Just saw this, great addition to the journalists fighting the power power genre (see ATPM, Spotlight, et al). Spielberg's career is so fascinating. So glad he eschewed the high tech summer blockbusters for real stories about real people on subjects that really matter. Long may it continue!
8
American audiences have been inculcated with the American way in movies. They have been conditioned to accept over-acting, over-directing, so that most movies seem to be a parody of life but that was not the intention of the filmmakers.
I thoroughly enjoyed The Post but... Steven Spielberg subscribes to the Barnum & Bailey style of filmmaking. The soundtrack is akin to being hit over the head repeatedly by a rubber mallet. The acting is very great but set in an overly stylized cinematography which wouldn't be so bad if only the other elements of the film were over-stylized as well.
Americans are stymied by American Exceptionalism, just look at our health care. They can't look to other countries for examples to do things, maybe they should start.
4
Just saw it. Kudos to the terrific cast, especially Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks who do such a wonderful job. Everyone should have see this film and realize how important and a free press is to our democracy - and why Trump is so vociferous in trying to stifle it.
8
I love Spielberg's dramatic attention to detail. Watching his camerawork on how a newspaper gets printed reminded me of the scene in Schindler's List in which Liam Neeson dictates the names of those he protected to Ben Kingsley as he gagged on Schindler's plumes of cigarette smoke. Spielberg has a wonderful way of turning the mundane into high drama.
4
pretty good but preachy and smarmy
2
One of the best documentaries of the decade A MUST SEE. Democracy has no chance if the new is muzzled
2
The movie had a bit of a slow start, but then truly moved quickly into a thriller with Ms. Streep showing true understanding of Katherine Graham. The Pentagon Papers and Watergate were from my generation. This movie did justice to the Pentagon Papers as did All the Presidents Men to Watergate. Freedom of the Press. Long may it stand.
15
I'm mad for Tom Hanks, but he is woefully miscast. Ben Bradlee was prizefighter in a suit, with eyes like a hawk, who missed NOTHING. Hanks is just too nice and calm to be believable as Bradlee. Other than a few minor quibbles (like there are too many male talking heads in each scene), I thought it was terrific. it made me recall the excitement around the release of All the President's Men.
5
Very disappointed. I expected to see something on the order of Spotlight, which was riveting. Instead, I saw a very talky, slow moving film that glossed over the key issues of disclosing classified information and the repeated escalation of the Vietnam War by successive administrations in the face of knowledge that it was a fool's errand. The Supreme Court scene would have been a great place to present arguments for and against disclosure, but it was truncated before the proceedings began. So this supposedly riveting movie boiled down to will she or won't she (Katherine Graham) agree to publish. But of course she will; we knew that before the movie started. I think many of the positive reviews, Ms. Dargis's included, are swayed by deference to Spielberg, Streep and Hanks, who have done so much good work in the past. Btw, there were only five people in the audience when I saw this in a Boston suburb.
8
Agree with many of your points, PAW.
But the slowness was what I liked here - it reminded me of old school movies, which seems right for this period - fits right in with the agonizingly slow photocopying process or dialing of the rotary phone!
6
Excellent review, PAW. I walked out out the theater last night feeling kind of hallowed out. More attention was paid to Linotype machines and newspaper presses than plot development. When "Spotlight's" end credits rolled I felt slimmed by child molestation. That, in my opinion, made it a great film.
Just got back from seeing The Post and enjoyed it immensely. The time just flew by and there was a huge round of applause at the end. So great to see some of my favorite character actors (Bob Odenkirk, Jesse Pleamons (a Breaking Bad reunion) and Zach Woods mixed in with my secret crush Carrie Coon. Hey, that and Tom Hanks and Meryl Streep!! How great is that.
While the review notes the Butch Cassidy poster, I was a bit stunned by hearing Green River played in the very first scene set in 1966. The CCR song did not come out until 1969 but that is quibbling over a minute detail in a wonderful afternoon at the movies.
10
Saw it in Canada, with the Met Opera regulars, grey beards white curls abounding. Some people wiped tears as they left. Was it fear, fear of journalism's current loss of importance, fear of Canada's next-door neighbor's errors in Vietnam, or fear of Trump's "the enemy is the media" --and "NAFTA is a joke"?
Wilkie Collins of "The Moonstone" wrote "Make 'em laugh, make 'em cry, make 'em wait", his recipe for the thriller-novel. Spielberg does that in masterly fashion with a new thriller, in another country, with a different history and laws, Streep, Hanks, and a sterling cast make an old odd history thrilling in spite of borders of time and place. The need to honor truth is universal in art and dialogue. The tears I saw were operagoers', mixing pride in artistry with a sense of the dark, dangerous side of humanity. A+
6
Great movie! My wife and I saw it last week, and I didn’t fall asleep…not even for a minute. It's always a treat to see two superstar heavyweights like Meryl Street and Tom Hanks go at it head-to-head! It makes me appreciate how difficult acting really is; it's both an art and a science. What's even more confounding is how they make it all look so easy and seamlessly natural!
