First of all, this is an excellent film with fine performances, particularly Mr. Renner's. It's also an important film because it's committed to telling the truth; however, this is also where it falls down literally in the last few seconds, right before the credits roll.
I saw this a little before its release at a film series where we had an interview/Q&A with the director afterwards. He did exhaustive research in creating this film, and it was only from a question that an audience member asked that I realized that I had been misled by the film. Now, this film is about the truth, and one of the ways that the journalist's original story is undermined in the film is the way that the story was packaged, particularly the sensationalistic image that accompanied the story--the CIA logo on a crack-pipe. It overstates and sensationalizes the story's point. Then director Michael Cuesta turns around and does the same thing at the end of his movie.
The story that Michael Cuesta tells is tragic--the journalist is killed not literally by the CIA or angry drug lords, but professionally by his own colleagues. The loss of his career exacerbates his depression, and eventually he is found dead "with two gunshots to the head." Then the last line states that it was ruled by the police as a suicide.
Now, everyone in the theater had the same reaction--"TWO gunshots to the head? So, he was killed and it was covered up, I guess." It wasn't until someone asked what seemed like an obvious question and inquired about the two gunshots and the ruling of suicide that Mr. Cuesta explained that there had never been any doubt that the shots were self-inflicted (one slight miss, one fatal), and that the journalist had left notes, etc.
Without the explanation, including the detail about the two gunshots is entirely disingenuous. Sort of like a CIA logo on a crack-pipe--deliberately misleading and manipulative behavior in a film about the truth.
I saw this a little before its release at a film series where we had an interview/Q&A with the director afterwards. He did exhaustive research in creating this film, and it was only from a question that an audience member asked that I realized that I had been misled by the film. Now, this film is about the truth, and one of the ways that the journalist's original story is undermined in the film is the way that the story was packaged, particularly the sensationalistic image that accompanied the story--the CIA logo on a crack-pipe. It overstates and sensationalizes the story's point. Then director Michael Cuesta turns around and does the same thing at the end of his movie.
The story that Michael Cuesta tells is tragic--the journalist is killed not literally by the CIA or angry drug lords, but professionally by his own colleagues. The loss of his career exacerbates his depression, and eventually he is found dead "with two gunshots to the head." Then the last line states that it was ruled by the police as a suicide.
Now, everyone in the theater had the same reaction--"TWO gunshots to the head? So, he was killed and it was covered up, I guess." It wasn't until someone asked what seemed like an obvious question and inquired about the two gunshots and the ruling of suicide that Mr. Cuesta explained that there had never been any doubt that the shots were self-inflicted (one slight miss, one fatal), and that the journalist had left notes, etc.
Without the explanation, including the detail about the two gunshots is entirely disingenuous. Sort of like a CIA logo on a crack-pipe--deliberately misleading and manipulative behavior in a film about the truth.