@foreveragnome & @Redcap
That's a fair point actually.
Going for a thriller, whodunnit element which was totally at odds with the tone and pacing of the film. For me, the film's strengths lie in how it explores the hard-nosed process of gathering data, of accumulating facts, of building a case for this sort of expose. It's hard work and it's time-consuming; it's messy and it runs into dead ends and bureaucracy, legal and time constraints. Ultimately, it's not very heroic or thrilling. But it's necessary. The tone and narrative thrust of something like All The President's Men worked at that particular period in history because there was an abundance of paranoid conspiracy films. And because Woodward & Bernstein were uncovering an earth-shattering conspiracy. This film is completely different for the reasons I outlined above. I think it's Stanley Tucci's character who says: "if it takes a village to raise a child, it takes a village to abuse them." The film is about complicity and silence, rather than an outright conspiracy movie. It's about somebody who comes from outside of that village to shine a light upon the complicity and silence, which even those in the media aren't fully aware of. The aspect you highlight in the spoiler tags isn't at all subtle, unlike the best parts of this film.
