GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK

[Moviefan1234]

http://media.movieweb.com/galleries/3305/posters/poster1.jpg

Plot: GOOD NGIHT, AND GOOD LUCK takes place during the early days of broadcast journalism in 1950's America. It chronicles the real-life conflict between television newsman Edward R. Murrow and Senator Joseph McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee. With a desire to report the facts and enlighten the public, Murrow, and his dedicated staff - headed by his producer Fred Friendly and Joe Wershba in the CBS newsroom - defy corporate and sponsorship pressures to examine the lies and scaremongering tactics perpetrated by McCarthy during his communist 'witch-hunts'. A very public feud develops when the Senator responds by accusing the anchor of being a communist. In this climate of fear and reprisal, the CBS crew carries on and their tenacity will prove historic and monumental.

Starring: David Strathairn, George Clooney, Robert Downey Jr., Patricia Clarkson, Jeff Daniels, Tate Donovan, Ray Wise, Frank Langella

MPAA Rating: PG (for mild thematic elements and brief language)

Release Date: October 7, 2005 (Limited)


This looks to be an excellent film. I can't wait to see it.

[Lazy Boy]

George Clooney is a really fascinating pop culture figure; on one hand, he fraternizes with the big players and big films, and on the other, he has a deep-seated interest in making films with integrity and independence.

Confessions of a Dangerous Mind was a good freshman directorial debut for him, and I eagerly await his latest. Plus, David Strathairn is one of those underrated actors who has done more good work than high profile jobs.

[ilovemovies]

This movie looks outstanding. Based on the trailers, the two movies that look like they will have the best acting in them is this and All the King's Men.

[Moviefan02000]

It doesn't look amazing but I should give it a solid 7/10 (B). I'll definetely check it out.

[Cronos]

looks kinda interesting, might be worth a rental

[Lazy Boy]

Here's a great transcript of Edward Murrow's speech in 1958 at the Radio and Television News Directors Association. Nothing like a moment in time to mirror our present situation with the media and its use of disinformation.

http://www.turnoffyourtv.com/commentary/hiddenagenda/murrow.html

[Buck Turgidson]

Originally posted by Lazy Boy
David Strathairn is one of those underrated actors who has done more good work than high profile jobs.

He's the guy I always mention, along with Bruce Greenwood and Billy Crudup, when the term "Underrated" comes up. He's perfectly cast as Murrow.

George Clooney is a major, major player and will be for the forseeable future.

[Beeblebrox]

I loved this movie. If only it was somehow relevant to what was happening today.

[chinton]

Without a doubt one of the best films of the year and strangely much another great film of the year The Constant Gardener it seems strangely silent. I have no idea why becuase this film is absolutely riveting, timely, and provocative. hats really interesting about this movie is that its extremely tight. There are really no subplots to speak of it has basically one aim and thats it. Therefore a lot of the film consists of watching Senatory McCarthy's news clips and then watch as David Strathan talks about them. This could have turned the movie into a boring diatribe. Thank goodness it doesn't. The screenplay is eloquent and it is always fascinating.

I must also give credict to Clooney as a director. Not only is the film gorgeous but everything about the film feels realistic. He tries a kind of Robert Altman angle in which a lot of the large conversations are delivered naturally. People talk over one another and step on each other lines. The dialogue adn the feel of the movie never feels off for a second. Theres also a smart transition device using smooth jazz music coming from a soundrecording studio nearby.

Really guys this is a tight excellent film that is so relevant to toda.y I think the things he brings up about the state of new television and standing up for ones beliefs are very important.
Along with Constant Gardener one of the best films of the year.
9.5/10



Honestly you guys you complain about unorginality in Hollywood well mch like Constant Gardener thsi is a film that will have you debating about it afterwards. Why is it so silent on our boards see it now.

[Buck Turgidson]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
If only it was somehow relevant to what was happening today. :D :p

I hope everyone who is interested saw George Friday night on The Charlie Rose Show on PBS. He was on for 45 minutes and spoke with erudition and easy charm about this film, the filmmaking process, the political scene and why he'd never, ever fuck Ann Coulter.

