Since 1982, what contribution has Film4 made to British Film Culture?

The 1970s saw a series of crises in the British Film Industry caused largely by the withdrawal of support from both Hollywood major studios and their domestic equivalents. This led to a change in the structure of the industry, with companies like Rank and EMI replaced by smaller independent production companies such as Goldcrest, Palace and HandMade. Thanks to the declining cinema audiences, which hit an all time low in 1984, British Cinema was increasingly reliant on secondary markets such as video and television, and Channel Four became a crucial part of the funding equation. By the end of the 1980s, it was arguably the single most important player in the British Film Industry, not only providing valuable support of various kinds, but also making a considerable contribution to what looked like a full-scale cultural revival.

Although the idea of film funding wasn’t directly discussed in the Annan Report, which led to the creation of Channel Four, it was a passion of the channel’s first Chief Executive, Jeremy Isaacs, who was inspired by the examples set in Germany and Italy. Isaacs was noted by the vast majority as the biggest and most important player in Channel Four’s history, it was he who oversaw the channels launch period and set the channel's original 'high brow' style. In his work, The Making of Channel Four (1998), Catterall offers his inside opinion on the icon by stating that his decision to pour substantial resources into Film on Four was of ‘major cultural importance’ and that his intelligence, warmth, production skill and experience, along with the respect he earned made him an ‘outstanding figure’. (pp.58-59).

Film4 was launched in 1982 as Film4 Productions, a film production company owned by Channel Four Television Corporation and has been responsible for backing a large number of films made in both the United Kingdom and around the world. The original aim of Film4 was to commission around fifteen to twenty films a year, with films being co-financed and produced in partnership with other companies, and many which would give opportunities to new and existing British directors and writers. Between 1982 and 1998, Channel Four directly funded over 270 film productions, which provided a major boost to the British Film Industry and created an unprecedented bridge between television and film. There was great financial success during the period between 1992 and 1997, with The Crying Game (1992) taking $62million in the United States, Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994) taking $240million worldwide and Trainspotting (1996) taking over $12million in both the United Kingdom and United States. This rather affluent period also saw the introduction of lottery money funding and the UK film production level reach a new high, not seen since the 1970s.

Led by David Ankin in the 1990s, an increasing number of these productions enjoyed theatrical release, yet it was the channel’s broadcast sessions of ‘Film on Four’, defined by Catterall as ‘admirable and a credit to Channel Four’ (1998, p.8) that affably established the distinctive identity of its contribution to British Film Culture for a generation of television viewers.  In 1998, the outfit was rebranded as ‘FilmFour’, to coincide with the launch of the new digital television channel of the same name. Four years later, in 2002, Channel Four had to significantly cut their budget from $30million to $10million and fifty staff. This was due to the mounting losses, which forced them to reintegrate FilmFour as division of its TV operation so it could continue to invest in new film. The cuts were an unfortunate consequence of FIlmFour’s rather unsuccessful attempt to compete with Hollywood by attempting to adapt the studio model in the UK. The cuts were described by many, including David Thompson, head of BBC films as ‘a very sad day for the British Film Industry’, going on to say that the British Film Industry needed confidence at that point ant that particular move did not inspire confidence at all.

Some have disputed that Channel Four has been genuinely effective in its efforts to revive our seriously feeble industry. At the very least with Film Four, it has refrained from withering on about a ‘non-existent British Renaissance’ and simply proved its point with a ‘put your money where your mouth is’ attitude. The majority of films have come in with between 30 and 80 percent Channel Four funding, however, money is not everything when it comes to trying to define a body of work. In terms of box office performance, small screen audiences’ statistics and artistic achievement, the results have been as contrasting as the financing strategies the company has implemented.

Aesthetic originality was never a clear priority of Film4 Productions, with the company playing it safe for the most part, with the dramatically conventional. A large number of these films never actually made it onto a cinema screen, with the majority performing poorly, yet others did some astonishing business. FilmFour may not have necessarily produced a ‘renaissance’ but it has been involved in a major part in the assurance of the continuation of a British Film Industry, by commissioning and helping to finance work that might not otherwise find sufficient funding in these hard times.

In her 2014 article in the Journal of British Cinema and Television, Laura Mayne draws attention to the considerations of cultural value that were ‘enshrined in Channel Four’s defining remit to cater to unpresented communities’ and how they looked to give airtime to the minority voices and how to offer alternatives to the dominant television culture (p.462).

