Book Club: A Reader's Guide to Poor Comedy

If 2018 is the year of female empowerment, especially in Hollywood, you would imagine that cinema would reflect that on screen in some way or another. I first learned about Book Club (2018) by reading an entertainment magazine some time ago, which showed a photo of the four leading women on set together. The idea of a comedy starring powerhouse actresses Diane Keaton, Jane Fonda, Candice Bergen and Mary Steenburgen was beyond the dreams of any avid movie lover such as myself. Each of these women has expertly carried impeccable films and episodes of television on their backs in the past and continue to do so today. Together they would no doubt be unstoppable and hilarious. Well evidentially in the seats of movie theaters playing Book Club this year, doubt came to breed and breed it did. Book Club is not a flop per se, that would be too simplistic an implication for what has actually occurred here. Book Club is a missed opportunity of epic proportions in a time when female voices have the most to say in the loudest and proudest voices possible, Book Club says so very little in an uninspiring whimper. Age before beauty, but not before substance. 

Much like the reader's guides you find in the back pages of bestseller novels, I have chosen to divide this review into several questions that one may pose to themselves and others after viewing the film.

What are the "Fifty Shades of Problems?"

This film's first major issue comes with the premise that the four female leads select Fifty Shades of Grey by E.L James as the next book to read in their monthly book club. Reading the controversial content in the novel inspires them to reinvigorate their various love lives regardless of their ages. The use of the cultural craze of this book, which is already well past it's prime considering the horrendously ridiculous movie trilogy that followed it ended last year, instantly dates the movie in the worst of ways. Book Club will be remembered, if at all, as; "the film where those four big actresses read that trashy book about bondage." Why the writers chose a real-life book for the women to read, particularly a book as derided and unsexy as Fifty Shades of Grey is beyond me or anyone with a rational mind. It's an early example of the film's lazy writing techniques as the screenwriters didn't have the creative wherewithal to create a fictional book series that makes the women reflect on the place of sexuality in their golden years. They unquestionably could have come up with something far more sexy and sophisticated than the source material, a feat anyone with a sufficient talent for writing fan-fiction could easily accomplish. It's fine to want to explore older women's fascination with the Fifty Shades Series, but why do so in such a literal way that completely alienates audiences who aren't familiar with or don't care for the actual source material? In a fitting twist of feminist irony, the women never even state the novel's female protagonist's name (Anastasia) or discuss her sexual liberation. They just go goo goo over Christian Grey, a man so problematic his name should never be uttered on the silver screen again.

Who are these Women? 

Yes, of course, we know the actresses playing the roles of the four leads, but what of the characters themselves? The people the women portray all feel like stock characters from superior parts in their earlier careers. Jane Fonda is a confident, ballbusting industry titan, not unlike her character on Grace and Frankie. Candice Bergen is a powerful, no-nonsense judge, eerily similar to the character that made her famous on television in Murphy Brown. Diane Keaton is the cute neurotic she's played more aptly in literally dozens of her older films. Mary Steenburgen is timid and mild-mannered, even sporting an on-screen husband she's been paired with before, Craig T. Nelson. None of their roles feels fleshed out or organic in any shape or form. They play to type in the most derisive of ways. Life-long friends have much more interesting conversations than this bunch, regardless of the topic at hand. Bergen seems to suffer the worst, saddled with a character that is both dry and unsalvageable. While Keaton charms her way through the film and Fonda garners a few laughs from her typical brash humor, Bergen meanders, never quite settling into form. Steenburgen fairs a bit better, but only because she and Nelson have previously explored chemistry. It's not really any of the actresses fault, other than the fact they seemed to have signed on for a project without really considering it's incredibly clichéd and unfunny script. They do their best with what they're given, but first time director and co-writer Bill Holderman can't even manage to create decent chemistry between his four star-studded leads when they appear on the screen at the same time. The film is actually at it's best when the stars are working on their own, relying on old tricks to get them through this salary-chasing snooze fest. When they must perform together, the film's faults surface all too clearly to the top of the wine glass like a cork left adrift. They never congeal into an actual female friend group and therefore never feel authentic. They are representing tropes, not women.

