Die Verlegerin

The term 'fourth estate' was coined in 1841 by philosopher Thomas Carlyle when he said that the Reporter's Gallery was far more important than the 'three estates' of parliament. This titbit of history tells us the battle lines over 'fake news' are as old as 'the press' itself. It is also the context for The Post (2017), a dramatic thriller and civics lesson about the media's role in checking government power. The Post shows why the media is despised by despots and is thus essential viewing for anyone wanting to better understand today's shambolic attacks on the media.

The facts of the story became world news. By the mid-1960s, most Americans were losing faith in the nation's prospects of an honourable conclusion to three decades of conflict in Vietnam. While various Presidents told Americans that success was assured, the top-secret Pentagon Papers revealed that national policy was based on a litany of lies. Former military analyst Daniel Ellsberg notoriously leaked the Papers to the New York Times, but publication was suppressed by court order. The rival Washington Post acquired a copy and had to decide whether to publish and risk the paper's future, or not publish and lose the respect of its journalists.

A dramatic high-tension wire is strung between Post heiress and socialite Katherine Graham (Meryl Streep) and her hard-core news editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks). They are polar opposites: she is a darling of the establishment, uncertain of her ability and fearful of losing not only the business but her social standing. Bradlee is a truth-seeking journalist who mistrusts lawyers and would publish at any cost. Described as "the most highly classified documents of the war", the President commands an army of lawyers threatening Armageddon if the paper goes to print. The film's period set design is brilliant: the reporter's room is a galley of buzzing typewriters and the printing press a mechanical maze of oiled steel grinding out papers in a frantic atmosphere of unrelenting deadlines. Against this background, the pre-feminist newspaper owner must make a decision that could bring down a President. When the choice is made, the Post must then face presidential retaliation via the Supreme Court.

This story requires no narrative embellishment, nor does it need dramatic performances to convey the high-stakes of an extraordinary moment. The casting of stars and support is excellent. Streep and Hanks give their most understated performances of recent times; no other contemporary actors could have filled these roles with their authority and authenticity. Spielberg's direction keeps the events unfolding at a brisk pace to leverage the tension curve upwards while sticking close to the facts. This is masterful storytelling based on an important event that resonates into the modern era.

Is it cliché to call this movie an Oscar cliché?

Even if the answer is yes, that's The Post, in a nutshell. It hits all the right beats. Serious historical drama (it covers a newspaper contemplating printing government lies about the Vietnam War), mega-famous director (Spielberg), and beloved, award-winning stars (Streep and Hanks). To top it all off, this movie is timely. A movie about newspaper courage at a time when our nation's free press is under attack, it's almost too perfect. Delicately arrange all these ingredients nicely on a fancy dish, and we should have a five-star meal. But we do not. Instead, the result is something that is just fine. It's a lower-middle class version of Spotlight.

That likely reads harsher than I intend it. Spotlight is incredible. Mentioning any movie in the same breath is an honor. The Post is a perfectly adequate, important movie, not a Best Picture winner. There's no shame in that.

There's very little blatantly wrong with the movie. Grading via a high school-style rubric would result in an A for following all the instructions and including all the required criteria. Yet, it does not quite reach the level of "WOW."

Figuring out why it doesn't "WOW" is tricky. Maybe shooting and editing a movie that quickly (reportedly completed in only a few months) is too tall a task even for a master like Spielberg.

Tom Hanks and Meryl Streep play the leading roles and do so fantastically. Streep is especially strong in capturing the hesitancy of a woman in charge who doesn't act like she's in charge. This is the other element that's important for 2018. Women can lead effectively and bravely. She slowly learns that she is fully capable of seizing control and making the tough decisions, just like any successful leader.

The supporting actors all likewise play their roles well, without exception. Everyone feels a bit underutilized, which I suppose they understood when they accepted the parts. The inclusion of so many famous faces could be viewed as a statement emphasizing the importance of the film.

While I mentioned that there is very little blatantly wrong with the movie, I did personally find certain parts troublesome. Specifically, I call attention to the beginning and ending. Without spoiling anything, they felt oddly out of place, or at the very least, they felt unnecessary.

Perhaps Spielberg included them to make clearer the message of the movie. He wanted to establish the stakes. I didn't think we needed that. Movie viewers are smart enough to understand what makes this movie important. Thankfully, the movie avoided becoming overly preachy, aside from a couple sigh-worthy instances.

If you're down for a textbook "important history lesson" movie, The Post is for you. Just don't expect to leave the theater in stunned silence, like you did after seeing Spotlight.

Print media may be dead, but the crusader journalist movie is alive and well. "The Post" is just as much a paean to the newspaper's heyday as it is a warning against corrupt government, complete with top-shelf cast. Given the Washington Post's lasting legacy (to this day), you can easily tell that the Pentagon Papers weren't the certain doom they seemed to spell out for the paper. Yet Spielberg jumps right into the material, creating excitement even in mundane printing press scenes. This is a stirring tale, masterfully directed and timelier than ever. Sure, it's probably Oscar-bait, but you can't argue with that level of quality.

8/10

I'm a sucker for any movie that involves close-ups of newspapers being printed, but this story was particularly well told - as polished as you would expect from Spielberg, Streep, Hanks and co. It was funny and enthralling and just plain solid storytelling. In fact, Spielberg even managed to tone back his over-the-top-ness. There are few moments where odes of love to the press could be more important. So while there are flaws here (in pacing and in storytelling devices), this is as entertaining and informative of a Saturday night as you could ask for.

If you lived through Vietnam and have read and seen the material in the aftermath (including Ken Burns' incredible documentary), there seems little doubt that our leaders were at the center of the deaths of thousands of our dear sons and daughters. From Truman to Eisenhower to Kennedy/Johnson to Nixon, image was what it was all about. The tapes and phone conversations prove this. So when Daniel Ellsberg delivered those damning documents to the New York Times, he brought down evil. Nixon had the world by the butt and overreached. So what about this movie. I have to agree that it wasn't as good as I thought it was going to be. Despite portrayals by real troopers and a masterful performance by Streep, it had a kind of yawn factor. Somehow, there seemed little suspense. Of course, we knew the story, but it never picked up much steam. It needed fine tuning. An interesting continuing commentary in IMDB is the use of a movie forum to perpetuate a soapbox. But to give this film a one or two because it shows the parallels of that time with the one we are living in, is counter to the whole point of reviewing. Anyway, I thought it was a reasonably thoughtful portrayal of a time when government got bigger than it should have.