A strong way of reviewing the established Film4 canon is by focusing on the film4 ‘best of’ seasons aired in January 1993 and November 2012 respectively, which provide an element of great historical insight. As part of the ten-year anniversary in 1993, Channel Four screened a season of Film4’s ‘Greatest Hits’. Out of approximately 160 Film4 productions screened through their channels up to that point, only thirteen were selected that were recognized to be ‘the most popular and successful ‘Film on Fours’ to have emerged over the past decade’ which went someway to prove just how closely Channel Four has been associated with the biggest recent successes of the British Film Industry.

The selection of films for this particular film season reveal an effort to be representative of Film4’s output, and besets films from each type of genre and filmmaking style that was strongly associated with Film4 throughout the 1980s, contemporary social issues, experimental art cinema and both the avant-garde and heritage British historical film. It is also worth noting that this particular anniversary fell within a period of transition for the Channel Four Corporation, between the less commercially orientated Channel Four of the 1980s and the more competitive environment that it entered in the 1990s.

In November 2012, Film4oD ran a thirteenth anniversary celebration season entitled ’30 films for 30p’. According to a report into Channel Four’s impact on the British Film Industry by Olsberg SPI, the channel has a ‘clear and distinctive brand, built over a 25 year period of commitment and innovation, a brand which is highly important to the British Film Industry because it is widely recognized. Film4 is also important to Channel Four’s own brand identity. Consequently, one would expect that the films chosen for this particular promotional season would, to some extent, mirror how the channel wants to be seen in terms of its perceived impact on British Cinema itself.

The films chosen also spearhead the importance of particular styles and directors to the channel’s reputation for knowing and understanding the alternative taste. Overall, the ’30 films for 30p’ anniversary promotion projects FilmFour’s role as a producer involved in risky, alternative, innovative and above all contemporary filmmaking. It can lastly be argued, that Channel Four’s output in the 1980s demonstrated the risk taking innovation with the freedom to experiment, which is not axiomatically as evident in the filmmaking of today.

As Dobson states in her text Channel 4: the early years (1989) ‘FilmFour revitalized the film industry’ (p.38), which is strengthened by Maynes’ opinion that since 1982, Channel Four’s film funding practices have ‘changed the landscape of the British Film Industry’. Now, aside from its mass contribution to film production, Channel Four also made significant contributions to film culture through its policy on contemporary social issues and the minority. Though, as a whole, Britain was quick to adapt video as a genuine mass medium, relatively few independent and foreign language films were made available on British channels. So to compromise, what with the imminent death of the repertory cinema circuit, Channel Four introduced new digital channels, which saw its impressive, if somewhat uneven success rate set an example that was quickly followed by the likes of the BBC.

Despite the fact that most commentators would agree that the film side to the Channel Four Television Corporation has had an ascertainable impact on British Film Culture, certain findings do illustrate that the Film4 canon is far from entirely ingrained and can be contested on a number of levels. There have been several rumors that Channel Four have been considering the possibility of reducing its future commitments to FilmFour production, which is worrying for many. Be that as it may, whether its achievements have been uneven of not, British filmmakers and their ample audiences need the continuing support of Channel Four on several different levels and since its creation in the early 1980s, Channel Four and FilmFour Productions has left a fundamentally timeless stamp on British film and television culture.

Bibliography:

(2013). Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television. (33.3)

Catterall, P. (1998). The Making of Channel Four. United States: Blackwell Publishers.

Hobson, D. (1989). Channel 4: the early years and Jeremy Isaacs legacy. London: I. B. Tauris.

Mayne, L. (2014). Assessing Cultural Impact: Film4, Canon Formation and Forgotten Film. Journal of British Cinema and Television. (11.4) pp.459-480

Top TV Picks of the Week (23rd - 29th May)

(WARNING - POTENTIAL SPOILERS)

Here’s a list of the TV I would recommend from this week, any other recommendations you have then feel free to leave to them in the comments section!

Monday 23rd May - Eating Well with Hemsley + Hemsley  (Channel 4, 8pm - Episode 3)

You may think this is jut another weekday cooking show to fill the slots on Channel 4 but it’s so much different to the usual show we see. The Hemsley sisters are all about clean eating, not using gluten or refined sugars and getting their usual and unusual ingredients right from the source. This week its all about the sweet treats, minus the gluten and refined sugars, as the sisters knock up ginger nut cookies and cinnamon banana bread. We also get treated to seeing how honey is produced as they make a visit to two beekeepers. You may be slightly confused by some of the obscure ingredients they used but trust me, the food looks simple and unbelievably tasty.

