CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › Spielberg's THE POST pre-release
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Spielberg's THE POST pre-release - Page 6

post #251 of 321
post #252 of 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by wasp View Post

 

sounds about right...

On one hand, Chaw is really smart. On the other hand, his writing is fucking excruciating.

 

Hey, does anybody else remember that monologue in Bridge of Spies where Tom Hanks essentially sums up his character and the importance of what he believes and the essential themes of the movie? I guess it was "on the nose," but it was also brilliant.

post #253 of 321


This piece does nothing to dissuade me from my suspicion that this is a script that only got made because of its zeitgeisty qualities and Spielberg's desire to do something with explicitly political connotations.  But whatever, I've made my peace with that.

post #254 of 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belloq87 View Post
 


This piece does nothing to dissuade me from my suspicion that this is a script that only got made because of its zeitgeisty qualities and Spielberg's desire to do something with explicitly political connotations.  But whatever, I've made my peace with that.

 

I'm still trying to figure out why this is a bad thing.  I feel like if any other director but Spielberg was doing this, we'd be praising them for tackling such a relevant issue.  Has a director never before made a political film relevant to their times?

post #255 of 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
 

 

I'm still trying to figure out why this is a bad thing.  I feel like if any other director but Spielberg was doing this, we'd be praising them for tackling such a relevant issue.  Has a director never before made a political film relevant to their times?


I'm not saying it's a bad thing (and I wouldn't even use the word "bad") for anyone other than myself.  I tend not to like movies that I feel are primarily concerned with scoring political points, so if Spielberg wasn't involved, I likely wouldn't be interested in THE POST at all.  I'm just not really the audience for this particular story, framed the way it seems to be.

 

But again, mandatory disclaimer: I haven't seen the movie!  What people who have seen it have said about the direction and the craft gives me hope that I'll at least admire the film on those levels.  I go into any movie (and certainly any movie from Steven Spielberg) hoping it will be great.  THE POST is no different. 

post #256 of 321

Streep and Spielberg talking about how we don't trust each other and that the political sides have been demonized tells me he's at least approaching the material with a level head, though. They even talk about who to trust as far as media is concerned. That could be an interesting angle to see in this film.

post #257 of 321

If Spielberg was capable of finding a multitudinous array of shades of gray in Amon Goeth, I'm pretty sure that though he represents "the opposition" in the film's framework, Robert McNamara, however infamous he is in U.S. foreign policy history, shouldn't have too much to worry about.

 

Most Spielberg films don't really have a villain in the classical sense, so much as an idea that has to be defeated or bested, or, from the positive side of the equation, validated or vindicated. From The Sugarland Express to Catch Me If You Can to Munich to Bridge of Spies who's good and who's bad is left up to each viewer. Even in most of his fantastical efforts, while there are avatars for wickedness like Nazis or Thugees or Soviets or Captain Hook or bullying, child-devouring giants, even they are gifted with a few more dimensions than a less humanistic filmmaker would afford them.

post #258 of 321

What extra dimensions do the Nazis in the Indiana Jones movies have? Or the Martians in WotW?

post #259 of 321

The basement scene in WotW at least shows the Martians as having some curiosity about the planet they're conquering, and you can infer a little bit of their inter-personal dynamics from it too.

post #260 of 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post
 

What extra dimensions do the Nazis in the Indiana Jones movies have? Or the Martians in WotW?

I'm not really saying that the Nazis/Thuggees/Russian Soviets had extra dimensions. Spielberg and Lucas made those films to be like Republic Pictures serials so the villains are fairly one-note, but at the very least in the case of the Nazis and Soviets, there's some sort of drive for greater knowledge, however horrible their intentions were with that knowledge. Of course the more notably almost-three-dimensional villain of Indy lore is Belloq. But at the same time the U.S. government men who weave in and out of the franchise are hardly depicted as saints, and Jones is in the first and (for now) final installments repeatedly frustrated by them and their choices. There's even the business in Crystal Skull about the U.S. government having people seeing communists in their soup and the ostensible equivalence between the FBI and KGB in how Jones wearily assesses who the men are who are tailing him at the diner.  

post #261 of 321

post #262 of 321
Thread Starter 
post #263 of 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluelouboyle View Post

'Good movie, bad history':

https://www.thedailybeast.com/spielbergs-the-post-good-movie-bad-history

 

Thank you for that link.  It doesn't sound like a TRUTH situation where it's all completely bullshit, at least.

post #264 of 321

I guess that article isn't too surprising if you know the broad strokes of the Pentagon Papers. But it seems like the movie also emphasizes the role of the Post reporters - chiefly Odenkirk's character - in getting access to the Papers as well, and is also more of an exploration of Kay Graham's importance as a publisher and woman in business. 

 

I don't know, some of that article just reads like a "well what about meeeeeeeeee" from someone who thought they should have told a different story. 

post #265 of 321
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judas Booth View Post

Thank you for that link.  It doesn't sound like a TRUTH situation where it's all completely bullshit, at least.

I missed TRUTH. I don't know the real story, but is it worth watching for Blanchett?
post #266 of 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluelouboyle View Post


I missed TRUTH. I don't know the real story, but is it worth watching for Blanchett?

