The Post (2017)

[Silver Raven]

Surprisingly, I couldn't find a forum for this movie.  If there is one, I apologize.

Despite all of the nominations this is getting, I didn't think the acting was anything more than pedestrian.  But the story was all.  I really enjoyed the history, because movies like this are history.  The last scene is just dripping with irony, in the context.

Screenwriter Liz Hannah just tweeted:

[enoughcats]

But movies like this aren't history, when they get the newspaper involved wrong.  

This is mentioned in a number of reviews.  Here's one where the problems of this one and of The Crown are mentioned. 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-lies-of-the-crown-and-the-post-1514505833

[Nidratime]

I enjoyed this. It was over the top at times in terms of grabbing at the heartstrings and making those big messages, but these days, we need to be reminded about past battles and what we thought we overcame. (It was almost sad, in that regard.) But, as we've come to learn, we can never, ever rest.

[Silver Raven]

2 hours ago, enoughcats said:

But movies like this aren't history, when they get the newspaper involved wrong.  

This is mentioned in a number of reviews.  Here's one where the problems of this one and of The Crown are mentioned. 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-lies-of-the-crown-and-the-post-1514505833

I can't read the WSJ, what did they say was the wrong newspaper?

[TheOtherOne]

Interesting enough, when I tried to find a link to the above article that wasn't behind a paywall, the main people sharing it were such luminaries as Tony Perkins and websites with fake addresses (or ones that clearly show them as fake news). I can't imagine why those people (or a conservative shill like Peggy Noonan) would want to discredit a movie promoting good journalism and standing up to the government.

Here's one more objective article:

Quote

Critics of The Post's historical accuracy have largely pointed the film's treatment of The New York Times as the fictionalization of the past. It was The New York Times, not The Washington Post, which first published excerpts of the Pentagon Papers, kicking off a major legal battle between the press and the United States government. And while this fact is certainly established early on in the film, some have taken issue with how the NYT's incredible decision to publish is downplayed in favor of telling Graham's story.

After spending months authenticating the Papers and preparing a strong legal defense, The New York Times published the first excerpts in 1971. President Richard Nixon promptly filed an injunction to stop the paper from publishing any further documents, a move that led to the 1971 Supreme Court case New York Times Co. v. United States, largely considered a momentous win for First Amendment rights. And many people connected to The New York Times have made public their displeasure at being sidelined in The Post.

One current high-ranking NYT employee spoke anonymously with the Columbia Journalism Review, saying, "We find it annoying and silly that we are being relegated to being a minor player in what is one of the biggest moments in our journalistic history." In an essay published by The Daily Beast, former vice chairman of The New York Times James C. Goodale wrote quite simply, "For Hollywood now to create the impression that The Washington Post was the key driver responsible for the publication of the Pentagon Papers or the the [Supreme Court] case is — well, it's Hollywood: good drama but bad history."

Interview with the screenwriters discussing their choices:

Quote

We worked very hard to give The Times their due,” Singer said. “We reached out to folks at The Times to make sure we were getting it right.” A.M. Rosenthal worked for the paper for 56 years and was executive editor during the Pentagon Papers era; his son, Andy, contributed script feedback, and visited the set to meet with Michal Stuhlbarg, who plays his father in the film. “I also think that’s a different movie,” Hannah said. “This isn’t the hunt for the Papers; this movie isn’t about the three months that they spent weeding through the Papers, which might be a very compelling story.”

Instead, she and Singer wrote what he calls “the origin [story] of this great team that then goes on to be the backbone behind Woodward and Bernstein,” the reporting duo who linked the Watergate break-in to the Nixon administration. Hannah also views their script as “an unromantic love story” between Graham and Bradlee. “It was a friendship that was so deep, it was like family,” Streep said at Q&A following the first New York screening.

 

Edited January 14, 2018 by TheOtherOne

[Shannon L.]

On 1/13/2018 at 4:05 PM, Silver Raven said:

Despite all of the nominations this is getting, I didn't think the acting was anything more than pedestrian. 

I'm one of those people who tend to think that Meryl Streep is over hyped too often, but I thought she was excellent in this movie and think that she (and only she) is worthy of a nomination.  Her uncertainty throughout the movie was palpable, especially in that scene where she and the other men were all on phones talking about whether or not to go to print. 