Tuesday 24th May - Rovers (Sky1, 10pm - Episode 1)

A brand new series written by Joe Wilkinson and Dave Earl starring Craig Cash and Sue Johnston among others. Rovers is set in the clubhouse of lower league football team Redbridge Rovers, whose fans dream of promotion to the Evo-Stik Premier League. What’s great about Rovers is that it’s so much more about the fans than the football team. It follows characters who meet in the canteen and the club bar to banter and argue in the most British way possible. 

Wednesday 25th May - Arrow (Sky1, 8pm - Episode 22)

Lost in the Flood: Darhk attempts to reactivate ‘Rubicon’ with the help of Felicity’s ex-boyfriend Cooper and launch the remaining missiles. Felicity, along with her father and Curtis successfully shut down ‘Rubicon’ for good after battling with Cooper. Meanwhile, Oliver and Diggle discover Darhk’s underground town and race to rescue Thea. Malcolm attempts to drug Thea with a mind-control pill and make her turn on Oliver. In the flashbacks, Taiana begins to be slowly corrupt by the idol, giving her more and more power from each soldier that she and Oliver kill. Oliver attempts to take the idol and talk her down, but Reiter suddenly arrives and confronts them.

Thursday 26th May - DC's Legends of Tomorrow (Sky 1, 8pm - Episode 13)

Leviathan: Rip spots a chance to end Vandal Savage’s evil reign forever, when he takes the Legends to London in 2166. Kendra spots that one of Savage’s female officers is wearing a bracelet that would enable the team to defeat Savage once and for all. Snart kidnaps the officer, who turns out to be closer to Savage than the team think and convinces her to help the team and the local rebels who are also trying to take Savage down. Ray discovers that Savage’s ultimate weapon is a giant robot, once it damages the Waverider, its up to Ray to take on the robot as the rest of the team go after Savage. 

Friday 27th May - The Windsors (Channel 4, 10pm - Episode 5)

I still can’t quite work out whether or not I like or dislike this show, as it can be quite hit and miss. The Windsors is a soap opera and parody of the British Royal Family, the House of Windsor, and stars the likes of Harry Enfield, Haydn Gwynne, Hugh Skinner and Katy Wix. In this episode Wills decides the monarchy needs a referendum of its own. All the younger royals back him whilst Charles leads the charge to maintain the established order. This episode in particular is rather poor on the gag front and some jokes are getting a bit tiring. 

Saturday 28th May - The Musketeers (BBC 1, 9:30pm - Episode 1)

Athos, Porthos, Aramis and D’Artagnan are back for what looks like the third and final series of The Musketeers. Whilst Athos, Porthos and D'Artagnan are fighting on the battlefront, Aramis is having trouble adapting to the quiet contemplative life of a monk. The Musketeers' search for missing gunpowder leads them to follow bandits to Aramis' monastery. A change in circumstance leads the battle-scarred musketeers to renuite and rescue orphans of the monastery from a brutal mercenary. Aramis finally accepts his true path in life and rejoins his brothers-in-arms.

Sunday 29th May - Top Gear (BBC 2, 8pm - Episode 1)

Top Gear is back with a brand new series and brand new presents in the shape of Chris Evans and Matt LeBlanc. In this series opener, the pair take a trip to Blackpool in a pair of Reliant three-wheelers. Chris Evans takes a Dodge Viper ACR to Nevada to take on Sabine Schmitz in a Chevrolet Corvette Z06 whilst Matt LeBlanc travels the Moroccan desert in an Ariel Nomad. Guests include Jesse Eisenberg and Gordon Ramsay.

Review - Preacher (S1, Ep 1)

Preacher is the brand new television series for AMC developed by Evan Goldberg, Seth Rogen and Sam Catlin, it is an adaptation of the comic book series created by Garth Ennis and Steve Dillon and published by DC Comics’ Vertigo imprint.

Preacher tells the story of Jess Custer (Dominic Cooper), a preacher in the small Texas town of Annville. After a supernatural event at his church see’s him become accidently possessed by a creature named Genesis and his entire congregation and church destroyed, he enlists the help of Irish vampire, Cassidy (Joseph Gilgun) to find God.