What COULD it have Said?

The film's premise, though slightly absurd, does give way to several important issues being tackled throughout its two-hour running time. It skims the surface of the sexual frustration the comes with aging and briefly touches on issues like maintaining one's independence with rising age. Still, it never does anything of substance with any of this material. It's as if they are boxes being checked off on a list of things to cover in a film aimed at older women rather than just being about older women. It's a shame, but with a moderate box office income and several positive reviews from some kind critics, the silver lining may be that this lackluster feature can give way to more films covering this subject matter with superior skill and added flavor. Still, it's like choking on a bitter Zoloft pill when you think about the nearly unbearable missed opportunities presented in this film with its outstanding ensemble cast and potentially provocative subject matter. The film is like a striptease that never finds the full confidence to take its clothes off and hop into bed.

These women paved the way for millions of others throughout their groundbreaking careers, and perhaps this film is simply an example of them drilling away at the patriarchal cement with continued gusto. A movie like this would likely not have been made years ago and certainly not with this kind of respected cast. Still, both they and the filmmakers dared to give this narrative legs to walk on at a time when women are taking immensely important steps in this world, particularly Hollywood, toward something better. Book Club isn't the promised land, but maybe it's a ho-hum stop along the way. 

Riverdale Does Carrie: Why Musical Episodes Can Work

Riverdale, a show both lauded and ridiculed in regards to its penchant for nostalgia-bait casting and familiarly dated soapy plots found itself in rare good form last Wednesday in a season that was seriously beginning to lag. Musical episodes of television are used by writers and showrunners for many different reasons, often as a last-ditch effort for some decent ratings. Other times musical episodes are merely to showcase the talents of singular cast members who have duel careers in both acting and music. It has little to do with plot and more to do with audience engagement. In the case of Riverdale, however, it was clear that this injection of rhythm and jive was precisely the medicine the show so desperately required. As the students of Riverdale High are putting on their theatrical production of Carrie The Musical, suspicion grows as evidence of malevolent forces being at work to sabotage the production, and those who wish to be a part of it becomes unquestionably apparent. The episode deals with several current plot-lines running on the show, including the reconciliation of many strained character relationships. The episode is a reminder that when Riverdale embraces camp but maintains some semblance of substance, it can be a wildly entertaining program to watch.

The story, songs and characters of the Carrie-lore have such clear-cut connections to the characters and world of Riverdale that it is hard to think of a better selection the creators of the show could have made for their first musical endeavor. Carrie is about the frightening consequences of isolation, ridicule and sexual confusion. The characters of Riverdale have almost all been struggling with issues such as these since "Chapter One". Carrie's story also lends itself to the topic of archetypes and how they can be deconstructed by the choices we make as people, especially young people. Sue Snell, grows a conscience, Tommy forgoes a change of heart and Carrie herself goes through a metamorphosis from frumpy outsider to beautiful prom queen and ultimately to a Female Force of Reckoning. One thing Riverdale has made a great effort to do in its first two years is extending itself beyond the clear archetypes placed upon its characters since their comic book conception. Betty is not always a good girl, Cheryl is much more than a spoiled rich bitch and Archie...well he still has some character growth to go through, but there's hope for him yet. Carrie is a timeless cautionary tale, and the way Riverdale chooses to integrate the lessons carefully and moralistic themes present within it into its complex narrative is something worth applauding, not because it's something necessarily difficult to do, but because it could have come out so terribly bad and thankfully didn't.

Why Chapter Thirty-One: "A Night To Remember" Works As a Musical Episode

 1. Performers Have Talent

A musical episode will not get through its first ten minutes of airtime if the actors can't sing with at least a reasonable semblance of competence. Several Riverdale cast members have already showcased their pipes on the show before, but this episode had some surprising vocal champions leading the way. Lili Reinhart who plays Betty Cooper and Madeline Petsch who portrays Cheryl in particular impressed with their powerful, if slightly digitally altered vocals. Cole Sprouse respectfully opted out of singing, which is a common occurrence within casts of shows that do musical episodes. Thankfully though he is basically the only main cast member to do so and the writers found an organic, narratively-pushing method to keep him involved in the plot of the episode. When the cast is capable of rising to the challenges brought onto a television production by a musical episode, the results of their labors are likely to be more rewarding. See Grey's Anatomy's rather awkward musical episode "Song Beneath a Song" as an example of how limited cast participation can be increasingly problematic, even more so when their questionable vocal capabilities further limit the selection of willing vocalists.

