Shouts from a Third Act

Meryl Streep as Katharine Graham in The Post

The Washington Post is a celebrated gladiator slaying foes and entertaining crowds in the fierce arena of political news. How easy to forget (or to never know) that it was once a lightly armed combatant, a small family-run newspaper struggling to hang onto the wheels of its humble chariot.

How did The Washington Post rise to Russell Crowe-Gladiator status? It began by acquiring two powerful weapons: a prospectus for its first public stock offering and “The Pentagon Papers,” each so lethal that one was capable of killing off the other and obliterating the newspaper in the process. That’s the drama–the crisis and the opportunity–behind the story that’s told in Steven Spielberg’s new movie The Post. And you won’t need to read the fine print to figure out that it’s also the story of why a free press matters.

The year is 1971, pre-Watergate, and President Nixon is two-and-a-half years into his first term. As things turned out, he might have wished he’d never run for re-election, but Nixon isn’t the bad guy here, even though it’s his Justice Department that sues to stop first The New York Times and then The Washington Post from continuing to publish “The Pentagon Papers.” On second thought, Nixon isn’t the only bad guy here. He didn’t start the Vietnam War; he inherited it from the Presidents who preceded him dating all the way back to Truman–Democrats and Republicans both. But this story isn’t as much about the villains as it is about the good guys, which brings me to the first of two unlikely heroes.

Daniel Ellsberg, hero

At forty, Daniel Ellsberg had a good job, a new wife, and two kids from his first marriage. He was brainy smart–graduated first in his high school class, full scholarship to Harvard and later a Ph.D. from Harvard, too. (That’s not in the film but seemed worth mentioning.) He signed up and served in the Marines in the late 50s in places other than Vietnam, and when he got out, his first few jobs changed his thinking about the war effort in Vietnam. He worked twice for the RAND Corporation, a non-profit research company frequently employed by our government, but he also worked directly for the government–in the Defense and State departments during LBJ’s administration, even spending time with the troops in Vietnam. Early on he thought the war was a good idea but changed his mind when he saw first-hand what was really going on. Then came a top-secret study ordered by Robert McNamara, the Defense Secretary. Ellsberg worked on it for the RAND Corp. “U.S. Decision Making in Vietnam, 1945-1968” revealed that the U.S. wasn’t winning the war and never would. And yet American soldiers and Vietnamese civilians were dying by the thousands, and many of the soldiers who made it home were disabled or sick with PTSD or exposure to toxic Agent Orange. The Presidents all knew we couldn’t win the war, but what did they do? Lied about it and sent in more troops. Why? They didn’t want to look bad by admitting defeat. Ellsberg had had enough. If some young American men were willing to go to prison by refusing to honor their draft cards, he was willing to be put behind bars, too.

Ellsberg decided the American people–the families of fathers and sons actually fighting the war–deserved to know the truth. It took him 20 months to secretly photocopy the 7,000 pages that became known as “The Pentagon Papers.” First he showed the study to several congressmen opposed to the war. They did nothing. Next he showed it to the powerhouse New York Times, which decided to publish. The Washington Post got wind of the story as it was breaking and tracked down Ellsberg, just as The Times was ordered by the court to cease publication.

Katharine Graham and Editor Ben Bradlee (her hire)

The second unlikely hero of this story is Katharine Graham, publisher of The Washington Post. The paper was hemorrhaging money, and she needed the funds from a public stock offering to keep it going and grow it stronger. A lot of what I know about Graham I learned from her autobiography Personal History, published 20 years ago. It won a Pulitzer in 1998, and, yes, it was that good.

Katharine Graham grew up rich and privileged, but her life was no ice cream sundae with a cherry on top. Her beautiful mother, born poor, had married rich, but she was self-absorbed and almost indifferent to her four children. After college and a couple of jobs reporting for newspapers–including The WP–Katharine married Phil Graham, a charismatic and brilliant Harvard law grad, born poor like her mother. Katharine’s father eventually turned the running of the newspaper over to Phil, a paper her dad had bought out of bankruptcy in 1933. She adored Phil and he seemed to adore her, at least until his mental illness kicked in. Bi-polar, he had a couple of nervous breakdowns, fell in love with somebody else, asked Katharine for a divorce and ownership of the newspaper, and then, in the midst of all this turmoil, he killed himself. Katharine hadn’t worked in years, apart from raising their four children and supporting him in the Washington social scene.

Meryl Streep’s portrayal in the film captures Katharine’s insecurities, complexities and her growing resolve to do the right thing–even when faced with possible prison time for publishing “The Pentagon Papers” as well as financial ruin if the stock offering doesn’t go through. (All the lawyers advise her not to publish.)

The Supreme Court decided the combined case against The Times and The Post in a 6-3 decision in favor of the newspapers. Justice Hugo Black, writing his opinion, said, “Our founding fathers wanted a free press to serve the governed [i.e. you and me], not the governors.”

“Paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.” Justice Hugo Black

Daniel Ellsberg wasn’t quite as fortunate–initially. The Supreme Court didn’t protect him from being charged under the Espionage Act, and he was facing potential prison sentences of 115 years. Until the court found out that Nixon’s people had broken into the office of Ellsberg’s psychoanalyst (no need to wonder why he needed one) in an effort to discredit him. Daniel’s case was thrown out of court.

