The Post

(Warning: contains spoilers for The Post)

It's been a strange year, hasn't it?  I don't think I'm going out on too much of a limb to say that the world in the Trump-era feels a lot more uncertain, and that most of us can't believe that Trump's been president for a year.  Only a year?  Haven't we all aged so much more than that?

It's often interesting to see how current events then shape the artistic, and what we're seeing now can usually be traced back to previous events.  That said, this years awards films feel a little on the "safe" side (with the exception of Get Out which is a surprise nomination).  There's many uncontroversial messages being told well - people overcoming seemingly insurmountable adversity, people seeking redemption, people finding love.  That's all pretty standard fare.   The Post stands out as timely and topical as it draws pointed comparisons between the presidencies of Nixon and Trump - Republican administrations at war with the press.  I'm happy to be corrected, but I think this might be the first (of many) responses to a Trump presidency. 

Postman Pat: the sequel?

The Post tells the story of how a military analyst in Vietnam leaks his classified reports to the papers, and the papers (specifically the Washington Post) decisions about whether or not to publish the findings of those reports.  The reports date back over four Presidential administrations, and are very clear on the following - American politicians knew that they could not win the Vietnam War.  Presidents Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon were all briefed as such.  They continued to send troops to Vietnam to save face, and tell the American public that America is winning and making great progress.
In "present day" (Nixon administration), Katharine Graham (Meryl Streep) has inherited the Washington Post and is trying to make it financially stable by floating it on the Stock Market.  She is close friends with various politicians and other people of public significance.  She and chief editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks) find themselves in receipt of the leaked papers and must weigh up the consequences of what they decide to do with them.  Moral dilemmas ensue.

In some ways, it seems like Steven Spielberg has specifically stopped everything that he was doing in order to make this film.  Right now.  He's said as much.  In other ways, it's the latest in a line of Spielberg films which point out that the U.S. has a Constitution that was put in place for a reason and should be followed as such (Lincoln, Bridge of Spies).  There is a real sense of urgency and consequence throughout, heightened by the trappings of the time (Journalist Ben Bagdikian - Bob Odenkirk - goes to get a tip off on a payphone, but drops the quarters that he needs to keep the call going; decisions need to be made in order to hit the deadlines for the day - newspapers being created by typesetting; Daniel Ellsberg - Matthew Rhys - stealing actual cumbersome physical files, rather than the memory stick and digital file equivalents of the Snowden era).   
There has been some criticism that the writing is a little too on-the-nose in places, and that the audience are spoonfed a little too much, rather than being allowed to actively come to their own conclusions.  Comparisons are made to 1976's All the President's Men (a film I haven't seen yet, but I understand that it credits the audience with a little more discernment and intelligence) but I would argue that in 2018, audiences need something sharp and on point to cut through the endless cacophony and vagaries.  There will be time for allegory and metaphor later.  For now, there is definitely a need for being deliberately reminded of things like "free press serves the governed, not the governing".  There is also a need for these things to be said by some of America's most trusted people (Hanks, Streep, Spielberg).

I have an idea...

Let's turn our attention to that cast.  In real life, Meryl Streep has already been called "highly overrated" by the current President following her criticism of him last year.  In The Post, she is on top form as Katharine Graham and has been Oscar nominated as such.  Her story is a concise portrayal of the issues of gender inequality - constantly being undermined and devalued in a sea of men (pointed out by Sarah Paulson as Tony Bradlee).  There's some sneaky direction throughout her transformation from hesitant to confident.  The first half of the film is shot from above, with Streep looking tiny and subservient.  She's made more vulnerable in a series of meetings where someone (usually Hanks) arrives unexpectedly at her house while she's in a nightdress (and uncomfortably trying to pay attention while hiding bare flesh behind throw cushions).  By the end, she is shot from below in white and gold (albeit, bizarre looking) garments which make her look like a goddess and not to be trifled with.

What *is* this garment?

"This is MY paper" she eventually squeaks out.  "Not my father's and not my ex-husband's.  It's mine [and I'm in charge]".  It's a reminder that the decisions of history are not arrived at easily.
Tom Hanks, in the meantime, has not publically suffered the wrath of Trump, but has been quietly critical in a more subtle way.  His verbal sparring with Streep throughout is enjoyable, and it's strange to think that these two actors have not been in any previous films before.  While Streep's Graham shows uncertainty in herself and her decisions, Hanks's Bradlee constantly lays down all the pertinent facts needed to come to a decision.  It's difficult to see why Hanks (and Spielberg for that matter) have not been equally nominated alongside Streep - perhaps the Academy are confused by a role in which Hanks smokes like a chimney and drops a lot of f-bombs.

No Tom!  Stop swearing.

Actually, to take this a step further, this film doesn't seem to be getting a lot of love and I'm unsure why.  The combination of Streep, Hanks and Spielberg fighting for truth, justice and the American way is magnificent, and yet I've struggled to see it at the local cinemas around here.  I'm clearly not in the minority, if the monologue for this years Golden Globes is anything to go by (from 5:03).

That is not to say that this film is perfect.  It takes a while to get going, and in places there's some details which are specific to American audiences (an issue, I imagine, which is the same in reverse in films like Darkest Hour).  The New York Times have also been critical that they are essentially side lined in a story that could have been theirs.  The film also, I think, could benefit from spending a bit more time with Ellsberg - this starts off by being his story, but he is forgotten about quite quickly.  This is a real shame, because he is never considered in the decisions to print (or not to print).  At one point, he was facing a prison sentence of 115 years as a result of his actions - surely a fact worth noting?  But I can also see the rationale behind these decisions - this story itself is not about the people involved, it's about the freedom of the press and upholding of the Constitution.    