2. Music Quality

This is not only whether or not the songs themselves sound good in terms of production value, but it is also a question of whether the plot of the episode can contextualize them well enough for a substantial amount of time. As I've already acknowledged earlier in this review, the songs selected from the Carrie the Musical perfectly situate themselves into the current plot threads running through Riverdale. If the song placements are incoherent and aimless, the episode will have poor direction and will likely be challenging to follow throughout. On the other side of the argument, good songs don't necessarily equal success either. It's easy to butcher a good score with a shitty script. The songs can sound like Broadway smashes, but it will matter little to nothing if they are poorly positioned and awkwardly executed. The way Riverdale's episode transitioned in and out of the "You Shine" number is an example of good musical quality. The song breaks in the middle so Betty and Veronica can have a brief conversation that on a thematic level allows the song to be reintroduced at the scene's conclusion, this time with new meaning. Rather than merely performing the song straight through as a romantic duet between previous love interests Betty and Archie, the writers of the episode wished to give it more significant meaning to the ongoing plot of the show and have Betty and Veronica sing a verse in order to solidify a recommitment to their previously floundering friendship. This gives the song and scene a deeper meaning, the music and the plot are complimenting one another rather than being subservient to either's needs.

3. Excuse to Sing

This may sound like a trivial category, but you'd be surprised to find how much some shows struggle with answering the basic premise of "why are the character's singing and dancing?" Buffy, The Vampire Slayer, incorporated music into the plot of its episode "Once More, with Feeling" quite naturally by having a demon cast a spell causing several characters to break out into song sporadically. Since demonic spells were a regular occurrence on that program, the audience was able to accept the inclusion of such a fantastical but, useful plot element without it feeling shoehorned in. Riverdale had the easiest excuse of all, putting on a high school show! The point of this all being, the reason for why their singing doesn't have to be incredibly nuanced or innovative; it simply has to exist. For what little logic musicals hold, they make up for with purpose. Every lyric, every dance move pushes us further into the world of the characters. That push begins with a catalyst, and musical episodes must contain a credible one before they start belting like Barbra at the Barclay Center.

The Highs and Lows in the History of Musical Episodes

(*From my slight bias point of view) 

The High: Even Stevens: Influenza The Musical

The first musical episode of television I can ever remember watching was on January 25th, 2002, and it has still stood the test of time all these years later. Even Stevens was a popular sitcom that aired on Disney Channel about an underachieving little brother in a family of respected achievers. This particular episode finds the overachieving character of the older sister, Ren Stevens sick with the flu, but going to school anyway to receive a Perfect Attendance Award and present an important science project. Soon after Ren arrives at school, it becomes clear that things are not in the norm. All of the faculty, staff and even student body are breaking out into song. Ren's ongoing fever is causing her to hallucinate these high spirited and catchy musical performances, ultimately culminating in her own contribution with the unforgettable solo "We Went to the Moon". It fulfils the criteria I listed above and then some, proving to be an ambitious success for Disney Channel and the star of the episode, Christy Carlson Romano. The channel increased focus on musical content soon after this episode's release. It might sound silly, but the likes of television shows like Hannah Montana or even actresses like Hilary Duff may not have found the same levels of success and stardom had Influenza The Musical not paved the way for them, first.

