Despite his undeniable and immeasurable impact on my own movie fandom, I haven't exactly been enamored by Steven Spielberg's recent output. His big-budget children's flicks, such as The BFG and The Adventures of Tintin, have lacked that distinct Spielberg touch, even with material that feels directly suited to his style. And while Spielberg has mastered the art of the old-fashioned historical drama with films like Lincoln and Bridge of Spies, they lack the excitement and innovation of his best work. I'm holding out a certain level of hope for Ready Player One, but when I heard that Spielberg was putting The Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara on the backburner in order to direct The Post, I may have let out a slight groan. It's not that I didn't expect his take on the Pentagon Papers to be good- it just feels like familiar territory for Spielberg.
But there's no denying the topical, urgent nature of The Post's story, which required Spielberg, Meryl Streep, and Tom Hanks to quickly assemble in order to get the film in theaters before the end of the year. In a time where the President of the United States regularly insults journalists with claims of "fake news" and decries the 1st Amendment, the story of a group of reporters who stood up to a tyrannical leader is relevant once again. Basically, The Post serves not exactly as a full-fledged movie, but as a delivery system for a crucial message- to paraphrase our president, freedom of the press is, like, really important. The whole film builds to that moment where Carrie Coon boldly declares the necessity of the 1st Amendment to a group of journalists, who all stand and loudly cheer in response. Nobody can deliver a set-up and over-dramatic payoff quite like Spielberg, and there's no denying the significance of this moment in history and the parallels between then and now. But the fast pacing serves only to distract from just how rushed this film feels, and despite a few bright spots, The Post never has the dramatic weight or emotional gravitas that it should. It's Spielberg in workmanlike mode again, and he makes it all look effortless. Maybe a little too effortless.
As the Vietnam War pushes on for another year, reporter Daniel Ellsburg (Matthew Rhys) comes to the realization that the government hasn't exactly been telling the truth about their confidence in the war effort. Infuriated by the fact that U.S presidents since Eisenhower have been sending young boys to die knowing full well that they couldn't win, Ellsburg steals thousands of pages of government documents known as the Pentagon Papers. With the help of some rebellious friends, Ellsburg gets the papers to New York Times editor Abe Rosenthal (Michael Stuhlbarg), who publishes a bombshell report highlighting the government's lies and deceptions. Meanwhile, Washington Post owner Katharine Graham (Meryl Streep) is preparing to take the company public, discussing what those possible changes could mean with notorious editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks).
Katharine is already fighting an empire of men like Arthur Parsons (Bradley Whitford) in her quest to solidify herself as the leader of the Post, but the emergence of the Pentagon Papers as a matter of national importance only makes things worse. After the Nixon administration orders the Times not to publish any classified papers, Bradlee sends top reporter Ben Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk) to hunt down the documents. As Bradlee and Bagdikian move closer to acquisition and publication, Graham has a choice to make- publish the documents and risk the future of the paper, or stand down in the face of Nixon's oppressive tactics. With the deadline looming, Katharine's decision will shape the future of freedom of the press in America.
I'm not the biggest Meryl Streep fan, which I know is blasphemy in some Hollywood circles. But I'll say this- Streep is the best part of The Post by a wide margin. Granted, even though the character is surrounded by a large ensemble cast of industry veterans, this movie undeniably belongs to Katharine Graham. Working off the screenplay by Liz Hannah and Josh Singer, Streep has free reign to really dig into the psyche of Graham, a woman forced to deal with her family's legacy and a system designed to work against her. Some of the strongest scenes in the film come thanks to the arc that Graham undergoes, especially a scene in the second half where she has a poignant emotional discussion with her daughter, played by the reliable Alison Brie. Streep's performance alone isn't enough to make the movie work, but she tries her absolute hardest.
It's unfair to pin the film's failures on the rest of the cast- they just don't have much to work with here. While Hannah and Singer's script is functional and bluntly effective, it leaves little room for character development or nuance on the part of the actors. This is a huge cast of famous faces, but some of these excellent actors are stuck in the most thankless of roles. Tom Hanks is dependable as ever here, but it doesn't help that we already got the definitive screen rendition of Ben Bradlee thanks to Jason Robards' performance in All the President's Men. Hanks' Bradlee exists more as a supplement to Streep, which services the overall story but doesn't do much for the character. That's the most troubling thing with The Post- everything is in service of the main message, even if that means sacrificing excellent supporting actors or potentially compelling subplots. Strong character actors like Bob Odenkirk and Tracy Letts are left with poorly defined characters, while the individuals played by Bradley Whitford and Sarah Paulson each exist in the narrative for a single, specific purpose that renders them rather one-dimensional. It's great that Spielberg was able to assemble all of these talented people, but why exactly did we need Zach Woods and Jesse Plemons to play the lawyers that barely have names? I don't get it.
