Good Night, and Good Luck

[magazinewhore]

Ebert & Roper gave it "two big thumbs up," Newsweek really liked it too. Directed by George Clooney, will almost certainly be denounced by Rush Limbaugh. But will a black and white movie about Edward R. Murrow and journalism be embraced by the mainstream?

I, for one, can't wait. What say you?

[Deleted]

As a historian, I have a conflicted relationship with the movies. This is no exception: it may be well made (I liked Confessions of a Dangerous Mind) but I know that Clooney was going to manipulate the real history to fit his own personal political agenda. I haven't seen it yet, but apparently I was right, judging by Slate's two part article here, "Good Night and Good Luck and bad history."

[Wol]

I've seen it, and hated it. It's like a Michael Moore movie - not really a documentary cause there's scripted, created scenes, not really a drama cause there's documentary footage. I cannot believe how people are getting snowed by this thing. Clooney and Grant Heslov are being lauded for their screenplay - maybe 1/3 of the film is original. The rest is just transcripts and stock footage. It's like Julian Fellowes winning the original screenplay Oscar for Gosford Park, which, as an Altman movie, was mostly improvised. The absurdity is hilarious.

Of course critics love it - the whole point is that journalists should be allowed to report the truth without government or corporate interference. That's true, but it's sweet how George seems to forget how Matt Drudge was virulently attacked for doing just that when he broke the Monica Lewinsky story.

And I really resent George and his need to "edutain" us. He uses a wonderful jazz singer's song choices to point up the narrative, just in case we, his stupid audience, didn't get it the first time around. And boy, is there a safer political stand than saying "McCarthy was bad"? Yeah, that's a risky one, Georgie-boy.

I had the misfortune to see this at a screening with a Q&A afterward, and George swore how much research he and Grant did and how it was so important to them to be truthful, but people are already pointing out where he's twisted facts to suit his purposes. Which is totally fine. Movies based on true events are tough, because, as someone pointed out, real life doesn't fall neatly into a three-act dramatic structure. Ya gotta fudge some stuff to make something cinematic. And, like Michael Moore, George is trying to pass off "the truth" as drama and it doesn't work. As a dramatic film, it cheats and cuts corners in so many places. Rather than attempt to paint a complete picture of a moralist who took on a big corporation in the name of the public good, George just recreates existing footage. There's no scenes of Murrow wrestling with his conscience, no scenes of him worrying about his job and how his actions are affecting his family, no evidence he was really human. I'm just amazed that simply filming actors recreating speeches and tv programs is being heralded as brilliance. It is lazy, cowardly, and incredibly patronizing to assume that the paying public either is ignorant of Murrow, has forgotten about Murrow, and can't go to the library or even the internet to learn more about Murrow. We need St. George to show us the way.

Here's a good review that calls this crap for what it is.

[realitybug]

I sense some major resentment of George personally...lol. Sour political agendas, too(Michael Moore references? WTF).

Movie looks good. I'm not going to be basing my history knowledge off of it. But it looks like some good entertainment. That's usually what movies are, guys.

[magazinewhore]

And boy, is there a safer political stand than saying "McCarthy was bad"? Yeah, that's a risky one, Georgie-boy.

Actually, in this day and age, when speaking out against the government can be equated with treason (See Buchanan, Pat, et al), it actually is a potent political message. And I think George chose it for its parallels to today.

I know conservatives are going to bash it for its message, but more people knowing about Murrow can't hurt.

[slanderous]

I really don't think many people (especially young people) know anything about Murrow, let alone any of the transformations of the media and news industry since the 1950s or even since the 1980s with telecommunications deregulation. A friend of mine in a graduate journalism program has been regaling me with stories from his job as a TA for an undergraduate media literacy class, and so far literacy is low, low, low.

Why would George Clooney need to mention Matt Drudge in a movie set in the 1950s? And, seeing as how a mainstreamed conversative figure like Ann Coulter can harp on about redeeming McCarthy as a hero on popular cable news shows, it does seem relevant to offer a reminder of just how virulent and baseless his attacks were, and the impact they had on American society.

I buy the decision not to show Murrow's personal life, but to instead set most of the film in the newsroom; and in any case, I would guess that many of the scenes of mounting tension in the newsroom were not documented on film at all. And it's those debates among journalists, about their role, that I think is the real focus of the story -- and the public speeches made by Murrow against McCarthy are the end result of this process that hasn't been seen before.

[cleangenie]

It seems to me that not going into Murrow's personal life was a conscious choice. Clooney feels that news today is too much about the players personalities and not about their actions. Focusing on Murrow-the-man would have been exactly what he is critiquing.