I thought this movie was fantastic.  While Tom (sometimes slips into Forrest) Hanks and the others were good, Meryl was great, as was the production of the movie as a whole, imo.  Women in my theater applauded and cheered when she told the one man to back off because she was speaking, then again at the end.  That moment, plus a few others, were really powerful, especially viewing it through a 2018 lens. 

I thoroughly enjoyed it. 

[annzeepark914]

I suspect Peggy Noonan just wanted to kick butt (the Post's, of course).

[anna0852]

The scene of the papers going to print was just beautifully shot and scored. And Meryl was amazing!

[methodwriter85]

It makes me sad to think that Don Graham sold off the Washington Post to Amazon. Oh, well. 137 years as a family newspaper is a lot. Speaking of Don, it was nice to see Stark Sands in a movie again. He did a bunch of t.v. and film back in the early/mid-2000's, then he moved more towards theater. He looks good, and still pretty young-looking. If I didn't remember him from Die Mommie Die, I would have never guessed he was almost 40.

I really liked how they recreated the era of the early 1970's. That was pretty cool.

Really enjoyable flick.

[Silver Raven]

I have to disagree that they relegated the Times to the sidelines.  I thought they were pretty clear as to the Times breaking the story, and Ben Bradlee and the reporters at the Post being jealous and trying to steal the information.

[Yokosmom]

I especially noted the scene where the men and women at the dinner party separated after the meal.  That was the norm in Victorian times, right up to the 1960s, in certain society circles.  I heard an interview where KG said that a lightbulb went off one day.  She told the men that she wanted to stay and discuss the current events.  I kept expecting them to show such a scene in the movie, but it never showed up.

[methodwriter85]

On 1/15/2018 at 6:35 PM, Shannon L. said:

I'm one of those people who tend to think that Meryl Streep is over hyped too often, but I thought she was excellent in this movie and think that she (and only she) is worthy of a nomination.  Her uncertainty throughout the movie was palpable, especially in that scene where she and the other men were all on phones talking about whether or not to go to print. 

Yeah, I just think it's kind of bullshit that Tom Hanks is getting signaled for awards nominations; meanwhile Sebastian Stan's turn in I, Tonya seems to be getting completely ignored. Meryl is the only one I'm seeing pulling an award-worthy performance.

[StatisticalOutlier]

On 1/13/2018 at 10:19 PM, TheOtherOne said:

Instead, she and Singer wrote what he calls “the origin [story] of this great team that then goes on to be the backbone behind Woodward and Bernstein,” the reporting duo who linked the Watergate break-in to the Nixon administration. Hannah also views their script as “an unromantic love story” between Graham and Bradlee. “It was a friendship that was so deep, it was like family,” Streep said at Q&A following the first New York screening.

It may have been written as an origin story, but it's being marketed as a Pentagon Papers story, and I think that's where the problem is because the real champion in the Pentagon Papers story is The New York Times.  The Washington Post is the champion in the Watergate story, but that story's already been told in a very good movie. 

And I'm not sure how The Post is an origin story because I didn't really see much on how or why they became so close--just that they did.

 

On 1/15/2018 at 6:11 PM, anna0852 said:

The scene of the papers going to print was just beautifully shot and scored.

Setting the type and those papers going through the machinery were wonderful, but made me sad.  I've always loved reading paper newspapers.

 

On 1/13/2018 at 4:05 PM, Silver Raven said:

I really enjoyed the history, because movies like this are history.  The last scene is just dripping with irony, in the context.

I like this site for comparing movies to the real life story:

http://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/the-post/

Here's their take on the scene at the end, and Nixon's villainy:

Quote

Is President Nixon really the villain of the story?

No. This is perhaps the movie's biggest inaccuracy. Hollywood loves to put Nixon's head on the chopping block (rightfully so at times), but his portrayal as the villain here is not entirely accurate. The true story is more complicated. The Nixon administration was not even mentioned in the Pentagon Papers, which had been completed before he took office. With regard to the Vietnam War, Nixon didn't start it, he ended it. Yes, he did try to halt the publication of the Pentagon Papers, but his first reaction was to do nothing and allow the publication.