He's got every chance to make the transition from leading man to major player, like Eastwood and Redford.

[chinton]

this movie could not be more relevant to today. Its relevant to anytime. The story of a man standing up to oppression and for his convictions is not a time capsule. Its a timeless story.

[BakeTheMooCow]

Originally posted by Buck Turgidson
I hope everyone who is interested saw George Friday night on The Charlie Rose Show on PBS. He was on for 45 minutes and spoke with erudition and easy charm about this film, the filmmaking process, the political scene and why he'd never, ever fuck Ann Coulter.

He's got every chance to make the transition from leading man to major player, like Eastwood and Redford.

I saw that interview and it was really refreshing to hear a major Hollywood actor say that it wasn't about the money anymore. He started doing any part he could get [even then he had the talent to land good shows like ER and Roseanne], and then later on in his career, he could pick and choose projects [and chose some excellent films]. Now, he's at the point where he can green-light a script and have creative control over it and do what he feels is relevant and important and what people should see. You could tell the massive popularity hasn't gone to his head. Great interview, despite Rose constantly interrupting and laughing as always. I also liked how he called out that scumbag Bill O'Reilly to a debate anytime on neutral ground.

About the film, I'm dying to see it but it is playing nowhere near me. Usually Chicago is the third city to get films after NY and LA, but this must be a very limited wide release.

[chinton]

Really its limited I thought it was wide already. Well when it comes near you defintely see it.

You know I found it really depressing that when I went to see it my theater was almost sold out and I was without a doubt the youngest looking guy there at 23. Everyone was in their middle age and of course the fil that w as sold out with many young people waling was The Fog.

Although its nice to see that after the movie I went by a bookstore as I was coming out about 20 minutes later I passed by a group of older people who were in my theater and still heatedly discussing the movie

[Edie0027]

Originally posted by Moviefan02000
It doesn't look amazing but I should give it a solid 7/10 (B). I'll definetely check it out.

Is this based on the trailer alone? Or did you see the film?

[Lazy Boy]

Good Night, and Good Luck -- 8/10

George Clooney goes two for two as a director. GNAGL is desaturated both of color and contrived subplots (with the exception of the Robert Downey/Patricia Clarkson storyline). What you see is what you get, almost like a docudrama. It's didacticism is excusable in the way Edward Murrow is portrayed; no triumphant fanfare serenades his timely debates, leaving only the man and his timely message, not the glorified posterboy some liberals may have exalted him as. David Strathairn should be on Oscar's list for Best Actor, even though lesser, showy performances might overshadow him down the line.

[MadsenOMC]

SPOILERS!!!!

Fucking fantastic movie. Truly superb filmmaking. My only complaint is the short running time. I wanted more. It felt like only 45 minutes had gone by when the end credits started to roll. It assumes that the viewer knows about McCarthy and the era itself. You sort of have to fill in the blanks on your own, which was refreshing. The cast is perfect, the movie looks stunning, Clooney's direction is outstanding and the story is gripping. Some have complained that McCarthy is too easy of a target. There may be some truth to that, but it doesn't change the fact that these were extremely brave people, and that this is an extremely good movie and a story worth telling. Also, the bookends of Murrow's 1958 speech about the state of television and its future actually (IMO) contains the points Clooney is trying to make, more so than the fact that McCarthy was a bad man. TV has the potential to do more than entertain. It can educate and inform and enlighten and provoke thought. But there's a dangerous flipside to that as well. Murrow was concerned about TV's future, and rightfully so. A wonderful tribute to him and the rest of the CBS team that strived to do something meaningful through television.

9/10

[KcMsterpce]

I have to be one of the 'wierd men out' I guess, and say that it wasn't all that good.

I don't feel that it was any more informative from beginning to end than from what I saw on the previews. I hated the jazz singer interludes, it made me wanna scream.
I don't think the black & white cinematography worked to make it feel any more like a period piece than if it was done well in color. All that did was mix the real life footage more appropriately.

It's not so relevant to today than endless other moments in history.

