THE POST - FILM Thread

[Tom 4,654]

Obviously in the case of the Post, we need to wait to see the film.  But if a historical event is sanitize and the "heroes" have known flaws removed and have words stuffed into their mouths are simply not historical, yet slanted, it becomes less historical and more propaganda.  Watch the movie Agora for a textbook case of this.  

 

These Post reactions mention preachy speeches.  Do you really think those speeches are historical?  If not, are they layered with anti-Trump subtext that would not have been uttered in the 70s?  If so, I would say that makes them propaganda?  As for how such things actually play out in the film, we will see in a month.  

 

Again, I am okay with making a historical film that you know makes an anti-Trump (or whoever) statement based on subject matter alone.  But when that statement takes a-historical liberties to make the point, the final product just seems cheap and manipulative (to me, at least).  

 

[publicist 4,643]

36 minutes ago, Tom said:

I would hope that one could be a democrat, republican, or whatever political strain and still have a distaste for propaganda films, even if they are propaganda for one's own views.  

 

'Message'. Propaganda is not the term you are looking for here, as it would label every film not concerned with space monsters as a form of propaganda.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

I...agree...with... pub?????

 

Excuse me, hell has frozen over I need to go grab a coat.

[Tom 4,654]

Here is the Merriam-Webster def. of propaganda: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect.  

 

I think what I am talking about (again, if it ends up applying to the Post) falls under this definition.  

 

[BloodBoal 7,538]

13 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

I...agree...with... pub?????

 

Excuse me, hell has frozen over I need to go grab a coat.

 

So, you're in hell? How did you end up here?

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Just now, BloodBoal said:

 

So, you're in hell? How did you end up here?

 

Ten-thousand and four-hundred or so posts ago, on February 3, 2016.  I haven't figured out how to get out yet.

[mrbellamy 6,286]

1 hour ago, Disco Stu said:

He’d have to start scoring a lot more films

 

John Williams when he receives his 60th Oscar nomination

 

[Quintus 5,399]

Haha! 

[Nick1Ø66 4,714]

1 hour ago, Disco Stu said:

 

How is it not?  Boy oh boy that is one very very very political movie.

 

You don't get more political than Schindler's freakin' List

I’m assuming this is sarcasm.

 

That film is not political propaganda.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Just now, Nick1066 said:

I’m assuming this is sarcasm.

 

That film is not political propaganda.

 

Again I ask, how is it not?

[Nick1Ø66 4,714]

Well, for one thing, propaganda suggests that the message being delivered is somehow biased to the point of misleading. And being so done for a political cause.

 

While Schindler’s List may take some historical liberties (as all such film do) that doesn’t make the message false or misleading. And I’d suggest that Spielberg doesn’t have a political agenda with the film. That cheapens it. I think he has a human rights agenda, and a message about humanity, hope, and life, but I would not describe it as political.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

6 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

Well, for one thing, propaganda suggests that the message being delivered is somehow biased to the point of misleading.

 

Well, this I agree with.  I was really meaning it was propaganda as whatshisface had described it (basically any film with a message).

 

6 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

I think he has a human rights agenda, and a message about humanity, hope, and life, but I would not describe it as political.

 

With all the injustice in the world, making a film with a message like this is incredibly political IMO.  In a good way!  Taking a stand on issues is a political thing to do.

 

As I define it, politics is more than just people running for office and governing.

 

I think of it like the highlighted definition below

 

[Nick1Ø66 4,714]

Not really. It’s not particularly political today or taking a stand to say it was wrong to murder 8 million innocent people. That’s just basic humanity. That’s my point. If I say “it’s wrong to murder children” I’m not being political or taking some kind of brave stand. I’m being a person.

 

A film that portrayed the holocaust as a myth or justified would be political. Or if neo Nazis tried to use Hitler and his ideology to promote their own today, that would be propaganda. And you CAN make a political film about the holocaust (for example, about the Swiss banks or the Vatican). But Schindler’s List ain’t it my friend.

