My hat to George Clooney. He doesn't take the easy way out. His seriousness of purpose is undeniable and his talents as a filmmaker a concrete reality. This, his second feature, is a no frills account of a period in American history that left visible scars but, as it happens, many have forgotten. History repeats itself but its protagonists seem diluted in this modern obsession with political correctness. David Strathairn - best actor at the Venice Film Festival - is chillingly perfect as Edward R Murrow, reminding us that TV times have changed in an unrecognizable way. The space for real thought on network news has been replaced by the circus atmosphere of 24 hour cable shows with loud mouths, sound effects and video graphics. The inter-cutting between Murrow/Strathairn and the real Senator McCarthy creates the perfect illusion of a startling reality. The timing of the film couldn't be more perfect. I hope we can all fill in the voids and connect the dots. It's time to look back and think before our past becomes our future. Thank you Mr Clooney, thank you very much.
560 Reviews
America on Trial in GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK
seaview112 October 2005
Actor/Director George Clooney pays tribute to truth and decency amid distrust and uncertainty in the Communist witchhunts with his recreation of its greatest hero, the newsman of newsmen, Edward R. Murrow, in Good Night, and Good Luck.
In the early 1950's, the Communist scare and the subsequent subversion of citizens' rights was at its apex with blacklists and rampant accusations resulting in ruined lives and careers. Edward R. Murrow (David Strathairn) was the grand master of the news airwaves in the infantile medium of television. With his show's director, Fred Friendly (George Clooney) and his production team, he picks one obscure news item regarding an Air Force serviceman who is dismissed due to unspecified charges. Murrow and CBS essentially take on the US Air Force amid this climate of suspicion and presumed guilt. Later, Murrow's team takes on Senator Joseph McCarthy by making critical comments of the senator's own words and contradictions. McCarthy retaliates with accusations of Murrow's supposed association with un-American groups just as the parent network, CBS, reels under sponsorship pressure and the unpredictable whims of network president William Paley (Frank Langella). As Murrow and his own staff come under tense scrutiny by McCarthy and even CBS, public reaction and the response of the print media come to the forefront.
Nothing can compare to the words that were written and spoken with such conviction and honesty as those uttered by Murrow. The title of the movie is a direct quote that Murrow employed to sign off each week at the close of his interview shows. The filmmakers (including director Clooney and writers Clooney and Grant Heslov) were wise to let the text stand on its own. They also benefit from good performances from a cast headed by Strathairn (L.A. Confidential, A League of Their Own), a journeyman actor who has finally found a core role to call his own, and he makes the most of it. He gets the mannerisms and cadence down quite convincingly, and while Strathairn may not look exactly like Murrow, he has the persona nailed. Frank Langella (Dave) is excellent as the mercurial Paley whose support of Murrow was tenuous at best. Ray Wise (Twin Peaks) registers in what could have been a more defined role as a doomed newsman whose guilt by association triggers some life changing events. Patricia Clarkson (The Station Agent) and Robert Downey Jr. (Chaplin) as secretly married staffers, Joe and Shirley, round out the cast. Ironically, perhaps the best performance can be attributed to McCarthy himself as newsreels offer a fascinating, perverse glance at the infamous politician whose flamboyance and dogged theatrics doomed the careers of many government officials and film or television actors. The duel between Murrow and McCarthy seems like two heavyweights going at it verbally in the public arena.
The cinematography by Robert Elswit (Magnolia) is crisp and starkly lit in black and white to evoke the past. The production design and costumes are consistent with the period. Just the sight of newsmen typing on old style typewriters or production assistants carrying around film reels instead of videotape or discs is amusing. The editing by Stephen Mirrione (Traffic, 21 Grams) is tight and well paced. At times the studio broadcasts of a female blues singer bridges various sequences in theme and mood. The broadcast of a live network news program is staged with realism and with the frenzy and excitement that only live television could bring. One wonders what TV veterans like Sidney Lumet or Robert Altman could have brought to the table.
Murrow's show was kind of a precursor to the current granddaddy of all prime time news shows, 60 Minutes. It was interesting to see that his was not a perfect career having to mix fluffy showbiz interviews with such personalities as Liberace on his Person-to-Person show with legitimate news reports. At 93 minutes, the film surprisingly seems a bit short. You almost feel like this is a big budget episode of the famous You Are There reenactment shows. The story ends almost abruptly as it begins being bookended by a formal event honoring Murrow in 1958.
A couple of things don't quite work in the film. The characters of Joe and Shirley must come to terms with the network's policy forbidding marriage among its coworkers, but this subplot doesn't significantly serve to move the story forward. Clooney shows a workman-like approach to directing the film but it just doesn't grab you as emotionally as you would like. You sit there entranced by the history but are never fully given to the pathos of its characters. Instead, the film becomes almost a quasi-documentary bereft of much feeling.
As previous films have dealt with the Red Scare and blacklists, this film compares favorably with The Front and the great television movie Fear on Trial. Although the Soviet Union was a major threat to the United States during the Cold War, the accusatory enemy from within was perhaps as great a menace. The implications and parallels to today's political climate and the role television has in shaping perception are clearly the point Clooney and gang are trying to make. Murrow's formal speech, which begins and ends the film's story, is itself a prophetic and sobering commentary and indictment of the possibilities of television and foreshadows the future with amazing prescience. It shows that one man made a difference. Such is the testament to a heroic reporter whose integrity this film manages to capture, albeit in a brief history lesson.
In the early 1950's, the Communist scare and the subsequent subversion of citizens' rights was at its apex with blacklists and rampant accusations resulting in ruined lives and careers. Edward R. Murrow (David Strathairn) was the grand master of the news airwaves in the infantile medium of television. With his show's director, Fred Friendly (George Clooney) and his production team, he picks one obscure news item regarding an Air Force serviceman who is dismissed due to unspecified charges. Murrow and CBS essentially take on the US Air Force amid this climate of suspicion and presumed guilt. Later, Murrow's team takes on Senator Joseph McCarthy by making critical comments of the senator's own words and contradictions. McCarthy retaliates with accusations of Murrow's supposed association with un-American groups just as the parent network, CBS, reels under sponsorship pressure and the unpredictable whims of network president William Paley (Frank Langella). As Murrow and his own staff come under tense scrutiny by McCarthy and even CBS, public reaction and the response of the print media come to the forefront.
Nothing can compare to the words that were written and spoken with such conviction and honesty as those uttered by Murrow. The title of the movie is a direct quote that Murrow employed to sign off each week at the close of his interview shows. The filmmakers (including director Clooney and writers Clooney and Grant Heslov) were wise to let the text stand on its own. They also benefit from good performances from a cast headed by Strathairn (L.A. Confidential, A League of Their Own), a journeyman actor who has finally found a core role to call his own, and he makes the most of it. He gets the mannerisms and cadence down quite convincingly, and while Strathairn may not look exactly like Murrow, he has the persona nailed. Frank Langella (Dave) is excellent as the mercurial Paley whose support of Murrow was tenuous at best. Ray Wise (Twin Peaks) registers in what could have been a more defined role as a doomed newsman whose guilt by association triggers some life changing events. Patricia Clarkson (The Station Agent) and Robert Downey Jr. (Chaplin) as secretly married staffers, Joe and Shirley, round out the cast. Ironically, perhaps the best performance can be attributed to McCarthy himself as newsreels offer a fascinating, perverse glance at the infamous politician whose flamboyance and dogged theatrics doomed the careers of many government officials and film or television actors. The duel between Murrow and McCarthy seems like two heavyweights going at it verbally in the public arena.
The cinematography by Robert Elswit (Magnolia) is crisp and starkly lit in black and white to evoke the past. The production design and costumes are consistent with the period. Just the sight of newsmen typing on old style typewriters or production assistants carrying around film reels instead of videotape or discs is amusing. The editing by Stephen Mirrione (Traffic, 21 Grams) is tight and well paced. At times the studio broadcasts of a female blues singer bridges various sequences in theme and mood. The broadcast of a live network news program is staged with realism and with the frenzy and excitement that only live television could bring. One wonders what TV veterans like Sidney Lumet or Robert Altman could have brought to the table.
Murrow's show was kind of a precursor to the current granddaddy of all prime time news shows, 60 Minutes. It was interesting to see that his was not a perfect career having to mix fluffy showbiz interviews with such personalities as Liberace on his Person-to-Person show with legitimate news reports. At 93 minutes, the film surprisingly seems a bit short. You almost feel like this is a big budget episode of the famous You Are There reenactment shows. The story ends almost abruptly as it begins being bookended by a formal event honoring Murrow in 1958.
A couple of things don't quite work in the film. The characters of Joe and Shirley must come to terms with the network's policy forbidding marriage among its coworkers, but this subplot doesn't significantly serve to move the story forward. Clooney shows a workman-like approach to directing the film but it just doesn't grab you as emotionally as you would like. You sit there entranced by the history but are never fully given to the pathos of its characters. Instead, the film becomes almost a quasi-documentary bereft of much feeling.