Worst of all, I wasn't entertained. I found it to be boring and dull, which is the worst thing a movie can be. I got tired of Marrow constantly talking like he's a reporter, even when he's NOT on the air. What a boring and FAKE person! There was no suspense, the drama was uninvolving, and I was bored through most of it.

Not a very good movie, IMO.

4/10

[moviegroupie]

completely agree Madsen, this was fucking amazing.

[ilovemovies]

My local theater is FINALLY getting this tomorrow! So I'll be able to see this very soon.

[chinton]

so glad some people loved as much as me.

[max]

Found it smug and self-important. All impressed with its 20-20 hindsight and its mockery of everything that wasn't now 50 years ago. Yes, it's a didactic film, and smugness sometimes comes with the territory. I know that people who think they're in an important battle, one they want to win, often get smug and self-important. I just think it's intolerable, and not in the least bit entertaining. Really, it's a tedious experience. It just mostly tired me with its "can you imagine thinking TV viewers were smart" and its "can you imagine believing Liberace was straight" and other such post-omniscient asides. The audience laughed at all the shared arrogances. I hated it.

[chinton]

I dont think it was smug or arrogant. I found it more provacative than anything else and I was entertianed by the eloquent writing

[MadsenOMC]

Originally posted by max
Found it smug and self-important. All impressed with its 20-20 hindsight and its mockery of everything that wasn't now 50 years ago. Yes, it's a didactic film, and smugness sometimes comes with the territory. I know that people who think they're in an important battle, one they want to win, often get smug and self-important. I just think it's intolerable, and not in the least bit entertaining. Really, it's a tedious experience. It just mostly tired me with its "can you imagine thinking TV viewers were smart" and its "can you imagine believing Liberace was straight" and other such post-omniscient asides. The audience laughed at all the shared arrogances. I hated it.

I think you have completely misjudged and misinterpreted this movie, probably because you don't like the politics you perceive in it, or the politics of Clooney. Of course hindsight is 20-20. That's a given and impossible to ignore. But mockery? You saw a different movie than I did. There isn't an ounce of mockery in the movie. If anything, it's nostalgia. Also, audiences are loving the movie, so either your audience is an exception, or you can't properly judge how all the other people in the theater felt. You didn't really review it either. Just trashed it without specifics.

[Lazy Boy]

I think one can agree with a person's politics but find said filmmaker's movie not to be that great. Of course, the worst thing I can say about the movie is that it's dry, but that hardly makes it smug or a mock job. If anything, it needed some humor (which it had, but in small amounts).

[chinton]

I judt dont get the comments that it was dry. Yes it was narrowly focoused which was a plus for me but the small side stories like the anchorman story or Downeys/Clarkson story really help fill the movie out. To me I was so refreshed by the style of storytelling that I was enthralled.

Also I dont know what polotics have to do with the movie. i read two things into it, one about a man who s tood up not for publicity but what he generally felt was right and two the dumbing down of network news to entertianment rather than facts. These are two important issues that transcend the boundary of polotics.

[Lazy Boy]

Originally posted by chinton
I judt dont get the comments that it was dry. Yes it was narrowly focoused which was a plus for me but the small side stories like the anchorman story or Downeys/Clarkson story really help fill the movie out. To me I was so refreshed by the style of storytelling that I was enthralled.

We differ on viewpoints -- I thought that subplot wasn't really necessary, and could've been left out. Downey and Clarkson weren't really impressive, compared to the quiet, beautiful dynamic between Strathairn and Clooney, or even the relationship between Ray Wise and Strathairn.

[max]

You didn't really review it either. Just trashed it without specifics.

I don't have time to respond in depth, but I will sooner or later. I saw it three weeks ago, and have hesitated to write on it until either the annoyance or the boredom washed away. By this point, I don't think it will.

[chinton]

Oh well Lazy Bot well have to agree to disagree

[ilovemovies]

IMO, this was good but not great. It's well made, strongly acted and never boring. But it didn't wow me or anything. It was just good. I can't really say it in any other way. Not gonna be on my list of the 10 best movies of the year like I was hoping it would.

