Good Night And Good Luck
This slow moving, black and white ode to when newsmen had balls is definitely more appropriate for the DVD set. Watching Frank Langella's face 30 feet high is something I don't need to see. Yes, he's commanding as the towering Bill Paley, who did indeed allow Ed Murrow to tackle Joe McCarthy head on, but then you would miss George Clooney's commentary track. I did find it interesting to find out that they put that vapid Rosemary Clooney-like singer in because they "needed a girl".
Clooney also points out that what ultimately took McCarthy down were the Republicans, once he started targeting their heros, like Eisenhower. And perhaps that is what he hopes for here. It is happening. Bush is losing the support of his original backers and this is, increasingly, a problem for him.
You can't help liking George Clooney. No one can. While Paul Haggis, Ang Lee, Philip & Reese skulked around, George was the man of the hour at the Oscars this year, and this movie is the main reason why. George kowtows to no one, when Diana dies, and Gawker Stalker abounds, George is willing to stand up and be counted. He was brought up by a button down newsman dad who taught him to stand up for what he believes and not be afraid to speak out. So, I guess it's not surprising he would make a film glorifying someone like this. Murrow definitely had the same quality.
We live in an age of such ass-kissing phonies that folks just find people with guts refreshing, even if they don't particularly care about the issue at hand. Let's face it, paparazzi annoyance is something the general public does not relate to, but George is still willing to speak out, so he's the darling of Hollywood. I like him too because the fakely self-effacing, affable guy is almost always on the right side of the issue. The issue discussed in the movie ripped at our freedoms in a way paparazzi don't, McCarthy was a Senator and had power, people's lives were destroyed and those in the media were indeed buckling to the red-baiting, turning in friends, changing editorial and artistic product.
He takes on the politicos who rise up on the fears they can monger among the unwashed masses. Gee, if I were studying this in some college class, and I'm sure it will be, (although I had some shmuck law professor tell a whole class once that McCarthyism had little affect on mainstream America) the first question they would ask is why is this movie being made in 2005? What is going on today that mirrors this situation? Can you say Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove, Bush? Why can't we launch a decent investigation anymore? The GOPs got their big extravaganza... can't we get some fucking public embarrassment big enough for closure here?
These little dribs and drabs with Scooter and the Dissident Generals (good band name) is not cutting it at all. We do need some McCarthy/ Lewinskygate type denouement to galvanize all the right-thinking people who have been on autopilot for the past six years. Unfortunately, we're gonna need something prettier and more interesting than Good Night and Good Luck to do that. It's a good DVD, nice features, had good buzz and press, I recommend renting it, but it's just too old looking and irrelevant feeling to get much color up.
The companion feature discusses the way TV news has changed over the years. Just as money and technology have changed music, they have changed news. News used to stand for truth and objectivity. The American public used to have far less options and far more trust in terms of its news. Straight news is, by nature, somewhat repetitive and dry. Murder, mayhem, weather, war... that stuff never stops. There are only so many ways you can make it interesting, especially when you're competing with 80 channels, blackberrries, iPods, videogames and 70 hour workweeks (should we really wonder why every content company is tanking?)
The stalwart anchors of television are now in hospitals or de-perking from cooking segments. We've got the fake Fox news, right-wing news and now the new, fledgeling Al Franken left-wing news, and the fake news spots I reported on last week.... it's crazy. No one knows who or what to believe any more. Increasingly, people are seeking security in numbers and are turning to search engines and blogs to ascertain accuracy. In fact, I just happened to click on Napsterization today and they had an interesting comparison of blogs relative to bigger internet news venues, check out the link above. The average age of the viewers, for all three network newscasts, is 60. CBS couldn't even offer Couric a raise, that's how much they need that audience.
The combined audience for the evening news is down to 30 million, less than half of its 1969 high, but is still a huge audience. And the network that went from Murrow to Couric is going the way of Williams and Vargas and infiltrating the web with a vengeance, so it won't join the ranks of the dinosaurs. Williams is on MSNBC.com, blogs and does podcasts. Vargas streamed a preview to her first news broadcast. Couric clearly wants on the web. According to IPA, 66% of of internet video watchers are viewing news. With RSS, anyone in the modern world is used to getting their news hot and fresh, the only ones willing to wait till 6:30 just finished up the early bird special.
Murrow lived in an age where he was widely viewed and highly trusted. His word meant a lot in turning the tide against McCarthy, just as Cronkite played a pivotal role in turning the Vietnam War around. I think Clooney wishes for a day when we had figures like this to help us as a society, maybe would like to play that role in real life, perhaps he can. It will fall to the movie stars to do it, because there are few newscasters with that kind of influence today. Maybe what Clooney would really like is for some of his peers to step up to the plate with films like his, that shed light and ask questions instead of what so many of his Oceans 11-111 pals do, go for the lifestyle and bucks, without any real regard for social justice. Well, Brad's in Namibia and Julia's on B'way, so maybe he is persuasive. With any luck, maybe there'll be a few politically conscious films this fall to gear up the mid-term elections.
