Jim DiEugenio spanks The Post

[James DiEugenio]

Uh Paul, what is the point of making a movie that vitiates the facts and the characters of a momentous event like the PP case?

When, in fact, the real story is better than this mythology that Hanks and Spielberg have constructed.

As I said in my review, the best parts of the film cinematically and dramatically are the opening prologue which features Ellsberg and Russo.  That was really good cinema because it was true to the facts of the case.  And from there, the Ellsberg case only gets better. 

I mean, can you imagine filming a scene where Ellsberg confronts Kissinger at a college forum on Vietnam and asks him the following question:

"Mr. Kissinger, how many civilians do you and President Nixon plan on killing in Indochina this year?"  

As we watch Kissinger fidgeting at the podium, we flashback to a scene in the White House: Nixon says to Kissinger, "That is the difference between you and me Henry.  It does not matter to me how many civilians get killed in this war.  That xxxxass country has to have a breaking point."

And what is great about that scene is this:  It is all true.  It all really happened. Nixon really said that.

And I could go through the whole story, and give you great scene after great scene and they  would all be accurate and, at the same time, dramatically and visually powerful. And it would literally shock the audience with how terrible the war was and what lying scum Nixon  and Kissinger were.  But like I said, IMO that would have been too sharp- edged of a film for these guys. 

 

 

 

 

[James DiEugenio]

I should add here, if you have not read Ellsberg's book Secrets, then you do not understand the real story.  Which, IMO, is much better than the film version.

As I have said, in that 476 page book, Ellsberg mentions Bradlee one time, and he does not mention Graham at all.

[Douglas Caddy]

Ellsberg will be interviewed on coasttocoasam tomorrow (Wednesday, 1/31/18:

https://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2018/01/31

[Paul Brancato]

Jim - I know the innacuracies well enough, and appreciate your point of view and attention to facts. Ellsberg deserves better, like he did on the Ken Burns Vietnam series, and so does JFK, who had every intention of withdrawing rather than escalating. Likewise Bradlee and Graham are not heroes as depicted. 

[Joe Bauer]

Paul, I think I understand the message you share regards "The Post" choosing to shine an inspiring and heroic light on the importance of influential individuals standing tall in the face of wrong doing, in this case the well known Katherine Graham and Ben Bradlee and the part they played in the PP story,  versus a broader and perhaps more historically accurate Ellsberg centered story line.

We all know what the big movie business is all about in making films that draw in paying customers with the profit and loss dynamic being the bottom line one over any other.

And the time tested formula for success in this highly competitive and expensive entertainment market place is almost always film story lines centered around right versus wrong fighting heroes often no matter how possibly exaggerated and debatably inaccurate that portrayal may be.

Knowing all that and not expecting people like Spielberg and Hanks to veer from that formula I still find their film here, using a historical event of the importance of the PP as a backdrop for one of their feel good ending, debatable hero movies, crosses a line in respect to hampering other heroes who are still fighting forces that to this day are still working to promote a false alternative truth of this super important event which hurts all of us and the democracy we want and need to keep. 

The film actually enables and bolsters those PP alternative truth forces in ways that Jim Di outlines .

And will even more so when millions of people world wide see it is so prominently showcased and praised on the massive audience Academy Awards presentation.

 

 

[Paul Brancato]

Joe - I do appreciate the pov you and others have expressed. What I'm hoping for is that the deep yearning for a free and honest press finds not solace in this film's depiction of something that doesn't really exist, but action in the upcoming election cycles to elect people who feel like we do. The threat we face now is in my mind very dangerous. Perhaps I'm imagining Spielberg's intent. 

[James DiEugenio]

No, that is what Spielberg meant Paul.

 I just think he picked a poor example. And I chalk that up to him not doing his homework.

The hero in this was Ellsberg, and to a lesser extent Russo.  If you had told it from the POV of The Times, it would have been general counsel James Goodale.

And it would have been possible to do a good film about any of those three.

