"Are you now or have you ever been..."
May. 6th, 2006 09:47 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatIn the 1950's the end word was "communist", a word that anyone under the age of 20 probably considers hilarous.
But substitute the word terrorist or sympathier with a certain sect of Islam and well, the phrase may take on a different meaning and not be so funny after all. Throughout history there have been films and works of art that reacted to this phrase - notable works include but are not limited to - Arthur Miller's "The Crucible", Jack Finney's "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" (see the old black and white film not the remakes), Heinlein's "The Puppet Masters", and even an Angel episode in Season 2 of the series, titled, "Are You Now or Have You Ever Been..."
Good Night and Good Luck is by no means the first film to depict the McCarthy Hearings. There have been others. It is the first that comments on the effect of journalism and television on our perception of truth. To say Good Night and Good Luck is a message film, would be an understatement. Unlike Capote which focuses more on the characters and in effect is a character study, with a critique of the effects of journalism woven within it, Good Night and Good Luck focuses solely on its message - the characters, while there and complexly drawn, remain in the background.
It is deft in how it presents and examines the nature of television medium. Showing us that the medium even in its infancy caters to advertising and corporate self-interest often to the detriment of the viewing audience. Bowing as one might put it to the money god. The god of capitalism, or a capitalistic environment without constraint, laizee free market at the extreme. The film starts and ends with Murrow's fear that television will become no more or less than just an "entertainment" medium or "circus" at the whims of corporate profit and for corporate profit - populated by freaks and clowns. A fear that the film shows may be justified with ironic hints.
Clips of the McCarthy hearings are inter-sliced with commericials from the time. The commericials are from the main advertiser, who the producers fear will drop their show if they let Murrow go after McCarthy, costing them over 47,000 worth in advertising dollars. Resulting, possibly, in the cancellation of "See it Now", the news program that Murrow does on a weekly basis. The commericials used are from the times, exactly as they aired then, and are amusing. The first focuses on "Kent Cigarettes" having the best filters in the universe. And Murrow indeed is shown chain-smoking on his program, a cigarette dripping ash from his fingertips. The next one is about the aluminium and how this is the new metal to use in farming. The irony of both is that we now know aluminium and cigarettes are leading causes of cancer and other ailments. Aluminium is a poision. But you wouldn't know from the advertisements. In the film, we spend at lot of time with a married couple at the station played by Robert Downy, Jr. and Patricia Clarkson, hiding their marital status, because apparently one of the rules at the network at the time was no one working at the station could be married. It is no coincidence that the only female at the station is married to her co-worker. We also have intersliced amongst the McCarthy battle, painful interviews between Murrow and B-List celebrities. Such as Liberace. Paley, the executive producer and head of CBS News, tells Murrow that entertainment is key, they have to satisfy their sponsors and ratings. Murrow responds that if they only do that, then they have failed in making the medium more than just a box filled with wires and lights.
Good Night and Good Luck is Edward R. Murrow's signature line. How he ends each of his broadcasts. And the line towards the end of the film takes on an ironic note, even though we know and telling you this is no spoiler if you've read your history books, that Murrow wins his battle against McCarthy. Because the victory, Murrow knows, is a hollow one - the bigger battle, the one his colleague, Don Hollowman wanted him to take on and he backs down from is against Hearst newspapers, against the people who do not want to have their ideals challenged or questioned, who wish to just entertain, not inform, not reveal. Not investigate. As opposed to exploit. It is a battle, you get the feeling he regrets backing away from, and knows he's lost before it's begun.
Good Night and Good Luck is an interesting counterpiece to Capote which in a way states the same message, but from a different angle. Truman Capote goes after a story in Kansas, a painful and somewhat complex human story, in order to exploit it for entertainment purposes and his own gain. During his initial pursuit of the story and up through the completion of his novel on it - he glories in his own self-importance and the manner in which he obtained it. It's not until after the convicts die, that he realizes what he's done and he may have lost his soul in the process and as a result, is unable to ever truly write much else afterwards. In Capote, you see the same pain, you see in Murrow's eyes at the end of Good Night, for different yet similar reasons. Both depict how journalism can be used to create great art, art that not only comments on our world but holds up a mirror to what we are doing and asks is this the course we truly wish to take. At one point in Good Night - the ever self-reflective Murrow, the counter-opposite to the narcissitic and unself-aware Capote, states that the enemy does not lie in the stars, the enemy lies in ourselves. The fear that is inside us is our worste enemy. And he is right about that. It's not a new message by any stretch of the imagination. And it is a message that is a common theme in all the films that made it to the Academy Awards. But it is oddly one I think people forget. The news, Murrow states, is meant to remind and to make us take a closer look. A free nation, he quotes Jefferson as stating, cannot exist without a free and intelligent press.