So, here's my take away from the movie: The “Pentagon Papers”, which this movie is about, was an absolute windfall bonanza for journalism and the press, and rightfully so. Principled journalism...with genuine integrity and w/o a slanted POLITICAL AGENDA either left or right...is what our country's "core values" are all about.
But sadly, so much of what we’re seeing today throughout the mainstream media hardly qualifies as principled, responsible journalism. After all, in this bizarre time of ours so-called "good journalism" means that anything goes...provided you push the envelope as far as you can before someone with principled integrity finally blows the whistle!
Isn't that what today’s "fake news" is all about?
2
It's always a treat to see two superstar heavyweights like Meryl Street and Tom Hanks go head-to-head! Acting is no easy task; it's both an art and a science. What's even more confounding is making it LOOK so easy and so seamlessly natural.
So, here's my takeaway from the movie. Principled journalism...with genuine integrity and w/o a slanted POLITICAL AGENDA either left or right...is what our country's "core values" are all about, yes? But I'm sure some people might take exception to that...as they giggle uncontrollably with smug, self-adulation. After all, in this bizarre time of ours so-called "good journalism" means that anything goes...provided you push the envelope as far as you can w/o someone with principled integrity blowing the whistle!
Isn't that what "fake news" is all about?
Fake news exists only the eyes of the fake President. Real journalists are working hard to keep us informed, to call out his lies. Bravo to them!
3
A marvelous and uplifting film that should make Americans proud of their truth-speaking, crusading press and help them to remember with deep sorrow a lost generation of men and the wounded veterans of a useless, tragic, sordid and dirty war. The movie graphically shows how the wealthy residents of the White House and Georgetown were complicit in the murder of thousands for over a quarter of a century, a complicity made more deadly by the lies they told and which they "patriotically" passed on to their equally merciless and cowardly successors. Streep's deeply felt performance is very moving and should be an inspiration to women whose lives have been stymied by so few intelligent and courageous role models. Apparently the screenwriter Liz Hannah was inspired by Katharine Graham (Streep) to write the screenplay.
12
I hated this movie. Hated it. I literally cannot understand how it gets so many good reviews. It didn't know what story it wanted to tell so every one it tried (first amendment, female empowerment, Vietnam policy) it told poorly and superficially. The writing was clunky and unsubtle and preachy. Several scenes, such as the pan of the women on the steps of the Supreme Court, and that silly bit where the reporter is on the phone relaying the verdict (is that a single tear I see?) were patronizing and came off as cheap fan service. The acting was hammy, although I blame the writers for most of that. People can only work with what they are given. Streep was a bright spot.
I was so excited to see this movie. I went to the first screening when it opened here. I love movies about the newspaper business and the politics of the Vietnam era. About 10 minutes in I knew it was going to be unsophisticated dreck. Watch Spotlight or All the President's Men for far superior representations of both genres. The Post was like getting hit on the head with a hammer repeatedly. An awful, awful movie.
9
Edit: The best things about the movie were Bob Odenkirk and Tracy Letts. I should have used them in my attempt to be kind, not Streep.
3
Sorry you didn’t like it. I agree it was slow in parts but that’s one of the things I appreciated
Being old enough, I knew the story - the Pentagon Papers were published by the Post, the Supreme Court found in favor of the Press, etc. I had to allow the film to take over, slow me down in order to enjoy the time and get caught up in the ‘suspense’.
2
I pretty much agree with your assessment. I didn't see a single authentic scene in the first 30 minutes, and not many after that. Meryl Streep's performance was ok, the best thing about the movie. Overall, I give this film 2 gobbles.
My son and I saw it today. Edge-of-the-seat riveting. And a relevant lesson for our troubled political times.
“The press is to serve the governed, not the governors.” - The Supreme Court
13
The review was better than the movie, but not by much. I'm still wondering how accurate the movie was with regard to the Post's decision to rush into print. It seemed corny and contrived. But if it was accurate, then, kudos to the film!
1
A couple places in the movie, later on, bring a tear of inspiration. The early part of the movie is a little slow, so I don't know if the president will have the patience to sit through (I heard that the White House requested a screener), but Meryl Streep's arch is fascinating to watch, and believable. Tom Hanks is a bit too often Tom Hanks in his folksiness, but when he needs to show his authority it makes for a nice and strong contrast. Some of the rooms feel claustrophobic and the film has an unattractive color that I guess is supposed to look like film color in 1971. It is a necessary film for our bizarre time, and a pushback to those who are threatening our country's core values.
