The Post (2017)

Summary:

As Kay Graham preps the Washington Post to go public, a large government cover up story revolving around the outcome of the Vietnam War breaks, and she is forced to choose whether or not to publish material that Nixon is trying to conceal. Publishing could mean major backlash from investors and possible jail time, but not publishing could bring about the death of the First Amendment and possibly prolong the fighting in Vietnam.

My Thoughts

Seeing Streep and Hanks lead an all-star cast while Spielberg works his magic behind the camera should be enough to get any cinephile to the theatre. This movie, while slow and somewhat convoluted at the beginning, is one of the most important movies of the year. Why? The answer lies in the first scene Streep and Hanks have ever shared together. At a luncheon meeting, Hanks is justifiably upset that Nixon is refusing to let a reporter from the Post cover Nixon’s daughter’s wedding, because of the coverage they put out on another article a few years ago. He says: (I’m paraphrasing slightly here- the exact wording escapes me) “Just because the president doesn’t like the coverage we give him doesn’t mean he gets to dictate what we publish.”

In the dark corner of the small, sparsely populated theatre, I couldn’t help but smile.

The film starts in Vietnam with a brief but chaotic battle scene. Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys, “Burnt”), a military analyst, types up his thoughts on the progress made. On Air Force One, the Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara (Bruce Greenwood, “Star Trek (2009)”), asks Ellsberg for his opinion on the war, and disheartened, Ellsberg says that nothing has really changed. McNamara, frustrated, turns to H.R. Haldeman, Nixon’s chief of staff, and says that they’ve been deploying more soldiers to Vietnam, and the lack of progress despite more troops effectively means the war is getting worse. Immediately after landing however, McNamara smiles at the press and tells them the war is going well. Ellsberg wont stand for this, so he begins to covertly sneak classified documents from the Pentagon, making copies with his coconspirators. Upon reading the documents, he discovers the government’s lie stretches further than Nixon’s presidency; the cover-up was known by the four previous presidents: Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson.

While the film starts off with a (literal) bang, the next half hour of the film takes a noticeable loll as it tries to find its footing. Kay Graham (Meryl Streep, “The Iron Lady”) nervously discusses plans for the company to go public with Fritz Beebe (Tracy Letts, “Lady Bird”), a trusted friend and board member for the Post. He reassures her that everything will go fine, but she is determined to memorize her talking points. She meets with the Post’s Chief Editor, Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks, “Saving Private Ryan”) to discuss how to attract a wider demographic. Graham then goes to a board meeting, wearing a greyish suit but surrounded by a sea of men in black; she is a woman, desperately floundering to stay afloat and relevant in a business run predominantly by men. During a board meeting, when Arthur Parsons (Bradley Whitford, Get Out) asks a question regarding the budget, she answers, but the answer is ignored until a Beebe parrots her. Throughout the film, there are dozens of shots where Streep is literally surrounded by men that loom over her, almost claustrophobically so. The recurring theme of woman being forced to the back of the workplace is impressively subtle, but also incredibly important. Streep is looked on as a type of stoic, silent role model for women.

For a while we are a fly on the wall of the Post, watching as Bradlee scrambles around the office trying to put together the next paper with his reporters, while simultaneously keeping a close eye on his rival competitors: The Times. Bradlee sends an intern to the Times to try to find out what the Time’s best reporter, Neil Sheehan, is working on. The intern is unable to find out what the piece is on, but he does find out that Sheehan’s article will be on the front page the next day. Meanwhile, Graham receives a visit from McNamara, who is a lifelong friend, and he tells her that the Times will be printing something about him on the front page. The next day, the Times publish their first story on the Panama Papers and it takes the country by storm. During a dinner Graham the Times editor, Abe Rosenthal (Michael Stuhlbarg, “Call Me By Your Name”), Rosenthal receives word that Nixon intends to take the Times to court over the published documents.

Ben Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk, “Incredibles 2”), a reporter with the Post, after hours of cold calling, finally makes contact with Ellsberg. Ellsberg meets Bagdikian in a motel; documents are spread round the cheap room in thick, incriminating piles. Ellsberg asks if Bagdikian would go to jail to stop the Vietnam War, and Bagdikian answers, “Hypothetically, yeah.” Ellsberg shakes his head. “You’re going to publish, right? Then this isn’t hypothetical.” As the story progresses, and the Post’s reporters diligently comb through the thousands of pages to find a story, the question of whether or not Graham will allow the story to go to press garners more and more implications. Should Graham publish, not only will the Post be going directly against an order of the courts, but she may also be putting her freedom, and the freedom of those she works with, at risk.

The Good:

Spielberg is in fine form here; though his subject matter isn’t as intense as some of his well-known Blockbusters, he still manages to build a surprising amount of tension throughout the film. There are plenty of long takes with expertly choreographed deep staging. He provides plenty of background humor with minor characters, and he conveys the hectic nature of a newsroom with beautiful precision. The writing of Liz Hannah and Josh Singer (“Spotlight”) brilliantly touches on many issues of the era and also succeeds in drawing many comparisons to modern times. I would honestly be surprised if this didn’t receive a nomination for writing.