As previous films have dealt with the Red Scare and blacklists, this film compares favorably with The Front and the great television movie Fear on Trial. Although the Soviet Union was a major threat to the United States during the Cold War, the accusatory enemy from within was perhaps as great a menace. The implications and parallels to today's political climate and the role television has in shaping perception are clearly the point Clooney and gang are trying to make. Murrow's formal speech, which begins and ends the film's story, is itself a prophetic and sobering commentary and indictment of the possibilities of television and foreshadows the future with amazing prescience. It shows that one man made a difference. Such is the testament to a heroic reporter whose integrity this film manages to capture, albeit in a brief history lesson.
Broadcast news
jotix10021 October 2005
"Good Night, and Good Luck" is the kind of film that has elicited strong opinions in the IMDb forum. In fact, most of the critics point out at the manipulation of the actual events and what they perceive as character assassination of the late Joseph McCarthy and the role he played during the "witch hunt" conducted by the late senator from Wisconsin. Whether these points are right, or wrong, in the minds of the contributors, most seem to disregard the film on that criteria, alone.
In fact, "Good Night, and Good Luck" shows a time in the American past that served as the model in the way television introduced the format in which the news was going to be shown to the country using the emerging technology to keep people informed. As such, CBS under William Paley's leadership, amassed a lot of talent and it became the yardstick in which other news programs were going to be judged against. George Clooney, in his second directorial job, recreates what he and his co-writer, Grant Heslov, thought about that period at the beginning of the era of television news.
The film has a documentary style that serves well to illustrate the story being told. Most of it occurring in the CBS studios in New York during the fifties. The crisp black and white cinematography, by Robert Elswit, gives the movie a nostalgic look to the way things were done in those days. Mr. Clooney has inserted scenes where a black jazz singer interprets some standard songs as though it might have been the next program following the actual news hour, and act as a buffer in the events being presented.
At the center of the story is Edward R. Murrow, the CBS anchor at the time. Mr. Murrow was greatly admired for his contributions during WWII and his broadcasts from London bringing commentaries about the war to America. Mr. Murrow was a giant in the field, most admired by all Americans because his integrity and the way he presented his stories, which ranged from the sublime, to the ridiculous, as it is the case with the interview with Liberace in Sherman Oaks where he asked the entertainer about his future wedding plans.
The strong cast assembled for the film is excellent. David Strathairn, one of our most versatile actors plays the leading role. His take on Murrow's mannerisms and the way he spoke to his audience in front of the camera is captured with great detail. Mr. Strathairn gives a good performance, but one never really knows much about the man in the way the screen play has been written. Yes, one gets the impression of Mr. Murrow's high ethics, but as far as what made him tick, one has to wait for another biopic to find out.
The ensemble cast plays well under Mr. Clooney's direction. Robert Downey Jr., Patricia Clarkson, Ray Wise, Frank Langella, Jeff Daniels, and George Clooney are seen in the newsroom as they portray their models under Mr. Clooney's direction.
In fact, "Good Night, and Good Luck" shows a time in the American past that served as the model in the way television introduced the format in which the news was going to be shown to the country using the emerging technology to keep people informed. As such, CBS under William Paley's leadership, amassed a lot of talent and it became the yardstick in which other news programs were going to be judged against. George Clooney, in his second directorial job, recreates what he and his co-writer, Grant Heslov, thought about that period at the beginning of the era of television news.
The film has a documentary style that serves well to illustrate the story being told. Most of it occurring in the CBS studios in New York during the fifties. The crisp black and white cinematography, by Robert Elswit, gives the movie a nostalgic look to the way things were done in those days. Mr. Clooney has inserted scenes where a black jazz singer interprets some standard songs as though it might have been the next program following the actual news hour, and act as a buffer in the events being presented.
At the center of the story is Edward R. Murrow, the CBS anchor at the time. Mr. Murrow was greatly admired for his contributions during WWII and his broadcasts from London bringing commentaries about the war to America. Mr. Murrow was a giant in the field, most admired by all Americans because his integrity and the way he presented his stories, which ranged from the sublime, to the ridiculous, as it is the case with the interview with Liberace in Sherman Oaks where he asked the entertainer about his future wedding plans.
The strong cast assembled for the film is excellent. David Strathairn, one of our most versatile actors plays the leading role. His take on Murrow's mannerisms and the way he spoke to his audience in front of the camera is captured with great detail. Mr. Strathairn gives a good performance, but one never really knows much about the man in the way the screen play has been written. Yes, one gets the impression of Mr. Murrow's high ethics, but as far as what made him tick, one has to wait for another biopic to find out.
The ensemble cast plays well under Mr. Clooney's direction. Robert Downey Jr., Patricia Clarkson, Ray Wise, Frank Langella, Jeff Daniels, and George Clooney are seen in the newsroom as they portray their models under Mr. Clooney's direction.
"You got it right."
bparker22515 October 2005
I don't know where to begin. If one judges a film by its ability to literally transport the viewer to another time and place, this film succeeds. If one judges a film by the cinematography, the composition of the scenes, whether the characterizations are well drawn, this film succeeds. If one judges a film's merits on integrity, truthfulness, honesty, this film succeeds. Good Night and Good Luck captures a moment in time.We look back on the fifties as a simpler time, our period of innocence. This film tells us straight and true that it was no simpler and no more innocent than our lives today.In fact, the sharpest contrast drawn between today and back then is the intelligence and the literacy, the erudition and the commitment to the tenets of good journalism of Edward R. Murrow and his crew.I cannot picture a Brian Williams or anyone else telling the owner of the network, as Murrow tells Bill Paley, "I can't make it to the game tonight. Thanks for inviting me, but I'm busy tearing down your network." A flawlessly executed film, the acting ensemble well cast, the point clearly and eloquently made, this film should be nominated for an Oscar, a Golden Globe and anything else that's out there. Thank you George Clooney. Your father is correct. "You got it right." Thank you Steven Soderburgh. Thank you, Mr. Murrow.
Clooney's presentation of McCarthy
bagloon13 October 2005
The film does not - as some have suggested - unfairly portray McCarthy as a sub-human monster. Its presentation of McCarthy is limited strictly to the thread of the storyline and never does it waver toward name-calling or character assassination. This is particularly striking given that MCarthy was a well-seasoned alcoholic and clearly suffered from a narcissistic personality disorder. He was ripe for parody because his eccentricities were so pronounced, but this film is remarkably even-handed about the Senator's deeds and behavior. There are no allusions either to his peculiar friendship with Roy Cohn, whose notorious homosexual relations with private G. David Schine eventually led to McCarthy's demented charge that the Army was infested with Communists. Some have even suggested that McCarthy was no stranger to gay trysts. All of this could have made for an explosive - and typical - "Hollywood" movie and would indeed have been propagandistic, shallow and simple-minded. Instead Clooney has made an intelligent, cogent, fair-minded film about ethics, high standards and integrity.
One of the very best films of the year.
jsemovieman11 October 2005
"Good Night, And Good Luck" is one of the best films of the year. Beautifully directed by George Clooney (who also co-stars), this is a film that exercises a powerful message and social commentary that remains relevant today. Filmed in tight frames of black and white, "Good Night, And Good Luck" also brings back the smoke-filled atmosphere of broadcast journalism and television in the 1950s. The film focuses around CBS journalist Edward Murrow and his attempts to take down Senator Joseph McCarthy through his news program, "See it Now." David Strathairn, playing Edward Murrow, gives one of the best performances of the year and is surely swimming in Oscar territory. Clooney makes his biggest leap in the film industry yet. He, too, may join Strathairn for an Oscar nomination, but in the Best Director category. Filming in black and white, and interspersing news conferences with actual footage of McCarthy, Clooney is an emerging talent worth watching. The ending and the very last frame lets "Good Night, And Good Luck" stay with those who watch it. It ends very abruptly, as if Clooney wants to show the failing, yet lasting effort Murrow had--how he stands as a symbol for the continuation of truth and who is willing to bring it out to the public. The end has a very honest bleak tone to it--we want to see Murrow continue to let the public know what's actually going on in the country, but one man's fight isn't good enough. Clooney chooses a perfect and powerful ending. He makes a bold statement on how public interest in television has contributed to the decay of society, whether it is 1950 or 2005.
a good film but lacks depth and historical context
imaginarytruths22 October 2005
Well-acted across the board, I loved the Patricia Clarkson-Robert Downey combo so much that I kind of wish they had their own movie. Stylish and effective cinematography- the darting to and fro, the perpetual smoke, the use of shadow and silhouette. All very well done. And the overall message of the film- that the media and the American public need to wake the *beep* up and pay attention- is one that I heartily commend.
Part of my problem with the film stems from the fact that I am a history student with a keen interest in the time period. And Clooney does nothing to place his story in historical context. He's just taking pieces of a story and expecting the audience to fill in the rest. Like the loyalty oath piece. It really has nothing to do with the rest of the film. It is not explored further in any other scene. It is not really debated. Just one scene, designed to get the audience to recoil and say "wasn't that horrible?" Then it's not mentioned again. No reference to Stalin...hell, no reference to the Cold War, the atomic bomb, the Korean War, or even any aspect of the Red Scare other than McCarthy. There's one line about Alger Hiss near the end, but it provides little context or explication. The film makes it seem like McCarthy was a one-man wrecking crew instead of a particularly ruthless and ambitious politician taking advantage of a fear that was already widespread and deeply penetrating.
