I thought the plot was compelling. Besides the power of the subject matter itself, the procedural construction to me was easy to get absorbed in. Granted a movie with interviews and Excel spreadsheets is going to be up my alley, but I like to think that the appeal of the case being built was strong for many viewers. And as you mention, they did an excellent job incorporating the stories of victims and personal subplots of the Spotlight journalists to add weight and depth to the case. Considering also the inclusion of the legal system and civic institutions like the Church and the Globe, this film could have gotten sprawling and out of control. But it was so well-focused to sustain interest, while still providing a clear sense of how vast the impact of the scandal was. No small feat.

Steve, that's a really good point re Church, Globe and potential to have "gotten sprawling and out of control". I often watch a movie and think, "How could this have gone wrong?" And your point is spot on. There's a tight focus in the movie and I think it's in large part the result of keeping the victims at the center of everything. Even when they're not on screen, they are there in subtext, either dialogue or emotionally.

Plot-wise I think it's a very smart choice to start with the flashback that sets up the theme and subject, and then on the first scene that happens in 2001 we are introduced to the Spotlight team instead of showing one of them in the way a traditional narrative would signal who is the protagonist. Instead, here the signal is that the whole Spotlight team is the protagonist. I find it also admirable how they managed to keep me interested despite the fact that I already knew what was going to happen. I haven't read the screenplay, but from the little bit they showed Sunday night @ Oscars I noticed that the screenplay includes a lot of visual reactions. And those help both advance the plot and know the characters. I'll try to read the screenplay this weekend, but my guess is that a lot of character development is done through consistent visual reactions, and many people would expect them done through dialogue and/or plot. I also think that if the plot were built in a more traditional way giving a single protagonist a clear inner conflict besides shifting the focus from the victims to our protagonist, the movie would have depended a lot on this character's inner conflict. If it's solved, the audience would leave the audience with a sense of closure. If it's not, they would leave thinking about the unsolved inner conflict. But with somehow simple characters, the audience leaves thinking about the bigger external conflict, and in this case I think that's exactly what the filmmakers wanted.

The prologue also serves to highlight the length of time the abuse and cover-ups had been happening. By showing the police station in the 70's, then the Spotlight time in the 00's, it gives the viewer an idea of how (at least) long this had been happening. Thinking about "The Hero's Journey", I suppose Michael Keaton's character could be considered the 'hero' who, after meeting the paper's new editor (Liev Schrieber) and, in a sense, being assigned to the church abuse case, is thrust into the 'new world' where the church wields such enormous influence and power. What I find interesting is that he (Keaton) and his team did not have to travel to another physical world, it was the same world they had been living in all along, they just now saw it in a different way. I agree that things could easily have gotten too sprawling and out of control. They kept it nice and tight, with constant momentum. There were so many aspects of the story that could have been told in more detail, the victims' aftermaths, for example, but they film gave just enough info on them to paint the picture but kept focused on the Spotlight team and how they investigated the story. I loved the film and am glad it won Best Picture.

Alejandro, you make two really relevant points. First, the Spotlight team as the Protagonist. I think that's entirely right. At points, it's Robby in the lead, other times Sacha, and other times Mike, but ultimately it is a team effort. Compare to a movie like Erin Brockovich, classic single Protagonist approach to the narrative. Or The Verdict to which I have seen Spotlight compared more than once. Different movies. Both EB and TV are MUCH MORE about the Protagonist's search for personal meaning, their immersion in advocacy and in classic J. Campbell language about what makes a hero, giving themselves over to something bigger than themselves. Spotlight keeps the focus on the victims and the crimes, something we have pointed out repeatedly. Which leads to the second point you make which I think you articulated really well: "But with somehow simple characters, the audience leaves thinking about the bigger external conflict, and in this case I think that’s exactly what the filmmakers wanted." Yes, that's right. I keep talking about the 'reserve' with which the film approaches the narrative and that's reflected in the simple nature of the Spotlight team. Simple not in a derogatory way, but rather we get who they are, enough to become invested in them, but their energy is almost always flowing into the investigation and not delving too deeply into their own personal lives. Just enough to feed their respective arcs, not so much to make them classic Hollywood hero types a la Erin Brockovich or Frank in The Verdict. BTW I think both of those movies are excellent. It's just they're not Spotlight which takes a different approach to the narrative. Thanks for your comments!

Adam, I'm glad you referenced The Hero's Journey because it's in play in Spotlight. Call To Adventure: Marty Baron tasking the team with the investigation. The separation from the Old World is how they have typically done a Spotlight project and as they begin to crack open details of the abuse, they are 'initiated' in the veiled world of the Church along with is various support systems including lawyers, local figures of cultural power. By the time the Spotlight team 'returns' home -- not geographically, but psychologically -- their attitudes about the Church, the Way Things Are, and The Powers That Be have changed. The metaphor of the 'dragon' is interesting here. It would easy to look at it as the Church, but it's, I think, more nuanced than that. It's the entire structure of abuse and hiding the abuse. It's also within the reporters themselves 'slaying' the idea that they can live with the status quo, that some things are better off left alone, that nothing ought to be done. No. As the truth reveals itself in all its horror, each of the three lead characters has to confront something about who they are and choices they have made, and deal with that. The beauty of Campbell's tripartite articulation of The Hero's Journey -- Separation / Initiation / Return -- is that characters don't actually have to travel anywhere geographically. The New World can be, as it is in Spotlight, a new understanding of how the Old World is. Thanks for that reference to The Hero's Journey. Always love to bring in Joseph Campbell, someone I have studied since my days in college and graduate school.

Thanks, Scott. Love your blog!