Streep is fantastic as the meek-mannered but firm Graham; she does an amazing job making us feel her constant insecurity but desire to prove herself. The real scene-stealer was Hanks, whom I thought gave his best performance in years. “Captain Phillips” (2013) was the last time Hanks really generated Oscar buzz, but I would not be at all surprised if we see him on the docket this year. But though Hanks and Streep were the standouts, everyone else in the A-list cast provided commendable performances as well; particularly Odenkirk, who really shines as the nervous but tenacious Bagdikian.

The Bad:

As I said before, the beginning of this movie is a little convoluted and slow. There are so many characters wrapped up in all of this, all of which are important; but at the start, the viewer almost feels like a person on their first day at a new job, being introduced to everyone in the office and expected to remember names. It’s overwhelming. But soon, as the pacing picks up, you get caught up in the story and the drama, and the movie sweeps you right along with it.

Verdict:

(MINOR SPOILERS)

Towards the end of the film, a portion of Justice Hugo Black’s statement is read: “In the First Amendment the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors.” That quote drew some small applause from the people in my theatre. Whatever your stance on the whole Fake News hullabaloo that's permeating current daily news, this statement by Black is extremely important, and I believe the entire reason Spielberg made this film. As Americans, its our inalienable right to be informed and speak our minds; it’s why freedom of speech is our first amendment. No, the government might not always like what the media says, but tough luck. Grow a spine and take it. You asked for power; deal with the byproduct. The people in charge need to be okay with their power being questioned, because, in the words of Terry Pratchett: “Authority that cannot be questioned is tyranny. And I will not stand for tyranny.”

Review Written By:

Seth Steele

Darkest Hour (2017)

SUMMARY

Covering the first several weeks of Winston Churchill’s term as Prime Minister of England, this film meditates along with him, and England itself, as it is decided how they will respond the the Nazi sweep over Europe’s mainland; sue for peace or go to war.

My Thoughts

I think it’s wonderful that we get this film the same year as Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan). This movie covers some of the same time period but where Dunkirk seeks to put you on the beach, in the boat, and in the cockpit, Darkest Hour puts you in the seat of power. You get all the information, all the politics, all the personal stories that the leader of this country gets, and you get to live in the full weight of what decisions he will make.

You see the deliberation over sending men to their deaths, the self doubt that causes one to wonder whether the decisions that have been made were right, and the pain of being unsupported and even undermined by those who disagree.

The movie is a little slow. If you are expecting a war film with soldiers charging across the battlefield, you will be disappointed. This is a very deliberate character study. There is really only one large decision that gets made in the film with a couple supporting smaller ones. This story is not about what happens but how and why and through whom it does.

That being said the most crucial thing in this sort of film is the acting, which is solid all around. Everyone is great, but let’s face it, this is Gary Oldman’s movie and he does not disappoint.

He disappears into the role seamlessly. The prosthetics are great, but we all know from other films, that is only a part of the transformation. The mannerisms, speech patterns, and gait, while I have no idea how accurate, cause you to forget that the person you are watching is an extremely recognizable actor. You forget that he isn’t an overweight foreign leader almost completely, and so the immersion that you as an audience member are able to achieve in this movie is the antithesis of our current ages fascination with blockbuster tent poles and celebrity.

If you watch a Tom Cruise movie you see Tom Cruise and I defy you to name Mark Wahlberg’s character name in the Transformers franchise.

But here, the man on screen is Churchill through and through. Listening to his speeches as he stirs a country to war, despite their trepidations you understand why he was EXACTLY the leader that England needed at that time. Even I, in my seat, a non-violent borderline pacifist, found myself gripping my armrest almost waving my ticket stub in the air, saying “Here here.”

A simply stunning performance.

VERDICT

I enjoyed this film immensely. It is perfectly primed for me to. I’m the target audience for this movie. I’m a film aficionado, history buff, and armchair student how what make people tick. If that is you, you’ll love this film.

It’s also a pleasure to be able to recommend a film about war that doesn’t glory in the carnage of battle. So many great films I could never recommend to certain audiences because of the violence but as most of this film takes place in committee meetings and war rooms it’s remarkable mild in its violence.

Same with language. While there are certainly swears in this film, they are not the sort of casually thrown out profanities that we are accustomed to in our culture of R-Rated Comedies. I would venture to say you will here far more swearing at a high school football game than in this film.

All in all, I would highly recommend this film to anyone with similar interests in history, or if you are just a mature enough person to handle the pacing and want to see a brilliant performance by a veteran actor.

Review Written By:

Michael McDonald

Heaven Knows What (2014)

Summary:

Harley is a homeless teenage heroine addict living in New York City  desperately trying to navigate the grim ghettos of dealers and users. She survives by panhandling and backstabbing friends for her drugs, all the while flirting with her on-again-off-again psychotic boyfriend, Ilya, and the idea of suicide.

My Thoughts:

This film is BLEAK.