Deciding to move forward with the injunction against the Times wasn't to protect his own reputation. He was effectively trying to protect the reputations of his political adversaries, namely Lyndon Johnson and the deceased JFK, who had been in office when the study in the Pentagon Papers took place, which ultimately revealed how they had misled the public. If Nixon was trying to bolster his own self-image, he would have allowed the publication, becoming a champion for the public's right to know.

Secretary of State Henry Kissinger also helped to convince Nixon to oppose the publication, telling him that doing nothing would set a precedent for future secrets. In addition, Nixon was concerned with protecting the diplomatic standing of the U.S., especially as he was trying to end America's involvement in the Vietnam War.

None of these things mean that he did the right thing in using the courts to halt the publication of the Papers. He did not. The public indeed had a right to know, but trying to do what he believed was the responsible thing does not make him the villain here. And the filmmakers realized that, which is why the movie adds the Watergate break-in, an event that happened a year later. They want to bait you into believing that if he was the villain of the completely unrelated Watergate event, then he was unquestionably the villain here too.

[AimingforYoko]

5 hours ago, StatisticalOutlier said:

Is President Nixon really the villain of the story?

No. This is perhaps the movie's biggest inaccuracy. Hollywood loves to put Nixon's head on the chopping block (rightfully so at times), but his portrayal as the villain here is not entirely accurate. The true story is more complicated. The Nixon administration was not even mentioned in the Pentagon Papers, which had been completed before he took office. With regard to the Vietnam War, Nixon didn't start it, he ended it. Yes, he did try to halt the publication of the Pentagon Papers, but his first reaction was to do nothing and allow the publication.

Deciding to move forward with the injunction against the Times wasn't to protect his own reputation. He was effectively trying to protect the reputations of his political adversaries, namely Lyndon Johnson and the deceased JFK, who had been in office when the study in the Pentagon Papers took place, which ultimately revealed how they had misled the public. If Nixon was trying to bolster his own self-image, he would have allowed the publication, becoming a champion for the public's right to know.

Secretary of State Henry Kissinger also helped to convince Nixon to oppose the publication, telling him that doing nothing would set a precedent for future secrets. In addition, Nixon was concerned with protecting the diplomatic standing of the U.S., especially as he was trying to end America's involvement in the Vietnam War.

None of these things mean that he did the right thing in using the courts to halt the publication of the Papers. He did not. The public indeed had a right to know, but trying to do what he believed was the responsible thing does not make him the villain here. And the filmmakers realized that, which is why the movie adds the Watergate break-in, an event that happened a year later. They want to bait you into believing that if he was the villain of the completely unrelated Watergate event, then he was unquestionably the villain here too.

Sorry, he had his 'plumbers' break into Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office. He was the villain.

[StatisticalOutlier]

On 1/18/2018 at 6:58 PM, AimingforYoko said:

Sorry, he had his 'plumbers' break into Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office. He was the villain.

That break-in was related to the Pentagon Papers (unlike Watergate), but since it happened after the events in the movie took place, I don't think it shores up Nixon being the villain in the movie.

ETA:

And as the website pointed out, Nixon wasn't implicated in the Pentagon Papers, so he wasn't protecting himself, and was actually protecting his political enemies (at that point, the people of the United States weren't his enemies yet; he won in a landslide in 1972).  And even the break-in at Ellsberg's office was to(illegally) go after a threat to national security. 

Watergate was strictly political, and unrelated to the Pentagon Papers.  When I first saw the movie, I thought, "Yep, that's where we ended up with this guy," but then I read the History vs. Hollywood piece, and agree that the Watergate coda was at best clumsy, and I at first thought lazy because it's a convenient shortcut, but I think there was more to it than that.

Edited January 20, 2018 by StatisticalOutlier
Futher thoughts

[SeanC]

The Post is not in Spielberg's top tier of work, but I'd say it's comfortably in the second tier, and a definite step up compared to Bridge of Spies, his previous foray with Hanks into midcentury civics. It's also his second film in a row with a female protagonist, after previously gone thirty years since The Color Purple without one. Streep so rarely gets the chance to work with top tier directors, and clearly relishes this, delivering customarily strong work in a vehicle suited to her talents. Hanks is good, but clearly in a more supporting role here. The supporting cast is packed with recognizable names in small roles, with Bruce Greenwood being probably the standout, in my opinion.