And loyalty oaths still exist, by the way, and the truth is that for the most part we accept them. I had to sign a loyalty oath to be a public schoolteacher.
As for the idea that Clooney is trying to make commentary about how society has changed in the past 50 years, I agree that such is his intent. In this regard he is clearly inspired by Todd Haynes' Far From Heaven, which his company produced and which he vigorously promoted. But Haynes does it much more elegantly. He shows his characters confounding their stereotypical roles; Clooney merely reinforces them. I wanted to see Patricia Clarkson's character do something other than fetch newspapers. I wanted to see a black character do something other than belt out jazz tunes that lay out the plot like something in an old musical. Otherwise, their presence smacks of tokenism, of the worst kind of liberal condescension. Also, Haynes' film is a fiction commenting on the fictional representations and actual reality of a bygone era. Clooney's is, at least in its central scenes, practically a documentary. Having subplots whose primary purpose is smug contemporary commentary detracts from the versimilitude.
The scene near the end in the office between Langella and Strathairn is the thematic lynchpin of the film. However, this is where I think Clooney most clearly falls short. It seems to me that they address Murrow's earlier complicity in the Red Scare (re:Alger Hiss) surreptitiously by burying it in a set of defensive comments that are presented like a bunch of excuses for the network's moral cowardice. It's scripted in such a way that Murrow does not have to respond. As for the idea that corporations run the media for profit and that the nightly news is more distraction than edification ...well, that was a bold statement when Network came out 30 years ago, not so much now anything more than stating the obvious. I wanted more from this.
I almost feel like Clooney was torn between making a documentary and making something truly scathing in the Network vein. As documentary the film is brought down by its lack of context, which is a shame because Strathairn's line readings are chillingly good. As social commentary the film simply doesn't say anything particularly perceptive, and at times it comes across as liberal bourgeois moralizing.
Part of my problem with the film stems from the fact that I am a history student with a keen interest in the time period. And Clooney does nothing to place his story in historical context. He's just taking pieces of a story and expecting the audience to fill in the rest. Like the loyalty oath piece. It really has nothing to do with the rest of the film. It is not explored further in any other scene. It is not really debated. Just one scene, designed to get the audience to recoil and say "wasn't that horrible?" Then it's not mentioned again. No reference to Stalin...hell, no reference to the Cold War, the atomic bomb, the Korean War, or even any aspect of the Red Scare other than McCarthy. There's one line about Alger Hiss near the end, but it provides little context or explication. The film makes it seem like McCarthy was a one-man wrecking crew instead of a particularly ruthless and ambitious politician taking advantage of a fear that was already widespread and deeply penetrating.
And loyalty oaths still exist, by the way, and the truth is that for the most part we accept them. I had to sign a loyalty oath to be a public schoolteacher.
As for the idea that Clooney is trying to make commentary about how society has changed in the past 50 years, I agree that such is his intent. In this regard he is clearly inspired by Todd Haynes' Far From Heaven, which his company produced and which he vigorously promoted. But Haynes does it much more elegantly. He shows his characters confounding their stereotypical roles; Clooney merely reinforces them. I wanted to see Patricia Clarkson's character do something other than fetch newspapers. I wanted to see a black character do something other than belt out jazz tunes that lay out the plot like something in an old musical. Otherwise, their presence smacks of tokenism, of the worst kind of liberal condescension. Also, Haynes' film is a fiction commenting on the fictional representations and actual reality of a bygone era. Clooney's is, at least in its central scenes, practically a documentary. Having subplots whose primary purpose is smug contemporary commentary detracts from the versimilitude.
The scene near the end in the office between Langella and Strathairn is the thematic lynchpin of the film. However, this is where I think Clooney most clearly falls short. It seems to me that they address Murrow's earlier complicity in the Red Scare (re:Alger Hiss) surreptitiously by burying it in a set of defensive comments that are presented like a bunch of excuses for the network's moral cowardice. It's scripted in such a way that Murrow does not have to respond. As for the idea that corporations run the media for profit and that the nightly news is more distraction than edification ...well, that was a bold statement when Network came out 30 years ago, not so much now anything more than stating the obvious. I wanted more from this.
I almost feel like Clooney was torn between making a documentary and making something truly scathing in the Network vein. As documentary the film is brought down by its lack of context, which is a shame because Strathairn's line readings are chillingly good. As social commentary the film simply doesn't say anything particularly perceptive, and at times it comes across as liberal bourgeois moralizing.
When Things Were Black and White
schappe113 November 2005
I've had the "Edward R. Murrow" Collection from CBS for years and have enjoyed watching it's biography of Murrow, the complete Milo Radulovich, McCarthy and Annie Lee Moss shows many times. I'm sure George Clooney must have these as well as he used the actual footage extensively in his fine drama "Good Night and Good Luck". As a previous poster said, by concentrating on what was actually presented, Clooney is able to focus on the ethical issues that were the real substance of the broadcasts, rather than the tragicomic personalities involved. He wants us to see that the same issues are in our lives today, (Clooney has had his own battles with would-be modern McCarthys like Bill O'Reilly), but he isn't going to force the issue. He's doing exactly what Murrow and Friendly did with the McCarthy broadcast: using the actual record to tell the story.
There are minor, but significant embellishments, mostly an impressive cast of actors who can tell us more with one look than an entire speech. Leading the way is David Straithairn as Murrow. Except for possessing a higher pitched voice than the original, he's got his man down cold. I would pick Frank Langella as William Paley, here presented as a man with ideals but who is rooted in the realities of business, the sort of guy who has to make the tough decisions the idealists like Murrow don't have to or want to deal with. Then there is Ray Wise as the vulnerable Don Hollenbeck, who was one of the co-creators of "You Are There", a program this film somewhat resembles. He wound up being "there" when he didn't really want to be.
What really enhances the show is the black and white photography, (actually, according to the notes, it was "The film was shot on color film on a grayscale set, then color-corrected in post" whatever that means). Not only does it heighten the drama, (magazine photographers, in the days when they had a choice, said "black and white for drama, color for excitement"), but the tremendous resolution seems to bring out each furrow and poor on each person's face, allowing the viewer to see into their souls.
There are minor, but significant embellishments, mostly an impressive cast of actors who can tell us more with one look than an entire speech. Leading the way is David Straithairn as Murrow. Except for possessing a higher pitched voice than the original, he's got his man down cold. I would pick Frank Langella as William Paley, here presented as a man with ideals but who is rooted in the realities of business, the sort of guy who has to make the tough decisions the idealists like Murrow don't have to or want to deal with. Then there is Ray Wise as the vulnerable Don Hollenbeck, who was one of the co-creators of "You Are There", a program this film somewhat resembles. He wound up being "there" when he didn't really want to be.
What really enhances the show is the black and white photography, (actually, according to the notes, it was "The film was shot on color film on a grayscale set, then color-corrected in post" whatever that means). Not only does it heighten the drama, (magazine photographers, in the days when they had a choice, said "black and white for drama, color for excitement"), but the tremendous resolution seems to bring out each furrow and poor on each person's face, allowing the viewer to see into their souls.
"We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason"
CIMC28 October 2005
Warning: Spoilers
"This instrument can teach, it can illuminate and yes it can inspire. But it can only do so to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is nothing but wires and lights in a box." Thus spoke Edward R. Murrow, somewhat a legend of broadcast journalism. Better than average but less than legendary is Good Night and Good Luck, a new film about Murrow's historic confrontation with Sen. Joseph McCarthy. The timely themes of the film will not go unnoticed by even mildly aware viewers and though the film is certainly competent, that it perhaps its greatest contribution.
The films opens with Murrow (David Strathairn) giving a speech to the Radio Television News Directors Association. His speech encapsulates much of the problems of that television had then, and still has now. The film shares the beginning of the speech at the beginning of the film and ends with the end of the speech. In between are scenes of the decision making that led to See it Now's confronting of McCarthy and McCarthyism. Other journalists had been poking at McCarthy for some time and Fred Friendly (Clooney) and Murrow found an opportunity to do an excellent piece on television that would add their names to the growing ranks of dissenters. The first shot fired was on Oct. 20, 1953 when See it Now broadcast the story of Air Force reservist Milo Radulovich. He was discharged from the service after his father and sister were labeled as communist sympathizers. Ending the program with, "the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, even though that iniquity be proved beyond all doubt, which in this case it was not," Murrow and Friendly had for the first time taken their personal misgivings about McCarthyism public. This confrontation, and subsequent ones, missed a vital point that the film misses as well. In a free society, what's wrong with being a communist if you want to? Instead of labeling all kinds of people as communists incorrectly, what if McCarthy had been 100% correct? Clooney does not investigate what the problem would have been about having competent professionals, who are communist, in government, or private industry, position. One can only imagine the laughter that would loose should an agitator for a single-payer health system be labeled a subversive Canadian agent. Being a docudrama perhaps it would have been a bit out of place for the film to go there but it was the fundamental flaw of McCarthyist, and anti-communist ideologies, that communists had no place in America, a purportedly free nation.