2
"The early part of the movie is a little slow, so I don't know if the president will have the patience to sit through (I heard that the White House requested a screener..." Why, did YOU have the "patience" to sit through it? What exactly are you suggesting...and why the subtle dig? To show how "cool", "hip" and "progressive" you are?
"It is a necessary film for our bizarre time, and a pushback to those who are threatening our country's core values." Do you have the faintest idea what our country's "core values" are, my friend? And what makes this time more "bizarre" than any other time in particular? Or are you just being hopelessly "politically correct"...to use a hackneyed term?
Principled journalism...with genuine integrity and w/o a slanted POLITICAL AGENDA either left or right...is what our country's "core values" are all about, yes? But I'm sure you'd take exception to that...as you giggle uncontrollably with smug, self-adulation!
1
I’ll be more blunt than the original poster. We have a man in the Oval Office with hardly the patience of a 2-year old. And yes, i’ve Known 2-year olds.
And he’s trying to destroy the Press because they tell the truth and he can’t handle the truth. He’s dangerous and if he ever succeeds, we are all doomed. You included, no giggling.
5
Very entertaining movie despite knowing the story-similar to All the President's Men. Excellent and well cast ensemble. Audience clapped at the end which I haven't seen in a while. Movie sure hits home in today's environment-but of course that's the point. Nothing Oscar worthy in my opinion but terrific nonetheless. After all, how can you not go see a movie with Hanks, Streep and Spielberg?
8
Ms. Streep never disappoints. I could not help but remembering her Golden Globe speech while watching the movie, which I consider a masterpiece, one that we so desperately need at this time.
3
Arghhh!!! It shouldn't be about the Post. The Pentagon Papers is the defining moment in the Times' history and now it's being given to the competitor. It makes it so much worse that the Post and Times are currently fighting for scoops and subscribers and the Post get the MOVIE. Imagine a movie about Watergate titled the Times!
1
The movie is supposed to be about Mrs. Graham, but I agree that the film seemed bifurcated — trying to cover both topics at the same time.
3
I enjoyed seeing the old newsrooms, presses, etc. I'm glad for the focus on Katherine Graham. But the movie glosses over how hard women have had to fight to get equal treatment in the business and to change the coverage of women.
Violence against women was considered a personal matter, and other news about women was written about lightly in the women's sections. Men in the media have often ridiculed women fighting for their rights.
When we talk about journalists fighting fearlessly for the truth, remember that it's the truth as they see it, and it's the truth that matters to them. I say this as a retired journalist who wishes people had more media literacy.
5
Whoops, "Katherine" should be "Katharine." (Why everyone needs a copy editor.)
2
Just a note from this digital subscriber of a certain age--what a pleasure it was to see all the details of Paper newspaper production and the hot type of linotype--the blocks of metal words and the insertion of metal paragraphs into the text of the article, the pencil markups, and the like. And that fabulous late shot of the whirling and twirling hellixes of the descending piles of newspapers.
And thanks to Manohla for catching the transposed lines of Mario Savio at a Free Speech Movement rally at Berkeley. We are now perhaps in our own "sick at heart" moment.
20
I wonder where they found a printing press like the one used in the film. Some newspaper is still using one somewhere?
4
Saw the movie just a couple of hours ago. My take: it missed the mark. While the acting was impeccable, I felt it focused far too much on Graham finally breaking out of her shell and taking the reins of the paper when it should have been more focused on the Pentagon papers, their import, and the ramifications of the attempts of the government to suppress free speech. Naturally it touched on those topics, but I never believed it was the focus and, to me, the movie suffered because of it.
9
I agree, but I'm even more harsh than you. I thought this movie was terrible.
3
Agree completely. That is why it missed the mark while Spotlight hit a bullseye. This one was snoozy.
1
Anachronisms:
1. Professional writers and other educated people did not say "a couple" for "a couple of" yet. (They do now, including in The Times. GROAN.)
2. The kind of ball that Katharine Graham's granddaughter was playing with came along years later.
However, they got the box of Mongol colored pencils right. I still have mine, and it's identical.
3
You must be kidding about number 1. My 85 year old mother has been saying that since I was a tot as have countless other educated people in speech. They aren't writing their spoken words.