The Low: 7th Heaven: Red Socks

Here is where musical television came to die. Having aired on February 14th, 2005, I first watched 7th Heaven's cringe-worthy musical endeavor years later in reruns. I fondly recall being torn between laughter and lethargy as the Camden Family crooned to the classical tunes of Gershwin and Co in poor pantomime. It is truly a terrible hour of television smothered in sentimentality without the slightest regard for good taste. The actors don't even seem happy to be a part of it, and they are getting paid. Beverly Mitchell, who played Lucy Camden was one of the only trained musical actresses on the show. One must wonder if the reason she does not sing in this episode is that her clear talent would've only further embarrassed her extremely mediocre cast members. The episode is an insufferable ode to Valentines Day. Still, the only thing that is lovable about it is that it's likely to be forgotten given adamant time and substantial alcohol consumption. 

In conclusion, Musical Episodes are worth the viewing, if only because whether or not the attempt is successful, there is a kind of egregious satisfaction in watching a television show take on such a lofty challenge. As a fan of musical theater, I can only say that even the worst moments of musical episodes have caused even the tiniest foot tap in me, even if my head is shaking from side to side in horrid astonishment at the same time. Television should be brave and bracing, and nothing is quite as brave as spitting out a show-tune in 40 minutes or less.  

Love, Simon, Said, Marco

I had never gone to the movies by myself for the first 22 years of my life, up until this weekend. With a mom too tired and friends too busy, I took myself on a little personal-date to my local cinema to meet a boy named Simon.

Love, Simon (2018) is the first feature-length film featuring a gay teenage boy as the main protagonist with romantic aspirations, released by a major film studio. Many people wonder why it took so long for such an achievement to occur. Still, those who've seen the film are likely to forgive this cinema sin, because the result of years of waiting is so undeniably satisfactory. I sat down in my theater seat to meet a boy named Simon, but I soon learned that it was so much more than just his story told. Simon's journey is a collective one, and each person in his life impacts it in some meaningful way, as Simon impacts theirs. Yes, this film is a coming out story, but it's also very much a "coming in" one as well. Growing into the person you've always known you could be if you were just given a little push in the proper direction. Love, Simon is itself the little nudge of progress that Hollywood needed to catch up with a culture that's ever-evolving and ever-expanding.

Boy meets Girl, and Girl meets Boy is not the only narrative worth telling. Love, Simon has many successes, but its most historic one may end up being how unapologetic it is. Simon notes that "everyone deserves a great love story" but more importantly than that, everyone deserves to have their love story shown, represented and respected. In the span of an hour and fifty-five minutes, Love, Simon achieves all this and more with hardly a single blemish. John Hughes would surely be proud, but more importantly, millions of LGBTQ people and their allies are.

This is not going to be a very long review, at least compared to many others of mine, mainly because I believe that Love, Simon is a film that is better experienced than analyzed. The nuances in the young cast's performances cannot be lauded enough, but better we spend time admiring certain aspects of the film, that might otherwise get overlooked in other mainstream reviews.

Love, Simon crafts a modern gay love story in a world obsessed with technology, as Tony Hale's character, Mr Worth humorously reminds us several times during the film. While the plot uses FaceTime, Gmail, Blogging and Cell Phones as means of both communication and self - expression, it does not become subservient to these technological tools. Love, Simon will age well over the years, because it does not let modern technology over-power its key character-building moments or hamper its story structure with un-engaging sequences of character's thumbs fiddling away at a keyboard. They serve the plot instead of making it feel dated and disassociated. When you watch Breakfast Club (1985) or Ferris Bueller's Day Off (1986), the 80s vibes are not diluting the quality of the work and Love, Simon is spared the same fate by being utterly charming; texts, blog posts and all.

The one glaring scene I found to be a weak link in the otherwise immaculate plot happens to be a rather critical one, Simon coming out to his sister. I could not track Simon's indifferent annoyance towards a sibling he had been nothing but loving and supportive toward since the film started. Furthermore, her reaction itself felt indifferent, and her tears unearned. I understand Simon's frustration at this point in the story, but it didn't feel like Simon would really share this hidden piece of himself with his adoring sister in such a harsh and hollow way. It was unsubstantiated melodrama in a film that effortlessly avoids forced sentimentality for the majority of its running time. I also didn't believe that she would have seen the post that outed him in the first place, which is what instigates the conversation because the blog seemed exclusive to high school students and she is clearly in a younger age bracket. The scene is just not as well thought out as Simon's later personal conversations with both of his parents. A film such as this can be forgiven for such narrative hiccups, though other's may find them as irritating smudges in an almost spotless story. Back to the positive end, the film makes great use of cutaway segments similar to Family Guy but with more context. Moments that take place in Simon's mind surprisingly speak more about our culture and conventions then they do about Simon himself, such as a funny, but thoughtful sequence dictating the unfairness of heterosexuality being the default sexual orientation in modern society.

