into cost-cutting, shallow sensationalism, and decidedly not rocking the boat.
The journalists are rousted by the police in the BBC miniseries State of Play.
Since this is a contemporary thriller with a relatively short running time, Crowe's character is actually a set of incongruous characters all rolled into one, held together by his strong persona and acting skills.
When we meet him, Crowe's character appears to be a police reporter, checking out an early morning crime scene, well-known to the local cops. Then he turns out to be a star investigative reporter, with high-level sources everywhere. Including, not least, his buddy and former college roommate, a presidential candidate-in-the-making played by a shiny Ben Affleck. Later, he turns into an action star and budding superspy.
I know a lot of people are down on Affleck, but he's good and actually makes the role as conceived in this movie work better than it would have had it been played by Edward Norton, who dropped out of the production when it was delayed.
The problem is that it's hard to buy Crowe's determinedly frumpy character -- he also weighs about 50 pounds more than when he won the Best Actor Oscar for Gladiator -- and Affleck's gleaming star as best buddies.
The actor originally cast as the reporter, Brad Pitt, would have fit more believably as the politician's pal, not to mention romancer of the politician's aging glamour girl wife, played with deft resignation by Robin Wright Penn. Though Crowe probably makes a more believable journo.
The BBC miniseries was better cast and thus more believable, while still having a thriller plot that you can believe or, well, not.
Up-and-coming British member of parliament Stephen Collins is questioned by investigative reporter Cal McAffrey, his former campaign manager, in the BBC miniseries State of Play.
John Simm, who starred in the original Life On Mars series (the American remake on ABC was just cancelled) and plays a key recurring character on Doctor Who, and David Morrissey are very credible as the journalist and the politician who are also longtime friends. Simm is also very credible as having been the pol's campaign manager, a key twist that is dropped in the remake. Bill Nighy is great as the newspaper editor, playing up to and flouting authority.
With the lines of loyalty and ethics more credibly established, and tangled, in the process, the miniseries just works better than the movie remake. It's not that the miniseries has a better cast -- though it's excellent -- it's that the miniseries is better cast.
If the movie can't live up to the original material, how does it do compared to big American journalist thrillers of the past like All the President's Men, The Parallax View, Absence of Malice, or The Insider?
They're well-regarded today, but some were not big hits and most were a long time ago. And they are all very different movies.
The two films by the great Alan J. Pakula, All the President's Men and The Parallax View, play like tone poems by today's frenetic standards. Pakula built a suspenseful mood by slowing things down, casting glamorous stars Robert Redford and Warren Beatty against type as nerdy and even strange investigative reporters. (Dustin Hoffman was cast perfectly to type.)
In Sydney Pollack's Absence of Malice, in which the hero is wronged by the newspaper, Paul Newman's character brings out reporter Sally Field's foibles and uses them to gain revenge.
Michael Mann's The Insider is an intellectual thriller in which Crowe, this time as real-life corporate whistleblower Jeffrey Wigand, plays off Al Pacino's shrewd real-life journalist Lowell Bergman, as the pair team up against big business skullduggery, both within Crowe's former tobacco business and Pacino's media business.
While State of Play's direction by Kevin Macdonald, a Brit who directed the outstanding The Last King of Scotland on the Idi Amin regime, is flavorful and gives you something other than the obvious shots, in the end it is a contemporary thriller. While it shows the actual work side of journalism, it relies on a faster pace and sudden twists, and on the reporter ending as a rather incongruous action hero. Maybe Crowe, who had packed on the pounds for his previous role as a sardonic CIA officer in Body of Lies, should have slimmed down to his Gladiator and L.A. Confidential style and ditched the journo cliche ratty old coat.
Which is not to say the remake isn't better than 90% of the stuff out there. A lot of reviewers don't like the ending. I think it works.
You can check things during the day on my site, New West Notes ... www.newwestnotes.com.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Uhhmm.... So is there a happy ending?
I can't wait to see it.
.
See William Bradley's Profile
A happy ending?
Hmm ...
Well, if you are a liberal, I would venture to say that you probably won't think so.
Mr. Bradley, a criticism on style: This is the movie review from hell. Your major points are all chopped up and spread out and yet mashed together - a remarkable misconstruction for such a good writer as yourself. The comparison with the BBC original, which you think central, is actually a sidebar issue, since many potential viewers of the film may have little interest in ever watching the TV show. Charging that the film is miscast can be a major point, but you aren't charging that the actors turn in bad or unbelieveable performances because of the miscast - or are you? - you seem to be saying the film wasn't cast as well as the TV show? But I don't watch TV. Finally, the protracted discussion concerning the villainous corporation is just distracting; although it might survive if it were crunched down to about two brief sentences, again as a side remark - or if werea charge that the film is falsifying politics and thus becomes disreputable. But I don't see you really saying that - or are you? You seem to be trying to promote the BBC show, tell us the movie just so-so, and make some kind of political point simultaneously, and it gets very confusing - each of these efforts requires a separate essay.. I will continue to read your excellent political commentary with interest, but I urge you to reconsider reviewing movies.
See William Bradley's Profile
Thank you for sharing.
It's not a movie review.
It's an essay about a political movie, one that is not nearly as good as the television miniseries from which it is derived.