The movie did fail to use the prevailing fashions of the year; they were much more garish than the subdued, older look threads of the movie. Look at actual Post newsroom photos
January 13, 2017
Whatever produced the Pentagon study and its historical military appraisal for activities by the United States in the interest of the Cold War narrative and then its use for the readers of interest -all paid by by our government and then stolen for later release an litigation - the result was never definitive of what one must say in conclusive in what makes for policy with the path taken and in public forum discourse. Counter arguments and the worthy conclusion of historical actions at the Presidential affairs for the path in South East Asia from post World War Two to its New York Times release to the public for vital publication of the events and what conclusions are providential, and evident has never convinced me - as as well with my own Specialist Filth Class in service in Vietnam 1967 as trained Military Policeman and assigned to CID MI. The conclusion I retain over the years is the actions of the brutal hard line bloody Communist were beyond what we see in the ISIS ISIL or Qaddafi atrocities - As well the benefit of the Pentagon Papers was to enhance the public confrontation as to core meaning of American leadership with South Vietnam and thus intentions to define their history in the Anti Communist terms and with honor that eventually was realized by the peace resolution signed in France. However, what and how one can read into the Papers and all the politics and legalities - for me it is all about the fact the blood was spilling and can learn.
2
A fabulous film, so important today. It brought back so many memories. I was a new mother fighting postpartum depression and the realization that my Vietnam veteran husband was indeed crazy (no such thing as PTSD then). I had been an activist and followed the story closely. I remember thinking the country was going to blow up, similar to my feelings today. Oscars to Mr Spielberg, Ms Streep and Mr Hanks.
14
For the record, in the time you write about, Blessinggirl, PTSD had not yet been fabricated from what was then called "Post Vietnam Syndrome" - which was a vile attempt by the Nixon Administration to portray all the Vets as crazy.
Member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War were America's most credible force speaking in opposition to the war. Post Vietnam Syndrome painted them as crazy in order to discredit their testimony.
Unfortunately, Nixon's plan worked.
Soon Hollywood obliged with false stories of crazed vets going berserk with machine-gun rampages. It was a shameful time in our history.
Never before was an entire group of war veterans so smeared, libeled, and calumniated.
For anyone interested in how President Nixon and his men deliberately drove a wedge between the public and these truth-tellers, read "The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam" by Jerry Lembcke. Many of the myths persist to this day.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
2
Manohla, you seem less concerned with the serious First Amendment issues raised by this case and film, than by the Times's role in this saga. Are you not content with giving The Post its due?
2
THE most emotionally satisfying movie I’ve seen in ages.
12
Be sure to see Spotlight. It came out a couple years ago. It's a drama about the Boston Globe's Spotlight team's investigation of the sex abuse scandal in the Catholic church and the decision to publish stories about it, bringing it to the attention of the world. Immensely satisfying and moving film and well acted to boot.
15
Both terrifically entertaining and enlightening, this is a thrilling retelling of one of the most important Constitutional crises in modern American history. Nothing less than freedom of the press was on the line. I hope this movie is shown in schools for generations to come, as it does a wonderful job of demonstrating how valuable this freedom is and how we should never take it for granted. You know how it ends but when you hear Justice Hugo Blacks famous words spoken "In the First Amendment the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors" I am betting you will still want to clap and cheer. In an age when the civics is not taught enough in schools, Spielberg uses his storytelling genius to remind us of what values sustain our democracy.
24
It would have been better if the true picture had been presented- how a greedy anti-labor Graham rose above her usual selfishness and had some heroic moments that mattered a lot. And how a powerful media person such as Bradlee also put aside his usual obesiance to govt and to meet a crucial moment in history. It would even be more exciting if it was also shown how they later resumed their cowardly positions.
6
I guess to someone fixated on their left-wing agenda and bête noirs it would be exciting. To the rest of us, dreary.
3
Like watching paint dry--a snore, and a misfire of dramatic arc because there is none. The most exciting moment was the click of the press run button. Hanks lacked the Bradlee charisma, and Streep's Graham was one-dimensional. Neither was any fun in their roles. They hardly looked as if they enjoyed their roles either. Only Tracy Letts was terrific; he enlivened every scene he was in.
8
Sitting in the movie theatre watching the scene where Mrs. Graham has practiced responding to the investor, has many notes but does not have the confidence to actively participate in a room full of men was so familiar to those of us in the business world during the 1970s...
25
In the Times coverage of "The Post", I'm enjoying the reviews and commentary taking every opportunity to see to it that readers don't think that publication of the Pentagon Papers was a Washington Post exclusive. Yes, the Times published them, but "The Post" is a lot about Kay Graham, and she didn't work for the Times.
In fact, the best message here is that a free press, investigative journalism, and competition between great newspapers was an important element that finally brought the Vietnam 'conflict' to an end. Be thankful for that, and keep in mind that our freedom and our democracy continue to depend on a free press and high caliber investigative journalism.
