Spielberg shows here that he can still really deliver when he keeps a tight rein on his sentimental side. I found this film better than just 'good' - yet somehow not having quite the sharp bite that the last major journalistic film had, namely 'Spotlight' of 2015. That's perhaps to do with the subject matter of the latter being right up to date (Catholic Church cover-up of child molestation by clergy - still just as topical even now!) and this present film dealing with an historical event (1971), albeit with very pertinent resonances to today relating to control of the press by the American President.
Meryl Streep (that well-known actress described as over-rated by you-know-who) is Kay Graham who has just become head of 'The Washington Post' and is plunged into a baptism of fire. She and her lead reporter Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks, smoking more than I've ever seen him before - in fact, that I recall him doing at all since his self-celebratory cigar in 'Philadelphia') get wind of a crisis looming at neighbouring 'New York Times'.
Background is 'The Pentagon Papers', the results of a study commissioned way back in the 1940s by then President F.D.Roosevelt into the feasibility of winning the then Indo-China War which morphed into the VietNam War. The conclusion was that victory against the Communist forces was well nigh impossible. Successive administrations under Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and right up to then President Nixon had all colluded to keep the results secret from the public while futilely continuing to send out hundreds of thousands of troops, many thousands to their deaths and many more coming back with life-maiming injuries, all under the public deception that America was winning. No President wanted to be the one who was seen to be in charge when defeat came.
The White House discovers that the N.Y.Times has received copies of that report and intends to publish the story, so Nixon weighs in with forceful threats of dire consequences of wholesale prison terms if they go ahead. Graham and Bradlee (Streep and Hanks) are watching on the sidelines until they themselves receive the very same source material - and so the question becomes one of should they then publish, irrespective of which way the 'Times' decides to go, though especially if the Times decides not to go ahead.
The tension in the film grows quite effectively, though the subject being historical, it lacks the present-day indignation which I'd felt in the 'Spotlight' film, and it therefore was not like being screwed to quite the same high level pitch.
The acting is as remarkable as one might expect from its two main stars, though seeing Streep transform in the course of the film from a slightly nervous and gauche novice company head among all-male work colleagues and board meetings, into someone with a confident mind of her own, was a object lesson for an actor's 'how-to-do-it' manual.
It's a significant film, not without ever-growing relevance to today's politics, and everyone comes out of it well. I'll be surprised if it fails to pick up the Oscar or two it deserves, though if it happens it'll probably be in the 'lesser' categories. Nevertheless, 'The Post' gets my unequivocal approval......................7.5.
7 hours ago
I almost saw this today but couldn't fit it in..saw BILLBOARDS yesterday,, mighty fine
ReplyDeleteHave another try to see it, JayGee. I don't think you'll regret it. But the multi-dimensional 'Billboards', I thought, had more entertainment value than this (justifiably) single-minded film.
DeleteI could see this for sure but politics is going to Streep's head. I may reconsider. Thanks for the review . I had been looking out for it here, and somehow expected it would get more than a 7.5. I am still interested and will see how I feel at the end of the week. Thank you again .
ReplyDeleteMy 7.5 can be interpreted as 'very good indeed' in my rather harsh scoring system, Rachel. I'd be distraught if it had put you off when I had no intention of having that effect.
DeleteI hadn't thought about Meryl S. doing too much politics. You may have a point but I wouldn't use it an excuse not to see this as you'd be missing out on a goodie.
No Ray, your score did not put me off at all.
DeleteMuch relief, Rachel. However, even if I don't like a film at all I'd NEVER recommend to someone that they don't see it solely on my own say-so.
DeleteThanks Ray. Once I have made up my mind to go and see a film I wait until I have seen it myself before I read either your's or John's reviews, or any reviews in the paper. Sometimes if I am borderline I will read the Spectator review because Deborah Ross is very frank in her opinions.
DeleteI'm afraid I do read a few reviews - and listen to Mark Kermode's verdicts on Radio 5, as well as Radio 4's 'Front Row' - before making my mind up whether to go or not, and they DO influence me. For example, the new film 'Downsizing' sounded intriguing, as well as looking good from the trailer, but being aware now of at least a couple of disappointeds I now doubt if I'll be going. Perhaps I should follow your example.
DeleteOh gosh, that film, Downsizing, I have seen the trailer twice and I thought not for me. It reminded me of schooldays in the 1960s where we went to see the Fantastic Voyage. We thought it was great at the time, very way out. Maybe Downsizing is too but I will not be going to find out!
DeleteFunny you should mention 'Fantastic Voyage' as I saw it on TV just this last week-end, it being the first time since it's release in 1966 when I came as close to fainting in a cinema as I've ever done - it was the sight of going through a replicated living heart that did it for me! (I've always been queasy over surgery, operations or even just the sight of blood.)
DeleteI might still be seeing 'Downsizing' if I can find it playing at a suitable time. There's precious little else on in the next fortnight and I want to avoid getting withdrawal symptoms.
Hey Ray, hope you are well. new to me laptop arriving tomorrow, should be up and running by the weekend. This has been a real trial for me. I am not so great wtih my phone
ReplyDeleteSol x
Hi there, Sol. Like you I've just had a major computer headache/trial, though not nearly as long as yours has been. Only just - two mins ago - got back online on these blogs after laptop went blank last Sat, only getting it returned last night (Thurs) having corrupted Windows prog removed and new one put in, meaning all my passwords have to be reorganised. A nightmare! But now back and running (I hope!).
DeleteTrust your own long computer-less time will be over shortly. I was getting very concerned about you silence though I knew you'd been having problems.
Anyway, hope you'll be up and running shortly - as much as I hope I am. 'Speak' to you again shortly.