In that sense, I think the movie succeeds in demonstrating how tv can be used for good or ill. Or rather how depending on marketing and advertising people to make programming decisions can be to one's detriment. But then you already know I think the world is being run by insane marketing people who need to be carted off to the planet pluto. ;-)
The film is shot in black and white, much like Clooney's directorial debute about Nuclear War broadcast on TV some time ago, which I forget the name of. Interspersed with actual footage from the time period - this technique works seaminlessly. If it weren't for the graininess of the 1950's footage, you would not be able to tell the difference between the two bits of film used and sliced together. The crispness of the time period is similarly preserved. Reminiscent in a way of Bush's Jr's first four year term - a resurgence of crisp family values and close-shaved hair styles on men, shoulder length dos on women, the Eisenhower era looked much the same. Human beings, I've noticed, like to repeat themselves with little changes here and there. Straightarn's performance as Murrow is also flawless. Unlike Jamie Fox, Philip Seymore Hoffman and half a dozen others portrayals of famous people, you forget you aren't looking at the real Edward R. Murrow. The actor embodies the part completely, right down to the hold on the cigarette. And part of the grace is the fact that you sense he is not attempting an imitation, but merely playing the role as written. It is a quiet, unmannered, portrayal, that does not shout out at you with its flamboyance in quite the same way as the others do. Each reaction is held tight and compressed, reminds me of what a great actor can do with very little expression without looking stiff or deadpan. Straightharn is one of those actors you've seen in many films but forget, because his performance is so quiet, so perfect, that you don't think oh that's David Straightharn. He is one of my favorite character actors. Some people may have watched River Wild for Meryl Streep and Kevin Bacon, I watched partly for Straightharn. The other standout performances are by Patricia Clarkson, Jeff Daniels, Ray Wise (another amazing character actor who has popped up in everything from Twin Peaks to 24), and Franklin Langella.
Is it a perfect film? No. A bit too focused on the message perhaps. But it accomplishes its goal. And really does not seek to do more than that. I appreciate the simplicity of that. In an era of complicated special effects and melodrama, I appreciate quiet films that rely on dialogue and subtle changes of expression and Good Night and Good Luck falls within that category.
But substitute the word terrorist or sympathier with a certain sect of Islam and well, the phrase may take on a different meaning and not be so funny after all. Throughout history there have been films and works of art that reacted to this phrase - notable works include but are not limited to - Arthur Miller's "The Crucible", Jack Finney's "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" (see the old black and white film not the remakes), Heinlein's "The Puppet Masters", and even an Angel episode in Season 2 of the series, titled, "Are You Now or Have You Ever Been..."
Good Night and Good Luck is by no means the first film to depict the McCarthy Hearings. There have been others. It is the first that comments on the effect of journalism and television on our perception of truth. To say Good Night and Good Luck is a message film, would be an understatement. Unlike Capote which focuses more on the characters and in effect is a character study, with a critique of the effects of journalism woven within it, Good Night and Good Luck focuses solely on its message - the characters, while there and complexly drawn, remain in the background.
It is deft in how it presents and examines the nature of television medium. Showing us that the medium even in its infancy caters to advertising and corporate self-interest often to the detriment of the viewing audience. Bowing as one might put it to the money god. The god of capitalism, or a capitalistic environment without constraint, laizee free market at the extreme. The film starts and ends with Murrow's fear that television will become no more or less than just an "entertainment" medium or "circus" at the whims of corporate profit and for corporate profit - populated by freaks and clowns. A fear that the film shows may be justified with ironic hints.
Clips of the McCarthy hearings are inter-sliced with commericials from the time. The commericials are from the main advertiser, who the producers fear will drop their show if they let Murrow go after McCarthy, costing them over 47,000 worth in advertising dollars. Resulting, possibly, in the cancellation of "See it Now", the news program that Murrow does on a weekly basis. The commericials used are from the times, exactly as they aired then, and are amusing. The first focuses on "Kent Cigarettes" having the best filters in the universe. And Murrow indeed is shown chain-smoking on his program, a cigarette dripping ash from his fingertips. The next one is about the aluminium and how this is the new metal to use in farming. The irony of both is that we now know aluminium and cigarettes are leading causes of cancer and other ailments. Aluminium is a poision. But you wouldn't know from the advertisements. In the film, we spend at lot of time with a married couple at the station played by Robert Downy, Jr. and Patricia Clarkson, hiding their marital status, because apparently one of the rules at the network at the time was no one working at the station could be married. It is no coincidence that the only female at the station is married to her co-worker. We also have intersliced amongst the McCarthy battle, painful interviews between Murrow and B-List celebrities. Such as Liberace. Paley, the executive producer and head of CBS News, tells Murrow that entertainment is key, they have to satisfy their sponsors and ratings. Murrow responds that if they only do that, then they have failed in making the medium more than just a box filled with wires and lights.
