CSHaviland
Joined Dec 2001
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Ratings1.2K
CSHaviland's rating
Reviews43
CSHaviland's rating
I have noticed a pattern when Steven Spielberg approaches any movie that falls into the category of social commentary. It gets dull. He thrives when he directs escapist entertainment and action, but when a cultural affair becomes the centerpiece of his film rather than a situation, he seems to miss his dramatic timing. Other examples include Amistad, Munich and Lincoln. The Post falls into that same group.
However, unlike Oliver Stone and other directors who enjoy these topics (and who can be arguably more entertaining with it at the movies), I give Spielberg credit for not straying knowingly or unknowingly into propaganda and conspiracy theories in his treatment. If I were to extract his personal philosophy out of these movies I would guess that he would say, "My comment is not to cast blame, my comment is to surface the wrongness." The Post is no exception: he made sure we knew that the cover-up on justifying the ongoing war in Vietnam spanned presidents of both major political parties, and that not only was the justification unacceptable, covering it by any president was wrong and attempting to strong-arm the press from revealing it was worse. But the movie also accurately reflected the anti-feminist attitude of the time period, and Meryl Streep brilliantly played a character who struggled with her confidence in commanding decisions in that environment, especially when freedom of the press was under fire.
In case you missed it, my message above is that I prioritize movies that are entertaining, not historically accurate. And what I find entertaining is dramatic conflict, action and escapism. What I liked about the movie JFK, for example, despite its exploitation of conspiracy theory that ranged from believable to not, is that problem-solving was the engine that drove the movie forward. The audience was engaged to help the characters unravel a complex situation. The Post could have taken that strategy and would have been much improved, but instead it gave us characters who just reacted to pressure and made decisions. And that bored me.
Tom Hanks was once again at the top of his form, however. Even now, late in his career, does he show new range in his talents. In both this film and in The Circle I saw him play clever new characters that were exciting to watch.
Lastly, a comment not on the movie itself but on reactions to it, I am noticing that reviewers are motivated to draw a tenuous line between this film and current affairs. While this property almost certainly predated the Trump Administration, it was probably green-lighted by the studio specifically because the theme would arouse interest in the public who is today acutely aware of the conflict between government and the press (which is not new - in fact it's a cliche). But today's type of conflict is unprecedented. Suppression of the press was the issue in The Post. Today's issue is press partisanship and finding ways to circumvent it and discredit it, rather than suppress. The president today is directly accusing the press at manipulating public opinion rather than reporting the facts as they are pledged to do. The irony is that his method of circumventing it can also be argued to be both partisan and manipulating public opinion. The truth is probably that both arguments are true, but the public is left to either take sides with a political party like cheerleaders at a football game (much to the delight of the party activists), or back away from all of it with dismay, distrust and confusion in both the press and the government. Both responses are very troublesome, but I find no parallels with The Post in that way at all.
At the end of the day, I'm a huge Spielberg fan, but The Post is not one of my favorites. With movies like this, the BFG (2016), Bridge of Spies (2015), Lincoln (2012), War Horse (2011) and The Adventures of Tintin (2011), he seems tired. I am not as engaged in his films over the last decade as I used to be. The last group of films that hooked me were War of the Worlds (2005), The Terminal (2004), Catch Me If You Can (2002) and Minority Report (2002), and many more going back in time, with his masterpieces being Schindler's List (1993), E.T. (1982), Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) and Jaws (1975) - which are not only his best but among the best films in history. I doubt he'll ever return to that power, but on the other hand, I can always trust him to know what he is doing and I will always see what he puts out.
However, unlike Oliver Stone and other directors who enjoy these topics (and who can be arguably more entertaining with it at the movies), I give Spielberg credit for not straying knowingly or unknowingly into propaganda and conspiracy theories in his treatment. If I were to extract his personal philosophy out of these movies I would guess that he would say, "My comment is not to cast blame, my comment is to surface the wrongness." The Post is no exception: he made sure we knew that the cover-up on justifying the ongoing war in Vietnam spanned presidents of both major political parties, and that not only was the justification unacceptable, covering it by any president was wrong and attempting to strong-arm the press from revealing it was worse. But the movie also accurately reflected the anti-feminist attitude of the time period, and Meryl Streep brilliantly played a character who struggled with her confidence in commanding decisions in that environment, especially when freedom of the press was under fire.
In case you missed it, my message above is that I prioritize movies that are entertaining, not historically accurate. And what I find entertaining is dramatic conflict, action and escapism. What I liked about the movie JFK, for example, despite its exploitation of conspiracy theory that ranged from believable to not, is that problem-solving was the engine that drove the movie forward. The audience was engaged to help the characters unravel a complex situation. The Post could have taken that strategy and would have been much improved, but instead it gave us characters who just reacted to pressure and made decisions. And that bored me.
Tom Hanks was once again at the top of his form, however. Even now, late in his career, does he show new range in his talents. In both this film and in The Circle I saw him play clever new characters that were exciting to watch.
Lastly, a comment not on the movie itself but on reactions to it, I am noticing that reviewers are motivated to draw a tenuous line between this film and current affairs. While this property almost certainly predated the Trump Administration, it was probably green-lighted by the studio specifically because the theme would arouse interest in the public who is today acutely aware of the conflict between government and the press (which is not new - in fact it's a cliche). But today's type of conflict is unprecedented. Suppression of the press was the issue in The Post. Today's issue is press partisanship and finding ways to circumvent it and discredit it, rather than suppress. The president today is directly accusing the press at manipulating public opinion rather than reporting the facts as they are pledged to do. The irony is that his method of circumventing it can also be argued to be both partisan and manipulating public opinion. The truth is probably that both arguments are true, but the public is left to either take sides with a political party like cheerleaders at a football game (much to the delight of the party activists), or back away from all of it with dismay, distrust and confusion in both the press and the government. Both responses are very troublesome, but I find no parallels with The Post in that way at all.
At the end of the day, I'm a huge Spielberg fan, but The Post is not one of my favorites. With movies like this, the BFG (2016), Bridge of Spies (2015), Lincoln (2012), War Horse (2011) and The Adventures of Tintin (2011), he seems tired. I am not as engaged in his films over the last decade as I used to be. The last group of films that hooked me were War of the Worlds (2005), The Terminal (2004), Catch Me If You Can (2002) and Minority Report (2002), and many more going back in time, with his masterpieces being Schindler's List (1993), E.T. (1982), Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) and Jaws (1975) - which are not only his best but among the best films in history. I doubt he'll ever return to that power, but on the other hand, I can always trust him to know what he is doing and I will always see what he puts out.
The great cast could not save a movie that must have been written by amateurs. Compare with The Core and 2012 but with a stronger cast and not as fun. A ridiculous scenario is invented in the ax-grinding shame-on-humans sub-genre of sci-fi (see Avatar and the remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still for more examples with far better effects) with a predictable plot, cliché motifs, and contrived tension. The disaster scenes were uninspired and unoriginal, and less frequent than I expected.
I could pull it apart more, but what would be the point? I recommend letting the studio eat the cost. Don't waste your money.
I could pull it apart more, but what would be the point? I recommend letting the studio eat the cost. Don't waste your money.