Good Night and Good Luck

[airfrogusmc]

There were allot of very good Americans hurt by this which hunt bottom line. I believe it started with all the best intentions but a wiser man than me once said absolute power corrupts absolutely. This was a classic case of just that. By the time it was over it had turned into complete madness and to think otherwise would be trying to rewrite history.

 

[MudInYerEye]

I just discovered this thread. What fscinating stuff. McCarthy a hero indeed!
In "real" life I am considered fairly conservative among my friends, but compared to some on this site I feel like a Pinko Commie Liberal! Amazing.

 

[MudInYerEye]

SURRENDER.

I didn't fall for Clooney's cheap trick and just tried to watch it for what it was....

]
But what about Robin Zander's Cheap Trick, MK? Your mommy's alright, your daddy's alright....

 

[Salv]

In Good Night and Good Luck there are scenes of Senator McCarthy accusing Annie Lee Moss, who worked in highly sensitive decoding job in the Pentagon, of being a Communist, and the heroic Edward R. Murrow then denouncing McCarthy's behavior. But we now know, from the party's own files, that Miss Moss was, indeed, a Communist. What should we conclude from the absence of this detail in the picture? That Clooney, who goes around boasting that every moment in the screenplay has been "double-sourced" for accuracy, simply doesn't know she's a Commie? Or that he does know but thinks it's harmless?
National Review Feb. 27, 2006 page 37:cheers1:

I haven't seen the film yet but unless Murrow knew that Moss actually was a Communist when he denounced McCarthys behaviour I can't see that Moss' political leanings are relevant to Murrows story. If Murrow was unaware of Moss' politics then the screenplay probably is as accurate as it can be in reporting 50 year old events.

 

[matei]

I've been quite busy and not checking in to the Lounge as often as I do to catch up on things. I recently stumbled upon this thread, hoping to hear something about the film itself and not political bickering.

Among all the huffing and puffing I did manage to glean some favourable comments on the film itself, which I shall endevour to see this weekend, unless some far-right nutter tries to get it yanked from the cinema or tries to blacklist me as a communist sympathiser for seeing it.

I was told as a child that there are two things one doesn't discuss with strangers... religion and politics.

 

[Lincsong]

Excellant point

I haven't seen the film yet but unless Murrow knew that Moss actually was a Communist when he denounced McCarthys behaviour I can't see that Moss' political leanings are relevant to Murrows story. If Murrow was unaware of Moss' politics then the screenplay probably is as accurate as it can be in reporting 50 year old events.

I will give Murrow the benefit of the doubt and assume that he did not know whether or not Moss was a Communist. But, the point that I think National Review makes is that Clooney brags about how everything in this film was "double checked" for accuracy and he attempts to smear McCarthy. However, Clooney didn't double check as to whether or not Moss was a Communist or I believe he didn't care that she was a Communist but he got a good film of McCarthy.:cheers1:

 

[Salv]

I will give Murrow the benefit of the doubt and assume that he did not know whether or not Moss was a Communist. But, the point that I think National Review makes is that Clooney brags about how everything in this film was "double checked" for accuracy and he attempts to smear McCarthy. However, Clooney didn't double check as to whether or not Moss was a Communist or I believe he didn't care that she was a Communist but he gto a good film of McCarthy.:cheers1:

But if Murrow didn't know that Moss was a Communist how does an admission in the film of her politics help tell Murrows story? Even if Clooney did double check his information, and knew about Moss, and showed this in the film what difference would it make? We'd still see Murrow condemning McCarthy for attacking Moss, based on the information available to Murrow at the time. Would we think less of Murrow ("he's defending her but she's lying - what a sucker") or would we admire him more ("he's defending her because he thinks she's telling the truth - what a hero")?

 

[Lincsong]

Another reasoned argument.

But if Murrow didn't know that Moss was a Communist how does an admission in the film of her politics help tell Murrows story? Even if Clooney did double check his information, and knew about Moss, and showed this in the film what difference would it make? We'd still see Murrow condemning McCarthy for attacking Moss, based on the information available to Murrow at the time. Would we think less of Murrow ("he's defending her but she's lying - what a sucker") or would we admire him more ("he's defending her because he thinks she's telling the truth - what a hero")?

I would have to go with the "sucker" route. I think Murrow got caught up the Anti-McCarthy hype.

 

[airfrogusmc]

The real point is DOES it realy matter if anyone is a commie. Its a political ideal. Agree or disagree in a free society with elections so if you don't like it just don't vote for it. The problem to me was how the quest to weed it out
got so warped led by a man with purely political agenda. When Americans really saw what he was about and what he was doing to OUR country they eventually reject him and his idiology. Thank God....

 

[jake_fink]

I think Murrow got caught up [in] the Anti-McCarthy hype.

