Read all about it . . .
Starring: Meryl Streep, Tom Hanks, Bob Odenkirk
Director: Steven Spielberg
The Plot: Washington D.C., 1971. As the Vietnam War still rages, an insider leaks a classified government report on the war to the New York Times newspaper. The paper begins to publish it, exposing a great deal of lies, and the Nixon administration shuts them down, threatening legal action. When the smaller Washington Post paper also obtains the report, its editor Ben Bradlee (Hanks) wants to publish it immediately, but its owner Kay Graham (Streep) is conflicted: doing so would not only open the paper to the same legal action as the Times, but also potentially ruin their float on the stock market, which the paper badly needs financially to continue. Weighing up the moral obligations to print against the risk to the paper, Graham faces the most difficult decision of her life . . .
Review: Steven Spielberg has been on a productive run of late. Following 2015's excellent thriller Bridge of Spies (which also featured Tom Hanks) and then 2016's family-oriented The BFG, he's now turned to a biographical drama with The Post and, in a few months, will return with geek-fest Ready Player One that I'm ridiculously excited for. The celebrated director isn't afraid to take on projects that tackle divisive subjects, and with The Post he deals with a subject that, while historical, still has relevance today.
The film is based on true events and deals with the rather important topic of the freedom of the press. Regardless of what your personal opinion may be about newspapers, whether you read broadsheets or tabloids or don't read them at all, I think it's fair to say that most people would agree that the right for the press to report on the news and deliver information that they believe to be true is very important for the public at large. Despite the film dealing with an incident that took place in 1971, it has great relevance for us today, particular in its target market of America where Trump is waging a war against the press. The story told here, of a small newspaper taking a stand against the US Government, is both interesting and compelling, especially when the obvious parallels are drawn to today. As you'd come to expect from Spielberg the direction is superb, and it's very well shot, with a lot of attention to detail paid to the sets and costumes to make this believably feel like 1971. The film is very much a dialogue-driven story: it's not propelled along at rapid-fire pace by sheer volume of dialogue, like Aaron Sorkin's Molly's Game from a few weeks ago, but rather it comes across almost like a play. As there's very little physical action that takes place, it's the job of the dialogue and the performances to drive the story forward. Fortunately, Spielberg has a stellar cast that's up to the task.
Review: Steven Spielberg has been on a productive run of late. Following 2015's excellent thriller Bridge of Spies (which also featured Tom Hanks) and then 2016's family-oriented The BFG, he's now turned to a biographical drama with The Post and, in a few months, will return with geek-fest Ready Player One that I'm ridiculously excited for. The celebrated director isn't afraid to take on projects that tackle divisive subjects, and with The Post he deals with a subject that, while historical, still has relevance today.
The film is based on true events and deals with the rather important topic of the freedom of the press. Regardless of what your personal opinion may be about newspapers, whether you read broadsheets or tabloids or don't read them at all, I think it's fair to say that most people would agree that the right for the press to report on the news and deliver information that they believe to be true is very important for the public at large. Despite the film dealing with an incident that took place in 1971, it has great relevance for us today, particular in its target market of America where Trump is waging a war against the press. The story told here, of a small newspaper taking a stand against the US Government, is both interesting and compelling, especially when the obvious parallels are drawn to today. As you'd come to expect from Spielberg the direction is superb, and it's very well shot, with a lot of attention to detail paid to the sets and costumes to make this believably feel like 1971. The film is very much a dialogue-driven story: it's not propelled along at rapid-fire pace by sheer volume of dialogue, like Aaron Sorkin's Molly's Game from a few weeks ago, but rather it comes across almost like a play. As there's very little physical action that takes place, it's the job of the dialogue and the performances to drive the story forward. Fortunately, Spielberg has a stellar cast that's up to the task.
You don't need me to give you an explanation of who Meryl Streep is, or why she's one of the best actresses to grace the screen. She's a remarkably talented woman and it will come as no surprise to you to hear me say that she puts in an excellent performance here. What was most surprising was the character she's been given to play here: as the woman in charge of a newspaper that's been owned by her family for generations, you'd expect her to be a powerful, no-nonsense figure that's sure of herself and her decisions. In fact, Kay Graham is the opposite: she's a woman who's been thrust into power by personal tragedy (the suicide of her husband, the paper's previous owner), and who, while shown respect, struggles to make herself heard at points and is uncertain if she's making the right choices. It's a role perfect for Streep, who plays Graham with a quiet dignity but, come the story's conclusion, has found the steel needed to make the important decision.
Tom Hanks, likewise, needs no introduction. He's one of my personal favourite actors and here, as the Post's editor Ben Bradlee, he gets to play a character that's slightly abrasive but morally centred. Bradlee is shown to be a hard-driving man who believes in his reporters, and while his doesn't always agree with Kay, he respects her. It's when the Post obtains the report and Bradlee frantically organises everyone into getting a story ready for the paper's deadline that Hanks' performance really shines, as he delivers a number of passionate arguments to Kay and the other players at the paper about the importance to publish and hold the government accountable for their lies. It's another great performance from Hanks that makes the character completely believable.
Streep and Hanks are ably supported by some other very talented actors. Most notable is Bob Odenkirk, most well known for his turn as slimy lawyer Saul Goodman in TV's Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul. Here he plays reporter Ben Bagdikian, who has a very important role in the story as he's the one who's able to obtain a copy of the report for the Post. I'm a fan of Odenkirk and he does very well here - it's great to see an actor of his quality in a big film like this. There are many other well-known faces in the supporting cast, but also look out for Alison Brie as Kay's daughter Lally and the great David Cross (under lots of prosthetics) as another reporter for the Post.
I thoroughly enjoyed the film, and I recommend it, but this certainly won't be for everyone. A story about a newspaper fighting government censorship isn't the most exciting of topics, after all, and the dialogue-driven nature of the story will probably be off-putting for some as well. However, if this is a story that does interest you, you'll find an entertaining and compelling film with strong performances from two of Hollywood's biggest stars. The film has arrived slap-bang in the middle of award season and, while it hasn't garnered any significant nominations so far, is certainly one that's worth your time.
Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
An interesting true story that has great relevance to current events in America. Driven by strong performances from two of Hollywood's biggest stars, this is a well-shot and directed film that's another feather in the cap for Steven Spielberg.
No comments:
Post a Comment