The Post (2017)
January 15, 2018 6:43 PM - Subscribe
A cover-up that spanned four U.S. Presidents pushed the country's first female newspaper publisher and a hard-driving editor to join an unprecedented battle between journalist and government.
Starring Meryl Streep, Tom Hanks, Sarah Paulson, Bob Odenkirk, Tracy Letts, Bradley Whitford, Bruce Greenwood, Matthew Rhys, Alison Brie, Carrie Coon, Jesse Plemons, and David Cross. Directed by Steven Spielberg. Written by Liz Hannah and Josh Singer. Music by John Williams
Starring Meryl Streep, Tom Hanks, Sarah Paulson, Bob Odenkirk, Tracy Letts, Bradley Whitford, Bruce Greenwood, Matthew Rhys, Alison Brie, Carrie Coon, Jesse Plemons, and David Cross. Directed by Steven Spielberg. Written by Liz Hannah and Josh Singer. Music by John Williams
People keep saying she was the first female newspaper publisher, but Oveta Hobby was publisher of the Houston Post (no longer with us, but a decent enough newspaper when it lived) as early as the '30's. Am I missing some essential difference?
posted by ubiquity at 11:21 AM on January 16, 2018
posted by ubiquity at 11:21 AM on January 16, 2018
I confess I just took the IMDb summary as is for the FPP and didn't fact-check it. Mea culpa.
I think your date is off by quite a bit, but your basic point is ultimately correct. Her Wikipedia article notes that Hobby "resumed her position... as president and editor" (but not owner or publisher) after she resigned as (the first) Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare in 1955. It also says she "ultimately [became] its publisher and co-owner with her husband," which would date it only to between 1955 and William Hobby's death in 1964. A biography by Kay Bailey Hutchison notes "her husband recovered and continued as chairman until his death in 1964," although that still leaves it unclear whether she might have been named co-owner and publisher earlier than that.
With further research I found an offline article ("More than a century at the Post; Hobby family has played big role in newspaper's recent history," Lynwood Abram, Houston Chronicle, September 11, 1987) which states "After her husband's death in 1964, Mrs. Hobby became publisher of the newspaper," although this is at odds with the Wikipedia article which suggests she was publisher at least some of the time when William was still alive (although that particular statement is unsourced in the Wikipedia article).
Meanwhile, the Wikipedia article for Katherine Graham notes that she became de facto publisher in 1963, but did not formally assume the title until 1969. (Additional caveat: I have not attempted to verify those claims.)
So, if you compare when they formally became publisher — which I think makes the most sense when you're talking about things like "first female newspaper publisher" — you're right: Hobby at the Houston Post no later than 1964, vs. Graham at the Washington Post in 1969.
Even if you want to compare when they had de facto control of the paper, a case can be made that Hobby claims the title as early as 1955, given that part of the reason for her return to the Houston Post was her husband's poor health, vs. 1963 for Graham.
You'd probably also have to add in some limitation of the statement to a "major" newspaper, for some suitable definition of "major," to rule-out single-woman or other very small operations which might predate either of them by centuries.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 12:29 PM on January 16, 2018
I think your date is off by quite a bit, but your basic point is ultimately correct. Her Wikipedia article notes that Hobby "resumed her position... as president and editor" (but not owner or publisher) after she resigned as (the first) Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare in 1955. It also says she "ultimately [became] its publisher and co-owner with her husband," which would date it only to between 1955 and William Hobby's death in 1964. A biography by Kay Bailey Hutchison notes "her husband recovered and continued as chairman until his death in 1964," although that still leaves it unclear whether she might have been named co-owner and publisher earlier than that.
With further research I found an offline article ("More than a century at the Post; Hobby family has played big role in newspaper's recent history," Lynwood Abram, Houston Chronicle, September 11, 1987) which states "After her husband's death in 1964, Mrs. Hobby became publisher of the newspaper," although this is at odds with the Wikipedia article which suggests she was publisher at least some of the time when William was still alive (although that particular statement is unsourced in the Wikipedia article).
Meanwhile, the Wikipedia article for Katherine Graham notes that she became de facto publisher in 1963, but did not formally assume the title until 1969. (Additional caveat: I have not attempted to verify those claims.)
So, if you compare when they formally became publisher — which I think makes the most sense when you're talking about things like "first female newspaper publisher" — you're right: Hobby at the Houston Post no later than 1964, vs. Graham at the Washington Post in 1969.
Even if you want to compare when they had de facto control of the paper, a case can be made that Hobby claims the title as early as 1955, given that part of the reason for her return to the Houston Post was her husband's poor health, vs. 1963 for Graham.
You'd probably also have to add in some limitation of the statement to a "major" newspaper, for some suitable definition of "major," to rule-out single-woman or other very small operations which might predate either of them by centuries.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 12:29 PM on January 16, 2018
Crackerjack of an ending scene to set up a sequel, rivaling any good Marvel post-credits sequence. Best of all, the sequel's already out, and has been for decades.
