Reporter's Favorite's - Dave Rattigan

I was able to get in touch with Dave Rattigan - comedian extraordinaire, as well as an award-winning journalist whose work appears in major newspapers, websites and magazines. I asked him what his favorites films about journalism we're, and why.

He told me: "I've never seen All the President's Men from start to finish, So I'll go with the classic comedy The Front Page, which has been remade several times including into His Girl Friday (switching genders for the lead) and Switching Channels (switching the newspaper into a TV newsroom)."

It would be interesting to check out Switching Channels, having never seen it, but having seen His Girl Friday.

He went on to elaborate: "Of that group, I've seen all but Switching Channels, and liked the Jack Lemmon-Water Mathau version of The Front Page the most, probably because of the pairing of the actors. Although the Rosalind Russell-Carey Grant pairing was also excellent, featuring that fast-talking/overlapping dialogue style that really worked well. In all three versions, in a funny way, it depicted the detachment of the reporters from their subject matter -- and made it all about the story, story, story."

That seems to be a running theme throughout this course. Story, story, story. From Carey Grant, to Kirk Douglas, to Faye Dunaway, to Robert DeNiro, it seemed like all the different journalists, for their own different reasons, had completely detached from their subject matter, and only cared about selling papers or geting their scoop.

Good Night and Good Luck

The film is well shot and has good actors, but to me will always have a Clooney shadow looming over it. Not that Clooney’s direction is bad necessarily, it just feels like Clooney trying to impress to me. Dave Strathairn’s performance as Murrow was certainly the highlight of the film for me. His deadpan, stony-faced delivery of his speeches gives them a dignified confidence. He relies simply on his words and his message, rather than emotion language to make his case. This is one of the few examples we’ve seen where a broadcast reporter or journalist actually stood up for what was right, and true. Woodward and Bernstein were the only other good examples, and all happen to be real life stories. These people give me hope that journalistic integrity cans till exist in small pockets within this country, even in the face of seemingly insurmountable efforts.

This is one of Murrow’s best speeches, and is reminiscent of a lot of the issues touched upon in Network

Capote's In Cold Blood

It was nice to be able to watch In Cold Blood followed by Capote. It gave really clear context for Capote that would have been lost to me otherwise. As a film, In Cold Blood definitely dragged in parts, and had some cheesy music cues. The cringe-worthy ‘gee whiz’ family scenes were the most egregious, but the film also had some very good, tragic scenes as well as some really good cinematography. One scene stood out to me in particular. When Perry finally talks about his early childhood and his abusive father, and he is framed next to a window on a rainy night. The water running down the glass reflects onto his face, making it seem like tears are running down his cheek. That was really impressive cinematography, lighting, acting. Capote was a much better film, I thought. I am a big fan of Phillip Seymour Hoffman and had never seen this film, so I was looking forward to it. It was both very funny and very sad, and Capote was a very interesting character. All this makes me want to go read the book, but it would probably be really sad.

The Paper

watched this semester. Maybe it’s the sheer ninties-ness of everything, but a lot of things felt a little bit hokey to me. That’s not to say I didn’t like the film, I did, I just felt it conformed to Hollywood standards more than any film we’ve watched this semester. The plot was meticulously crafted to have all storylines converge in the hospital at the end, with everyone realizing their wrong doings and learning a good life lesson. All I could think at the end of the movie was that how do we know that Michael Keaton’s character is going to change now that his wife has had a baby. Even when she begged him not to, it was still more important to him to go to back to the paper and try to change the headline. It’s a classic Hollywood theme of family vs. career, and which is most important. Only, at the end of the Paper you don’t get a good sense of which is truly more important to Michael Keaton’s character

This TV spot isn't necessarily related to my point, but I always think it's interesting to look back at how a film was advertised and sold to audiences after having seen it, especially if it came out many years ago.

Broadcast News

Far and away the shining scene in Broadcast News was the one where Tom has to fill in for the anchor and Holly Hunter has to frantically feed him lines through his earpiece. The scene was not only a nice snapshot of the frantic and up-to-the-minute world of broadcast news, but it was very well choreographed, shot and staged. It drew me in and immediately connected me to both characters. It takes a while to get past the mid-eighties haze that hangs over the film (haircuts, clothes, etc) but once you do, it really becomes an engaging story. It’s interesting how as we watch movies made later and later, the role of the women in journalism and film alike begin to change drastically. Early on, women were getting disrespected, slapped, and trivialized. By the seventies (Network) and eighties (Broadcast News) women begin to take the roles of power both in film and journalism. All that being said, Holly Hunter’s accent did get become fairly aggravating to me…

A newseum interview about Broadcast News and how accurate the film is to the television life.