To start, lets discuss the casting and characters. The casting of Dominic Cooper, Joseph Gilgun and Ruth Negga is nothing short of perfect. Playing the titular character, Jesse Custer is Dominic Cooper (History Boys, Agent Carter). His portrayal of a borderline alcoholic, holy man with a cloudy past is incredible as he glooms over his absence of faith and his difficulties with some of the more obnoxious members of his parish. One thing that stood out for me is his surprisingly convincing accent, which carries a southern twang that conveys some sinister undertones as the first episode progresses.

Joseph Gilgun’s happy-go-lucky Irishman, Cassidy, has to be the standout character from the premiere episode. Now I absolutely loved This Is England and Gilgun’s character was possibly my favourite character and I think he could be in Preacher as well. We’re introduced to Cassidy as he drinks his way through numerous adulterous substances on an airplane before jumping out and using an umbrella as a parachute. We’ll likely see the most sinfully dark humour come from Cassidy and Gilgun pulls it off with incredible confidence.

We’re introduced to Ruth Negga’s (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D) character Tulip O’Hare as she creates a bazooka out of old tin cans and moonshine before using it to stop the oncoming group of armed men. Negga brought the perfect balance of emotions to her character has she had just the right amount of tenderness and caring in her scenes with the children and was a total badass in her action scenes.

The show brought some nice little Easter Egg’s for those who read the comic and the fact we didn’t actually see Genesis in the episode adds a nice element of mystery that they will hopefully keep for the majority of the series. The one slight downside to the pilot is that it did move a little slow, you can kind of expect it given them trying to introduce a lot of characters and adding on an extra half hour but it didn’t feel like we were getting a lot of information on those particular characters in the extra 30 minutes, it kind of felt like we were aimlessly moving through the events in Annville.

This small flaw aside, the first episode was simply phenomenal, with a couple of conclusively excellent action sequences and a lot of laughs throughout. Even the most hard-core fan of the original comic will not be disappointed with how Rogen, Goldberg and Catlin have adapted it and brought it to life on screen.

Abre los ojos is a much better film than Vanilla Sky. Discuss.

Abre los ojos (Amenábar, 1997) was brought to international attention through its remake, Vanilla Sky (Crowe, 2001) which was the first American remake of a Spanish film. Abre los ojos is a very intriguing drama/mystery about a handsome man who finds the love of his life but suffers an accident and has to have his face rebuilt through surgery after it is severely disfigured.

Cameron Crowe, the director of Vanilla Sky has described his remake as more of a “remix” as it draws attention to the original and does not eclipse the original, with the main changes coming through the dialogue with the scenes in the same sequence.

Greenburg:

'Remake is an act of aggression against the original film'

---

'It steals the identity of the original and its success effaces it'

---

'Remakes hinder the success of the original's overseas market'

Although it has been said by Crowe himself that the films were very similar, many argue that Vanilla Sky has completely transformed the story from an engaging mystery to a story of romance and redemption. There are many differences between the films aside from the change in story, the most noticeable being the personality of the protagonist. ‘Cesar’, in the original seems a rather clueless, but charming pretty boy who doesn’t give much away, where as in the remake, Tom Cruise’s protagonist portrays a classic Hollywood lead (a single, wealthy, handsome ladies man).  The issue with this “master of the universe” Hollywood protagonist is that they do not leave much mystery with the audience, as there is a lot of explanation of the characters and the plot.

There are many reasons for remakes; proven success, art house appeal and the rights for European screenplay are cheaper. Also, some remakes of foreign cinema tend to lose the original foreign elements, which leads Lucy Mazdon (2000) to question the idea of originality as the “originals” themselves are usually from novels, comic strips etc. She also states that ‘films are intertextual artifacts and remakes are part of that process of intertextuality.’

Albeit Crowe displayed the reality vs. dream world well, Vanilla Sky gives the kind of ending that European filmmakers are successful in avoiding, and it seems Hollywood directs can’t resist. The failure of Vanilla Sky is unfortunate as the film could have been one of the few American remakes to actually improve and become a step up from it foreign counterpart.

Comparing the use of films by video games and the use of video games by films

Since the early 1980s, video games have been adapted into films along with fiction, non-fiction, theatre, television and radio. Although it is noted that video game adaptation began in the eighties, films closely related to the computer and video game industry, such as Tron and The Wizard. It was only after the release of several films based on video games that the genre really became recognised.

