Jim DiEugenio spanks The Post

[Paul Brancato]

I’ve been avoiding the movie because I know it’s going to piss me off. As for the interchange here on this thread, I can see Pat’s point that there are positive messages in the film that go beyond historical accuracy. That is a good thing in its own right.

But I am so sick of historical revisionism, which is all around us every day in every way.  So I sympathize completely with Jim because I feel his frustration, and he more than most knows just how false this movie, which purports to be history, actually is. 

[Jim Hargrove]

Why can't Hollywood directors as powerful as Steven Spielberg simply tell the truth?  Why must we be afraid of the facts?  

[Pat Speer]

7 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Why can't Hollywood directors as powerful as Steven Spielberg simply tell the truth?  Why must we be afraid of the facts?  

It's not that anyone is afraid of the facts, Jim, it's that the plain facts, and nothing but the facts, don't sell. To most, they're not entertaining. A more accurate film based on The Pentagon Papers, with James Spader as Daniel Ellsberg, was put out some years back, but few, outside geeks like myself, cared or even noticed.

Just as a recitation of one's feelings can be made a hundred times more powerful with the addition of some poetry, and melody, the lessons of history can be made far more accessible, and powerful, with a little added drama.

As far as this particular film...I would agree that it could have been just as effective if Spielberg had made more of an effort to be accurate.

 

 

 

Edited January 24, 2018 by Pat Speer

[Don Jeffries]

This odious piece of cinematic disinformation cannot be compared in any way, shape, or form to Oliver Stone's JFK. Stone took very little dramatic license; he basically combined a few characters to create the fictional Willie O'Keefe, couldn't use Ruth Paine's real name for fear of a lawsuit, and idealized Jim Garrison a good deal because he needed a single protagonist. 

The Post takes real events and skewers them beyond all recognition. It makes a heroine out of Katherine Graham, who was an obnoxious One Percenter that was never any kind of true liberal zealot, despite the histrionics of Hollywood's favorite actress. Graham's timeless quote, "There are things the general public does not need to know and shouldn't. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows" should tell anyone all they need to know about her "journalistic" instincts. 

This film, like almost every film about a given slice of history, is selling the official narrative. The official narrative here is that the establishment Left, represented by Ben Bradlee (Richard Helms' childhood buddy) and Katherine Graham, is altruistic and worthy of every accolade we can bestow upon them. The casting of Hanks, Hollywood's loudest lone nutter, is very revealing. Hanks is a quintessential establishment "liberal." As I showed in Hidden History, the establishment Left despises the Kennedys, especially JFK. The official narrative is that JFK was no different than LBJ or any other politician, and was in fact more personally corrupt, what with all those gangster molls and spies he was screwing. He was also somehow deathly sick at the same time, and any cover up associated with his autopsy was due to the Kennedy family wanting to keep all this suppressed. 

Jim DiEugenio is exactly right here. Much as Ken Burns' Vietnam (and again, Burns is yet another faithful establishment liberal) failed to mention the significance of NSAMs 263 and 273, this film distorts the historical record by casting those who were part of the problem by covering up a myriad of sordid deeds (first and foremost, the truth about the JFK assassination), as being crusading "journalists" for the truth. And people wonder why so many of us are down on Hollywood. 

[James DiEugenio]

Don:

Let us not forget ever: Ben Bradlee sanctioned that Lardner hit piece of Oliver Stone's JFK, six months before it appeared.

And in that hit piece, Lardner criticized the film for its use of NSAM 263, Kennedy's withdrawal order. 

Stone asked to reply.  Bradlee refused and Stone had to hire a PR guy, Frank Mankiewicz.  Even at that, Stone had to threaten to buy a full page ad before he was allowed to reply.  Also, something that very few people know, David Phillips called up Ben Bradlee when the Veciana story was surfacing in the late seventies.  He told him it was a bunch of BS and asked him for his help in discrediting it.  Then Bradlee put a British intern on the story and he came back and said, "I cannot discredit it since it appears to be true."  Bradlee deep sixed the story.

Some friend of JFK.

If Bradlee wanted to sit it out on his friend's murder, that is one thing.  But the Post was always antagonistic to the critics in the worst, most caricaturing way. 

Edited January 24, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[Thomas Graves]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Don:

Let us not forget ever: Ben Bradlee sanctioned that Lardner hit piece of Oliver Stone's JFK, six months before it appeared.

[...]

James, 

With all due respect, is the excerpt (below) from the "hit piece" you're talking about?