In the end, I was happy to have seen the film by myself. It's hard to explain exactly why, but it felt more personal like I was physically alongside Simon and his friends as their lives changed for the better, and by viewing their heartfelt experiences, mine did as well. Director Greg Berlanti, screenwriters Issac Aptaker and Elizabeth Berger and author Becky Albertalli gave us a story worth celebrating regardless of sexual orientation. At the end of the day, you want Simon to turn out fine not because he's gay, but because he's an incredibly decent and loving person. The film reminds us to celebrate and encourage the goodness in others, so that our own goodness may itself be shown. Appreciating Simon's story, his struggles and successes made me reflect on how I celebrate and embrace those around me, and to ensure that I keep doing so to the very best of my ability. That's why I love Simon because, by the end of the film, you feel like he loves you too.

The Cloverfield Paradox: Where Do We Go From Here?

Ten years ago, something found us. The something turned out to be an exercise in viral marketing and the revitalization of a rather worn-out genre of filmmaking, found footage. Helmed by producer JJ Abrams, Cloverfield (2008) became an unexpected hit because - well it was literally, unexpected! Nobody was quite sure what the film was about, or even titled months leading up to its release. While it became apparent, thanks to its carefully crafted trailers and online ARG (Alternate Reality Game) that it was going to be some kind of monster film, the excitement built up as movie goers pondered the applicability of giant treacherous creatures stomping around cities in a Post-Godzilla and Post-9/11 world. Cloverfield was lauded by some and derided by others for its ambitions, but the film nonetheless created a strong cult following. For years fans begged and pleaded for a sequel, and the creators teased the idea numerous times to the public. In 2016 after these pleas from the fandom had seemingly quieted, a trailer was released for a film titled 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016) starring John Goodman and Mary-Elizabeth Winstead. That film was set inside of a bomb shelter after a young woman awakens inside it, having been rescued by a paranoid man following a car crash. The man tells her that the world outside is no longer safe as some kind of apocalyptic event has occurred. The film ended up bearing little to no relation to the first movie other than similarities in themes and a few Easter Egg nods to the previous film's canon. The producers claimed they were at a creative crossroad, believing Cloverfield could either become an anthology series, with each film being independent of one another narratively or alternatively the film's plots could be connected in some way by a future film bridging the two together. Fans like myself were excited either way, as long as more skillfully crafted thrills were coming our way in a reasonable time.

Only a couple of months following the release of 10 Cloverfield Lane it was revealed that a film previously titled The God Particle would be the third entry in the Cloverfield Franchise. The film was to tell the story of a team of astronauts testing a particle accelerator on their space station with disastrous consequences. This film's pre-production was handled similarly to that of its predecessor. It was taken over by Abrams and his team in the middle of production and reworked into a story that adheres more to the Cloverfield Aesthetic. The film's release date was pushed several times within the last year, and rumors surfaced that the film was moving to Netflix, a rumor that proved to be true when during the Super Bowl a trailer appeared announcing the film would debut on the streaming service immediately following the game. Questions were raised regarding the motivations for this move, was it to appease the audience or relieve the stockholders at Paramount?

Now that leads us to The Cloverfield Paradox (2018). The film contains a cast of diverse international talent including the magnanimous Gugu Mbatha - Raw (who will most certainly win an Oscar someday) as well as John Ortiz and Zhang Ziyi among others. The cast does their jobs successfully. Chris O'Dowd does particularly well as the comic relief character while David Oyelowo is rather wasted in a lead role that leads to nothing much in terms of depth. In this revised version of the original script concept, these astronauts are testing out this particle accelerator as a possible boundless energy source for a world going through a severe energy crisis below. When their mission finally proves successful, and the particle accelerator fires off properly, the celebration is short-lived as the crew soon find that the Earth has disappeared, possibly destroyed by their experiment and that's not the only thing gone awry.