In comparison to other journalism stories in recent years, such as 2015's superb Spotlight, The Post is less a story about the nitty-gritty details of reporting (there isn't that much to tell here, really; the documents are practically dumped in the paper's lap) than an examination of how the business aspects of running a newspaper interact with the reporting aspects, and the degree to which elite media can successfully co-exist in the same ecosystem as the politicians they're notionally meant to be holding to account.

[choclatechip45]

With all the hype this movie has received I was disappointed. I thought the movie beginning was slow.

[bettername2come]

I liked the movie, didn't love it. I had fun spotting actors I've liked in other things, especially Jesse Plemons and Bradley Whitford, who looks nothing like he did on the West Wing. It took me forever to identify him, based mostly on his voice.

[SunnyBeBe]

I just watched the trailer and loved it.  It seems to be my kind of movie.  Streep is my all time favorite, so, I'm pretty confident that I'll enjoy watching it. 

[MerBearHou]

We finally saw the movie yesterday.  I thought Spielberg did an amazing job of capturing the newspaper rooms and the awesome steps of getting a paper to print and delivery.  It was a huge cast including extras and locations and I came away thinking Spielberg absolutely should have gotten a Director’s nomination with the Academy Awards.

Meryl Streep was just excellent.  I’d read a lot about Katharine Graham and Meryl really captured her lack of confidence in what was then such a man’s world and also having happily lived in the shadow of her successful father and brilliant husband.  She inherited that position with the Post both unwillingly and unprepared and after such a personal tragedy.  I adored her arc of gaining confidence toward the end of the film (and enjoyed knowing how fiercely she ran the Post for many years to come).
 

Tom Hanks, on the other hand, was just all wrong IMO.  He was the wrong person to cast and never, ever lost his Tom Hanksisms and never captured Ben Bradlee.  I put a lot of that on Spielberg — once he cast Tom, he needed to better direct the performance to get the charismatic, dapper, impressive Ben Bradlee.  Instead, I saw a shlubby, everyman-type in the Hanks/Bradlee portrayal.  That was such a missed opportunity for this movie to be an A+.

I loved the movie, but I love those kinds of movies so much.  Fascinated by the history and the characters.  Never seemed slow to me; every scene served a purpose; my husband disagreed — he liked it very much but thought it took too long to get going.

[Steph J]

1 hour ago, MerBearHou said:

Meryl Streep was just excellent.  I’d read a lot about Katharine Graham and Meryl really captured her lack of confidence in what was then such a man’s world and also having happily lived in the shadow of her successful father and brilliant husband.  She inherited that position with the Post both unwillingly and unprepared and after such a personal tragedy.  I adored her arc of gaining confidence toward the end of the film.

I so agree with this. That moment when she turns to Bradley Whitford's character and snaps, "I'm talking to Mr. Bradlee" made me want to clap. 

[snickers]

On 1/22/2018 at 10:53 PM, bettername2come said:

I liked the movie, didn't love it.

This is how I felt.....this movie is decent...but not oscar worthy at all imo....not even streep's performance though i will say hers was better than tom hanks...he was just ok

watching this movie though made me feel a bit of sadness to see the fate of newspapers...how now pretty much all news has been regulated to online and social media (thumbs down)

Edited January 29, 2018 by snickers

[MerBearHou]

1 hour ago, Steph J said:

I so agree with this. That moment when she turns to Bradley Whitford's character and snaps, "I'm talking to Mr. Bradlee" made me want to clap. 

Our theater did clap!

[raezen]

Saw this film tonight. The performances are great and there are some great scenes and some great images and it's very topical, but this is not one of my top Spielberg films.

I found the first part slow and full of shaky cam that made me naueous. Also, while I loved the period look of Bridge of Spies in at least one scene, the shot of protesters after the Times ran the first story of the papers I got a feeling for the first time I was just watching people in costume.

And I found myself siding with Nixon (not a position I wanted to take) for refusing access to his daughter's wedding to a reporter that had insulted her. However my take on the Watergate scene at the end was not that it implied that the Post printing about the Pentagon Papers necessarily led to it but to reinforce that Kay's decision put her on the right side of history especially after McNamara told her not to make an enemy of Nixon. 

