criterionforum.org

Tom Hanks and Meryl Streep to star in Spielberg-directed drama about the true story of the Pentagon Papers

Really fascinated Spielberg seems to be heading back to a period like 2002 or so where he's banking these big-budget return-to-genre films that take forever and alternating them with serious prestige dramas to hopefully win himself that second Best Picture he probably deserves.

Ready Player One's post-production will take so long that he may very well complete principal photography on two other films in the interim.

Ribs wrote:Tom Hanks and Meryl Streep to star in Spielberg-directed drama about the true story of the Pentagon Papers

Really fascinated Spielberg seems to be heading back to a period like 2002 or so where he's banking these big-budget return-to-genre films that take forever and alternating them with serious prestige dramas to hopefully win himself that second Best Picture he probably deserves.

I'm only disappointed they haven't cast David straithern as Daniel Ellsberg, I'm assuming Ellsberg isn't even in the film

Maybe James Spader could reprise the role, he played Ellsberg for a cable movie and worked with Spielberg on Lincoln.

Interesting that he's doing this for Fox and not his own company (especially since Ready Player One and the next Indy won't be there either), what's left of it anyway. I'm reading The Men Who Would Be King, a fascinating read on the struggles Dreamworks had from the minute it was conceived.

Now called The Papers, the cast has added Alison Brie, Carrie Coon, David Cross, Bruce Greenwood, Pat Healy, Tracy Letts, Bob Odenkirk, Sarah Paulson, Jesse Plemons, Matthew Rhys, Michael Stuhlbarg, Bradley Whitford and Zach Woods and will open in December in NYC.

FWIW, it's actually shooting right now.

First "look," or rather a still used for an article.

I feel like I'm looking at a collection of wigs. (i.e. it looks too much like a re-enactment)

But it's one photo, nothing more.

Here's hoping this film finally prompts an honest discussion in this country about exposing government corruption -- and how we used to give more weight to the revelations within the content than the means by which it was obtained. Alas, in this age of 'team politics,' that hope is probably in vain.

If dead children can't do it, than nothing will.

> America

> Honest Discussion

> Corruption in Politics

Pick two.

In all honesty it looks like a standard Spielberg flick that I'll end up seeing because I don't want to do something and would rather see Tom Hanks do something.

Is that supposed to be like "single, good looking, sane (pick two)"? I don't get it.

Big Ben wrote:> America

> Honest Discussion

> Corruption in Politics

Pick two.

Is this beat poetry?

Why would I ever pick Corruption?

I don't know how they make a movie about the Pentagon Papers without Daniel Ellsberg.

I'm more than willing to take it when it when I'm more than willing to dish it out. I made an absolute garbage post. My point is is that people in America (Or people in general) don't really engage in any sort of critical discussion until it becomes an absolute crisis. And even then it's only some of the time (See how long it's taken to talk about all the Weinsteins in the business). The film, while timely doesn't strike me as the silver bullet to the current political climate blocking discussion of pressing issues. I expect a formulaic film about the Pentagon Papers. And there's nothing wrong with formulaic. It's just you kind of can make certain assessments about film structure a priori at this point.

I will however most certainly eat crow if wrong. And I'll ask you all to hold me to that.

domino harvey wrote:Why would I ever pick Corruption?

Oh, I think he's saying that you can make a movie about corruption in politics, but it can only be honest if it sets its sights outside of America.

As usual with Spielberg the last 10 minutes the sentimental knob gets turned up to 11.

True, but the two John Williams-scored montage sequences found in those last ten minutes, dedicated to newspaper technical apparatuses -- one with the camera exploring the inside of the linotype machine while it is being operated, and the second with the printing press running off the much-debated newspapers -- are as elementally beautiful and effective as anything I've ever seen in a movie theater! So I guess it worked for me at least in this instance, though I wasn't crazy about the picture overall.