35
The formula for a newspaper expose "thriller" has gone lame.
3
A longtime reader of the Washington Post and the New York Times, I really admired "The Post", which I saw just a few days ago to wide applause in a theater in the suburbs of Washington DC. Not only do Meryl Street and Tom Hamks portray Kay Graham and Ben Bradlee excellently, but the entire premise of the film is a fitting metaphor for journalism in modern times. I highly recommend watching "All the President's Men" in tandem.
26
When you have two world leaders tortured by their undersized and inadequate manhoods and desperate to prove size doesn't matter, it's a recipe for WWIII.
6
This fawning saccharine review fails miserably, like the film itself, to clarify the historical position of The Post as one of the primary media enablers of the Four Presidents lies revealed by the Pentagon Papers. Just at The Post acted as cheerleader to the Iraq, Libyan, and Syrian invasions of this 21st century, The Post aided and abetted the lies and false stories planted by the CIA in the lead up to the Vietnam War and the many other invasions and military skullduggery in the second half of the 20th century. The Post would not publish the Pentagon Papers until after the NY Times did, and only decided to publish independently while the NYT was under injunction in order to save face for its journalistic cowardice. The Post published when there was very little risk involved and the film utterly fails to present the real story and instead presents the smoke and mirrors of a polished alternative history.
8
The film shows the story as it happened, not as your comment would have it happen. The Post did not have access to the Pentagon papers until somebody actually went into the Post's office and dropped them off. I am not sure why you would want the film to change history.
4
Tom Hanks for president 2020
5
Boo!
I am always impressed by filmmakers who can create suspense around a story where you already know the outcome. "Argo" - will they make it off the runway? "Dunkirk" - will they make it off the beach, allowing Churchill to make his "Darkest Hour" speech? And this. I'm looking forward to seeing it.
17
Agreed It was just as anti-climactic as Argo Big disappointment.
Thanks, Ms. Dargis. The Pentagon Papers never mentions Ms. Graham! This film is timely for the #me too movement & Graham; Nixon -trump; and freedom of the press under fire then and today. The highly overrated hanks couldn't hold a candle to the Oscar winning Jason Robarts portrait of Ben Bradlee. No mention of Ms. Steep? Ms. Dargis, there was no comment section posted for your review of 'Call me By My Name'? Please read Slate (on line) Mag. review! The film is a straight film about a Bro-mance and NOT Gay people at all.
5
Those of us now 60 and up (Tom Hanks is what—61?) were there when the Pentagon Papers were published (and Watergate happened). And the Kent State killings, and the publication of the COINTELPRO files detailing 20 years of FBI misdeeds, and the Church Committee reports chronicling 20 years of evil-doing abroad by the CIA and U.S. military.
The press was something to behold in those days. Now, the press is divided into far-right and far-left factions which take turns criticizing or praising different government agencies and officials at a level of analysis on par with tabloid papers. And all in the pursuit of the economic survival of TV cable news channels. We already know that the days of true investigative journalism by real newspapers are numbered.
7
I certainly don't get that feeling reading the New York Times and Washington Post these days. They're reporting is excellent.
16
It's unfortunate that this sociologically obvious, programmatically written, stiffly performed, and mechanically directed (seemed like the assistant director might have done most of the work) movie is lauded when "Three Billboards Outside Ebbings Missouri" has its complex. funky tone, fully developed characters, and witty dramatization dismissed by a confused critic. If you don't believe me, then at least believe this year’s Screen Actors Guild nominations.
Of course, any critic has a right to his own opinion, but the Times should be worried about so seriously misleading its readers.
6
The Pentagon Pacers were about the Johnson administration — Southeast Asia until 1968. In the Liberal Hollywood retelling, the bad guy is Nixon even though he doesn’t take office until 1969, after the Pentagon Papers were written.
2
That may be true, but Nixon was the one who tried to limit the First Amendment. Hence, the final scene in this movie was especially good!
8
Is there any way you can force imbecile Trump to see the movie...so he can be drilled on it's significance and the need to stop destroying the very fabric of this vilified democracy? An impossible task, I know, as a narcissist is 'condemned' to be isolated in his adoring self-regard, unable to have feelings/compassion/justice towards others however hard he tries.
4
"... Daniel Ellsberg, the Marine turned government researcher turned clandestine peacenik..."
Trivialize all you like, dear author, but you cannot erase the real past.
Yes, Ellsberg came out for peace. But what "turned him". and what he exposed was massive government lying, cheating the American people and our own troops, and self-interest made manifest on a scale that rivals anything in Washington today.
