The Post

O

OldCorpse

Rockin the Boat
A very poorly directed movie, that nonetheless manages to engage thanks to two factors - the fact that it's based on real and important history, and thanks to some excellent acting. History and acting - those two are enough, so that I don't regret the time spent watching or the money. The direction, however, I have nothing good to say about. It feels like it's made by an old man who simply cannot learn new tricks (despite some less characterstic - for him - handheld sequences). It's a Spielberg film lacking all subtlety. Everything is telegraphed ("crossing the street bent on getting into the NYTimes buiding - yes, OF COURSE, we know that a car will almost hit our intrepid runner"), and every point is hammered home with hamfisted and graceless bludgeoning - the audience never gets to draw their own conclusions and form their own impressions, everything is driven home with a sledgehammer - too many instances to cite, in fact, the whole film is composed of nothing BUT those sledgehammer moves... a reporter on a public phone, coins dropping all over, pencil flying, everything falling SEE HOW INCREDIBYLY TENSE AND IMPORTANT THAT CALL IS!!!!UNO!!!! ...he's on the airplane in the passanger seat, the boxes with the report are being endlessly secured with seatbelts, hand on the boxes holding tight - BOY IS THIS REPORT SUPER IMPORTANT!!!!UNO!!!! and on and on and on like that non-stop.

In general, it felt like extremely old fashioned filmmaking. It's as if Spielberg made no progress in his approach since the 80's. Same lame music, same lame setups, same stupid dramatic arcs in scenes as if the audience is going to be a bunch of kindergartners. But worse, because there was some wit and energy in some of his younger films ("Duel" for the win), but this is just an enervated retread of old tropes by an old man. Worst, it didn't feel real, it was Spielberg's simplified childish world - which is OK in fantasy films, but a real handicap in films that are supposed to reflect reality and history. An F for directing, but thanks to engaging material and good acting, 2.5 stars out of 5, barely watchable. YMMV, all IMHO.
 
Expecting subtlety from Spielberg? Come on... This guys is a director with child's mind (for all its positives and negatives). Even if he understood what the word "subtlety" meant, he couldn't direct nuance because his hands a made out of lead.
 
I agree that the acting was great. Tom Hanks, one of my favorites, was so fun to watch! I think he gave Jason Robards a run for his money, and that's saying something, because All the President's Men is one of my favorite movies, and Jason Robards is my favorite actor in it. Bruce Greenwood is also top notch. He really caught my attention in The Sweet Hereafter and was glad to see him in the main role in Thirteen Days.

The lighting also was some of the best I've ever seen. Janusz Kaminski has really refined his craft over time. I have a hard time reverse-engineering lighting set-ups, but I do appreciate when it looks good. It has his signature strong backlight (which I'm ambivalent about) but I felt the complexity and taste had somehow improved. Maybe an experienced lighting person can dissect it for me (and agree or disagree).

As for the directing, I'm going to say I almost always love Spielberg, although I know it's going to make you think I'm just really dumb and like to get bashed over the head. Sometimes he's a little cutesy. And there were times when there was too much camerawork and too little story (Empire of the Sun). But I believe in using all the ingredients of a film (camerawork, editing, etc.) to reinforce a point and make it strong. I mean, if you have something to say, don't mumble. I don't understand why it's considered great art to be taciturn or even confusing.

I squirmed, however, when the movie decided it also was going to be about sexism. I just don't feel like it's the role of art to preach. I thought at those points that the movie stopped being a movie and became a sermon. I'm not criticizing the message. I just don't feel like it's the place. Like David Mamet says in his Master Class, the problem is, that's not what you advertised, it's bait and switch. It took me a long time to understand this because I'm religiouis and for a long time thought I should somehow insert the good news into my plot in order to hopefully save a few. I don't mean to bring religion into this forum. I'm just saying that art is a tricky thing, and many people try to use it for other things. Even if their intentions are good, the cup of art won't hold what they're trying to pour into it. I still haven't developed a satisfying theory, but I think maybe art is for showing something like emotional truth, especially courage. When you show what it's like to fall in love, stand up against a powerful enemy, work hard despite setbacks, or to sacrifice yourself, it works. When you try to use it for something else, it falls flat. People who already agree with you will praise it, and people who disagree will run away.
 
Last edited:
Patryk_Rebisz said:
Expecting subtlety from Spielberg? Come on... This guys is a director with child's mind (for all its positives and negatives). Even if he understood what the word "subtlety" meant, he couldn't direct nuance because his hands a made out of lead.
Click to expand...

I agree that Spielberg is just not a very deep artist, and as you put it has "a child's mind", that's very accurate. But. I know he did much better and more skillful directing - I personally think Jaws is some fine filmmaking, not in the sense of "art" which is not what I am looking for from Spielberg, it is a well directed movie. Same for Duel - a well made movie, if not "art". That's what I expect from Spielberg. But it seems, that he has made no progress in the craft of filmmaking from the 70's, and by now, it's just an old man sleepwalking instead of actively directing (Bridge of Spies, The Post, etc.).

