Oscars 2018: Review- The Post

The Post feels like one of the most Oscar-y movies ever made and seemed like a clear frontrunner for a good while until the nominations came out. Still, it has garnered two nominations (for Best Picture and Best Actress for Meryl Streep) and we should discuss whether it deserves those or should have picked up in other categories. The story is of The Washington Post who, upon hearing about the Pentagon Papers (papers about the US's dodgy involvement in Vietnam), decide they should try and publish them. However, the government discover that the New York Times have these papers too and outlaw them publishing it, leaving a dilemma for the Post: publish and risk imprisonment or keep quiet under the reign of a government trying to control the facts. I didn't know the story and it was interesting to see it all play out but it feels like an unfinished story which, for anyone who knows the history of this, it really is. Still, it plays out well and you can rarely fault Spielberg as a story teller.

As far as I'm concerned, acting is where The Post most flourishes. Obviously, that applies largely to the marque names of Hanks and Streep who certainly do a great job in their roles. Tom Hanks is great, if somewhat unremarkable, delivering his standard "man, Tom Hanks is great in this" kind of role for a historical drama, much like Bridge of Spies. Meryl Streep however is just fantastic and has definitely earnt her nomination. It occurs to me that I haven't really seen her in anything but The Post seems as great an example of her talent as any other film. Being the film and TV nerd that I am though, what most impresses me about this film is the cast. They're all great and I'm going to list them for effect but seriously, even if you haven't heard of their name, there's a good chance this is a cast with a lot of faces you'll recognise. There's Michael Stuhlbarg, Sarah Paulson, Bob Odenkirk, Bradley Whitford, Bruce Greenwood, Matthew Rhys, Alison Brie, Carrie Coon, Pat Healy, Jesse Plemons and David Cross and that's just naming the people I recognised. No complaints from me in regards to acting.

That said, I do definitely have complaints about the film. I think part of what rubs me the wrong way is how it feels like a film that exists exclusively as a message. Admittedly, I agree with the message about the free press, that isn't the problem. The problem is that this movie was fastracked into production because of how relevant it is to American politics. What that leads to is lines along the lines of "The President is trying to control what the press can and can't say" and you can almost feel the actors look into the camera and say "Do you get it? Like Trump". There's also just an odd lack of tension throughout. At times, you can feel the tension trying to bubble to the surface, mainly in early scenes as Bob Odenkirk tries to get the papers but other than that, it's a lot of people sitting around, talking for a bit, maybe reading over some papers and then a revelation means the scene changes. Sure, that is a way that any film can be boiled down but The Post just feels like a film in which nothing much happens. As one final note that is basically just personal taste, this film carries from Bridge of Spies that thing where light coming through a window is very blown out and it bugs the hell out of me in what is otherwise a well directed film.

From the start, many pegged The Post as a typical Oscar movie and it really is. Technically, it's sound and there are impressive elements but it lacks a bit of a heart. If you're interested in Oscar movies, you should definitely check it out to get in the conversation but for others, it isn't one to catch immediately, you won't miss out by seeing it at home. There's technical merit and I found certain parts very satisfying but it's a little generic and that's why I'm giving The Post a