I'm torn. The movie derives so much of its power from the fact that it was released THIS year... and yet it feels very rushed. The script doesn't take nearly enough advantage of its all-star cast; I wish they'd sat with it for a little longer. The little girl with the lemonade gig (who keeps popping up over and over) feels like something that should have been cut out from a first draft and replaced with something more specific/interesting.
posted by acidic at 10:22 PM on January 16, 2018 [4 favorites]
I'm torn. The movie derives so much of its power from the fact that it was released THIS year... and yet it feels very rushed. The script doesn't take nearly enough advantage of its all-star cast; I wish they'd sat with it for a little longer. The little girl with the lemonade gig (who keeps popping up over and over) feels like something that should have been cut out from a first draft and replaced with something more specific/interesting.
posted by acidic at 10:22 PM on January 16, 2018 [4 favorites]
I was surprised to see The Wire‘s Deirdre Lovejoy kind of wasted as (I think) Ben Bradley’s secretary.
posted by blueberry at 11:24 PM on January 16, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by blueberry at 11:24 PM on January 16, 2018 [2 favorites]
I really enjoyed the movie, but I'm also extremely its target audience, being a DC policy reporter who cares a lot about court precedent both professionally and recreationally. I can see where some people are coming from in saying that it gives the Post too much credit when the Times actually broke the Pentagon Papers, but I rarely felt like we were seeing Bradlee, Graham etc., given credit for breaking a story rather than for elevating WaPo to NYT's level as a paper of record. Which I admit is super inside-baseball for a major motion picture, but again, target audience.
Also, very unexpected Nixon defense from that History vs. Hollywood link.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:57 PM on January 17, 2018 [3 favorites]
Also, very unexpected Nixon defense from that History vs. Hollywood link.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:57 PM on January 17, 2018 [3 favorites]
The little girl with the lemonade gig (who keeps popping up over and over) feels like something that should have been cut out from a first draft and replaced with something more specific/interesting.
Marina Bradlee?
posted by jgirl at 2:17 PM on January 21, 2018
Marina Bradlee?
posted by jgirl at 2:17 PM on January 21, 2018
I enjoyed it. I thought it was a love letter to the process, culture, and technology of publishing a newspaper in the 70s.
I disagree that Marina Bradlee should have been cut. The movie contrasted her youthful enthusiasm with Katherine Graham's age, uncertainty, and hesitation. What happened to the girl that Graham was? How about let's think twice before dismissing a female character in a movie that's about sexist dismissal of women?
I thought the way the movie incorporated women in brief glimpses was important. When Graham skips the press announcement after the Supreme Court arguments, she steps away from the men to walk down the stairs through a sea of women. They're looking at her, and they're waiting. It's like a prophecy.
posted by medusa at 9:53 PM on January 23, 2018 [3 favorites]
I disagree that Marina Bradlee should have been cut. The movie contrasted her youthful enthusiasm with Katherine Graham's age, uncertainty, and hesitation. What happened to the girl that Graham was? How about let's think twice before dismissing a female character in a movie that's about sexist dismissal of women?
I thought the way the movie incorporated women in brief glimpses was important. When Graham skips the press announcement after the Supreme Court arguments, she steps away from the men to walk down the stairs through a sea of women. They're looking at her, and they're waiting. It's like a prophecy.
posted by medusa at 9:53 PM on January 23, 2018 [3 favorites]
The little girl with the lemonade gig (who keeps popping up over and over) feels like something that should have been cut out from a first draft and replaced with something more specific/interesting.
I agree, but Spielberg's gonna Spielberg...
posted by carmicha at 8:48 PM on February 7, 2018 [1 favorite]
I agree, but Spielberg's gonna Spielberg...
posted by carmicha at 8:48 PM on February 7, 2018 [1 favorite]
Crackerjack of an ending scene to set up a sequel, rivaling any good Marvel post-credits sequence.
I thought it was hilariously great the way Spielberg does such a dead-on parody of the Marvel Movie Sequel Teaser, starting with a glimpse of the next movie's villain, Nixon ranting about the Post, and then a little bit of the break-in from the point of view of a minor character. I fully expected the movie to end with white letters saying
THE WASHINGTON POST WILL RETURN
posted by straight at 11:42 PM on February 17, 2018 [4 favorites]
I thought it was hilariously great the way Spielberg does such a dead-on parody of the Marvel Movie Sequel Teaser, starting with a glimpse of the next movie's villain, Nixon ranting about the Post, and then a little bit of the break-in from the point of view of a minor character. I fully expected the movie to end with white letters saying
THE WASHINGTON POST WILL RETURN
posted by straight at 11:42 PM on February 17, 2018 [4 favorites]
I also enjoyed the irony of that lawyer begging Graham not to publish and then, because she rejects his advice, he goes on to argue her case before the Supreme Court -- and wins! -- quite possibly the greatest moment in his career.
posted by straight at 10:31 PM on February 18, 2018
posted by straight at 10:31 PM on February 18, 2018
Just saw this yesterday. It was....well, it was good, I can see the quality and the topic is important and yadda yadda, but it somehow felt....like, if Ikea had a flatpack kit for an Oscar Movie, this would be it. You know?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:55 AM on February 19, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:55 AM on February 19, 2018 [1 favorite]
finished watching and immediately started to watch "all the president's men". perfect double feature.
posted by alchemist at 1:24 PM on April 7, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by alchemist at 1:24 PM on April 7, 2018 [1 favorite]
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 6:47 PM on January 15, 2018 [2 favorites]