Clooney does an excellent job fitting the archival footage of McCarthy and others into this film. He guides the film with a good pace but it still seems to be padded a bit. A subplot about the secret marriage of Joe & Shirley Wershba (Robert Downey Jr. & Patricia Clarkson) is neat enough and good for a few one-liners but there doesn't seem to be any reason for it to be in the film. It stands in contrast to the subplots of CBS' wavering support for Murrow and the pressures applied to coworker Don Hollenbeck (Ray Wise) about his supposedly subversive activities. The transitions between scenes are welcome each time with wonderful jazz vocalist Dianne Reeves performing old time pieces in the CBS sound studio. The strength of the performances by Strathairn, Clooney and especially Frank Langella as CBS head William Paley help keep the flaws of the film fairly well hidden.
Though perhaps mildly overstating the importance of Murrow's influence on the downfall of McCarthy, Good Night, and Good Luck does a good job of elucidating the atmosphere of paranoia that pervaded many parts of the country at the time. It makes a strong and enjoyable contribution to the body of work involving the Red Scare but in the opinion of this reviewer, it still misses an important point. After seeing it, if you're taking public transportation home, be sure to listen for the recordings that ask you to look out for suspicious activity around you. Then the real strength of the film will be even more evident.
The films opens with Murrow (David Strathairn) giving a speech to the Radio Television News Directors Association. His speech encapsulates much of the problems of that television had then, and still has now. The film shares the beginning of the speech at the beginning of the film and ends with the end of the speech. In between are scenes of the decision making that led to See it Now's confronting of McCarthy and McCarthyism. Other journalists had been poking at McCarthy for some time and Fred Friendly (Clooney) and Murrow found an opportunity to do an excellent piece on television that would add their names to the growing ranks of dissenters. The first shot fired was on Oct. 20, 1953 when See it Now broadcast the story of Air Force reservist Milo Radulovich. He was discharged from the service after his father and sister were labeled as communist sympathizers. Ending the program with, "the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, even though that iniquity be proved beyond all doubt, which in this case it was not," Murrow and Friendly had for the first time taken their personal misgivings about McCarthyism public. This confrontation, and subsequent ones, missed a vital point that the film misses as well. In a free society, what's wrong with being a communist if you want to? Instead of labeling all kinds of people as communists incorrectly, what if McCarthy had been 100% correct? Clooney does not investigate what the problem would have been about having competent professionals, who are communist, in government, or private industry, position. One can only imagine the laughter that would loose should an agitator for a single-payer health system be labeled a subversive Canadian agent. Being a docudrama perhaps it would have been a bit out of place for the film to go there but it was the fundamental flaw of McCarthyist, and anti-communist ideologies, that communists had no place in America, a purportedly free nation.
Clooney does an excellent job fitting the archival footage of McCarthy and others into this film. He guides the film with a good pace but it still seems to be padded a bit. A subplot about the secret marriage of Joe & Shirley Wershba (Robert Downey Jr. & Patricia Clarkson) is neat enough and good for a few one-liners but there doesn't seem to be any reason for it to be in the film. It stands in contrast to the subplots of CBS' wavering support for Murrow and the pressures applied to coworker Don Hollenbeck (Ray Wise) about his supposedly subversive activities. The transitions between scenes are welcome each time with wonderful jazz vocalist Dianne Reeves performing old time pieces in the CBS sound studio. The strength of the performances by Strathairn, Clooney and especially Frank Langella as CBS head William Paley help keep the flaws of the film fairly well hidden.
Though perhaps mildly overstating the importance of Murrow's influence on the downfall of McCarthy, Good Night, and Good Luck does a good job of elucidating the atmosphere of paranoia that pervaded many parts of the country at the time. It makes a strong and enjoyable contribution to the body of work involving the Red Scare but in the opinion of this reviewer, it still misses an important point. After seeing it, if you're taking public transportation home, be sure to listen for the recordings that ask you to look out for suspicious activity around you. Then the real strength of the film will be even more evident.
Strathairn and documentary footage produce a winner
reddpill16 October 2005
This film was a real treat, with Strathairn's dead-on performance as legendary journalist Edward R. Murrow a sure bet for at least an Oscar nomination. Perhaps the best decision by writer-director George Clooney was to cast no one in the role of Senator Joseph McCarthy. Instead, Clooney uses actual footage of McCarthy in the HUAC hearings and press conferences. Movies based on actual historical events often sensationalize events, but the extensive use of documentary footage brings home the reality of this movie's story line.
In addition to Strathairn's best performance to date, the entire cast delivers, from Clooney himself as Murrow's producer Fred Friendly, to Frank Langella as CBS chairman William Paley, to Ray Wise as the insecure anchorman Don Hollenbeck. If there is a weak point in the cast, it is Jeff Daniels, who was given little to do in the role of news director Sig Mickelson and did little with it.
As most people today are acquainted with the 1950s through black-and-white images, the decision to film in black-and-white also feels appropriate, and helps the documentary footage to blend in seamlessly with the filmed actors. The only real failing of the movie is the lack of real drama. Throughout, Murrow and the gang are seen to have the upper hand, although they sweat about the potential consequences of every action. The slice of history, the ideas presented concerning the proper role of news media, and the terrific performances all more than make up for this, however, and I strongly recommend this film to those who lived through the McCarthy era and to those, such as myself, who only have witnessed it in the rear view mirror.
In addition to Strathairn's best performance to date, the entire cast delivers, from Clooney himself as Murrow's producer Fred Friendly, to Frank Langella as CBS chairman William Paley, to Ray Wise as the insecure anchorman Don Hollenbeck. If there is a weak point in the cast, it is Jeff Daniels, who was given little to do in the role of news director Sig Mickelson and did little with it.
As most people today are acquainted with the 1950s through black-and-white images, the decision to film in black-and-white also feels appropriate, and helps the documentary footage to blend in seamlessly with the filmed actors. The only real failing of the movie is the lack of real drama. Throughout, Murrow and the gang are seen to have the upper hand, although they sweat about the potential consequences of every action. The slice of history, the ideas presented concerning the proper role of news media, and the terrific performances all more than make up for this, however, and I strongly recommend this film to those who lived through the McCarthy era and to those, such as myself, who only have witnessed it in the rear view mirror.
Almost a Documentary
Connective8 October 2005
"Good Night, and Good Luck," tells the story of CBS Newsman Edward R. Murrow's courageous fight against Senator Joseph McCarthy. As a student of both history and journalism, I have viewed Murrow as a hero and was very excited to see this film. Overall, David Strathairn's performance is impeccable, capturing Murrow's nuances, genius, and even the cigarette addiction that eventually killed him.
George Clooney directed this film and plays Fred Friendly, who produced Murrow's broadcasts. Clooney also is credited with co-writing the screenplay, and that's where the problem arises. Aside for the lengthy film footage of actual Senate sub-committee testimony, and the genuine, on-screen words of Murrow and others, the screenplay is sparse.
We get very little insight into the characters of Murrow, Friendly, and CBS President William Paley (played by Frank Langella). In addition, Clooney wastes a superb supporting cast including Patricia Clarkson, Robert Downey Jr., and Jeff Daniels.
Clearly, George Clooney has made a noble film that captures the spirit of the time and the words of those involved, and if there was ever any doubt that McCarthy was a self-serving hypocrite, it is erased by this film. But the director failed to develop characters that were interesting in their own right. As such, the film is only slightly more involving than a documentary on the subject might have been.
George Clooney directed this film and plays Fred Friendly, who produced Murrow's broadcasts. Clooney also is credited with co-writing the screenplay, and that's where the problem arises. Aside for the lengthy film footage of actual Senate sub-committee testimony, and the genuine, on-screen words of Murrow and others, the screenplay is sparse.
We get very little insight into the characters of Murrow, Friendly, and CBS President William Paley (played by Frank Langella). In addition, Clooney wastes a superb supporting cast including Patricia Clarkson, Robert Downey Jr., and Jeff Daniels.
Clearly, George Clooney has made a noble film that captures the spirit of the time and the words of those involved, and if there was ever any doubt that McCarthy was a self-serving hypocrite, it is erased by this film. But the director failed to develop characters that were interesting in their own right. As such, the film is only slightly more involving than a documentary on the subject might have been.
My brief review of the film
sol-23 December 2005
More auspicious than his first directing effort, George Clooney has directed what is definitely a good film here. The visual side is excellent, with the feel of both a documentary and noir combined into one. While the technical aspects are great, it is a bit shy of being a brilliant film. There is little to complain about as such, except for the inclusion of a subplot with two supporting characters that is meant to be symbolism of McCarthyism, but it is too obvious to work, and is awkwardly fitted into the storyline. The main problem with the film is that it lacks in complexity. It portrays the important events but it does not dare to deeply explore them. Murrow is not explored in much depth as a person either. There is no emotional involvement to be had - it is not much different from reading a history book. Sure, the film tries to say some things about television and the power of mass media, but the ideas are delivered more so as lessons than as subtle and effective messages. So, some parts of the film do not quite work, but it is a fine production overall. If not quite brilliant, the performances are competent and the sound recording and soundtrack music help in establishing atmosphere. It is a well-done film, but when push comes to shove, it had the potential to be more than just a good film. It is certainly worth seeing though, if for nothing else than to see what Clooney is capable of as a director.