    

For my money, The Post is the film that should win Best Picture at this year's Oscars (well, actually, it should be Blade Runner 2049, and it's frankly ridiculous that it's not even nominated).  If the Academy want to make a point to the increasingly fascist Donald Trump, then this should win.  His adulation of Hollywood, and desire to be popular are both sore points and worth poking.  And surely he should approve?  I hear he's very much against "fake news"?

Additional comments, thoughts, questions:

• Apparently the film was originally called "The Papers".  In hindsight, a much better title.  Sorry Steven.

• This marks John Williams' 28th collaboration with Steven Spielberg.  He's 86 and still composing great music.  I have trouble walking and chewing gum.

• Ben Bagdikian isn't credited much in this film, but should be.  He is famously quoted as telling students at Berkeley University "Never forget that your obligation is to the people. It is not, at heart, to those who pay you, or to your editor, or to your sources, or to your friends, or to the advancement of your career. It is to the public." - that's the throughstory of this film.  Turns out that Ben Bagdikian should have his own film.  Google him. 

Arrival

(Warning: contains spoilers for Arrival.  And The Sixth Sense)

Every so often, a film/book/television programme/advert is released and, coincidentally, its themes and messages chime with whatever is going on in the world.  John Lewis, in an attempt to make a nice advert about some trampolining animals, accidentally created a message analogous to the Trump/Clinton presidential campaign.  Sometimes film makers (or people creating their own different kinds of art) are a little more prescient and what they portray comes to pass in some way (example: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/oct/23/back-to-the-future-writer-bad-guy-biff-was-based-on-donald-trump).

Arrival is a film I saw less than a week after the unfolding horror of Donald Trump becoming President-Elect of the United States.  And although its themes and messages are entirely coincidental, they resonate particularly because of global events.

Basic plot:  Spaceships appear over 12 cities across the world.  They just hang there.  But once every 18 hours, a small hatch opens and access is granted to whatever is inside.  Amy Adams (through means that are more plausible in the film) is an expert linguist and is recruited by the military to come and help them make sense of what’s going on.  They recruit Jeremy Renner too, for good measure, because he’s a theoretical physicist.  The film becomes an interesting debate on how we communicate in the absence of a common language.   

It takes a long time for Amy Adams to work out that this is the sign for "dancer".

Secondarily, it is important to remember that there are 12 of these spaceships.  One in North Korea, one in China, one in England (in Devon, for some reason) etc.  Everyone dealing with this unfolding situation in very different ways.  What do we do?  Try to talk to whoever’s in the spaceship?  Blow the spaceship up?  Try to blow everyone else’s spaceships up?   So there’s also interesting (and timely) discussions about the importance of continuing to talk to the people facing the same situation as us and not just reacting to whatever we initially see and think.  Fear makes us irrational, panicky and reactive.  Amy Adams, at one point, translates the word "weapon".  Panic instantly ensues, despite her protestations that they could mean "tool", or the word could be a question.  Stay calm, everyone.  We fear change.  We fear the unknown.  We fear new things.  Should we?  Or should we wait until there's something to actually panic about?

Yeah, fair enough.  Panic...

The third (and no less significant) theme is that of language.  The film argues that the language we use shapes our thinking.  China (I think) try to communicate with their spaceship in terms of Mah-jong – their language is subsequently about winning and losing, victory and defeat.  A variation of Maslow’s Law of the Instrument is noted – “when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail”.  What is our current language saying about us?  What does your vocabulary say about you?

So, lots of things to think about.

This is a film that has stayed with me, and I find myself pondering it and it's ramifications.  Here are some other thoughts:

1.  Brains are amazing.  Obviously.  The first time I watched The Sixth Sense, I did not get "The Twist".  Despite all the clues being there that Bruce Willis's character was dead.  Deceased.  Pining for the fjords.  The first time I realised this was during the scene where his wife (Olivia Williams) is asleep in front of their wedding video, and she turns over, and Bruce's wedding ring drops off the sofa and rolls towards him and he realises he's not wearing a wedding ring.  At that point, my brain instantly pieced together all the bits of information and the thought "HE'S A GHOST" popped, unbidden, into my head.  "Where did that thought come from?" wondered a different part of my head.  (Which in itself is strange - how can the brain trick itself?  That's bizarre!).  Somewhere in the empty cavern of my mind, little cogs had been whirring away, trying to make sense of what I was looking at.  And gave me the logical conclusion before I had consciously processed it.  Of course I know that the brain in constantly doing that, but it was one of the very few times I was very aware of it.  That I wasn't in control of some of my thinking.  And that's odd.

This in itself shouldn't mean that much.  And yet...

I mention this, because there's a similar experience in this film.  Where what you're looking at suddenly resolves itself and you realise that you're looking at something else, like a kind of brain optical illusion.  This is not quite the film you think it is.

2.  Thank goodness for the mind meld.  Amy Adams and Jeremy Renner were making great progress with the aliens, trying to understand the strange inky blotches they created and communicate in response.  But you wouldn't need to be conveying anything of great urgency:

Aliens: THERE'S A MASSIVE ASTEROID HURTLING TOWARDS EARTH AND YOU'RE ALL GOING TO DIE

Amy Adams:  Hold on, this will take a week to translate...

Aliens:  ARGH!  Come here and let me mind meld your face...it'll be easier.  Screw this "learning other languages" malarkey...

There's a lot to think about in this film, and it's worth seeing and worth paying attention to.  It draws on Interstellar, but takes half the time and is twice as interesting.  There's hints of Aliens, Contact, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and surprisingly, Up.  It's an interesting foray into sci-fi for director Denis Villeneuve, whose next project is the new Blade Runner sequel.  I hope that by the time it comes out, we have not watched attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion.  Or anywhere else for that matter.