Review of The Washington Post: a film that uses the past to satirize the present

The most anticipated of the new resource films in recent weeks has had its raw meat early, but the wait for subtitles has been long. The process of waiting for the raw meat to get cooked was anxious.
When I got the subtitles, I quickly finished it at the first opportunity. And it lived up to my expectations.
That's right, today's film is the new Spielberg film
The Washington Post
The Washington Post stars Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks in a true Hollywood triumvirate.
The film opened nationwide on 12 January and received three nominations, including Best Picture, in the Oscar shortlist, which was announced ten days later.
It has a rating of 8.1 on Douban and an 8.3 on metacritic, which represents the industry's media ratings. It is fair to say that it maintains the same high standard that the three creators have maintained for so many years.
The film is based on one of the most unsavoury political scandals in American history, the Pentagon Papers, which occurred shortly before the Watergate scandal.
"The Pentagon Papers, a secret report by the US Department of Defense assessing US political and military involvement in Vietnam between 1945 and 1967, clearly reflected the pessimism of the military hierarchy about the war in Vietnam, despite the fact that four presidents remained mired in it.
In other words, the White House knew all along that the United States would lose more than it would win, and continued to send a steady stream of young soldiers to distant battlefields, most notably to save the country's face and because the then president did not want to take the blame for the war's defeat while in office.
The American public was kept in the dark. Countless young men were drafted into the army and sent to fight in Vietnam. They set sail with no doubt about their glorious mission - to bring democracy and freedom to the Vietnamese people.
But in reality, it was a lie whitewashed by the US government, and what they were fighting for was actually a responsibility that politicians struggled to avoid.
The Vietnam War was a nightmare of heavy casualties, and the White House's irresponsible deceptions led to the loss of many more innocent lives in vain.
The secret document was first leaked to the New York Times by Daniel Ellsberg, a military intelligence analyst working at the Pentagon, but the most famous leaker in American history did not have much of a role in the Washington Post.
But Daniel's journey has been well documented in an earlier documentary called "The Most Dangerous Man in America".
The Harvard graduate, initially proud of his government service, became disillusioned with the truth and finally decided to take a stand and defend what was truly right.
When the New York Times made the documents public, they attracted a great deal of attention, but also angered Nixon and his cabinet.
The US government immediately ordered that the New York Times be banned from continuing to publish the classified documents and that a lawsuit be prepared against it.
In addition, Daniels handed the documents to several media outlets, most of which were too scared of the authorities to do anything about it.
Eventually, the Washington Post, then a local newspaper, stepped up to the plate and took over the banner of the New York Times, risking treason and jail time to expose the document to the public.
The film takes its cue from the challenges faced by the inner circle of the Washington Post before and after the event.
The publisher of the Washington Post at the time was Kathleen Graham, played by Aunt May.
The Washington Post was founded by Kathleen's father before her husband took charge of the paper's operations, but because of his early death, Kathleen was left to take over.
However, in an era when white men dominated everything, Kathryn's fate as publisher was one of repeated neglect and disdain, and she was not really recognised, with the board of directors seeing her as an insignificant figment.
The film does not portray Catherine as a static figure, but focuses heavily on her transformation.
From the outset, Catherine is constantly fighting for and trying to have a place in a situation dominated by male hegemony, but the tension and powerlessness is palpable to the audience.
Ultimately, Catherine overcomes her fears and speaks out bravely and fearlessly.
Another key character is Ben Bradley, the executive editor of the newspaper, played by Tom Hanks.
Compared to Kathryn, Ben's portrayal is more flat and fixed, but does not diminish his charm: Ben is a man who puts the truth first and is dedicated to the truth.
Ben is a dedicated and highly ethical media man who puts the truth first, works through the night, dedicates himself to journalism and always strives to defend the freedom of the press.
The film took only nine months from planning to release, because Spielberg wanted to tell more than just history.
It is more like a film that draws on the past to make a commentary on the present.
By recalling historical events, history is made to shine through - alluding to the tensions between the White House and the media.
At a time when Trump is taking potshots at the American media, it makes viewers aware of the difficulties of the news media industry in resisting government pressure and in holding on to truth and freedom.
Like Spotlight, Truth Be Told, The Great Conspiracy and a host of other classic journalistic films, The Washington Post is good because of the natural infectiousness of the subject matter.
This infectiousness is a defense and adherence to the social bottom line of free speech.
Some will surely say that we have seen too much of this American melodrama. But I have to admit that whenever a solid film like this comes along, it always makes my heart sing.
Frankly, every time someone makes a film like this, I get a little jealous.
I don't get jealous of Hollywood sci-fi or action blockbusters because I think the technology gap will catch up sooner or later.
But with a film like The Washington Post, it's not enough to have the technology, it's not enough to have good directors and actors, it also needs a social ground.
What strikes me about films like this is that people's media and journalists are taking the highest risks, going against the highest authority, in order to return the truth to the public.
When I think of some of the recent hot social news, I cannot help but wonder what our media and journalists are doing.
I was shocked to read a while ago that there were only about 100 registered investigative journalists left in the country.
If we don't even have investigative journalists anymore, who will give us the truth?