There's a scene early on in The Post where Katharine Graham, the publisher of the Washington Post, is hosting a dinner at her home with three or four other couples. One of the men at the table mentions hearing that Nixon might try to open a dialogue with China, and questions what that means for the geopolitical landscape. One of the wives at the table says something like, "Well, ladies, there's our cue."All the women then stand up and leave the room, as if a geopolitical discussion is not something a woman should witness. As they left the room I wondered whether Katharine Graham would follow them.Yes, she was a woman, so by the accepted norms of the situation she should have left the room with the women. However, she also led one of the most important newspapers in the country, and had the ear of some of the most important men in government. If her husband, Phil, were still alive, then, no doubt, she'd leave the room with the wives. But the pending discussion among the men touched on an issue that was likely to be important to her newspaper.But when the women moved to the sitting area and began talking about a social event, Katharine joined them, leaving the men to talk about their manly stuff.Throughout the film, there's a subtle subtext where Katharine Graham (Meryl Streep) struggles to be taken seriously. The potential investors in the Post question whether she's too weak to lead. Some of the staff at the newspaper seem like they need assurance from Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks), the executive editor, that Graham's decisions are sound. Even Graham herself has a scene in which it's evident she has had to convince herself that she belongs.This struggle is one of many complex battles that takes place beneath the main conflict of the film: whether The Washington Post can, should, and will publish stories about the Pentagon Papers, a series of top secret documents that provide inside information about the history of U.S. involvement in Vietnam.Every article about the film will say it's about whether the Post should release the Pentagon Papers, but the film also handles a number of other storylines while not taking its eye off the main event.Hand-in-hand with the question of whether to release the papers is the role of a free press in protecting democracy. Then there's the question of whether the President has a right to restrict what the press can publish for national security reasons.The film Bradlee is portrayed as the patriotic, well-meaning newspaperman who values truth and honesty above all. But it's also clear that he's not at all happy that a competitor, the New York Times is ahead of them on the Pentagon Papers. After a Post reporter, Ben Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk), obtains a large portion of the Pentagon Papers from Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys), Bradlee is champing at the bit to publish the papers in the Post. Yes, he understands the importance of informing the public about what the papers contain, but the notoriety that would fall upon the Post for doing so is a consideration as well.Of all the people involved, Ellsberg is the only person who is acting out of completely selflessness. He's putting himself on the line with little to gain, and for all of the moral righteousness and homage to truth that runs throughout the film, we shouldn't lose sight of what all parties had to gain by publishing the stories.However, they all had much to lose, as well. And that shouldn't be forgotten either. Today we can see Katharine Graham for the fierce, capable, intelligent leadership she provided for so many years, but she made a difficult decision when no one had any reason to believe she knew what she was doing. She took a risk and it paid off, and it continued to pay off for many years.Although work on this film began well before the 2016 election, it's easy to see parallels between events portrayed here, and the phenomenon of a president decrying "fake news" and embracing "alternative facts." Had many of these questions regarding the freedom of the press not already been settled by the Supreme Court, I have no doubt the current administration would spend a fair amount of time challenging that freedom just like Richard Nixon, William Rehnquist, and the rest of those shysters from 40 years ago.Perhaps because I already knew the outcome, but for some reason the film couldn't achieve the sort of suspense that I experienced while watching Spotlight, another newspaper film written by the co-screenwriter (with Liz Hannah) of this film, Josh Singer.Although they're long gone, I hope the spirit of Ben Bradlee and Katharine Graham lives on in newsrooms around the country today. Governments will always restrict information for reasons they claim are related to safety, but are actually related to their apprehension at the revelation of their incompetence. We need people who will fight for the truth to be revealed, consequences be damned.The scenes between Tom Hanks and Meryl Streep will go down as classics. Two of the best actors alive today just played off each other and helped us forget that we weren't watching the real characters they were portraying.One peculiar listing in the credits though: Sarah Paulson has third billing for the film, but has less than two minutes of screen time.3.5 starsWasn't that well-written and fun to read? You should subscribe to my blog and we'll send you an e-mail every time I write a new one. Type your email address in the box and click the "create subscription" button. My list is completely spam free, and you can opt out at any time.
PREVIOUS POST: Film Review: I,TonyaIF YOU LIKED THIS POST I BET YOU'LL ALSO LIKE: How I Decided Against a Career in Politics