The Cloverfield Paradox is, unfortunately, the weakest entry in the Cloverfield Cinematic Universe to date, but cannot be written off as a flop altogether. It possesses incredible potential in numerous areas, including the talent of its cast and the beauty of its set design, but the story missteps and falters too many times in its second and third acts for it to be indeed considered a success, not only as a third Cloverfield film but as a science-fiction film in general. If a language of questions guided the first two films, this film is guided by a language of theories, hundreds of different ways to put the pieces together to form some sort of coherent picture. Still, after a while, it just starts to feel like the laziness of storytelling rather than an avant-garde methodology. Many of the bizarre occurrences in the latter half of the film are explained away as being a result of the astronaut's unintentional intrusion into a reality that is not their own, but that doesn't forgive plain old silliness. A character's detached appendage writes down the location to where a crucially missing piece of the ship's navigational instruments is, and that location is ridiculous and nonsensical in itself! There is a fine line between the unusually grotesque and the grotesque use of the unusual. The idea of a dimension fighting back against intruders in violently fantastical ways is intriguing, but Paradox is all promises, no deliveries. The trailer said it would give the answer as to why the first film's monster attack occurred, it does in a way, but the answer is flaccid because it hinges upon the convoluted idea of multiple alternate realities in which stakes and continuity are thrown out of a figurative air-lock in favor of an infinite amount of interpretations for the causality. Apparently from here on continuity will not be an issue for each Cloverfield Film, because each occurs in its own version of reality. This would come off as more inventive if it didn't seem like JJ Abrams and Co are just too busy with other commitments to properly tie these stories together. Now I am not knocking the "alternate dimensions" idea in totality. Rather I have serious issues with how the creators worked it into this film and the franchise itself. The idea of separate worlds, similar yet different in distinct ways, is an interesting notion, and in regards to Ava's (Gugu's character) personal character arc, it is used with some iota of emotional depth, but this is not enough to justify its inclusion into the narrative. If you're using a plot device like a paradoxical time-warp theory, you better be prepared to back it up, this film is not prepared to do so.

The B-Plot of this film is so obviously inserted as a poorly constructed afterthought that it is painful to watch. Ava's husband, Michael, awakens in the middle of the night following the accelerator mishap in space to find the city in a state of extreme distress after some large scale attack. He goes off into the night to the hospital. He's a doctor of course to help those injured. He finds a little girl amongst the rubble of a destroyed building and leads her to safety after learning that the hospital is destroyed. The two find shelter in a convenient bomb shelter made by a friend of his (a possible nod to the second film of the series) and are forgotten about until the ending. This subplot serves little to no purpose whatsoever other than to tease the Cloverfield fans with the idea that the monster has returned to cause more havoc thanks to the failed energy experiment. Why does any of this matter in the end? We never learn much to anything about the situation on the ground, and the ending gives us little explanation as to why Michael is distressed to learn that his wife is returning to Earth? We could guess, but after a whole film of guessing, we're exhausted and just want a damn clear answer! Which brings us to the last image of the film...

You've probably read by now about how the monster seen at the end of the film, though appearing similar to the original Cloverfield Monster, is much larger in size. So what does this mean? Is this the same monster grown-up or repositioned in time due to the particle accelerator incident? Is it an older, adult version of the same species, is it the original creature's mother? Why does Michael use the plural term when referring to "these things" are there more of them? I have no idea and frankly neither did the filmmakers I believe. Clover (as fans have affectionately nicknamed him) is simply thrown in at the end in a semi-respectable CGI shot to give fans some kind of fanatic dog treat. Listen not everything has to be explained or spelled out, a large part of the allure in the Cloverfield Franchise comes from the creators allowing space for the audiences' minds to wander and explore. Still, there comes a time to deliver some semblance of an answer so that the exploring can continue in a meaningful way. The map has to be drawn out to some extent. Plainly, I don't know enough about the situation going on on Earth during the film's climax, and that makes the final reveal feel cheap and underwhelming, rather than suspenseful and exciting as it should be. This franchise deserved better, this cast deserved better, and the patient fans most definitely deserved better than what this film ended up giving us. It comes off rushed and half-hearted and the worst crime is that it didn't have to. Had the team behind it given more attention and care to the abundance of plot and story elements it already had at hand the film could've been a more than worthy third entry in the series. It should be noted that I find little to no fault with the film's director, Julius Onah, who does the best he can with what he's given to work with after JJ's team came in and took over the production. His direction is efficient and pleasing to the eye, it just gets jumbled into the mess that the producers and others brought onto the film later.

