Good Night and Good Luck Having a Good Night if This is What You’re Reading

Posted On 2021-05-22

The second film from the second module, Politics & Film. I’d seen this one before, so each of these questions got some background processing not afforded to most of the other movies in the course. Reading through this today, I’m still pretty solid on the answers written.

Good Night, And Good Luck

• What does the film say about the positive potential of television for society and democracy? What does it say about the negative potential of television?

Good Night, And Good Luck illustrates the positive potentials of television through the downfall of Senator Joe McCarthy. It’s Murrow’s broadcasts that make people aware of what’s happening to people like Lieutenant Radulovich, or “communist sympathizer” Annie Moss. They may help to galvanize the defiance shown by Senator McClellan or the Army in their eventual charges against McCarthy. The film also presents several risks to the medium. As Paley points out, Murrow is airing his concerns without opposition, and leading his audience to a conclusion of bad behavior before McCarthy has had a chance to respond. That in turn presents problems- if you’re not tuned in, you may miss vital information. Then also the person or the network or the sponsor that may be airing whichever view, may not be doing so from a position of altruism- any tool can be misused.

• How does the use of actual footage of some of the main characters (McCarthy in particular) enhance the film? Why was the film shot in black and white?

The incorporation of footage adds a bit of gravitas to the film, it connects the narrative to the consequence of the real world. Shooting the film in black and white helps to keep the characters and the story in the same universe as its villain. A color production would have required the contrivance of colorized footage, or standin performers- either way something would have been lost. Then also there’s duality of the film’s black-and-white argument, that there is sometimes a clear right or a clear wrong.

• How does director George Clooney use jazz music in the film?

In otherwise relative silence, the jazz music is disruptive, a shocking change in tone that forces the audience to re-engage with the story with fresh eyes when the next scene picks up. It’s an expression of emotion from the screen in a space filled with quiet reservations, and a proxy for the emotion held in by the principals. It’s appropriate that the singer is black; those songs are the color in the film.

• How is the founder of CBS William Paley portrayed in the film?

Paley is portrayed as sympathetic to the integrity of his news division, but conditioned to be beholden to the needs of the network as a business. He is conscious of principle- if Murrow is right, then he wants his air to be that which Murrow is right on. He is also loyal, knowing exactly who’s on the other end of the line after the McCarthy piece as he lets it ring. Ultimately however he’s a businessman, and willing to make a sharp turn as he sees a cost arising from Murrow’s notoriety.

• What role does the suicide of newsman Don Hollenbeck play in the film?

While there is no great dramatic event to Hollenbeck’s death, it is a clear catalyst for Murrow, whose eulogy gives Hollenbeck the last word over his critics. It is also an illustration of how events affected people in the “real world”. Don Hollenbeck has a job, he’s in the good graces of CBS’s moral authority, but still the character assassination of blacklisting presented him with an existential difficulty. This wasn’t just a story, and it wasn’t just Lt. Radulovich; people’s lives were being destroyed.

• Why are the original advertisements (for Alcoa and Kent cigarettes) included in the film?

The inclusion of broadcast commercials is a reminder of a difference in times. An elegy on the benefits of smoking, and the promotion not of consumer devices or toys but metal. This world had different priorities, and these were the industries that Murrow was ostensibly beholden to.

• In choosing to take on McCarthy, Murrow takes sides. Should journalists share their perspective/opinions with their audience or should they always remain neutral?

There’s a distinction to be made I think between the presentation of opinions and the fact of neutrality that has become obscured by pandering subjectivity. I would argue that journalists should generally avoid editorializing unless they are being clear up front that the views they’re representing are their own. In my mind it’s the job of the journalist to provide me with the information they think I need to form an educated opinion. To that end, they should never remain neutral- there should be an unwavering bias towards reality, law, and guiding precedent.

• What do you think of the ending of Good Night, Good Luck. Some critics felt that it was too abrupt. Do you agree?

The quick ending to the film was shocking the first time I saw it, but it was never out of place. The “missing” portion of the postscript had already run under the opening credits and the political story never ends, so anything further would have been extraneous. As it is, it’s an image of Murrow’s own words, that there is not, “on every story, two equal and logical sides to an argument.” Narratively, the film had made its logical argument; the story was over.

• How do you think George Clooney’s own politics influenced the movie? Are his liberal views apparent and does this matter to you?

I know from reporting that Mr. Clooney leans towards the progressive side of the spectrum, but in terms of this film it’s only relevant to me because of the authenticity lent to his portrayal. I begin with the assumption that political films attract casts that want to be associated with whichever principles are being highlighted, so of course Clooney and the whole bunch are lefty communists. How his heresy affected the film is less clear; any Hollywood production goes through multiple filters. But it’s a plus for any character  if they can speak their lines like they mean them.

• Edward R. Murrow hosted two programs at the time of the McCarthy confrontation – See it Now and Person to Person. How do these two programs compare and why is it said that Murrow paid for See It Now by doing more Person to Person broadcasts?

The choice of a Liberace interview as one of the ‘Person to Person’ broadcasts illustrates the entire dynamic at work. To most of the audience watching the film, Liberace was a tabloid star- his social status was an open secret and any “serious” career history had long since given way to a Vegas-esque glamor. So when we see the interview, the crafted assumption going in is that Murrow isn’t talking to the few million people who follow longform news, he’s talking to the millions more who would (so to speak) wait for the movie. When ratings can be parsed across broadcasts, the greater audience size and ad prices of ‘Person to Person’ could, on a balance sheet, offset losses to either as a result of controversial ‘See It Now’ broadcasts. 

• Are there any parallels drawn in the film between McCarthyism and post 9/11 America? Is it important to know that the film’s advertising tagline was: “In a Nation Terrorized by Its Own Government, One Man Dared to Tell the Truth?”

Parallels between the film and the circumstances of politics and society in the aftermath of 9/11 are present, but the metaphor requires some knowledge of the more recent events. One can see the post-9/11 demonization of Muslims in the film’s depiction of the discrediting of “communist sympathizers”. McCarthy’s glorification of his ideas of American ideals is on a level with neocon creations of the jingoistically-named “Patriot” Act and “Homeland” Security Department. The extrajudicial trial of Lt. Radulovich harkens to the more consequential extrajudicial imprisonment of suspects at Guantanamo Bay. The tagline is appropriate to the film, though its true sentiment was perhaps internalized by few beyond MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann.

• Why do you think that cigarettes are featured so prominently in the film?

Cigarettes are a useful and versatile device throughout the film. Visual, connotative, and contemporaneous elements add different levels. The characters on the screen are literally operating in a fog of their own making, as they puzzle through a moral haze of their own making. As with the commercials, it’s a cue that this was another time. Every time a lighter clicks or smoke puffs you’re reminded of the perversions that used to be accepted as “normal”. Then there’s the modern conception of smoking as a nervous habit. Looking back through a modern lens, the suggestion is made that these people are repressed, they’re under duress, they’re holding reactions in. As much as these people smoke, they’re all potentially wound far greater than they’re putting on.