Good Night and Good Luck is Edward R. Murrow's signature line. How he ends each of his broadcasts. And the line towards the end of the film takes on an ironic note, even though we know and telling you this is no spoiler if you've read your history books, that Murrow wins his battle against McCarthy. Because the victory, Murrow knows, is a hollow one - the bigger battle, the one his colleague, Don Hollowman wanted him to take on and he backs down from is against Hearst newspapers, against the people who do not want to have their ideals challenged or questioned, who wish to just entertain, not inform, not reveal. Not investigate. As opposed to exploit. It is a battle, you get the feeling he regrets backing away from, and knows he's lost before it's begun.
Good Night and Good Luck is an interesting counterpiece to Capote which in a way states the same message, but from a different angle. Truman Capote goes after a story in Kansas, a painful and somewhat complex human story, in order to exploit it for entertainment purposes and his own gain. During his initial pursuit of the story and up through the completion of his novel on it - he glories in his own self-importance and the manner in which he obtained it. It's not until after the convicts die, that he realizes what he's done and he may have lost his soul in the process and as a result, is unable to ever truly write much else afterwards. In Capote, you see the same pain, you see in Murrow's eyes at the end of Good Night, for different yet similar reasons. Both depict how journalism can be used to create great art, art that not only comments on our world but holds up a mirror to what we are doing and asks is this the course we truly wish to take. At one point in Good Night - the ever self-reflective Murrow, the counter-opposite to the narcissitic and unself-aware Capote, states that the enemy does not lie in the stars, the enemy lies in ourselves. The fear that is inside us is our worste enemy. And he is right about that. It's not a new message by any stretch of the imagination. And it is a message that is a common theme in all the films that made it to the Academy Awards. But it is oddly one I think people forget. The news, Murrow states, is meant to remind and to make us take a closer look. A free nation, he quotes Jefferson as stating, cannot exist without a free and intelligent press.
In that sense, I think the movie succeeds in demonstrating how tv can be used for good or ill. Or rather how depending on marketing and advertising people to make programming decisions can be to one's detriment. But then you already know I think the world is being run by insane marketing people who need to be carted off to the planet pluto. ;-)
The film is shot in black and white, much like Clooney's directorial debute about Nuclear War broadcast on TV some time ago, which I forget the name of. Interspersed with actual footage from the time period - this technique works seaminlessly. If it weren't for the graininess of the 1950's footage, you would not be able to tell the difference between the two bits of film used and sliced together. The crispness of the time period is similarly preserved. Reminiscent in a way of Bush's Jr's first four year term - a resurgence of crisp family values and close-shaved hair styles on men, shoulder length dos on women, the Eisenhower era looked much the same. Human beings, I've noticed, like to repeat themselves with little changes here and there. Straightarn's performance as Murrow is also flawless. Unlike Jamie Fox, Philip Seymore Hoffman and half a dozen others portrayals of famous people, you forget you aren't looking at the real Edward R. Murrow. The actor embodies the part completely, right down to the hold on the cigarette. And part of the grace is the fact that you sense he is not attempting an imitation, but merely playing the role as written. It is a quiet, unmannered, portrayal, that does not shout out at you with its flamboyance in quite the same way as the others do. Each reaction is held tight and compressed, reminds me of what a great actor can do with very little expression without looking stiff or deadpan. Straightharn is one of those actors you've seen in many films but forget, because his performance is so quiet, so perfect, that you don't think oh that's David Straightharn. He is one of my favorite character actors. Some people may have watched River Wild for Meryl Streep and Kevin Bacon, I watched partly for Straightharn. The other standout performances are by Patricia Clarkson, Jeff Daniels, Ray Wise (another amazing character actor who has popped up in everything from Twin Peaks to 24), and Franklin Langella.
Is it a perfect film? No. A bit too focused on the message perhaps. But it accomplishes its goal. And really does not seek to do more than that. I appreciate the simplicity of that. In an era of complicated special effects and melodrama, I appreciate quiet films that rely on dialogue and subtle changes of expression and Good Night and Good Luck falls within that category.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-05-07 03:33 am (UTC)I've really enjoyed all your reviews today, you've had a busy day of writing: books, tv, theater, and movies (obviously a full day)! Thank you for sharing, I had really missed reading your posts during your month away from the internet.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-07 09:29 pm (UTC)Yes, well...may need to take another break. It's getting in the way of my novel writing again. And I'm finding myself writing personal essays in my head - not a good thing. ;-)
Truth is, I find writing relaxing at times. Particularly this type of relaxing. Novel writing is harder, because I put more pressure on myself am more critical. Here? I just let it rip. And I write pretty quickly when it is stuff like this.
