Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Film, TV & Theatre >

Goodnight, and Good Luck

20:07 / 19.02.06

Anyone else seen it yet? I LOVED this film. It didn't say much that was new, didn't really go anywhere, yet the power of the performances was astounding. It wasn't that they made your jaw drop, it's just that they all skirted that line between icons, who somehow changed the world for the better, and average schlubs, who were just getting on with their jobs but trying to do the best they could.
That's what I think the message is: you can do this sort of thing, too, as long as you hold firm and stay decent; even your enemies deserve a platform. Better yet, give them a platform and let them tie their own nooses.
At the same time it shows the real consequences that being singleminded can bring.
Oh, enough gushing. I need someone who didn't like it to argue against.

21:51 / 19.02.06

Loved this movie. I honestly didn't want it to end and I couldn't tell who had the better performance... David Strathairn or Tailgunner Joe. Oh who am I kidding. It was Joseph.

I certainly hope Clooney wins Oscar recognition for this one.

*hic* Ye commie pinkos. *hic*

17:19 / 20.02.06

Great movie, wonderfully shot, David S. kicks ass. The only criticsm I and several other friends have had is that the subplot with Robert Downey, Jr. and Patricia Clarkson goes nowhere...they're introduced, they both have shady pasts (maybe they attended some Communist meetings or were anarchists or something), a conversation they have in bed implies that they are planning something...and then it ends with 'oh, they found out we're married, yay!'

Otherwise, fantastic movie. I'm struck by how the debate back then (i.e. Murrow vs. McCarthy) was of a very different tone, more intellectual, than today's political debates and mudslinging.

19:47 / 20.02.06

I think the point of the subplot, and especially its resolution, is that it's one of many layers and types of acceptable interrogation (which also ties into the implied criticism of Bush).
What McCarthy does is unacceptable because it is not reasoned and is bullying. He is assuming there is a fault and running guilt by association or whatever else he can trump up. He also thinks he's right.
There is an ambiguity to what Murrow does because it's supposedly in the public interest. Journalism isn't black and white, it does some shit things to get the truth but, on balance, it usually comes out well as long as people are tried fairly.
The married couple, though, KNOW they are doing something that's not allowed but, because they have taken great pains to be honourable and do their jobs with integrity without letting their marriage get in the way, the judgement of the company is that they shouldn't be punished.
Which is all very understated and not easy to catch.

00:03 / 22.02.06

Very true...but they never really get back to the allusion that the married couple were planning/hiding something more devious or challenging than simply the fact that they're married. Then again, the lines I refer to are somewhat ambigious as to what they're talking about, but I thought one of them said something about what they were 'planning.' However, it may have just been vague enough to stir speculation but is basically just no more than their secret marriage, or their hiding their past associations with 'subversive' elements.

18:42 / 22.02.06

I didn't particularly like the film. It's not bad, but it's so dry, it feels like you're watching a historical re-enactment rather than experiencing the events in the moment. I'll admit that I'm usually not a fan of movies based on historical events because a lot of the dramatic tension is taken away by the fact that you already know how things are going to turn out. The best type of history-based movie is something like Velvet Goldmine, that mashes up the era to create a representation of the time and place rather than just telling a story.

And in terms of being an attack on today's press, the whole thing bothered me in the same way that the Democrats' campaign in 2004 did. It's all wink wink type stuff where if you know the point they're trying to make, you'll agree, but if you don't, you'll just see it as something that happened in history. I think it would have been more interesting to engage with these issues in the present, where the right and wrong would be a bit less clear cut than with McCarthy. I'm certainly more interested in the failure of the press to report on Bush's election theft or the buildup to the Iraq war than something that happened fifty years ago. There are cultural parallels but if you want to do a film about the present, make a film about the present.

I think a better version of what this tried to do was The Insider, which was emotionally engaging and culturally relevant, and on the whole just a lot more exciting to watch.

22:49 / 22.02.06

It's all wink wink type stuff where if you know the point they're trying to make, you'll agree, but if you don't, you'll just see it as something that happened in history..

I can see that, and it would be interesting to know what someone who didn't know the background made of it. I see it more as a tribute than anything else.
Sure, there are annoying tics in it, but I attribute that more to a desire to say: "This is what these guys did then, and it really didn't take much, what can we do now?" The implied answer is: "Well, here's our starter."

Presumably to be followed up by Syriana giving a ninja kick in the throat that makes Michael Moore look like a callow cabin boy. Or not. It's not out yet. Dunno.

I still like it. I think it'll age well.

