The Post (2017) (1 Viewer)

[Hollywoodaholic]

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

I prefer The Guardian. Maybe that's because it's open online without subscription. But I love the writing, as well, and the in-depth profiles.

https://www.theguardian.com/us

 

[Hollywoodaholic]

Interview with Spielberg on The Post:

https://www.theguardian.com/film/20...e-the-post-was-because-of-this-administration

The director first read the script for The Post just 11 months ago, deciding instantly that he wanted to make this story of a Republican president at war with the press – and he wanted to make it right now, assembling screenwriters, crew and A-list stars (including Streep and Hanks making their first film together) in a fraction of the usual time.

“The level of urgency to make the movie was because of the current climate of this administration, bombarding the press and labeling the truth as fake if it suited them,” Spielberg tells me, recalling the sense of offence he felt at documented, provable events being branded fake news. “I deeply resented the hashtag ‘alternative facts’, because I’m a believer in only one truth, which is the objective truth.”

 

[Robert Crawford]

Saw it earlier. Technically well done and it held my attention. That being said, it did seem awfully sanctimonious at times. The free press is certianly important but the movie makes it seem like they're the only line between order and complete Armageddon. The movie seemed to be a pretty big pile on of Nixon as well, even though he was probably less responsible for the Vietnam war than any other president (Though I get that wasn't really the charge). The Washington Post as depicted had a clear bias against Nixon (in fairness though, this was probably very true to real life, but it doesn't lend to the idea that the press is totally objective).

Frankly though, I haven't been very enamored with the mainstream media for many years now. And in a way, I sort of blame stories like this, and everyone wanting to be the next Woodward and Bernstein.

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.

Spoiler Warning to those that haven't seen this film!


I watched it a second time today fully cognizant of your comments towards the film. I paid specific attention to the dialogue and I can say I think for the most part I can't agree with your opinion. Regarding the denied press credentials for the wedding of Nixon's daughter. Nixon didn't want that particular reporter at that wedding and requested another Post writer be assigned to cover the wedding. Bradlee objected because he didn't want the United States President telling them how to cover the news. That's exactly what he told Mrs. Graham when they meet for breakfast and when they had a minor argument as Bradlee told her to stop sticking her finger in his eye. In short, let him do his job without interference from his boss.

Secondly, both Graham and Bradlee were clearly conflicted when it comes to reporting the news and being friends with those in government power. Bradlee did state that he didn't do his job when it came to JFK because he didn't think of him as a source, but as a friend. He stated that was a mistake! The same with Graham, when it came to Johnson, McNamara and to a certain extent JFK. You can't be close personal friends to those you are charge with holding accountable for their actions when it comes to keeping the general public informed and reporting the news. Furthermore, as Graham stated they're not perfect, they make mistakes, but, they have to keep working on getting it right. IMO, it's called being professional and letting the facts tell the story. Sure, some bias will bleed through because it's human beings doing the reporting, but if the facts are correct then that's what the public needs to see and judge for themselves.

Thirdly, as Bradlee stated in the film, the free press is a check on the government's power, otherwise, who would hold them accountable, if they abuse their power or simply make mistakes in exercising their governmental duties? Furthermore, the Supreme Court's decision agreed with that position in their written majority opinion in which it states that the free press serves the governed, not the governors. The Founding Fathers wrote the First Amendment because of the tyranny they experienced with King George.

Fourthly, the film details that Truman and Eisenhower blazed the path on Vietnam, but that Kennedy, Johnson and McNamara mislead the country about the Vietnam War and actually escalated the war. That some of them knew as early as 1965, that they couldn't win this war. Nixon just followed the same policies as his predecessors because he was just like the rest of them in which he didn't want to lose a war during his watch.

Lastly, the film's real issues with Nixon wasn't the war so much, but that he viewed the press as his enemy and tried to suppress and censor it . As McNamara stated in the film, when Graham confronted McNamara and he warned her that Bobby Kennedy and LBJ were tough, but that Nixon was worse because his mission and instinct is to destroy his enemies like the Washington Post and that he's surrounded by a lot of bad guys which history proves him to be right about them because of their subsequent actions in which many of them went to prison for and in Nixon's case, forced to resign the presidency.