If so, did Lardner misquote Weisberg? 

 

"But Harold Weisberg, a longtime critic of the FBI and Warren Commission investigations of the assassination -- and who has little patience for many of the conspiracy theories that keep popping up -- protests: 'To do a mishmash like this [Stone's JFK] is out of love for the victim and respect for history? I think people who sell sex have more principle.'"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1991/05/19/on-the-set-dallas-in-wonderland/0c958035-3fc2-48a7-a108-da0855c92a94/?utm_term=.65734635edce

--  Tommy 

Edited January 24, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Jim Hargrove]

Let’s not forget what the Washington Post did to help destroy the late Gary Webb, the courageous reporter whose Dark Alliance series first brought to public attention the depth and breadth of the CIA Contra-Cocaine scandal.  The Post, together with The New York Times, went from selectively reporting the news to becoming a literary hit squad to squash the truth, just as they did for JFK.

“Those who don’t read the newspaper are uninformed.  Those who do read it are misinformed.”  – Mark Twain, I think.

Edited January 24, 2018 by Jim Hargrove

[Joe Bauer]

Ben Bradlee sneaks onto Mary Myer's property, looks to break into and enter her home ( garage, studio whatever) to ...look for and take her dairy?

And when he arrives he runs into J.J. Angleton who is already there cutting a lock?

Two powerful men brazenly breaking the law and so cozy socially they aren't ruffled by running into each other this way? 

Nuts! 

Bradlee was so obviously much more than what he is generally depicted to be.

Especially in "The Post."

And what would Bradlee have done with Mary Meyer's dairy if he had found it? I think we know.

How about a Speilberg film centered around the interesting, emancipated and high bred woman Mary Meyer and her fascinating life and mysterious murder followed by this crazy but real life scene with Bradlee and Angleton?

And also, like I said earlier....super accomplished and sacrificing and high society interesting Dorothy Kilgallen and her life and death story deserves a movie way, way beyond any Katherine Graham one.

Meryl Streep actually looks quite similar to Dorothy Kilgallen about the time Kilgallen was murdered.

With dyed hair and the right make up...she's a ringer for Kilgallen. She even has a receding chin like Kilgallen.

And Kilgallen's true life story is so interesting, they wouldn't have to embellish it hardly at all.

Stone would be willing to take the career risk of telling Kilgallen's story. Spielberg...no.

 

Edited January 25, 2018 by Joe Bauer

[Joe Bauer]

Dorothy Kilgallen.

The most famous, interesting and deserving of a life story film American woman ...to never have one.

One of our most famous, high achieving, highly inspiring, high society and high drama women in the 20th century and not one major film production company has ever even attempted such a project?

The void there is so illogical it shouts suspicion.

Kilgallen's real life story "on it's own" is BURSTING with every formulaic audience appeal film element producers have always demanded but rarely get in such a complete way.

Much of Kilgallen's life and career story is at times even hard to believe.

Her coverage and reporting and influence on the Sam Sheppard case ( leading to a reversal of his conviction ) was the true story basis for the T.V show and film "The Fugitive." Just this "one episode" in Kilgallen's life would make for a very interesting and inspiring film.

And the high drama in her life just went on and on. 

Her top name celebrity feuds with the likes of Frank Sinatra and her inferences to his Mafia ties alone was another shocking episode and came credibly close to life and death risk taking.

J. Edgar Hoover himself was her enemy from way back.

Kilgallen's many years as a regular on the nationally broadcast TV show "What's My Line",  which was one of the most widely popular and viewed in the country,  is just another fascinating aspect of her life.

DK's life was one fascinating high drama and high society episode after another.

And what could be a more perfect dramatic film ending than Kilgallen's obsession with the JFK assassination and her efforts to get the greatest scoop of all time amidst a super murky and suspicious affair with a creepy younger man which all culminated in her receiving serious death threats and actually ended with her premature death which, on it's face, was clearly murder.

Even today's younger women would find something interesting in a Dorothy Kilgallen entire life story film. And it's all TRUE!

Almost too late for this idea? 

Would love to see Meryl Streep round out her film career catalog with something fascinating, courageous and historically relevant and important and "women empowering" like the Dorothy Kilgallen story. 

If for any other reason, to make up for her referring to Harvey Weinstein as "God" in one of her Academy Award acceptance speeches?

 

Edited January 25, 2018 by Joe Bauer

[James DiEugenio]

BTW Jim:

In the six page CIA memo that circulated after the Webb story had been neutralized, they said that at first they really feared it was a tidal wave.  But the turning point was the Walter Pincus story in the Washington Post. 