Although it is suggested by Kinder in The new media book that ‘game adaptations of films have fared somewhat better because they usually have richer characters and more elaborate narratives to draw on’ (2002, p.119), films such as Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001) and Resident Evil (2002) were rather successful with audiences where as generally, films based on video games tend to carry a reputation of being lower budget B movies and rarely receive much appreciation.

Video game adaptations are usually seen as mainly commercial vehicles that are often too faithful to cinema and do not look to assist the expansion of the gaming franchise and industry. In a survey in Edge Magazine (2000), there were only two film adaptations in the list of ‘100 best video games ever’. It is often cited that the main cause of failure among video game adaptations is that films based on the genre tend to drastically differ from its source material.

Many define narrative as a spoken or written account of connected events, where as Kinder (2002) sees narrative more broadly as a ‘discursive mode of patterning and interpretating the meaning of perceptions, an operation crucial to culture’ (p.121). The earliest narrative approaches to video game to film adaptation focuses on players’ active role in the game and the story. There are often notions of ‘interactive fiction’ and theatre due to the approach often being stuck in particular existing fields. This can be due to the approach being dependent on games of the time and the notion of ‘interactive fiction’ more often than not fits early text based games such as Adventure (1976) and Zork (1981), while the concept of ‘interactive cinema and theatre’ fits the nineties awkward puzzle games.

Narrative approaches have developed over the years, one prime example being the ‘spatial’ narrative approach, which addresses games via operation and representation. Jenkins uses the Super Mario games as a case study to explain the ‘spatial’ narrative approach; he states that these games stress interactivity and atmospheres over characterization and story. The player of the game only cares about the character of Princess Peach, as she represents the end of the game, and development occurs through the protagonist mastering different skills throughout.

There are many links between film and video game, and as Dunlop states in Production Pipeline (2014) ‘in todays film and game industry, art production is a communal enterprise’ (p.1). As well as similar textual and graphical properties, there are many shared commercial strategies, for example; film adaptation helps the game industry with development, production and promotion, with the video game industry helping the film industry with merchandising. The video game industry however, is still dependent on interplay with the cinema industry, with blockbuster films regularly being made into commercially success games, a prime example being the 1997 Nintendo 64 game, 007: GoldenEye.

Nonetheless, there are copious differences as well as similarities between the two industries. ‘Unlike a game, the viewer has no say in how the context of a film unfolds… The end result is a linear sequence of images and audio, short of making popcorn, there is no user interaction’ (Dunlop, 2014, p.5). This is where the argument of narrative versus spectacle comes into play. More often than not, film blockbusters are likened to video games regarding waning narrative. Howbeit, some do make the thematic use of video games with characters inhabiting virtual reality worlds, for instance, War Games (1983) and The Last Starfighter (1984). Jenkins, Kelly and Papazian (2013) argue for this point by articulating that adaptations that not only emphasis story but theme as well are notably ‘world making’ (Hollywood Gamers, p.452). Gorgan (2003) gives much criticism of the fact that a blockbuster’s de-emphasis of narratives in favor of spectacle should be directed more at the film industry’s use of digital effects, rather than being directed at the video game industry.

There are frequent debates between narratologists and ludologists over the use of film in video game and video game in film. Narratologists such as Janet Murray, Ken Perlin and Michael Maleas in Game on Hollywood! (2013) argue rather persuasively that video games stand-alone as a new form of storytelling, which highlights the ‘increasingly game-like and role orientated modes of everyday experiences in the postmodern world’ (p.9). Ludologists, such as Marhka Eskelmein, Espen Aarseth and Stuart Mouthorp argue on the other hand that video games belong to the realms of games and not narratives because of the way they function in strategy, skill, logic and experiment, which are all interactive. It is worth noting that there is also a third strand to the argument which involves ontologists, such as Henry Jenkins and Marie-Laure Ryan who contend that video games operate neither in the realms of narrative or interactivity exclusively as they believe some can be hybrid to both genres.

It cannot be ignored that the video game industry is now one of the most profitable forms of entertainment around the world. Yet it is still viewed by many as an inferior art form to that of film and theatre, a point that the late Roger Ebert argued aggressively by forcing that ‘video games can never be art’.

