Good Night, & Good Luck. (B- or 2.5/4 stars)
In the 1940's & 50's, The U.S. promoted a witch-hunt led by Senator Joseph McCarthy and supported by the Hoover's FBI. With communism laying a dense air of paranoia, exploiting the threat of it was dangerous. However, CBS journalist, Edward R. Murrow (played here by David Strathairn), & his producer friend, Fred W. Friendly (George Clooney), decide to use his television talk show as a platform to expose McCarthy for his abuse, his fear mongering, and his contradictions. It was a deafening struggle, but in the end, the Senator's reign was brought to an acute end. 'Good Night, & Good Luck', a historical drama directed by G. Clooney, is passionate, serious & well acted. But some jazz vignettes, and an unbelievably short running time ruins the effect for me.
Broadcast journalism was a new thing to television in 1953. So the very effect that Edward R. Murrow was laying down was resounding & profound. He & his dedicated staff were able to defy commercial, political, & personal pressures to debunk McCarthy's dark crusade. How did Murrow do all of this? 1) He defended Milo Radulovich, discharged from the Air Force because his father subscribed to a 'Serbian' newspaper. 2) Television celebrity, Don Hollenbeck (Ray Wise) is accused, his reputation becomes damaged, & he subsequently commits suicide. 3) Also, Annie Lee Moss, a Pentagon communicator is accused of being communist because her name appears on a 'list' seen by an FBI agent.
McCarthy (real footage of him is used in the film) barked back by then accusing Murrow of communist tendencies! Not a wise choice for him to attack such a beloved personality as Murrow. CBS takes some blows, but they drudge on, fight, and prevail in the very public battle btwn. them and McCarthy. The best part of the movie is when Murrow gives his famous speech to Radio & Television News Directors Association. Murrow advises his watchers & listeners at home to continue to use audio/visual Media to inform & educate on all important topics. David Strathairn is simply fantastic in this role. But great acting does not always mean there's also a great film to go with it. The acting is good enough to warrant a viewing of this important historical film (even though it's not great).
Clooney focuses his movie on the importance of the broadcasts, not so much on the people involved (though, they're extremely important, as well). His use of black & white photography is very effective here. It was actually shot in color and then reduced heavily ... cool effect. The b&w really brings out the drama of the situation. I like that the film's purpose is to show how important T.V. really can be. The portrayal of the conflict btwn. Murrow & McCarthy 'feels' accurate, though, if there are discrepancies, I don't know much about the case to frown on them. In all, it's a daring project that Clooney has undertaken.
But there are problems with the execution of the film. 1) A subplot involving some married couples (at CBS) halted the dramatic tension of the McCarthy story. 2) Some of the jazz interludes (spread across the film) are individually nice, but don't often fit what is going on in the plot. 3) And most of all, the film is shockingly short! Just as I was getting a handle of the many characters, their significance, when & what was happening ... the screen went black and, I felt like I'd barely watched anything unfold. To me, the story was starting to take-off WHEN it ended! I was annoyed by this. Maybe there wasn't more to be said. But if that's the case, then the movie should not have been made at all OR dramatically expanded. It's a good film, full of smart dialogue, tense moments & journalistic knowhow. But it's brevity in both length & in characterization makes it, in my eyes, a bit overrated.
Broadcast journalism was a new thing to television in 1953. So the very effect that Edward R. Murrow was laying down was resounding & profound. He & his dedicated staff were able to defy commercial, political, & personal pressures to debunk McCarthy's dark crusade. How did Murrow do all of this? 1) He defended Milo Radulovich, discharged from the Air Force because his father subscribed to a 'Serbian' newspaper. 2) Television celebrity, Don Hollenbeck (Ray Wise) is accused, his reputation becomes damaged, & he subsequently commits suicide. 3) Also, Annie Lee Moss, a Pentagon communicator is accused of being communist because her name appears on a 'list' seen by an FBI agent.
McCarthy (real footage of him is used in the film) barked back by then accusing Murrow of communist tendencies! Not a wise choice for him to attack such a beloved personality as Murrow. CBS takes some blows, but they drudge on, fight, and prevail in the very public battle btwn. them and McCarthy. The best part of the movie is when Murrow gives his famous speech to Radio & Television News Directors Association. Murrow advises his watchers & listeners at home to continue to use audio/visual Media to inform & educate on all important topics. David Strathairn is simply fantastic in this role. But great acting does not always mean there's also a great film to go with it. The acting is good enough to warrant a viewing of this important historical film (even though it's not great).
Clooney focuses his movie on the importance of the broadcasts, not so much on the people involved (though, they're extremely important, as well). His use of black & white photography is very effective here. It was actually shot in color and then reduced heavily ... cool effect. The b&w really brings out the drama of the situation. I like that the film's purpose is to show how important T.V. really can be. The portrayal of the conflict btwn. Murrow & McCarthy 'feels' accurate, though, if there are discrepancies, I don't know much about the case to frown on them. In all, it's a daring project that Clooney has undertaken.
But there are problems with the execution of the film. 1) A subplot involving some married couples (at CBS) halted the dramatic tension of the McCarthy story. 2) Some of the jazz interludes (spread across the film) are individually nice, but don't often fit what is going on in the plot. 3) And most of all, the film is shockingly short! Just as I was getting a handle of the many characters, their significance, when & what was happening ... the screen went black and, I felt like I'd barely watched anything unfold. To me, the story was starting to take-off WHEN it ended! I was annoyed by this. Maybe there wasn't more to be said. But if that's the case, then the movie should not have been made at all OR dramatically expanded. It's a good film, full of smart dialogue, tense moments & journalistic knowhow. But it's brevity in both length & in characterization makes it, in my eyes, a bit overrated.