The Post (2017)

If there was one thing I learned in college, it was how to study historical films as primary sources (Thanks Professor Mason!). This is a perfect example. While the movie takes place in the Nixon era, it is a product of its own time, the Trump era. What can this movie about the 1970s tell us about 2017?

It can tell us that our society is still uncomfortable with a woman in charge, even if she's Meryl Streep. She has an excellent monologue towards the end in which she tries to explain why. Katharine Graham discusses her own lack of confidence and distrust in herself. Her own development was influenced by society. It was no one's fault, it was simply the unquestioned norm. It's difficult to wrap your mind around this idea but she articulates it brilliantly. The movie is not about Katharine changing society. Though she's a trailblazer, women in business still face abundant discrimination. Her important decision to publish was surely brave, but ultimately it was the Supreme Court that stood up to the President. Alone, she could only do so much. It will take a joint effort to truly create change.

This is not a movie about journalism, it's about press. Comparisons to All the President's Men and Spotlight are inappropriate because this is not about the investigation. It's not about uncovering the contents of the Pentagon Papers. It is about the act of publishing them. The other message? Our newspapers must remain diligent and hold the President's feet to the fire. The Washington Post in particular has taken a bold stance ("Democracy dies in darkness" is poignant). Thank god Katharine Graham and Ben Bradlee have made the Post the national authority it has become today. And when the President tries to ban the press, an integral part of democracy, the newspapers must come to each others' support in solidarity.

This is an important movie for 2017. It's powerfully acted and orchestrated. Even though we know how it ends, there is plenty of drama. And the production design is very 70s. The inside of a newspaper is pretty cool.

The Circle (2017)

The Circle premiered in Italy one day before it did in the US. It’s like Tom Hanks movies just get earlier release dates in Italy. He is probably one of the best parts about this movie. There was a lot of potential for The Circle. But it does not meet its potential. The questions it asks may be interesting, but they’ve apparently been done much better by Black Mirror. What this movie lacks is a satisfying ending, and character development, and thrill. I’m not sure what genre it would categorize itself as, but I found myself laughing at parts that probably shouldn’t have been funny (but Patton Oswalt is in it), but not thrilled enough in what would’ve made a cool thriller. The score is the most thrilling thing about the movie. Danny Elfman tries to channel Reznor and Ross (a la The Social Network, from which the movie certainly took some atmospheric cues). Emma Watson puts on an American accent, which I simply cannot take seriously. It’s not a bad accent necessarily, but I know she doesn’t sound like that, and it seems forced. I don’t think her British accent would’ve detracted from the character at all. If anything, I’d fault poor writing. It all seemed so unnatural. Maybe that was the point, but it made for some very awkward scenes. John Boyega has a small role that is never really fleshed out. He is reduced to two scenes and is essentially inconsequential to the plot. He is wasted. Reviewers will point to the allusions to Google and Apple and Facebook, but the real life company that most closely resembles The Circle is actually WeChat, which has integrated every aspect of Chinese life into one convenient app. We’re not talking about hypotheticals. WeChat is already doing it. I wonder if this movie will make it to China. I think they like Emma Watson and Tom Hanks, but I can’t imagine it being allowed.

Sully (2016)

I really like that the film is not all about the landing on the Hudson. It's not even really a pivotal point of the movie. We start after the incident. And see it only in flashbacks, albeit several times. The bulk of the movie is in the unglamorous, no frills NTSB hearings. The movie is more properly about Sully than about the Miracle on the Hudson. It is about the internal struggle he faces post-trauma. Tom Hanks portrays a calm, low-key everyday hero, reminding me of Captain Philips. It is very much a Tom Hanks-kind of character. He does good ole American hero well. 

Inferno (2016)

We saw Inferno at the Cineteca di Bologna, because unlike in the rest of Italy where they dub foreign films, they show films in their original language there. They have some respect for movies there. The Cineteca is world renowned for its film restoration and its rich film archive. It's also really cheap to see a movie there. Even though it's clear on the other side of the city, it's worth going there.

Inferno opened in Italy before it opened in the US, presumably because it was all filmed in Italy. And it is very evident. The movie is basically an extended tourism commercial for Florence. And when I went to Florence a few weeks ago, I was walking around recognizing places from the movie. And it's beautiful and lovely. So...it worked!

The movie itself was alright if you can get over the whole product placement thing. I felt like there was some inconsistency with the plot. The treasure hunt clues were certainly not as airtight as National Treasure. I haven't seen DaVinci Code or Angels & Demons, but I'm going to assume those have consistent treasure maps too. Who left these clues for whom and how did we find them? Did we really need that middle clue? Then without spoiling too much, there is a big reveal at the end of the book (according to Will) that does not play out in the movie, though it is sort of hinted to if you've read the book and can pick up on it. And that reveal sort of gives some reasoning and thoughtfulness that was otherwise missing.

They also must've wasted a hell of a lot of money on special effects for the opening scene depicting Inferno. It is wholly unnecessary and adds absolutely nothing to the plot. 

Bridge of Spies (2015)

This is not just an espionage thriller, but a political thriller.  It does a great job of explaining the complex political theater of Eastern Europe during the Cold War as well as the complex American justice system.  We have the Coen brothers to thank for the easy-to-follow screenplay, which is saying something considering the infamous U2 incident is quite complicated.  Steven Spielberg glorifies American values with soapbox speeches by the fantastic all-American Tom Hanks. As the idealistic and principled lawyer defending a Soviet spy, James Donovan upholds the Constitution by mounting a valiant defense in the face of public scrutiny taking his case all the way up to the Supreme Court. The spy is Mark Rylance who does not get much screen time, but plays a calm man ready to face whatever fate may come to him.  The production design is also praiseworthy.  It paints a gloomy picture of the ruinous East Berlin at the height of the Cold War as the Berlin Wall is being erected.  The music was not composed by John Williams, the first Spielberg movie that has not featured his frequent collaborator since 1985's The Color Purple.