The Post (Spielberg movie, Pentagon Papers)

I saw it a few weeks ago and enjoyed it thoroughly. I always go into these "historical events" movies knowing that Hollywood will not portray the events as they may actually occurred, so it won't be a history lesson. I remember in journalism school that it was the New York Times, not the Post, which first printed the Pentagon Papers. To me, the pivotal plot point was the moment when other newspapers printed the Papers in support of the Post.

 

Isn't this what the film portrays? Am I missing something?

Shalom, y'all!

L. Bangs

 

The NY Times started to print the papers but then got hit by an injunction by the U.S. Government. Since the Washington Post had not yet received an injunction, they published the rest of the papers, so they pushed the story forward in a way that the White House couldn't ignore. And that inspired dozens of other papers to reprint the same papers as a statement to the government that you can't suppress vital information. The movie goes into this in great detail, but it was still quite a risk for the paper at the time.

 

That's the way it was recounted in Burns' Vietnam War series, too.

During that time, I was a kid delivering The Evening Star. I remember reading about Ellsburg and The Pentagon Papers, but didn't know or understand the details at that age. So, it was fascinating to learn about it recently. It's also why I'm very interested in seeing The Post (also because I'm a life-long DC-area resident).

 

I would add that there was a perception at the time among many that Nixon was a real political thug--take no prisoners, revenge seeking mad dog. Certainly wasn't true, though, was it?
I wouldn't blame the lawyers or others at the paper for wondering what kind of hellfire would fall on them.

 

I loved this movie. Brilliantly crafted and paced, Spielberg at his best.

Until last May I had spent nearly 25-years working in newspaper journalism. There were a few moments where I literally had to stop myself from openly crying (the look on Odenkirk's face as the presses rolled and that nice little speech by the reporter reciting the Justice's ruling got me...). I knew exactly what that manipulative Spielberg was doing to me and I was still all in...

It's pretty historically accurate as far as these movies go, but in some ways it's also a fairytale. As many of us mourn the slow, painful loss of strong journalism we had in the past, this movie feels a little more like an obituary rather than a celebration.

dan c

 

BTW, those nice conversations they were having in the composting and press rooms...so Hollywood!!!

I've been in a room with one antique Linotype machine running at full clatter and the din was serious. Imagine a basement full of dozens of them clattering away on deadline. There were no conversations, just yelps and hand signals. Same with a pressroom, where modern operators wear over-the-ear protection. In the old days they were all just deaf.

dan c

 

I have that experience with a lot of Spielberg films: I see his technique, I know exactly what he's doing, but then the orchestra swells and I wind up getting choked up anyway. You can call it clever filmmaking and maybe sometimes Steven is a little heavyhanded, but it's often great entertainment done very skillfully.

 

And just as an update: The Times of London has an interesting article that fact-checks the movie. (Note you have to register to read the article, but it's free and they don't bug you much.)

Fact-checking The Post: how accurate is the film?

 

I appreciate his artistry and talent. If a movie is so absorbing that one in the business stops assessing its technical aspects because they're so drawn in by the film-making, the Director and all involved are doing their job. But I have to presume the Spielberg has access to many of the best scripts currently floating around. Did he really need to do 'The Post', or BFG for that matter. I still contend his best work is 'Munich', probably because its moral complexity demanded a simpler yet more vigorous approach to direction. It's a very well directed film, but also has an energy that suggests he was thinking on his feet and throwing the storyboards.

I still hope he'd take on a no nonsense police thriller. Even a return to a Dirty Harry movie with Clint as a long retired detective not investigating but being investigated. Or if anyone's has read https://www.amazon.com/Life-3-0-Being-Artificial-Intelligence/dp/1101946598 the opening pages delineate one of the most unnerving and possibly prescient scenarios I've read about the near future. That's the basis for a truly timely movie that would incorporate many of the themes that seem to interest him.