 

[WillG]

Spoiler Warning to those that haven't seen this film!


I watched it a second time today fully cognizant of your comments towards the film. I paid specific attention to the dialogue and I can say I think for the most part I can't agree with your opinion. Regarding the denied press credentials for the wedding of Nixon's daughter. Nixon didn't want that particular reporter at that wedding and requested another Post writer be assigned to cover the wedding. Bradlee objected because he didn't want the United States President telling them how to cover the news. That's exactly what he told Mrs. Graham when they meet for breakfast and when they had a minor argument as Bradlee told her to stop sticking her finger in his eye. In short, let him do his job without interference from his boss.

Secondly, both Graham and Bradlee were clearly conflicted when it comes to reporting the news and being friends with those in government power. Bradlee did state that he didn't do his job when it came to JFK because he didn't think of him as a source, but as a friend. He stated that was a mistake! The same with Graham, when it came to Johnson, McNamara and to a certain extent JFK. You can't be close personal friends to those you are charge with holding accountable for their actions when it comes to keeping the general public informed and reporting the news. Furthermore, as Graham stated they're not perfect, they make mistakes, but, they have to keep working on getting it right. IMO, it's called being professional and letting the facts tell the story. Sure, some bias will bleed through because it's human beings doing the reporting, but if the facts are correct then that's what the public needs to see and judge for themselves.

Thirdly, as Bradlee stated in the film, the free press is a check on the government's power, otherwise, who would hold them accountable, if they abuse their power or simply make mistakes in exercising their governmental duties? Furthermore, the Supreme Court's decision agreed with that position in their written majority opinion in which it states that the free press serves the governed, not the governors. The Founding Fathers wrote the First Amendment because of the tyranny they experienced with King George.

Fourthly, the film details that Truman and Eisenhower blazed the path on Vietnam, but that Kennedy, Johnson and McNamara mislead the country about the Vietnam War and actually escalated the war. That some of them knew as early as 1965, that they couldn't win this war. Nixon just followed the same policies as his predecessors because he was just like the rest of them in which he didn't want to lose a war during his watch.

Lastly, the film's real issues with Nixon wasn't the war so much, but that he viewed the press as his enemy and tried to suppress and censor it . As McNamara stated in the film, when Graham confronted McNamara and he warned her that Bobby Kennedy and LBJ were tough, but that Nixon was worse because his mission and instinct is to destroy his enemies like the Washington Post and that he's surrounded by a lot of bad guys which history proves him to be right about them because of their subsequent actions in which many of them went to prison for and in Nixon's case, forced to resign the presidency.

I do intend to reply to this in more detail...just have been getting sidetracked.

But kind of a short version for now. I think some of my reticence to embrace this film has to do to a place I'm in these days where I've developed a rather cynical view of the press/MSM. Just yesterday in the NY Post I read an op-ed that kind of lends credence to some of my frustrations. I'd give the link, but since the piece is contextualized around a certian somebody who invokes strong feelings in some people, I'll refrain. I'd be happy to PM if you're interested.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I do intend to reply to this in more detail...just have been getting sidetracked.

But kind of a short version for now. I think some of my reticence to embrace this film has to do to a place I'm in these days where I've developed a rather cynical view of the press/MSM. Just yesterday in the NY Post I read an op-ed that kind of lends credence to some of my frustrations. I'd give the link, but since the piece is contextualized around a certian somebody who invokes strong feelings in some people, I'll refrain. I'd be happy to PM if you're interested.

When I watched this film a second time, I did so from not my perspective, but did so by trying to walk in the shoes of those that don't believe the press/media are important and serve a purpose for our form of government and society. Even more so, I tried to watch this film a second time from a perspective in which I think bias has over taken the media's reporting of the facts and specifically the whether this film skewed it against Nixon. The film clearly blames Kennedy and Johnson for lying and escalating the Vietnam War and how personal relationships might have affected reporting about the Vietnam War. It blames Nixon for trying to censor the press because he viewed them as his enemies and he was continuing the same war policies because he wanted to end the war on his terms. Furthermore, there are audio tapes made by Nixon on just about every discussion he had in the Oval Office whether in person or on the phone. The film used excerpts of those audio tapes.

