The Post (2017) (1 Viewer)

[Robert Crawford]

There was some lip service paid to some of this. Yes, Streep was conflicted due to her personal relationship to McNamara, but she wasn't a journalist. It was pointed out that Hanks's character may not have had the same zeal toward his "duty" when Kennedy was president. But despite that, I think the stance of the movie was pretty clear, which is fine, but I might have have found it more interesting had the movie had taken more of a questioning stance. Does the press sometimes go too far? Is there bias in the press? Does the press have an obligation to sometimes not report what they know?

The movie seems to take the stance that the press deserves the ultimate backstage pass to anything they want. Early in the movie the Post somewhat outraged when one of their reports is denied press credentials to the wedding of Nixon's daughter because that same reporter previously crashed the reception of a previous Nixon's daughter wedding. Can you really blame Nixon for that? If you're the press and cross someone, don't be surprised if they're not friendly to you.

When we watch movies, we watch them through our own personal prism and perspective which causes us to interpret movies in different ways. I think that applies to why you and I are seeing this film differently so I'll leave it at that. In a few days, I'm going to see this film again and I'll try to pay closer attention to what you noted and to verify whether my film interpretation is correct or not.

As to the questions about the media and their responsibilities and standards , it reminds me of Wilford Brimley's line of dialogue from the film "Absence of Malice" which has stayed in my memory bank for over 35 years.

You know and I know that we can't tell you what to print or what not to.

We hope the press will act responsibly, - but when you don't, there ain't a lot we can do about it.

We can't have people going around leaking stuff for their own reasons.

It ain't legal. And worse than that, by God, it ain't right.

 

[Hollywoodaholic]

As someone who worked as a journalist doing features and some investigative reporting for several newspapers, I can report that if there is any 'bias' perceived by readers, it's usually a byproduct of the writer being better-informed - of having access to information the public doesn't, or merely just doing the research the public may not have the time or inclination for. If we know a mayor (or a president) is crooked and on the take from our investigation, but we're held to extremely strict standards and potential libel laws, you go to print with only those facts your sources will openly back, but you know so much more about the story than you can print. That does affect the perception of the story - and why it seems one-sided. The balance is offset by all the negative stuff the public is not yet privy to, but eventually (or usually) will come out with further sources and back up.

Also, every reporter wants to get a 'scoop,' to uncover or reveal something previously unknown to the public. Their motivation may be for glory or a Pulitzer, or simply doing their job following a story as deep as it goes. And a good scoop knows no bias - a reporter usually wants it no matter where or who it applies to.

But there is also a feeding frenzy phenomenon when you have a story of this magnitude, where one reporter gets a lead or reveal that shows there is way way more in this can of worms, and everyone wants to get their teeth in it a bit.

I don't know if any of this is 'news' to anyone, but just passing along some thoughts. I grew up reading The Washington Post and believe it found itself with this and the Watergate investigations and most every reporter on that paper since feels a deep dedication to truth-seeking and transparency AND patriotism.

 

[TonyD]

I love WarHorse too..

Hope to have time to see The Post tomorrow with my MP

 

[WillG]

And a good scoop knows no bias - a reporter usually wants it no matter where or who it applies to.

I think that may be debatable. For example, NBC alledgedly intitally stonewalled what became the biggest story of 2017 (Ronan Farrow's Weinstein expose and its aftermath). I don't necessarily know if bias was the reason (a theory is that NBC was well aware of Matt Lauer's shenanigans and didn't want to attract attention to him) but whatever the reason there are instances of not pursuing a story.

I don't know if any of this is 'news' to anyone, but just passing along some thoughts. I grew up reading The Washington Post and believe it found itself with this and the Watergate investigations and most every reporter on that paper since feels a deep dedication to truth-seeking and transparency AND patriotism.

I don't doubt that any good reporter sincerely believes that they're seeking the truth. But no one is free from bias and I guess that can dictate what one sees as truth. I guess maybe an example of this was the Dan Rather George Bush Air Force papers incident. Rather rushed to break these papers that was supposedly damaging to Bush, apparently without doing even some basic verification of those documents as they were easily identified as fake by experts. And it ended up costing Rather his job.

