THE POST (12A)
★★★★
WITH the way that President Donald Trump has consistently and vehemently protested against the “lying fake news media”, you’d think that this flashy and judicious offering from Steven Spielberg was made specifically as an answer to those ridiculous attacks on a free press. Instead it’s something of a happy or, depending on the way you look at it, concerning coincidence that gives further credence to its true story.
The pre-Watergate scandal plot concerns the Washington Post’s struggle in 1971 to publish the infamous leaked Pentagon Papers, thousands of documents that revealed the extent of the Nixon-led government’s prolonged involvement in Vietnam that would cause quite a splash if it were to hit the headlines.
This certainly puts Kay Graham (Meryl Streep) to the test as the inheriting first female owner of a major newspaper, fighting to command respect and coming to conversational blows with the paper’s domineering editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks), who is raring to get the story published were it not for various legal and ethical barriers.
It may lack a certain kind of subtlety, but the film makes precise points about misogyny and the patronising tone of the male-dominated newspaper world at the time. At one point she amusingly recollects the viewpoint over the idea of a woman running a paper as “like a dog walking on its hind legs; it is not done well but you are surprised to find it done at all”.
Streep fits her role perfectly, her presence looming large over the proceedings, chewing on the extended dialogue and bravura speeches like nobody’s business. It’s no surprise that she and Hanks have terrific chemistry. A stellar supporting cast including everyone from Bob Odenkirk to Matthew Rhys to Bradley Whitford do great work but feel like purposefully placed auxiliary players that allow the Streep and Hanks dynamic – flitting between charming chit-chat of old buddies and fervent disagreement of news folk – to command attention.
There’s no getting around that the spectre of the Oscar-winning Spotlight – a far more powerfully understated film also about the prohibited publication of explosive information – haunts Spielberg’s newsworthy telling. That film, also written by screenwriter Josh Singer, got into the nitty-gritty of what the devastating true story had to say, while this goes more for the flashy headlines and results in a lesser film.
But there’s no doubting the passion and sincerity involved. Its oratory is compelling, its plotting talky without fumbling over its own words and, in a way that few directors other than Spielberg could, it makes sure its unashamedly idealised points about freedom of the press and political culpability stand loud, proud and are as timely now as they were back then.
In the coming weeks, only subscribers will be able to comment on The National articles. Subscribe now or log in to make sure you stay a part of the conversation.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions. What should we do with our second vote in 2021? What happens if Westminster says no to indyref2?
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversation, register under fake names, and post vile abuse. We’ve had hundreds of emails from you complaining about this, asking us to take steps to ensure that these people aren’t given a platform on our site.
We’re listening to you, and here’s how we plan to make that happen.
We have decided to make the ability to comment only available to our 10,000 paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them.
We’ll be monitoring this change over the first few weeks, and we’re keen to know your thoughts. Email us at letters@thenational.scot if you want to have your say.
Callum Baird, Editor of The National