Ok, that clarifies your point; could that have been stated more explicitly at the beginning? (which certainly reads like the intro to a movie review). Also, then your point sems to be that the movie doesn't state its polituical case as well as the BBC show did; that's a problem worth raising; but would that be due to casting or performances? I suggest that's due to choices by the producers, screenwriters, and director, some of which I now see you trying to point out. But the reason for raising this is that the film could be technically better than the BBC show and still come up weaker as a political comment - which I now think is where you were headed with the comparison btween the show's 'bad guy' energy corp. and the movie's 'bad guy' mercinary corp, and with your complaint that "in the end it is a contemporary thriller.," meaning that you wanted/expected more from it..
My own side comment here is that this is a difficult era for overtly political films to be made or seen. "War, Inc." wasn't a great film, but it was worth seeing and got zip distribution; on the other hand , "Quantum of Solace" was the most overtly poilitical James Bond film ever, and pretty much nobody remarked the politics involved. Neither Hollywood nor its audiences seem to know what to do with political commentary or political satire, which I admit makes writing about these rather difficult.
Oh, I don't know...I thought it was a very nice and most welcome reprieve from the 'Politics' section. We should do it more often!
See William Bradley's Profile
I'll be continuing to write essays around key political or cultural movies, like this, Watchmen, Dark Knight.
We have several coming up next month.
There's a template for standard movie reviews, which are pretty easy to do, and won't be done by me.
WTF is "political gossipeuse a la Wonkette?"
A snarky twit?
>>>>WTF is "political gossipeuse a la Wonkette?"
See William Bradley's Profile
It's pretty much what it sounds like. Not especially flattering re Wonkette ... :)
"A lot of reviewers don't like the ending. I think it works."
I'm not a reviewer but I didn't like the ending either. I won't comment further since I don't want to spoil anyone's viewing but sometime in the future I would like to discuss it.
See William Bradley's Profile
I think the ending works.
That doesn't mean I like the ending. Though I appreciate it. I suspect we both wanted a more obvious ending.
I saw the movie.
It makes me want to see the miniseries.
lol
See Scott Mendelson's Profile
While the fact that I enjoyed the movie more than you isn't really an issue (I have yet to see the original miniseries), I do take note with the mentions of Russell Crowe basically turning into an action hero.
SPOILERS -
Although I must admit that I missed what happened in the hospital with the surviving victim (I went to the bathroom during what I thought was another dry scene between Crowe and Wright Penn, only to realize I had missed a key sequence), the only scene that even remotely played like action was the hide and seek in the basement. In which Crowe spends 90% of the scene avoiding detection and scared out of his wits. The minor action he engages in (grabbing onto the door of a slow moving car to give himself cover) only works because the police arrive to save him. Point being, there is refreshingly little conventional action in this film, and the one 'action scene' feels relatively plausible, with realistic consequences (humiliation, scolding by the police, a nasty hand injury).
Not a big deal, it just bothers me when critics/pundits refer to a movie as being action packed purely because it is an American production. I remember USA Today referring to the 2000 Shaft as being 'non stop action', despite the fact that the first major action scene occurred about an hour into the 95 minute film.
See William Bradley's Profile
I didn't say it's an action movie.
What I said is that Crowe's character starts off as a police reporter, turns out to be a star investigative reporter with contacts everywhere, and becomes something of an action hero.
Crowe's character is a lot more of an action hero and superspy than reporter when he takes the PR fixer to a cheap hotel and interrogates him, and when he pulls his politician pal off the PR guy.
See William Bradley's Profile
Looking at your comment again, actually there's a lot of action in the movie, starting with the double shooting that kicks things off. And the scene you missed is very dramatic and action-oriented.
Which doesn't make it an action movie. It's not. But compared to the classic journalistic thrillers I discuss here, it has a lot more action.
That's a great scene between the 2 British actors. They're really believable as a reporter/ex-campaign manager and his politician friend/ex-client.
See William Bradley's Profile
They are excellent actors who are cast to play off one another, not as a star package.
What's a star today?
That's a great scene with the British cops making the arrest at the newspaper.
"24" must be driving the fringe right nuts making Blackwater the new villains.
See William Bradley's Profile
Yes.
The right loves 24 and Blackwater.
Gears clashing sound ...
The trailer for the new movie looks good not great.
See William Bradley's Profile
The trailers for the movie are pretty generic.
The British often do a better job of casting these things and of telling a better story than do North American versions...substance without unnecessary glitz...Traffik is a prime example of this phenomenon. Maybe it's also another example of the shortened attention span that is often presumed to be characteristic of this side of the pond.
For me, actors with familiar faces tend to be less interesting and make the story less appealing. But, I’m often pleasantly surprised.
See William Bradley's Profile
Good point, Liz. There've been a lot of American remakes of British properties. Has the remake ever been better than the original?
Leaving aside whether it was a British or American production, the best example I can think of for the remake being better than the original is Wuthering Heights.
I've enjoyed most versions of this classic but the best one, by far - for me, at least - was the most recent, starring Ralph Fiennes and Juliette Binoche. I'm guessing it was a British production, though.
While nothing could be better than the book, this latest remake comes pretty darn close!
I liked the "Traffic" American remake but the British miniseries was better.
I didn't really see the American remake...just bits and pieces, here and there...I guess after seeing 'Traffik', the miniseries...I didn't have much interest in the movie. :)
The BBC miniseries trailer looks really great.
See William Bradley's Profile
The British trailer is more exciting than the American trailer.
This is a pretty interesting movie. It's good to have an at least pretty smart political movie to go see.
See William Bradley's Profile
It's definitely worth seeing.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
