written by Liz Hannah and Josh Singer
Uniting Steven Speilberg with two of Hollywood's finest actors and a timely script, The Post seems like a surefire recipe for awards success. It's a recipe which on the surface seems foolproof: a major event from American history, milked for all of its contemporary relevance, perfectly poised for great actors to do their thing, all wrapped up with direction from one of the greatest filmmakers currently working. While such a perfect formula may bring the accusation of Oscar bait, that doesn't necessarily mean the film isn't worthwhile: that a premise is suspiciously timely doesn't make it less powerful, and that the performances are so heavily emphasized doesn't diminish their excellence.
But there's only so much that great actors and a great director can do, and with The Post, they're given the tough job of elevating a script which consists largely of a constant stream of exposition, with plot detail after plot detail explained to the audience and personal stakes which strain against that plot for even the faintest hint of emotional resonance. The film's politics are certainly admirable, and Spielberg's mastery of tone and tension elevates the whole affair, but it's only in the all-too-rare moments where the film shuts up for a moment that it finally gains the tension which this story so desperately needs.
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the Washington Post is a fledgling regional paper in the shadow of the mighty New York Times. Its employees are uncertain about its future, and its editor is debating whether to bring the company public. Opportunity strikes, however, when the New York Times begins publishing leaked documents relating to the history of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. The ensuing revelations bring both the Times and the piggybacking Post into direct conflict with the government, and the ensuing battle has lasting implications for the continued freedom of the press.
One of the film's best scenes occurs early on, with a a man anxiously stealing classified documents on his way out of a government building. This scene, told largely through visuals and motions, represents the film at its best, and indeed, most of the scenes focused on reporting possess a thrilling momentum. Interns running, typewriters clicking, papers flying - when that's central, The Post is often genuinely thrilling, and there's an endearing underdog narrative to the Washington Post's one-way rivalry with the New York Times. This energy, which appears predominantly in the ground-level scenes, has the least connection to the movie's themes, and tends towards snappy crowd-pleasing over scoring political points, but it's also genuinely entertaining, building momentum which is entirely absent from the more conversation-heavy scenes.
Those conversations regard either the fate of the company or the ethics of what the paper is doing, and these largely oscillate from uninteresting - as in the numerous conversations about whether to take the Post public - to tediously didactic - as in nearly every clash of personalities. The problem with the latter is that these characters are more symbolic than human: Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks) and Ben Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk) are both reduced to icons of the film's idealistic, somewhat rebellious point-of-view, whereas nearly every voice of opposition is reduced to a caricature.
Kay Graham (Meryl Streep) is meant to serve as the emotional core of the film, as she's one of the few characters who doubts her convictions, but her relationships are overwhelmingly explained through dialogue rather than depicted on screen, and the personal stakes for her remain so broad and nonspecific that the few scenes which try to give her some interiority come across as strained. What is the Post to her? Well, the film will gladly tell us, but only when the time is right. Streep is great in the role, but she doesn't have a whole lot to work with, and her nuanced performance often feels underserved by the pedestrian script.
These conversation scenes are often stagy, set in underwhelming locations and lacking much in the way of movement, so the camera often seems jittery, even restless. Almost ever scene begins with a pan, and the camera zooms and swivels as if desperate for anything to do. As said, Spielberg is a master of tone, and often he elevates an otherwise rote scene with an ingenious camera angle or bit of set design, but just as often his directorial decisions are unclear in purpose, as if they're only present to give some life to the proceedings; even the comic relief, while intermittently amusing, frequently shows up only briefly, puncturing an otherwise tense scene, before being rapidly discarded.
This might not have been so bad if the conversations weren't so monotonously expository. When the themes and narrative of the film aren't being explicitly declared by the characters, they're still impossible to miss, because there are just so many lines and even shots which serve to direct the viewers towards what the film is trying to say that it forgets to shut up for a moment and let its ideas linger. For all the visceral emotion on display here, the film blazes forward so quickly from point to point that few of them leave an impact.
All of this suggests that The Post is more concerned with relevance than with dramatic power. What's truly gripping here is the great journalistic work being done at both the Times and the Post, and that the film is so content to undercut that with monotonous exposition and dreary thematic indicators speaks to skewed priorities. It's not bereft of entertainment, and there are even a few reasonably powerful moments to be found in these people's dedication to their craft, but it's hardly subtle, and the flimsiness of its emotional core leaves the entire enterprise feeling a little soulless, more political speech than film. Everyone involved is too talented for the film to be a total drag, and the film's obvious political stance is certainly commendable, but the hook is missing.
+ Politically admirable.
+ Springs to life whenever it actually focuses on reporting.
+ Altogether great cast.
- Monotonously expository.
- Deeply unsubtle.
- Ostensible emotional core is underdeveloped and strained.
6/10
Thank you to my Patreon supporters:
Todd Throndson
VioletWisp
Support me on Patreon!
No comments:
Post a Comment