Good Night, and Good Luck (2005)

Cynthia Fuchs

Shot in exquisite black and white, George Clooney's portrait of Edward R. Murrow is partly reverential, partly probing.

Good Night, and Good Luck

Director: George Clooney
Cast: David Strathairn, Robert Downey Jr., Patricia Clarkson, Ray Wise, Frank Langella, Jeff Daniels, George Clooney
MPAA rating: PG
Studio: Warner Independent Pictures
First date: 2005
US Release Date: 2005-10-07 (Limited release)
This just might do nobody any good.
-- Edward R. Murrow, RTNDA Convention (1958)

Once upon a time, consumers were not cynical. In the much-missed olden days, folks read newspapers and books, watched tv and listened to politicians give speeches, and didn't expect to be disappointed, sickened, or inadvertently entertained. At least this is the story that circulates these days, usually inspiring nostalgia, guilt, and regret.

Such inspiration is only part of the point of Good Night, and Good Luck, George Clooney's portrait of Edward R. Murrow (played by magnificent David Strathairn). As the film takes up a specific moment in Murrow's career -- and it is focused fairly relentlessly on the journalist's work and not anything to do with his life beyond the CBS offices -- it sets up a moral and political opposition: resistance and righteousness versus industry and fear. These terms appear to be neatly embodied in Murrow and his arch-enemy, Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy (who appears only in news footage here, emphasizing his status as image -- self-made, demonized, inflated by media -- even at the time he was alive). But the movie is more complicated. Beyond positing this opposition as one of willful individuals, it also means to interrogate the cultural and political landscapes that make them possible and perhaps inevitable.

Shot in exquisite black and white (by Robert Elswit), the film is partly reverential, partly probing. It pursues truth through incandescent fiction, asking you to decipher detail borderlines and to provide context (the film plunks down in the midst of the McCarthy business, without describing what led to it). At the same time, it is emphatic about what's at stake. Its historical figures are framed repeatedly, by doors, windows, camera lenses and television screens. Murrow first appears in what might be termed the film's future, 1958, accepting an award from the Radio-Television News Directors Association for his remarkable work as a journalist. As he begins to read from his acceptance speech, you realize that this work is not only investigative or even resistant to the powers that be, but gorgeously written. If you come away from Good Night, and Good Luck with nothing else, you will come away with renewed appreciation for luminous prose.

Murrow here accepts his prize with a mix of arrogance and remonstration. He points out to his fellow news people, assembled to venerate him, that their situation is increasingly untenable. As you might infer from Clooney's own well known views on the states of politics and journalism, the speech resonates for 2005 as much as it must have in '58. Admitting that he is "seized with an abiding fear regarding what [television is] doing to our society, our culture and our heritage," Murrow says,

For surely we shall pay for using this most powerful instrument of communication to insulate the citizenry from the hard and demanding realities which must be faced if we are to survive. I mean the word "survive" literally. If there were to be a competition in indifference, or perhaps in insulation from reality, then Nero and his fiddle, Chamberlain and his umbrella, could not find a place on an early afternoon sustaining show. If Hollywood were to run out of Indians, the program schedules would be mangled beyond all recognition. Then some courageous soul with a small budget might be able to do a documentary telling what, in fact, we have done -- and are still doing -- to the Indians in this country. But that would be unpleasant. And we must at all costs shield the sensitive citizens from anything that is unpleasant.

It's frankly stunning how relevant these words sound today. As if to assuage your recognition of same, Good Night cuts back in time to 1953, just as Murrow's measured, sustained response to McCarthy's House Un-American Activities Committee is getting underway. Murrow and See It Now producer Fred Friendly (Clooney) are contemplating the Senator's continued public pummeling of citizens, as it has recently extended to a Navy pilot, Milo Radulovich (who appears in news footage). Dismissed without trial as a security risk, because he refuses to denounce views held b his father and sister, Radulovich agrees to an interview, which Murrow and Friendly decide to air despite objections by CBS' news division president Sig Mickelson (Jeff Daniels) (Murrow and Friendly pay the controversial show's lost advertising revenue themselves).

The show -- and especially Murrow's introduction and closing thoughts -- catch McCarthy's attention, which means that Murrow's own history comes under scrutiny and CBS president William Paley (Frank Langella) calls him into his deeply shadowed office and arranges a punishment: fewer documentary/opinion broadcasts and more episodes of Person to Person, the mostly celebrity interview program that Murrow detested. Good Night includes an ostensibly "easy laugh" bit with Murrow and Liberace, in which the latter professes his desire to "settle down" with a good woman, perhaps Princess Margaret ("She's looking for her dream man too"), but the underlying point is more cogent than the joke, that the celeb show, then and now, is performance dressed up as confession, shielding "sensitive citizens."

Repression and fear are hardly the sole province of McCarthy, of course. Murrow's colleagues at CBS, Shirley (Patricia Clarkson) and Joe Wershba (Robert Downey Jr.) are prohibited by contract to be married, and so they daily hide their status ("Name me one other wife," she jokes, "who reminds her husband to take off is wedding ring before he goes to the office"). Another CBS anchor, CBS Views the Press' Don Hollenbeck (Ray Wise, playing yet another version of Leland Palmer, not unwelcome), is increasingly undone by a New York columnist's ferocious name-calling, eventually to the point of suicide.

Opposed to Don's poignant meltdown, Good Night posits Murrow's cool, implacable crusade. Though perpetually disturbed and ominously chain-smoking (the film includes a commercial for the benefits of cigarettes, meaning, again, this was another story no one challenged back then), the man will not be deterred, though he understands the personal stakes and McCarthy's methods (and indeed, insinuations circulate that Murrow leans pink). The harrowing effect is displayed on Hallenbeck's face, but Murrow holds firm, his face framed and doubled and even tripled in studio set imagery, as he reads his editorials and the monitors capture his performance, watched by newsroom staff as they anxiously await the inevitable telephone fallout.

Such visual machinery helpfully integrates past and present, making Murrow and Friendly's efforts in the studio seem almost to pulse with energy. Similarly, the selected images drawn from the HUAC hearings are often riveting, as when McCarthy accuses Annie Lee Moss of being a communist, a charge so patently baseless that committee member and Arkansas Senator John McClellan finally demands that McCarthy and lawyer Roy Cohn produce proof. The original tv camera reveals Moss' steely surety and the white power brokers' scrambling about in their chairs, suggesting that as his end came near, not only were these individual seams showing, but also the bigger picture was suddenly visible, at least by those paying attention to this wondrous technology called television.

More artificial and so more provocative are inserts of jazz singer Dianne Reeves, who appears as a sort of punctuation, singing standards that comment on the action ("Straighten Up and Fly Right," "Who's Minding the Store"), apparently recording in a different area at CBS. Creative as this device might have seemed on paper (and as great as Reeves sounds) the point seems slammed home. While artists -- and here, no coincidence, a black woman artist -- might have and even pronounce insight into the bluesy world we all inhabit, the folks in the upper floor offices don't hear it. Their bottom lining and the decimating of "Indians," literal and metaphorical, persists. And so, perhaps the slamming is exactly right.

So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.