Clooney also points out that what ultimately took McCarthy down were the Republicans, once he started targeting their heros, like Eisenhower. And perhaps that is what he hopes for here. It is happening. Bush is losing the support of his original backers and this is, increasingly, a problem for him.
You can't help liking George Clooney. No one can. While Paul Haggis, Ang Lee, Philip & Reese skulked around, George was the man of the hour at the Oscars this year, and this movie is the main reason why. George kowtows to no one, when Diana dies, and Gawker Stalker abounds, George is willing to stand up and be counted. He was brought up by a button down newsman dad who taught him to stand up for what he believes and not be afraid to speak out. So, I guess it's not surprising he would make a film glorifying someone like this. Murrow definitely had the same quality.
We live in an age of such ass-kissing phonies that folks just find people with guts refreshing, even if they don't particularly care about the issue at hand. Let's face it, paparazzi annoyance is something the general public does not relate to, but George is still willing to speak out, so he's the darling of Hollywood. I like him too because the fakely self-effacing, affable guy is almost always on the right side of the issue. The issue discussed in the movie ripped at our freedoms in a way paparazzi don't, McCarthy was a Senator and had power, people's lives were destroyed and those in the media were indeed buckling to the red-baiting, turning in friends, changing editorial and artistic product.
He takes on the politicos who rise up on the fears they can monger among the unwashed masses. Gee, if I were studying this in some college class, and I'm sure it will be, (although I had some shmuck law professor tell a whole class once that McCarthyism had little affect on mainstream America) the first question they would ask is why is this movie being made in 2005? What is going on today that mirrors this situation? Can you say Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove, Bush? Why can't we launch a decent investigation anymore? The GOPs got their big extravaganza... can't we get some fucking public embarrassment big enough for closure here?
These little dribs and drabs with Scooter and the Dissident Generals (good band name) is not cutting it at all. We do need some McCarthy/ Lewinskygate type denouement to galvanize all the right-thinking people who have been on autopilot for the past six years. Unfortunately, we're gonna need something prettier and more interesting than Good Night and Good Luck to do that. It's a good DVD, nice features, had good buzz and press, I recommend renting it, but it's just too old looking and irrelevant feeling to get much color up.
The companion feature discusses the way TV news has changed over the years. Just as money and technology have changed music, they have changed news. News used to stand for truth and objectivity. The American public used to have far less options and far more trust in terms of its news. Straight news is, by nature, somewhat repetitive and dry. Murder, mayhem, weather, war... that stuff never stops. There are only so many ways you can make it interesting, especially when you're competing with 80 channels, blackberrries, iPods, videogames and 70 hour workweeks (should we really wonder why every content company is tanking?)
The stalwart anchors of television are now in hospitals or de-perking from cooking segments. We've got the fake Fox news, right-wing news and now the new, fledgeling Al Franken left-wing news, and the fake news spots I reported on last week.... it's crazy. No one knows who or what to believe any more. Increasingly, people are seeking security in numbers and are turning to search engines and blogs to ascertain accuracy. In fact, I just happened to click on Napsterization today and they had an interesting comparison of blogs relative to bigger internet news venues, check out the link above. The average age of the viewers, for all three network newscasts, is 60. CBS couldn't even offer Couric a raise, that's how much they need that audience.
The combined audience for the evening news is down to 30 million, less than half of its 1969 high, but is still a huge audience. And the network that went from Murrow to Couric is going the way of Williams and Vargas and infiltrating the web with a vengeance, so it won't join the ranks of the dinosaurs. Williams is on MSNBC.com, blogs and does podcasts. Vargas streamed a preview to her first news broadcast. Couric clearly wants on the web. According to IPA, 66% of of internet video watchers are viewing news. With RSS, anyone in the modern world is used to getting their news hot and fresh, the only ones willing to wait till 6:30 just finished up the early bird special.
Murrow lived in an age where he was widely viewed and highly trusted. His word meant a lot in turning the tide against McCarthy, just as Cronkite played a pivotal role in turning the Vietnam War around. I think Clooney wishes for a day when we had figures like this to help us as a society, maybe would like to play that role in real life, perhaps he can. It will fall to the movie stars to do it, because there are few newscasters with that kind of influence today. Maybe what Clooney would really like is for some of his peers to step up to the plate with films like his, that shed light and ask questions instead of what so many of his Oceans 11-111 pals do, go for the lifestyle and bucks, without any real regard for social justice. Well, Brad's in Namibia and Julia's on B'way, so maybe he is persuasive. With any luck, maybe there'll be a few politically conscious films this fall to gear up the mid-term elections.
posted by Intervision at 10:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home