The best thing that can come of this film is that people will read some of the better books, like Goodale's and Ellsebrg's and also the Pentagon Papers themselves which have been reissued in the NY Times version.  Which is selling pretty well actually.

[Douglas Caddy]

From the article: Mr. Spielberg’s movie was nominated for best picture, but his name was not among the directing nominees, prompting two friends watching with him to splutter in outrage.

“This is a dark day in Hollywood,” one friend told the camera. “The greatest picture of all time was made and they haven’t recognized the director.” The camera swung over to friend No. 2. “Who made it?” he asked, referring to the film. “The shark?”

The movie was “Jaws,” the year, 1976, and if Mr. Spielberg, fresh-faced and 29, was stunned by the rebuff, he played it off as a joke. “I’m suffering,” he said. “Cancel my day. Cancel my week. I’m going to Palm Springs.”

Wryness aside, the pointed cold-shouldering from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences was something Mr. Spielberg would be forced to reckon with, or at least stomach, right up until today.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/movies/steven-spielberg-oscars-snub.html

Edited February 1, 2018 by Douglas Caddy

[Thomas Graves]

7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

No, that is what Spielberg meant Paul.

 I just think he picked a poor example. And I chalk that up to him not doing his homework.

The hero in this was Ellsberg, and to a lesser extent Russo.  If you had told it from the POV of The Times, it would have been general counsel James Goodale.

And it would have been possible to do a good film about any of those three.

The best thing that can come of this film is that people will read some of the better books, like Goodale's and Ellsebrg's and also the Pentagon Papers themselves which have been reissued in the NY Times version.  Which is selling pretty well actually.

James,

With all due respect, please try to remember the English language grammar rule (as the one-and-only Lee Harvey Oswald did), "the gerund takes the possessive."

Look it up, if you must.

--  Tommy 

(Sorry, James.  It was ... like ... THE PERFECT TEACHING MOMENT ... on more than one level.)

Edited February 1, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[James DiEugenio]

Wonderful insight Tommy.

 

[Thomas Graves]

9 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Wonderful insight Tommy.

 

James,

With all due respect, it WILL help you to at least appear to be a highly-educated writer.

"A word to the wise is sufficient," as my mother used to say ...

--  Tommy 

PS. Pretty amazing that a guy whose mother-tongue was allegedly Hungarian, and who THEN allegedly learned Russian BEFORE he learned English, spoke English better than you (and most U.S. college graduates), isn't it?

Regardless, like Paul Brancato, I really liked "Post".

You?

Edited February 1, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Sandy Larsen]

9 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

James,

With all due respect, please try to remember the English language grammar rule (as the one-and-only Lee Harvey Oswald did), "the gerund takes the possessive."

Look it up, if you must.

--  Tommy 

 

Tommy,

Are you aware of descriptive grammar? Versus prescriptive grammar?

(And did you notice that my second sentence of this post is incomplete and uses the question mark incorrectly? According to prescriptive grammar?)

Some people don't want to sound like a book when they are writing or speaking informally.

 

Edited February 1, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[Thomas Graves]

1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Tommy,

Are you aware of descriptive grammar? Versus prescriptive grammar?

(And did you notice that my second sentence is incomplete and uses the question mark "incorrectly?")

Some people don't want to sound like a book when they are writing or speaking informally.

 

Sandy,

With all due respect ... "Huh?"

Your second sentence in this thread?

Which post?

--  Tommy 

[Sandy Larsen]

8 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

With all due respect, it WILL help you appear to be a highly-educated writer.

Unfortunately it is true that people will be judged harshly just for speaking the way they want to speak.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

14 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

Sandy,

With all due respect ... "Huh?"

Your second sentence in this thread?

Which post?

--  Tommy 

 

No Tommy, the second sentence I spoke as a child.  LOL

Just kidding.

The second sentence of the post you were reading.

(BTW, doesn't every one of the above sentences violate prescriptive grammar rules?)

 

Edited February 1, 2018 by Sandy Larsen