And that started the counterattack that was picked up by the NY Times and LA Times.

I have to say, Kill the Messenger was a very good film compared to this.  Much more candid and trenchant about the true facts of the Webb case.

 

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW Jim:

In the six page CIA memo that circulated after the Webb story had been neutralized, they said that at first they really feared it was a tidal wave.  But the turning point was the Walter Pincus story in the Washington Post. 

And that started the counterattack that was picked up by the NY Times and LA Times.

I have to say, Kill the Messenger was a very good film compared to this.  Much more candid and trenchant about the true facts of the Webb case.

 

Yes, Kill the Messenger, which was written by Peter Landesman, the same guy who wrote and directed Parkland, and more recently Mark Felt.

The point I've been trying to make is that film-makers aren't particularly concerned with what the "true" story is, but are more concerned with telling the story they want to tell, even if it means changing the timeline and combining characters, etc. Or polishing up the character of the leads.

As discussed in William Goldman's books on Hollywood, moreover, most big budget films can't get made without the addition of a star, and most stars won't portray characters that might damage their brand. In other words, much of the time, the dialogue and behavior of the lead character is sculpted to suit the "star" playing that character, and is not necessarily what the director.had in mind when he/she first signed on to the project.

Landesman is cut from the Spielberg mold, which is the say the traditional Hollywood mold, the mold of The Sound of Music and The Untouchables.

Oliver Stone, clearly,, is more in the Costa Gavras mold, the mold of Z and Missing.

Stone, as Costa Gavras, has more of an edge. But he's not necessarily more interested in accuracy, IMO. At least not in the details. His depictions of Shaw and Ferrie in JFK, for example, were cartoon-like. As was his depiction of Johnny Carson in the director's cut... Now, I know why he did this. JFK was written and directed from Garrison's point of view. But that doesn't mean it was accurate.

As far as The Post, the main take-away from the film, IMO, is that it's the press's responsibility to keep the government in check, and expose it when it lies for reasons other than national security, particularly when it hides behind national security to perpetuate these lies.

I mean, who can argue with that?

And who can argue with its second main take-away? That the days when men of privilege and education push women of privilege and education around must come to an end?

There's nothing edgy about it. But it's the kind of movie a lot of people have been dying to see. As demonstrated by its nomination for Best Picture.

As stated, it's not about Vietnam. It's about today. It's about Trump.

Edited January 25, 2018 by Pat Speer

[Paul Brancato]

46 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Yes, Kill the Messenger, which was written by Peter Landesman, the same guy who wrote and directed Parkland, and more recently Mark Felt.

The point I've been trying to make is that film-makers aren't particularly concerned with what the "true" story is, but are more concerned with telling the story they want to tell, even if it means changing the timeline and combining characters, etc. Or polishing up the character of the leads.

As discussed in William Goldman's books on Hollywood, moreover, most big budget films can't get made without the addition of a star, and most stars won't portray characters that might damage their brand. In other words, much of the time, the dialogue and behavior of the lead character is sculpted to suit the "star" playing that character, and is not necessarily what the director.had in mind when he/she first signed on to the project.

Landesman is cut from the Spielberg mold, which is the say the traditional Hollywood mold, the mold of The Sound of Music and The Untouchables.

Oliver Stone, clearly,, is more in the Costa Gavras mold, the mold of Z and Missing.

Stone, as Costa Gavras, has more of an edge. But he's not necessarily more interested in accuracy, IMO. At least not in the details. His depictions of Shaw and Ferrie in JFK, for example, were cartoon-like. As was his depiction of Johnny Carson in the director's cut... Now, I know why he did this. JFK was written and directed from Garrison's point of view. But that doesn't mean it was accurate.

As far as The Post, the main take-away from the film, IMO, is that it's the press's responsibility to keep the government in check, and expose it when it lies for reasons other than national security, particularly when it hides behind national security to perpetuate these lies.

I mean, who can argue with that?

And who can argue with its second main take-away? That the days when men of privilege and education push women of privilege and education around must come to an end?

There's nothing edgy about it. But it's the kind of movie a lot of people have been dying to see. As demonstrated by its nomination for Best Picture.

As stated, it's not about Vietnam. It's about today. It's about Trump.

Pat - do you think Spielberg knows he’s not being truthful and is making a conscious cinematic decision to tell the story a certain way for effect? 

