'Shock and Awe' is a rote piece of work

The movie, which proves yet again that righteousness does not in itself make for a good film, depicts the work of the Knight Ridder journalists who worked in the lead-up to the 2003 Iraq War.

Courtesy of Vertical Entertainment
'Shock and Awe' stars James Marsden (l.) and Woody Harrelson (r.).

These days, if you want to make another movie about the trials and tribulations of the press, you have to come up with something pretty special. When “Spotlight” came out, everybody compared it to “All the President’s Men.” When “The Post” opened last year, it was compared, not always favorably, to both of those films.

Now comes Rob Reiner’s “Shock and Awe,” about the crusading Knight Ridder journalists who, in the lead-up to the 2003 Iraq War, dared question the George W. Bush administration’s weapons of mass destruction rationale for taking military action. One can admire the doggedness of these newspapermen – Warren Strobel (James Marsden); Jonathan Landay (a miscast Woody Harrelson, though still fun to watch); their editor, John Walcott (Reiner); and Joe Galloway (Tommy Lee Jones), the celebrated war correspondent who was brought in as an adviser – and still feel that “Shock and Awe” is fundamentally lacking in either quality.

It’s a rote piece of work that, oddly, also feels dated even at a time when the press and the White House have rarely been more at odds. Reiner and his screenwriter, Joey Hartstone (with whom he also collaborated on the moribund “LBJ,” starring Harrelson), present the indefatigable reporters as Knight Ridders in Shining Armor countering not only the White House but also an establishment press that, in the film’s view, certified the administration’s WMD hysteria. (The New York Times and its reporter Judith Miller are especially singled out for opprobrium.) “Shock and Awe” is proof yet again that righteousness does not in itself make for a good movie. Grade: C (Rated R for language, including some sexual references.)

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.