Good Night, and Good Luck.

Perhaps George Clooney did about as much as he could with a story that really did not have a lot of depth. I suspect that Clooney set out to make an "All the President's Men" sort of movie featuring Murrow as the crusading journalist. Murrow was a very competent and very popular journalist - one of the first of the TV editorialists - but in the McCarthy case he did not really have to crusade. Like many of today's journalists, he used his show to voice his opinion about a very controversial man who was on a very controversial committee investigating reports of Communists in high government positions. In 1980, this might have been an interesting and informative movie, but much more has been learned since then. We now know that the agents of the Soviet Union McCarthy was searching for did exist, as information from the Venona files has verified. Actually, had Clooney chosen to include the Venona Project he might have made a truly historic movie. The Venona Project was carried out during and after World War II. American military intelligence officers secretly recorded transmissions between Washington and the Kremlin. (You can find information about it on many web sites, including an article entitled "Significance of Venona" on Wikipedia.) The transcripts were sealed until Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynahan sued under the Freedom of Information Act in the mid-90's to have them released. It would make a great movie. Hollywood has not chosen to tell the Venona story, just as they have not chosen to make movies about the Soviet gulags or China's Cultural Revolution. So, Murrow was no hero, he was doing what Sixty Minutes (or, perhaps, The O'Reilly Factor) does now, although in a manner more suited to the dignified 1950's. McCarthy's popularity faded as a stream of witnesses "took the fifth" (as they said back then) and the investigation produced very little. McCarthy was indeed very heavy-handed and overly zealous in his approach and his treatment of witnesses (as was Richard Ben Veniste of the 9/11 commission). He was not really responsible for the "black-listing" of some of the people who were called before the committee, nor was he responsible for the apparent suicide of Don Hollenbeck. It was movie producers and publishers who decided (often as a result of investigations by the House Un-American Activities Committee rather than the Senate's Tydings committee) who they would and would not use, just as they do today, and it was other reporters who attacked Hollenbeck, who chose (as the movie indicated) to involve himself. Ultimately, McCarthy's "crusade" lost its popularity and he was demonized and driven from his position in disgrace. Anyone who reads the papers or watches the news has seen this happen to numerous senators and congressmen in the past fifteen years or so. It is what is called "hardball politics." Even if McCarthy was as bad as he is portrayed, his effect was minor. The Tydings committee (on which McCarthy served) was active for only one month and led nowhere. So, that's the story. It could be told very well in 30 minutes. McCarthy's story has been kept alive by Hollywood and book publishers. Much better movies such as "The Crucible" (ostensibly telling of the Salem witch trials) have been based on these investigations and, as fiction, have had interesting stories woven into them. People who cannot remember back to that period find it hard to understand our concern with Communism, which is now viewed by many as a benign alternate form of government. I think the people who risked their lives to escape Cuba, East Germany, Stalin's USSR or Mao's China could probably explain it.

So what if the Verona cables proved there were Communists in our mists, and Khrushchev's memoirs confirmed the Rosenbergs committed treason, "Good Night, and Good Luck" will make those who share Boy George Clooney's world-view (especially Oscar voters) want to hug themselves. The irony of using African-American Dianne Reeves to underscore the "crusade" being launched by Murrow and his lilly-white staff is totally lost on Clooney. He isn't much of a director, either: the pacing is sluggish, the scenes are poorly blocked, the characters are not fleshed out, and a sub-plot goes nowhere. To top it off, he decides some gay-bashing is in order. That Clooney socks it to Liberace, of all people, and is being given a pass by the media, is despicable. McCarthy did not create the blacklist; he did not blacklist Larry Parks for naming names and Zero Mostel for not naming names and Faye Grant for speaking out at a colleague's funeral while "friendly witnesses" Ronald Reagan and Gary Cooper went on with their lives -- Hollywood did. CBS blacklisted numerous artists as well, which Murrow surely knew of, but Clooney ignores. He provides very little background about the hearings or any historical context; he hopes those going in won't be up on the minutia. He uses McCarthy's claim of 200 card-carrying Communists in the State Department to lead the audience to believe the basis for the "witch-hunt" was false. Eisenhower finally put the brakes on McCarthy, partly because of his police-state tactics, but mostly because he had set his sights on the President's cabinet. And, despite what Clooney insinuates by closing with Ike extolling the virtues of American society, including the right to self-determination, he never publicly denounced McCarthy. At one point, Paley says McCarthy wants William F. Buckley to do his rebuttal to Murrow's attacks; Clooney doesn't tell you that Murrow refused because he knew that Buckley would have ripped his pompous ass to shreds in a debate. Too bad Boy George didn't explore instead how the Fourth Estate destroys innocent lives - as Richard Jewell and Wen Ho Lee can tell you - without fear of reprisal. But what do you expect from a self-righteous twit who declared that Charlton Heston deserves to get Alzheimer's? I don't care what your political affiliations are, no one deserves to get Alzheimer's! And, how cheeky of Clooney not to mention that Time magazine's founder Henry Luce backed Tailgunner Joe. Could it be it's because his baby's distributor is a subsidiary of Time-Warner? Nah!

