Sign in to follow this  
Alex

The Post (2017) FILM Discussion

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, Richard said:

In 1976, we had FAMILY PLOT, THE MISSOURI BREAKS, and MIDWAY, in the space of three months.

THE TOWERING INFERNO arrived four weeks after EARTHQUAKE.

If STANLEY AND IRIS hadn't been bumped, we would have had two scores within six weeks of each other.

ALWAYS + BOT4OJ, and HOOK + JFK each had two weeks between them.

 

Well that puts it in perspective; the last time it happened was before Williams had written Star Wars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pentagon Papers movie: Steven Spielberg, Tom Hanks, Meryl Streep visit newspaper:

http://www.afr.com/lifestyle/arts-and-entertainment/film-and-tv/pentagon-papers-movie-steven-spielberg-tom-hanks-meryl-streep-visit-newspaper-20170525-gwdi7t

 

Will be filming in the AT&T building, near Route 22/North Broadway and Barker Ave -Hamilton Ave in White Plains, for the next few weeks.

http://www.onlocationvacations.com/2017/05/30/untitled-steven-spielberg-project-starring-tom-hanks-meryl-streep-filming-white-plains-ny/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Disco Stu said:


Brother!

 

Preach man! I really liked Lincoln and Bridge of Spies most among the films he's done in the past decade. Really looking forward to all these films he doing. They especially sound like they have a lot of potential. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LA population devastated as Steven Spielberg kidnaps half of Hollywood's respected character actors

 

Just now, Fancyarcher said:

 

Preach man! I really liked Lincoln and Bridge of Spies most among the films he's done in the past decade. 

 

Speaking my language!  They're both in my top 10 Spielberg films ever!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

Great to see Spielberg working with Odenkirk. I love his work on Tim and Eric.  

 

*edit* Just noticed David Cross name.  What is this, a Pussy Doodles reunion? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope Tracy Letts gets at least one juicy monologue to sink his teeth into.  He gave one of my favorite performances of last year in the criminally underseen film Indignation.  Amazing actor (and playwright of course).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Disco Stu said:

Speaking my language!  They're both in my top 10 Spielberg films ever!

 

Lincoln is great. For a 2 hour + plus film with a lot of talking I find it extremely fascinating and great to watch. Terrific performances and direction all-around. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Not Mr. Big said:

Great to see Spielberg working with Odenkirk. I love his work on Tim and Eric.  

 

*edit* Just noticed David Cross name.  What is this, a Pussy Doodles reunion? 

 

 

Its basically a lock that they'll be playing Woodward and Bernstein.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Disco Stu said:

I'm so tired of the idea that historical dramas are by definition boring and safe.  I think Lincoln and Bridge of Spies and Munich are anything but.

 

Bridge of Spies is exactly that. Competent, but safe, and largely saved by the strong performances of its cast.

 

Lincoln and Munich are fine films though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Disco Stu said:

 

You don't think this is actually what's motivating him, do you?  If so, you have quite a low opinion of Spielberg.

 

I'm so tired of the idea that historical dramas are by definition boring and safe.  I think Lincoln and Bridge of Spies and Munich are anything but.

 

Of course I don't ffs

 

Not normally my kind of film but I actually really enjoyed Bridge of Spies.

Daniel Day-Lewis' performance in Lincoln was enough to keep me engrossed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I decided to rewatch Lincoln last night.  It's truly great, but having now watched both recently I still hold that Bridge of Spies is the better film.  I do love the themes they both share about the people who use words to fight their battles to achieve political goals and how those battles exist both outside and within the public eye.  Fascinating how they're very different films but very much in conversation with one another.  I can't wait to see The Papers or whatever the final title ends up being.  This will tell the story of when the ugly behind-the-scenes stuff becomes very public, from the POV of journalists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Disco Stu said:

  I do love the themes they both share about the people who use words to fight their battles to achieve political goals and how those battles exist both outside and within the public eye.  

Well, words and thousands and thousands of human lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well yeah, that's part of what's so fascinating.  It's about the people who "battle" intellectually and whose words can have widespread effects on other lives.

 

The scope differs between the two films, but the thematic link is definitely there.  Lives hang in the balance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It must be an American thing because Bridges Of Spies didn't feel special to me. I thought it was just an okay movie with Tom Hanks (America) being (once again) the angel of moral righteousness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rylance makes it worth checking out. But it is largely unremarkable.

 

37 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

How do you mean?