Was there "Anti-McCarthy hype"? Isn't Murrow a worthwhile historic figure because he stood up to and oppposed the McCarthyist (Commie-hunting) "hype" and in doing so risked his career? In other words, he went against the prevailing current because he felt it was unjust.

Maybe "hype" (meaning: "to give something more attention than it deserves or to try to make it seem more important than it really is" or - "a deception carried out for the sake of publicity" from the word HYPERBOLE) wasn't quite what you meant... If there was any Anti-McCarthy backlash it was, at the period covered in the film, nascent. Hype came later, if it can be said to have come at all.

 

[herringbonekid]

i saw this yesterday. i suppose it says more about how much of an aesthete i am and how apolitical, but the actual content didn't interest me that much. instead i found myslef just looking at the beautiful photography, and i wondered if clooney himself wasn't as much motivated by the desire to produce a beautuful period piece as much as by a 'challenging' (which it wasn't) political piece. the photography reminded me of classic black and white stills phots by robert frank, or dennis stock's photos of james dean. then theres was the endless cigarette smoke pluming into the air and the brushy jazz interludes, women in crisp blouses and guys drinking in a bar after hours...very evocative stuff.

 

[Harry Lime]

Herringbone Kid is one of the first posters to land on an important discussion topic of GNAGL - it's simply a very good film. First and foremost an excellent script, well shot and well-acted. Clooney's accomplishment for this triad alone towers. With just these 3 facets it's a very good movie.

It's the political sentiment that makes it a GREAT film. Clooney meant to provoke, challenge and encourage a dialogue. It's happened in a big way. Just look at this thread. What a job he did. He even managed to smoke out The World's Greatest Living Idiot - the last avowed McCarthy fan. Whoda thunk it? The fact that there is a living soul today who considers FDR a bum and McCarthy a hero boggles the mind. Perhaps Lincsong was flash-frozen in a glacier accident some time in the early 50's and just recently thawed out. (Most of him - his mind is still a little frosty.) Who, in 2006, still uses the words "Reds" and "Commies" in the present tense?

Harry Lime

 

[Lincsong]

Flash Frozen in the Catskills circa 1935?

The real point is DOES it realy matter if anyone is a commie. Its a political ideal. Agree or disagree in a free society with elections so if you don't like it just don't vote for it. The problem to me was how the quest to weed it out got so warped led by a man with purely political agenda. When Americans really saw what he was about and what he was doing to OUR country they eventually reject him and his idiology. Thank God....

Communism is a political ideal? :fing28: Where did you read that; at the Harry Bridges Memorial in San Francisco? Or from some smelly, pot head wearing a Che Guevara shirt? You're darn right it matters if someone is a commie because that Red wants to control you and society. That Commie wants to take over every aspect of the entire country. Anyone who thinks otherwise is lost in some Red Summer Camp in the Catskill Mountains in 1935. McCarthy saw this Red Menace and what those Monsters are; Pure, Sadistic Animals. :rage: America never rejected him and his ideology. Ever hear of the Berlin Wall? If America rejected him and his ideology then why isn't Gorbachev still in the Kremlin. :arated: RONALD REAGAN! The same Red apologists were the ones in 1981 saying that Reagan was wrong and that the Soviets would over take us. Only the paranoid leftists who are afraid of being outed for the Red Pinkos that they are are always bringing up McCarthy. Why didn't Looney Clooney do a film about the Islamic Nut jobs today?:fing28:

 

[Salv]

I would have to go with the "sucker" route. I think Murrow got caught up the Anti-McCarthy hype.

But don't you think that opinion is informed by your support of McCarthy and your dislike for the politics of George Clooney?

Communism is a political ideal? :fing28: Where did you read that; at the Harry Bridges Memorial in San Francisco? Or from some smelly, pot head wearing a Che Guevara shirt? You're darn right it matters if someone is a commie because that Red wants to control you and society. That Commie wants to take over every aspect of the entire country. Anyone who thinks otherwise is lost in some Red Summer Camp in the Catskill Mountains in 1935. McCarthy saw this Red Menace and what those Monsters are; Pure, Sadistic Animals. :rage: America never rejected him and his ideology. Ever hear of the Berlin Wall? If America rejected him and his ideology then why isn't Gorbachev still in the Kremlin. :arated: RONALD REAGAN! The same Red apologists were the ones in 1981 saying that Reagan was wrong and that the Soviets would over take us. Only the paranoid leftists who are afraid of being outed for the Red Pinkos that they are are always bringing up McCarthy. Why didn't Looney Clooney do a film about the Islamic Nut jobs today?:fing28:

Of course Communism is a political ideal, but you're confusing the warped dictatorial Soviet Communism with this ideal. I think you're also forgetting that individuals should be free to hold whichever political views they choose. And of course "that Red wants to control you and society" in the same way that that (select your own particular bogeyman from the following...) capitalist / socialist / fascist / liberal / conservative / libertarian / anarchist / Islamist etc. etc. etc. wants to control society. That's the nature of a political belief.