 

Munich is a political film. The Post probably is. Even Lincoln to a certain extent. But Schindler’s List transcends politics. In my opinion.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

10 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

to say it was wrong to murder 8 million innocent people.

 

This is not the message of Schindler's List!  Well, it's a simplification at least.  I'm sure almost every single person involved in carrying out the Holocaust would agree with that statement presented that way.  Its unflinching portrayal of the bureaucratic, faceless nature of genocide is definitely a political statement, since mass murder didn't exactly go away after 1945.  It's what makes Spielberg Spielberg that he packages this in the inspiring story of people using the bureaucracy to save lives.

 

Either way, we're really disagreeing on semantics while agreeing on the important stuff.

[Romão 2,274]

The Post won Best Picture, Best Actor and Best Actress at the National Board of Review awards

 

http://www.awardsdaily.com/2017/11/28/2017-national-board-review-winners/

[Disco Stu 15,495]

National Board of Review sounds like a throwaway reference in one of those newsreader Monty Python sketches

[Nick1Ø66 4,714]

27 minutes ago, Romão said:

The Post won Best Picture, Best Actor and Best Actress at the National Board of Review awards

 

http://www.awardsdaily.com/2017/11/28/2017-national-board-review-winners/

 

Ugh. Is it wrong that for the first time in my life I actively want a Spielberg movie to fail?

 

 

[publicist 4,643]

You may rejoice when Trump enters his second term.

[Nick1Ø66 4,714]

Um...what?

[publicist 4,643]

Hasn't this movie failed quite enough then?

[Nick1Ø66 4,714]

OK. I'll check back with you when you've stopped drinking.

[publicist 4,643]

Whatever

[Tom 4,654]

Now let me be clear with all of my comments thus far: if the clear Oscar-bait and one-sidedness aura of this film garners Williams another Oscar win, all will be forgiven.  But, it needs to be a win, not just a nomination.  

[KK 3,307]

Williams will not win another Oscar for the remainder of his career, unless it be an honourary one.

[Quintus 5,399]

There's always the Golden Raspberries. 

[crumbs 14,309]

He'll win for Episode IX as a bookend.

[Alex 2,835]

Dunkirk will win Best Original Score, it's obvious

[Tom 4,654]

Well, it does seem evident that he will never win another Oscar based on merit alone.  But, if a film like the Post becomes a media darling, then it becomes a real possibility that he wins.  

[Not Mr. Big 4,639]

11 minutes ago, Alex said:

Dunkirk will win Best Original Score, it's obvious

Oh god I hope that doesn't win.  

[Fancyarcher 350]

NBR has only selected the actual best winner twice in the past decade. I'm sure The Post will get a best picture nom, but at this point I kinda doubt it'll win, not unless reviews are amazing anyway. 

[Brundlefly 2,385]

I say at least 3 Oscars! Who bets more?

[TheUlyssesian 2,478]

It will win.

 

If for no other reason than Hollywood would like to give Streep and others another opportunity on stage to bash trump.

 

When an Academy member votes for this film in the final round, it will be a vote against trump. It's one election they will certainly win.

 

[Quintus 5,399]

I bet loads of the Hollywood elite voted for Trump. 

[Nick1Ø66 4,714]

Am I the only one who roll their eyes and gets annoyed when I'm told how "important" a film is?  There just aren't that many "important" films in terms of subject matter....i.e. they genuinely impact the political and cultural conversation in a significant and lasting way. They might deal with serious subjects (like The Post), but the suggestion that a film is "important" because of that is absurd. A film can be important because of its impact on the art of cinema, but in term of cultural importance, I actually think the last "important" film was maybe Schindler's List. No one is going to be talking about or care about The Post in a year. Even most of these films we're told are important...e.g. 12 Years a Slave or Spotlight, quickly fade from memory.

