Mark Reviews Movies: THE REPORT (2019)

Become a fan on Facebook Follow on Twitter

Review by Mark Dujsik | November 14, 2019

A familiar but handy critical chestnut—that the story of a narrative feature would have been better served by a documentary about the same material—stands true for The Report. This is deep and difficult material—not only because it deals with the CIA's use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" (read: torture) against terrorism suspects, but also because the movie is about the research and writing of a 6,700-page document (including tens of thousands of footnotes). That the movie works as drama in any way, while also feeling authentic in its presentation of the facts, is a testament to writer/director Scott Z. Burns obvious zeal for wanting this story to be known.

The movie, then, is at its best when it simply reports the facts. This is accomplished through assorted flashbacks, using the CIA's own reporting—as referenced in that final report from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence—to dramatize the thought processes, the justifications, and the questionable or non-existent science that resulted in an unknown number of people—some of them later determined to be innocent—being subjected to torture.

The acts themselves, which include sleep deprivation and physical assault and waterboarding and other things too shocking to put into words, are horrific. The ways in which the people who decided to and actually did use those methods justify their decisions and actions might be even more disconcerting.

Everything surrounding that element of the movie, though, simply can't stand up to the infuriating power of the dissection of the planning and enacting of the CIA's detention and interrogation program. Burns tries, giving us a determined protagonist, who struggles with a system that seems equally determined to keep the truth hidden, and a battle between members of the opposing political parties, as well as one between the Senate committee and the CIA itself. Such things are also important context for how we learned what we did and why we probably will never know the full truth, but as drama, such matters seem miniscule compared to the bigger picture and start to feel repetitive.

The man behind the report is Daniel Jones (Adam Driver), who dropped his graduate classes after the attacks of September 11, 2001 to study national security. At the movie's start, he's looking for a job at the Senate, receiving advice on how to proceed from Denis McDonough (Jon Hamm), whom Daniel will later debate when he becomes the Chief of Staff for President Barack Obama. Yes, even though the CIA began its program in less than a year after 9/11, the issue of it coming to light remained a debate well into Obama's time in office.

Leaping ahead in years with a helpful timeline, Burns returns to Daniel in 2009, when Senator Dianne Feinstein (Annette Bening) tasks him to lead the extensive investigation. Locked away in a windowless office with a bipartisan team of researchers, he spends the next five years reading, researching, and organizing. As his work continues, a lot of people work behind the scenes to keep the truth from coming out to the public.

Burns doesn't simply resort to re-creating the various torture techniques performed on terrorism suspects, although they are portrayed in excruciating detail. He goes deeper than just eliciting our shock. The main argument of the CIA is that "enhanced interrogation" can get answers better and faster than traditional methods of questioning suspects. As long as it does get results, an attorney for the administration of George W. Bush argues, it could be technically legal under laws put in place following 9/11.

Besides the inherent horror of the methods themselves, there are three main takeaways we're supposed to garner from these flashbacks: The torture didn't work, the people organizing the program believed it might (despite evidence from decades prior and the actual lack of results they were getting) and put aside any moral or legal concerns because of that, and the pursuits of potential terror threats and actual justice were hindered by the program. The dramatizations here convey those points with complete clarity, especially in how mundanely the actors playing CIA figures discuss such techniques, as if they're perfectly ordinary.

There really isn't much to say about the scenes of Daniel doing his investigation, since the sickening core of that story resides in those flashbacks, or the third act, which becomes a series of scenes of assorted people in power arguing against parts or the entirety of the report. Daniel, played with intelligent resolve by Driver, works himself to near exhaustion. As those powerful people parse and argue details (When that doesn't work, the CIA simply hacks into the Senate's computer system and raids Daniel's office for some evidence to go against the man himself), Daniel faces an ethical quandary: Is it worth risking his career or even prison for information to escape the political debate?

Burns' chief method here is fact-dissemination, and perhaps the case can be made that a narrative feature, with a recognizable cast and a clear-eyed sense of storytelling, is the best way to make those facts heard. Another argument could be made that mere act of dramatization puts up a barrier to the truth. More to the point, though, The Report becomes so caught up in facts—from the vital to the comparatively minor—that it ultimately doesn't quite work as drama.

Back to Home

Buy Related Products