This past weekend, we rented Good Night, and Good Luck, a film about the journalist Edward R. Murrow standing up to the Red Scare in part perpetuated by Sen. Joe McCarthy.
I thought the film was well done, the message was a good one, the actors were swell, and the pace was good. I liked the use of black and white, and the placing the film within its context was superbly done. But the film lacked in a few departments as well, most notably time and story development.
Now, the movie runs short at only 93 minutes. During this 93 minutes, there seems to be a lot of filler. There are three songs sung by Diane Reeves, in their entirety. There are also numerous ads shown, though these are nice because it really helps set the context of the story and the times. One of the two "side-stories" involves two of the co-workers hiding the fact that they are married, as company policy of the time dictated that no couples could be employed by CBS. Other than adding that little drama and context, this storyline feels completely unnecessary to the plot of the story. It feels out of place, or that it could in fact be another entire story on its own merit. But it doesn't seem to belong at all to the main storyline. So, in essence, we've got a short story being told with a lot of contextual fluff.
The other part that seemed to be lacking is any real conflict and/or drama. There is some tension, but I think that the conflict in this story really isn't present at the individual level for the characters. Joe McCarthy isn't cast as an actor in this film, as George Clooney decided instead (and perhaps wisely) to use clips of McCarthy instead. Now, I applaud this move from a historical standpoint, and respect it. But we lose two things because of this. We lose and direct, unrecorded communications that may have occurred between McCarthy and Murrow (if there was any, of which I do not know). But we also lose the "evil guy plotting in his lair" type sequences. Without this, the story becomes rather one-sided and fails to show McCarthy, his agenda, his plans, and ultimately, his demise. Instead, we view the hero and his cronies overcoming a challenge that didn't seem very real or difficult. Which doesn't make for much drama.
Overall I was satisfied watching the film. It was engaging, but also lacking. I'm sure other people liked it more, but I don't think it was Oscar worthy. (Not that the Oscars are really worth much, in my humble opinion.)
1 comment:
I agree with your assessment, but have a completely different reaction to the material. I hated it. It's lack of depth and exploration of a topic that is of great relevance to today's social and political dilemmas really irritated me and made me feel like it was a complete waste of my time not to mention the $20.00 it stole from Tom and me at the box office! I've never seen anyone ever explore McCarthy's side, which I think is what is fascinating about the story. He is constantly demonized. Although I do not in any way condone his antics, I think it is necessary to understand his motivations and human fears (because we all have them, and like it or not, he was human) in order to nip this kind of hysteria in the bud. Another rehashing of First Amendment and Constitutional heros (without internal conflict) is not helpful nor applicable in today's climate. Dialogue and understanding are.
Not to mention that Clooney's "out of touch" speechifyin' at the Oscars did not endear him to me. It just makes me think he's not smart enough to see the forest for the trees.
Post a Comment