And then there's the issue of stakes. All the President's Men is about taking down the President of the United States, a leader who committed serious crimes and tried to get away with it. There's real danger to the lives of Woodward and Bernstein in that film- or at least what we perceive to be danger. Spotlight is about exposing corruption in the Catholic Church, taking down pedophiles and the men who enabled them. There are real, tangible stakes for the journalists and the priests, as well as a necessary sense of justice for the victims. The Post doesn't have this advantage. It doesn't really have real-world consequences for the individuals involved in the story. Don't get me wrong, the crucial importance of freedom of the press has never been more obvious than it is today. It is, as the film tells us in its cringe-worthy climax, the cornerstone of a free and democratic society. But a movie that is essentially about the question of "Will they publish the documents?" doesn't exactly make for great cinema.
Spielberg tries to overcome this pressing issue almost exclusively through pacing, which causes the film to move at a mile-a-minute. Even though it spends much of the first act going over details pertinent to the potential stock margins of The Washington Post, there's never a lag in the action or a slow build to anything. It just moves, but as a result, it feels insanely rushed. The Post feels like a movie that came together at the last minute, which, yeah, it kinda did. Spielberg seems to be in a hurry to get the point of the whole thing, skipping over the beats that are necessary to reach that point and create the maximum impact. The payoff is nice, but there's no denying that the film is lacking the kind of punch it needs to succeed.
It's admirable that Spielberg, Streep, and Hanks all got together at the last minute to make a feature-length tribute to good, old-fashioned journalism, but The Post's insistence on dealing with an almost entirely symbolic narrative hinders the effectiveness of the film. When Spielberg leans into his characters and the feminist nature of this story (there are some great shots that pit Streep against rooms filled completely with men), The Post really works. The problem is that once you get the message of the film, there just isn't much here. It's a respectable, solid effort, there's no denying that. And with the talent involved, how could it not be? These are all legends. But I keep waiting for another Spielberg movie that truly captivates me, the kind of movie that makes me lean in, watching with wondrous amazement. If he just wants to make decent period dramas for the rest of his career, nobody could blame him. But I really hope I get the chance to love another new Spielberg film at some point in the next few years.
THE FINAL GRADE: B- (6.8/10)
Images courtesy of 20th Century Fox
But there's no denying the topical, urgent nature of The Post's story, which required Spielberg, Meryl Streep, and Tom Hanks to quickly assemble in order to get the film in theaters before the end of the year. In a time where the President of the United States regularly insults journalists with claims of "fake news" and decries the 1st Amendment, the story of a group of reporters who stood up to a tyrannical leader is relevant once again. Basically, The Post serves not exactly as a full-fledged movie, but as a delivery system for a crucial message- to paraphrase our president, freedom of the press is, like, really important. The whole film builds to that moment where Carrie Coon boldly declares the necessity of the 1st Amendment to a group of journalists, who all stand and loudly cheer in response. Nobody can deliver a set-up and over-dramatic payoff quite like Spielberg, and there's no denying the significance of this moment in history and the parallels between then and now. But the fast pacing serves only to distract from just how rushed this film feels, and despite a few bright spots, The Post never has the dramatic weight or emotional gravitas that it should. It's Spielberg in workmanlike mode again, and he makes it all look effortless. Maybe a little too effortless.
As the Vietnam War pushes on for another year, reporter Daniel Ellsburg (Matthew Rhys) comes to the realization that the government hasn't exactly been telling the truth about their confidence in the war effort. Infuriated by the fact that U.S presidents since Eisenhower have been sending young boys to die knowing full well that they couldn't win, Ellsburg steals thousands of pages of government documents known as the Pentagon Papers. With the help of some rebellious friends, Ellsburg gets the papers to New York Times editor Abe Rosenthal (Michael Stuhlbarg), who publishes a bombshell report highlighting the government's lies and deceptions. Meanwhile, Washington Post owner Katharine Graham (Meryl Streep) is preparing to take the company public, discussing what those possible changes could mean with notorious editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks).
