Main Menu

Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 05:17:12 PM

Login with username, password and session length

The Post

Started by asids, January 22, 2018, 09:01:14 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

asids

Surprised there's not been a thread about this one yet.

Anyway, I watched this tonight and it's exactly what you'd expect. A rather by-the-numbers drama that hits all the notes but doesn't really do anything particularly interesting. I didn't think Hanks or Steep were anything spectacular.

It doesn't do anything particularly badly, except the feminist message which is so ham-fisted and "did you see what we did there?" it's just a bit amateurish and embarrassing. I would expect a bit more nuance from the most famous director in Hollywood, but this was apparently quite rushed and was done start to finish in under a year, so I guess it's not exactly unexpected that it feels rough around the edges. Another criticism I would have is that the first 30 minutes feels like a right slog. But I guess it's just alright.

Of course, the usual hype machine that seems to follow every Spielberg film means it will be (and has been) lauded and is likely to get an Oscar nomination (or director/actor nomination), but no way in hell does it deserve it.

Serge

I'm not in a rush to see it for precisely the reasons you state - it looks like it's been specifically made as Oscar-bait, with Speilbo, Hankso and Streepo practically rubbing their hands with glee as they imagine the glory that awaits. I'd imagine that it's too similar to 'Spotlight' (admittedly, on a vaguely superficial level) to really have any real chance of winning anything, though.

Having said that, I do love a good movie set in a newspaper office, so I will catch up with it at some point. And Odenkirk's in it, which is always a draw.

phantom_power

I was looking at Spielo's filmography to see which was the last film of his I gave a shit about and it was Munich way back in 2005

Wet Blanket

I been left underwhelmed by most Spielberg films since Schindler's List, but I thought this was pretty darn decent. Had a vitality about it, maybe because it went from pitch to script to screen in such a short space of time. Has a timely relevance too, considering Trump's current attitude to the media.


popcorn

When I found out this was written by the Spotlight chap it went on my skip-list.

Serge

Quote from: phantom_power on January 22, 2018, 10:36:38 PM
I was looking at Spielo's filmography to see which was the last film of his I gave a shit about and it was Munich way back in 2005

Heh, same here. Though I do have 'Bridge Of Spies' in my pile of unwatched DVDs.

Quote from: popcorn on January 23, 2018, 09:10:13 AM
When I found out this was written by the Spotlight chap it went on my skip-list.

I didn't know this, though looking him up, I notice that he generally seems to have a co-writer on all of his films. Interestingly, the one he wrote solo is 'The Fifth Estate', which I seem to remember came in for a sound pooh-poohing. Next up seems to be a biopic of Neil Armstrong (co-written with somebody else.)

I liked 'Spotlight', though, so that doesn't put me off this.

biggytitbo

Seems a bit like a classic old school Dems comfort blanket peon to a crusading Woodward and Bernstein style free press that is completely mythological. Still that didnt stop All the presidents men from been a great film.

popcorn

Quote from: Serge on January 23, 2018, 01:24:09 PM
I liked 'Spotlight', though, so that doesn't put me off this.

Yeah, you and everyone else. I thought it had an astonishingly bad script. I never want to see a scene in which someone goes on an impassioned rant and another character responds "Are you done?" ever again please.

Z

Has Meryl Streep ever been in a great film? Or had a role that was especially memorable

She's certainly a good actor but her desire to flaunt that seems to overwhelm both her choice of roles and the chance of any meaningful nuance to the performance within.

phantom_power

Deer Hunter? Silkwood?

popcorn

Quote from: Z on January 23, 2018, 04:16:09 PM
Has Meryl Streep ever been in a great film?

Off the top of my head, Adaptation.

But she's one of those actors that's very good but only appears in bland oscary movies, a bit like Benedict Cumberbatch, who has yet to appear in a good film.


Head Gardener


checkoutgirl

Quote from: phantom_power on January 22, 2018, 10:36:38 PM
I was looking at Spielo's filmography to see which was the last film of his I gave a shit about and it was Munich way back in 2005

Munich was good stuff though, wasn't it? I've seen it twice. Lincoln was probably the last I gave much of a shit about and that wasn't particularly great. I think Senor Speilbergo is spreading himself a bit thin these last couple of decades. He produces and executive produces and all sorts as well as directing.

The Post is a terrible name for a film. Doesn't evoke anything. Harry Potter and the Tree of Nothing.

phantom_power

Quote from: checkoutgirl on January 23, 2018, 04:56:18 PM
Munich was good stuff though, wasn't it? I've seen it twice. Lincoln was probably the last I gave much of a shit about and that wasn't particularly great. I think Senor Speilbergo is spreading himself a bit thin these last couple of decades. He produces and executive produces and all sorts as well as directing.

