SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home The Movie Review: 'State of Play'

BOOKS AND ARTS APRIL 17, 2009

The Movie Review: 'State of Play'

The most memorable element of the Russell Crowe journo-thriller State of Play may be its score, and not in a good way. Composer Alex Heffes once explained that he prefers to score a film around the dialogue, rather than through it, which seems to be a modest way of saying that he doesn’t want his music to be upstaged by all that dull talk talk talk. So every time a performer closes his mouth for the length of a four-count, Heffes fills the aural space to the brim with throbbing beats and jangling strings that declare something suspenseful is going on right now! It’s almost as if he set out to update the showy musical spikes so popular in mid-century film (“You’ll do as I say, if you ever want to see your sweetheart alive”--dun-dun-dun), and the effect is no less displacing. Rather than bring you into the action unfolding on the screen, it pushes you out, an advertisement of theatricality.

It does, however, keep State of Play from being entirely forgettable, at least for as long as it takes to gather up one’s outerwear and exit the theater. Directed by Kevin Macdonald (The Last King of Scotland), it is the fourth consecutive Crowe film--on the heels of 3:10 to Yuma, American Gangster, and Body of Lies--to feel genre-generic, the careful reassembly of cinematic components we’ve seen countless times before. The cast, which also includes Ben Affleck, Rachel McAdams, Helen Mirren, Robin Wright Penn, and Jason Bateman, is strong (with one notable exception), and the production has the sheen of superior craftsmanship. But the whole enterprise seems somehow empty, six characters in search of a rationale.

Based on the terrific six-part BBC miniseries of the same name, Macdonald’s film follows its contours closely, though at three times the pace and transposed some 3,600 miles westward to Washington, DC. A pretty congressional researcher (Maria Thayer) tumbles fatally onto the Metro tracks on the same day that a young pickpocket (LaDell Preston) is murdered execution-style on the street. As grizzled “Washington Globe” reporter Cal McAffrey (Crowe) and Capitol Hill blogger Della Frye (McAdams) soon discover, the two deaths are connected not only with one another but also with rising-star Congressman Stephen Collins (Affleck), who was both the researcher’s boss and her lover. Closing the loop is the fact that Cal and Stephen are old college roommates and both have slept with Collins’s wife Anne (Wright Penn). It will (I hope) surprise no one to learn that the researcher’s death was neither accident nor suicide, and that it is apparently connected to a shadowy conspiracy trying to exert its diabolical will upon the congressman.

As if bashful of its London roots, State of Play name-drops its adopted Washington milieu with an enthusiasm that would embarrass the most shameless cocktail-party networker: Ben’s Chili Bowl, the Kennedy Center, Chinatown’s Friendship Arch, the Scottish Rite Temple, the Americana Hotel in Crystal City--okay, I was actually tickled by that last one, as were most at the DC-area screening I attended. I did find odd, however, the filmmakers’ evident belief that leasing office space at the Watergate building is a conclusive sign of nefarious intent.

The nod to the Watergate is just one of the ways State of Play unwisely begs to be compared to All The President’s Men. Journalistic odd couple Cal and Della bicker amiably on their way to becoming the most symbiotic DC reporting duo this side of Woodstein, and Mirren aspires to Bradleehood as their hard-nosed editor (a role played to perfection by Bill Nighy in the miniseries). But even as it extols the craft of journalism, Macdonald’s film evinces little comprehension of it. A particular low point is the moment when Mirren’s character demands of her ace--who, in addition to being close friends with the subject of his reporting, is actually letting him stay in his apartment--“Cal, any conflict of interest here?”

There are intermittent pleasures to be found, thanks mostly to nice performances by Crowe (who continues to find nuance even in underwritten parts), Mirren, and Bateman, whose scenes at the Americana Hotel are the best of the film. (His line “Everybody wants a book deal,” may contain more Washington wisdom than the rest of the film combined.) Affleck, by contrast, seems to believe that looking the part of an ambitious young pol obviates any need that he play it. His performance is a study in inertness, a rocky shoal around which the other actors navigate at their own peril. Given the relative merits of his recent work in front of the camera and behind it (where he directed the exceptional Gone Baby Gone), it may be time for Affleck to give deeper thought to his career trajectory.