All The President's Men

All The President’s Men is a snapshot of easily the most famous and exalted example of good journalism in American history. What more could you ask for? Two ragtag journalist following the story, painstakingly checking their facts, and checking them again. They withstood a barrage of smear tactics, death threats, and white house misinformation in order to discover the truth and ultimately take down the most powerful man in America. The movie itself was very good, although I wish they had followed more of the story. They covered the beginning with great detail, but once it began to get to the point where the story really blows up and begins to threaten Nixon’s power, they simply have a few shots of newspaper headlines being written about what ends up happening to Nixon. It showed that if you are willing to stick to the facts and stand up against the powers that be, you can have just as much power as they do. If this movie weren’t based on things that actually happened I would call it an unabashed journalism apologetic. But, since it did happen it’s more of a tribute to the fine work of Bernstein and Woodard. After all the yellow journalism we’ve seen in this class, I was beginning to believe there was no good journalism left.

Also, a pretty interesting video from 5 minutes before Nixon resigns from office. He seems surprisingly at peace despite what is about to happen. (I'd recommend turning to annotations off on youtube)

Network

I think that in 2011, it is a perfect time to watch a film like Network. Our current socioeconomic conditions are fairly similar to the 1970’s (gas prices, the middle east, recession, loss of trust in the govt) and our broadcast journalism has only gotten worse since the advent of 24-hour cable news. Every media message is constructed, now more than ever. Every TV journalist has an angle, whether it’s an agenda, ratings, visibility, etc. In the 70’s TV was still new, so it was easier for the people in the film to have an idea of the effect that television was having on people (a negative one, in the screenwriters opinion). Today, TV is so interwoven into all aspects of society that we are almost too far in the forest to see the trees. It’s hard for us to have any perspective on a life without TV, or the pacification of the public that has taken place because of our TV obsession. I think if this film was made today the famous line would be “I’m mad, but ill keep taking it so long as the office and sportscenter are on when I’m bored!”…or something like that.

Ace in the Hole

While a really enjoyed Ace In The Hole, both the performances as well as the cinematic choices, there were a couple points in the plot that left me scratching my head. The first issue for me was the sensational nature that the story took on so quickly. There was no real explanation of how his story goes from the Albuquerque Sun-Bulletin to the national radar. All of a sudden there are just thousands of people at the cave, wanting to hear the news. It went from one family going to see the caves to thousands of people and carnival rides very quickly. It seemed like they could have used some sort of explanation there, although it’s a small thing. The bigger thing that bothered me in the plot was the reality that Douglas’ character was able to keep any other newspaper from being reporting on the story from up close. Besides, even if those reporters couldn’t get up close doesn’t mean they couldn’t still write the story. If there’s anything I’ve learned about newspapermen through these films it’s that they are willing to do whatever they can to get the story they want. So, for me it was hard to believe that he could just keep them at bay. That being said, I really enjoyed the film. I thought that Kurt Douglas was very good and the last shot where he falls down dead right at the camera lens is exceptional.

Deadline USA

Deadline USA is the first film we’ve watched that has a main journalist character that the audience can easily root for. His plight is straightforward: they are trying to close down his newspaper even though it’s the only one willing to cover the Rienzi story. Ed Hutcheson is very loyal to The Day and to the ideals of good honest journalism. He is the first character we have watched who wasn’t a ‘yellow journalist’ and was only concerned with the pursuit of truth. For me, this made the film slightly less effective. It made Hutcheson seem like more of a fictional character than the other films we’ve watched. Someone like Charles Kane serves as an example of the twisted, corrupting power the media and wealth can have on a person. Kane is a character that seems real and flawed, which ultimately leads to his demise. Bogart’s character, on the other hand, personifies the ideal journalist in such a way that it made him seem less likely to be a real person, at least to me. Because of the way journalists have been satirized and criticized throughout film history, Deadline USA almost feels like a rebuttal to all of those portrayals. Depicting a man who is steadfast in his convictions, rather than just seeking personal wealth and success.

Also, an interesting review of 'Sweet Smell of Success' from when it was released

His Girl Friday and Citizen Kane

Both Citizen Kane and His Girl Friday, while entirely different films, share similar themes about the nature of those involved in journalism. Both films make reference to the humanity lost by its characters because of their obsession with their job. Citizen Kane is a portrait of a confident, intelligent, driven young man who is warped into a tired, soulless, selfish old man. His obsession with the Inquirer strips him of his humanity and leaves him an empty shell. It’s certainly a bleak view of journalism. His Girl Friday is a much lighter comedy, but it has just as bleak a view of journalism as Citizen Kane. Instead of showing the characters slowly morph into soulless people, His Girl Friday establishes the characters as selfish and greedy from the beginning. Instead, the story focuses on the relationship between Walter and Hildy, and Hildy’s attempts to leave the newspaper trade she loves for a chance at having the ‘real’ life that Walter could never offer her. They both talk constantly about how newspapermen are all scoundrels who only care about getting the story, them included. It seems that both filmmakers were concerned about the direction that journalism had gone in the 30’s and 40’s, and where it was headed. It’s interesting how two very different films made in the early 1940’s have a similar view of journalism, which is still resonant and relevant today with the 24 hr new cycle.