 

TRUTH is very well acted from everyone.  If you're watching the film as a 'film', it's not bad.  As history, it's not just a distortion of what happened, it's utter and complete bullshit.  The fact is, Rather and CBS news got taken in by a bullshit story and didn't do their due diligence on the sourcing. 

 

The movie tries to make it that 'the truth of what we were reporting is what matters.  The fact that we fucked up our journalistic duties is secondary to the truth that we uncovered.' 

NO, you fucked up and botched the story.  Regardless of whether or not there was any truth in the matter, YOU fucked it up and destroyed the story.  That is the truth.

post #267 of 321

Blanchett's excellent, but as Judas points out, anybody who knows the particular's of the actual event TRUTH is portraying will find the movie to be complete, misleading horseshit.

post #268 of 321

Truth is, without a doubt, one of the worst movies I've ever seen, and there's a Topher Grace monologue in it that is atrocious. Like straight up proto-Bernie Bro, "THE WHOLE DAMN SYSTEM IS BROKEN" shit. 

post #269 of 321

TRUTH is one of those movies (like the also-dreadful MISS SLOANE last year) where you can just feel the writing desperately attempting to reach Sorkin levels... and never, ever getting anywhere close.

post #270 of 321
Physically incapable of remembering a movie called Truth.
post #271 of 321

Les Moonves (big-cheese at CBS) knew that by giving Truth the time of day, it would increase awareness of the film. He diplomatically said it was bullshit and left it at that... and the film (rightfully) disappeared like Old Biff returning to 2015.

post #272 of 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belloq87 View Post
 

TRUTH is one of those movies (like the also-dreadful MISS SLOANE last year) where you can just feel the writing desperately attempting to reach Sorkin levels... and never, ever getting anywhere close.

 

See, I've heard good things about Miss Sloane! 

post #273 of 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post
 

 

See, I've heard good things about Miss Sloane! 


Chastain's great.  The character she's playing, and the film she's in... not great!

post #274 of 321
Thread Starter 
post #275 of 321

Is this movie being released or do they want to see if they can get Oscars without anyone actually seeing it?

post #276 of 321

if anyone can do it, MERYL can!

post #277 of 321

It goes wide on January 12th, I believe.

post #278 of 321
Looks like my area won't be getting it until then, which is fine because I still need to see THE SHAPE OF WATER and DARKEST HOUR.
post #279 of 321

I obviously haven't seen the movie yet, but I've listened to the John Williams score.

 

I'm sure it supports the film well, and anything Williams does is going to be effortlessly high quality... but it's not a particularly memorable score.  Some LINCOLN-style Americana, coupled with darker-tinged stuff that might remind people of PRESUMED INNOCENT or SLEEPERS.  Some motifs, but no big theme to speak of.

 

I have no doubt the score will be nominated for an Oscar, and depending on the strength of the movie itself, it might win.  I'll take another Williams Oscar win any way I can get it, but compared to his other recent nominees (WAR HORSE, THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN, LINCOLN, THE BOOK THIEF, and THE FORCE AWAKENS), THE POST is easily the weakest.

 

Here's the culminating track, for those interested in giving a listen.  It sums up the score overall very well.

 

post #280 of 321
A really fantastic movie. Nail-biting suspense about people talking together in rooms, talking on phones, and typing stuff. Spielberg pulls it off grandly, even if he lays it on a little thick occasionally.
post #281 of 321
Thread Starter 
post #282 of 321

Left my thoughts here: 

 

http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2018/01/post-saved-pga-nomination/#comment-3693910881

 

Still processing it, but it's quite good. Definitely one of 2017's very best, no question about that.

post #283 of 321
what a nice pleasant film!

very nice
post #284 of 321

Pleasant? Like having some hot chocolate pleasant?

post #285 of 321
yes!

also, the final handful of shots in the movie feel almost like Spielberg wanted to end the movie as a spoof!


or the beginnings of a cinematic journalism universe


also, the film was very 'of the moment' in more ways than one

the journalism/first amendment angle was obviously in the forefront, but for a film in which it's mostly men running around, the film is also aggressively about sexism.

Clearly, the trailer touches on that a bit. But I'd assumed it would mostly be lip service.
post #286 of 321

"Spoof"  "of the moment"  "aggressively about sexism"

 

You're not selling me!

 

... Okay, that spoof thing does have me modestly intrigued.

post #287 of 321
I'm not interested in selling ANYONE!!!
post #288 of 321

Be that way!

 

How's the music in the movie?  The album's nothing to write home about.

post #289 of 321
Music works well for the movie. It's an understated movie, so an understated score.

Not the kind I'm predisposed to rush out to listen to.
post #290 of 321

As long as it fits the movie, then Williams has done his job.

post #291 of 321
NO!!!!
post #292 of 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belloq87 View Post
 

Be that way!

 

How's the music in the movie?  The album's nothing to write home about.

It's minimalistic on Williams's part. A lot like MUNICH in my view as I wrote elsewhere. Kaminski's bleached out cinematography is a bit like MUNICH as well.