[orchidthief]

wol said:

I've seen it, and hated it. It's like a Michael Moore movie - not really a documentary cause there's scripted, created scenes, not really a drama cause there's documentary footage. I cannot believe how people are getting snowed by this thing. Clooney and Grant Heslov are being lauded for their screenplay - maybe 1/3 of the film is original. The rest is just transcripts and stock footage. It's like Julian Fellowes winning the original screenplay Oscar for Gosford Park, which, as an Altman movie, was mostly improvised. The absurdity is hilarious.

Of course critics love it - the whole point is that journalists should be allowed to report the truth without government or corporate interference. That's true, but it's sweet how George seems to forget how Matt Drudge was virulently attacked for doing just that when he broke the Monica Lewinsky story.

And I really resent George and his need to "edutain" us. He uses a wonderful jazz singer's song choices to point up the narrative, just in case we, his stupid audience, didn't get it the first time around. And boy, is there a safer political stand than saying "McCarthy was bad"? Yeah, that's a risky one, Georgie-boy.

I had the misfortune to see this at a screening with a Q&A afterward, and George swore how much research he and Grant did and how it was so important to them to be truthful, but people are already pointing out where he's twisted facts to suit his purposes. Which is totally fine. Movies based on true events are tough, because, as someone pointed out, real life doesn't fall neatly into a three-act dramatic structure. Ya gotta fudge some stuff to make something cinematic. And, like Michael Moore, George is trying to pass off "the truth" as drama and it doesn't work. As a dramatic film, it cheats and cuts corners in so many places. Rather than attempt to paint a complete picture of a moralist who took on a big corporation in the name of the public good, George just recreates existing footage. There's no scenes of Murrow wrestling with his conscience, no scenes of him worrying about his job and how his actions are affecting his family, no evidence he was really human. I'm just amazed that simply filming actors recreating speeches and tv programs is being heralded as brilliance. It is lazy, cowardly, and incredibly patronizing to assume that the paying public either is ignorant of Murrow, has forgotten about Murrow, and can't go to the library or even the internet to learn more about Murrow. We need St. George to show us the way.

Here's a good review that calls this crap for what it is.

Wow.

Your opinion mirrors exactly like mines.

It's a simple rhetorical film. No complexity at all. Clooney may be a gifted director (he's definitely camera-savvy and the style in Good Night... is wonderfully realized), but he's definitely not a good screenwriter.

The script was so weak.

And I'm liberal as hell, so this isn't 'a right-wing sour grapes' reaction. It's 'a why don't you give me a story with depth, instead of myth' reaction.

A lot of idealism, but no brains to spare. I'm still confounded by several critics' claims about how 'smart' this film is. Because I can certainly write a better script than this, and I ain't no genius to begin with.

There is no way that a single journalist can take down a hysteria such as McCarthyism by himself. And no way that he can be so 'brave' and undeterred by the risk that he was taking.

But thanks to Clooney, this myth is perpetuated.

The film's philosophy is as black and white as its cinematography.

[Wol]

This review from Time is right on the money, imo.


Agree that movies should be entertainment and not history. This film neither entertains nor enlightens. Agree that the film's message is important in our times. But there are significantly better films about journalists taking down the powers that be (All The President's Men) and about men compelled to expose the truth no matter what the cost to them professionally or personally (The Insider).

I said to a friend moments after the film ended that "I'll bet anyone who criticizes this film will be branded a conservative." How prescient of me. Registered lifelong democrat, if y'all must know.

My issues with George? Not unlike my issues with other slebs who push their political agendas down my throat and then are hypocrites about them. I was thinking about his fight with Hard Copy. You cannot compare the ethics of Hard Copy to Murrow, but you also cannot say that the rules for one news outlet may not be applied to another. Either everyone gets the right and forum to report on what they consider news, or nobody does. This is not unlike Barbra Streisand preaching to us to protect the environment and conserve energy, yet she only travels by fuel-hogging private planes and keeps an apartment in NYC at near freezing temperatures year round to store her furs.

I hope more reviews are posted from people as they see the film. I welcome being enlightened as to what I missed about this film's attributes, but can't deny that I am heartened that orchid thief and Richard Schickel appear to have seen the same movie I did.

[memememe76]

I said to a friend moments after the film ended that "I'll bet anyone who criticizes this film will be branded a conservative." How prescient of me. Registered lifelong democrat, if y'all must know.

I will continue to respond whenever someone makes this statement. But...

Democrat does not equal liberal. Plenty of Democrats (the majority of Democratics with any political power, in fact) are very conservative.

Haven't seen the film as it hasn't come out yet. I will once it does.