Spotlight

fisgon

Surprised this film hasn't been mentioned here yet, (maybe it has and I missed it).

It is about the Boston Church abuse scandal, and the investigation that the Boston Globe newspaper ran on it. The story is familiar, we all know how it goes, it was exactly the same here.

What is extraordinary about it is the unbelievable power of the Church in Boston, even in 2001. Power to make court documents go missing, hush people up, it was like a mini Ireland. In fact, it is all so similar it is really hard to see how it could have been coincidental, the thousands of children abused in the same way, cover ups following the exact same pattern.

It has been nominated for an Oscar, though the Revenant is sure to win it does give it some publicity. Worth a watch, and does expose how everyone let it happen, even the press, who eventually got around to exposing it. A story of a kind of heroism among journalists, who kept going despite all the pressure on them to desist.

One eyed Jack

robindch mentioned it about a month back in the ongoing religious scandals thread alright -

robindch wrote: »

Spotlight, a film about the Boston's Globe's investigation of pedophile priests in Boston, is due out on January 29th:

http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/film/spotlight-exclusive-exposing-a-cover-up-by-the-catholic-church-1.2487079

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56jw6tasomc

I don't go to the cinema much myself anyway, and I don't really feel compelled to go see this film either tbh. It's hyped up hugely because of the subject matter it deals with, so I think I'll wait for the DVD release.

eviltwin

It's a good film, a difficult film to watch in parts. I was feeling very angry for days after it. The worst bit for me was right at the very end where a list of places where clerical sex abuse was uncovered was listed and the amount of entries for Ireland really reminds you how big an issue it was here. It's a shocking story but not so shocking because it's so common.

Trent Houseboat

It's a good film. Mark Ruffalo is excellent as usual.
In the event that Mad Max doesn't claim best picture, I'd be happy for Spotlight to win the oscar.

There was someone in After Hours last week claiming that it was an assault on the Catholic Church by Jewish Hollywood.
Classic.

Cabaal

Good film, what interested me though was the

15% of priests abused comment, thats scary and I'm curious how many that equals when you apply it to Ireland!

robindch

Cabaal wrote: »

Good film, what interested me though was the [....]

Is that figure worldwide? And any idea how they came up with it?

I recall a spat some years ago with a now-departed poster named ISAW in the ongoing scandals thread - ISAW took unhappy exception to an estimate of 10% which I'd made from a range of publicly-available sources.

fisgon

robindch wrote: »

Is that figure worldwide? And any idea how they came up with it?

I recall a spat some years ago with a now-departed poster named ISAW in the ongoing scandals thread - ISAW took unhappy exception to an estimate of 10% which I'd made from a range of publicly-available sources.

I think it is impossible to reach a reliable figure. First of all think of all the cases that are still being hushed up in the developing world, there is a whole sh1tstorm that hasn´t emerged yet in Africa and South America, and may well never come out. Even here and in the States there are lots of cases of priests who have died and have allegations against them, some of which may be real, some not.

In the film the psychotherapist mentioned a figure of 6%, which astonished the journalists at the time, but which actually turned out to be low, in the Boston case. What is sure is that anywhere that has a large Irish Catholic influence in the world shows an elevated level of priestly abuse. It seems to have been one of our more odious exports.

(It would be interesting to ask why this is. Spain and Portugal were basically Catholic dictatorships in the mid-decades of the last century, and while there have been some scandals there, there has been nothing on the scale of our horror, or the nightmare in the US. And this is not because of some Church control of the press in those two countries, there is a much stronger anti-clerical element in Iberia to pull the church up on crimes if they existed. You would have to assume that the problem wasn't nearly as bad there.)

looksee

I wonder were they more relaxed about priests having mistresses? I have no idea, just throwing out a thought.

Cabaal

robindch wrote: »

Is that figure worldwide? And any idea how they came up with it?

I recall a spat some years ago with a now-departed poster named ISAW in the ongoing scandals thread - ISAW took unhappy exception to an estimate of 10% which I'd made from a range of publicly-available sources.

I'll have to rewatch the scene but I might be wrong about the percentage, but in the movie it basically meant that what they thought was a hand full of priests abusing ended up been many times more!

I believe the starting number was around 12 but it ended up so much higher https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/11/06/least-clergy-have-been-accused-child-sex-abuse-boston-archdiocese/5cKpjVOPhEh7IYnCwRqIJI/story.html

At least 271 clergy — a mix of permanent and visiting priests, pastors, chaplains, deacons, religious order clerics, and nuns — have been publicly accused of child sex abuse in the Boston archdiocese, according to a Globe review.

robindch

fisgon wrote: »

It would be interesting to ask why this is.

It's a fascinating question - when I looked at it a few years back, the figures suggest a high rate of offending, but it's not easy to reconcile the information available from publicly-available sources to come up with a figure that one can have a high degree of confidence in.