 

The Post is basically going to be Hollywood and the media lecturing Americans on the importance of the press. And there will be a lot of pretentious piousness that comes along with it...as if in the current moral climate these people are in a position to lecture anyone about anything. This is one of the reasons I sort of want it to fail. I have zero love for Trump, but I just dislike the pure cynicism of the whole thing.  Spielberg throws it together at the last minute, pulls Streep in and releases an anti-Trump film making journalists heroes during Oscar season.  Ugh.

 

The only reason I don't want to totally see this crash and burn is because Hanks and Williams are two of the nicest guys in the business. Spielberg is as well, but in this case the whole thing just rubs me the wrong way.

[KK 3,307]

13 hours ago, crumbs said:

He'll win for Episode IX as a bookend.

 

Probably not.

 

12 hours ago, Alex said:

Dunkirk will win Best Original Score, it's obvious

 

Probably not.

 

11 hours ago, Fancyarcher said:

NBR has only selected the actual best winner twice in the past decade. I'm sure The Post will get a best picture nom, but at this point I kinda doubt it'll win, not unless reviews are amazing anyway. 

 

I'm sure The Post will rack up the most nominations this year, but go home with very little. It's too early to tell, but I might bet on Lady Bird as the real front-runner.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

1 minute ago, KK said:

  13 hours ago, crumbs said:

He'll win for Episode IX as a bookend.

 

Probably not.

 

He will.

 

[Nick1Ø66 4,714]

I think so too.

[Alex 2,835]

Giacchino will win for Episode IX

[KK 3,307]

Doubt it. I don't think the moment will be as significant as you might think. As an event, it'll be drowned by the 10 other upcoming Star Wars films. The pedestal upon which SW is placed in cinema will have passed by then, if it hasn't already. It's just another cash cow franchise.

 

It probably won't be very different from whatever else Williams has done, at least to the voters. And I'm betting it won't be Williams' last score. On top of that, you're not accounting for whatever might be the trending crowd favourite of the year (think something like La La Land).

 

If Williams is to ever win another Oscar (which is quite unlikely), it won't be for a Star Wars film.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Disco Stu 15,495]

24 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

Am I the only one who roll their eyes and gets annoyed when I'm told how "important" a film is?  There just aren't that many "important" films in terms of subject matter....i.e. they genuinely impact the political and cultural conversation in a significant and lasting way. They might deal with serious subjects (like The Post), but the suggestion that a film is "important" because of that is absurd. A film can be important because of its impact on the art of cinema, but in term of cultural importance, I actually think the last "important" film was maybe Schindler's List.

 

The Post is basically going to be Hollywood and the media lecturing Americans on the importance of the press. And there will be a lot of pretentious piousness that comes along with it...as if in the current moral climate these people are in a position to lecture anyone about anything. This is one of the reasons I sort of want it to fail. I have zero love for Trump, but I just dislike the pure cynicism of the whole thing.  Spielberg throws it together at the last minute, pulls Streep in and releases an anti-Trump film making journalists heroes during Oscar season.  Ugh.

 

The only reason I don't want to totally see this crash and burn is because Hanks and Williams are two of the nicest guys in the business. Spielberg is as well, but in this case the whole thing just rubs me the wrong way.

 

I think it comes down to how big a deal you think Trump's attacks on the legitimacy of the press are.  I agree with Spielberg that they're a big enough deal to warrant a reminder of the importance of the 1st amendment, and how a free press is the only thing that can hold a government accountable.  I think it's the opposite of cynicism actually, it's Spielberg at his most idealistic and passionate.

 

Ultimately, the film is the film, and you seem to be reacting to everything around the film.  It is a very real possibility that I will see this movie and not like it, but I do bristle at what I see as kneejerk and/or ignorant criticisms of it.  Now I can tell you're not a drooling idiot who makes irrelevant statements like "All media is bias and therefore bad" (seriously why do these morons never seem to know how to use the word biased?) and can recognize nuance.  Standing up for a free press is not the same thing as saying all journalists are noble heroes.

