Going into Good Night, and Good Luck, I pretty much knew what to expect. George Clooney is one of Hollywoods most outspoken liberals and aside from abusive males and Christians, the favorite target of Tinseltown is Joe McCarthy. Lately, he's become a hot topic, due to the invasion of Iraq. Clearly this movie is capitalizing on the mood of the times.
Let me start off with something good to say about this film. George Clooney actually is a talented director. His use of lighting was great, good all around acting, and mixing jazz into scenes really grips you. This movie took you back in time and made you feel like a part of an era. I guess Clooney has learned a few tricks since Red Surf.
However, this portrayal of history, though accurate on many counts, delivers a rather slanted view of history, leaving out facts that don't support the argument. Take the clips of the Annie Lee Moss hearings. Clearly this scene portrays McCarthy as a raving nut, going after a supposed innocent woman who was just minding her own business being a wash woman until the bogeyman McCarthy came.
I can't explain the reason McCarthy leaves the hearing, I don't know the context of that particular incident, but what's troubling is the omission that Moss 1) had her name in Communist Party records 2) she had the Daily Worker delivered to her house, even though she switched addresses several times. The Daily Worker was a Communist paper, as admitted by Whitaker Chambers (I'll mention him later) in his testimony before the House on Un-American Activities Committee. He would know, as he edited the paper for years. Might I add that at the time the army, which was employing Moss, had instances of keeping suspected communists on their payroll, men such as Irving Peress. The army showed this negligence even after the Rosenbergs, people that helped Stalin get our nuclear secrets, had been tried and executed. So going after the army for harboring communists was not completely preposterous.
The whole time I watched this movie, I waited for Alger Hiss to be mentioned. This State Department official not only was convicted of perjury but also wrote the UN charter. When the movie mentions that he was convicted of perjury, not espionage, I realized that Hollywood is clearly behind the times. As a fellow IMDb reviewer stated, the Venona Papers released in the mid 90s produced cables proving that he was a Soviet spy. It's not even debatable anymore. I know this movie is a period piece, so Ed Murrow and others weren't privy to this information. But mentioning this truly weakens the movie's credibility. Why use an argument that's been proved wrong?
The main thing that bugged me was the sensationalizing of journalists. These poor reporters were just trying to tell the American people the truth, perhaps that's why they smoked so much. But these underdogs, valiantly going against the wishes of their boss, took on McCarthy anyway. Frankly, when have journalists ever been scared of anything? They spewed the same rhetoric when they took down Nixon. And Murrow went after McCarthy when his career was already headed for the ash heap, Murrow didn't cause McCarthy's downfall.
All and all, the movie was well done but had an obvious agenda. Personally, I think McCarthy was behind the curve, so I don't know why he had such an impact on America. The aforementioned Rosenbergs and Alger Hiss, plus other high level government officials like Harry Dexter White, had already been convicted of espionage. The late 40s and early 50s was really the heyday for catching these American traitors, so McCarthy was late to the party. He wasn't the first to mention communists in our government. He may have been flamboyant but many people he accused of being communists in fact were. And sorry Sean Penn, he didn't hurt anyone in your family, Hollywood was dealt with by the House, not the Senate.
Attribute my low ranking of this film to my political and historic views. Clooney did a pretty good job of saying what he wanted to say but like Michael Moore, he leaves out facts that don't support his message. The characters, though I credited them with being well acted, were sort of undefined. Even Murrows character didn't go too in depth. Every character was overshadowed by the ominous presence of McCarthy. A little melodramatic in my humble opinion.
I think Hollywood should produce a movie about a communist defector that spoke out against Soviet atrocities, like Elizabeth Bentley. A woman like her was far more courageous and risked her life by speaking out against communism, a much braver act than going after a US senator. Going after McCarthy has been done so many times it's become redundant. Sorry George.
Let me start off with something good to say about this film. George Clooney actually is a talented director. His use of lighting was great, good all around acting, and mixing jazz into scenes really grips you. This movie took you back in time and made you feel like a part of an era. I guess Clooney has learned a few tricks since Red Surf.
However, this portrayal of history, though accurate on many counts, delivers a rather slanted view of history, leaving out facts that don't support the argument. Take the clips of the Annie Lee Moss hearings. Clearly this scene portrays McCarthy as a raving nut, going after a supposed innocent woman who was just minding her own business being a wash woman until the bogeyman McCarthy came.
I can't explain the reason McCarthy leaves the hearing, I don't know the context of that particular incident, but what's troubling is the omission that Moss 1) had her name in Communist Party records 2) she had the Daily Worker delivered to her house, even though she switched addresses several times. The Daily Worker was a Communist paper, as admitted by Whitaker Chambers (I'll mention him later) in his testimony before the House on Un-American Activities Committee. He would know, as he edited the paper for years. Might I add that at the time the army, which was employing Moss, had instances of keeping suspected communists on their payroll, men such as Irving Peress. The army showed this negligence even after the Rosenbergs, people that helped Stalin get our nuclear secrets, had been tried and executed. So going after the army for harboring communists was not completely preposterous.
The whole time I watched this movie, I waited for Alger Hiss to be mentioned. This State Department official not only was convicted of perjury but also wrote the UN charter. When the movie mentions that he was convicted of perjury, not espionage, I realized that Hollywood is clearly behind the times. As a fellow IMDb reviewer stated, the Venona Papers released in the mid 90s produced cables proving that he was a Soviet spy. It's not even debatable anymore. I know this movie is a period piece, so Ed Murrow and others weren't privy to this information. But mentioning this truly weakens the movie's credibility. Why use an argument that's been proved wrong?
The main thing that bugged me was the sensationalizing of journalists. These poor reporters were just trying to tell the American people the truth, perhaps that's why they smoked so much. But these underdogs, valiantly going against the wishes of their boss, took on McCarthy anyway. Frankly, when have journalists ever been scared of anything? They spewed the same rhetoric when they took down Nixon. And Murrow went after McCarthy when his career was already headed for the ash heap, Murrow didn't cause McCarthy's downfall.
All and all, the movie was well done but had an obvious agenda. Personally, I think McCarthy was behind the curve, so I don't know why he had such an impact on America. The aforementioned Rosenbergs and Alger Hiss, plus other high level government officials like Harry Dexter White, had already been convicted of espionage. The late 40s and early 50s was really the heyday for catching these American traitors, so McCarthy was late to the party. He wasn't the first to mention communists in our government. He may have been flamboyant but many people he accused of being communists in fact were. And sorry Sean Penn, he didn't hurt anyone in your family, Hollywood was dealt with by the House, not the Senate.
Attribute my low ranking of this film to my political and historic views. Clooney did a pretty good job of saying what he wanted to say but like Michael Moore, he leaves out facts that don't support his message. The characters, though I credited them with being well acted, were sort of undefined. Even Murrows character didn't go too in depth. Every character was overshadowed by the ominous presence of McCarthy. A little melodramatic in my humble opinion.
I think Hollywood should produce a movie about a communist defector that spoke out against Soviet atrocities, like Elizabeth Bentley. A woman like her was far more courageous and risked her life by speaking out against communism, a much braver act than going after a US senator. Going after McCarthy has been done so many times it's become redundant. Sorry George.