Customer Reviews

Good Night and Good Luck [Blu-ray]

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This very well written, well directed and beautifully filmed movie attempts to perpetuate the myths of the McCarthy era while ostensively telling the story of Edward R Murrow. For the knowledgeable viewer however, no case is really made against McCarthy. The rating submitted is for the technical aspects of the movie.
Certainly, George Clooney, as writer and director could not make the case honestly. Surely with all the (supposedly) thousands of victims we are told about is it really necessary to work the bogus cases discussed below into the screenplay?
Milo Radulovich, discharged from the Air Force, is presented at length as a victim of McCarthy, but of course, McCarthy had nothing to do with his case. This was a security issue that was handled by the Air Force itself.
Annie Lee Moss is presented as a victim of McCarthy in her appearance before the committee. Ms Moss was being questioned as a witness in trying to determine who had promoted Ms Moss, who worked in the cafeteria, to a position as a code clerk handling classified messages in the Pentagon. In McCarthy's questioning, he asks her if she's ever been a dues paying member of the Communist Party (no), whether she subscribes to the Daily Worker newspaper (no), has attended Communist party meetings (no), and so on (no,no,no). She's not very convincing in the film clips when giving her testimony, and the folks at CBS try to convince themselves that maybe one of the other Mosses in the phone book is the party in question (false). She is patronisingly presented as someone so simple as to have difficulty reading, but reading her job description reveals that she would have to be very much on the ball to fulfill the duties assigned. Four years later, of course, all the testimony she has given under oath is shown to be false (but not in the movie), and one wonders indeed who did promote Ms Moss, and why.
The case of Lawrence Duggan, journalistic mentor of Murrow runs through the film, with Duggan always looking worried and nervous, until he finally commits suicide.
No wonder: he was a Soviet spy, as revealed later (but not in the movie).
Edward Murrow seems to look very worried a lot of the time, too. What is the meaning of the furtive glances exchanged between Murrow and Duggan? Is Clooney trying to tell us something? Did Murrow know his friend was a Soviet spy?
The release of the Verona transcripts of intercepted Soviet code in 1995 provided the evidence that most all of what McCarthy said was true, and most all of what his detractors said was not.
With this knowledge, it would have been more prudent for Mr Clooney to tell the story in a more ironic tone, and not retell the same old legends for the benefit of those who like to hear them.

Trivia: Check the background in the original film clips of the hearings for Robert Kennedy (yes, that Robert Kennedy) - he was the junior counsel on McCarthy's committee.

Addendum: After reading the meticulously documented book 'Blacklisted by History', it is patently obvious that McCarthy was destroyed by the Administration for 'outing' the practice of giving security clearances to the most egregious spies who then permeated the government and who were permitted to continue in their positions for years or allowed to resign and transfer to another government agency, or perhaps the World Bank or International Monetary Fund or the UN. Even the FBI was helpless; all their warnings and investigative reports were largely ignored or covered up.
Rule #1: do not be a whistleblower: you will be destroyed.
How about a movie that catches up with the now-known facts? Now that would be interesting, but don't hold your breath waiting for it.

This movie was simply amazing. I found it to be extemely well made. The cinematography was just unbelievable, as was the soundtrack, which fit perfectly with the feel of the black-and-white film.* And the acting is some of the best that I have ever seen. I would definately put this movie in my TOP 5.

*For all those out there who say they hate the idea of watching a black-and-white movie, please, have an open mind. This movie would not have been as good if it wasn't filmed in classic black-and-white.

We all know that what Senator Joe McCarthy said in the 1950s about the communist threat facing America was filled with lies. But how many of us also know that much of what today's news and entertainment media says about the McCarthy Era is equally flawed? McCarthy died discredited in 1957, and his lies fortunately died with him. But the distortions that today's news media use to conceal their own misdeeds during that era remain with us. This film is an illustration of that. It's not only propaganda, it's poorly done and implausible propaganda.

The clue lies in this film's portrayal of McCarthy, a portrayal that has hardened into dogma among most professional journalists. Senator McCarthy, the film tells us, was such an immensely powerful figure that Edward R. Murrow, a journalist at CBS-TV, displayed great courage in talking him on in 1953.

Does that make sense? In 1953, McCarthy was the junior senator from Wisconsin and had been in that office for only six years. It's not a position that carries with it much political power. Today, most Americans don't even know who holds that office and certainly wouldn't hesitate to criticize someone with so little power. In contrast, Murrow had been an internationally known and well-respected reporter since May of 1938, when he covered the German annexation of Austria for CBS radio. The American public had been hearing him for fifteen years and millions tuned into his TV show, "See It Now." Look at the numbers. McCarthy had been nationally known only since his Wheeling, West Virginia speech in February of 1950, a mere three years earlier. Three years or fifteen--who really had the most influence and power?

Of course, that doesn't mean that McCarthy wasn't powerful or that no one need fear to tangle with him. Even President Eisenhower, who loathed McCarthy, was forced to bide his time, waiting for the senator to self-destruct. But McCarthy's power did not rest in who he was. It rested on what the national press had made out of him. That's the key to understanding why the media in this country has a vested interest in distorting the history of that era. It was they who had turned a politician with no particular talent and a propensity to lie into someone millions of Americans saw as a brave and honest opponent of communist infiltration into American life.

If you want a historical parallel, think of former Vice-President Albert Gore and the millions who believe what he says about global warning. They eagerly follow his hints of dark conspiracies by oil companies. They want dissenting voices silenced, and our lives forcibly reorganized to remove what they think is a great danger. Former vice-presidents aren't that powerful. It's the media that gives Gore a platform from which to speak and rarely challenges what he says. The real problem isn't the fear-monger. It's a hysteria-prone press lacking in judgment.

