The Post (Spielberg; 2017)

The story I’ve heard is that Stephen Spielberg had always wanted to make a film based on The Pentagon Papers.  As one of the most important events in 20th Century American History, it’s been a story Speilberg felt deserved a big screen treatment.  On election night 2016 when Donald Trump was elected President of the United States, though, due to Trump’s constant attack on the American press and by extension the First Amendment of the American Bill of Rights it went from a story he wanted to make to a story that needed to be told so the American public could be alerted to the purpose of the American press and the dangers of an Executive Branch which portrays it as an enemy.

The film he came up with in that year is The Post.  It’s a straightforward telling of the story behind The Pentagon Papers and particularly The Washington Post’s role in their publishing.  The Washington Post was a third-rate newspaper in the early 1970s, and the paper’s owner had committed suicide not long before the film’s events leaving his wife, and the daughter of the paper’s founder, in charge.  That woman was Kay Graham (Meryl Streep), and while The Washington Post had nowhere near the prestige of a New York Times or a Boston Globe at the time, it was still unusual for a woman to hold a position that lofty for any length of time.   Spielberg starts the story with someone working at the Department of Defense making the decision to get top secret documents showing that the US government has been lying to the public for decades about the Vietnam War to the New York Times for publication.  When the New York Times publishes just the first few pages of the Pentagon Papers, the White House orders them to cease publishing anything more on the leaked documents or face legal consequences.   Soon afterward, editor in chief of The Washington Post Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks) finds himself in possession of more of The Pentagon Papers and he and Kay have to make the choice whether to publish and risk going to prison for doing so.


The Post is far from the most impressive film of the year, the most impressive element of its creation is the fact that it took just barely more than a year to create from germination of the idea to its being projected on screens, but it is a film very obviously made by seasoned professionals.  The cast are all excellent, but the most stand out performance is definitely Meryl Streeps’.  She gives us a Kay Graham who is very much a woman right out of her time and place.  She acts as a woman who loves running a newspaper, who realizes the power she has, but also realizes that she cannot alienate the powerful men in her life.  She’s not afraid to make difficult decisions, but it almost seems as if she’s seeking the permission and blessing of those around her whenever she does, and I like that authenticity to the time period in her portrayal.  As to the rest, Bruce Greenwood gives an excellent Robert McNamara impersonation, Bob Odenkirk continues to show that he’s more than just a good comedian, and if anyone is slightly miscast here it would have to be Tom Hanks, who is just too much of his normal nice guy persona to really sell the fact that he’s the template of the modern hard-nosed editor stereotype who is Ben Bradlee.

Aside from the acting, the rest of the production is what we’ve come to rely on from Stephen Spielberg, but will certainly never be considered one of the most impressive in his catalog.  The art direction and cinematography are both by the book but still appealing.  The script is straightforward, but still with snappy dialogue, excellent focus, and great pacing.  The most prominent element of the screenplay, though, is its razor-sharp focus.  There are no subplots in The Post to speak of, other than relationships which have a direct connection to how The Pentagon Papers’ story plays out, and even the dialogue is almost entirely focused on the unfolding story save for a handful of jokes here and there to keep things from getting too intense.


So, The Post is a well-made film, but wouldn’t be truly notable outside Streep’s performance if it weren’t for the film’s purpose.  Spielberg had seen the parallels between Nixon’s attacks on the press and Trump’s attacks during his campaign.  We now know those attacks have continued proving Spielberg’s (and a large chunk of the world’s population) forboding correct so Spielberg used this story to show the ability and purpose of the press to speak truth to power.   Even if Trump hadn’t shown himself to be so adversarial to a free press as he was when campaigning, it’s still an important lesson for the American public.  Since he has, it’s not only an important lesson but one with parallels to one of the darkest times in American political history.

It’s easy to compare The Post to the Best Picture winner for 2015 Spotlight.  Both are films about the power of the press which rely on a taut script and powerful performances for their impact, the major difference being The Post is about abuse of political power while Spotlight centers on abuse of power by the church.  The Post is not quite the film Spotlight was – it doesn’t have the same level of intricacy in plot and character – but that doesn’t mean that its tight focus doesn’t have merit or purpose.


