Monthly Archives: January 2018

  • The Post

    Steven Spielberg (2017)

    The advertisements for The Post on hoardings at our local station bespeak an overweening confidence.  There’s a STREEP one and a HANKS one – a backview of each star above their upper case name, below an array of rave review headlines for the film.  I didn’t look closely enough to find out whether the posters felt the need even to mention SPIELBERG.  As the world knows, this is the first time these three have collaborated – to be precise, the first time the two actors have shared the screen and Meryl Streep has appeared in a Spielberg film.  (She supplied a voice for A I Artificial Intelligence (2001).)  There’s an implication in the publicity that movie people of the celebrity magnitude of Streep, Hanks and Spielberg were needed to tell a story as IMPORTANT as the one this film has to tell.

    Yet in spite of mostly good notices and excellent box office (worldwide takings to date of $83m against a $50m budget), The Post hasn’t proved to be the awards season smash many expected it to be.  The National Board of Review, first out of the annual prize-giving gate as usual, gave it Best Film, Best Actor and Best Actress honours in late November.  The Board is by no means a reliable predictor of honours but few would have expected the film not to get a single SAG or BAFTA nomination.   Although it has two Oscar nods – for Best Picture and Best Actress – it won’t win either award.  Is this a fair reflection of the film’s quality or has its hype worked against it?  Both, I think, and the two things interact.  The Post purports to be urgently of the moment.  It turns out to be, in many respects, an old-fashioned piece of cinema.

    In October 2016, Amy Pascal (who has produced the film with Spielberg and Kristie Macosko Krieger) made the winning bid for the rights to Liz Hannah’s screenplay, which dramatises the events that led to the Washington Post ‘s publication of the Pentagon Papers in 1971.  At the start of 2017, Steven Spielberg hadn’t even read Hannah’s script but a gap in his schedule unexpectedly appeared (when production was halted on The Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara) and he decided this was a story that couldn’t wait to be made.  The Post means to be a rallying cry for the sanctity of the First Amendment, at a time when the Trump White House has made freedom of the American press a live political issue.

    Perhaps Spielberg felt the best way to honour investigative journalism was to invoke past Hollywood celebrations of press crusaders.  Perhaps the speed with which he made The Post simply didn’t allow the time to work out a more imaginative approach.  Whatever the reasons, the visual narrative is clichéd – without putting a fresh spin on the clichés.  There’s even a bit where someone tries reading headlines in inclement weather – until a gust of wind catches hold of the paper and blows it away.  All the Money in the World features exactly the same number (which does give a new meaning to ‘hold the front page’).  Spielberg gets some mileage out of antediluvian 1970s technology – photocopiers, pay phones, newspaper typesetting – but his traditional approach is sometimes counterproductive.  As Ben Bagdikian, a key member of the Washington Post team, Bob Odenkirk has a haggard leanness that seems just right for a man who works too hard and sleeps too little.  (It was a pleasant surprise, given the actor’s drawn pallor, to discover from Wikipedia that the real Bagdikian lived to be ninety-six.)  Odenkirk also has a good journeyman gait but there are times when Spielberg’s camera seems determined to show Bagdikian-in-motion as more obviously heroic – a standard-issue pursuer of truth.

    The first part of the film’s prologue takes place in the South Vietnam jungle in 1966, where Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys), then a member of staff of the State Department, is approaching the end of a two-year government assignment with the US military.   On his return home, Ellsberg worked on. ‘United States – Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967’, commissioned by Robert McNamara, the Secretary of State for Defense.  The contents of this top-secret report (which McNamara – as The Post eventually makes clear – intended for posterity) became the Pentagon Papers.  The second part of The Post’s prologue describes how Ellsberg smuggled classified documents out of the office and, with a couple of friends, made photocopies.  (This actually happened in 1969.)  The film is so sure of itself that Spielberg foregoes the usual based-on-true-events reminder at the outset but there’s nothing exceptional about his opening sequences – they’re competent but conventional scene-setting for a political thriller.