Substitute a communist conspiracy for one by oil companies and you have the McCarthy Era. It was created by the press and not McCarthy. That's what this film fails to point out. Murrow had to take a bold stand against McCarthy because for three years many hundred of reporters and news outlets had repeated what McCarthy said without critically examining it. Over and over, McCarthy made claims that did not stand up to close scrutiny. The closest this film comes to admitting that is in its oft-repeated statement that reporting the news should mean more than reporting what each side in a controversy was saying.

I'll close with a brief look at the film as a film. It's the fifties, so be prepared for more smoking than you see in films set in the present. Murrow himself was heavy smoker who died in 1965 of lung cancer. Also, this film focuses almost exclusively on the world of CBS. The larger world only appears in brief flashes, typically on television monitors.

--Michael W. Perry, editor of The School of Journalism in Columbia University: The Book That Transformed Journalism from a Trade into a Profession

We all know that what Senator Joe McCarthy said in the 1950s about the communist threat facing America was filled with lies. But how many of us also know that much of what today's news and entertainment media says about the McCarthy Era is equally flawed? McCarthy died discredited in 1957, and his lies fortunately died with him. But the distortions that today's news media use to conceal their own misdeeds during that era remain with us. This film is an illustration of that. It's not only propaganda, it's poorly done and implausible propaganda.

The clue lies in this film's portrayal of McCarthy, a portrayal that has hardened into dogma among most professional journalists. Senator McCarthy, the film tells us, was such an immensely powerful figure that Edward R. Murrow, a journalist at CBS-TV, displayed great courage in talking him on in 1953.

Does that make sense? In 1953, McCarthy was the junior senator from Wisconsin and had been in that office for only six years. It's not a position that carries with it much political power. Today, most Americans don't even know who holds that office and certainly wouldn't hesitate to criticize someone with so little power. In contrast, Murrow had been an internationally known and well-respected reporter since May of 1938, when he covered the German annexation of Austria for CBS radio. The American public had been hearing him for fifteen years and millions tuned into his TV show, "See It Now." Look at the numbers. McCarthy had been nationally known only since his Wheeling, West Virginia speech in February of 1950, a mere three years earlier. Three years or fifteen--who really had the most influence and power?

Of course, that doesn't mean that McCarthy wasn't powerful or that no one need fear to tangle with him. Even President Eisenhower, who loathed McCarthy, was forced to bide his time, waiting for the senator to self-destruct. But McCarthy's power did not rest in who he was. It rested on what the national press had made out of him. That's the key to understanding why the media in this country has a vested interest in distorting the history of that era. It was they who had turned a politician with no particular talent and a propensity to lie into someone millions of Americans saw as a brave and honest opponent of communist infiltration into American life.

If you want a historical parallel, think of former Vice-President Albert Gore and the millions who believe what he says about global warning. They eagerly follow his hints of dark conspiracies by oil companies. They want dissenting voices silenced, and our lives forcibly reorganized to remove what they think is a great danger. Former vice-presidents aren't that powerful. It's the media that gives Gore a platform from which to speak and rarely challenges what he says. The real problem isn't the fear-monger. It's a hysteria-prone press lacking in judgment.

Substitute a communist conspiracy for one by oil companies and you have the McCarthy Era. It was created by the press and not McCarthy. That's what this film fails to point out. Murrow had to take a bold stand against McCarthy because for three years many hundred of reporters and news outlets had repeated what McCarthy said without critically examining it. Over and over, McCarthy made claims that did not stand up to close scrutiny. The closest this film comes to admitting that is in its oft-repeated statement that reporting the news should mean more than reporting what each side in a controversy was saying.

I'll close with a brief look at the film as a film. It's the fifties, so be prepared for more smoking than you see in films set in the present. Murrow himself was heavy smoker who died in 1965 of lung cancer. Also, this film focuses almost exclusively on the world of CBS. The larger world only appears in brief flashes, typically on television monitors.

--Michael W. Perry, editor of The School of Journalism in Columbia University: The Book That Transformed Journalism from a Trade into a Profession

i just watched good night,and good luck,which is about CBS newsman
Edward R. Murrow and his fight against senator Joseph McCarthy, a
junior senator from Wisconsin,during the 1950's.McCarthy chaired a
committee to find communists and communist sympathizers and expose
them.many of these people worked in the film industry.this was a time
of anti communist sentiment in the U.S.where anyone who was deemed a
threat to national security was targeted by senator McCarthy and others
in hearings held against them.many of these people lost their jobs or
worse.how fair the trials were and how compelling the evidence against
these people was is hard to say for sure.individual cases were probably
different.it is based on a true story,and the events did take place,but
i think you still have to take it with a grain of salt as it has its
own bias.the movie depicts the events the way the filmmakers have
interpreted things.so you really have to make up your own mind about
how accurate it might or might not be.however,as simply a movie,it is
very entertaining,with great performances all around from an ensemble
cast.it is well directed and shooting it in black and white was very
effective.at times however,it was preachy,which was annoying,and i'm
still not sure why Murrow ended each broadcast with the words"good
night and good luck" and i found that a bit annoying.i would have liked
the filmmakers to give an explanation for those words,maybe show the
genesis behind them and give them more meaning,put them into
context.i'm not saying whether the movie was accurate or not,and can
only rate it for it's entertainment value as well as its technical
merit.overall,the film was well made, with a good eye for detail of the
era,and it had a very authentic feel about it.it was well paced with
crisp dialogue and for a drama it was better done than many films of
the genre.it was at times engaging,yet not quite riveting.the only
other complaint i have is that it could have had more substance and
been a bit more in-depth.otherwise,i enjoyed it. 3/5