Several Oscar films this year are excellent from different angles, and there is one film that is the most calm, but it is the only one that brings tears to my eyes.
How stable is it? Steven Spielberg + Meryl Streep + Tom Hanks, the three together, 8 Oscar statuettes, 43 Oscar nominations, are all heavy and breathless. Even people who are not very familiar with movies have heard of these names.
Why are there tears in your eyes? This film vividly explains what is a battlefield without gunpowder smoke and what is decency without hypocrisy.
As the name suggests, it's a story from The Washington Post. But not the history of running accounts, but the focus on the Pentagon leaks in 1971. A certain understanding of the historical background of this event will go a long way in understanding the film.
In 1967, then-Secretary of Defense McNamara (the one on the plane at the beginning of the film) launched a project to conduct a comprehensive Leave behind an "encyclopedia of the Vietnam War." The entire project was conducted in secrecy without even notifying the President (Johnson) and the Secretary of State. The more than 4,000-page report was completed in 1969, and two copies of it were sent to the U.S. government think tank, the RAND Corporation, which has been rumored in many circles of friends. The report was leaked to the New York Times in 1971 by RAND employee Daniel Ellsberg (who begins the film typing on the Vietnam battlefield and later talks to the Secretary of Defense on the plane). What's so explosive about this report? It mainly reveals that the successive U.S. governments for more than 20 years based on an irrational concern (Vietnam's orientation to the Soviet Union will lead to the entire Southeast Asia's orientation to the Soviet Union), the continuous escalation of military operations against Vietnam, and even developed to cover up previous decision-making mistakes, systematically Deceiving the public and Congress, knowing that the Vietnam War cannot be won, but constantly sending American soldiers to their deaths.
The Washington Post was a small regional family business at the time, run by a woman, Kathryn Graham (Meryl Streep). It was a time when women could only gossip and gossip at tea parties, and men would leave the table when they talked about politics. The position of the head of the family was originally passed down from her father to her son-in-law, but the husband actually committed suicide, and Catherine provoked this. girders. Because of poor business conditions, the Washington Post decided to partially go public for financing. At this juncture, after the rival New York Times began publishing explosive content, the Nixon administration issued a temporary restraining order through the courts on national security grounds, and the New York Times was temporarily silenced. The Washington Post's editor-in-chief, Ben Bradley (Tom Hanks), led the reporters to get the report from the whistleblower Daniel.
This is where conflict and controversy arise. If it insists on publishing the leaked content, the Washington Post will definitely suffer a lawsuit from the White House, and the lawsuit will make the Post listed soon to scare away investors and risk bankruptcy; and because of the anti-espionage law, the head and editor even have Danger of going to prison. The Post's lawyers are firmly opposed to publication based on risk, while editors and journalists are firmly in favor of publication based on professional conscience. In the middle is the newly appointed, but middle-aged female head Catherine.
The cold background is finally finished, let's talk about tears. Although the historical background of this incident is complicated, in the Washington Post, which is the focus of the film, the plot is actually very short and straightforward: risk lawsuits, bankruptcy, and jail time, to publish or not to publish? We all know that in the end they posted it, and we all know that in America today, media freedom is already a noisy topic. But the calmness of this film completely isolates the noise of reality. There were no red-faced demonstrations holding slogans, and no passionate speeches. That multi-party phone call, analyzing the stock price, analyzing the consequences, and analyzing the legal risks, although they were tit for tat, they all treated each other frankly. Rather than gloat over the New York Times being silenced, it sees its competitors and itself as one, a matter of life and death for the publishing industry. All of this convinces us that they are not risking going to jail to become famous; they are publishing resolutely, not to shout politically correct slogans. This is out of an absolute human conscience.
Another focus of the film is on women. The female head Catherine, as the eldest lady of the rich family, has never worked for more than 40 years, let alone shouldered any major responsibilities. In this man's world, although she is in a high position, the men around her don't take her too seriously, and more importantly, she doesn't have this confidence. For example, at the investment bank meeting about the listing, she had prepared a speech for a long time in advance, but she could not say it. As a subordinate, the editor-in-chief visited many times, and there were many insider complacent and arrogant conversations. Meryl Streep often plays some domineering and strong characters, such as the fashion devil in "The Devil Wears Prada". In the "Washington Post", we can just see what many fashion devils look like when they are vulnerable. She's mild-mannered, she's hesitant, but once she's made up her mind, she doesn't have to shout to prove that she's the toughest person in the entire movie. Emerging from the Supreme Court after the victory, the men of the New York Times got all the spotlight, while Katherine silently exited the side door, greeted by the revered gaze of a group of inspired women.
There is an almost invisible role, that is, the editor's wife, a gentle and virtuous housewife. When the men are arranging the materials and rushing to the draft, she silently serves them with a plate of sandwiches, without saying a word. However, in a private conversation with her husband, she revealed the fact that her astute editor-in-chief husband ignored: she (Catherine) is really brave. The editor-in-chief's husband was unconvinced and said, am I not brave? In the wife's words, "You lose this job and find another one. She has always been questioned as not being good enough and regarded as air, and this time to make this decision that may lose her life's property reputation is the real thing. of bravery."
When the typesetting typefaces settled down one by one, and the printed newspapers came out, when every newspaper was inspired by it and competed to report against the government, everything was silent. There is no smoke of gunpowder, but it seems to be a victory for all mankind. As Chinese people, we have a different feeling in our hearts, how can we not cry?
WeChat public account: feidududu watching movies (feidudumovie)
View more about The Post reviews