Inspired by the unpublished memoirs of lead actress, Arielle Holmes, “Heaven Knows What” is the story of Harley, a homeless heroine addict living in New York City. One of the most interesting tidbits about this movie is the fact that the lead actress is portraying a fictionalized version of herself. Discovered while she was panhandling on the streets, Arielle Holmes was encouraged by directors Josh and Benny Safdie to write a memoir; “Heaven” is the product of her memoirs and some fictional happenings added by the Safdie brothers. “Heaven” was Arielle Holmes’s first credit as an actress.

The film starts with Harley (Arielle Holmes, “American Honey”) as she sits in a library, writing a suicide note to her boyfriend. She’s made a mistake, and Ilya (Caleb Landry Jones, “Get Out”) is angry with her. She believes the only way to redeem herself is through death. She writes a suicide note, telling Ilya that him she loves him, and he gives her reason for living. She delivers the letter to Ilya and he, without reading it, tears it to shreds and lets it fall to his feet. Ilya tells Harley to prove that she loves him, so she buys razors and, with his prompting, she slits her wrists in front of him.

From there, Harley is taken to a hospital. When she gets out, she goes to score drugs without a second thought. Despite the warning of her friend, Skulky (Ron Braunstein, “Good Time”), Harley meets up with her dealer, Mike (Buddy Duress, “Good Time”). After spending the night with Mike, Harley begins living with him, panhandling for money to buy food, drugs and alcohol.

This film is a remarkably harrowing character study. Most of the time, the plot takes a back seat- it doesn’t go much further than Harley trying to get money or drugs- but the plot is not the thing that drives this story; what drives the story is the tumultuous, destructive chemistry between characters. This film gives us a passenger car filled with characters to care about, and all of them are barreling blindly towards an inevitable train wreck, and honestly, it’s impossible to look away.

Arielle does an amazing job portraying Harley, which makes sense considering the character is based on her. As she wanders through the streets, bleary-eyed and dejected, continuously making decisions that will sink her further into her habit and further into trouble, we can’t help but feel sorry for her. She inspires so much sympathy, but at the same time so much frustration. You want to help her, you want her to help herself, but time after time she disappoints and fails.

But she keeps trying. She is determined. And though her determination is misplaced- directed towards finding enough drugs to keep her from getting sick- we still can't help but hope she does the right thing next time. She is such a beautifully broken, schismatic character. I found myself drawing many comparisons between Harley and Rodion Raskolnikov. She is a slave to her heroine as Rodya was a slave to liquor; both characters are poor but do nothing to rectify their situations, despite many opportunities to do so; both do things that cause themselves and others harm without thinking them through, turning to violence on impulse, lashing out at those who help them; both characters are reckless and put themselves at great risk for minimal gain.

I suppose many people could look at this movie and see only sadness, only darkness. It is a sad story, that much is true, but it’s important to look beyond the circumstances in which the character find themselves, to try and find some semblance of meaning, some light in all this. Harley is always looking for redemption no matter where she goes, she’s just always looking in the wrong places; but she is at heart, despite all her flaws, a good person.

This is one of the reasons why this movie is so good: because it convinces you to root for a character so deeply flawed, so horribly broken, that it gets you to want to believe in some sort of redemption for her. I found there is so much beauty in this film. Down among the broken hearts, slit wrists, needle-pierced veins, and drug-riddled minds- in the trash-filled gutters of our society, people can still find love; it might not be whole or perfect, but they can still find it.

The Good:

Arielle Holmes is amazing as Harley, Caleb Landry Jones is fantastic as Iyla, and Buddy Duress is great as Mike. None of the actors here (save Caleb) have big credits, but most of them really hold their own on screen.

But the real talent here is behind the camera, with the writing and directing. The Safdie brothers are incredible. Though the story draws on the almost meditative state in which Harley lives her life, the direction is anything but meditative. Colors are at times vibrant and rich, and other times dull and drab (much like the schismatic nature of Harley and the high and withdrawal of her drug). Some scenes linger, while others are quick and intense. The brothers show an incredible amount of range in such a short time frame, something they do again in “Good Time”. Their work will be something to watch for; though their next film, “Uncut Gems”, which has Jonah Hill attached to star, still has no release date.

The Bad:

The content matter is very disturbing; the whole story focuses on a teenage girl’s addiction and the addictions of those around her. You really have to look through the darkness to see the light in this film; but the light is there, if you search for it, and it is beautiful.

Verdict:

This is a great movie, but it is not for everyone. There are plenty of trigger warnings: drugs, violence, domestic abuse. But it's important to remember that this stuff really does happen, and there are teens that are going through what Harley went through right now. So often we get caught up in the comfortable bubbles of our own world and forget how much pain some people experience every day. I believe if you can look at this movie for what it is, not a picture of a good, noble person, but a portrait of a broken person searching for redemption, then this film is an incredible odyssey to experience.

Closing thought: I don’t know where Arielle is now, but I pray that wherever she is, she’s well. After completing her work on this film, Arielle asked the Safdie brothers to help her in recovery, and they brought her to a treatment facility in Florida. She has since has been in two other films: “American Honey”, and “2037: Winter’s Dream”, but her IMDb page shows no upcoming projects.

This film was dedicated to Ilya, Arielle’s real life boyfriend, who died of a heroin overdose in 2015.

Review Written By:

Seth Steele