[annzeepark914]

On 1/28/2018 at 9:45 PM, MerBearHou said:

Meryl Streep was just excellent.  I’d read a lot about Katharine Graham and Meryl really captured her lack of confidence in what was then such a man’s world and also having happily lived in the shadow of her successful father and brilliant husband.  She inherited that position with the Post both unwillingly and unprepared and after such a personal tragedy.  I adored her arc of gaining confidence toward the end of the film (and enjoyed knowing how fiercely she ran the Post for many years to come).
 

Tom Hanks, on the other hand, was just all wrong IMO.  He was the wrong person to cast and never, ever lost his Tom Hanksisms and never captured Ben Bradlee.  I put a lot of that on Spielberg — once he cast Tom, he needed to better direct the performance to get the charismatic, dapper, impressive Ben Bradlee.  Instead, I saw a shlubby, everyman-type in the Hanks/Bradlee portrayal.  That was such a missed opportunity for this movie to be an A+.

I loved the movie, but I love those kinds of movies so much.  Fascinated by the history and the characters.  Never seemed slow to me; every scene served a purpose; my husband disagreed — he liked it very much but thought it took too long to get going.

Meryl did a great job showing how hard it was for so many women to enter a room filled with men and try to take/make her place.  But that's the way it was back then, a real man's world (still much that way today but women are making progress).  Wasn't it a shock to see a room filled with just men, in their dark suits?

Oh geez..I love Tom Hanks but he was so wrong for the role of Ben Bradlee.  I thought, even before I saw the movie, that John Slattery (I think that's his name...the one who played, interestingly, Ben Bradlee, Jr. in Spotlight) would have been able to convey that particular jauntiness and especially, the look, of Ben Bradlee.  Tom Hanks is too much the All American Boy for this kind of debonair role.  But, I enjoyed this movie (although I did find it not as exciting as All the President's Men, but that's understandable!)  They did try to add some menace to the movie but it still wasn't ATPM.  I lived in Washington at that time and it was nothing like the menace felt right after the Watergate "burglary".   Loved the final scene.

[Slovenly Muse]

I'm sure it will win all the awards, but I was very disappointed in this movie. As others have pointed out upthread, it seems deliberately obtuse to try to dramatize the decision to publish... of the SECOND paper to get hold of work done by someone else, rather than dramatize the process of the Times reporters collecting that information at incredible personal risk and attempting to print it themselves before getting silenced by the government, which is where the REAL story is. The filmmakers obviously wanted to cover this part of the story because it could involve Streep and take on sexism in the boardroom, which it does in the broadest strokes possible to avoid having to tackle any truly challenging or nuanced situations.

I kind of knew going in that I was going to find this movie "meh," but I am trying to see all the Oscar best picture hopefuls, and it at least had a great cast, so I figured there would be something to enjoy. I was not prepared for how bland and unoriginal it was in nearly every respect. It felt like Spielberg had seen "Spotlight" and thought "Hey, I could do that! Only make it way whiter, way more conservative, and tackling subject matter with no moral complexity!"

He seems to want to tell the story of Katharine Graham and her decision to publish, and to highlight her struggle with sexism, which she must overcome in order to make the tough call for which the movie celebrates her. The problem is, newspaper offices in the 60's and 70's were hotbeds of all kinds of sexism and racism, from harassment to pay disparity, to unequal opportunities, and yet in this film, everyone in the office seems to get along fine and be happy with their roles, regardless of race or gender, and the only one facing "sexism" is Katharine herself. And what that "sexism" looks like is men talking over and ignoring her at board meetings, and "accidentally" telling her to her face that they don't respect her and don't think she deserves her job. This is the only kind of "sexism" the movie feels comfortable portraying (the kind where there is no way to shrug off "boys being boys" or introduce the uncertainty of "she was asking for it"), and just in case you didn't KNOW it was "sexism" that was taking place, Sarah Paulson is on hand to explain it to us directly. Nevermind the fact that in her (Paulson's character's) marriage, her husband's role is exposing government corruption and her role is making sandwiches for all his work friends, which is its own kind of sexism, there is no attempt made to talk about opportunities that are or are not afforded to different kinds of people, or the context of inequality in which Katherine worked. It feels like cowardice - a reluctance to dip a toe into anything that might be morally grey, or not play clearly as black or white (Or, more specifically, white. Seriously, Spielberg, would it have killed you to give a Black person even one line of dialogue? You had a few on set as secretaries appearing out of focus in the backgrounds of shots at the newspaper, or appearing sporadically in crowds of predominantly-white hippies protesting the war... you could't have given ANY of them something to do or say, given that they were the ones being disproportionately affected by the war?) Then, by finding the courage to stand up for herself and say to the men "This is MY company!" Katharine is able to overcome that obstacle, solve sexism in the workplace, protect free speech at the Supreme Court, and more or less end the Vietnam war.