 At the end of the day, The Cloverfield Paradox deserves to be admired for its ambition in its marketing strategy, releasing itself following the Super Bowl by surprise and for its well intentioned attempts to tie this confused franchise together. It's an entertaining thrill ride that occasionally feels inspired rather than indebted to better equipped Sci-Fi films of the past. As for the future of this troubled franchise, my greatest hope is that Abram's and his team dedicate a bit more of their creative attention to a devoted and hard working fan-base that hasn't (for the most part) given up on them just yet. The tagline for this film was "The Future Unleashed Everything" for this film's sake and for the sake of this film franchise, let our expectations hold the belief that "everything" has yet to be unleashed.

A Post about The Post (2017) in a Post - Fake News World

I first heard of The Post (2017)  last year in my Screenwriting 4 Class at Brooklyn College. My professor broke us up into groups and assigned us to read one Blacklist script a week. Those of you who are not familiar with it, The Blacklist is a list of the "best" un-produced scripts that came across the desk's of Top Hollywood Executives over the last year. Being selected for the list often can result in a film being produced as early as the following year. My group was assigned The Post during one of the first weeks of the semester. I had never heard of the Pentagon Papers or Kay Graham before in my life. Politics has only recently cemented itself into a place of great importance in my reality since a reality television star became a prominent and all-around problematic figure in it.

Liz Hannah's script is the ideal example of what constitutes smart and engaging writing for film. The story moves at a lightning pace and yet takes careful consideration to pause at times and allow the characters and the audience alike to reflect on the momentous events unfolding around them. It had no "action" sequences or racy sexual occurrences within its 118 pages and was extremely dialogue-heavy, along with being a period piece. This story was quite unlike what we are accustomed to seeing as we walk into a movie theater these days, and yet it's not. The content of this all-too-true story transcends the plights it may face in the manner of its execution. The film tells the story of governmental deceits being exposed after years and years fermentation and metastasizing. It divulges, with great detail the tireless efforts of impassioned journalists to make these unknown violations to their sanctity and security public, even if that meant utter professional and financial ruin for those involved on both sides. Underneath all the cagey and cool Sorkin-Esque conversations had between Ben Bradlee and his crack team of Washington Post journalist is unstoppable irrigation of honesty and moral integrity. They will let nothing stop them from exposing the truth because lives have already been lost and thousands upon thousands more are at stake as the Vietnam War blindly rages on in 1970s America. These people aren't goliath-like beyond recognition to us everyday folk; they are everyday folk, just like us. That's what makes such a profoundly vital narrative as this one so beautifully grounded in contemporary times. We know people like Katherine Graham, the question is, do we respect them as much as we should? Our bosses, co-workers, hell even our mothers and grandmothers. We see people in positions like Ben Bradlee's, cave under pressure, but we also see people who don't. He could have stopped pursuing the publication of the government documents countless amounts of times, but he didn't and neither did Kay. We are these people, or at least we can be, and that is what this script and ultimately this film, made as a result of it, proves to us. The best cinema informs and inspires its audience. The Post does just that, and a great amount of that credit deserves to go to its original screenwriter Liz Hannah.