Saw it last week at the post-communist party convention in Milan. No other place could be more proper... Its main points of interest lie in the tight screenplay and in the '50 TV drama style atmosphere, helped by a very neat b/w cinematography. Late Paddy Chayefsky would have been proud of it.Reminded me a lot of a 1956 movie called PATTERNS, written by Rod "Twilight Zone" Serling. David Strathairn as journalist Edward Murrow gives a terrific performance; his character is very dry and controlled, his eyes the only way to let his inner emotions out. His speech at the beginning and at the end of the movie, it's clearly intended to touch the audience consciences about the dangerous times we are living nowadays. There's a lot of dialog, some of the best lines are spoken by Frank Langella as William Paley, CBS executive. Only little disappointment is the way they used Patricia Clarkson talent. Her character is out of focus and seems to me it serves to lighten the main story, supporting a sub-plot that only releases the tension of the whole thing when comes around. Anyway, worth to see, if only to understand how political paroxysm can ruins people lives. A very, very liberal piece of cinema, could have something to say at the next Oscars night. Well, good night, and good luck...

Well-acted across the board, I loved the Patricia Clarkson-Robert Downey combo so much that I kind of wish they had their own movie. Stylish and effective cinematography- the darting to and fro, the perpetual smoke, the use of shadow and silhouette. All very well done. And the overall message of the film- that the media and the American public need to wake the *beep* up and pay attention- is one that I heartily commend. Part of my problem with the film stems from the fact that I am a history student with a keen interest in the time period. And Clooney does nothing to place his story in historical context. He's just taking pieces of a story and expecting the audience to fill in the rest. Like the loyalty oath piece. It really has nothing to do with the rest of the film. It is not explored further in any other scene. It is not really debated. Just one scene, designed to get the audience to recoil and say "wasn't that horrible?" Then it's not mentioned again. No reference to Stalin...hell, no reference to the Cold War, the atomic bomb, the Korean War, or even any aspect of the Red Scare other than McCarthy. There's one line about Alger Hiss near the end, but it provides little context or explication. The film makes it seem like McCarthy was a one-man wrecking crew instead of a particularly ruthless and ambitious politician taking advantage of a fear that was already widespread and deeply penetrating. And loyalty oaths still exist, by the way, and the truth is that for the most part we accept them. I had to sign a loyalty oath to be a public schoolteacher. As for the idea that Clooney is trying to make commentary about how society has changed in the past 50 years, I agree that such is his intent. In this regard he is clearly inspired by Todd Haynes' Far From Heaven, which his company produced and which he vigorously promoted. But Haynes does it much more elegantly. He shows his characters confounding their stereotypical roles; Clooney merely reinforces them. I wanted to see Patricia Clarkson's character do something other than fetch newspapers. I wanted to see a black character do something other than belt out jazz tunes that lay out the plot like something in an old musical. Otherwise, their presence smacks of tokenism, of the worst kind of liberal condescension. Also, Haynes' film is a fiction commenting on the fictional representations and actual reality of a bygone era. Clooney's is, at least in its central scenes, practically a documentary. Having subplots whose primary purpose is smug contemporary commentary detracts from the versimilitude. The scene near the end in the office between Langella and Strathairn is the thematic lynchpin of the film. However, this is where I think Clooney most clearly falls short. It seems to me that they address Murrow's earlier complicity in the Red Scare (re:Alger Hiss) surreptitiously by burying it in a set of defensive comments that are presented like a bunch of excuses for the network's moral cowardice. It's scripted in such a way that Murrow does not have to respond. As for the idea that corporations run the media for profit and that the nightly news is more distraction than edification ...well, that was a bold statement when Network came out 30 years ago, not so much now anything more than stating the obvious. I wanted more from this. I almost feel like Clooney was torn between making a documentary and making something truly scathing in the Network vein. As documentary the film is brought down by its lack of context, which is a shame because Strathairn's line readings are chillingly good. As social commentary the film simply doesn't say anything particularly perceptive, and at times it comes across as liberal bourgeois moralizing.

