I’ve mentioned earlier how I love George Clooney (although not in quite the same way Sarah loves George Clooney). To the reasons I’ve listed before, I’d like to add this: I like where he’s at politically. Clearly the Cloones is a great flaming liberal, but at the same time, he knows he’s an actor. He knows that there’s a time and place to share his political ideologies. This isn’t Richard Gere hijacking the Academy Awards, asking the viewers to beam love, truth and sanity to the opponents of Tibetan independence. The Cloones has subtlety.
In 1950, Senator Joe McCarthy began a rabid campaign against communism in the United States, particularly within the civil service. McCarthy preyed upon the public’s fears of the red menace infiltrating and subverting their government, and over the next four years he attacked politicians, artists, intellectuals, and anyone who dared to question his motives or his means. If you’re not with me, you’re against me. When your faith in your government falters, the communists (or terrorists) have won.
Good Night, and Good Luck tells the story of Edward R. Murrow, the first broadcast journalist to publicly and strongly condemn McCarthy’s actions. With the begrudged blessing of the head of CBS, Murrow and his production team assembled several episodes of their news program, See it Now, which heavily criticized the lack of transparency within McCarthy’s tribunals, the senator’s smear tactics, and his basic disrespect for human rights. While the journalism community stood largely behind Murrow’s actions, Murrow and the station suffered considerable pressure: first from sponsors, then from McCarthy himself who struck back the only way he ever knew, by branding Murrow as a dirty red pinko commie red red commie pinko. Who won in the end? You’ll have to see the movie; that’s the only way you could ever find out.
I do feel a little guilty when I learn something from a movie. It’s just a step above learning-based video games. I’ll admit that I would never have recognized Murrow’s name had I not seen this movie (well, let’s be honest—had I not seen the ads or picked up an entertainment magazine for the past three months.) But I didn’t feel like I was being given a slanted view, or that the movie had been Hollywoodized in any major way. This isn’t a biopic. To my knowledge, it’s incredibly factual.
The strongest part is that it’s bookended with the words of a keynote address Murrow actually gave to the Radio-Television News Directors Association. While the movie suggests undeniable parallels between the anti-communist witchhunt and the war on terror, Murrow’s speech then points a finger at journalism, condemning those who are complacent, those that bow down to corporate influence. In the end, the frame closes in on just his profile, and while he’s not addressing us he is addressing us:
“I do not advocate that we turn television into a 27-inch wailing wall, where longhairs occasionally moan about the state of our culture and our defence. But I would just like to see it reflect occasionally the hard, unyielding realities of the world in which we live… To those who say people wouldn’t look; they wouldn’t be interested; they’re too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter’s opinion, evidence against that contention."
In 1950, Senator Joe McCarthy began a rabid campaign against communism in the United States, particularly within the civil service. McCarthy preyed upon the public’s fears of the red menace infiltrating and subverting their government, and over the next four years he attacked politicians, artists, intellectuals, and anyone who dared to question his motives or his means. If you’re not with me, you’re against me. When your faith in your government falters, the communists (or terrorists) have won.
Good Night, and Good Luck tells the story of Edward R. Murrow, the first broadcast journalist to publicly and strongly condemn McCarthy’s actions. With the begrudged blessing of the head of CBS, Murrow and his production team assembled several episodes of their news program, See it Now, which heavily criticized the lack of transparency within McCarthy’s tribunals, the senator’s smear tactics, and his basic disrespect for human rights. While the journalism community stood largely behind Murrow’s actions, Murrow and the station suffered considerable pressure: first from sponsors, then from McCarthy himself who struck back the only way he ever knew, by branding Murrow as a dirty red pinko commie red red commie pinko. Who won in the end? You’ll have to see the movie; that’s the only way you could ever find out.
I do feel a little guilty when I learn something from a movie. It’s just a step above learning-based video games. I’ll admit that I would never have recognized Murrow’s name had I not seen this movie (well, let’s be honest—had I not seen the ads or picked up an entertainment magazine for the past three months.) But I didn’t feel like I was being given a slanted view, or that the movie had been Hollywoodized in any major way. This isn’t a biopic. To my knowledge, it’s incredibly factual.
The strongest part is that it’s bookended with the words of a keynote address Murrow actually gave to the Radio-Television News Directors Association. While the movie suggests undeniable parallels between the anti-communist witchhunt and the war on terror, Murrow’s speech then points a finger at journalism, condemning those who are complacent, those that bow down to corporate influence. In the end, the frame closes in on just his profile, and while he’s not addressing us he is addressing us:
“I do not advocate that we turn television into a 27-inch wailing wall, where longhairs occasionally moan about the state of our culture and our defence. But I would just like to see it reflect occasionally the hard, unyielding realities of the world in which we live… To those who say people wouldn’t look; they wouldn’t be interested; they’re too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter’s opinion, evidence against that contention."
Comments
The fact that we share a name and a haircut has little to do with this.
Or perhaps everything.
I remember seeing this preview, and thinking that I would really like to see this movie. One of my profs once made reference to Murrow, so my attention was sufficiently grabbed.
Plus, the filming style looks shwanky.
J