Good Night, and Good Luck. (2005)

i must have seen a different film!!

A different way of telling a story

It's a movie as timely as it is provocative and amazingly, for much of its running time, it is weirdly funny.

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

It is odd how, a historical biopic still has a box to check for spoiler alerts, as if to say that Americans don't know enough about their own history to actually know how this story is going to end.The fact is, they are right, we don't and we are seeing it all play out again.It is decent enough. The Black and White gives is a nice vintage feel to match the old television sets at the time and the use of authentic period advertisements is a beautiful touch. It not only sets the era, but it also works as a nice subtle hint towards what we are about to see, mainly the removal of news as a public service and the addition of news as a source of revenue.It all came to end in the unclimatic demise of the Fairness and Accuracy Act, the one that had been destroyed long--almost two decades--before "Good Night, and Good Luck" was even filmed.2005 was the release date, well into the Bush Administration, well into the crackdown of anyone that disagreed with the president or the wars, or anything else touted as right-wing values.So on one hand it stands as a warning, this is what happened before and it is happening again today. Not unlike Miller's "The Crucible" served as that same warning during the Red Scare and HUAAC.And on the other hand it attacks the press. After all, at the time Fox viewers believed that Iraq perpetrated 9-11 and many still do. It shines the light on how the news became a tool of disinformation for the masses. How it went from standing for the truth to telling lies.And it also brings the journalists to account. Many traded access for accuracy and still are. Even today not a single news source, save Maddow ran anything that didn't utterly vilify Hillary in the last election. Before that they all seemed to agree that ignoring the truth about WMDs in Iraq, smearing Kerry, doing whatever it took to stay close to power was better that trying to take it on. They all seemed to think that towing the disinformation line made for better ratings and they largely still do.The fact is this movie came out over a decade ago and it is still important. The press, the fourth estate, with few exceptions, has yet to develop the fearless nerves to take on what they see as wrong, or lies. And the nation is suffering for it.

cold. and honest. more than a good work, an useful warning. magnificent performance of David Strathaim. and a new George Cloony who gives not exactly the portrait of a politician or the image of a team against a powerful adversary but the spirit of a period who could not be only slice from the past. a good film. but, more important, an useful one. for the science to respect the right tone about a delicate subject. for the remind about the fragile balance of power and about the democracy as a building in construction. for the wise definition of a status of media in society. for the inspired sketch of courage as part of duty. for the special portrait of hero. and for the universal message. because Mc Carthy is not only a character. maybe, only a temptation for each political actor.

It would be difficult for serious viewers not to get excitedly caught up in this work. The American news and social commentator Edward R. Murrow was absolutely spot on with his predictions for the future of Television. He was right, not just regards news broadcasting but across the full programming spectrum! And sadly, seems the perpetuation of its ethical downfall lies in the gullibility of viewing audiences who have become equal partners in crime - allowing themselves to be dragged down into the sludge alongside the programmers, writers, producers and sponsors.Many younger viewers won't even realize they are being compromised daily by the 'less is more' mentality of modern entertainments. I wonder if this important work might help some to question the ethics of a society where so-called grown-ups 'play' 'M and R' rated 'games' ad nauseum and TV News is dished out by matinée style pretty boys and girls - sandwiched between specially programmed promos, product placements, and a barrage of handpicked commercials. Murrow was seeing the giant CBS Corporation dump important social and ethical programs for easy revenue shovelled in with endless re-runs of mindless TV series. Other attempts at serious social comment like David Suskind's "East Side West Side" series was dropped by CBS for upsetting some overly powerful sponsors (but hey, surely I understand that sponsors are more important than the truth...well, aren't they?)Only a couple of minor technical bits interrupted my enjoyment of this serious endeavor...the prolific use of super blow up zoom type lenses to give that 'fly-on-the-wall' feel, at times detracted from the 'look of the fifties' (as these lenses weren't even available in this era - tending to give the film a more 'resent' look). Not that I object at all to the use of modern technology in movies set in the past - it's just that in certain situations, when overused, it can have the effect of giving the subject a somewhat pretentious look. Joyously, most images were steady - some may have even been shot on tripods! This same style of photography was used to give "The Downhill Racer" its 'documentary' feel back in the late 60's. A couple of shots appeared to have been compromised by some editing decisions (possibly telling us they had nothing else to replace them with) And OK... we know more people smoked in the health ignorant 40's and 50's but these shows look very much like they are playing the same game as did the major studios of the times, by taking money from cigarette companies to bankroll their projects. This has a tendency to look somewhat more than simple 'realism', to being a tad suspect. Another modern, over-written and endless TV series "Mad Men", bears this same 'suss'look.Clooney shows no fear in some of his more intelligent projects and this is certainly one to be commended. Perhaps he is a little too in awe of his title character - to the extent of maybe manipulating his audience's emotions but, the equally manipulative bullying tactics of Communist witch hunter, Senator Joseph McCarthy also had to be highlighted - with this being done to strong effect by the use of archival footage. Anyone with a serious interest in the overzealous political pursuits of the day should see this one.

I was alive in the early 1950s. And, as far as I remember, life was still in color. So why is this movie in black and white? Well, the artsy fartsies would probably say it brings reality to the story. Really? Because in reality, televisions -- like motion pictures -- at the time were at 1.33:1, not 1.85:1. The CBS studios were in completely separate locations, not in the same building. So from the perspective of making things "real", this film doesn't really do that.Now, not criticizing the film, but reality. In the discussion between William S. Paley and Edward R. Murrow in the film, the issue is the truth about Eugene McCarthy. But it occurred to me that Murrow didn't care so much about revealing the truth about...Liberace when he apparently knew he was being dishonest in an interview.In some ways, it must have been an easy film to write. Many scenes are verbatim from Edward R. Murrow's television broadcasts. Of course, putting them all together in an interesting sequence was important. I question the opening scenes of the film...boring.The acting in the film is excellent...I think. I'm not sure any actor could have truly captured the essence of Murrow, but David Strathairn, a superb actor, did about as well as anyone could have. Everyone else is secondary, and it's difficult for us to judge their performances since we don't know much about the real people they represented. However, it seems good.Of course, the film got rave reviews, which is pretty typical of films that deal with the McCarthy topic. It's certainly not a new topic, but it's a story that must be told over and over because there are always demagogs like Murrow, and they always seem to be conservatives who wish to restrict personal freedoms.But, as I watched the film, I sensed a lot of self-congratulations on the part of the media. Aren't "we" wonderful! Well, yes. But, sometimes no.Finally, I'm just curious. Did anyone at CBS not smoke?