Final verdict:  The Post is a film that relies heavily on the talent and experience of its cast and crew.  The fact that a film of this caliber could be put together so quickly is a true testament to those involved, particularly Meryl Streep who gives us a performance worthy of award mention in a year filled with incredible performances by strong woman leads.   Also worthy of mention is the screenplay by Liz Hannah and Josh Singer due to its incredible ability to teach while it entertains.  The Post is not the most entertaining, most nuanced, nor the most artistic film of the year, but it is the most important.

Loving (Nichols; 2016)

Racism is one of Hollywood’s favorite subjects to explore, especially come Oscar time, but Hollywood is also a world in which most of those involved in the producing of such films aren’t subject to racism themselves, and so they approach the topic in a hamfisted, overly simplistic manner far too often.  We’re sent the message that racism is really bad, something nearly everyone already knows, and that if we could just see things from another point of view we’d be completely cured.  Not every movie does this, of course, occasionally you do get a truly nuanced look at the subject, but those nuanced looks rarely win Oscars nor acclaim and instead Hollywood and critics alike award those who give us the obvious and borderline childish “racism is bad” message and pat themselves on the back for another job well done.

Loving is the story of Mildred and Richard Loving (Ruth Negga and Joel Edgerton respectively) an interracial couple living in rural Virginia who break state law when they go up to Washington D.C. to get married then return home to live.  Most biographies overemphasize and occasionally downright falsify dramatic events in the lives of their subjects for the purpose of making an entertaining film, but that doesn’t seem to be the case here.  In Loving we get a very straightforward look at the lives of Richard and Mildred.  Nothing appears to be exaggerated for effect as we are shown how their day to day lives are impacted simply because the two people trying to live simplistically aren’t being allowed to by a very few select people.  Most of what we see is a couple who love each other trying to raise a family while living in poverty, with that routine occasionally, and only very occasionally, being attacked by those who find their lifestyle offensive.  It’s in this simplicity and matter-of-factness that Loving finds its power.


They won’t even pose for me.  Jerks.

You would think that in a film like Loving, racial slurs would be par for the course, but Nichols (the writer and director) is too smart to fall into that all too easy to fall into trap.  Not once during the film’s entire running time is a racial epithet hurled from one character to another, Nichols gets that the vast majority of people do not consider themselves racist nor hateful, and that most people know that calling someone a name is frowned upon, childish, and just makes you look bad, and that this was true even in the 50’s and 60’s when segregation still existed.  Could racists get away with more then than now?  Absolutely.  But Nichols realizes that those who truly have a vested interest in dividing us through making us care about race are smart enough to not outwardly show their hatred and instead justify making laws to make us hate one another.  Rather than screaming prejudiced insults, the characters in Loving who have a vested interest in keeping segregation laws alive use religion, legal precedent, and spurious logic to make their case.

The performances in Loving are also absolutely believable across the board.  We really believe that Richard and Mildred just want to be treated as any other couple and just want to be left alone to raise their family.  We don’t get monologues or grandstanding, no grand speeches on how they are people just like everyone else.  We just get two very low key, soft spoken characters whom can be easily identified with because they are people we know if they aren’t ourselves.  The people surrounding the Lovings are also well acted for the most part, though the sheriff’s deputy does get a little too close to a glowering Southern lawman stereotype for my comfort, and those actors playing family members in particular make you forget you are watching a fictionalized drama rather than a documentary at times.


What?  We pose like this all the time in reality.

Loving manages to do what most films focusing on racism miss.  The simplicity needs to be in the characters and story, not in the message.   Hatred rarely takes on the form of gritted teeth and nasty words, that’s just the hatred we notice.  Prejudice is at its most insidious when it seems natural, when its justified by the rules and customs we live by, and prejudice rarely upends the lives of those who live large and flamboyantly, it’s those just trying to get by day to day that have to fight it more often.  Loving not only gets that, it also gets it across to us.  The Lovings just want the right to live together as a married couple like any other married couple, they don’t want to call attention to themselves, and they don’t see how they are doing anything wrong that will affect anyone else.  The message isn’t groundbreaking, it doesn’t need to be, but it needs to be told in a way we can not only relate to, but in which we can see ourselves, and that is what Loving does brilliantly.

Rating:  7.8 out of 10