 

[Doug Wallen]

Watched it this Saturday and found it a very good film. My wife does not normally like fact based "political' movies and she even liked this one. The conflict that Graham experienced is what interested her as well as some perennial journalistic questions that need to be answered again (the Bradlee confession of going easy on Kennedy).

 

[Patrick Sun]

I was it was middling for a Spielberg movie.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I was it was middling for a Spielberg movie.

Wow!

 

[Hollywoodaholic]

Copy editor! Proofreader!

 

[Hollywoodaholic]

I think that may be debatable. For example, NBC alledgedly intitally stonewalled what became the biggest story of 2017 (Ronan Farrow's Weinstein expose and its aftermath). I don't necessarily know if bias was the reason (a theory is that NBC was well aware of Matt Lauer's shenanigans and didn't want to attract attention to him) but whatever the reason there are instances of not pursuing a story.

You're right , corporate suppression or interests sometimes get in the way. I guess I was speaking more idealistically from the low point of the totem pole being the reporter trying to do his or her job, and why they got into journalism in the first place (it ain't the money, for sure, though I'm thinking print here, not television).

I don't doubt that any good reporter sincerely believes that they're seeking the truth. But no one is free from bias and I guess that can dictate what one sees as truth. I guess maybe an example of this was the Dan Rather George Bush Air Force papers incident. Rather rushed to break these papers that was supposedly damaging to Bush, apparently without doing even some basic verification of those documents as they were easily identified as fake by experts. And it ended up costing Rather his job.

That incident and outcome still bugs me to this day. The story was true and has been corroborated by other sources since, but Rather did rush to air with a questionable document that had not been fully vetted and got crucified for it. But put that in context and it tells you everything about who's held to a higher standard.... the press. A president... let's just say Nixon to be safe... can blow whatever smoke and lies he wants up everyone's ass and somehow get away with it, but if the fourth estate gets just one detail wrong, politicians and partisans point screaming. But that's how it should be. Papers like the Post, featuring real journalism, do hold themselves to that higher standard as an essential their job. Others, obviously don't.

 

[WillG]

That incident and outcome still bugs me to this day. The story was true and has been corroborated by other sources since, but Rather did rush to air with a questionable document that had not been fully vetted and got crucified for it. But put that in context and it tells you everything about who's held to a higher standard.... the press. A president... let's just say Nixon to be safe... can blow whatever smoke and lies he wants up everyone's ass and somehow get away with it, but if the fourth estate gets just one detail wrong, politicians and partisans point screaming. But that's how it should be. Papers like the Post, featuring real journalism, do hold themselves to that higher standard as an essential their job. Others, obviously don't.

Hey, you might want to fix your post. Looks like you missed a quote tag as it appears that some of your response is contained in the quote.

 

[Hollywoodaholic]

Thanks WillG, done.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

In this prequel to "All The President's Men," director Steven Spielberg takes the reins from the late Alan J. Pakula and conceives a credible origin story for how the Post came to prominence. Though he's no Jason Robards, Tom Hanks is able to step into the role of Ben Bradlee and offer a portrayal that seems softer, yet shows an intensity that we can believe will one day grow into the fire that Robards exhibits in the original film. The film is generally good, though some viewers may find too many similarities between the two films and wish that Spielberg had pursued a more original story. In particular, the ending shots which tie this film directly into the opening of the original film may seem a loving homage to some, but may play as "one coincidence too many" for a more discerning audience.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Kidding aside, I thought "The Post" was a phenomenal picture.

This probably outs me as the "weird kid" but I've always been fascinated by Nixon and that era of our government and politics. When I was 14, I did a year-long study on Nixon, specifically related to Watergate, abuse of power/public lies, and the role of journalism, and the Post. So although the Pentagon Papers weren't my primary area of studying, I've been familiar with the story since I learned about it then. I remain fascinated by that period in our history, so The Post was of immediate interest to me when it was announced.

The film did not disappoint in any way. It's a real thrill when you can watch a movie where you know exactly what's going to happen, and yet still find yourself at the edge of your seat. I thought Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks were both fantastic, disappearing into their parts as much as movie stars as known as they are can. The supporting cast was all phenomenal, including a great performance Bob Odenkirk.

