The Post (2017)

What do you get when you combine Steven Spielberg, Meryl Streep, Tom Hanks, a strong female character, a script cowritten by the screenwriter of Best Picture winner Spotlight, a score by John Williams and a story centered around journalistic freedom in the era of President Trump’s “fake news”? Any guesses?

The answer is The Post, a film practically walking into the Academy Awards with arms outstretched waiting to claim its winnings. Calibre aside, this film is an interesting glimpse at the inner workings of a newspaper (The Washington Post in this case) and the conflict between the government and the press.

The film is centered around the Pentagon Papers, a series of top secret government files that detailed the failings of multiple presidents in continuing to send troops to the futile Vietnam War. After these files are leaked and published by The New York Times, The Washington Post find themselves in possession of the files and grapple with the decision to publish – risking the future of their newspaper and facing possible criminal charges in the process. The Washington Post is owned by Katharine Graham (Meryl Streep) who acquires the newspaper after the deaths of her husband and father, and is continually the target of misogynistic board members. She has the most to lose by publishing the papers, and faces pressure from both sides of the argument – with her advisors and lawyers on one side and her journalistic staff on the other, led by editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks).

This movie is incredibly well-made, and remains entertaining despite the lengthy dialogue and complicated politics that define the film. Steven Spielberg is a great director (duh) and so doesn’t dwell on the logistics of the subject matter, preferring to focus on the difficulty of Graham’s decision and the different dynamics at play at the newspaper. The only issue I had with the narrative aspect of the film was the tendency to gloss over some pretty interesting aspects of the Pentagon Papers scandal in favour of a focus on Graham. I understand that this was her story and the film has to end at some point, but I think that more of an exploration of the decision of The New York Times to publish would’ve added some necessary context and enhanced the film’s journalistic integrity aspect.

There are some brilliant acting performances in this film and, if we ignore the leads for a second, the film is incredibly successful as an ensemble piece – with Bob Odenkirk, Carrie Coon and Matthew Rhys standing out. However, the movie belongs to Streep and Hanks. Streep’s restraint here is effective for Graham, and she has some great moments to show some strength at the end of the film. Hanks has the opportunity to be far more brash and intense here than usual and does so wonderfully, to the point that you can tell he is having fun with the character. The experience of watching Streep and Hanks act together is well worth the price of admission and the two complement eachother perfectly, through both their characterisation and their acting styles. The only issue I had with casting two people who are, arguably, the greatest actors of this current era is the self-awareness this film has. The film exploits any interaction the two have and has a tendency to prolong their frequent conversations to an almost mundane level, as if to say look -it’s Tom Hanks and Meryl Streep and they’re *acting*! This can get a little bit tedious and there were plenty of other interesting events/characters that could have used that screen time to further the film.

Overall, The Post offers an interesting perspective on an oft-discussed area of history, and has relevance to today’s political climate – making it a worthy Best Picture nominee. I’m giving it four out of five popcorns.

La La Land (2016)

What a way to kick off the awards season!

‘La La Land’ is the second major feature written and directed by the immensely talented Damien Chazelle, functioning as a much-anticipated follow-up to his 2014 debut ‘Whiplash’ – an absolutely engrossing triumph that I reviewed a couple years back. The musical stars Emma Stone as Mia, a struggling actress grappling between the nostalgia of Hollywood’s heyday and the harsh, money-driven reality of 21st century cinema. Ryan Gosling takes on the other lead role as Mia’s love interest Sebastian, a talented pianist with dreams of opening a jazz bar that emulates the likes of those during the Roaring Twenties. ‘La La Land’ weaves through the love affair between the two and their near-impossible dreams, which are constantly shattered by an industry that has eliminated the sentimental niche the two are desperate to fill.