Agree, Clooney did a very good job of staying in the background. Although, I think it may have been to the film's detriment. You leave it without much impression at all of Fred Friendly or Friendly's relationship with Murrow.
He feels almost non-existent or as if you are watching Clooney. And Clooney's mannerisms show up when someone else is not directing him - I've discovered.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-07 02:08 pm (UTC)TCH
no subject
Date: 2006-05-07 09:00 pm (UTC)I'd agree with you about restraint, so many films and tv shows I've seen this year have been overly busy. Yet when you peel away the clutter, there isn't much there that hasn't been said before many times. They aren't adding much that is new to the landscape. And I tend to forget them.
Clooney appears to have studied or followed Robert Wise's style of filmmaking. Robert Wise was a popular filmmaker in the late 1950's and 1960's. His films include The Andromeda Strain, The Haunting, and a film about nuclear war which Clooney remade that takes place entirely within the three or four rooms. Wise also, during a time of technocolor, often used black and white. Interesting thing about the 1950s and 60's - the dramatic films or heavier films, often were in black and white - while the blockbuster epics were filmed in technocolor. Today - you see a similar contrast - the blockbuster films use digital and cgi special effects, while quieter films tend to pull back and rely on dialogue and simple shots.
In Good Night And Good Luck - there is a shot worthy of Hitchcock or Robert Wise - where you see Murrow's reflection in the studio glass over a singer performing, then close-up on Murrow. No dialogue, the music is the singer's slow jazzy blues number, and the cigarette. Beautiful in its simplicity.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-07 03:39 pm (UTC)Here's the review I wrote about GN&GL months ago, I guess you hadn't read it then.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-07 09:11 pm (UTC)Highly recommend Capote. It is a fascinating character study and critique of exploitive journalism. I'm not sure the two performances are really comparable and do agree to an extent with what Clooney stated in his acceptance speech - that to pick one over the other is sort of silly and inane. Straightharn could no more have played Capote than Hoffman could have played Murrow. Wrong physical types.
That said, I think Straightharn's performance was in some ways better. He was not playing a flamboyant character and unlike Hoffman or Jamie Fox in last year's bio-pic of Ray Charles, he had very little to work with. We are told nothing in the film about Murrow that lies outside the newsroom, nor do we see him outside of it, really. But Straightharn manages with sublety of expression to convey what the man is feeling with very little dialogue or action to assist him. His job for that reason is harder than Hoffman's, who has reames of material to play with.
But, comparing the peformances is a bit like comparing Anthony Stewart Head's performance of Giles to James Marsters as Spike. Marsters role is by far the more flamboyant of the two. Yet, Head's performance may be the most layered and subtley brilliant upon reflection. It is easier in some respects to play a flamboyant mannered character that you can mimic. Harder to play a contained one.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-07 09:24 pm (UTC)http://frenchani.livejournal.com/76558.html#cutid2
It is easier in some respects to play a flamboyant mannered character that you can mimic. Harder to play a contained one.
I couldn't more agree with that. It's funny because I posted about acting just today on my LJ.
Histrionic performances aren't the most impressive ones IMO, and it isn't the most flamboyant Spike scenes (let's say the end of "Benath You") that made me believe that JM was definitely a very good actor. But I was gobsmacked when I saw him play William at the party in the flashback from "Fool For Love". His talent lay in details then, in the way he moved, the way he was sitting, in William's nod to Cecily, etc.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-07 04:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-07 09:24 pm (UTC)That said, I'm not sure it is fair of us to compare the two, although being human we feel a bit compelled to, I suppose. I agree to a degree with Clooney who stated in his acceptance speech that none of the actors nominated could have portrayed each other's roles - each role fit them. So choosing one over another is a bit dicey. Hoffman certainly could not have played Murrow and vice versa.
It is, like what I state to frenchani above, comparing Head's performance as Giles to Marsters, or better yet Head's performance as Giles to Alexis Denisof's as Wesley. Wesley and Spike are by far the more flamboyant roles. From the get-go, the actors are given far more to play with and play loudly. Head's performance is tighter, more restrained. Yet, in retrospect far more layered than the other two. People often will state Marsters and Denisof were the best of the bunch, but I find myself swinging towards Head, who both actors studied. Head could convey more with one look, a giggle, or smile than most actors can with a ream of dialogue and he did it quietly.
Much like David Straightharn does. So quietly, you barely notice, or think about it, until after the fact. It doesn't shout out at you. You forget you are watching someone act, you just see Rupert Giles.