    After this average start, The Post moves into 1971 and, for most of the next hour or so, it’s very entertaining.  Michael Kahn’s typically crisp editing enhances Spielberg’s typically clear storytelling.  The rhythms between Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks in their first scene together – a meeting over coffee between the Washington Post’s owner, Katharine (Kay) Graham, and the paper’s editor-in-chief, Ben Bradlee – are close to elating, and make you eager for more.  The narrative gets across well the personal difficulties for Graham and Bradlee, both of whom were friends of John F Kennedy and of members of his White House team, in coming to terms with the Pentagon Papers’ exposure of the Vietnam War secrets of earlier American administrations, Kennedy’s included.

    The Washington Post’s going public on the stock market and its initial publication of the Pentagon Papers really did coincide as the film describes[1].  This gives Kay Graham, whose family had owned the paper since 1933, a dual dilemma and it’s in Kay that The Post‘s freedom-of-the-press theme fuses with its other politically right-on aspect:  the struggle of a woman in a man’s world.   Meryl Streep’s portrayal of Kay makes for amusing points of comparison with another of her recent forays into the world of journalism (albeit as a fictional character).  As in The Devil Wears Prada (2006), Streep rarely raises her voice but the significance of this in The Post is very different:  whereas Miranda Priestly was so much in charge she had no need to shout, Kate Graham hardly dares to be heard.  Streep (who is perfectly audible, however quietly she speaks) plays Kay’s lack of confidence in public meetings brilliantly.  As Rozalind Dineen in the Times Literary Supplement says, she ‘has mastered the uncomfortable facial expression of someone who would like to speak, but is holding the words back in their mouth, as if they were small unknown objects’.  When Miranda Priestly entered the office, she almost chucked her bag and coat onto a desk and a chair.  Kay Graham puts them down carefully.

    The highlight of Meryl Streep’s performance – and of the film – is Kay’s phone conversation with Ben Bradlee and the Post chairman Fritz Beebe (Tracy Letts), in which she’s forced to decide whether to publish the first excerpts from the Pentagon Papers, in spite of the legal risks of doing so.  Bradlee urges her to say yes; Beebe advises against; the agonised Kay takes them both and herself by surprise by the suddenness of her ‘Let’s publish’.  Streep shows Kay as being propelled towards her decision yet generates suspense enough to surprise too the viewer who knows what’s coming.   She’s patchy, however, in the second half of The Post.   A scene in which she pays Robert McNamara (Bruce Greenwood, good as usual) a call at home – he’s another old friend – is awkward in the wrong way, as Kay tearfully reproves him for putting American mothers through the pain of seeing their sons go off to Vietnam, long after McNamara knew the war there could not be won.  In another one-on-one with Bradlee, which takes place chez Kay, Streep clutches a cushion from the sofa on which they’re both sitting.  The business with the cushion is meant to express Kay’s insecurity but it comes across as Streep, rather than the woman she’s playing, needing something to hold onto – the sort of thing an actor does to work their way into a character, then jettisons.  (The prop reliance may of course reflect the unusually swift production schedule; and it would be interesting to know the shooting sequence of scenes.)   Spielberg – not renowned as a director of actors or, especially, actresses – joins the roll call of film-makers who might have helped Meryl Streep and themselves by being tougher, instead of watching her in admiration.