This is the kind of movie that talks about history so safely, so afraid to offend, that it ends up having nothing meaningful to say. By taking out all the context and just looking at a certain character in a certain situation and whitewashing away all the rest, it actually AVOIDS talking about real history, in favour of telling a personal story that is divorced from all the societal and morally complex context, making that story empty and historically meaningless.

I was hoping for great performances, and there were some, but so few actors were really given anything to do, there were far fewer than I was expecting. Overall, not one aspect of this film really worked for me. (Except Meryl Streep, but that pretty much goes without saying.)

[Browncoat]

I saw it last night, and really enjoyed it. 

If it had been about the NYT and their publishing the papers, it would have been called "The Times" and not "The Post". 

[Steph J]

On 2/11/2018 at 12:34 PM, Slovenly Muse said:

This is the kind of movie that talks about history so safely, so afraid to offend, that it ends up having nothing meaningful to say. By taking out all the context and just looking at a certain character in a certain situation and whitewashing away all the rest, it actually AVOIDS talking about real history, in favour of telling a personal story that is divorced from all the societal and morally complex context, making that story empty and historically meaningless.

While I agree that the story isn't historically accurate, I disagree that that makes it meaningless, I think it does have a lot of meaningful things to say about the ways in which women have had to negotiate all-male spaces, spaces in which they tend to be talked down to, dismissed, patronized, or just ignored. To me, the Pentagon papers wasn't the story the film was trying to tell but really just a point of entry or a framework for what it's actually about, which is a woman gaining a sense of agency and learning how to use her voice and create space for herself in a professional setting that would otherwise shut her out. That might not make the film meaningful in terms of the actual history of the Vietnam War, but I would argue that it speaks pretty deeply to a lot of what's being talked about right now.

As for Sarah Paulson's character, you make a good point about her making sandwiches being its own form of sexism, but I'm not sure you're giving enough credit to the scene in which she spells things out for her husband. He's standing there, lamenting that Katherine Graham won't let him publish the story even though he's willing to take the risk, stating that he has just as much to lose as she does, and his wife basically tells him that he's full of shit. He wants to be threatened with jail. If he goes to jail, his reputation will soar because he'll be a man who stood up for something. The paper might go down, but he'll ultimately be fine because other papers would be fighting each other to hire him after he's released. Katherine Graham, meanwhile, could have gone to jail and her legacy would have been that of the woman who lost the family paper and people would tsk and say that it never would have happened if her husband was still there to be in charge. Paulson's character might be spelling things out, but she's also saying to her husband, "I see you, I see what you're doing, and I'm going to call this what it is."

[StatisticalOutlier]

14 hours ago, Steph J said:

While I agree that the story isn't historically accurate, I disagree that that makes it meaningless, I think it does have a lot of meaningful things to say about the ways in which women have had to negotiate all-male spaces, spaces in which they tend to be talked down to, dismissed, patronized, or just ignored. To me, the Pentagon papers wasn't the story the film was trying to tell but really just a point of entry or a framework for what it's actually about, which is a woman gaining a sense of agency and learning how to use her voice and create space for herself in a professional setting that would otherwise shut her out. That might not make the film meaningful in terms of the actual history of the Vietnam War, but I would argue that it speaks pretty deeply to a lot of what's being talked about right now.

I think the problem was the marketing, and maybe pandering to the audience.  I think they thought they couldn't do a movie just about Katharine Graham's struggle, and needed to have other elements, so they used the Pentagon Papers as a point of entry, as you said.  And were counting on people conflating the Pentagon Papers and Watergate, since Watergate was exciting and the Pentagon Papers was not. 