This movie was stunning, in absolutely every sense of the word. It had me completely transfixed, with Chazelle’s painstaking detail and captivating cinematography luring you into Mia and Sebastian’s universe and never letting go. The colour in the film was deliberate and vibrant, with the design of the costumes emulating the excitement of the film’s central moments. The recurrent motifs of iconic film posters and recognisable staples of 1920’s jazz shone throughout the movie, adding to the wistful atmosphere and furthering the film’s position as a poignant love letter to the entertainment industry of the past. The music throughout the feature contributed to this (I still have the beautiful ‘City of Stars’ floating around in my head), as the choreography, excitement and musicianship of its major numbers is something that hasn’t been devoured since the days of ‘Singin’ in the Rain’ and ‘An American in Paris’.

The two stars at the film’s helm bear the entire weight of Chazelle’s vision on their shoulders, and yet completely succeed. Stone, particularly, is captivating. It is clear that she poured everything into the part of Mia, drawing from her own experiences to portray the agony of failed auditions, the all-encompassing nature of love and the bittersweet relief of success. Her singing, though not showy, was reflective of Mia’s emotional turmoil and the imperfect nature of her life, with the penultimate audition scene the absolute highlight of Stone’s impressive acting career – one definitely worthy of that looming Best Actress Oscar (if she can keep Natalie Portman at bay). Stone’s fragility and subtle humour was complimented perfectly by Gosling’s suave intensity, with their ever-present sizzling chemistry elevating the quality of the film to the point that, I think, no other two actors could have. His impressive instrumental ability and resolve to convey Sebastian’s passion ensured that the audience’s attention never wavered despite lengthy sections of dialogue, cementing his position as both a swoon-worthy romantic lead and an actor with some serious gravitas.

The thing I liked most about this movie was the fact that it had something to say. I’ll try and keep this as spoiler-free as possible, but feel free to skim over this section so I don’t ruin any of the movie magic. Chazelle is a genius in that he crafted such a profound connection between the audience and Mia and Sebastian’s relationship, enabling us to get as breathless and light-headed as the two were during the beginning of their romance. We experience the searing highs and lows of their love, with Chazelle’s seamless writing making the transitions all the more emotionally charged. This is partly how he conveyed one of the film’s major messages (that I noticed at least – the excitement of this film lays in its ability to evoke discussion about its true meaning). By allowing the audience to get so caught up in their relationship, he coerces us into falling in love with the dream of their romance. I mean, who doesn’t get a little gooey-eyed over two old souls connecting and finding a home in eachother amidst a modern world that doesn’t appeal to their nostalgic sensibilities. This prompts the audience to gloss over the negative aspects of their relationship and become lost in the excitement of their love, despite the ever-looming necessity to sacrifice their dreams to be together. Though the bittersweet ending might have made me cry a bit more than I’d care to admit, it causes the audience to confront reality and recognise that dreams do come at a cost – a perfect conclusion to an intelligent piece.

Some of the criticism of this film has centered around a lack of character development, with minimal exposition dedicated to the backstories of the leads. However, I think this suits the film well. By making little reference to the past of Mia and Sebastian, Chazelle was able to capture an idea and a moment in time that felt as fresh and new to the audience as it did to the characters – as we were thrust into their world in complete ignorance, enhancing that emotional connection between the viewer and the leads by enabling the story to unravel before us as it was experienced by them. Essentially, the film is a love story between people and their dreams, not Mia and Sebastian, so Chazelle’s ability to create characters that were completely driven by passion was far more effective than having characters weighed down by their past in a film so focused on the future.

I have absolutely nothing negative to say about ‘La La Land’. It lived up to all the hype and completely exceeded my expectations, and writing this (way too long) review has made me want to watch it all over again. As many have said, they just don’t make movies like this anymore and, as a teenager, it gives me hope that originality and Old Hollywood still have a unique place in this confusing era of big-budget sequels and poorly constructed remakes.

Dazzling, romantic and magical only begin to describe this film, and I’m giving it five out of five popcorns.

(Photo courtesy of IMDb)