Looks the part, but lacks emotional involvement
The_Void7 February 2006
Of all the critically friendly 'Oscar Contenders' of 2005, Good Night and Good Luck was the one that stood out the most for me. Not because I have an interest in the plot, or any confidence in the people that made it, even; but merely because it seemed to come out of nowhere, and it's often these films that become the surprise hit of the year. With that in mind, I am disappointed to say that, given the task of describing this film in one word, I would have to select the word 'dull'. Director and star George Clooney has done a great job of ensuring that his film looks and feels as it should; we are given a convincing portrait of the USA during the 1950's, and the film is always lovely to look at. However, it's good points end there; as there is barely any plot to speak of, and the film simply feels like a timeline of events. The plot revolves around the cold war, and Senator Joseph McCarthy. Two journalists; reporter Edward R. Murrow and producer Fred Friendly, decide to take on the senator and expose him for inspiring fear in the American people.
The way that George Clooney uses archive footage instead of an actor cast in the role of the senator is a really inspired move; but the inspiration stops there. We are never allowed into the heads of any of the characters. Their actions show, but we are never given any motivation, and this makes the film very hard to care for on an emotional level. David Strathairn fits the film in that he looks the part; but like the rest of it, he is never given a chance to shine. Robert Downey Jnr and Patricia Clarkson are entirely wasted in a subplot that has little point, while George Clooney fails also to make any kind of impression in the acting department. To be honest, I'm really surprised that this film did go down well with the critics. Good Night and Good Luck is a purely aesthetic experience, and despite the fact that it looks great; surely great films cannot be called such merely because of how they look. I'm sure that George Clooney thought he was making a great film here, but it's missed the mark entirely. If you're really interested in the subject of this film, you might get some kind of enjoyment out of it; but since this film is basically a glorified documentary, you'd probably be better off seeing an actual documentary. Disappointing.
The way that George Clooney uses archive footage instead of an actor cast in the role of the senator is a really inspired move; but the inspiration stops there. We are never allowed into the heads of any of the characters. Their actions show, but we are never given any motivation, and this makes the film very hard to care for on an emotional level. David Strathairn fits the film in that he looks the part; but like the rest of it, he is never given a chance to shine. Robert Downey Jnr and Patricia Clarkson are entirely wasted in a subplot that has little point, while George Clooney fails also to make any kind of impression in the acting department. To be honest, I'm really surprised that this film did go down well with the critics. Good Night and Good Luck is a purely aesthetic experience, and despite the fact that it looks great; surely great films cannot be called such merely because of how they look. I'm sure that George Clooney thought he was making a great film here, but it's missed the mark entirely. If you're really interested in the subject of this film, you might get some kind of enjoyment out of it; but since this film is basically a glorified documentary, you'd probably be better off seeing an actual documentary. Disappointing.
Got smoke?
fred-28731 October 2005
Warning: Spoilers
The brilliance of George Clooney's "Good Night and Good Luck" lies in it's very tight (almost claustrophobia-inducing) evocation of an early 1950's news studio with all those clean-cut button-down white guys (the few women on hand tend to get sent on errands) with their horn-rimmed glasses and their bottles of Scotch and their ubiquitous cigarettes. There is so much smoke wafting around that it becomes the element in which these guys function, like the water in a fish tank. Clooney didn't need to pound the point home by showing the ad for Kent cigarettes but I did get a chuckle out of it. The heady mixture of nicotine and testosterone palpably drives the news crew toward their fateful piece on Sen. Joe McCarthy which, for all they know in advance, may be the cliff over which their lives and careers plunge. Clooney has impressed me hugely with his ability to keep this great ensemble cast (including himself, not as the "star") on pace. I avoided his "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind" (having had my fill of that "Gong Show" guy back in the Seventies) but I look forward to his future directorial efforts. D. Strathairn is quietly masterful as Edward R. Murrow; I look forward to being disappointed when the Academy snubs him for an Oscar nomination. The comparison between the anti-communism crusade then and the anti-terrorism crusade now is merely made available to be observed, not trumpeted to the heavens. The line "Dissent is not disloyalty" sums it up pithily.
Given what "Night" does so well, it seems almost churlish on my part to mention some things it doesn't do and probably couldn't have done without disrupting it's artistic confines. I personally would have liked a sense of how the "Red scare" permeated the populace as a whole; I would recommend Cedric Belfrage's book "The American Inquisition" which includes annual "fever charts" detailing that in 1953 the town of Moscow, Idaho demanded that the capital of the Soviet Union change it's name, or when citizens in Wisconsin were asked "What is a Communist" responses included "A crook, I suppose" or "A person who wants war." In 1954 a woman legally changed her name from Allred to Allgood and a high school in Idaho expunged the word "comrade" from the school song. Sound a little silly? Does anyone remember "freedom fries" recently? It also would've been a big mouthful to chew if "Night" had made the point that "Tailgunner Joe" was essentially a figurehead. He himself had little interest in communism until it became a ticket to fame; he got most of his headline-grabbing tidbits from the American Reichsfuehrer J. Edgar Hoover (McCarthy was a frequent guest in Hoover's private box at the local racetrack) and he was tolerated by General Eisenhower until he "went too far" and denounced the army as "pinko." ("Night" mentions several real persons whose names were besmirched but not Major Irving Peress, the "pink dentist," whose family received threatening letters and phone calls and rocks thrown through their windows. "Night" just barely hints at the anti-Semitic undercurrent of the phobia, culminating in the "public burning" of the Rosenbergs for "giving away the Bomb" based on evidence that would get laughed out of most courts today.) After McCarthy was allowed to "twist in the wind" and drink himself to death, Hoover continued his police-state activities with other allies, but we never heard about any of this until "Watergate." Read "The Boss" by Athan Theoharis and John S. Cox for the whole sordid story.
By all means see "Night" which deserves a ton of credit for getting people thinking about this again if nothing else. By the way, beware of revisionists like Ann Coulter claiming that McCarthy was validated by the "Venona Project," the secret program to intercept and decode Soviet diplomatic telegrams. Only a fraction of the cables were decrypted (some only partly) and their meaning is still debated by scholars. (The Soviets apparently did have two sources within the Manhattan Project, "Quantum" and "Pers," who are still unidentified.) To assert, like Coulter, that "hundreds of agents of an enemy foreign power were working for the U.S. government" is the kind of logical leap much favored by the Far Right .never mind where that lands.
I wish that "Night" had ended with a brief text mentioning that Murrow, a true American hero, died of lung cancer, thus completing the cigarette motif. I'm sure he would have ruefully allowed that there too, "the fault lies not within our stars but within ourselves "
Given what "Night" does so well, it seems almost churlish on my part to mention some things it doesn't do and probably couldn't have done without disrupting it's artistic confines. I personally would have liked a sense of how the "Red scare" permeated the populace as a whole; I would recommend Cedric Belfrage's book "The American Inquisition" which includes annual "fever charts" detailing that in 1953 the town of Moscow, Idaho demanded that the capital of the Soviet Union change it's name, or when citizens in Wisconsin were asked "What is a Communist" responses included "A crook, I suppose" or "A person who wants war." In 1954 a woman legally changed her name from Allred to Allgood and a high school in Idaho expunged the word "comrade" from the school song. Sound a little silly? Does anyone remember "freedom fries" recently? It also would've been a big mouthful to chew if "Night" had made the point that "Tailgunner Joe" was essentially a figurehead. He himself had little interest in communism until it became a ticket to fame; he got most of his headline-grabbing tidbits from the American Reichsfuehrer J. Edgar Hoover (McCarthy was a frequent guest in Hoover's private box at the local racetrack) and he was tolerated by General Eisenhower until he "went too far" and denounced the army as "pinko." ("Night" mentions several real persons whose names were besmirched but not Major Irving Peress, the "pink dentist," whose family received threatening letters and phone calls and rocks thrown through their windows. "Night" just barely hints at the anti-Semitic undercurrent of the phobia, culminating in the "public burning" of the Rosenbergs for "giving away the Bomb" based on evidence that would get laughed out of most courts today.) After McCarthy was allowed to "twist in the wind" and drink himself to death, Hoover continued his police-state activities with other allies, but we never heard about any of this until "Watergate." Read "The Boss" by Athan Theoharis and John S. Cox for the whole sordid story.
By all means see "Night" which deserves a ton of credit for getting people thinking about this again if nothing else. By the way, beware of revisionists like Ann Coulter claiming that McCarthy was validated by the "Venona Project," the secret program to intercept and decode Soviet diplomatic telegrams. Only a fraction of the cables were decrypted (some only partly) and their meaning is still debated by scholars. (The Soviets apparently did have two sources within the Manhattan Project, "Quantum" and "Pers," who are still unidentified.) To assert, like Coulter, that "hundreds of agents of an enemy foreign power were working for the U.S. government" is the kind of logical leap much favored by the Far Right .never mind where that lands.
I wish that "Night" had ended with a brief text mentioning that Murrow, a true American hero, died of lung cancer, thus completing the cigarette motif. I'm sure he would have ruefully allowed that there too, "the fault lies not within our stars but within ourselves "
A terrific film
evo8mr16 October 2005
I just saw this film, and I have three words to sum it up: A terrific film.
Yes, there were people who thought this was just leftist propaganda but they all walked out in agreement that 'Good Night' was a very well made movie about a person who exploited fear in the people of the united states in 1953.