 

Life is messy and it's hard to recognize the truth, the media basically organizes it into a narrative that we can follow.  Can't remember where the quote is from, but I've seen journalism called "History's first draft."  Trump is actively sowing confusion and disorder, and much of the mainstream press response can be equally confusing.  So yeah, it'll be nice to dive into a story where journalists were able to shine a light into dark places that a secretive government were trying to hide.

 

Anyway, I clearly feel way too hard about this stuff and I should go back to making ironic jokes.

 

 

1 minute ago, BloodBoal said:

 

It's not about the aura of the franchise (or lack thereof), more about the accomplishment in itself: 9 scores for the same franchise done by the same composer (a franchise for which he created some of the most iconic themes ever). I think he has very good chances to get it, even if the score sucks (unless, as you say, there's a surprise big hit a la La La Land. "A la La La Land": try saying that multiple times as fast as you can).

 

Deck the halls with lots of Oscars

A la la la laaaa la la la laaand

[KK 3,307]

5 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

 

It's not about the aura of the franchise (or lack thereof), more about the accomplishment in itself: 9 scores for the same franchise done by the same composer (a franchise for which he created some of the most iconic themes ever). I think he has very good chances to get it, even if the score sucks.

 

Right, but I don't think this means as much to the Academy voters as it does to us, especially for just another blockbuster franchise (at this point). Unless Williams & co really campaigns on that whole idea. Besides, I think its more likely to see him awarded an honourary Oscar in lieu of a real win that year.

 

Memoirs was his last real chance at his 6th Oscar. Lincoln would have been his closest since. 

[Nick1Ø66 4,714]

@Disco Stu, my problem with the whole thing isn't politics. I wasn't trying to make a political point or get into a political debate.  The film may be good. It will probably end up being a competent, above-average to good film like most of Spielberg's movies of this sort for the past twenty years. The issue isn't the film's quality (I obviously haven't seen it), it's all the messaging around it and being lectured about how important it all is. Like I said, just rubs me the wrong way. I'm sure the film itself is fine. But it's designed to win awards. It's not like it's going to win over any converts to the cause of how crucial a free press is. The people who are going to see this movie already hate Trump and agree with the premise.

 

10 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

Anyway, I clearly feel way too hard about this stuff and I should go back to making ironic jokes.

 

Yeah, you don't want to lose your coveted Leaderboard spot.

[KK 3,307]

6 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

(unless, as you say, there's a surprise big hit a la La La Land. "A la La La Land": try saying that multiple times as fast as you can).

 

Thank you. I just got kicked out of the building.

[SF1_freeze 131]

14 hours ago, KK said:

Williams will not win another Oscar for the remainder of his career, unless it be an honourary one.

 

No one knows that, he may even win one for the Post.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

2 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

@Disco Stu, My problem with the whole thing isn't politics. I wasn't trying to make a political point or get into a political debate.  The film may be good. It will probably end up being a competent, above-average to good film like most of Spielberg's movies of this sort for the past twenty years.

 

My problem isn't with the film's quality (I obviously haven't seen it), it's will all the messaging around it and being lectured about how important it all is. Like I said, just rubs me the wrong way. I'm sure the film itself is fine.

 

I guess I'm more able to separate in my head the film from the language used by some egotistical writers/TV people.  I think stepping away from social media almost entirely helps in that regard, actually.

[KK 3,307]

3 minutes ago, SF1_freeze said:

No one knows that, he may even win one for the Post.

 

Sure. But I doubt it.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Well no Morricone to spoil Williams chances this year at least!  It will come down to Zimmer v. Williams this time.  I can already imagine the threads round here.....

[Not Mr. Big 4,639]

9 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

Well no Morricone to spoil Williams chances this year at least!  It will come down to Zimmer v. Williams this time.  I can already imagine the threads round here.....

A pleasant but boring Williams score vs an experimental but obnoxious and unlistenable Zimmer score.  The battle of the century.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

I vote for the guy with the exotic name!