"But I believe in using all the ingredients of a film (camerawork, editing, etc.) to reinforce a point and make it strong. I mean, if you have something to say, don't mumble. I don't understand why it's considered great art to be taciturn or even confusing."

What? Of course I believe in "using all the ingredients" of filmmaking, and no, art doesn't have to be "taciturn". But it cannot be *clumsy*. It's like magic - it's a poor magician who is so clumsy that all his tools and tricks are visible to all. The problem with Spielberg in The Post is that all the seams are showing in a most clumsy fashion. Art is magic and a good artist makes it all seem effortless. Any ballet performance I've gone to (and I go to quite a few each year) would end in scandal and embarrasment if the dancer loudly grunted in effort as she jumped, and farted as she landed. That's what Spielberg does - it's almost like a parody of the Westerns from the 30's and 40's where in order to drive the point home they'd have the hero wear a white hat and the bad guy a black hat. Clumsy in the extreme and an eye roller. There were "muckracking newspaper" movies in the 40's and 50's that had more subtlety to the direction than Spielberg in The Post. A child's mind that's grown very old and feeble is not a pretty thing to see.
 
I don't think it's exactly about sexism, it was a person dealing with the prevailing society of the time. It was more that she was thrust into a position of power & influence and at a critical moment had to bring herself to assert her authority.

My problem was really that this was a side show to the REAL story, which is Elsberg, the Pentagon Papers and The New York Times. Think what it would mean if All The President's Men had been about The Chicago Tribune choosing to rerun some of The Washington Post's Watergate articles.
 
That was the major criticism from many people associated with getting the Pentagon Papers published by TNYT - they were all upset about the diminished role of The NYTimes, which was absolutely critical. I'm not sure how critical to be of this. I can see the NYTimes perspective, but on the other hand, a filmmaker has the right to pick their subject, as long as they're not actually lying or distorting history unreasonably (when making a movie that claims historical accuracy). Yes, The Post is a minor aspect of the whole Pentagon Papers. But it's not the job of filmmakers to always go for the "big" story - what if someone wants to make a movie about Napoleon's butler? Are we then going to say "how can you make a movie about the butler, Napoleon is a million times more important!!!". The Post was centered in large part around the woman publisher coming into her own, and having to make some monumental decisions. Yes, the Pentagon Papers were the "Napoleon" of the story, but this is a story about the butler, and while we show Napoleon, it is OK if he is seen through the prism of another (minor) perspective. It's a frog's groundview, not an eagle's overview. That too is OK. I was a bit more skeptical about Spielberg's motivations, which from what I understand he felt it important to make that movie NOW because from his point of view we live in "such times" where the movie has "extra relevance". I find that a bit more troubling - it's always tricky when you try to use art in service of an ideology (whether you agree with the ideology, or not). It starts to become degraded into propaganda. Of course, in the end it's not "art" as much as "commerce" - and if Spielberg thinks he's "reaching" people, or "educating" then that's a whole other can of worms (which we are not going to explore per the dvxuser TOS).
 
I thought the movie dragged in the first portion, where I sort of struggled to keep interest for much of it, until things picked up at the end.

Spielberg seems to really like diffusion now.

I didn't hate the directing but I do agree, this doesn't seem like a master director at the end of his career, putting all of his knowledge and developed skills to use to direct a powerhouse. Old fashion, cliched, etc. yes. I am assuming in Spielberg's mind this is classic cinema and story, non of this new-fangled whatever. I imagine he might envision it as true, pure, classic cinema. As a younger viewer, it just feels little hamfisted at some points.

I hope Indy 5 is good... or at least redeems 4...
 
A movie doesn’t have to be all things to all people or the great historical record. But when it’s a major point in history that has not been told it’s an odd choice to tell the side story rather than the main event. Of course he has the artistic right to do it, but my problem was that it led to a big distraction for me as a viewer. I kept wondering about Ellsberg and what drove him to reveal the Pentagon Papers. I kept thinking about those months The NY Times spent going through those documents and figuring out just what stories to craft, only to have the Feds stop them and then another paper try to scoop the story. So yeah, Spielberg can tell the story he wants, but the result was that this viewer was distracted while watching. That’s my problem.
 
Spielberg dropped another film to do this one, the whole pre to post schedule was done rather quickly. Not to say this was a major factor but maybe the edge it should have had was lost in making it too quickly. I found The BFG to have a lack in magic compared to some of his other fantasy films. I don't see Spielberg as a cinematic risk taker, and why would he be? One of the writers of this was a writer of Spotlight and I found Spotlight to have the same "look at how important this moment is!" scene after scene, not to mention how many times they said the word "spotlight". But I think it had more of an edge than this film did.
 
Great actors...but in spite of the cast the film feels "tired"...phoned in...and that's of course as surely the direction as when two characters are cast in a relationship with absolutely no chemistry...the craft is there...because of the crew...not Spielberg....as for the wigs???...really....is this the best hair could do, and this was OK by Spielberg...and his production designer??...one of his worst efforts in my opinion...I could go on and on, but where to stop? Oldcorpse is pretty spot on with his comments already IMO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top