I read Katharine Graham's book not long ago, and it was (too) long, but it does tell an interesting story that I think could have been better served by a movie that was unabashedly about her.  As it is, I think the whole thing got kind of diluted by trying to be too many things.  That said, I did enjoy it, for what it is.

[Anela]

On 1/30/2018 at 10:53 PM, raezen said:

Saw this film tonight. The performances are great and there are some great scenes and some great images and it's very topical, but this is not one of my top Spielberg films.

I found the first part slow and full of shaky cam that made me naueous. Also, while I loved the period look of Bridge of Spies in at least one scene, the shot of protesters after the Times ran the first story of the papers I got a feeling for the first time I was just watching people in costume.

And I found myself siding with Nixon (not a position I wanted to take) for refusing access to his daughter's wedding to a reporter that had insulted her. However my take on the Watergate scene at the end was not that it implied that the Post printing about the Pentagon Papers necessarily led to it but to reinforce that Kay's decision put her on the right side of history especially after McNamara told her not to make an enemy of Nixon. 

There was that line at the end, about not wanting to go through something like that again - and then we have Watergate following coming up. :) That's the way I took it, too. I also didn't see them sidelining the New York Times (I've just watched it). They made it clear that they were trying to get their own big story, after the NYT got there before they did. 

This wasn't great, but I also love movies like this. I was in the mood to watch All The President's Men earlier, so I laughed when I saw the end scene, and dad said it was the beginning of Watergate. I might watch that now.

[paramitch]

I enjoyed this, although I found it slightly odd and less impactful than I'd expected it to be. I thought Streep was fantastic and that Hanks was serviceable -- I actually think he tends to be underpraised in roles like these, because he's such a game ensemble performer, and is really there for his costars. It's palpable in scenes between Ben and Katharine that Hanks is simply trying to be there to make the most of HER moments and it's my favorite thing about him as a performer. Barring a few instances like Forrest Gump (flaws and all), Hanks is not exactly a chameleon type, but he's a generous actor, and it really showed here.

My second favorite thing about this movie was the way it was positively stuffed with fantastic, ridiculously talented TV actors in supporting roles. It's obvious Spielberg is a huge fan of great television (from "Breaking Bad" to "The Americans" and beyond) because this film was filled with wonderful actors primarily known for their TV work, from the always-fantastic Matthew Rhys, to Bob Odenkirk, Jesse Plemons, Sarah Paulson, Alison Brie, David Cross, Carrie C***, Kelly AuCoin, and then, of course, with some simply fantastic dependable all-around greats like Michael Stuhlbarg (after his incredible TV and film work over the past two years, I am seriously a ridiculous superfan of that man), Bradley Whitford, and Bruce Greenwood.

Meanwhile, among the TV actors, the ones I was most impressed with were Rhys, who brought the gravitas and instantly recognizable heroism to Ellsberg necessary for the role, and Alison Brie, who I thought was spookily fantastic as Lally, Kay's daughter. It's a completely minor role but she gets some incredible scenes with Streep, and everything about her in those scenes is different -- the way she moves, speaks, her diction, even the timbre of her voice. I always forget how truly gifted Brie is because she's so likable I wrongly tend to conflate her with her onscreen roles (like that of Annie in "Community") but she's superb here, and I really felt like I was watching a movie star in the making. 

I also enjoyed the parallels (no doubt deliberate) between that time and history and our current one, involving a POTUS who wanted to restrict the freedom of the press for vindictive reasons.

Also, it was lovely to watch the credits and realize that the movie was dedicated to Nora Ephron.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I finally saw this on HBO. It was enjoyable, though I couldn’t help think that Tom Hanks was too young as Ben Bradlee, considering that Watergate happened two years later and I kept thinking of Jason Robards’  Ben Bradlee in All The President’s Men. Of course I can’t recall the age of the real Bradlee, so I don’t know if Hanks was more age appropriate or Robards.

Meryl is GREAT in everything she does and she killed it with the varying emotions, insecurities and then confidence of Graham. I loved her putting Arthur in his place-like let the adults speak and just shut your mouth. But in a more classy way.