    Jason Robards’s portrait of Ben Bradlee in All the President’s Men (1976) casts a long shadow.  Tom Hanks is a sufficiently strong – and different – screen presence to step out of that shadow but his persona immediately certifies Bradlee as not just editor-in-chief but good-guy-in-chief too.  This is no doubt what Spielberg wants but it reinforces the moral flatness of the piece and Hanks, for all his skill, doesn’t bring out Bradlee’s more belligerent side with much feeling.  It doesn’t help Hanks, Streep or Spielberg that the writing of The Post deteriorates sharply in the later stages.  Josh Singer, who co-wrote another high-profile newsroom drama in Spotlight (2015), was brought in for rewrites on Liz Hannah’s script but the end product pushes crudely towards the convergence of the press freedom and feminist themes.  This is realised in silly details like a crowd of women gazing awestruck at Kay Graham as she leaves the Supreme Court hearing.  It’s sealed when – after the Court has ruled 6-3 to allow newspapers to resume publication of Pentagon Papers material – the wording of the judgment, which confirms that the duty of a free press is ‘to serve the governed, not the governors’, is read out by one of the Washington Post’s female journalists (Carrie Coon).  Talk about a token gesture:  it does no more to substantiate the film’s professed feminism than does the the weakly written role of Bradlee’s wife (Sarah Paulson).

    In some ways, Kay Graham seems an odd choice of heroine for a parable of female empowerment.  A few years after her marriage to Philip Graham, Kay’s father, the financier Eugene Meyer, handed the Washington Post over to his son-in-law; Kay assumed the paper’s ownership following her husband’s suicide in 1963, when she was in her mid-forties.  She hardly fought her way to the top – it’s arguable she had greatness thrust upon her.  But The Post is interesting in its suggestion that Graham’s exceptionally privileged background increased her lack of self-confidence beyond the domestic and social worlds to which she was accustomed.  The wardrobe Ann Roth has designed for Meryl Streep stresses the dichotomy between the socialite and the businesswoman and it’s only in the very late stages of the story that Kay is anywhere near comfortable in the latter role.  It’s a pity the script effects her transformation coarsely.  The clumsy exposition in a conversation between Kay and her daughter Lally (Alison Brie) – in which Kay recalls her marriage, her husband’s death and how Lally helped her through it – verges on desperate.

    The Post really dives in the closing stages, during which you become increasingly aware of John Williams’s tiresome uplifting score.   The standouts in smaller roles are Michael Stuhlbarg (as the New York Times editor, A M Rosenthal), Jesse Plemons (as a member of the Washington Post‘s legal team) and the tape-recorded voices of Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger.  Spielberg makes effective use of them at an earlier point of the narrative but Nixon’s last-minute involvement is cheap and corny.   This time, as we hear the President’s voice, Janusz Kamiński’s camera looms towards a silhouetted figure within one of the windows of the White House.  The director then cuts to the initial discovery of the Watergate break-in, as if to say:  this led to the Washington Post’s next big coup (and to a contribution to the Hollywood freedom-of-the-press tradition that I, Steven Spielberg, am now maintaining).  The New York Times, which first published excerpts from the Pentagon Papers, has unsurprisingly complained about its relatively minor role in the film.   During 2017, its entry on IMDB appeared first as The Post, then as The Papers, finally as The Post again.  I doubt it would have been enough to appease the Times but The Papers – with its dual meaning and applicability to newspapers generally – would have been a much better title.

    24 January 2018

    [1] On 15 June 1971, the Washington Post Company went public with the sale of ‘Class B common stock to the general public for $26 per share’.  On 18 June 1971, the paper began publishing excerpts from the Pentagon Papers.  On 30 June 1971, the US Supreme Court upheld the right of the Post and other newspapers to publish the Pentagon Papers.

     

  • Through a Glass Darkly

    Såsom i en spegel

    Ingmar Bergman (1961)

    In the opening scene, four distant figures – three men and a woman – emerge from the sea after a swim.  They laugh as they run towards the shore and the camera.  They sound happy.   What the audience learns within the next few minutes of Through a Glass Darkly ensures that subsequent laughter from these characters is always charged with awareness that it covers more complicated and unhappy feelings.  A while further into the story, they stop laughing altogether.