04:12 / 23.02.06

It's also a stellar period piece, it did whisk you away to its time something I normally don't care for in cinema. I think its a very relevant film with the patriot act, rendition program etc. And yeah I agree with the Downey/Clarkson subplot but it was a brief film that was over before you knew it so it didn't bother me so much.

Jawsus-son Starship

10:37 / 23.02.06

I thought it was a really good story, but thought it was to much a "message" film. While i completly agree with Clooney about the state of the media news, but felt that it was all too black and white, much like the film itself. However, I liked the story, liked the actors and how they nailed thier performances, wasn't a bad scene in the whole thing, though I felt that the sub-plot between Downey Jr. and his wife was a little throwaway.

03:59 / 02.03.06

i was rather disappointed with this. the credits were illuminating, though:

a few early scenes 'looked' like a cohen bros style image and lo, one of the cohens was an exec producer. and a couple people mention robert downey, jr and patricia clarkson; well, their two real life people were advisors to the writers and director. so i guess they got to have a bit more of a role in homage to their 'testimony'?

i thought the story was weak, and the predicatability of the plot removed any sense of drama about the piece. clooney is a fascinating personality in many of his roles and rightly lauded as one of the crop of actors worth some of their salt, but i am not sure he didn't rip off too much to chew with his straight teeth and square jaw on this one, writing, producing directing and being in....

All Acting Regiment

04:49 / 02.03.06

I liked the film, and think it "needed to be made"- more people watch films than watch the history channels (no judgement intended on either, it's just a fact), so a film about McCarthy is always going to be a good thing.

As long as it's not rotting this thread, are there any other historical periods that might make a relevant film today? Are there any that would be better than this one?

06:41 / 02.03.06

Saw this again and I realize now that I misinterpreted soe of the Patricia Clarkson-Robert Downey, Jr. dialogue...they're not planning something, they just wonder if they're on the wrong side (the establishment) and what side, if any, will serve the greater good of the average person in America.

I know this movie can be a litte thin in the plot dept., but something about the tone, the style, the way it's shot, and oh my God the PERFORMANCES from the actors just grabs me. I was more than happy to spend another $12 on it and to have the experience again. Straitharn and Langella especially kick ass here.

18:24 / 05.03.06

What's not to like? It looks beautiful and is sharply shot. Clooney has made many intelligent choices in his direction that heighten the tension, although I think there was a lot more going on at times that I was missing.

David Strathairn is magnetic but Clooney is very effective in the less showing role of Friendly. Clarkson and Downey are both good too. Everybody is. And the music's just the job.

The historical footage you expect to feel contrived but it fits perfectly and they've cleaned up the original film well, to disguise the join. McCarthy is presented as the evil fucker he was but there's some pathos and some comedy there too - his little kiss curl, bouncing over his glistening brow. There was a reality tv feel to all of it that the inclusion of the archive film potentiated.

And everybody seemed to be smoking, everywhere and all the time. Ha! Made you aware of how few times anyone smokes in films anymore, unless it underscores their villainy.

But, despite all of the above, I did feel it lacked something. Maybe I've just read and seen too much about the period. Maybe it will grip others more who're less aware of McCarthy and Cohn's witch trials. Maybe I was just tired and grumpy when I saw it and need to watch it again in less combative frame of mind.

00:25 / 18.04.06

Just saw the flick, and I'm going to link to Slate's two part "expose" on this film. It can be found here. The Slate article reports that the film presents incorrect facts and a twisted sense of chronology. Murrow was not the sole voice in American journalism to criticize McCarthy. Murrow's role in McCarthy's downward spiral was "less-than-crucial".

The article says that Murrow in the film was "knock-kneed" about taking down McCarthy. Murrow was also "always uneasy about" taking McCarthy down. The article also implies that it took no skill for Murrow to denounce McCarthy, as any "skilled editor [given] 15,000 feet of film of Barney the purple dinosaur and he could perform a similar demolition."

I thought this was an excellent film, with very intriguing and engaging shots and compositions. Clooney has proved himself a very decent and workable director. In terms of its theme and message, I think it's very important and relevant to today. I could not help but think of the treatment of [blank minority] in today's society and the injustice that they receive and do not warrant. (I blank the minority distinction, because it could be anybody; the film seems universal). In terms of the linked article, I can't help but think why?

04:26 / 18.04.06

I found it competent, and could see there was attention being paid and a good deal of thought going into things, but they never quite summed together into something I want to see again. There it was, now it's gone, no more necessary. Not quite 'Lost Highway' or 'Vertigo' - and I find myself having to judge it as a fictional film, not only because of the period newsshow veneer, but also the historical innacurracies and the unnatural exaggerations of some of the storytelling tics.