David Strathairn gives the performance of his career as Edward R Murrow, a legendary 1950's news reporter. His performance has the complexities, mannerisms and subtleties that you would expect from Murrow. His performance does for Murrow for what Adrien Brody did for Wladyslaw Spilzman, you truly do believe him. Count on a Oscar nomination.
George Clooney's direction, writing and acting are all very strong this side of Roberto Benigni's 'Life is Beautiful'. Clooney may direct himself to his first Oscar.
Another revelation in this movie is Frank Langella, who plays Bill Paley (the head of CBS). He backs Murrow and Friendly to the end, but also tells them the cold, hard truth . He tries so hard not to jeopardize the both of them.
All that being said, this may be the underdog movie at this year's Academy Awards. Strathairn and Clooney both give outstanding performances but this year their competition is stiff. Straithairn going after Philip Seymour Hoffman for his performance in ' Capote ' and Clooney going after Peter Sarsgaard for his performance in 'jarhead'.
A very good film and worth the 90 minutes of your time.
Yes, there were people who thought this was just leftist propaganda but they all walked out in agreement that 'Good Night' was a very well made movie about a person who exploited fear in the people of the united states in 1953.
David Strathairn gives the performance of his career as Edward R Murrow, a legendary 1950's news reporter. His performance has the complexities, mannerisms and subtleties that you would expect from Murrow. His performance does for Murrow for what Adrien Brody did for Wladyslaw Spilzman, you truly do believe him. Count on a Oscar nomination.
George Clooney's direction, writing and acting are all very strong this side of Roberto Benigni's 'Life is Beautiful'. Clooney may direct himself to his first Oscar.
Another revelation in this movie is Frank Langella, who plays Bill Paley (the head of CBS). He backs Murrow and Friendly to the end, but also tells them the cold, hard truth . He tries so hard not to jeopardize the both of them.
All that being said, this may be the underdog movie at this year's Academy Awards. Strathairn and Clooney both give outstanding performances but this year their competition is stiff. Straithairn going after Philip Seymour Hoffman for his performance in ' Capote ' and Clooney going after Peter Sarsgaard for his performance in 'jarhead'.
A very good film and worth the 90 minutes of your time.
Very Relevant
maxlebow24 January 2006
This film portrays an episode in television history. That period was covered in a class on documentary film that I took many years ago as an undergraduate. So, I've seen the full episodes of Murrow's challenge, McCarthy's attack on Murrow, and Murrow's response.
McCarthy overreached when he went after the Army. And Murrow, I have learned from other sources, waited until McCarthy was politically wounded before challenging him. These elements are missing from the film. My guess is they were omitted to avoid boring the audience.
For those with no experience with McCarthyism, the film may be boring anyway as some have already commented.
However, like Arthur Miller's play, The Crucible, which set McCarthyism in the time frame of the Salem witch trial hysteria, this film does a decent job of portraying the atmosphere of fear engendered by continual hysterical threats to the personal safety of the American people from within or from without. It does not show the chilling effect the atmosphere of fear imposes on the journalist.
It does show a relationship between the corporation and the journalist. This is an important point. It is well made. I find this the most relevant part of the film.
McCarthy overreached when he went after the Army. And Murrow, I have learned from other sources, waited until McCarthy was politically wounded before challenging him. These elements are missing from the film. My guess is they were omitted to avoid boring the audience.
For those with no experience with McCarthyism, the film may be boring anyway as some have already commented.
However, like Arthur Miller's play, The Crucible, which set McCarthyism in the time frame of the Salem witch trial hysteria, this film does a decent job of portraying the atmosphere of fear engendered by continual hysterical threats to the personal safety of the American people from within or from without. It does not show the chilling effect the atmosphere of fear imposes on the journalist.
It does show a relationship between the corporation and the journalist. This is an important point. It is well made. I find this the most relevant part of the film.
it's a bit dry, but it's worth seeing
gsygsy1 March 2006
Doesn't work as a piece of story-telling but it has a lot to commend it, notably the acting, in particular the central performance by David Strathairn and a very fine one by Frank Langella. The choice of black-and-white was presumably made so that the archive footage would fit in pretty much seamlessly, and I think this pretty much worked, although the use of a haze of cigarette smoke was overused. I could see the point of the little subplots but they still seemed kind of malnourished. As a history film it seems to me to be preferable to the Spielberg or Mel Gibson approaches, which err on the side of entertainment. There's no doubting the seriousness of Good Night and Good Luck - it avoids sentimentality except, maybe, in one area, which is in its uncritical acceptance of journalists as latter-day knights, guardians of our freedoms. Ed Murrows are few and far between, after all. Most journalists would never have dared to do what he did. I would imagine that Clooney and his team decided that to show a counterbalance to the crusading journalism on view would involve broadening the film out and weakening its power. So what we get is a rather dry affair, but it was worth making and is worth seeing. Keep an eye on your freedoms, this film says. That is a worthwhile message.
Australians giggle at "Good Night and Good Luck"
Flats-25 December 2005
An American citizen working abroad, I watched a preview screening of "Good Night and Good Luck" in early December 2005 in Melbourne. David Straitharn (Murrow) was on hand to introduce the film, and he commented that journalists in the U.S. covet "the Edward R. Murrow Award." Having won one myself, I had to suppress an Arnold Horshack-like desire to jump up and seek acknowledgment.
Born five years after the "See It Now" that became the flash point for the decline and fall of Joseph McCarthy, I always felt uncomfortable in a lifetime of hindsight watching conventional wise men excoriate "the junior Senator from Wisconsin." Yes, his rapacious lust to seize on America's post-war, post-Berlin Airlift, post-nukes paranoia was unforgivable.
But while McCarthy was reckless with his grabbed power, I often wondered if the backlash against The Red Scare wasn't itself tinged with counter abuse.
Fearing this would be another case of a good point made badly (see "Fahrenheit 9-11"), I was pleasantly surprised to find "Good Night and Good Luck" to be even-handed, even paying some lip service to my lifelong concerns.
It wasn't so much the quiet, understated confidence of Murrow in this film that sold me on the fact Clooney provided an untilted platform. It was more the balance offered by the characterization of Paley, who fortunately was not portrayed as the right-wing bad guy. Nor was he fairy-taled into some crusader, either, as the why-don't-they-make-executives-like-that-anymore liberals would have us believe.
For this, Clooney deserves a great deal of credit. Yes, the long, unwieldy stretch of HUAC testimony made the second half of the film a bit ponderous. But that's a quibbling point against a foundation of overwhelming cinematic excellence.
The '50s were never more beautiful than this film. The long-gone mood of unabated scotch and cigarettes, the anachronistic anti-nepotism policy at CBS, the heavy woolen clothing, the horrible eye wear, the great jazz - the forgotten art of how to light a film for black and white. It's all there - and a wonderful tribute to the son of an old-school broadcaster like Nick Clooney.
A little spoilage, though, from Down Under. As I sat in the nearly full cinema on a Monday night, the crowd - mostly in their 20s-60s - giggled at the oddest places. The quaint Kent commercial. The occasional, go-get-'em dialog. The news anchoring tragic and his endorsement of Murrow's broadcast. Giggles. Very off-putting, almost disrespectful to a time gone-by.
It was almost as if they were saying, "Yeah, we know better, and we were born that way." Glad to know somebody got to skip the '50s in order to get to the 21st century.
Born five years after the "See It Now" that became the flash point for the decline and fall of Joseph McCarthy, I always felt uncomfortable in a lifetime of hindsight watching conventional wise men excoriate "the junior Senator from Wisconsin." Yes, his rapacious lust to seize on America's post-war, post-Berlin Airlift, post-nukes paranoia was unforgivable.
But while McCarthy was reckless with his grabbed power, I often wondered if the backlash against The Red Scare wasn't itself tinged with counter abuse.
Fearing this would be another case of a good point made badly (see "Fahrenheit 9-11"), I was pleasantly surprised to find "Good Night and Good Luck" to be even-handed, even paying some lip service to my lifelong concerns.
It wasn't so much the quiet, understated confidence of Murrow in this film that sold me on the fact Clooney provided an untilted platform. It was more the balance offered by the characterization of Paley, who fortunately was not portrayed as the right-wing bad guy. Nor was he fairy-taled into some crusader, either, as the why-don't-they-make-executives-like-that-anymore liberals would have us believe.
For this, Clooney deserves a great deal of credit. Yes, the long, unwieldy stretch of HUAC testimony made the second half of the film a bit ponderous. But that's a quibbling point against a foundation of overwhelming cinematic excellence.
The '50s were never more beautiful than this film. The long-gone mood of unabated scotch and cigarettes, the anachronistic anti-nepotism policy at CBS, the heavy woolen clothing, the horrible eye wear, the great jazz - the forgotten art of how to light a film for black and white. It's all there - and a wonderful tribute to the son of an old-school broadcaster like Nick Clooney.
A little spoilage, though, from Down Under. As I sat in the nearly full cinema on a Monday night, the crowd - mostly in their 20s-60s - giggled at the oddest places. The quaint Kent commercial. The occasional, go-get-'em dialog. The news anchoring tragic and his endorsement of Murrow's broadcast. Giggles. Very off-putting, almost disrespectful to a time gone-by.
