I think we all know that Mr Spielberg knows how to make hit films and his leading actress knows how to act. But is that enough?
This is a film about the freedom of reporters to tell the truth, to hold governments to account and expose wrong-doings of people in high places (specifically in this instance, over the U.S.-VietNam War).
It's a good story, with only a few evasions of accuracy. For instance, C.I.A. whistleblower leaks have demonstrated quite clearly that the C.I.A. were actively misleading presidents and that not all the blame could be placed at the feet of now safely-disgraced feet of persons successively sitting in the White House. Historically, the big heroes were not the Washington Post but the N.Y. Times, although the film manages to sidestep this in its desire to have a female lead, and so be able to focus on the female owner of the Post and thereby cast Ms Streep.
The emotions are painted vividly - some would say far too vividly for an audience fully awake - but the real problem for many would be Ms Streep herself. Not that she doesn't play it well - there are many 'Streep' moments of 'award-worthy' pauses in the midst of self-righteous monologues. Such are those on behalf of the lead character, torn between protecting her own fortune and doing the right thing. The unmistakeable context is that while the film was being made, released and subsequently, Ms Streep had not batted an eyelid at the similar high-level misdemeanours of her friend and political hero, Mrs Clinton, that were exposed in the cables leaked to Wikileaks. Her hatred of the person who won the presidency, justified or not, seemed to take precedence over the support for freedom of information that her on-screen character espouses, and this makes suspension of disbelief so much harder when the actor frequently uses her high profile to become involved in the sort of politics the movie describes. On-screen, her character supports transparency and the people who produce it. One might think that off-screen she would at least pay tribute to the present-day 'Washington Post' whistleblower, Julian Assange, instead of such vocal support for the people that her on-screen character would have stood up against.
One doesn't expect movie stars to be their characters, but they choose their films and when then go on to portray themselves in the glory of such great characters (but making the opposite decisions) it rather trnds to reduce my enjoyment.
It was a great story, and Spielberg tells a great story. But on such a big issue that still faces us today, one can only wish the film had perhaps been handled by a director who has not only skill in his or her art, maybe using a deft palette knife instead of a trowel; but above all the moral courage and sophistication to tie the story more poignantly to current events.
This is a film about the freedom of reporters to tell the truth, to hold governments to account and expose wrong-doings of people in high places (specifically in this instance, over the U.S.-VietNam War).
It's a good story, with only a few evasions of accuracy. For instance, C.I.A. whistleblower leaks have demonstrated quite clearly that the C.I.A. were actively misleading presidents and that not all the blame could be placed at the feet of now safely-disgraced feet of persons successively sitting in the White House. Historically, the big heroes were not the Washington Post but the N.Y. Times, although the film manages to sidestep this in its desire to have a female lead, and so be able to focus on the female owner of the Post and thereby cast Ms Streep.
The emotions are painted vividly - some would say far too vividly for an audience fully awake - but the real problem for many would be Ms Streep herself. Not that she doesn't play it well - there are many 'Streep' moments of 'award-worthy' pauses in the midst of self-righteous monologues. Such are those on behalf of the lead character, torn between protecting her own fortune and doing the right thing. The unmistakeable context is that while the film was being made, released and subsequently, Ms Streep had not batted an eyelid at the similar high-level misdemeanours of her friend and political hero, Mrs Clinton, that were exposed in the cables leaked to Wikileaks. Her hatred of the person who won the presidency, justified or not, seemed to take precedence over the support for freedom of information that her on-screen character espouses, and this makes suspension of disbelief so much harder when the actor frequently uses her high profile to become involved in the sort of politics the movie describes. On-screen, her character supports transparency and the people who produce it. One might think that off-screen she would at least pay tribute to the present-day 'Washington Post' whistleblower, Julian Assange, instead of such vocal support for the people that her on-screen character would have stood up against.
One doesn't expect movie stars to be their characters, but they choose their films and when then go on to portray themselves in the glory of such great characters (but making the opposite decisions) it rather trnds to reduce my enjoyment.
It was a great story, and Spielberg tells a great story. But on such a big issue that still faces us today, one can only wish the film had perhaps been handled by a director who has not only skill in his or her art, maybe using a deft palette knife instead of a trowel; but above all the moral courage and sophistication to tie the story more poignantly to current events.