Now when traveling the bridge between page and screen it is only natural that Liz Hannah collected some passengers along the way. These include cinematic icon Stephen Spielberg as director and acting titans Tom Hanks and Meryl Streep as the film's two dauntingly disagreeing leads. My professor had stated that when and if this film were to be made the role of Katherine Graham would have to go to a Hollywood Icon and I myself had envisioned the likes of Lauren Bacall as the head of the Washington Post when I first read the script, though she like Graham is long deceased. It was no surprise then when Meryl Streep was cast of course. In the hands of Spielberg however, the story shifted as it was translated to film. 

As preparation for writing this review, I reread the original script after seeing the final film. I noticed that while the general story arc remained intact, the anatomy of several scenes and sequences were retooled. These alterations were most likely by Josh Singer, the screenwriter assigned to make revisions to the script. In typical Spielberg fashion a more fantastical opening is given, showing soldiers active in Vietnam. However, this element would have been a stronger inclusion had it been repeated sometime in the middle of the film, after audiences learned about the falsities spread by the US government regarding the war. Seeing the false narrative spun by the bureaucrats, followed by the actual soldiers in the midst of a harrowing battle could have helped visually sell the importance of the main character's overall goals even more effectively. A scene of the Pentagon Papers actually being stolen is also added in what seems to be a cutaway from a spy thriller. While these selections may seem a bit unnecessary, they do add an element of flair that catches the audience's attention early on. The problem is, the film struggles to keep their attention at times throughout the middle half.

Some have accused the film of being boorish, and to me, it's not as simple as that. While the original script illustrates a newsroom setting that even inexperienced individuals like myself or my parents can comprehend, the finished film lingers at times in tedious expositional and intellectual garble that should be better left in a stenographers notepad then on a movie screen. The early scene between Kay and Fritz in her office comes to mind, as does portions of Kay and Ben's first breakfast meeting, which is done much more efficiently in the original draft, with its cornerstone focus being the value of a Style section for the newspaper and not the repercussions of being snubbed from attending Nixon's daughter's wedding nuptials. The playful subtext on the subject of disagreeing "styles" was just more... well, playful. Many of the revisions elevate the plot and its thematic undertones as well, including the added scenes between Kay and her daughter and Ben and his wife, played exquisitely by actress Sarah Paulson in a perhaps intentionally small role. These scenes reinforce the humanity in the character's dealing with the revelations and consequences of reporting on inhumane crimes against the masses. I do not know how the decision to publish truly went down, whether Ben was at Kay's house or not and whether the party was still ongoing or not. Still, the version shown in the film was the most powerful reiteration of this historical piece of journalism. Kay's weighty glances around the room as she holds the phone in her hand contrasted well with her airiness upon announcing she was going to bed after deciding to publish. These actions showed a woman in constant flux, trying to be what every man thought she wasn't, a leader.

Regardless of scenes included or excluded, lines omitted or added in, the release of The Post during this current political climate in the United States is unquestionably reflective and pragmatic. When the President is calling the media fake every day on his own social media profiles, we can't believe that the days in which a president could threaten imprisonment toward those who'd seek to question his authority are over. Nixon thought that journalism was below him and the current administration seems to believe the only value the press has is how it can stroke the insatiable ego of the Commander in Chief with tiresome accolades and meaningless commendations that amount to nothing in the grand scheme of things. The Post tells the story of those who weren't afraid to push back, to disavow the nonsense of necessary secrets and "alternative facts" and reach for something much more tangible, the truth. My hope is that this film and its courageously true story continues to encourage us to look forward with a sense of obligation towards the truth, not only within our government but within our everyday lives as well. Better to have nothing, than to not know what one truly has. If truth becomes second fiddle, what kind of music are we really listening to? Kay and Ben had everything to lose and more, but that didn't stop them from joining together and telling the story that had to be told. As a writer, I can only hope to honor their legacies by doing the same in every facet of my life, be it personal, professional or even political.

Those of you unsure or hesitant toward considering the validity of such a philosophy consider this; Where would the world be if things like the Pentagon Papers and Watergate remained hidden, forever concealed. That version of reality is fake news, but only thanks to the work of journalists like those at the Washington Post and New York Times and their stories will not be forgotten thanks to filmmakers and writers like Liz Hannah, Josh Singer and Stephen Spielberg.