As to the NYP, well, if you're going to accuse the MSM media of being bias then surely the NYP which I read every day, since I was a little kid growing up in the NYC Metro area is guilty too, but from a different political slate. Great sports section though.

 

[Hollywoodaholic]

The NYP doesn't even attempt to be non-biased, as it's owned by Rupert Murdoch and basically is propaganda tool for his agenda and is just slightly less hysterical than the National Enquirer.

 

[WillG]

The NYP doesn't even attempt to be non-biased, as it's owned by Rupert Murdoch and basically is propaganda tool for his agenda and is just slightly less hysterical than the National Enquirer.

You think the NYP is biased, Try reading the NY Daily News.

 

[Robert Crawford]

You think the NYP, is biased, Try reading the NY Daily News.

It wasn’t too long ago that the NYDN was on the same side as the NYP in that regard.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I wouldn't consider either to be a legitimate journalistic publication.

 

[Hollywoodaholic]

They're both tabloids with a 'gotcha' headline mentality but rarely any deep journalistic integrity. Old school versions of 'Click-bait' impulsive buy street tabloids.

 

[Hollywoodaholic]

I take it back, the NYP is 100% pure great journalism. They're reporting the refs fixed the game for the Patriots penalizing the Jags 98 yards to the Patriots' 10 yards of penalty, and making some other key calls that denied the Jags crucial first downs. Now that's one conspiracy I can get behind. (where's the emoji wearing a tin foil hat?)

 

[WillG]

They're both tabloids with a 'gotcha' headline mentality but rarely any deep journalistic integrity. Old school versions of 'Click-bait' impulsive buy street tabloids.

To be fair, the NYP often does have great/hilarious headlines.

 

[WillG]

Spoiler Warning to those that haven't seen this film!

Regarding the denied press credentials for the wedding of Nixon's daughter. Nixon didn't want that particular reporter at that wedding and requested another Post writer be assigned to cover the wedding. Bradlee objected because he didn't want the United States President telling them how to cover the news. That's exactly what he told Mrs. Graham when they meet for breakfast and when they had a minor argument as Bradlee told her to stop sticking her finger in his eye. In short, let him do his job without interference from his boss.

This was the scene that partially lead to my "sanctimonious" comment. Bradlee is indignant because Nixon is denying press creditials to a reporter that previously broke protocol. Now from the way I see it, when it comes to a private affair such as a wedding, Nixon, despite being the president is really under no obligation to invite the press in at all let alone a reporter that previously broke trust. That's not a first amendment issue. Nixon is not telling anyone how to cover the news, but just deciding who's invited, which in that case I have to think he was within his rights to do. And yeah he's not even shutting out the press as a whole. If it sounds unpopular, so be it, but I'll side with Nixon on that one.

Secondly, both Graham and Bradlee were clearly conflicted when it comes to reporting the news and being friends with those in government power. Bradlee did state that he didn't do his job when it came to JFK because he didn't think of him as a source, but as a friend. He stated that was a mistake!

Honestly, I must of missed that part. I remember when Streep accused Hanks of that, but I don't remember Hanks admitting to it.

Furthermore, as Graham stated they're not perfect, they make mistakes, but, they have to keep working on getting it right.

Yes, I remember that part. It's part of the lip service I mentioned.

but if the facts are correct then that's what the public needs to see and judge for themselves.

One of the criticisms I have with the moden MSM is that I've come to believe that there's a lot of distortion of the truth and even flat out incorrect reporting (partially in despartion to be the first to get information out).

Thirdly, as Bradlee stated in the film, the free press is a check on the government's power, otherwise, who would hold them accountable

But then who watches the watchmen? I agree that the free press is very important, but if the press is the ultimate check of power, what happenes if the press starts acting irresponsibly? (and some would argue that it has)

Furthermore, the Supreme Court's decision agreed with that position in their written majority opinion in which it states that the free press serves the governed, not the governors.