    The four people are members of the same family – a father, his teenage son and adult daughter, and her husband – on holiday on a remote island off the Swedish coast.  (The film was shot on Fårö, which Ingmar Bergman made his home and where location shooting of several subsequent films, including Persona, took place.)  The widowed David (Gunnar Björnstrand) is a novelist, just back from a lengthy stay in Switzerland, where his new manuscript has been progressing splendidly, or so he says.  Having promised his children that, once returned, he would stay in Sweden, David soon disappoints them by announcing a further trip abroad in the near future.  (It becomes clear that this will be another attempt to cure his writer’s block.)  He disappoints too with the choice of presents he’s brought back for the family, not least because they’re sure he picked them up not in Switzerland but at Stockholm airport, as an afterthought.

    David’s daughter, Karin (Harriet Andersson), has recently left hospital after treatment for a mental illness.  Early remarks exchanged by her doctor husband Martin (Max von Sydow) and her father paint an optimistic picture of Karin’s condition but it soon emerges that she’s suffering from an incurable form of schizophrenia.  Minus (Lars Passgård), the son, is still at school and preparing for exams, though, as Karin discovers, his Latin grammar book conceals a girlie magazine.  Minus is troubled by the lack of communication between himself and his father, as well as by his sister’s illness.  In one scene Karin incestuously seduces Minus; in another, she refuses to have sex with her loving but frustrated husband.  The film’s action takes place over the course of twenty-four hours, during which Karin’s condition deteriorates; it ends with her departure for hospital, accompanied by Martin, and with a penetrating conversation between David and Minus.  After his father has left the room, the son, in a tone of wondering disbelief, speaks the closing line, ‘Papa spoke to me’.

    Within the Bergman canon, Through a Glass Darkly is often described as the first part of his ‘Silence of God’ trilogy, to be followed by Winter Light and The Silence.  In his memoir Images: My Life in Film, Bergman disowned the trilogy concept but described Through a Glass Darkly, as his ‘first real small ensemble drama’, as ‘lead[ing] the way for Persona’.   The cast of four, essentially a single location, a good deal of dialogue – these basic components might suggest a stage play (and the material has been adapted for and performed in the theatre during the current decade).  Yet, like Persona and other ‘small ensemble dramas’ that followed, Through a Glass Darkly seems not just thoroughly but fundamentally cinematic – it is experienced primarily as a flow of images, from the opening pattern of light on water onwards.  Although Bergman and Sven Nykvist ‘have laughed many a time at our not always successful lighting’, it looks good to this inexpert eye.   Nykvist’s black-and-white photography, in combination with the powerful naturalistic acting, makes all four characters intensely individual.

    Bergman mixes human and divine references to disturbing effect.  Karin experiences God as a vague, comforting hope ‘beyond the door’ of human life but also as a terrifying reality within it – a malignant spider that crawls out of a crack in the wall and wants to penetrate her.   (Peeling, oddly patterned wallpaper seems to mark the threshold between the here-and-now and another plane of being in Karin’s mind.  It makes uncomfortable sense that God, if everywhere, is apprehensible in nooks and crannies.)   The young man who introduced this BFI screening – nervously but clearly, and with welcome brevity – suggested that Through a Glass Darkly shows how much people may expect of parents, as well as of God.  I agree.  The final exchange between David and Minus is as follows:

    Minus:   I can’t live in this new world.

    David:  Yes, you can.  But you must have something to hold on to.

    Minus:  What would that be?  A god?  Give me some proof of God.  You can’t.

    David:  Yes, I can.   But you have to listen carefully.

    Minus:  Yes, I need to listen …

    David:  I can only give you a hint of my own hope.  It’s knowing that love exists for real in the human world.

    Minus:  A special kind of love, I suppose?

    David:  All kinds, Minus – the highest and the lowest, the most absurd and the most sublime.  All kinds of love. …

    Minus:  So love is the proof?

    David:  I don’t know if love is proof of God’s existence or if it’s God himself.

    Minus:  For you, love and God are the same thing.