The Post is a terrible name for a film. Doesn't evoke anything. Harry Potter and the Tree of Nothing.

Munich was great but it was 13 years, and about 15 films, ago. I used to be interested in pretty much everything he did

notjosh

Quote from: Z on January 23, 2018, 04:16:09 PM
Has Meryl Streep ever been in a great film? Or had a role that was especially memorable

All her Nora Ephron collaborations are good.

checkoutgirl

Quote from: Z on January 23, 2018, 04:16:09 PM
Has Meryl Streep ever been in a great film? Or had a role that was especially memorable

Does the pope shit on a bear? The Deer Hunter, Sophie's Choice, Ironweed, Kramer vs Kramer, Doubt, to name but 5. Then again if you think they're all rubbish I probably can't help you.

Serge

Quote from: checkoutgirl on January 23, 2018, 04:56:18 PMThe Post is a terrible name for a film.

It sounds like it's going to be a gritty reboot of 'Postman Pat'.

Z

She's very good in the Deer Hunter and Kramer vs Kramer, without those two I'd be way more critical. Neither are great films imo though and neither are the roles (she elevates both hugely, mind; without her I'd say Kramer vs Kramer is a shit film). She definitely hadn't settled into being Meryl Streep yet and she was so much better for it.

Doubt is worth checking out again, for sure. I remember it feeling a lot like a very direct adaptation of a play and not much else though.

Quote from: popcorn on January 23, 2018, 04:20:32 PM
Off the top of my head, Adaptation.

But she's one of those actors that's very good but only appears in bland oscary movies, a bit like Benedict Cumberbatch, who has yet to appear in a good film.
I was gonna add it but it's not really a film that's ever stuck with me at all tbh.

Talulah, really!

Her accent in No True Scotsman was gash.

Kelvin

Quote from: Z on January 23, 2018, 04:16:09 PM
Has Meryl Streep ever been in a great film? Or had a role that was especially memorable

I don't even think she's a good actress. She's so mannered and theatrical. I can't picture her laughing without throwing back her head and lifting her hand into the air.

Head Gardener

saw the trailer for Mamma Mia 2 tonight - you will not change your view of the Streep

Desirable Industrial Unit

Quote from: asids on January 22, 2018, 09:01:14 PM
the first 30 minutes feels like a right slog

The opening feels like it's a slow lead-in to a moment where something clicks, and it all starts whirring.  Instead, it just sort of carries on like that.  It's not bad, of course it's not bad, and the story it's telling should be compelling, but this is a film that really doesn't seem too arsed about its subject matter.  The ending is the obvious ending, but it's so bloody cheesy.

Plus, it's a film with both Bob and David in it, yet they don't share a scene.  Unforgivable.

Z

Quote from: Desirable Industrial Unit on January 24, 2018, 12:38:10 AM
Plus, it's a film with both Bob and David in it, yet they don't share a scene.  Unforgivable.
Didn't Oliver Stone do the same with Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau in JFK?

I liked Lincoln btw, thought it was played about the best way they could've played it and it looked fucking gorgeous in the process.

biggytitbo

Assessment of the film versus history here - https://consortiumnews.com/2018/01/22/the-post-and-the-pentagon-papers/

Whats particularly interesting is not so much how it distorts history (thats to be expected from a Hollywood film, particularly one starring Tom Hanks), but why its about Bradlee, Graham and the Post at all -

QuoteAll of this, and much more, is profusely detailed in Ellsberg's 2002 book, Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers.  That book provides the scaffolding for a gripping story full of both epic and personal drama.  In the 457 pages of Ellsberg's fine book, Washington Post executive editor Ben Bradlee is mentioned exactly once, on page 392.  Katharine Graham, the owner and publisher of the Post, is not mentioned at all. But it is upon Bradlee and Graham that Hanks and Spielberg decided to base their film about the Pentagon Papers.

QuoteThe problems the film has with dramatic license, which, as we shall see, are going to get worse, owe to three interwoven facts. First was the decision by the screenwriters—Liz Hannah and Josh Singer—to tell the story through the Washington Post. In turn, that choice left them with paltry source material.  And that owes to the fact that the Post only figured in the story for about two weeks. Yet, as we will see, the saga of the Pentagon Papers extended to well over two years.