It was almost as if they were saying, "Yeah, we know better, and we were born that way." Glad to know somebody got to skip the '50s in order to get to the 21st century.
Intelligent, timely, and heavy-handed
majic-55 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
To create a showdown drama, the movie keeps a laser-sharp focus on the public media duel between Murrow and McCarthy. Nearly all the scenes take place in the CBS building or the nearby bar where the CBS journalists hang out. There's no dealing with Murrow's or McCarthy's backgrounds or personal lives. There's just one related minor sub-plot about the "Red Scare." Focusing so tightly on a short period in time and very few places served to heighten the risks that Murrow and his support team took, and the courage they mustered to face them. The black-and-white cinematography was a good choice, both for period authenticity and reinforcing the starkness of the showdown. These elements, combined with Murrow's spartan personal manner, created a tension and claustrophobia that riveted me.
As Murrow, Strathairn is terrific. According to what I've read about those knew Murrow, Strathairn captured Murrow's reserve, intensity, body language, and quiet anxiety exactly. When contrasted against McCarthy's flamboyance, blustering, and even charm, Murrow comes off like a sleek, deadly, truth-seeking missile. It was a bold stroke to have Mcarthy represent himself by showing him only in clips from archival news footage. There's no chance that anyone can criticize an actor, director, or producer for misrepresenting McCarthy, when scene after scene, the senator himself behaved like the Grand Inquisitor. Of course, one can make the charge that selective playing of the archival news footage demonstrates an obvious bias. But at least the filmmakers are upfront about it: When CBS CEO Bill Paley questions whether Murrow is presenting both sides of the McCarthy story, Murrow declares, ''I've searched my conscience, and I cannot accept that there are two equivalent sides to every story." Murrow's dedication to the facts of the case and his declaration that not all sides of a story should carry equal weight are a clear slap at the "fair and balanced" approach to network news reporting today.
If this rebuke had remained largely implied, this would have been a thoughtful film that respected its audience's ability to draw its own conclusions. But the filmmakers clobbered the audience with their criticism of American news reporting and television usage in general. By bookending the movie with Murrow's retirement speech to his co-workers, the movie drove these points into the ground. Apparently, this heavy-handedness was intentional from the genesis of the movie. The film was produced by Participant Productions, a venture of Jeff Skoll, an Ebay founder. Each Participant picture tries to extend its themes through accompanying "social-action campaigns.'' Said Participant's president, Ricky Strauss, "It's a key part of our business to use the social-sector organizations. Jeff created the company with the idea that media can create social change, and we need to give audiences a chance to do that.'' Crossing the line between drama and advocacy significantly weakens the film dramatically.
In addition, the movie is so tightly focused that the missing historical context lessens the film's credibility. More back-story on the communist fears of the McCarthy era and Murrow's career would have reduced the propagandistic subtext. Also, the sub-plot about the married co-workers who have to keep their marriage a secret seems out of place. If there was a connection to the main story, I missed it.
There are many lessons one can draw from Good Night and Good Luck: Character assassination is wrong, and that we need, and need to support journalists who would speak truth to power, to name two. Myself, I came out of the movie remembering two famous sayings:
"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." George Santayana
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." Samuel Johnson
As Murrow, Strathairn is terrific. According to what I've read about those knew Murrow, Strathairn captured Murrow's reserve, intensity, body language, and quiet anxiety exactly. When contrasted against McCarthy's flamboyance, blustering, and even charm, Murrow comes off like a sleek, deadly, truth-seeking missile. It was a bold stroke to have Mcarthy represent himself by showing him only in clips from archival news footage. There's no chance that anyone can criticize an actor, director, or producer for misrepresenting McCarthy, when scene after scene, the senator himself behaved like the Grand Inquisitor. Of course, one can make the charge that selective playing of the archival news footage demonstrates an obvious bias. But at least the filmmakers are upfront about it: When CBS CEO Bill Paley questions whether Murrow is presenting both sides of the McCarthy story, Murrow declares, ''I've searched my conscience, and I cannot accept that there are two equivalent sides to every story." Murrow's dedication to the facts of the case and his declaration that not all sides of a story should carry equal weight are a clear slap at the "fair and balanced" approach to network news reporting today.
If this rebuke had remained largely implied, this would have been a thoughtful film that respected its audience's ability to draw its own conclusions. But the filmmakers clobbered the audience with their criticism of American news reporting and television usage in general. By bookending the movie with Murrow's retirement speech to his co-workers, the movie drove these points into the ground. Apparently, this heavy-handedness was intentional from the genesis of the movie. The film was produced by Participant Productions, a venture of Jeff Skoll, an Ebay founder. Each Participant picture tries to extend its themes through accompanying "social-action campaigns.'' Said Participant's president, Ricky Strauss, "It's a key part of our business to use the social-sector organizations. Jeff created the company with the idea that media can create social change, and we need to give audiences a chance to do that.'' Crossing the line between drama and advocacy significantly weakens the film dramatically.
In addition, the movie is so tightly focused that the missing historical context lessens the film's credibility. More back-story on the communist fears of the McCarthy era and Murrow's career would have reduced the propagandistic subtext. Also, the sub-plot about the married co-workers who have to keep their marriage a secret seems out of place. If there was a connection to the main story, I missed it.
There are many lessons one can draw from Good Night and Good Luck: Character assassination is wrong, and that we need, and need to support journalists who would speak truth to power, to name two. Myself, I came out of the movie remembering two famous sayings:
"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." George Santayana
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." Samuel Johnson
Ageless Dichotomy
OregonTraveler28 November 2005
Habeas corpus, due process, and guilt by association play a mighty part of our daily news in the Bush administration. It is sadly reminiscent of the "good old days" from other periods of history in our country, notably the period covered by this fine film. Pastor Martin Niemoeller's quote from Nazi Germany is important to the theme of the film, "First they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the communists and I did not speak out because I was not a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me." Murrow was a great American in his time. The question is who carries the burden of the U.S. Constitution's vital safeguards of political liberty today? This writer is having difficulty naming courageous contemporary journalists, too.
If you have prior knowledge of this, then it's a great movie.
ammonrose23 January 2019
This movie is rather dull for the casual viewer. Starting with the camera angles and movement; using black and white, Clooney gives it a real air of the 1950s, however the camera is very stagnant with almost no movement or dynamics at all. The movie has one of two scenes. 1. A few abstract camera angles while endless amounts of dialogue plays, and 2. a slow moving shot with people bustling around with an audio overlay of slow Jazz. While there is a few other types of shots, the movie mostly alternates between these two.
For about 30 minutes I was completely lost as to what this movie was trying to portray, so I googled all of the names and events I could hear. After hours of study time, I finally grasped what these people were even talking about. The issue is the dialogue and actual sound clips are so old or they are drown so heavily by background noise or static that you need the captions on to even understand them.
This movie was really solid once I researched it and the feelings felt very real. I wouldn't recommend this movie to my friends, but for someone who is interested in the red scare of the 50s, this is a must
History Made More Understandable
zeedunn3 June 2008
I heard about McCarthyism when I was in high school or was it middle school? For me, it's one of those events you hear about but can never truly understand. This movie brought me just a little closer to understanding.
It takes place right in the middle of the "witch hunts" McCarthy instigated back in the 1950s. Various government employees, actors, and other people on the fringe were accused of being part Communists or Communist sympathizers. Perhaps this person was a Russian spy? They do seem suspicious. I saw them reading leftist newspaper articles the other day. Her brother used to be involved with an organization that is now funding the Russians, etc. McCarthy claimed he had a whole list of people that were suspicious characters. And he had evidence! However, it was in a sealed envelope with nothing written on it, and no one had actually seen the contents that could attest to them. The whole thing was suspicion and hearsay. But, it was effective! People were fired from their jobs, shunned from society, and whispered about in corridors. Imagine the shame.
So in this movie, a CBS news correspondent, Edward R. Murrow, decides to challenge McCarthy. He doesn't directly claim that McCarthy is lying. Only that he wants to see what is in all of these evidence reports. After a tug of war for the hearts of the American people, McCarthy is impeached. This may or may not have been a direct result of the Murrow shows, but it was clear the public tide was turning. In this movie, they show how the events surrounding this showdown might have played out on the inside. There are many meetings and threats. There is much brow-wiping and collar twisting. And it makes for a very riveting film.
We see how this whole thing could have blown up in Murrow's face. We see what a risk he took and how the executive producers of the station might have treated him for taking that risk. We see fear and bravery.
This was a 2005 Oscar nominee in 6 categories, none of which it won. But it is a very interesting piece of work. What's amazing is that this event happened on the heels of the Holocaust and Nuremberg trials. The United States had just spent a lot of time pointing fingers at other countries that had let fear and speculation run the day. Many people got sent to concentration camps based on this same type of rumors and hearsay as displayed in this film.
This film makes for riveting entertainment, but don't try to watch it when you are in the mood for something light. This is a fairly clean picture, rated PG. It could be useful in an educational setting.