Speaking of Washington today: as you media and your commentariat hangers-on remain incapable of effectively dealing with the pablum, lies, and tripe flowing out of Washington these days, it might behoove you to pay attention to this, the Genesis story of radically dishonest, pathologically emboldened government of lies in America, and to offer a little more than "peacenik"-level attention to one of the men who brought it all to light.
If nothing else, it will help you understand FOX news and its puppies, and the "fake news" taunts you still have not managed to rise above.
2
Yet another saga reflecting on a time when the press had the courage to ferret out wrongdoing and face down tyranny. While today we find ourselves under the influence of a reprehensible man about whom very little is known. No financial background...no health history...next to nothing about business connections or foreign contacts.
An applicant for postal employment undergoes greater vetting than did the current occupant of the Oval Office.
One wonders, what's happened over the past fifty years? Where's the almighty power of the press when we truly need it?
Oh I know. It's obsessed over groping, fondling and inappropriate leers.
4
Saw FILM earlier TODAY AND I KNEW INSTANTLY IT WAS GOING TO BE THE BEST OF THE LOT... it recounted the events I experienced as one of many who fought to change the Times! The film captured the excitement as well as the total gathering of energies to UPHOLD DEMOCRACY. Needless to say STREEP/HANKS did a fabulous job of CHANELLING THE LETS Do it & SPIRIT OF THE DECADE!
6
I realize that the reviewer has to review the film as it was made, not what should have been, but shouldn't Spielberg have made the film about The New York Times, the paper most closely associated with The Pentagon Papers? It appears from this review that the drama revolves not so much around a constitutional issue but whether a stock offering will be successful.
4
The screenplay was inspired by Graham's autobiography. So the material presented to Spielberg revolved around her story, and her decision to risk her company as well as possible prosecution to publish the Pentagon Papers in the Post.
3
While reveling in this story of historic responsible journalism, the Times and other media should look back at their coverage of Clinton and trump, and the ongoing drumbeat of false equivalency. Much of the current "news" coverage in today's media is nothing more than publishing press releases, with little attention to facts and reality. It was left to alternative media to publish the Russian dossier on trump, most of which bas now been substantiated. And the gossip reporting of trump's tweets largely occupies space in the paper while reporting on international events is ignored. There is no heroism here.
7
Let the Academy nominate Streep and Hanks for another downhill Oscars telecast. Is there no exciting new talent in Hollywood for the under-60 demographic?
4
Not that I can think of.
1
We watched many times "all the president's men, We will watch many times "Post".
No doubt.
Excellent movie.
10
The only reason I can think of to dredge this old story out of the mothballs is to demonstrate to America that Justice hasn't disappeared completely and can still take down corruption, since relative to its rampant ubiquity its had free reign for decades. Ah the good old days of exposes and investigative journalism. I haven't seen any lawless CEOs followed and badgered into parking lots since Mike Wallace passed. The wealth disparity issue has been treated and lost in the cycle but it persists and is as important or moreso than anything that's taken its place since esp in light of the tax bill money laundering scheme whose only defense is that years from now the little people will get trickled on ... again. I've seen the token bonuses advertised but lets put a little perspective on it nationally. Michigan's governor and Blankenship; why aren't they in jail? The list goes on.
12
LOVED THE FAST PACED RYTHEM OF DIALOGUE THE RUNS TO THE OLD NYTIMES OFFICES THE EASY ACCESS THE DAY I WALKED IN WITH MY FIRST FOTO OF PELE AND IT GOT PUBLISHED:)) RBReilaticloudcom
3
I saw The Post and completely share Ms. Dargis' high, nicely judged opinion of it. So I want to step just to one side of her deft movie criticism here to point out that she is also one heck of a reporter! Check out the detailed, thoughtfully reproduced research in this piece, along with the sharp observations. The mention of the Butch Cassidy poster is a delightful peek into Ellsberg's character (as well as a sly intro of Redford, who'll star in another Post saga), and the quote from Mario Savio [do look him up if you need to] is right on point.
No question, Ms. Streep rocks a golf caftan, since that sort of fashion ploy was an inseparable part of -- not a denigration of -- Ms. Graham's personal force. When Streep's Katharine Graham announced, "I'm going to bed.", the audience I saw the movie with lustily cheered and applauded.
13
Please read Ellsberg's new book, Doomsday. In it, he admits that the Pentagon papers were not really the important story that he wanted to publish, but rather an unimportant sideshow. The real story, which he also stole at the same time, but was saving to leak at a later time, is the country's nuclear strategy. In my opinion, his new book deserves a Nobel Prize, and certainly more attention than this movie does. I am sure Ellsberg is also frustrated that this movie is getting any attention at all.
