George Clooney's "Good Night, and Good Luck" is like a beautifully and meticulously wrapped present that looks so promising on the outside yet could still wind up having a pair of socks inside.
Indeed, this film is the most attractive of the year with its gorgeous black and white cinematography and nostalgic use of light and cigarette smoke, but it also happens to be the most critically inflated. Go read Ebert, Sarris or whomever, and two things will be mentioned - its technique, and its metaphorical message about violating civil liberties in the name of democracy and patriotism. After all, the story must be analogous to something present day because just about no one would go see a movie about battling Joseph McCarthy.
Here the focus is on CBS newsman Edward Murrow (David Strathairn), who decided to take on Senator Joseph McCarthy's red-baiting tactics by using his newscast to set the facts straight. He seems to be of the opinion that if a person is a Communist, then they should be expelled from the government, but McCarthy is wrong for his spin on facts and fear-mongering that lead to ruined reputations and suicides, including the one of Murrow's close friend.
I'm not going to plunge into a long historical or plot analysis, but instead I want to try to evaluate Clooney's work as a movie and not just for its message.
It makes no point to conceal its liberal theme, but that's not what should keep you from this film. After all, maybe you hate Michael Moore, but he's undoubtedly entertaining. Even the most avid Bush supporter could not help but chuckle when a Britney Spears interview was edited into Fahrenheit 911.
Before even walking into the theater, we know the message Clooney is trying to get across, but does he do it a new, fresh or inventive way? That is the axis upon which this movie will either succeed or fail.
If I want to hear political debate about freedom of the press or how taking a stand against the governing administration doesn't diminish patriotism, I can turn on a variety of news and political debate programs any given night of the week. Clooney has to give more than just a civics lesson, and he fails in his mission.
The film follows the pattern of showing real clips of McCarthy, then Murrow's broadcast as a response. The camera rarely leaves the newsroom, yet we yearn for a larger historical context for this film. And all we get of Murrow is an overly serious, straight-faced, all-business picture. What really was fueling his anger? Was it just the violation of civil liberties? It's not obvious here.
At one point in the film, Strathairn's Murrow both talks and emotes like a zombie.
But speaking of zombies, that's what the people of America have become, according to Murrow's speech that both opens and closes the film. He condemns our lust for entertainment and sensationalism in television as opposed to hard facts and important breaking news. But if I wanted to hear a sermon, I'd go to a church or attend a political rally. Could there be a blander way of advocating such a message as this movie does? The "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" made the same point as Murrow's speech and was actually intended as a message to post-McCarthy America, but it was at least fun and terrorizing instead of preachy.
Clooney wants us to feel the fear that people had of McCarthy, but he doesn't give us anything along the lines of "Invasion" that we should fear.
And why should we be surprised that CBS wanted to tuck Murrow's show away in an undesirable time-slot? They have to maximize viewership and make money. I think Clooney wants to make our hearts break when we see journalistic integrity sacrificed for entertainment, economic and public relations purposes, but he just isn't giving us any information that only the extremely naive don't already know.
If you want to make a movie that showcases the absurdity and madness of the news-casting business, you at least have to attempt a one-up on Sidney Lumet's "Network." Clooney's scope is too limited to be effective.
My point is not that Clooney's film has nothing new to say (how many movies do?), but that it doesn't even breathe freshness into stale material. His two central theses about America's general complacency and journalistic integrity have been approached better, more effectively and much more creatively. And nothing's more ingratiating than his inclusion of self-loathing remarks about the demise of truth and journalism in the face of the evil television tube by which Americans suckle their constant need to be entertained.
Isn't a George Clooney movie or re-run of ER on at least several times a week? And how can FoxNews or CNN compete with sexy Dr. Ross? While Clooney's passion for the subject matter is injected into the style, content and message of the film, the same could also be said of that beautifully wrapped present. The packaging is perfect, the giver's intention is noble, (and maybe I'm ungrateful,) but I still don't like getting socks.