I enjoyed this. It comes on like a simple-minded "free press" parable - which honestly I think would have been good enough, even given the pitiful state of our political press in this country - but it's got a lot of shading that I didn't really expect. For one thing, it doesn't really shy away from how powerful media figures and powerful government figures run in the same social circles, and how this affects the quality of journalism. I liked the choice to use the actual Nixon tapes in order to supply the White House perspective on what's going on, because I think there's a tendency these days to whitewash just how awful Nixon was (oddly enough, mostly by the left), and it's good to get a reminder.

But mostly this is just a really well-crafted movie and a fine piece of storytelling. It's well-cast, with a lot of very satisfying performances in smaller supporting roles, but also easily the best Streep has been since ... I couldn't really even say, to be honest, since I've never really been a fan. And it's fun to watch Hanks here, too, in what's really an old-fashioned movie star-type performance that plays really well off of Streep's more studied, down-to-earth turn. They make a very convincing (professional) couple to me.

It's odd but Spielberg veers more wildly between movies that I like and movies that I loathe than any other director I can think of. Most filmmakers, I feel like they either mostly make movies I like, or mostly make movies I don't, with exceptions here or there on either side. With Spielberg, though, I never really know what I'm going to get. I liked this one, though, so now the odds suggest that I should be even more afraid of Ready Player One than I already am.

I did like the film very much as I love most films about the media and press. But with Spielberg it just annoys me that he picks those moments to force some type of sentimentality that has nothing to do with the story, but instead wants to play on the audiences' emotions. Ugh.

Spoiler

He had two. First one... When Katherine Graham was walking down the steps outside the Supreme Court building surrounded by a sea of young women who seem to be almost genuflecting towards Mrs Graham. Over the top. The second... Carrie Coon's character is on the phone in the newsroom surrounded by the staff waiting for the SCOTUS results. She relays the results and then proceeds to relay one of the Justices opinions on the case and it starts with some sappy, syrupy line about free press. Typical Spielberg.

FrauBlucher wrote:I did like the film very much as I love most films about the media and press. But with Spielberg it just annoys me that he picks those moments to force some type of sentimentality that has nothing to do with the story, but instead wants to play on the audiences' emotions. Ugh.

Spoiler

He had two. First one... When Katherine Graham was walking down the steps outside the Supreme Court building surrounded by a sea of young women who seem to be almost genuflecting towards Mrs Graham. Over the top. The second... Carrie Coon's character is on the phone in the newsroom surrounded by the staff waiting for the SCOTUS results. She relays the results and then proceeds to relay one of the Justices opinions on the case and it starts with some sappy, syrupy line about free press. Typical Spielberg.

Yes, those two moments were so blatant (and, frankly, unrealistic) that it took the film down a couple of notches. The pre-title sequence also annoyed me by having...

Spoiler

...Ellsberg reading quotes from the Pentagon Papers to himself out loud even as Spielberg shows us what he's reading! Contrasting the presidential newsreel footage with the close-up shots of the contradictory quotes in the documents is a fine idea ruined by dumbing the scene down for audience members who can't read.

Still, the majority of The Post works quite well with Streep and Hanks getting a lot of dynamic moments together that play like classic Hepburn/Tracy or Grant/Loy. As noted earlier, the supporting roles are very well-cast (typical of Spielberg's historical films - see Lincoln) with actors who have earned praise with bigger roles in cable or streaming TV shows.

Roger Ryan wrote: As noted earlier, the supporting roles are very well-cast (typical of Spielberg's historical films - see Lincoln) with actors who have earned praise with bigger roles in cable or streaming TV shows.

I agree with this to a point, but as much as I liked the supporting cast and its performances, I was taken out of the movie a few times by the presence of comic actors (or actors I know primarily if not exclusively from comic roles) in non-comic roles or situations. Of course, past associations audiences have with actors is an unavoidable situation, and one largely requiring the audience member to just get over it, but I couldn't help but expect to hear Mary Lynn Rajskub calling out "Hey, everybody! It's Bob and David" as Odenkirk and Cross appear together in bad wigs.