The fundamental mistake of State of Play, however, was the decision to make it at all. The film’s many screenwriters (Matthew Michael Carnahan, Tony Gilroy, and Billy Ray are credited, but Peter Morgan contributed rewrites as well) seem to have approached the BBC miniseries as a problem to be solved: How can a discursive, character-driven, six-hour drama be pared down to 120 minutes? The unsurprising answer is by excising the interpersonal ambiguities, smaller roles, and journalistic minutiae that made the original appealing in the first place. The BBC show’s strength was not the creakily conspiratorial plot that Macdonald’s film faithfully reproduces, but the casual details and intimate observations that accompanied its unfurling. Envision a season of “The Wire” squeezed down to feature-film length, and you will have some idea of Macdonald’s ill-advised accomplishment.

Indeed, by focusing on plot rather than character, Macdonald and his collaborators have unwittingly emphasized perhaps the greatest weakness of the original, an out-of-left-field twist that radically reorients the story in its final act. In the miniseries, which concerned itself vaguely with a political plot undertaken by oil companies, this reversal was expressed primarily in personal terms--after all, who really cares whether or not the oil barons get what they want? But Macdonald et al. juice up their film’s political import in the prevailing fashion, converting their villains into private security interests plotting to take over Homeland Security. (“These soldiers are answerable to no one,” one character warns ominously.) Macdonald’s journalists, in other words, aren’t merely on a quest for truth, but on a mission to forestall tyranny--and, without giving anything away, that mission does not conclude in the manner they imagine it will. As a result, a film that has spent an hour and forty-five minutes puffing itself into a battle for the Soul of American Democracy feebly hisses its way to a deflated conclusion. At least, as best I can recall.

Christopher Orr is a senior editor of The New Republic.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 7 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

7 comments

You're surprised that Afleck can't act? He's been living off his association with Matt Damon since day 1.

- ericad

April 17, 2009 at 10:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm a huge Russell Crowe fan, but can't imagine how any new production could possibly top the first rate original. Good dialogue, great delivery and fine acting made for several nights worthwhile viewing.

- mdiehl

April 17, 2009 at 1:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Guys, Ben Affleck knows he can't act and admits it. Get over it. People like him, just as they like Keanu Reeves, and they like Miley Cyrus. All people who cannot act, but they are pretty to look at.

- Adrian Zamadar

April 18, 2009 at 11:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Actually the miniseries' real strength was its crackerjack director, David Yates. The story itself wasn't that compelling, but he directed it superbly. His work on the fifth Harry Potter was just as good--almost the equal of Cuaron's third installment.

- Steve W

April 20, 2009 at 1:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

But, despite all its flaws, is it good entertainment or not? I doubt I will have the chance to see the BBC version so the comparison will apply only to those who saw it. The critique doesn't help me to decide if my date (female and cuddly) will enjoy the film. But, based on the author's mention of the odd musical score, I may pay more attention to that than the actual plot...

- o2miller

April 21, 2009 at 1:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think the writer is biased because he saw the British miniseries. I found the movie to be very gripping with excellent performances. Anyone interested in newspapers, politics, PR and intrigue will like this movie very much. And Jason Bateman is a scene stealer.

- Joel Rubin

April 21, 2009 at 11:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I really enjoyed this movie...I was on the edge of my seat throughout! The only bit I don't get, and would love someone to explain, is (WARNING...QUESTION CONTAINS SPOILER) who is the soldier/gunman waiting for at the end? They can't have known Cal would be there, right? So who was he waiting to kill...the congressman, his wife?

- Emily

May 13, 2009 at 1:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close