 

[Lincsong]

A fair assessment;

But don't you think that opinion is informed by your support of McCarthy and your dislike for the politics of George Clooney?

However, whatever the politics of Clooney happens to be, I think that film is one sided and is more influenced by Clooney's dislike for McCarthy than for any artistic merit. He could have taken an indifferent, objective approach and not paint either side in the negative or positive. Clooney attempts to portray this as a documentary but it ends up a mockumentary.

Of course Communism is a political ideal, but you're confusing the warped dictatorial Soviet Communism with this ideal. I think you're also forgetting that individuals should be free to hold whichever political views they choose. And of course "that Red wants to control you and society" in the same way that that (select your own particular bogeyman from the following...) capitalist / socialist / fascist / liberal / conservative / libertarian / anarchist / Islamist etc. etc. etc. wants to control society. That's the nature of a political belief.

A respectful disagreement. People should have whatever political ideas they have. What I don't approve is when that freedom is used by those who want to take away others freedom. However, I don't agree with the "that Red wants to control you and society in the same way that;" etc. etc. etc.

Capitalist/Conservative; he is dependent on someone to buy his product. He cannot force anyone to buy from him. In the capitalist system someone can go down the street and buy from someone else.

Socialist/Fascist; We both agree. They both advocate the "corporate" state where there are "private/public" industries and all decisions are made by the "private/public" teams. This is what we saw in Franco's Spain, Mussolini's Italy and Salazar's Portugal. Here in the State's this system is advocated in areas such as San Francisco, Boston, New York and Los Angeles by Democratic politicians.

Liberal? What is their core belief? This depends on what country you're situated.

Libertarian; No laws, all risk. Where's the control there?

Anarchist; Agree. These nuts want no borders, no nations, nothing but little communes where they control everything in the area.

This goes back to the tread on Franco and the Spanish Civil War.

 

[airfrogusmc]

But isn't the very control you object to the very thing that was a product of Joseph McCarthy and his witch hunt.

Robert Frank a great photographer and a great American had one heck of a time getting his book the Americans published because of the fever ole Joe stirred up in this country. A book that some art critics and historians consider one of the more important works done in the 50s.

Aaron Siskind another GREAT photographer caught some of the same stuff in a documentary piece he did in Harlem in the 50s. I had a professor in college that knew Aaron as a student and he said that was one reason he started shooting more abstract subject matter.

These doesn't even begin to touch the books and movies that weren't made because of the craziness.

So the very things you don't like about communism are some of the very things that happened as a result of Sen McCarthy. Again absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

[Lincsong]

It's a free market

But isn't the very control you object to the very thing that was a product of Joseph McCarthy and his witch hunt.

Robert Frank a great photographer and a great American had one heck of a time getting his book the Americans published because of the fever ole Joe stirred up in this country. A book that some art critics and historians consider one of the more important works done in the 50s.

Aaron Siskind another GREAT photographer caught some of the same stuff in a documentary piece he did in Harlem in the 50s. I had a professor in college that knew Aaron as a student and he said that was one reason he started shooting more abstract subject matter.

These doesn't even begin to touch the books and movies that weren't made because of the craziness.

So the very things you don't like about communism are some of the very things that happened as a result of Sen McCarthy. Again absolute power corrupts absolutely.

If these gentlemen had any type of talent they would have had their works published, in a country of 100 million people, I find it very hard to believe that they couldn't have found someone willing to back them. Communism was bankrolled by wealthy people in the U.S. Sen. McCarthy never had absolute power. He was a Wisconsin Senator. He could have mouthed off all day and if the news media didn't carry him no one would have known about him. In contrast; Edward R. Murrow possessed more power in a sense than McCarthy because he was broadcast daily and people took for granted what he said. (I am indifferent to Murrow, unlike other broadcasters. So I will remain silent on him until I do more research.) Clooney wasn't interested so much in producing a well made film as he was to send a political message. That is why this thread as taken this turn. We are discussing exactly what were Clooney's motives.

 

[airfrogusmc]

I read his motives were to start a dialog on the subject. Hmmm I guess it worked..

 

[airfrogusmc]

I would also suggest you look up these two photographers because both of those names are icons in the photography world. The Ameicans is considered one of the GREAT photogaphic essays. And Aaron Siskind well I suggest lookin 'em up.

 

[Andykev]

Good points, now back to our FEATURE PRESENTATION

I am starting to get Emails from some people offended with this thread. It has drifted a tad off topic. although it does deal with the "content" of the movie. However, This Thread MOVIES shall not digress into a political kitchen sink. Lets all step up to the bar, have a beverage, and return to our tables with MOVIES on the agenda. I really don't want this to burst into flames....to me it looks ok now, but "I've got a feeling"....