I thought this film would be good but maybe would have the political slant of Mr. Clooney. I was wrong the film seemed to be historically accurate but was boring and tedious and just a plain waste of time. I know the black and white was to bring you back to the 1950s but I was around then and the TV was in black and white but the world was in color and the life these people were living was in real color and with some real depth. The character development was just not there. Save your money. P.S. Mr. Clooney and his crew were at this showing and just loved the adulation the audience was showing them. It made me gag. My wife thought it was only fair, but did not dislike it as intensely as I did.

George Clooney's movie "Good Night, and Good Luck," about pious parson Edward R. Murrow and Sen. Joseph McCarthy, failed to produce one person unjustly accused by McCarthy. Well, now we know the truth. Decrypted Soviet cables and mountains of documents from Soviet archives prove beyond doubt that Lawrence Duggan, a friend of Murrow, was one of Stalin's most important spies. "McCarthyism" didn't kill him; his guilt did. Because of Murrow's good buddy Duggan, innocent people were killed. Not just the millions murdered during the purges while Duggan was earning "employee of the month" awards from Stalin. At least one man was murdered solely to protect Duggan's identity as a Soviet spy. Ignatz Reiss had been the head of Soviet secret police in Europe. As such, he was aware of Soviet agents in the U.S., including Duggan. But unlike Duggan, Reiss was stunned by Stalin's bloody purges. In 1937, Reiss defected from the Soviet Union, threatening to expose Duggan if they came after him. It was his death warrant. Soviet officials later happily informed Duggan's handler in America: "(Reiss) is liquidated, (but) not yet his wife. ... Now the danger that (Duggan) will be exposed because of (Reiss) is considerably decreased." Despite all Clooney's double-sourced fact-checking, he missed the part about Murrow's good friend Duggan being an accomplice to murder. I give this movie a one for complete failure and George should just act and stay out of politics!

Of all the critically friendly 'Oscar Contenders' of 2005, Good Night and Good Luck was the one that stood out the most for me. Not because I have an interest in the plot, or any confidence in the people that made it, even; but merely because it seemed to come out of nowhere, and it's often these films that become the surprise hit of the year. With that in mind, I am disappointed to say that, given the task of describing this film in one word, I would have to select the word 'dull'. Director and star George Clooney has done a great job of ensuring that his film looks and feels as it should; we are given a convincing portrait of the USA during the 1950's, and the film is always lovely to look at. However, it's good points end there; as there is barely any plot to speak of, and the film simply feels like a timeline of events. The plot revolves around the cold war, and Senator Joseph McCarthy. Two journalists; reporter Edward R. Murrow and producer Fred Friendly, decide to take on the senator and expose him for inspiring fear in the American people. The way that George Clooney uses archive footage instead of an actor cast in the role of the senator is a really inspired move; but the inspiration stops there. We are never allowed into the heads of any of the characters. Their actions show, but we are never given any motivation, and this makes the film very hard to care for on an emotional level. David Strathairn fits the film in that he looks the part; but like the rest of it, he is never given a chance to shine. Robert Downey Jnr and Patricia Clarkson are entirely wasted in a subplot that has little point, while George Clooney fails also to make any kind of impression in the acting department. To be honest, I'm really surprised that this film did go down well with the critics. Good Night and Good Luck is a purely aesthetic experience, and despite the fact that it looks great; surely great films cannot be called such merely because of how they look. I'm sure that George Clooney thought he was making a great film here, but it's missed the mark entirely. If you're really interested in the subject of this film, you might get some kind of enjoyment out of it; but since this film is basically a glorified documentary, you'd probably be better off seeing an actual documentary. Disappointing.