[chinton]

Thats too bad its defintely in my Top Five. Oh well

[therealjohng]

Saw this today. Loved it. Like what was said before, never boring. Clooney is fast becoming a director to watch out for.

[galveston]

This film finally came to my city.

Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. So relevant to today that it's frightening. If news organizations actually assumed that people were smart they wouldn't be so busy trying to entertain us instead of informing us. The generation that remember Murrow in its youth, my parents' generation, won't be around forever. If only Murrow had been around before the Iraq war, someone with the balls to question what was going on.... :( Would the corporate owned media of today have allowed this kind of questioning of Lord Bush? Murrow would have despised Bush and Cheney.

People in America don't know what's going on in the world. They might have a better chance if men like Murrow still lived.

[bigred760]

Damn double post.

[bigred760]

Review: Good Night, and Good Luck

I don't know if I'd call this a political movie, though it is a movie about politics. But the politics in this movie are about the 1950s, and though it might apply a little to current events, the movie basically is about Edward R. Murrow and how he wanted to contradict Sen. McCarthy and the senator's methods of fighting Communism.

The majority of the black & white movie takes place in the CBS studios and follows not only Murrow, but the rest of his show's production crew as they talk about how to fight McCarthy, the backlash they should expect, and their struggles with the powers-that-be behind CBS.

But the great moments happen when Murrow, played superbly by David Straitharn, is in front of the camera and just reeling off facts, looking over to a monitor to see playback, all the while holding a cigarette and George Clooney, playing his producer, is at his feet cuing him when he's on. I can't make any comparisons to the real life Murrow - since I'd never heard of the guy before the movie came out. But Straitharn is fantastic, simply as a newsman who wants to expose the truth behind McCarthy's dictator-like fight against Communism. He's determined, straight-forward, and takes McCarthy head on when "on camera," but appears nervous and human when off - but he's determined throughout.
The cast also boasts great performances from the likes of Clooney, Robert Downey, Jr., Patricia Clarkson, Jeff Daniels, and others. Them and others compose the production staff of Murrow's at CBS. One character whose casting was not need was that of Senator McCarthy. Clooney, wisely, simply used old footage of the man and we only see him when the movie's characters are watching him on the TV.

And Clooney not only portrays great realism for the movie, he also brings in a minor element of the power of television. There's a scene where the shot is basically a cigarette commercial on a television: you see the ad in its entirety and then the movie continues on. I was wondering why Clooney did this, but then I realized that in every shot of the movie - there is somebody smoking a cigarette. That's just the underlying take on the "television power" theme, but the cause & effects of Murrow's words on television also speak for that theme.

This isn't exactly a date movie, but it is a very well made movie that's a pretty good history lesson, a good metaphor for the power of television, and a great character- and story-driven movie.

8/10

[someguy]

SPOILERS




The movie was good, but not great. That's how I would put it. Good writing, great acting and the whole story of it was great to watch (I didn't get bored by it). My problems were that I felt Robert Downey Jr and Patricia Clarkson's story felt tacked on, it could have been cut out and I wouldn't have missed it. That, and once the McCarthy story ended and started walking into 'TV must be for education!!!' I didn't care much for it. It's funny that I didn't since I agree with what was said about Television not being used very well. What I did appreciate about it was showing the reality of what happened afterwards instead of having everything be happy at the end when McCarthy was investigated by the Senate.

Oh yeah, am I the only one who thinks that Ray Wise should get some recognition for his great performance as the CBS reporter? They should have cut out the subplot between Downey and Clarkson and instead replace it with more on him, I really liked his performance. Overall though, I found it to be an average movie that was elevated due to the good acting, directing and writing.

7/10

[lunatic]

Dreck by shitty man. :mad: :mad: :mad:

[someguy]

Originally posted by lunatic
Dreck by shitty man. :mad: :mad: :mad:

WOW JEEZ THANKS FOR THE INSIGHTFUL COMMENTS, YOU HAVE CONTRIBUTED SO MUCH

[Digifruitella]

thanks for the CAPS

[BuffZBrown]

I loved this movie. As a fan of black and white cinematography and Clooney, it was a perfect match. His directing is very strong, he got great performances from everybody and the story was very involving for me, as I too, think the present state of the "news" is a joke. The film had a lot to say not only about the McCarthy hearings, but our time as well when there's no journalist like Edward R. Murrow in sight (at least on the TV screen).

