"...Inalienable Rights..."
I suppose I've been spoiled
by "Three Billboards Out Ebbing, Missouri" and "Darkest
Hour" (far better films – see my reviews) - but despite its Hollywood
A-Listers and a staggering support cast that runs into double-digits - I found
"The Post" to be incredibly flabby and dull in places and
self-important to the point of being farcical.
Streep does her usual
schtick - a kind of overcooked inner hysteria that to me is becoming
insufferable (gets her big moments of breakthrough etc - let's Oscar-nominate
her for farting-in-a-bottle). Her performance here as the owner of the paper is hammy rather than
enlightening. Tom Hanks is always good and here he's the only one who actually humanises
the story as he plays her stick-to-your-guns Editor. And there was a lot at
stake. In 1971 with the war still raging and huge swathes of the American
people violently opposed to it and protesting it too - the Washington Post
newspaper is handed thousands of classified documents from an insider that show
the American Government, three Presidents and their closest Aids and Councils were
all lying about the Vietnam War for over 30 years. They knew it was un-winnable
as far back as 1965 and yet still sent hundreds of thousands of innocent
American servicemen and women into combat and certain death 9000 miles away
rather than lose political face.
While the New York Times pips The Washington Post at getting the
truth out there first into the public domain – Richard Nixon's administration
(Tricky Dicky who would later go down in flames for corruption with
Watergate and disgrace the office of The Presidency more than anyone in
history) of course tries to quash the publication of more explosive
material and calls in a judge to put a stopper on The Times. Nixon also wants
to disallow any other newspaper from publishing (exposing even more abuses of
power) using the excuse that it will jeopardise soldiers in the field and
National security. This begins a moral and legal battle with liars in power who
if they win could amend the inalienable right of Free Speech (the First
Amendment) in their favour and eventually stymy the Press’s ability to tell the
truth. But if she publishes she could lose the whole paper because of money tie-ins
(a cherished family business) and all its employees could lose their jobs -
with some of the senior journalists and writers even going to jail for contempt
of court. Lofty subject matter indeed. So with all of that going on - you'd think you'd care more...
Bob Odenkirk, Bruce
Greenwood, Michael Stuhlbarg and West Wing's Bradley Whitford all shine too as
does Matthew Rhys from "The Americans". But right from the off it
feels just a little clunky. You're told its 1966 in Vietnam and they're playing
a 1969 Creedence Clearwater Revival song (continuity guys) - then we're into
1969 with a Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid poster on the wall of an
apartment when no-one told us we'd left 1966! There's the moment Streep walks
into the crowd waiting outside the American Supreme Court and its all women -
they stare at her like she's some goddess - oh gawd please! Then there's the
deliberate sepia look to the print - trying to replicate that '70's' French
Connection look - but it only gets on your nerves and feels very
self-conscious.
I don't really know why
"The Post" bored me so much or brought out such irritation in me -
its theme of Press Freedom being eroded - the truth in the news being
controlled and falsified by an utterly corrupt US Government - couldn't be more
apt or come as a more, timely reminder. It's just that this film is so
knowingly self-important - like actors matter! And it was 1971 and not 2017 or
2018 - where is your balls now when we need it. If you love Freedom and
Diversity so much Americans - then why elect the worst business crook and
downright racist into the highest office in the land. I adore the USA and have
done all my life - but this film had a strangely depressing effect on me - like
"The Post" is in itself the worst form of self-aggrandizement and
falsehood.
Obviously others enjoyed
"The Post" - even loved it - but if I never see another film with a
'worthy' performance from Meryl Streep again - I'll be eternally grateful. And
instead of being force-fed that I should care - I'd like the movie to actually
make me care. If I was to sum up – Spielberg’s latest was good rather than
great and I desperately wanted it to be so much more.
I want to go to see movies
that will make me feel and think about important issues – but something about
“The Post” made me think about Oprah Winfrey (a chat-show host) as a President
because she makes a windbag speech at an awards ceremony or actresses wearing
black dresses in supposed solidarity with sexually abused victims when a huge
number of them stood smiling in skimpy dresses beside that monster come awards
season and said nothing (God celebrities need to get a grip).
In the end you get a real
bad feeling with this movie like its Hollywood and the American Press elite
congratulating itself on how brave they were in 1971 without talking about how
gutless and compliment they were in 2017 with another monster at the helm – a
man who wants to build a wall to close out an entire race of people. Make up
your own mind of course – but I can't help think that in early 2018 there are
just too many other good movies out there more worthy of your attention...