And I agree it had a fantastic cast. Is it just me or was that a heavier Matt Damon as one of their lawyers? He’s not credited and I didn’t see anyone mention him. Not that I’m a fan,  because I’m not.

Showing how articles were rolled up and sent down the chute, as well as the printing process took me back to when I visited the offices of The Washington Post when I was in high school. And it also made me sad. Stupid Technology. I did get to meet Bob Woodward though! Bernstein has already left. Makes me sad that I never got to meet Walter Cronkite-who was the reason why I decided to major in Broadcast Journalism.

And I admit, I was hoping to see a glimpse of Woodward and Bernstein since they both were working there at the time. Sue me.

Not as compelling as All The President’s Men, but still a solid movie.

[Spartan Girl]

Just saw in on HBO too and I loved it. As a journalist major it resonated with me strongly...especially because of now.

21 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

And I admit, I was hoping to see a glimpse of Woodward and Bernstein since they both were working there at the time. Sue me.

Me too, but I loved how it ended with the Watergate break-in spliced with the tapes of Nixon shouting that no Washington Post reporter would ever set foot in the WH again. Hee.

[GHScorpiosRule]

10 minutes ago, Spartan Girl said:

Just saw in on HBO too and I loved it. As a journalist major it resonated with me strongly...especially because of now.

Me too, but I loved how it ended with the Watergate break-in spliced with the tapes of Nixon shouting that no Washington Post reporter would ever set foot in the WH again. Hee.

Oh yeah, the story really resonated with me.

 

While I loved that ending, Nixon never said that. Only that he refused to let the reporter who trashed his daughter, to be allowed access to the wedding or something social. I’m blanking in the specifics.

[Inquisitionist]

16 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Meryl is GREAT in everything she does and she killed it with the varying emotions, insecurities and then confidence of Graham. I loved her putting Arthur in his place-like let the adults speak and just shut your mouth. But in a more classy way.

I loved Meryl's scenes with Alison Brie as her daughter, too.  The exposition coming from Toni Bradlee (Sarah Paulson) was a bit too on-the-nose but maybe necessary for viewers who did not know the circumstances behind how Katharine Graham came to run the Post. 

For the most part, I felt I was watching a very competent documentary rather than a great film.  Still enjoyed it.

[jah1986]

On 11/23/2018 at 12:43 PM, GHScorpiosRule said:

 

And I agree it had a fantastic cast. Is it just me or was that a heavier Matt Damon as one of their lawyers? He’s not credited and I didn’t see anyone mention him. Not that I’m a fan,  because I’m not.

 

I think you're referring to the younger lawyer (?), if so, that was Jesse Plemons. I know him best from Friday Night Lights, but he was good here.

I enjoyed this movie and all the performances.

[Inquisitionist]

Plemons was also in S2 of Fargo.

Carrie C***, who starred in S3 of Fargo, played Meg Greenfield.  Her husband, Tracy Letts, played Graham's advisor, Fritz.  Letts also wrote the play August: Osage County, in which Meryl starred when it was adapted to film.  Quite a round-robin of notable actors!

[clb1016]

3 hours ago, Inquisitionist said:

Plemons was also in S2 of Fargo.

Carrie C***, who starred in S3 of Fargo, played Meg Greenfield.  Her husband, Tracy Letts, played Graham's advisor, Fritz.  Letts also wrote the play August: Osage County, in which Meryl starred when it was adapted to film.  Quite a round-robin of notable actors!

And in 2013 Tom Hanks appeared on Broadway in the play "Lucky Guy" for which he was nominated for a Tony as Best Actor.  Hanks, however, did not win; the Tony went to Tracy Letts (for "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf").

[Inquisitionist]

Cool, clb!  I've seen the premieres of several Tracy Letts plays at Steppenwolf Theater in Chicago.  One of them (Mary Page Marlowe) starred Carrie C***.  I also saw the two of them in the audience at another play.  So it's always thrilling for me to see them on the big screen!

[GHScorpiosRule]

On 11/26/2018 at 12:33 PM, jah1986 said:

I think you're referring to the younger lawyer (?), if so, that was Jesse Plemons. I know him best from Friday Night Lights, but he was good here.

I enjoyed this movie and all the performances.

Yeah. I never watched Friday Night Lights, so I'm not familiar with him.