Yeah, like "good luck" staying awake in this George Clooney-directed pseudo-docudrama. I appreciate a serious message movie as much as the next person, but GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK (which actually is two sentences in the title credits) is an earnest effort that represents some of the worst instincts of "edu-tainment." It's both preachy and boring, and fails to really educate us on the context of the times in which the story takes place. It tells a very specific part of the story of Edward R. Murrow's (David Straithairn) broadcasts during the twilight of the Army-McCarthy hearings and ask us to draw parallels with events of today. But, what's that you say, young people? Who? And the what? Thank you! GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK fails mostly by giving its audience too much credit for bringing background information to the theater (but you can catch up here with this good summary).
A major fault is the lack of context built into the storytelling, because the movie compresses time into a few weeks when Murrow finally decides to take on McCarthy (and though he may have been first on TV, he was well behind other reporters) and except for maybe 2 scenes never leaves the CBS offices/newsroom. If you didn't know that Fred Friendly (played by Clooney in the movie) was a legendary TV executive, or that Bill Paley (Frank Langella) was the legendary founder of CBS (and husband of the fabulous, and sadly missing from the film, icon Babe Paley), this movie doesn't tell you. It gives you their names, but no history. Some of the back story (Murrow's WWII reporting, the tactics used by McCarthy) is filled in by dialogue and an illustrating case or two, but mostly you won't learn much about the time, the reasons for the hearings, or why they got as far as they did. You will learn that McCarthy was bad (and looked worse than Nixon on TV in the actual footage used), Murrow was brave and good (get a reality check here and here), newspaper columnists were split (as they are today), and CBS was a cautious but supportive corporate parent (which, BTW, declined to air the hearings live in deference to its daytime soaps). These facts in evidence certainly help the present-day viewer to draw broad parallels with our own time and its political disagreements, but any parallel is overly simplistic.
But what I found most disappointing is that the film lacked drama -- it never seemed like anything really was at stake, though technically personal freedoms, freedom of the press, and the future of CBS (and thus the future life of Murphy Brown, Raymond, and the CSI crew), not to mention one newsman's life, were all threatened at some point. Do you remember the movie APOLLO XIII? We all knew that the astronauts returned safely, but during the film, the suspense was palpable. Here, I just felt no sense of dramatic pacing. Which makes a black & white movie that's more talky than an episode of WEST WING just one thing: boring.
My mother always taught me to say something nice, so here it is: Clooney's (he also co-wrote the script) movie does a great job of conjuring up a 1950s New York TV newsroom -- shot in black and white, it blends seamlessly with the actual news footage sprinkled liberally throughout. It was a good decision not to cast McCarthy and to use the existing tapes of his hearings (broadcast live at the time on ABC) and his rebuttal to Murrow -- bullies damn themselves with their own words and actions, as true in 1954 as today. The movie sets the scene with ubiqutious smoking, dense and time-appropriate chatter, and what seem to be proper office sexual politics. They even included 2 actual commercials (Kent cigarettes and ALCOA aluminum), which were so hilariously bad it's a wonder the "consumer" economy took off at all.
Meanwhile, I think I'm a little in love with the 1950s. The workplace atmosphere, with its stand-up men in white-buttondown shirts and ties, women in snappy dresses and heels (no flip-flops or beach cover-ups in that office), and mid-century corporate-modern decor made me a little swoony and conveyed a sense of order and organization that seems so lacking in our own anything goes world. It's a crush that started back with my first viewing of REAR WINDOW and was reignited with FAR FROM HEAVEN's recreation of the time (where, BTW, Patricia Clarkson, so underutilized here, rocked as the 'supportive' -- up to a point -- best friend). Sure, the women's jobs seemed pretty much to answer the phone and make coffee (only 1 gal appeared to be on a par with with the guys, and even she had to run across the street from a bar, AFTER MIDNIGHT, to get the first morning edition of the Times and Post), but why can't we have important jobs AND men in white-buttondowns?
Comments (4)
Thanks for adding me to the list.
As it turns out, my wife and I just saw "Good Night and Good Luck" this weekend and we both thought it was extemely well done. Great slice of history--and chillingly a mirror of similar things that are happening today.
You are correct that you need an historic frame of reference about the McCarthy era...there's a lot of deep background like Roy Cohn's role, which doesn't get much play, but when you know who Roy was (think "Angels in America," particularly his involvement with the Rosenbergs, etc.), or "Trumbo," recently on B'way (written by Dalton Trumbo's son) about surviving as a blacklisted screenwriter during the 50's (Trumbo wrote Spartacus among other things)... And lots of other pieces of history. The Progressive magazine has re-instituted a "McCarthyism" watch--and includes regular press notices about things like kids being turned away from public buildings because of political t-shirts the police find offensive, etc.
Yes, indeed this movie is not for someone who doesn't know about that era. (I guess it would be a different project entirely to make an audience get the degree of risk involved in standing up to any current tyranny-- "The Crucible," one of my favorite plays, succeeds magnificently, and even though Arthur Miller wrote it about McCarthyism, you don't need to know anything about the McCarthy era to enjoy the play or get the point.
I wouldn't call "Good Night and Good Luck" edutainment...I'd categorize it as an historical drama or a political drama, and place it in the category of movies such as Costas-Gavras "Z."
Posted by Louis | October 25, 2005 12:57 PM
Posted on October 25, 2005 12:57
I guess this is what makes 'horse races' as they say. I am looking forward to seeing this because D and Ira saw it and really thought it was good.
I am a fan of those preachy, moralistic, shows (especially with smart attractive people) or I wouldn't still watch the West Wing, which of late has truly lost steam. Although, this week Tobey as the Karl Rove character was pretty good. If only life truly imitated art....
Posted by Nan | October 25, 2005 1:00 PM
Posted on October 25, 2005 13:00
Thanks for all your comments -- did you check out any of the links? They go to among other things an excellent 2-part article in SLATE recently about Murrow, and the Museum of TV and Broadcasting's write up on the Army-McCarthy hearings.
Maybe it's just me... I was just so totally bored by the end I wanted to shout (during his end-of-movie speech to the trade group): this is why they invented cable!! (and thank goodness they did...)
I was more sorry that an important opportunity to educate (esp younger people who weren't familiar with the time period) was lost by the narrow focus of the film. And yes, I love THE CRUCIBLE, too (there's the difference between a truly magnificent writer and a really good-looking one -- the latter being George).
Posted by LJMB | October 25, 2005 2:49 PM
Posted on October 25, 2005 14:49
I may be out in left field (or not far enough out in left field) -- I think the movie was trying to do something noble, but on that it failed. It's designed to inspire parallels between 1954 and today, and those parallels don't hold up -- each time has its very specific elements. Today people can find an argument (and "facts") to support whatever side they want to support, for better or worse. In fact, because of that, it's even more difficult for any one voice to be heard (or believed), so we have to wait for the preponderance of coverage to move in a direction -- like a battleship, it's slow, but it gets there (I have to believe).
It would have been more valuable to explore the context of the hearings-- why were people so revved up to begin with (and what was Cohn's early role in getting some army guy promoted)? Was McCarthy drunk the whole time (rumor has it, and he looks it on the newsreels)? And also, how about acknowledging that ABC broadcast the thing live (and got quite a few viewers, considering the daytime hour), which in itself helped to undermine his support? The links give a lot of additional info that I think would have benefited the movie.
I really wanted to like it, too. And I think it's worth seeing (but eminently rent-able), and certainly an era worth another look and better understanding, just not a very well-paced drama.
Posted by ljmb | October 25, 2005 2:54 PM
Posted on October 25, 2005 14:54