MovieChat Forums > Spotlight (2015) Discussion > Mike's outburst was BS

Mike's outburst was BS

posted 7 years ago by jpkrunch
13 replies | jump to latest

What was the emotional outburst really about? Why did the story really need to be published right away? The truth it seems to me, is that he did not want to get scooped by the Tribune. And that is fine but he pretended it was not really about that but was more an issue of morality. His excuse was that the Tribune would mess up the story and get crushed by the church? Why? Why is he so much better than the Tribune? And even if the Tribunes did screw it up, they would just make themselves look bad. The Globe could have written the piece correctly a month later. And in fact they wrote over 600 stories about it that year.

I would say my memory is not what it used to be. But I don't remember what my memory used to be.

[–] Pgle05 7 years ago

I'd like to think he was secretly a victim himself, therefore his 'need' to get it out there, caused an emotional outburst. I know he's based on a real person and this scene probably didnt happen etc. But I still like to think this. Great scene IMO, my favourite of the film.

[–] tzogas 7 years ago

@Pgle05,
It says here in the trivia section:

"During every break, Mark Ruffalo asked the real Michael Rezendes to say his lines for him."

So perhaps it's still up in the air whether or not this scene happened; after all, based on that piece of information, Ruffalo had access to the source right in front of him, and might have had the kind of access to Rezendes' motivations which we do not.

Thoughts?

**Have an A1 day**

[–] puschit-1 7 years ago

Well, I also thought he was a victim himself but never admitted that.

[–] tzogas 7 years ago

Sure. And each individual victim/survivor has the right to determine for themselves whether or not they wish to disclose that information. Not that you suggested otherwise. I'm just reflecting on the fact that society does not facilitate the kind of environment in which it is always even safe for them to do so.

**Have an A1 day**

[–] jpkrunch 7 years ago

If he would have articulated either, a) that he had been a victim and/or b) that every moment wasted is another child at risk, it would have been a much better scene. Instead he seemed more concerned about losing the scoop.

I would say my memory is not what it used to be. But I don't remember what my memory used to be.

[–] niklasholz-79080 7 years ago

Ok let me tell you something. He is in the bureau of this lawyer near the end and there are 2! Children sitting that have been raped two weeks earlier. If Spotlight had published the story earlier, this kids wouldnt have been raped. And this was pretty much his concern, the longer they wait, the more childrens can be raped.

[–] beautifulbrugmansia 7 years ago

My thoughts too. One more day, how many victims in just one more day ?

[–] purplebear17 7 years ago

Do newspapers not like to publish stories about child abuse?

[–] jpkrunch 7 years ago

That was not his point though. His point was that another paper would be them to the punch which is what I found objectionable. If he would have articulated it the way you describe, it would have been a much better scene

I would say my memory is not what it used to be. But I don't remember what my memory used to be.

[–] FooserX 7 years ago

His outburst was absolutely warranted...

BUT...he definitely didn't say his point clearly - that every day they wait...more kids get raped and abused by these monsters...

It's an interesting ethical dilemma the movie touched lightly on...at what point does it become not okay to cover up the truth, even if they are trying to bring the system down.

[–] pound68 7 years ago

Do most of us have only one motivation for everything we do? I am sure he was concerned about the children still being raped as this story was delayed. It bothered me thinking about it just watching the movie. Those people were buried in emotional survivor stories for months. Of course, he thought about it. Still, if you worked on something for months it would be exasperating from a professional standpoint to have someone swoop in and steal your thunder. And he may have been right to assume the Tribune wouldn't cover it as well. The Globe invested months of research, they would likely have done a more thorough job reporting it than someone who picked up the facts and published for the sake of a scoop.

[–] jpkrunch 7 years ago

The Tribune and every other news organization be it newspaper, television program or other covered the story anyway. He wanted to be first.

[–] Rolltide (964) 3 years ago

The whole purpose of Spotlight was to wait until the investigation is ripe and complete to prove systemic allowance of abuse.

To that point the Globe and other media reported this issue piece meal on a case by case basis. That's why the spotlight investigation was so important.