It takes place right in the middle of the "witch hunts" McCarthy instigated back in the 1950s. Various government employees, actors, and other people on the fringe were accused of being part Communists or Communist sympathizers. Perhaps this person was a Russian spy? They do seem suspicious. I saw them reading leftist newspaper articles the other day. Her brother used to be involved with an organization that is now funding the Russians, etc. McCarthy claimed he had a whole list of people that were suspicious characters. And he had evidence! However, it was in a sealed envelope with nothing written on it, and no one had actually seen the contents that could attest to them. The whole thing was suspicion and hearsay. But, it was effective! People were fired from their jobs, shunned from society, and whispered about in corridors. Imagine the shame.
So in this movie, a CBS news correspondent, Edward R. Murrow, decides to challenge McCarthy. He doesn't directly claim that McCarthy is lying. Only that he wants to see what is in all of these evidence reports. After a tug of war for the hearts of the American people, McCarthy is impeached. This may or may not have been a direct result of the Murrow shows, but it was clear the public tide was turning. In this movie, they show how the events surrounding this showdown might have played out on the inside. There are many meetings and threats. There is much brow-wiping and collar twisting. And it makes for a very riveting film.
We see how this whole thing could have blown up in Murrow's face. We see what a risk he took and how the executive producers of the station might have treated him for taking that risk. We see fear and bravery.
This was a 2005 Oscar nominee in 6 categories, none of which it won. But it is a very interesting piece of work. What's amazing is that this event happened on the heels of the Holocaust and Nuremberg trials. The United States had just spent a lot of time pointing fingers at other countries that had let fear and speculation run the day. Many people got sent to concentration camps based on this same type of rumors and hearsay as displayed in this film.
This film makes for riveting entertainment, but don't try to watch it when you are in the mood for something light. This is a fairly clean picture, rated PG. It could be useful in an educational setting.
Well Made, but lacking in scope
IRBon28 October 2005
Let me start by saying this was a briskly paced, well acted serious movie which does a superb job in showing the events following Edward Murrow's decision to take on the red scare crusade being led by Senator McCarthy. David Straithairn does a fantastic job in portraying the stoic, courageous, and fiercely independent Edward Murrow.
The problem with the film is it too narrowly focuses on these events. It never makes clear why living in America in this time period was so wrought with fear over communist infiltration and how a man like McCarthy was able to gain such a stranglehold on the American people. As seen here our only understanding of the fear and power his committee hearings held is in the CBS owner growling, "This could be bring down my whole company" and CBS lawyers interviewing Murrow's news team for communist ties.
It is a great failing of this film that it seems so perfectly logical for Murrow to bring McCarthy down. One never appreciates the great amount of courage Murrow had to muster to take McCarthy on and that is truly a shame. A young audience member who watches this film will not come away understanding how out of control the fear of communism had become in this county and the civil liberties that were being violated for hundreds of "alleged" communist sympathizers.
The problem with the film is it too narrowly focuses on these events. It never makes clear why living in America in this time period was so wrought with fear over communist infiltration and how a man like McCarthy was able to gain such a stranglehold on the American people. As seen here our only understanding of the fear and power his committee hearings held is in the CBS owner growling, "This could be bring down my whole company" and CBS lawyers interviewing Murrow's news team for communist ties.
It is a great failing of this film that it seems so perfectly logical for Murrow to bring McCarthy down. One never appreciates the great amount of courage Murrow had to muster to take McCarthy on and that is truly a shame. A young audience member who watches this film will not come away understanding how out of control the fear of communism had become in this county and the civil liberties that were being violated for hundreds of "alleged" communist sympathizers.
Style over substance, no real controversy here!
zoni431616 March 2006
The photography, costumes, and the music in this movie were great. But style is where the brilliance of this movie ends. The film presents a highly skewed view of historical events, oversimplified and tailored to fit the biases of George Clooney.
Joe McCarthy is shown only in newsreel footage making him a 2 dimensional character. This really diminishes the impact. He certainly isn't the ugly threatening villain the filmmakers would like us to believe in. There is tragedy in the story of McCarthy. He played a high-stakes political game and self-destructed in public. Why that sort of real human drama is completely missing from this film is beyond me.
There is no attempt to explain the real reason for anti-communist paranoia, and that makes the film historically unbalanced. The Clooney clan didn't know how to put the McCarthy era in context. Younger generations and the masses who don't read history will wonder what all the fuss was about. With tens of millions of people dying in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin paranoia was impossible to avoid. The horror of Stalin's party purges make the politics portrayed in this movie look like something from the Sunday comics.
OK, I get the idea that Clooney likes "smooth jazz" music. The music is great, and this, unfortunately, is also one of the films biggest problems. That music was not widely popular in the 1950's. The pop charts were full of light vocal and musical show tunes, and this would spell box office disaster today. The real pop music of the 1950's made the rise of Rock and Roll inevitable! A dramatic orchestral score could have heightened the impact and would not have drawn undue attention away from the story, as does the music in this film.
Controversy always has more than one side. If Clooney were a good filmmaker he would have given the film the type of dramatic tension that could turn it into serious entertainment. The unintentional paradox is that while presenting the story of a "neutral" journalist, Clooney shows a distorted view of the surrounding historical events. I guess it is just too bad for us that the real world is so out of touch with George Clooney.
Joe McCarthy is shown only in newsreel footage making him a 2 dimensional character. This really diminishes the impact. He certainly isn't the ugly threatening villain the filmmakers would like us to believe in. There is tragedy in the story of McCarthy. He played a high-stakes political game and self-destructed in public. Why that sort of real human drama is completely missing from this film is beyond me.
There is no attempt to explain the real reason for anti-communist paranoia, and that makes the film historically unbalanced. The Clooney clan didn't know how to put the McCarthy era in context. Younger generations and the masses who don't read history will wonder what all the fuss was about. With tens of millions of people dying in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin paranoia was impossible to avoid. The horror of Stalin's party purges make the politics portrayed in this movie look like something from the Sunday comics.
OK, I get the idea that Clooney likes "smooth jazz" music. The music is great, and this, unfortunately, is also one of the films biggest problems. That music was not widely popular in the 1950's. The pop charts were full of light vocal and musical show tunes, and this would spell box office disaster today. The real pop music of the 1950's made the rise of Rock and Roll inevitable! A dramatic orchestral score could have heightened the impact and would not have drawn undue attention away from the story, as does the music in this film.
Controversy always has more than one side. If Clooney were a good filmmaker he would have given the film the type of dramatic tension that could turn it into serious entertainment. The unintentional paradox is that while presenting the story of a "neutral" journalist, Clooney shows a distorted view of the surrounding historical events. I guess it is just too bad for us that the real world is so out of touch with George Clooney.
The Camera
tedg25 November 2005
Rarely when an actor tries to direct does it work, and when it does you get "character study" without all the supporting scaffold a real filmmaker would provide.
Clooney is a smart man who knows this. So he structures his projects in ways that are well serviced by what he has to give. The last one was an actor playing a character who created a character within. The structure of the thing was all focused on building and exploiting those ambiguities.
Especially clever were the staging devices. Many were novel and a few were particularly striking.
Now this is a more serious, but has the same values. It is after all a character study, and one that deals with these same two worlds. The man when off the camera, and the man on. Fabricated truth as an act by politicians. "Journalism" as way of piercing through those layers.
Two evils, McCarthy and Paley. Clooney's point is that control over the pipeline is what matters in delivering the "real." So he works with some very studied staging. This movie has some of the best staging in recent memory. It must have taken forever to set the angles and lighting. Fortunately these are so powerful that no scene needs more than two setups. This is the way this cinematographer works for PT Andersen too.
The switch in lighting from when Murrow is on the air to just after he goes off is rather thrilling: both are intense, in fact the on-air lighting is stark. But there is a powerful and visible shift from external to internal energy.
If you just saw the script as words on a page, it would seem boring and preachy. It is the staging that makes this thing come alive, that gives a container for the great acting. The only actor who seems off is McCarthy, which is telling.
I have the book Clooney's dad wrote about movies. Fortunately the son has better insights into what works and what doesn't, and has good intuitions about what to attempt.
Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.
Clooney is a smart man who knows this. So he structures his projects in ways that are well serviced by what he has to give. The last one was an actor playing a character who created a character within. The structure of the thing was all focused on building and exploiting those ambiguities.
Especially clever were the staging devices. Many were novel and a few were particularly striking.
Now this is a more serious, but has the same values. It is after all a character study, and one that deals with these same two worlds. The man when off the camera, and the man on. Fabricated truth as an act by politicians. "Journalism" as way of piercing through those layers.
Two evils, McCarthy and Paley. Clooney's point is that control over the pipeline is what matters in delivering the "real." So he works with some very studied staging. This movie has some of the best staging in recent memory. It must have taken forever to set the angles and lighting. Fortunately these are so powerful that no scene needs more than two setups. This is the way this cinematographer works for PT Andersen too.
The switch in lighting from when Murrow is on the air to just after he goes off is rather thrilling: both are intense, in fact the on-air lighting is stark. But there is a powerful and visible shift from external to internal energy.
If you just saw the script as words on a page, it would seem boring and preachy. It is the staging that makes this thing come alive, that gives a container for the great acting. The only actor who seems off is McCarthy, which is telling.
I have the book Clooney's dad wrote about movies. Fortunately the son has better insights into what works and what doesn't, and has good intuitions about what to attempt.
Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
