Spielberg can make an Oscar-worthy movie on a dime, it seems. While The Post doesn't reach the same level of prestige storytelling as some of his bests, Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, Lincoln, and others, this most certainly won't detract from from his portfolio. One day, I will have all of Spielberg's movies, and will watch them in a marathon, and this movie will hold up as one that belongs and contributes to the Spielberg Pantheon.

John Williams takes a back seat and only has one moment to shine, in the third act when the Washington Post begins to turn on their printing press. Spielberg obviously enjoys the mechanics of the printing press, and so it has its own musical motif now. Otherwise, the Man just hovers there in the background, his presence more of a spectator to the drama than an active player. This was one area where I wish that the film wasn't made within a few months of its release date, so that Hollywood's most famous duo could spend more time developing their symbiosis.

Instead of John Williams, Spielberg seems to rely far more on his other longtime collaborator, Janusz Kaminski. This movie highlight's Kaminski's talents more than anyone else's. You can tell that it's shot on film; the canvas has a certain life to it. The lighting is just right, rich and filled with depth, while also not bringing attention to itself. Amateur photographers such as myself, however, will look at what Kaminski accomplishes and get jealous.

All the talk for this movie has been behind Meryl Streep, who gives a solid performance as usual, but I thought that Spielberg regular Tom Hanks gave a more engaging performance as Ben Bradlee. He was more immersed and seemed less like he was on autopilot. Bob Odenkirk gave what was, in my view, the second-most interesting performance of the movie as Ben Bagdikian, the assistant editor who tracks down the source of the Pentagon leaks. I would also like to give a shout-out to Jesse Plemons, who I recently saw in Game Night and always knew as "that guy." He's a good comedian and has one of those faces that people think looks funny, but just as a reminder, he also played a lawyer in this movie and a pilot in Spielberg's other drama, Bridge of Spies, plus was in the Paul Thomas Anderson film The Master.

This leads me to a rant about the Academy Awards. Tom Hanks delivered an excellent performance, but of course he didn't get nominated for an Oscar because there's so much talent tot recognize that you inevitably have to ask, "Who would you have him replace?" That's good. It means that the Academy recognizes that there's so many talented actors that it's hard to just pick a top five. However, they do not treat the women's category in the same way. Meryl Streep only showed up and did her regular thing. She gave a standard drama film performance. It's good, and Spielberg certainly knows how to frame, edit, and pace a film in order to bring out the best performances possible, especially when he allows people to have conversations in long, continuous master shots. However, I think that a lot of this reflects more on Spielberg's talent and not Streep's, and what's more, even though Streep gave a solid performance, she wasn't so good that she was in the year's top five female leads. In order to nominate her, the Academy had to bump Gal Gadot, Vicky Krieps, and many other talented actresses with great performances last year, who could have used the career boost far more than Streep. Yet it seems that many Academy voters simply don't think that the field is as crowded as the men's, and it reflects poorly on them.

Regardless of whether or not I felt it deserved an Oscar nomination, Streep's performance doesn't detract from the film. It matches the tone, and I don't have anything bad to say about it.

In a movie about editors, The Post has great editing. The flow within each scene and for the story overall works quite well. The movie engaged me, and it felt like a worthy drama from start to finish. You can feel all of the talent behind it. The only two moments when the editing seemed to falter, for me, were in the prologue and the epilogue. The prologue shows the person releasing the papers, which gives a lot of interesting information, but it didn't feel as organic as the rest of the movie. The prologue...well, I'll get to that in a minute.

As everyone knows, this movie has political context. The story is a timeless American tale, which Spielberg seems to do quite well. He is very good at capturing what is timeless and resonant and mythic about history, which he has shown again and again and again, and that is why this movie fits right in with a Spielberg marathon. Since it's timeless, Spielberg could have made this movie at any time. The rights to the film were purchased back in 2016, before the most recent presidential election, and the script was written before that. The script, in and of itself, does not seem to target anyone who was in power when it was released. With all that having been said, the movie is timely and topical, and Spielberg said that the script grabbed him specifically because of the current political environment. The script remains neutral and doesn't necessarily date it, except for a few changes. I'm 99% certain that the epilogue, which flashes forward to Nixon banning the Washington Post and setting up Watergate wasn't in the original script. The reason why I say that is because it isn't edited like the rest of the film and feels out of place. The movie seems to naturally end on a definitive note, with a beautiful shot of Ben Bradlee and Katherine Graham walking through the printing press floor. It's beautiful, and then the movie switches to the epilogue, which is shot differently, acted differently, and overall seems like an interpolation. Others have noted it as well, namely the famous Screen Junkies in their review of the Oscar nominees. Overall, I'd say that most everyone should agree with the story, but conservative viewers will naturally see a certain hypocrisy behind the camera. Liberal viewers, of course, will appreciate how it manages to merge the timeless and the topical.

For fans of Spielberg, it's worth watching. It isn't quite vintage, but it still has many great elements. Certain things could throw people off, of course. If you don't like Meryl Streep, this movie will annoy you. Your political leanings will definitely affect your enjoyment of the film, but hopefully most people will appreciate the story in-and-of itself as well as the artistry that went into it. Above all, if you love John Williams, you should adjust your expectations and look forward more Spielberg's special bond with his other BFF, Mr. Kaminski. While this isn't a Spielberg film that I plan to revisit often, it does help complete his body of work and cement his legacy as a director who regularly captures and standardizes Americana in the world of cinema.