The offending rates varied by country, by age of graduation of the priest (oddly, and quite sharply) and some other variables. The only figures that seemed reliable and consistent in anyway order-of-magnitude sense was that reports/convictions of abuse were perhaps three times more likely to involve young boys than young girls, and that somewhere between 5 and 15% of priests had plausible allegations made against them.

In any case, with that likely rate of offending, claims that the phenomenon was generally unknown amongst religious leaders or society more generally, are really quite implausible.

recedite

looksee wrote: »

I wonder were they more relaxed about priests having mistresses? I have no idea, just throwing out a thought.

That is certainly the case in Africa, and the general population are generally intolerant of homosexuality and paedophilia, which is why the main form of clerical abuse emerging from that continent so far seems to involve priests and post-pubescent teenage girls.

Hotblack Desiato

looksee wrote: »

I wonder were they more relaxed about priests having mistresses? I have no idea, just throwing out a thought.

Ireland was lucky enough to inherit two toxic legacies - Victorian prudery and ultramontane catholicism.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Ireland was lucky enough to inherit two toxic legacies - Victorian prudery and ultramontane catholicism.

We didn't inherit them, we were quite happy to go along with both regimes while it suited us. At the same time as Victoria ruled, we had one of the largest red light districts in Europe! Do you honestly imagine that Irish society were historically oblivious, ignorant spud munchers?

Society knew well what was going on with the abuses in the Church, and fostered it, encouraged it, and made it easy for themselves to be controlled while they played moral "keeping up with the Jones", pretending we were "holier than thou". The Church didn't have any power that the people didn't give it, but the fact is they did give it, and gave it willingly.

fisgon

looksee wrote: »

I wonder were they more relaxed about priests having mistresses? I have no idea, just throwing out a thought.

Not in Spain and Portugal, no. Definitely not during the Franco and Salazar dictatorships.

I do think that what Hotblack said played a part, we developed a twisted mix of British Victorian repression, and Catholic obsession about sex, that just fcuked people up big-time, priests and lay people.

Just how sick Irish Catholicism was and is can be seen by the plethora of Irish names in the list of abusing priests all around the world. It is still difficult to fully explain.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We didn't inherit them,

Cue 'Holy Grail' 'we didn't vote for them' scene.

At the same time as Victoria ruled, we had one of the largest red light districts in Europe!

And? Lots of poor people desperate for money and lots of British soldiers with leave pay in their pockets looking for a ride.

Society knew well what was going on with the abuses in the Church, and fostered it, encouraged it, and made it easy for themselves to be controlled while they played moral "keeping up with the Jones", pretending we were "holier than thou".

Speak for yourself.

The Church didn't have any power that the people didn't give it, but the fact is they did give it, and gave it willingly.

Inducted at birth, brainwashed from infancy, threatened with ostracism and financial ruin in this life and a supposed eternal punishment after that, and you call that 'willingly' ?

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Cue 'Holy Grail' 'we didn't vote for them' scene.

I haven't seen it, but yes, we did fight for it with Catholic Emancipation.

And? Lots of poor people desperate for money and lots of British soldiers with leave pay in their pockets looking for a ride.

And your point about Victorian morality is a myth.

Speak for yourself.

No, I was speaking of society at the time.

Inducted at birth, brainwashed from infancy, threatened with ostracism and financial ruin in this life and a supposed eternal punishment after that, and you call that 'willingly' ?

Yes I do, because most people in society at the time played their part in contributing to the farce, willingly. They weren't brainwashed, they chose to behave the way they did, in exactly the same way as people do now in choosing to have their children baptised even though they know it's a farce.

Canadel

It should be shown in secondary schools as part of the leaving cert curriculum.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I haven't seen it, but yes, we did fight for it with Catholic Emancipation.

'We' again. Most people in the 19th century in Ireland were worried about feeding their family not politics.

Catholic emancipation was not supposed to be about the RC church effectively usurping many of the functions of the state. That was quite simply a power grab.

And your point about Victorian morality is a myth.

The poor through necessity did not feel bound by the same values, but they were condemned by 'respectable' people because of this, and being poor was in itself grounds for moral condemnation, e.g. the workhouses.

They weren't brainwashed, they chose to behave the way they did, in exactly the same way as people do now in choosing to have their children baptised even though they know it's a farce.

Yes it is a farce, but there are no strong societal penalties today for non-compliance with RC doctrines. It is not comparable at all.

pH

I'm obviously in the minority here, but I really didn't like the film. I found it dull and pedestrian, and thought it didn't work as either a piece of entertainment or as an expose.

The characters were pretty dull, the few scenes where the "powers that be" tried to influence the investigation seemed confusing and half-hearted, and the central investigative tool the journalists used - the parish lists and the codes was no where near as clever nor as damning as the film-makers would like us to believe.