    David:  That thought helps me in my emptiness and my dirty despair.  …

    Minus:  Papa, if it’s as you say, then Karin is surrounded by God.  We love her so much.

    David:  Yes.

    Minus:  Can that help her?

    David:  I think so.

    According to Wikipedia, Bergman ‘later regretted’ the God-is-love-and-vice-versa message as ‘lacking truth’.  In Images he describes Through a Glass Darkly as ‘a desperate attempt to present a simple philosophy’ and ‘a horrendously revealing portrait of the creator and the condition he was in at the start of the film, both as a man and an artist’ – striking evidence of how much he saw his cinema as a form of self-expression.  This criticism is surely unwarranted.  The audience may well see David, who articulates the ‘simple philosophy’, as a Bergman alter ego – another in his series of artists damaged by self-centredness.  But we also see him as an independent character whose shortcomings and insecurities are credible – too credible for us to receive what David says in the final scene as a ‘message’ unqualified by personal weakness or the particular circumstances in which it’s spoken.  (I hope Bergman doesn’t really mean us to take a character’s words as simply the writer-director’s own.  Whenever I hear someone announce their motto in life as, ‘This above all: to thine own self be true – as Shakespeare said’, I always want to reply, ‘You mean as Polonius – a pompous professional creep – said’.)

    In the film’s climactic conversation, the great Gunnar Björnstrand doesn’t suggest that the father’s hope is invulnerable.  (We already know that his hope didn’t help David when he decided to attempt suicide during his stay in Switzerland.)  What Björnstrand does suggest is that, in the face of Minus’s crisis, David not only is aware of his paternal responsibility to provide the reassurance his son is seeking but, unusually for him, acts on that awareness too.  Björnstrand also convinces us that David wants to believe what he’s saying, and knows it’s important that his son believes he believes it.  The almost comical irony of Minus’s last line is that a tête-à-tête with his father is so extraordinary that, in itself, it’s almost an epiphany.

    The ‘new world’ in which the son fears he can’t survive is one in which ‘anything can happen’ – the world Minus apprehended earlier in the day, as he and Karin took shelter from an impending storm in the hulk of a ship and she seduced him.  This is where and when, for Minus, ‘Reality burst open and I tumbled out’.  Through a Glass Darkly led the way for Persona in this sense too – as a dramatisation of the necessity and fragility of keeping up an act, and thereby keeping chaos (or a sense of void) at bay.  Bergman equally suggests, in an earlier episode in which the other three perform a short play that Minus has written for David, how dressing up as someone else can be an effective way of conveying a message that you wouldn’t dare deliver more directly.  David, at any rate, interprets the play as an attack on his shortcomings as a father.

    Harriet Andersson is quite wonderful as Karin.  The mixture of disgust and childish disappointment in her face and voice, as she confirms the nature of the deity she’s encountered, is as hard to forget as Andersson’s physically dynamic, frighteningly believable enactment of the spider-God’s attempted invasion.  (The arachnid assault on Karin seems to coalesce in her mind with the insect-like menace of the helicopter, with its whirring propeller and aggressively nattering engine, that arrives to transport her to hospital.)   Once Martin has sedated her, Andersson makes Karin calmly but profoundly defeated as she confirms, ‘I have seen God’.  (It’s the last line that she speaks.)  Martin’s ineffectiveness in the face of his wife’s illness is much more gripping than it might have been with a less imposing actor than Max von Sydow in the role.  In Olympian acting company, nineteen-year-old Lars Passgård acquits himself very well.

    The Bach cello music used by Bergman reinforces the film’s grave beauty.  While its title, in the English translation, is a direct biblical quote (1 Corinthians, 13:12 – ‘For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face …’), the Swedish literally means ‘As in a Mirror’.  I don’t know whether ‘Såsom i en spegel’ is the wording used in the corresponding verse in the Swedish bible but the unnerving religious dimension of Through a Glass Darkly makes a scriptural connotation more than fitting.

    23 January 2018

Posts navigation