A dishonest act of cowardice from George Clooney comes at the same hour Clooney is spinning sympathy for suicide bombers and terrorists in his other current movie. Can there be any easier target than the late Senator Joseph McCarthy, long since deceased and the subject of pervasive Liberal propaganda for the last 50 years. Most people who think they have a reason to hold McCarthy in contempt really have no valid information about his history; indeed 50% of what he's now blamed for had nothing whatever to do with McCarthy and his anti-Communist hearings. For example, Lib-spin blames Senator McCarthy for the HOUSE UnAmerican Activities Committee, but indeed as a Senator, not a Congressman, McCarthy had no part in it. Eventually, by the way, multi-Academy Award director Elia Kazan blew the lid off the Hollywood Communists with his insider testimony of their guilt. This film is about Edward R. Murrow, a liar, a coward and a Pharisee; just as Dan Rather would be CBS'S latter day liar, coward and Pharisee. Living now in legend, a legend underlined by George Clooney's movie, few today are old enough to remember that CBS News was as corrupt 5 decades ago as they are today. Murrow has been praised in Lib-Spin for 50 years, with counter-opinion seldom expressed. Those who see and believe still another Big Lie movie are destined to continue flirtation with ignorance until they grow up and seek out real facts.

"Good Night, and Good Luck," tells the story of CBS Newsman Edward R. Murrow's courageous fight against Senator Joseph McCarthy. As a student of both history and journalism, I have viewed Murrow as a hero and was very excited to see this film. Overall, David Strathairn's performance is impeccable, capturing Murrow's nuances, genius, and even the cigarette addiction that eventually killed him. George Clooney directed this film and plays Fred Friendly, who produced Murrow's broadcasts. Clooney also is credited with co-writing the screenplay, and that's where the problem arises. Aside for the lengthy film footage of actual Senate sub-committee testimony, and the genuine, on-screen words of Murrow and others, the screenplay is sparse. We get very little insight into the characters of Murrow, Friendly, and CBS President William Paley (played by Frank Langella). In addition, Clooney wastes a superb supporting cast including Patricia Clarkson, Robert Downey Jr., and Jeff Daniels. Clearly, George Clooney has made a noble film that captures the spirit of the time and the words of those involved, and if there was ever any doubt that McCarthy was a self-serving hypocrite, it is erased by this film. But the director failed to develop characters that were interesting in their own right. As such, the film is only slightly more involving than a documentary on the subject might have been.

This film portrays an episode in television history. That period was covered in a class on documentary film that I took many years ago as an undergraduate. So, I've seen the full episodes of Murrow's challenge, McCarthy's attack on Murrow, and Murrow's response. McCarthy overreached when he went after the Army. And Murrow, I have learned from other sources, waited until McCarthy was politically wounded before challenging him. These elements are missing from the film. My guess is they were omitted to avoid boring the audience. For those with no experience with McCarthyism, the film may be boring anyway as some have already commented. However, like Arthur Miller's play, The Crucible, which set McCarthyism in the time frame of the Salem witch trial hysteria, this film does a decent job of portraying the atmosphere of fear engendered by continual hysterical threats to the personal safety of the American people from within or from without. It does not show the chilling effect the atmosphere of fear imposes on the journalist. It does show a relationship between the corporation and the journalist. This is an important point. It is well made. I find this the most relevant part of the film.