 

It's just that the idea that "great men" have intellectual campaigns/battles to help fight the "good fight" is a very romantic one. It's the kind of image that films like Bridge of Spies and I'm sure, The Papers will reinforce. And while I'm fine with films preaching more "noble" ideals, certain films can be more annoyingly dishonest and misleading in that regard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, KK said:

It's just that the idea that "great men" have intellectual campaigns/battles to help fight the "good fight" is a very romantic one. It's the kind of image that films like Bridge of Spies and I'm sure, The Papers will reinforce. And while I'm fine with films preaching more "noble" ideals, certain films can be more annoyingly dishonest and misleading in that regard.

 

Hmm, I didn't find them dishonest at all.  In fact, I found both pretty realistic about how "the system" works, how demeaning that system can be on individuals.  The characters aren't portrayed as superhumanly noble or idealistic.  Just "decent" people who make a difference where they can, as their positions allow.  I find that inspiring, personally.

 

6 minutes ago, publicist said:

Rylance was the only one resembling a multi-faceted human being not from a postage stamp series 'great men of a great nation'.

 

What?  Not one single character in that movie could be described like that.  Most of the characters in that movie are just covering their asses.  And Hanks is just a lawyer who knows how to navigate men covering their asses to get the result he wants.  Hardly noble.

 

I think you guys are bringing your own baggage to these films and projecting what you think a Spielberg movie would be on to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BRIDGE OF SPIES is brilliant. For me, it was a marvel to see how Spielberg (and Kaminski) staged the many and long dialogue sequences. The suspense is in the mise-en-scene, secure like that of a master and professor. I also love the channeling of Howard Hawks in many sequences (like the ending).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Thor said:

BRIDGE OF SPIES is brilliant. For me, it was a marvel to see how Spielberg (and Kaminski) staged the many and long dialogue sequences. The suspense is in the mise-en-scene, secure like that of a master and professor. I also love the channeling of Howard Hawks in many sequences (like the ending).

 

Yes!  It's all people in rooms talking to each other and how that can be just as fascinating as action sequences in a more subtle, satisfying way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And he did the same thing with lighting in LINCOLN. But BRIDGE OF SPIES was more exuberant in its staging (camera angles, editing).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

What?  Not one single character in that movie could be described like that.  Most of the characters in that movie are just covering their asses.  And Hanks is just a lawyer who knows how to navigate men covering their asses to get the result he wants.  Hardly noble.

 

I think you guys are bringing your own baggage to these films and projecting what you think a Spielberg movie would be on to them.

 

The Hanks character sure is and how the other characters play off him is designed to stear this lame, righteous worldview - you are supposed to feel with Hanks when the ignorant pighead of a policeman turns on him for defending a traitor. 

 

The problem is not 'the characters' which to me were the usual Spielberg cardboards 'de luxe' (not abysmal but not interesting or especially enlightening, either) but the writing as such, what it pushed to the front and how little it actually had to say.

 

Tell me, Stu, what do you get out of this last glance between Rylance and Hanks? It seems an awfully slim result after sitting though this fucker for 130 minutes. What is the reasonably informed viewer of 2016 to make of it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, publicist said:

Tell me, Stu, what do you get out of this last glance between Rylance and Hanks? It seems an awfully slim result after sitting though this fucker for 130 minutes. What is the reasonably informed viewer of 2016 to make of it?

 

That life is filled with uncertainty?  That these two unlikely friends will never see each other again, but each had an enormous effect on the other?

 

That the Cold War was a complicated mess?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While the first one is just a relativist crapshot the second one is more likely: how did the film illuminate that? It didn't. Spielberg's film neither understands Abel nor does it go any lengths to even frame his side of the story in any convincing historical context. It's all staffage - which goes to show what good actor Rylance is - to frame The Good (if a bit hapless) Citizen Hanks teaching us the virtues of never-wavering civil courage which would probably have been a more convincing early 60's movie by Stanley Kramer. What a mess the Cold War was you better get from Martin Ritt's 'Spy who came in from the Cold' and similar movies which we need more of instead of overblown lessons á la Spielberg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Spy Who Came in From the Cold is one of my favorite movies (and novels).

 

Anyway yes the movie was told from an American perspective, with Abel presented as a mysterious foreigner, reflecting the paranoid xenophobia of the time (like anything's changed).  So Hanks and Rylance finding the shared humanity in each other is very affecting.

 

We should probably just leave it there.  I think it's a new classic, deeply humanist film and you hate it.

 

In the words of Emperor Joseph II, "there it is."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Thor said:

'Classic' is taking it too far

 

Prometheus on the other hand.... :sarcasm:

 

Eyes of the beholder!  When I ranked Spielberg films this year I put Bridge above Private Ryan, AI, Jurassic Park, Last Crusade, and Catch Me If You Can.  I think it's that great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this