4
I'm pleased this film is coming out in terms of its timing, but if you want a reality check, watch Errol Morris's documentary "The Fog of War," where McNamara admits he made a grave mistake. It is a sobering view of the corruption of power and its consequences.
30
"The Fog of War" is a classic of documentary film. A comparable film on a different subject matter is "The Gatekeepers," an Israeli classic. For most of us, however, dramatic film allows us insights, with artistic license of course, about important topics in a short time.
The assault on journalism by some quarters is also an opportunity for journalists to shine. Moreover, it's an opportunity to understand what good journalism means to us. Just as The Post's Woodward and Bernstein broke open the Watergate scandal, "All the President's Men" allowed us in a few hours to put the pieces together. Just as Church pedophilia cases were being whispered about in my hometown of Boston decades ago, the Boston Globe's Spotlight Team revealed the extent and depth of the coverup of these crimes. The film "Spotlight" let's us know the intricacies and pitfalls that went into their important work.
I look forward to "The Post." While Katherine Graham, Ben Bradlee and Daniel Ellsberg (and his psychiatrist) were all household names a generation ago, we don't often think of establishment figures as the ones who put their credibility and prestige on the line for the sake of a greater good. After watching this film, I will be happy to review "The Fog of War" once again... this time with an even more informed eye.
Funny thing about "The Fog of War," I went in castigating Robert McNamara. I left feeling something more complex about his situation. Good films and documentaries have that effect.
27
As if admitting he made a mistake makes it all better. Invading Viet Nam and for what, was a war crime had any other country done it. See "Nick Turse's, Kill anything that moves" for some Truth from vets would did the atrocities.
A timely story for many reasons (to include the recent Ken Burns series) that numerous critics say is well told. Hopefully many will see it and reflect accordingly.
www.thewaryouknow.com
18
No doubt it will be entertaining and yet another monument to the art of movie-making from a director who just gets better and better at his job with age. What more reason do you need to see it than that?
17
@ Mark ? to learn something about the facts/truth/history of the matter? "Entertainment" is worthless, unless? a lesson is learned in the process! ..and applied.
"Steven Spielberg’s exhilarating drama 'The Post' is about a subject that’s dear to the heart of journalists: themselves!"
And why should they not? Who else is defending us? Who else is trying to preserve our own best version of ourselves; in fact, who else *is* us?
No one. Certainly not the government which, then as now, is so clearly "not us", an anti-Us.
This is not some fungoid celebration-of-ourselves, this is ourselves, finding voice, fighting for survival, in the only place we are still heard, the place utterly abdicated by the sham fraud of the Congress.
77
Sadly, it comes as no surprise to see a reminder of the press's responsibility, the public's sense of decency, and the commitment we all share to uphold the duties of citizenship tainted with the idea that it's mere entertainment, just corn and wishful thinking. America reminds itself by means like this of what we are and need to be. In this ugly testing moment of our history, I want to take this just that seriously.
25
Aside from being the "Spotlight" of 2017 - aka a shoe-in for Best Picture come Oscar season, the film employs filmdom's finest to mirror the current political and social mess we're in. Still, one wonders what the Trump debacle film will look like in 20+ years, and what its 20/20 hindsight will reveal.
35
I don't want to wait 20 years for a film on the "Trump Debacle." Want to see it in 2021.
6
What’s wrong with 2018?
1
I was thinking that myself, but we don't know yet what the narrative arc of the Trump years will be.
The “star” of this movie is the FREE PRESS, and while both Hanks and Streep are both great actors, they are really playing supporting roles to the critical importance of having a free press, a bedrock of our nation.
Spielberg’s movie debuts at an important time as our free press is under daily attack by Trump, the Divider-in-Chief. Hopefully viewers will learn a lesson from our history.
86
No doubt this a very good, if not great, movie. I watched several reports about the movie on the varoius national news channels yesterday, all with a constant drumbeat of snarky comments by Hanks and Streep on the Trump administraton. I wonder if these people have given much thought about the Obama administration's former DIA director James Clapper misleading, if not outright lying to, the United States citizens about the United States government spying on them. Mr. Clapper now frequently appears on CNN to provide his "expert opinions" regarding the sanity and intellect of President Trump. I am not writing this comment to defend Trump in any way, shape, or form. Rather, this comment is to remind people that the Obama years weren't exactly the shining moments of transparency and virtue some would have you believe it was. In truth, leaving aside Trump's continual Twitter ransts, what's the difference between the Turmp administration and the record number of prosecutions of "leakers" by the Obama administration? One only has to read a little about Wikileaks, Chelsea Manning, and Edward Snowden to understand this, or perhaps read the curren headlines about the treatment of Hezbollah during the Iran "Nuclear Deal" during the Obama administration. Those whoe ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
14
Math365: Yes. One of the most under-reported areas of the Obama years was the administration's almost unprecedented assault - by a former Constitutional scholar, no less - on the First Amendment.