 

Music does swell two or three times late in the ballgame but the film's more than earned it by then. 

 

Most of the film is just people talking in rooms, and there's no music for huge swaths of it. Was reading that Spielberg was tempted to have no music at all. And Williams apparently said he wanted music that would never intrude upon the characters and performances. I think we got a good compromise/hybrid of those goals/ideas.

post #293 of 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoirHeaven View Post
 

It's minimalistic on Williams's part. A lot like MUNICH in my view as I wrote elsewhere. Kaminski's bleached out cinematography is a bit like MUNICH as well.

 

Music does swell two or three times late in the ballgame but the film's more than earned it by then. 

 

Most of the film is just people talking in rooms, and there's no music for huge swaths of it. Was reading that Spielberg was tempted to have no music at all. And Williams apparently said he wanted music that would never intrude upon the characters and performances. I think we got a good compromise/hybrid of those goals/ideas.


It makes sense, then, why the score doesn't sound particularly forceful on the album.  Thanks for the appraisal of its usage in the movie.

post #294 of 321
I had so much fun watching this! I guess I’m just a sucker for Spielberg’s late career docudramas, but this was so much more entertaining than I had anticipated. The remarkable stable of terrific actors doing great work certainly helps.

Streep’s best since Doubt, probably. Hanks is playing a total character role here, and it’s a more physical performance than I’m used to seeing from him. He reminded me of Peter Falk quite a bit, oddly enough.

But then actors I love just keep showing up. Odenkirk gets a few killer sequences, and he proves to be a tremendously effective actor outside of Saul Goodman. And why not have him share a bunch of scenes with David Cross? Then Jesse Plemons shows up and kills it (who would have picked him to be the most interesting/successful Friday Night Lights alumnus?) And Bradley Whitford, and Bruce Greenwood, and Tracy Letts, and Sarah Paulson.

I don’t have any particular nitpicks at this point either. I thought this was so fun, which was quite a surprise.
post #295 of 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd View Post

I had so much fun watching this! I guess I’m just a sucker for Spielberg’s late career docudramas, but this was so much more entertaining than I had anticipated. The remarkable stable of terrific actors doing great work certainly helps.

Streep’s best since Doubt, probably. Hanks is playing a total character role here, and it’s a more physical performance than I’m used to seeing from him. He reminded me of Peter Falk quite a bit, oddly enough.

But then actors I love just keep showing up. Odenkirk gets a few killer sequences, and he proves to be a tremendously effective actor outside of Saul Goodman. And why not have him share a bunch of scenes with David Cross? Then Jesse Plemons shows up and kills it (who would have picked him to be the most interesting/successful Friday Night Lights alumnus?) And Bradley Whitford, and Bruce Greenwood, and Tracy Letts, and Sarah Paulson.

I don’t have any particular nitpicks at this point either. I thought this was so fun, which was quite a surprise.


"Fun" isn't a word I expected to see used to describe this movie, but it's certainly got my interest level rising again!

post #296 of 321

it's such a nice pleasant film!

 

like bridge of pies!

post #297 of 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belloq87 View Post
 


"Fun" isn't a word I expected to see used to describe this movie, but it's certainly got my interest level rising again!

I found it fun as well.

 

Still sitting with it, wanting to see it again. But yes it's quite fun. 

post #298 of 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd View Post

Hanks is playing a total character role here, and it’s a more physical performance than I’m used to seeing from him. He reminded me of Peter Falk quite a bit, oddly enough.

 

Yup, I saw a quasi-Falk impersonation as well.  He's not going full LADYKILLERS, but he's definitely letting his hair down a touch more than usual, and it's great.

 

The movie is fun, which I would have been more surprised by if not for LINCOLN, which I thought had an unexpected amount of comedy in it.  Spielberg's trick with THE POST is to approach it almost as a caper movie.  It hits all of the expected dramatic beats of the historical drama template it's operating within, but it's got a playful nature that saves it from being as prosaic as movies of this sort are often doomed to be.  And you can't tell me there wasn't a little bit of intentional humor behind the George Steinbrenner technique of portraying Nixon.

 

The final images,

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
which depict the discovery of the Watergate break-in,

 

play out almost as a sight gag.

post #299 of 321

(cue Curb music)

post #300 of 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatherDude View Post
 

 

The final images,

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
which depict the discovery of the Watergate break-in,

 

play out almost as a sight gag.

 

Well, they do feed off Steep's final line about not wanting to go through all that again.  And...

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I think it underlines the important of the Post's stand:  they don't stand their ground on the Pentagon Paper, we may not have gotten Watergate.

 

I really loved this.  What impressed me most was the sense of growing momentum the film has, which to me mirrored the way the news story itself snowballed into this huge thing.  It starts off easing us in to the characters and their dyamics and situations, and before you know it we're on this headlong rush to get the Papers and put the story out.

 

And this film is an absolute rallying cry to support today's news media.  It shows us a time when the press as righteous guardians of the truth was probably never more imporant, and you can't help but see Spielberg holding the mirror up and saying, "Your turn."

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Focused Film Discussion
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › Spielberg's THE POST pre-release