i've noticed barrelhouse has mondays listed for movies and i saw "good night, and good luck" last night i thought i'd throw out my assessment of the film as my first contribution to the blog....
Good Night, And Good Luck
Directed by George Clooney
Not that i think it's going to be entered into the canon of great american films, but i'd have to say that i'm impressed with George Clooney's ability as a director to craft a film and show that he has vision and heart, he's not just doing it for the novelty or for another feather in his cap. (anyone in the audience see Confessions of a Danergous Mind? ... very few hands i suppose.... go rent it, it's not disappointing....)
The film centers around Edward R. Murrow and CBS news' attack on Sen McCarthy's crusade against the communist threat in the US. It deals with the subject in a very contained way... narrowing the film's POV to those working in Murrow's newsroom and keeping a national experience to an intimate setting. letting anything beyond the cast be told through actual archival footage of interviews, broadcasts and courtroom footage.
if you feel you dont know enough about this time period (as i have very little knowledge of it, myself, being of the under thirty demographic), or if you happen to be of the mindset that a culture of fear in support of 'freedom' is inappropriate for americans, or that speaking out against something doesnt mean you are a pinko commie (or a freedom hater).... then it's a good film to see. cause it reminds you that sometimes media can be used for honesty, rather than propoganda, and it can make a difference. or if youre just really into good black and white photography... that's a good reason to see it too. don't see it if youre trying to quit smoking.... there's so many cigarettes smoked in this film that you will have a nic fit within the first 20 minutes. and that's if you never smoked before in your life.
there are, however a serious lack of boobs, batthroom humor or roundhouse kicks... as i was silently hoping that by the end we'd see a revisionist history where murrow burst into a senate hearing, outfitted like rambo, cigarette in mouth (of course), guns blazing and take mccarthy down, impaling him on an american flag pole with a witty quip "good night, and good luck, in HELL senator."
11.21.2005
We Must Not Confuse Dissent With Disloyalty
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
well, i'd have to say that the amount of liberty taken by Clooney while portraying the historical events doesnt destory the truth or the essence of what clooney wanted the audience to leave the film with. at the same time, i have a personal biased against everything i've read in slate previously (i'll freely admit that i havent read much, but what i have i'd rank as not so good) and the writer of the slate article seems to have a personal bias against the way the film was executed. taking liberties when making a piece of fiction, even when depicting historical events or figures, is par for the course (shakespeare did it... olivers stone has done it...). i get the distinct impression, even after reading the slate article (although i couldnt make it through the 'i would have done it this way' wrap up - who the hell cares?), that clooney didnt lie. he merely told us the story he wanted to, in the manner that he saw fit.
I can't see much in the way of a point from Shafer...this is the same argument that was used to attack Oliver Stone's JFK (incidentally a far shittier film)--oh my God, someone's creative vision doesn't line up with the state-sponsored history. Stop the presses (I've always wanted to say that).
Shafer's argument, for example, could be used almost verbatim to attack Philip Roth's the Plot Against America. You mean Lindbergh didn't become President? Oh, then it must be a book without value.
Shafer writes, "If I judge it correctly, Good Night, and Good Luck intends to serve as a parable for our times and not a history lesson." It's an utterly preposterous argument made by an utterly preposterous writer. Too bad it took him nearly 10,000 words to come to the conclusion that nearly any mammal capable of upright walking could have: it's a movie.
i'd have to argue that the film isnt devoid of subtlety and complexity. in fact, from my point of view, it's shot and edited in a pretty nontraditional way and the acting is quite subtle and well executed. i think my major issue with shafer's article is that he did that thing reviewers will do at times... criticize the art that wasnt made rather than what was, and choose to prove to us how much the reviewer knows (in this case he got to wave his historical knowledge around at us). it makes the article pretty self absorbed and much less informative about the actual piece that was made.
i work in film and video... not big hollywood, but still... and even in the documentary work i've done there's a lot of cutting and shaping that has to be done. i have yet to see someone say 'hey this movie is a good movie. or this movie is a bad movie." anyone out there want to speak to the films merits or flaws? and just thinking you can commit any complex story to a two dimensional projection of light, well it's going to have to be simplified. if someone paints a portrait it still comes out looking like that artist's style of work, even if it resembles the subject.
I haven't seen the movie. But I will say that if Shafer's thesis is, as it seems to be, that the movie recasts a fallible human (Murrow) into something approaching god status ... well, welcome to History 101. I realize the trend in historical fictions lately has been to show a sort of "warts and all" version of historical figures, but even these versions are pretty simplistic. Because most people's lives don't fit into the pattern of a recognizable story arc. And the process of herofication is pretty well ingrained in the way we like to recount history. This doesn't happen just in movies, but in textbooks, too.
Post a Comment