The Post

[greenman]

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

Rush I have less of a problem with as he's normally just vamping it up in a supporting role anyway. I would replace Streep's position as some kind of elder stateswoman who's kept up the quality of performance with Juliette Binoche or Julianne Moore.

[Gwen Taylor on ITV]

Whats particularly interesting is not so much how it distorts history (thats to be expected from a Hollywood film, particularly one starring Tom Hanks)

I'm not being funny but I think most people recognise that Forrest Gump is a work of fiction.

[biggytitbo]

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.

It's a reasonable question to ask why the post though isn't it? Considering they were peripheral figures who were essentially handed a story already broken by someone else, hardly a triumph of crusading muckraking journalists holding an out of control government to account. Why not call it The Times and make it about the New York Times, since they actually broke the story (a slightly rhetorical question considering the answer is obvious)?

[Gwen Taylor on ITV]

I guess it's kind of relevant in the light of how the Post and the Times behave nowadays.  There was a thing in the press a couple of weeks ago about a Time journalist who had the Edward Snowden story before the 2004 election (spying on citizens that is, I'm not sure Snowden was even at the NSA at this point), but the Times decided not to publish because doing so would affect the outcome of the election.  In the end they did publish it but only after GW's numbers had tanked so much in his second term it didn't matter.

There's a cowardice at the heart of American newspaper's editorial boards, perhaps Spielberg is trying to address that instead of doing another All the President's Men conspiracy film.

[Talulah, really!]

It's a reasonable question to ask why the post though isn't it? Considering they were peripheral figures who were essentially handed a story already broken by someone else, hardly a triumph of crusading muckraking journalists holding an out of control government to account. Why not call it The Times and make it about the New York Times, since they actually broke the story (a slightly rhetorical question considering the answer is obvious)?

You haven't seen the film have you? Perhaps you should do that, then you would have a better understanding of what message the film is trying to put across and why they chose the point of view of the involvement of the Washington Post to do so rather than worrying why they didn't make a different film and tell the story from the point of view of the New York Times or Ellsberg himself (and their role is made abundantly clear in the film). I'd wouldn't dispute that a good screenwriter couldn't make a film out of this material from several different angles however what they have chosen is one aspect of the story to illustrate a particular theme.

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.

Actually Katherine Graham was an inspirational figure to many women at that period of time for being a pioneering woman in business in a position of power and she did help initiate early programmes of equality  although that scene is almost comically over the top and as much a clear wink to the audience that the film is as much about what is happening today in America as it is a painstaking recreation of the past.

[biggytitbo]

You haven't seen the film have you? Perhaps you should do that, then you would have a better understanding of what message the film is trying to put across and why they chose the point of view of the involvement of the Washington Post to do so rather than worrying why they didn't make a different film and tell the story from the point of view of the New York Times or Ellsberg himself (and their role is made abundantly clear in the film). I'd wouldn't dispute that a good screenwriter couldn't make a film out of this material from several different angles however what they have chosen is one aspect of the story to illustrate a particular theme.

Or to put it simply, the chose the Post because of Trump and the romantic, newspaper telling truth to power brings down President comfort blanket of Watergate and Woodward.

[George Oscar Bluth II]

This felt like a high quality HBO thing rather than a film you actually go out to see at the cinema but whatever.

The most interesting bits were when Bradlee and Graham realise how their socialising with presidents and the likes of Robert MacNamara affects their coverage of those same people. There's a lesson there for journalists today. See also: Morgan/Trump

I also enjoyed them using the real Nixon tapes.

And there's obvious Trump/Nixon comparisons but to me the main conclusion is this: Nixon hated the press because they hated him and he wanted them to love him as much as they loved JFK. Trump...well Trump is the same isn't he? Same shit, same derision from the Washington elite, same desperation to be liked by people he affects to hate. Interesting innit.

[Gwen Taylor on ITV]

Or to put it simply, the chose the Post because of Trump and the romantic, newspaper telling truth to power brings down President comfort blanket of Watergate and Woodward.

Hang on I thought you were criticising the film for not following the journalist who uncovered the conspiracy? And instead covering the liberal elite management of another newspaper.

I mean, your point about the film being a comfort blanket for the modern audience is so blindingly obvious that I'm not sure if there's something I've missed in what you said there?