If it’s in some way about Trump, are we supposed to believe the Times and the Post are telling truth now? 

I listened to an interview today with the author of The Plot to Kill King. Every year when MLK day arrives I wonder whether any media will tell that story. They never do. 

[Ron Bulman]

13 hours ago, Don Jeffries said:

This odious piece of cinematic disinformation cannot be compared in any way, shape, or form to Oliver Stone's JFK. Stone took very little dramatic license; he basically combined a few characters to create the fictional Willie O'Keefe, couldn't use Ruth Paine's real name for fear of a lawsuit, and idealized Jim Garrison a good deal because he needed a single protagonist. 

The Post takes real events and skewers them beyond all recognition. It makes a heroine out of Katherine Graham, who was an obnoxious One Percenter that was never any kind of true liberal zealot, despite the histrionics of Hollywood's favorite actress. Graham's timeless quote, "There are things the general public does not need to know and shouldn't. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows" should tell anyone all they need to know about her "journalistic" instincts. 

This film, like almost every film about a given slice of history, is selling the official narrative. The official narrative here is that the establishment Left, represented by Ben Bradlee (Richard Helms' childhood buddy) and Katherine Graham, is altruistic and worthy of every accolade we can bestow upon them. The casting of Hanks, Hollywood's loudest lone nutter, is very revealing. Hanks is a quintessential establishment "liberal." As I showed in Hidden History, the establishment Left despises the Kennedys, especially JFK. The official narrative is that JFK was no different than LBJ or any other politician, and was in fact more personally corrupt, what with all those gangster molls and spies he was screwing. He was also somehow deathly sick at the same time, and any cover up associated with his autopsy was due to the Kennedy family wanting to keep all this suppressed. 

Jim DiEugenio is exactly right here. Much as Ken Burns' Vietnam (and again, Burns is yet another faithful establishment liberal) failed to mention the significance of NSAMs 263 and 273, this film distorts the historical record by casting those who were part of the problem by covering up a myriad of sordid deeds (first and foremost, the truth about the JFK assassination), as being crusading "journalists" for the truth. And people wonder why so many of us are down on Hollywood. 

I did not know Helms was Bradlee's childhood buddy.  That's notable (Main Street Media = CIA).  With friends like this who needs Cord Meyer and Mockingbird.  Though they were one in another.  Thanks for the education.

[Pat Speer]

Does anyone know where this stuff about Helms and Bradlee being childhood buddies comes from?

From what I can tell, Helms was born in 1913, and raised in Philadelphia and New York, and Bradlee was born in 1921, and raised in Boston.

Helms graduated Williams College in 1935. Bradlee was 14 at the time. Helms then moved to Europe and became a foreign correspondent. Meanwhile, Bradlee went to Harvard.

During the war, for that matter, Helms worked for the Navy out of New York and then Washington, and then joined the OSS. Bradlee, on the other hand, joined Naval intelligence after graduating Harvard, and then served in the Pacific.

It seems likely they never met till after the war. It seems possible, for that matter, that they never met until much later, in the late 50's, or early 60's, when both men were closing in on middle age.

 

 

[Pat Speer]

5 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Pat - do you think Spielberg knows he’s not being truthful and is making a conscious cinematic decision to tell the story a certain way for effect? 

If it’s in some way about Trump, are we supposed to believe the Times and the Post are telling truth now? 

I listened to an interview today with the author of The Plot to Kill King. Every year when MLK day arrives I wonder whether any media will tell that story. They never do. 

 Spielberg is primarily a director. I suspect that he reads scripts with an eye not for detail or accuracy, but for entertainment. "How can I turn this into something the audience will love?" "How can I make those in the audience feel better about the world?" And last but not least "How can I turn this into a set piece of heightened action or drama, such as a shark demolishing a boat, a group of kids flying across the moon on their bicycles, a T-Rex chasing a car, or a Jew and a Nazi wrestling to the death? Hitchcock, who Spielberg idolizes, worked much the same way. North by Northwest was largely an excuse to have a man chased by a crop-duster, and a dramatic spy chase on Mt. Rushmore.

It seems evident to me, then, that Spielberg prodded the writers of The Post to come up with bits such as McNamara being at the party where Graham learns the Post has the papers. Schindler's List, if you recall, was filmed in black and white, except for one little girl wearing red who somehow appears to escape the Nazis' attention. This was all just a set-up of course, so that he could later show this little girl wearing red in a stack of bodies. That's just the way he works. That's just the way he thinks.