True, but it's noteworthy that the SCOTUS decision wasn't unanimous. I would have been interested to also hear what the 3 opposing justices had to say. I guess the question I have was that in absence of the eventual SCOTUS decision, was Nixon within his rights to call for a press injunction of the publication of stolen, top secret material?

Fourthly, the film details that Truman and Eisenhower blazed the path on Vietnam, but that Kennedy, Johnson and McNamara mislead the country about the Vietnam War and actually escalated the war. That some of them knew as early as 1965, that they couldn't win this war. Nixon just followed the same policies as his predecessors because he was just like the rest of them in which he didn't want to lose a war during his watch.

When I first watched I took some issue that Nixon was clearly being made out to be the villain when he was least responsible for the damning info in the Pentagon Papers. One could argue that he was just left holding the bag of Eisenhower, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson. And didn't Nixon end up ending the War?

I get with what we know now, it's hard to have an objective view of Pre-Watergate Nixon. But it should be noted that prior to Watergate, AFAIR he was a pretty popular president.

As to the NYP, well, if you're going to accuse the MSM media of being bias then surely the NYP which I read every day, since I was a little kid growing up in the NYC Metro area is guilty too, but from a different political slate. Great sports section though.

The NYP is right leaning to be sure, but I do find them to be far more moderate than some of their other counterparts such as the NYDN.

 

[Robert Crawford]

This was the scene that partially lead to my "sanctimonious" comment. Bradlee is indignant because Nixon is denying press creditials to a reporter that previously broke protocol. Now from the way I see it, when it comes to a private affair such as a wedding, Nixon, despite being the president is really under no obligation to invite the press in at all let alone a reporter that previously broke trust. That's not a first amendment issue. Nixon is not telling anyone how to cover the news, but just deciding who's invited, which in that case I have to think he was within his rights to do. And yeah he's not even shutting out the press as a whole. If it sounds unpopular, so be it, but I'll side with Nixon on that one.


Honestly, I must of missed that part. I remember when Streep accused Hanks of that, but I don't remember Hanks admitting to it.



Yes, I remember that part. It's part of the lip service I mentioned.



One of the criticisms I have with the moden MSM is that I've come to believe that there's a lot of distortion of the truth and even flat out incorrect reporting (partially in despartion to be the first to get information out).



But then who watches the watchmen? I agree that the free press is very important, but if the press is the ultimate check of power, what happenes if the press starts acting irresponsibly? (and some would argue that it has)



True, but it's noteworthy that the SCOTUS decision wasn't unanimous. I would have been interested to also hear what the 3 opposing justices had to say. I guess the question I have was that in absence of the eventual SCOTUS decision, was Nixon within his rights to call for a press injunction of the publication of stolen, top secret material?



When I first watched I took some issue that Nixon was clearly being made out to be the villain when he was least responsible for the damning info in the Pentagon Papers. One could argue that he was just left holding the bag of Eisenhower, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson. And didn't Nixon end up ending the War?

I get with what we know now, it's hard to have an objective view of Pre-Watergate Nixon. But it should be noted that prior to Watergate, AFAIR he was a pretty popular president.



The NYP is right leaning to be sure, but I do find them to be far more moderate than some of their other counterparts such as the NYDN.

Well, I'm not going to prolong the argument, but will say that I disagree with you on some of your points and leave it at that. However, I must say your comment about the NYP being moderate compared to the NYDN kind of humorous.

 

[WillG]

Well, I'm not going to prolong the argument, but will say that I disagree with you on some of your points and leave it at that.

Fair enough. I admit that some of my views here come from a place of cynicism and fatigue of the press. So I certainly don't expect everyone to agree with me.

However, I must say your comment about the NYP being moderate compared to the NYDN kind of humorous.

Just calling it as I see it. I get that the NYP is conservative leaning but I find the the NYDN is much more sharply committed to the liberal side. Let's face it, if you're running a metro paper out of NYC, even if you are Rupert Murdoch, good luck being able to fully staff it with all conservative leaning writers/reporters.