Three cheers for a Free Press: then, now and always!!!

Da Vinci’s “Salvator Mundi” (Savior of the World)

If only saving the world cost as little as $450.3 million. But to pay that much for a painting? That figure made even billionaires gasp, and it’s part of the sit-up-and-take-notice story behind Leonardo da Vinci’s “Salvator Mundi,” which shattered auction highs when it sold at Christie’s in New York shortly before Thanksgiving.

Who would pay such a princely sum for a painting? A prince, as it turns out. Not just any prince, and not the Saudi prince who first claimed to have purchased it, but the endgame is that “Salvator Mundi” is headed to a new museum in Abu Dhabi, the capital city of the United Arab Emirates. As rich as that story is, it’s fair to say that da Vinci’s life story can match it and raise it fifty grand. Leonardo died five hundred years ago, in 1519, and yet even way back then, he imagined man soaring through the air in flying machines. And traversing the high seas in submarines. During his sixty-seven years on the planet Earth, he pursued so many interests–architecture, anatomy, mathematics, astronomy, military engineering, sculpture, botany, music, etc.–that for him, painting was almost a sideline. But oh, such paintings. “Mona Lisa,” it’s believed, is a portrait of a wife commissioned by a wealthy Italian merchant, but da Vinci never gave it up, continuing to perfect the painting until his death. Today the Mona Lisa is a French national treasure housed in her own special room at the Louvre in Paris. A glass ceiling helps show her in her best light, and she’s displayed behind a shatter-proof case lest thieves try to run off with her again or disgruntled suitors try once more to attack her. Da Vinci painted “The Last Supper” on the wall of a Milan monastery in the 1490s; almost immediately the paint began to flake. A few centuries later Napoleon and his troops used the building as a stable, followed by another century in which the Nazis bombed the monastery. Even many restorations later, the painting is not in the greatest shape, but every year visitors purchase tickets months in advance to see da Vinci’s depiction of the twelve disciples–their facial expressions and body language–just after Jesus tells them one of them will betray him.

Milan, like all of Italy, is mostly Catholic–or Christian. How intriguing, then, that a painting of Jesus Christ bestowing a blessing on the world will be displayed in a Muslim country’s new museum. As I began to follow the threads of this story, “intriguing” was trumped by HOPEFUL. Here’s why.

The Louvre Abu Dhabi opened its doors in November, around the time the winning bid for “Salvator Mundi” was accepted by Christie’s. A Louvre in Abu Dhabi? That was my first reaction on seeing a December 6 tweet from the museum that they would be displaying the da Vinci. It turns out that about ten years ago, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) signed an agreement with the French government: the French would help the UAE establish the first universal museum in the Arab world.

Louvre Abu Dhabi, built on Saadiyat Island (Island of Happiness), which is one-third the size of Paris

What does it mean to be a universal museum? According to the museum’s website, “it means focusing on what unites us.”

Can belief in any one religion save the world? Christianity has the largest number of followers, followed by Islam, which is the fastest growing religion in the world. The other three most influential religions are Buddhism, Hinduism and Judaism. However, if all non-believers formed a single religion, it would be the world’s third largest. That’s a whole lot of people with different beliefs.

I like the idea of this museum, a grand stage that says it will display “both ancient and contemporary works of historic, cultural and sociological interest from around the world,” that says it will “explore connections between civilizations and cultures, even though they’re geographically and time-wise far apart,” that has the courage and moral authority to display a portrait of Jesus as the Savior of the World, within the borders of its Muslim country.

The UAE, an oil-rich country, says that part of the thinking behind this museum is looking and planning ahead for the post-oil age. Ah, they must be men and women of science. Climate change, new energy sources, dropping oil prices. Leonardo da Vinci, a man of science, would approve.

“There are three classes of people: those who see, those who see when they are shown, those who do not see.” Leonardo da Vinci

The UAE, a federation of seven Emirates including Dubai, is a modern country compared to many of its Arab neighbors. Islam is the official religion, but religious freedom is written into their constitution. About 80% of the population are expats or not citizens, and a good many of them have different religious beliefs. Contrast that with neighbor Saudi Arabia, a much more conservative country where law is religious law defined by the clerics, and there’s little religious freedom. Except there’s a new crown prince in town, Mohammed bin Salmen. This 32-year-old heir to the Saudi throne has been making waves on dry land: promising to reopen movie theatres and allowing women the right to drive. He also seems to be friendly with the crown prince of Abu Dhabi, and the money trail leads back to bin Salmen as the buyer of “Salvator Mundi.” (Investigative journalists for the New York Time and Wall Street Journal were suspicious about the other Saudi prince, with no connection to the arts, who claimed to have bought it on behalf of Abu Dhabi’s Department of Culture and Tourism.) But why would the crown prince hide the purchase? Late last year bin Salmen initiated an anti-corruption crackdown on some royal cousins and hundreds of businessmen, but he’s a big spender himself and it’s probably best for his image if he can distance himself from things like buying the most expensive piece of art in the world. Like I said, it’s part of an intriguing story, but I’m happiest when I picture packed movie theatres, women driving, and a beautiful painting called “Salvator Mundi.”