“In the First Amendment the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors.”
Before I delve into the pros and cons of Steven Spielberg’s new drama The Post, I want to get the one factor everyone is talking about in regards to this film out of the way. It is no secret that Spielberg assembled this film after the election of Donald Trump, a man who has continually insisted that the press is out to get him. Many have drawn the parallels between Trump and Richard Nixon, who famously waged war against the press through the scandals of Watergate and America’s presence in Vietnam. In an era of “fake news” being bandied about so freely, it is clear that Spielberg and company wanted to show the importance of a free press, a press that was indebted to the people, not the government. For this, it is the timeliest film in theaters today, one that does reflect our time and shows that history has a way of repeating itself. I commend the film for doing so, and it’s part of what makes it work so well, but I will let other people comment on its resonance in today’s times; for the purposes of this review, I will be discussing its effectiveness as a film in and of itself.
The Post, centering on The Washington Post and their deliberation over whether to publish certain sections of the Pentagon Papers that revealed the U.S. government’s true reasons for continuing the Vietnam War, is a film that wears its heart on its sleeve. It is filled to the brim with proclamations about the role of the press in exposing the truth in spite of repercussions, with all sorts of meaty dialogue about ethics in journalism from screenwriters Liz Hannah and Josh Singer. It continues what has come to be known as Spielberg’s “civics” films, following 2012’s Lincoln and 2015’s Bridge of Spies, which often feature important men rolling up their shirtsleeves and solving problems in cramped rooms. What gives The Post an edge over both films is the presence of Kay Graham, played by the indomitable Meryl Streep. While those other films are comprised of stubborn men arguing their ideologies ad nauseam, Graham’s inner turmoil as the new publisher of The Washington Post thrust into the position after her husband/previous publisher commits suicide, gives the film subtle stakes. Graham is out of her depth, struggling to reckon with her friendships with Robert McNamara (Bruce Greenwood) and other Washington elites alongside her duties to publish harsh truths in her paper. Streep’s stiff body language helps communicate Graham’s self-doubt, which is aided through lingering close-ups and rapid cross-cutting as she listens to opposing advisors.
The film features an all-star cast surrounding Streep, including Tom Hanks, whose take on The Washington Post Editor-in-Chief Ben Bradlee is irascible yet inherently likable in a way that only Hanks can pull off. Despite significant screentime, this is not Ben Bradlee’s story and thus we do not get a huge arc for him, so the range of his performance is limited compared to Streep. The rest of the cast is made up of some of TV’s most beloved “character” actors, including Sarah Paulson, Bob Odenkirk, Bradley Whitford, Matthew Rhys, Carrie Coon, Alison Brie, Jesse Plemons, David Cross and Zach Woods. It’s a stacked ensemble, and for those who watch a lot of TV as I do it can take you out of a scene when yet another recognizable face comes into the frame, but the more casual audience member likely won’t have an issue with the revolving door of great TV actors in bit parts. Some of these stars have revealed in interviews that they would have done any part, no matter how small, if they got the chance to work with the trifecta of Spielberg, Hanks and Streep, and that is very clear here, with a rather huge discrepancy between the level of talent in this cast compared to the minuscule roles they play in The Post.
Setting the film at The Washington Post rather than The New York Times, the newspaper that actually published parts of the Pentagon Papers first, is a choice that works in some instances and doesn’t in others. The main action of this story lies in The New York Times, with leaker Daniel Ellsburg (Matthew Rhys) going to them first. It is The New York Times that Richard Nixon came down upon, forcing them to go all the way to the Supreme Court, resulting in the landmark decision of New York Times Co. v. United States. While The Washington Post would eventually become embroiled in this case as well, they are by nature secondary to the central story here. Throughout The Post, we get references to what The New York Times did and what they are dealing with now as a result of their actions, and at times, it made me want to spend time in their offices instead of The Washington Post‘s. Because The Washington Post follows The New York Times‘ lead throughout this story, we often get characters telling each other and the audience about what they’re doing, when I would rather just see them doing it. At the same time, I can appreciate viewing this story from an angle we haven’t read as much about in history books. The old adage that people don’t remember the ones who came in second very much applies to The Washington Post‘s role in the story of the Pentagon Papers, so Spielberg gives this story its proper due. This story, as opposed to centering us in The New York Times offices, also becomes more relevant to modern times, with Kay Graham’s struggles to be taken seriously in a room full of men representing how women are undervalued in the workplace and are finally standing up to those who doubt them.
The Post is another crowd-pleasing history lesson to add to Spielberg’s extensive filmography in this genre. It’s a movie that both young and old will eat up, as judged by the roaring applause experienced in my theater when the credits rolled. Yet that good-natured sensibility also prevents The Post from really delving into its subject matter on a realistic level. Compared to 2015’s hyper-realistic Spotlight, which centers on the Boston Globe journalists who uncovered the sexual abuse scandals in the Catholic Church, The Post is a very glamorized look at journalism in which we see reporters arguing over ethics more than we see them actually doing their jobs. Spotlight shows the delicate process of tending to their relationships with sources and fulfilling their duties as informed journalists, letting the story speak for itself rather than having its characters contextualize what it all means to the audience. The Post simplifies much of its story to appeal to the greatest amount of people, but often its characters don’t feel like real people as much as mouthpieces for differing ideologies. Even as great as Streep is, none of the main actors truly sink into their roles, and as a result we mostly have well-known stars going on and on about the purpose of a free press but not able to properly become their characters.
The film’s obviousness will surely make cynics roll their eyes, especially when Hanks looks off into the distance as John Williams’ musical score swells or Streep descends the steps of the Supreme Court to find groups of women literally looking up at her in awe. But as a piece of old-fashioned Hollywood filmmaking, the refreshing earnestness of The Post is welcome in today’s cynical times. It isn’t an innovative film, nor does it try to be, but there is a certain thrill in seeing Streep and Hanks onscreen that for a mature audience is perhaps analogous to seeing Captain America and Iron Man together in a Marvel blockbuster. This populist appeal will likely make The Post a well-respected box office success, but not necessarily a film that will be looked back on as a classic in the journalism genre of film, like All the President’s Men or Spotlight.
★★★½
FOR YOUR AWARDS CONSIDERATION:
Best Actress — Meryl Streep
Best Production Design