 

[Hollywoodaholic]

Please give Nixon zero credit for 'ending the Vietnam War.' He ran nod nod wink wink as if that were part of his intent in the 68' election when Bobby Kennedy and Humphrey were first and ultimate opponent running on that agenda, and then did nothing during that term except increase bombing, and going into Cambodia.

So when '72 came around facing McGovern, he doubled down on the nod nod wink wink, but it was ultimately Watergate and complete loss of public support (and Cronkite) that forced peace talks. Listen to some of the recordings with Kissinger and you realize that if they had their desired way, they just would have continued to throw more bodies and bombs at it.

 

[Mike Frezon]

My affinity for newspaper movies goes back to my childhood, long before I ever heard of the word "Watergate". Some of those early films I watched in my childhood were Five Star Final, Deadline U.S.A., His Girl Friday and Calling Northside 777. A few years later while in high school back in the early 1970's, I used to go to my school library and read the NYT every single school day. One news story that fascinated me during those times was the publishing of The Pentagon Papers. Everyday, I would read those published stories and the legal battle that took place over them. I had a personal interest because I had an older brother that served two tours in Vietnam, who luckily survived those two years over there.

When I found out this movie was about the Washington Post involvement in this controversy, I was naturally concern that the NYT wouldn't get the proper credit for being the first newspaper to publish The Pentagon Papers. I'm very happy to say that my concerns were resolved very satisfactorily.

I was one of only four people in my 9:40 p.m. showing. This film captivated my attention and I didn't once look at my phone to see what time was it. The film was well written and directed. Furthermore, it had splendid performances from not only Streep and Hanks, but all of the supporting actors. I'm not a big Streep fan. I don't hate her like some other people hate certain actors because it's not my thing to personalize my feelings towards actors. I just wasn't a fan of many of her movies and especially the ones in which she had some kind of accent. I'm not saying they weren't good films, but some of them weren't my cup of tea. After saying that, I must say she is a great actress and she was wonderful in this film. She really brought to life, Kay Graham and her journey from being a stay-at-home wife/mother to a widow in which circumstances thrust her into running the family business. A business that isn't for the meek in any way. This film isn't just about the fight over The Pentagon Papers, but about some issues that are still being fought today, more than 46 years later. I actually had tears in my eyes the last 5-10 minutes of the film. I walked out of the theater tonight, very proud to be an American.

Newspapers and media aren't right all the time and they make their share of mistakes. However, this film illustrates without a doubt, that they are a necessary ingredient in maintaining our system of government in order to protect the people and our values. I give this film 5 on the basis of a 1-5 grading system with 5 being the best grade. I used my Movie Pass tonight and I'm going to use it again to revisit this film in the coming days.

I knew when I read Robert's review of The Post that I was going to like it--a lot.

I agree with nearly everything he said. The supporting cast was tremendous. And I really liked Hanks as Ben Bradlee. And this is about the only thing on which I disagree. Honestly, when I heard that Meryl Street]p was cast as Katherine Graham I thought it was inspired casting...but I totally thought she ended up as a square peg in a round hole. I can't put my finger exactly on the reason why, but I really wish they had gotten someone else for the part.

Bob Odenkirk was especially terrific. And, I must admit I didn't even recognize Bruce Greenwood as Robert McNamara. I was totally surprised when the credits rolled.

It's a subject (freedom of the press and the importance of a free press in our country) that will ever be timely.

 

[Mark-P]

...Honestly, when I heard that Meryl Street]p was cast as Katherine Graham I thought it was inspired casting...but I totally thought she ended up as a square peg in a round hole. I can't put my finger exactly on the reason why, but I really wish they had gotten someone else for the part...

And yet she was the only actor who got an Oscar nomination for the film. 'Splain that, Mikey.

 

[Patrick Sun]

When has she not been nominated for a Best Actress Oscar in the last 10 years when qualified with a film coming out in the last decade? (Sarcasm)

 

[Robert Crawford]

When has she not been nominated for a Best Actress Oscar in the last 10 years when qualified with a film coming out in the last decade? (Sarcasm)

Yep, I'm not a big fan of Streep because of that, but I thought her performance in The Post was worthy of a Oscar nomination.