I appreciated how the film handled its many themes and coverage of the different events. This is a film that works well on multiple levels and should play well to a variety of audiences. Streep's arc, playing a woman finding her voice for the first time in an industry that had been historically all male, was exciting to watch. Hanks' arc, wanting to chase the story, is no less thrilling.

I really enjoyed The Post and would recommend it highly, especially to those who are fans of journalism and political history.

 

[mattCR]

I think that may be debatable. For example, NBC alledgedly intitally stonewalled what became the biggest story of 2017 (Ronan Farrow's Weinstein expose and its aftermath). I don't necessarily know if bias was the reason (a theory is that NBC was well aware of Matt Lauer's shenanigans and didn't want to attract attention to him) but whatever the reason there are instances of not pursuing a story..

So, see, now this is where reader perspective comes in. Ronan's story regarding Weinstein came long, long after other stories which really started the #MeToo... like Cosby drugging people, Bill O'Reilly settling dozens of harassment cases with a contract at Fox, or when radio show hosts illegally smuggled drugs to the point they made themselves deaf and then lied about it

Bias is often seen by those who look at it, and they rarely see the other side of it. I think there are bias nature that goes into everything, but for the most part, we are fortunate to have some really spot on journalism in america in comparison to a lot of the rest of the world; to me, the big three (NYT/WP/NYT) and then the next tier (DMN, Christian Science Monitor, Economist) do a really darn good job of reporting as best they can.

Movies like this remind us how tricky that can be.

 

[Carabimero]

It's playing in over 2800 theaters! I don't understand why it's not playing in LA???? I checked my area of Michigan and it's playing in just about every movie theater complex in mid-Michigan.

It's playing widely here now. I am still confounded by the delay. But I saw it tonight and man I really liked it. It got louder applause at the end than any movie I have seen in a long time, by far.

Was this always in Spielberg's development plans or did this come about now because of the political climate? I thought READY PLAYER ONE was his next movie. Whatever the case, I am glad it wasn't because this was a gem. Perfect for today's climate--and I predict this movie will still be relevant in a hundred years.

 

[Hollywoodaholic]

I've read interviews with Spielberg where he definitely confirms he slipped this production in his schedule to fast track deliberately.

 

[Robert Crawford]

It's playing widely here now. I am still confounded by the delay. But I saw it tonight and man I really liked it. It got louder applause at the end than any movie I have seen in a long time, by far.

Was this always in Spielberg's development plans or did this come about now because of the political climate? I thought READY PLAYER ONE was his next movie. Whatever the case, I am glad it wasn't because this was a gem. Perfect for today's climate--and I predict perfect for the deep dark future, too.

Let's just say the first screen play was written and purchased by one of the film's producer not named Spielberg in late 2016. When a problem halted the filming of another film project, it was announced in March, 2017 that Spielberg was going to direct the movie and after another draft of the script, filming began in May, 2017 and was completed over the summer. So he filmed this movie during the post production for Ready Player One. Something he has done beforehand.

Pretty good resemblance by Streep and Hanks to the real Graham and Bradlee.

 

[WillG]

Let's just say the first screen play was written and purchased by one of the film's producer not named Spielberg in late 2016.

I was wondering why Pascal's name was on the movie

 

[Greg.K]

the big three (NYT/WP/NYT)

Um...

 

[Mark Booth]

We went to see 'The Post' today. Excellent film. 4.5 out of 5 from me.

Mark

 

[mattCR]

Um...

Hah! Should have been NYT/WP/FTL

Boy you can tell I'm battling a cold

 

[Robert Crawford]

Hah! Should have been NYT/WP/FTL

Boy you can tell I'm battling a cold

Which paper is FTL?

 

[TonyD]

Well.
Saw it.

Was good.
But.

Was just too clean.

There was a scene in Hanks house,
Hanks was walking from one room to another and everyone else was walking past him.
The entire group was walking towards another person.
All talking at once and waving their arms and papers at the other guy who was walking back from them.
Just looked too staged, too unnatural.
Looked like acting, look at this scene, these people are ACTING.

That was the whole movie for me.

3/5 stars but too much like I was watching a production and couldn’t get immersed into it and that one scene really took me out of the movie.

 

[mattCR]

FTL is Financial Times of London. Maybe some of the best writing in the world.