But my main concern with the whole thing, is as I've said many times before - if a crime is committed then report it to the police - If you're dumb enough to report crimes to the people committing the crimes, well then I guess you can expect what comes next.

This seems to be what was happening in Boston - except, and it's a huge exception, the opening scene of the movie, which clearly showed the police involved and somehow the crime being quashed.

Now if that happened, heads should certainly roll, but is there any evidence that Geoghan actually was in police custody and was released by a corrupt DA? There's certainly no mention of it on wikipedia, just many occurrences of crimes being reported to the Catholic church.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Geoghan

Penn

pH wrote: »

I'm obviously in the minority here, but I really didn't like the film. I found it dull and pedestrian, and thought it didn't work as either a piece of entertainment or as an expose.

The characters were pretty dull, the few scenes where the "powers that be" tried to influence the investigation seemed confusing and half-hearted, and the central investigative tool the journalists used - the parish lists and the codes was no where near as clever nor as damning as the film-makers would like us to believe.

That's actually one of the positives of the film for me and is something the film has been commended for. It doesn't try to portray the journalists as heroes. It doesn't sensationalise what they did, or try and "Hollywood" it up. It doesn't make the Church out to be some sort of Dan Brown-esque secret cult moving in the shadows, because they weren't.

The film doesn't do all these things because it doesn't need to, and shouldn't need to. The story itself is as true to the source material as possible. The whole process wasn't exciting. But it was important. The Church kept what they were doing as hidden as they could, but they were still fairly blatant about it. The pieces were there, it was just no-one wanted to put them together.

pH wrote: »

But my main concern with the whole thing, is as I've said many times before - if a crime is committed then report it to the police - If you're dumb enough to report crimes to the people committing the crimes, well then I guess you can expect what comes next.

This seems to be what was happening in Boston - except, and it's a huge exception, the opening scene of the movie, which clearly showed the police involved and somehow the crime being quashed.

One of the main cruxes of the film was that the lawyers who were generally assigned to those cases against the Church directed their clients to settle with the Church in private. So in many cases, it wasn't that the victims went to the Church to complain, but that the police and lawyers helped to keep whatever complaints were made within the Church's control and off the books.

pinkypinky

Cabaal wrote: »

I'll have to rewatch the scene but I might be wrong about the percentage, but in the movie it basically meant that what they thought was a hand full of priests abusing ended up been many times more!

I believe the starting number was around 12 but it ended up so much higher https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/11/06/least-clergy-have-been-accused-child-sex-abuse-boston-archdiocese/5cKpjVOPhEh7IYnCwRqIJI/story.html

I think it was 12 priests they had found and then the guy who'd done the research (tangent, why was he only ever on the phone?) said that sounded low out of the 1500 priests in the Boston diocese and that 6% was his best analysis, which they worked out as 90 priest, and they ultimately found 87, so his research was spot-on.

Penn

pinkypinky wrote: »

I think it was 12 priests they had found and then the guy who'd done the research (tangent, why was he only ever on the phone?) said that sounded low out of the 1500 priests in the Boston diocese and that 6% was his best analysis, which they worked out as 90 priest, and they ultimately found 87, so his research was spot-on.

Yeah, I think it went from 1 priest to 4, to 13, to 87, then being able to prove 70. After the story was published and more victims came forward, that's when it turned out the number was likely over 250.

I think the analyst's figure of 6% was accurate, but that it was because priests were constantly being moved around that the accusations against priests in the Boston area ended up so much higher. The bad priests being replaced by other bad priests etc.

biko

Aye, saw it tonight. Was good.

PopePalpatine

I saw it last night. Don't treat this as some sort of thriller, treat it as more of a docu-drama.

Don't expect any big confrontations, either, unless that scene towards the end of the movie of the meeting between one of the journalists and someone on the RCC's side in the latter's house.

I'd give it a 9/10.

pauldla

Now the winner of the Best Picture award in this years Oscars, it seems.

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

Wasn't there another film made about this, probably late 90's early 2000's? trying to think of the name and im coming up blank.

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

Second Toughest in_the Freshers wrote: »

Wasn't there another film made about this, probably late 90's early 2000's? trying to think of the name and im coming up blank.

There's been a couple about abuse in the US (Doubt, Deliver Us From Evil documentary) but the one you're probably thinking of is Our Fathers, a TV film about the Boston archdiocese.

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

it could have been Doubt, but i'm not sure.... I'll have to watch it again

lazygal

Doubt is based on a stage play and is more about inferences of abuse having taken place.

frostyjacks

Would this film be fêted as much by Hollywood if it was about child abuse in the Jewish community?

PopePalpatine

frostyjacks wrote: »

Would this film be fêted as much by Hollywood if it was about child abuse in the Jewish community?

I heard there's a lotion that could help with your problem.