“State of Play” Illustrates The Challenges of Modern Journalism
Big screen heavyweights Helen Mirren and Russel Crowe work for The Washington Globe in the
2009 thriller State of Play. Image courtesy of http://www.stateofplaymovie.net/
I might have majored in corporate communications, but I still have a fond passion for broadcast, journalism, publishing, and film. So naturally, I love movies involving PR, broadcast, and journalism. Tonight I rented State of Play, a thriller about a complex Washington D.C. murder as told through the perpsective of two newspaper reporters (played by Russell Crowe and the fantastic Rachel McAdams). The film does a great job of showing audiences the issues surrounding America’s newspapers. (And it’s also awesome, so watch it yourself!)
To start, the paper’s editor, Cameron (Helen Mirron) is interested in the story, but can see the bigger picture: The Washington Globe has got to turn a profit or go bust. She knows the paper’s owners are more concerned with dollar signs than genuine investigative reporting. It’s tempting to join the ranks of Entertainment Tonight and US Weekly and start filling the pages with surface-level, sensational news to turn a quick buck. Cal (Russel Crowe) and Della (Rachel McAdams), firmly oppose this idea of course. Fortunately for Cal and Della, investigative journalism prevails just in the nick of time and the murder story comes full circle by the end of the movie. Real news vs. sensationalism was also a theme in one of my favorite movies, 2007’s Lions for Lambs starring Tom Cruise, Robert Redford, and Meryl Streep.
In addition, I loved the film’s final scene and end title sequence. I believe it is very symbolic of the end of newspapers. In the final scene, Cal finishes typing the story on an archaic computer. Although the reporters’ have met the deadline and got to the bottom of the story, there’s a very somber mood in the air as Cal pecks the last few words into existence. He then walks out of the office, leaving Della to send the file to print (she then catches up with Cal, and the two walk into the night together). Is this symbolic of the alleged end of real journalism? I vote yes. Both are excellent, tough-nosed reporters. Cal is a seasoned journalist, but he seems tired, withdrawn, and depressed for most of the film. It’s as if his best days are behind him. By contrast, Della is fresh out of school and bursting with energy. Is Cal down and out because he knows the fate of newspapers? Will Della ever get the chance to have the career Cal had? Is there something more to be said for the two of them walking into blackness together — perhaps a throwback to the end of Charlie Chaplin’s Modern Times? (I’ve heard Charlie wanted this scene to represent the end of the silent film. Watch it here).
The end sequence begins with the gigantic newspaper printing press publishing the paper for the masses. Creedance Clearwater Revival’s “Long As I Can See The Light” plays. While the visuals and music score are appropriate for the plot, I think they also are an ode to the end of newspapers. The printing process is so outdated, so mechanical, and as pallets of newspapers are loaded onto trucks, I have to say to myself “wow, we actually still get news this way.” Perhaps its no coincidence that the music is from a band that reached its peak during Watergate — an event in which I consider one of journalism’s finest moments.
Then there’s the discussion of setting. State of Play could have been set 50 or even 100 years ago. There is hardly any use of modern technology, besides some very brief scenes with cell phones. Cal confesses his computer, which has a monotone screen, is 16 years old. Both reporters use notepads and pens, and even go to the library for research. (There’s no Google!) There’s just a glimpse of television news. The film is culturally modern, however, as women and minority characters carry some high-ranking titles, but it is clear the directors purposefully avoided any technology that competes with newspapers.
State of Play raises some interesting questions about modern journalism. To what degree are newspapers swaying in favor of emphasizing surface-level, sensationalized news? Are newspapers “selling-out” and becoming more like US Weekly to maintain readers? I’m from Gen-Y, and generally don’t read newspapers as much as I should. (In short, I think they’re extremely environmentally unfriendly, too slow, too awkward to physically hold and organize, and I hate turning to some other page to finish reading an article. Plus they literally fade away over time, take up space, and put messy ink on your hands.) However, I firmly believe newspapers today offer us a slower-paced flavor of news, and I never want to lose that. Twitter and CNN are great for 24/7 breaking news, but reading a story on CNN.com moments after something’s happened, versus reading about an event 24+ hours later in The New York Times will give you two quite different perspectives. Weekly newsmagazines give you an even slower recap of the news, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, it’s a great thing! You’ll never see Time or Newsweek focus on the quick facts; we turn to them for interpretive, analytical, after-the-dust-has-settled “what does this really mean” answers.
My second question is more of a follow-up. If newspapers aren’t sensationalizing more news, then are they providing better investigative news coverage than they used to? We all know there are many laid-off journalists out there. For the ones that remain on the payroll, are they the winners of survival of the fittest? Are they the ones who won’t take no for an answer, who fight for truth firmly believe in the functions of the press? Essentially, is journalism getting better? Considering Darwinism, one would assume so. Then again, newspapers aren’t exactly the best models to illustrate Darwinism. If you’re a journalist, please let me know where you stand on this!
PS: What did you think of State of Play in regards to its portrayal of newspapers?