Katharine is already fighting an empire of men like Arthur Parsons (Bradley Whitford) in her quest to solidify herself as the leader of the Post, but the emergence of the Pentagon Papers as a matter of national importance only makes things worse. After the Nixon administration orders the Times not to publish any classified papers, Bradlee sends top reporter Ben Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk) to hunt down the documents. As Bradlee and Bagdikian move closer to acquisition and publication, Graham has a choice to make- publish the documents and risk the future of the paper, or stand down in the face of Nixon's oppressive tactics. With the deadline looming, Katharine's decision will shape the future of freedom of the press in America.
I'm not the biggest Meryl Streep fan, which I know is blasphemy in some Hollywood circles. But I'll say this- Streep is the best part of The Post by a wide margin. Granted, even though the character is surrounded by a large ensemble cast of industry veterans, this movie undeniably belongs to Katharine Graham. Working off the screenplay by Liz Hannah and Josh Singer, Streep has free reign to really dig into the psyche of Graham, a woman forced to deal with her family's legacy and a system designed to work against her. Some of the strongest scenes in the film come thanks to the arc that Graham undergoes, especially a scene in the second half where she has a poignant emotional discussion with her daughter, played by the reliable Alison Brie. Streep's performance alone isn't enough to make the movie work, but she tries her absolute hardest.
It's unfair to pin the film's failures on the rest of the cast- they just don't have much to work with here. While Hannah and Singer's script is functional and bluntly effective, it leaves little room for character development or nuance on the part of the actors. This is a huge cast of famous faces, but some of these excellent actors are stuck in the most thankless of roles. Tom Hanks is dependable as ever here, but it doesn't help that we already got the definitive screen rendition of Ben Bradlee thanks to Jason Robards' performance in All the President's Men. Hanks' Bradlee exists more as a supplement to Streep, which services the overall story but doesn't do much for the character. That's the most troubling thing with The Post- everything is in service of the main message, even if that means sacrificing excellent supporting actors or potentially compelling subplots. Strong character actors like Bob Odenkirk and Tracy Letts are left with poorly defined characters, while the individuals played by Bradley Whitford and Sarah Paulson each exist in the narrative for a single, specific purpose that renders them rather one-dimensional. It's great that Spielberg was able to assemble all of these talented people, but why exactly did we need Zach Woods and Jesse Plemons to play the lawyers that barely have names? I don't get it.
And then there's the issue of stakes. All the President's Men is about taking down the President of the United States, a leader who committed serious crimes and tried to get away with it. There's real danger to the lives of Woodward and Bernstein in that film- or at least what we perceive to be danger. Spotlight is about exposing corruption in the Catholic Church, taking down pedophiles and the men who enabled them. There are real, tangible stakes for the journalists and the priests, as well as a necessary sense of justice for the victims. The Post doesn't have this advantage. It doesn't really have real-world consequences for the individuals involved in the story. Don't get me wrong, the crucial importance of freedom of the press has never been more obvious than it is today. It is, as the film tells us in its cringe-worthy climax, the cornerstone of a free and democratic society. But a movie that is essentially about the question of "Will they publish the documents?" doesn't exactly make for great cinema.
Spielberg tries to overcome this pressing issue almost exclusively through pacing, which causes the film to move at a mile-a-minute. Even though it spends much of the first act going over details pertinent to the potential stock margins of The Washington Post, there's never a lag in the action or a slow build to anything. It just moves, but as a result, it feels insanely rushed. The Post feels like a movie that came together at the last minute, which, yeah, it kinda did. Spielberg seems to be in a hurry to get the point of the whole thing, skipping over the beats that are necessary to reach that point and create the maximum impact. The payoff is nice, but there's no denying that the film is lacking the kind of punch it needs to succeed.
It's admirable that Spielberg, Streep, and Hanks all got together at the last minute to make a feature-length tribute to good, old-fashioned journalism, but The Post's insistence on dealing with an almost entirely symbolic narrative hinders the effectiveness of the film. When Spielberg leans into his characters and the feminist nature of this story (there are some great shots that pit Streep against rooms filled completely with men), The Post really works. The problem is that once you get the message of the film, there just isn't much here. It's a respectable, solid effort, there's no denying that. And with the talent involved, how could it not be? These are all legends. But I keep waiting for another Spielberg movie that truly captivates me, the kind of movie that makes me lean in, watching with wondrous amazement. If he just wants to make decent period dramas for the rest of his career, nobody could blame him. But I really hope I get the chance to love another new Spielberg film at some point in the next few years.
THE FINAL GRADE: B- (6.8/10)
Images courtesy of 20th Century Fox
Comments
Post a Comment