5
The Obama years were not 8 yrs. of lies, and insults to opponents; he did not use the Oval Office to make money. Obama was educated and literate; he was also gracious and polite. He was not mean; he was qualified as a State Senator, a U.S. Senator and a constitutional scholar with a degree from Harvard. He was not a grifter who sold bogus college degrees to poor people; he did not insult Federal judges, even Scalia who deserved it. Michelle Obama put in a vegetable garden for the WH kitchen staff. She spent time on developing nutritious school lunch programs; this was especially good for kids in inner city schools. She did not try to exploit her WH status to sell merchandise. She encouraged girls to stay in school, enter politics, get active in current events. There is no way to "leave aside" Trump's constant twitter rants and lies. He is an embarrassment as the leader of the free world; he has ceded that to a more dignified and qualified Angela Merkel. And, finally, Trump lost the popular vote by 3M votes. His win came from the gerrymandered Electoral College districts, 77,000 votes. As the saying goes: you can put lipstick on a pig; it is still a pig. Pity his Cabinet who have to coddle him with empty compliments, at which he beams. I cannot remember any President in my long life time who required Cabinet members to flatter him. Trump, the failed, bankrupt businessman who is in debt to Russian oligarchs for 250M plus 95M in a fake property purchase.
46
Well, this has nothing to do with the movie, so why is it here?
We need a wonderfully courageous press now as much as we need the wonderfully eloquent Mr. Spielberg.
32
I agree that bob odenkirk is terrific. "Spotlight" and "all the president's men" may be "better" newspaper films than "post" (whose script seems hastily put together), but post should appeal to a very broad audience. A little corn is okay in support of the first amendment, especially today. And Streep and hanks, as might be expected, are at the top of their craft.
18
Prediction: We'll get through the mess in which we currently find ourselves and emerge stronger for the experience!
22
From your lips to God's ears!
5
Mommy and Daddy save America. Come the spring they all bask in the glow of Oscars and the righteousness of Hollywood while purging the memory of Harvey Weinstein
21
Don't throw out the entire idea of a worthwhile film just because the industry is corrupt, rich, self-congratulatory and sexist. The world still needs good stories that teach right values, and in a world of declining verbal literacy film still serves an important role.
46
And what have YOU done for anybody lately, Peter?
6
Too bad we still have to see comments like: " a middle-aged woman who defended freedom in a fabulous gold caftan." Would you have described Ben Bradlee as a " middle aged man in classic preppy kakis."? The level that sexist descriptives are an accepted part of NYTimes coverage makes the point that women are still defined by how they look and dress. Katharine Graham was the publisher of a nationally respected newspaper and the first women CEO of a Fortune 500 company. Many men did question her ability to play in the all boys league, but she rose above those slights and I hope the NYTimes and is writers can rise above their thoughtless sexism.
179
With respect, you're missing the point. Costumes are a major element of filmmaking, and Ann Roth's are some of the most eloquent and character-defining of the year. The glamorous hostess garb that Manohla Dargis alludes to works perfectly as an emblem of who Graham is as she steps into unprecedented territory with her politically momentous decision -- an instant of personal transformation as well as national history.
130
As someone starved for optimism and sense that there can be light at the end of the dark tunnel we find this nation in, sounds like a must see movie. That said, I also found mention of the golden caftan a distraction from the rest of an otherwise captivating review.
27
Or, to paraphrase Han Solo’s memorable line to Luke Skywalker in the first “Star Wars”: Great, kid; don’t get khaki.
3
I love Tom Hanks but this is the 4th film he's made about people from New England and his accent is horrible! Tom, you're not Meryl Streep. Stop trying to do accents. Forrest Gump was bad also (my father was from the South).
44
Lol, but the again, no one does accents like Meryl Streep. (Although I found her accent in Twenty-seven Wagons Full of Cotton a bit to sorghum and "sleepy time down south" to be believable)
1
COMING DOWN ON THE SIDE OF OPTIMISM LIKE STEVEN SPIELBERG
Whenever I come down
on the side of optimism I feel just
as happy as a clown,
seeming to surrender to what I don't trust
in order to please aud-
iences who are opposed to pessimism,
and don't believe a sword
of Damocles is threatening them in the abysm
all dwellers on the earth
are sharing now, thanks to the changing climate.
An antidote is mirth,
and as an optimistic clown I rhyme it,
and though I do not feel
that it deserves respect from serious people, Steven
inspires me, his spiel
titanically my iceberg when the snow is even.
[email protected]
10
Bravo!