Bibliography

Cotter, P. (2015). The Hitman: Agent 47 Trailer & the videogame movie problem. Retrieved from denofgeek.com

Dunlop, R. (2014). Production Pipeline: Fundamentals for Film and Games. United States: Focal Press.

Kinder, M. (2002). Narrative equivocations between movies and games. In D. Harries (Ed.), The new media book. (pp. 119-132). London: BFI.

Papazian, G. (2013). Game on, Hollywood!: Essays on the Intersection of Video Games and Cinema. Edited by Gretchen Papazian and Joseph Michael Sommers. United States: McFarland & Company, Incorporated Publishers.

Shaw-Williams, H. (2014). Will Video Game Movies Be The Next Big Thing? Retrieved from screenrant.com

Review - Spotlight

“Break the story – break the silence.” That is exactly what director Tom McCarthy aimed to do when he co-wrote Spotlight with Josh Singer in 2013. Telling the powerful tale of the Pulitzer Prize-winning investigation into the cover-up of child abuse by priests in the Catholic Church, Spotlight stands tall as one of the top films of 2015. This film demonstrates beautifully the power of journalism, following the Boston Globe’s Spotlight Team, a group of investigative reporters who exposed the cover-up in 2002.

Spotlight’s ensemble cast is filled with household names, such as Mark Ruffalo, Michael Keaton and Rachel McAdams, but the real focus of this film is the story. That is the beauty of it. McCarthy could have easily used the Hollywood cast to produce a film filled with dramatic scenes of shouting and crying. It isn’t. Spotlight is, in fact, a story told slowly. It is told with precision and clarity. It is not rushed. Team this with its bland colour palette of browns, greys and light blue; it is difficult not to feel as though you are watching the story take place before you. Everything about Spotlight, from its dialogue to Masanobu Takayanagi’s cinematography, emits an air of the everyday. Spotlight is a real story about real life. Its focus is the truth and, for that, it does not need a lead actor or special effects.

That being said, the performances in Spotlight are stunning. The downplayed humbleness shown by each member of the main cast is the perfect representation of the journalists and the blame that they personally feel. After all, it took an outsider, the Globe’s new editor, to make them notice the cover-up that was happening underneath their noses. Each revelation is gradual; there are no shocking twists and that adds to the lifelike beauty of the film. There are no overly passionate and dramatic performances typical of many Oscar-contender movies, except perhaps the moving face-off between reporter Mike Rezendes (Ruffalo) and editor Walter ‘Robby’ Robinson (Keaton) that represents the sad truth: the abuse is happening everywhere and to a lot of children.

The sound and music demonstrated in Spotlight is truly spectacular. The dialogue is simple and conversational. Its realism exhibits excellently the unglamorous office life of journalism and the procedural routine of the investigation. McCarthy and Singer are also unafraid of silence, which presents itself during many pivotal moments in the film. The quiet draws attention to the horror of the situation and many of these moments are the most hard-hitting. Sacha Pfeiffer interviewing a victim in a coffee shop is a prime example: just the low sounds of patrons chatting and cups clattering support the victim’s emotional testimony, which is succeeded by haunting, hymn-like music.

Academy Award-winning composer Howard Shore wrote the perfect score. Spotlight’s melancholy soundtrack is reminiscent of crime shows but with evident inspiration from Catholic hymns. Shore’s tracks ‘City on the Hill’ and ‘Delivering the News’ both feature the unsettling sounds of an organ; neither would sound out-of place in a church. An unnerving piano-heavy motif runs throughout the film. This begins in the very first scene: a flashback set in a Boston police station in 1976. The motif acts as a reminder of the crying mother and her two young children sat in an interview room, while the obviously routine cover-up was beginning just outside. The soundtrack fits the story perfectly and provides appropriately thriller-like tones to the horrific events taking place.

You may think that Spotlight is an attack on the church or even of Boston; you would be wrong. The main focus of the film is the power of journalism and the ways in which the media can be used for good. Everything about Spotlight is executed carefully and intricately. This is not a tale that can be told in a light-hearted way; neither should it be so heavy that it is difficult to watch. True stories such as this deserve to be told. Tales of cover-ups and authority figures’ abuse of power deserve to be exposed. Tom McCarthy gave the Spotlight Team, their investigation and its victims the respect they deserved. He gave the story the respect it needed. Spotlight is a touching tale that must be heard. It is a beautiful film that must be watched.

Written by: Abi Davis-Fletcher (Twitter - @abidavisf)