THE STORY – In 1969, as rising media tycoon Rupert Murdoch acquires the daily newspaper “The Sun,” his partnership with editor Larry Lamb turns the paper into Britain’s most influential tabloid.
THE CAST – Jack O’Connell, Guy Pearce & Claire Foy
THE TEAM – Danny Boyle (Director) & James Graham (Writer)
THE RUNNING TIME – 116 Minutes
There’s a never-ending discussion about the origin of certain evils in the world. From the most powerful political figures to the lowliest of street criminals, there exists a complicated pathology that drives such a mentality. One of the many hypotheses, and a very popular one at that, has involved analyzing the role that mass media plays in such activity. It’s strange how a relatively new phenomenon has been consistently scrutinized and attributed to dangerous actions. It has never been the exact originator of degrading morality, but has often been seen as sparking many an inciting incident. The influential people driving a large facet of this perception are the focus of “Ink,” a film that examines the creation of one of the most notorious news outlets and the painful sacrifices it took in order to build a corrupting empire.
The story begins in 1969, long before Rupert Murdoch (Guy Pearce) established himself as the giant in media that he is today. At this point, he was still trying to establish a legitimate newspaper business, having just bought “The Sun” and determined to mold it into his own successful image. In pursuit of that goal, he hires Larry Lamb (Jack O’Connell) to be his senior editor, an ambitious man who has left his position at “The Daily Mirror” to take charge in light of the outlet’s new ownership. He recruits a team of journalists he believes will help, including Jules Davies (Claire Foy), a top reporter for the paper who brings a necessary feminine perspective. In order to achieve the great fortune that has been envisioned, Lamb turns to sensationalizing topics in order to differentiate themselves from the more traditional channels. Gossip and sex appeal run rampant, inflating sales but also changing the environment of news consumption. Moral standards start to come into question, but Lamb is relentless in securing the top spot of the market, no matter how much damage to the public will be inflicted. Securing a legacy is all that matters, and it will be had at any cost.
When one learns that Danny Boyle has been attached to a project, there’s an immediate expectation for his flashy filmmaking to once again make an appearance. For material meant to be an intimate portrait of people having intense conversations, the camerawork needs to amp up that tension with a bevy of canted angles and quick editing. Even the “bullet-time” from “28 Years Later” makes a reappearance just to punctuate a glass of water being raised from the table. The cinematography is not in the hands of Anthony Dod Mantle this time (Alwin H. Küchler shoots the film, who last worked with Boyle on “Steve Jobs”), and it doesn’t have the same consistent energy. In truth, the directorial efforts at first feel like overcompensating for the fact that this is based on a stage play. However, soon the underlying calm calms down and there’s far more confidence in the storytelling. A pivotal scene when Lamb gathers his journalists in a room to pitch ideas about what the paper should cover is the most riveting sequence in the entire film. An eccentric group describing their base interests, represented by an expanding couch that has them mindlessly sit in front of a droning television, is such a captivating spectacle. One immediately understands the joyous passion that would drive this group to innovate this space, while also recognizing the deviation into showcasing news with less thematic value. Just like the mice that continue to infest the new offices, a glossy exterior can’t hide the rot occurring underneath. Boyle truly relishes the journey, and the results of a less-informed but more entertained society are tragically compelling.
It’s the point at which the film captures an efficient momentum that does slightly stall in the latter half. Playwright James Graham has adapted his own work, and there’s plenty of theatrical dialogue that makes these scenes sing with an engrossing levity. It’s fascinating to watch the characterizations of Lamb and Murdoch evolve, with both men pursuing this goal of domination, but the latter willing to push the limits a little further to secure that spot. However, Lamb soon becomes the hungrier party, and when a kidnapping occurs involving one of the staff members’ family, he sees an opportunity to exploit it, leaving Murdoch questioning these antics. It’s an intriguing dynamic that Boyle struggles to keep reliably absorbing, and even the script starts to devolve into blunt descriptions of character motivations that are too on-the-nose. Still, the most revealing commentary forces these men to face what they’re truly willing to do to succeed in their pursuit of greatness. It’s a somewhat familiar construct to witness the degradation of a man’s soul, willing to destroy societal safeguards in order to achieve greater wealth and power. Still, Graham’s screenplay is one that emphasizes this point effectively.
O’Connell has always been a fine actor who’s never quite gotten the broad recognition he deserved. Here he’s given another opportunity to demonstrate his skill set, and he once again embodies a magnetic screen presence. The appetite for greatness stews within him, and a moment in which he is subjected to public ridicule, his face simmering in quiet rage, is such a fantastic demonstration of how great an internalized performer he can be. As the narrative progresses and the ambition grows deeper, O’Connell fiercely expresses Lamb’s noxious nature. Following “28 Years Later: The Bone Temple” and “Sinners,” he’s getting a knack for playing nasty villains, but here, the nefarious aura is more reserved but even more sinister. He can still wear an evil grin that complements the tragic end, when the landscape he helped transform is given over to the other man who bankrolled his vision from the start.
On that note, Pearce is simply incredible from the very first moment he appears. At a dinner between Murdoch and Lamb, he boasts about his intentions to disrupt stodgy British sensibilities in an appealing way. He rallies interest in his mission with his harsh Australian accent and crude analogies, a particularly alluring methodology. The moments he starts friction with the unions show an insidious political agenda, but still possess an undeniable charm. He can bash Lamb for what he perceives as uninspired editorial choices but fiercely defend him in public, demonstrating a twisted sense of loyalty that will weaken as his own moral compass begins to evade his senses. Every moment Pearce is onscreen becomes a highlight, injecting devilish delight into a twisted character.
There’s no doubt he’s the best of the supporting players, even though Foy does her best with a thinly written character. She brings enough to make her an enthralling presence, but the role offers little beyond a female perspective that feels mostly perfunctory and ill-defined. Suffice to say, her character’s literal introduction being seen after an extramarital affair with Lamb is not the best first impression. The ragtag group that’s assembled has some fun players too, with a particular mention paid towards Brian Gleeson as a crabby journalist who always manages to deliver an irreverent smile. Also, admirers of Jonathan Hyde will get to appreciate him once again, as he is at the center of the kidnapping plot in the film and carries far more emotional weight than most other characters. The pain and grief he’s stricken with create a heartbreaking performance, and for anyone who grew up admiring him in films like “Jumanji” and “The Mummy,” it’s nice to see him get such a tender showcase.
“Ink” inhabits a space that is both formulaic and inventive when it comes to storytelling. It begins with a speech from Lamb detailing the “five Ws” in journalism, an expression so common that elementary children learn about it. Delivered as thoughtful introspection on the state of journalism, it shows a breadth that sacrifices a more riveting analysis. However, there’s also no denying the power of revealing this huge transformation in the environment. Boyle and Graham capture this change with propulsive energy that may not always be consistent, but it still manages to be a thematically rich conversation. They’re aided by a good ensemble, headlined by terrific performances from Pearce and O’Connell. Even the other members deliver endearing work, though some succeed more than others, given the material. The legacies of these men will never be forgotten, for better or worse, and the film pleads for us to understand what drove them to this point and the consequences we all suffer because of their gluttonous lust.
