The Post

Katherine Graham, the first female publisher of The Washington Post, and Editor Ben Bradlee race against The New York Times to publish a massive cover-up by the US government that spans decades of false reports published in the Pentagon Paper. Together, overcoming differences, Graham and Bradley put their careers - and The Post's reputation - on the line.

"Punchy and quick-pulsed, it's a fine example of that now-rare species, the big-city newspaper melodrama,” wrote  Hollywood Reporter's Todd McCarthy.

It's rare for a reason. The film is flushed against the conspiracy of President Lyndon B. Johnson and his administration and the documents that reveal US meddling in the Vietnamese presidential election (sort of like our 2016 election), and the subsequent cover-up by Johnson and Nixon. Daniel Ellsberg, a contributor to the report, had been an analyst on the ground during Vietnam, working for the State Department. Not sure what to do, he sat on the documents, until he had been hired by RAND that he leaked the papers to reporter Neil Sheehan at The New York Times.

The report had been deflected by the Nixon administration, and Ellsberg sought out The Washington Post. Nixon fought to keep the story out of headlines, ordering The Supreme Court to restrict the then-small-time newspaper from publishing the sensitive files.

Okay, we are aware that, when it comes to real-life events, Hollywood makes mistakes. So, what did Spielberg get right? And, more importantly, where did he create instead of reporting the facts? 

The notion that Graham had not worked for a news organization prior to The Washington Post isn't entirely true. In real life, she reported for the San Francisco News. She "covered the waterfront," meaning she covered a wide variety of stories, tense labor disputes on San Francisco docks during a time when labor-owner disputes were major issues of American life. The following year, Graham transferred to The Post, where she edited letters to the editor. She met her soon-to-be husband, Phillip Graham and married him the next year. The film doesn't go into a whole lot of detail here. This angle just melts back in the main story. I assume their relationship didn't affect their professionalism.

But, by the late fifties, Phillip Graham committed suicide - which the film does cover. Philip Graham battled manic depression and self-motivated with alcohol. Per Time.com, in an interview with NPR, Katherine Graham said they discovered the Pentagon Papers at a time when The Washington Post was vulnerable. 

“We had announced our plans and not sold the stock,” Graham said. “So, we were particularly liable to any kind of criminal prosecution from the government.”

Depicted in the movie, the possibility of being convicted weighed on her mind as she assumes her leadership role as publisher. As if the legal ramifications weren't enough, publishing the papers threatened to ruin reputations. 

The film slips up again showing camped out reporters staking out Bradlee's library. And, the papers had been numberless and scrambled. Really, it wasn't until 2011 that the government document had been completely in order. Per Time, The Post described, it and The New York Times, received heavily redacted, incomplete transcripts. 

On the night she chose to publish, Kathrine Graham hosted a party. Her memoir, released in 1997, depicts her toasting a retiring employee When she received a phone call over whether to publish.

"Let's publish," she reluctantly says. But, of course! If she hadn't, there would be no movie, for which Streep is nominated Best Actress. 

The release of the first three stories brought on a lawsuit by Nixon, claiming he'd been embarrassed by the reports, but the Supreme Court, ultimately, ruled in favor of The Post, siting the government did not present sufficient evidence that there had been "immediate and reprehensible harm."

"This was not a breach of national security,” declared Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, the Times’s then-president and publisher, in one report by the Times. “We gave away no national secrets. We didn’t jeopardize any American soldiers or Marines overseas.”

The Post wasn't the only one that had the Pentagon Papers. Ellsberg also sent them to 18 others, including the Boston Globe, and St. Louis Post-Dispatch - all of them blocked. 

As a journalist, I was shocked. Of course, this did go against my belief in freedom of the press, but, by then, I only wished the bland film would end. The point of all movies is to entertain, to tell a story with action. Tom Hanks' stiff presence hinders the essence of this story, portraying Bradlee as a curmudgeon. And, although that may be how the real-life editor is, Hanks oversells this crusty character as an unlikable tightwad. 

And, what's so special about the Washington Post? Why not do a movie on a more infamous publication that is still small, even today? The decision of the producers is one heavily criticized by review bloggers, like Owen Gleiberman of Variety, "Since Spielberg conceived 'The Post ‘to be a message-movie-as-historical-metaphor, when it comes down to the question of what the film is “saying” about the Trump era, it’s easy — too easy — to apply the lesson of the Pentagon Papers to what’s happening today in an overly literal fashion."

While Nixon was furious, he lifted the bar on The Post, which then returned to publishing the paper, holding the powerful accountable. 

When it was over, I was exhausted – not because the film’s compelling story – but because it dragged on at snail speed. Spielberg’s exaggerated recount stirred no emotions. Rather than it defeated me, lulling me to sleep. Although admirable, the rebellion of the journalists has been the plot of other, more gripping films like Spotlight. But, I can’t deny the timeliness of this movie, as scandals surrounding Donald Trump continue to hog the news of today. Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. Beyond the nostalgia, beyond the ‘70s’ bleakness lies a message that the truth always pulls through.