QuoteThe primary sources for the screenplay amount to Katharine Graham's book Personal History, Ben Bradlee's autobiography A Good Life, and Bradlee's authorized biography written by Jeff Himmelman, Yours in Truth.  Those three narratives do not differ very much in information.  And the longest of the three is Graham's, which totals a miniscule 12 pages. One dramatic problem is that Graham and Bradlee never really acted to attain a goal. They are acted upon, are therefore reacting to external events: the Times story, Mitchell's TRO, Ellsberg and Gifford's discussions. To work their way out of this dramatic problem the writers created Bradlee's ersatz spy and, as we shall see, some other confections.


Enrico Palazzo

Quote from: Kelvin on January 23, 2018, 09:15:25 PM
I don't even think she's a good actress. She's so mannered and theatrical. I can't picture her laughing without throwing back her head and lifting her hand into the air.

I avoid all Meryl Streep and Geoffrey Rush films for this reason.

Quote from: Desirable Industrial Unit on January 24, 2018, 12:38:10 AM

Plus, it's a film with both Bob and David in it, yet they don't share a scene.  Unforgivable.

Aren't they both in the long scene in Hank's house when they sort out the papers?

Talulah, really!

Quote from: biggytitbo on January 24, 2018, 01:24:32 PM
Assessment of the film versus history here - https://consortiumnews.com/2018/01/22/the-post-and-the-pentagon-papers/

Whats particularly interesting is not so much how it distorts history (thats to be expected from a Hollywood film, particularly one starring Tom Hanks), but why its about Bradlee, Graham and the Post at all -

That's rather a point missing review, castigating the film for what it isn't - a full on dramatic reconstruction of the Pentagon Papers Affair in every minute detail rather than focusing on what it actually is, a middling film with the reassuring narrative that in difficult circumstances people will come together and do the right thing, speaking up when the pressure is on to be silent.

It chooses to do this via a historical story about Presidential overreach and the role of the Press in giving the people the full picture. Obviously this has a contemporary resonance. So that is what the film is 'about', the Pentagon Papers themselves are, in the old movie term, the Macguffin.

However, beyond even that, the review attacks the film in numerous places for being wrong in fact or distorting the truth yet the review is doing the exact same thing.

He makes the claim 'Throughout the film Bradlee is portrayed as some kind of crusader for both truth and the right to free speech for the press.' Then later says '... what was the reason that the Post was so eager to publish the Pentagon Papers?  It was quite simply a matter of Bradlee's overweening ambition. Graham even admitted this. She later recalled that Bradlee "was driven crazy by the Times having this enormous and important material." (Felsenthal, p. 299)  Bradlee's overarching goal once he got into an editorship position at the Post was to make it the equal of the New York Times. '

The film shows the latter quite clearly, to the point where, and the reviewer notes that, the writers invent a character,  who is sent on an undercover mission to the New York Times simply to find out what they are up to, there is no disguising this aspect of Bradlee's motivation, after all it adds to the complexity of the character and story, he can want to publish both for the right reasons and for the glory, equally he might invoke ideals when he seeks to persuade others to his course of action.

"The Post" tries to imply that the publication of the Pentagon Papers caused Watergate. It doesn't do anything of the sort and it is noticeable that DiEugenio doesn't attempt to outline how the film supposedly does that.

He is on firmer ground with the way the film treats the story of Katherine Graham. It clearly shapes material to fit the contours of the film's narrative and also create a fairly jarring feminist subtext however the fact that she was close to LBJ and that "She liked being respectable, and was very uneasy about being different from the norm,"* is clearly stated and shown, again and again, intentionally so, as it heightens the dramatic tension when it comes to her having to make the choice to publish or not, her closeness and connections to those in the administration could be an influencing factor.

Yet, in naming the film "The Post," Hanks and Spielberg even distort who should get credit for breaking the Pentagon Papers in the press.' The title is probably sardonically symbolic and the film makes more than clear the role of Ellsberg and the New York Times in breaking the story, again because by doing so it heightens the stakes for the team at the Post, showing what they were up against.


*This is a supporting quote DiEugenio uses rather than a direct quote.



Sin Agog

So that awkward scene where legions of young bohemian ladies flutter their eyes at Katharine Graham outside the courthouse- any truth to that at all?  I can't see all these young hippie women fawning over a waspy old socialite like that.  Otherwise, though it was pretty fluffy and insubstantial and Spielberg lost his mojo years ago, I think it did benefit from the lightning fast production process.  Gave it that harried '70s feeling.  Nice to see Cross and Odenkirk together again.

Head Gardener