I'd definitely put this in my top ten of 2005.

[someguy]

Originally posted by Digifruitella
thanks for the CAPS

i think you can handle 12 words

[lunatic]

Originally posted by someguy
WOW JEEZ THANKS FOR THE INSIGHTFUL COMMENTS, YOU HAVE CONTRIBUTED SO MUCH

Save your irony, Someguy. Knowing the range of "talents" and the true nature of fucking George I will not even try to think of watching that. I know it's mostly praised for the content - the radio host fighting for freedom of speech with the senator, who, as time and KGB archives showed, was kinda right about "the red scare". And to me, anyone who uses freedom of speech or any other freedoms to sympathize with subhumans or their ideas is a scoundrel. Should I really care about the moronic Jew in 1950s Hollywood who was blacklisted and made less movies for his deep sympathy towards the Soviet Union (don't tell me that never happened) at same time when Stalin & Co. were preparing another Jewish Holocaust? And of course people who were falsely accused deserve all apologies in the world.

[bigred760]

Originally posted by lunatic
Save your irony, Someguy. Knowing the range of "talents" and the true nature of fucking George I will not even try to think of watching that. I know it's mostly praised for the content - the radio host fighting for freedom of speech with the senator, who, as time and KGB archives showed, was kinda right about "the red scare". And to me, anyone who uses freedom of speech or any other freedoms to sympathize with subhumans or their ideas is a scoundrel. Should I really care about the moronic Jew in 1950s Hollywood who was blacklisted and made less movies for his deep sympathy towards the Soviet Union (don't tell me that never happened) at same time when Stalin & Co. were preparing another Jewish Holocaust? And of course people who were falsely accused deserve all apologies in the world.

Wait a minute - you haven't even seen the movie? I can already tell that you haven't because Murrow wasn't fighting for freedom of speech. Don't bash the movie because you don't like George Clooney. Watch the movie, then try to say something intelligent about it - but not before.

[Commodore]

I haven't seen this and don't know much about McCarthy. Who did he wrongly accuse of being a communist and does the movie show this?

[bigred760]

Originally posted by Commodore
I haven't seen this and don't know much about McCarthy. Who did he wrongly accuse of being a communist and does the movie show this?

McCarthy basically said that anybody with a shady past, or breathed on a known Communist was a Communist themselves - with or without proof. Murrow (played by David Straitharn) basically challenged him and his methods - using actual evidence - all on his TV show. I recommend the movie if you don't know much about it - it's a pretty good history lesson.

[Commodore]

So who did he wrongly accuse? There must have been someone in the film that was wrongly accused right? Isn't that the premise of the film?

[bigred760]

Originally posted by Commodore
So who did he wrongly accuse? There must have been someone in the film that was wrongly accused right? Isn't that the premise of the film?

The movie isn't about McCarthy accusing a specific person. This isn't a whodunit or a mystery. We never find out if one certain person is a Communist or not.
McCarthy went after anybody he thought MIGHT be a Communist. There's a scene in the movie where they should some old footage (which I believe to be actual footage from the HUAC - House on Unamerican Activities Committee) of a cafeteria lunchlady being questioned.

The movie is about one person's fight for people's civil liberties against McCarthy's accusations and baseless attacks.

[The Heart Collector]

Originally posted by lunatic
Save your irony, Someguy. Knowing the range of "talents" and the true nature of fucking George I will not even try to think of watching that. I know it's mostly praised for the content - the radio host fighting for freedom of speech with the senator, who, as time and KGB archives showed, was kinda right about "the red scare". And to me, anyone who uses freedom of speech or any other freedoms to sympathize with subhumans or their ideas is a scoundrel. Should I really care about the moronic Jew in 1950s Hollywood who was blacklisted and made less movies for his deep sympathy towards the Soviet Union (don't tell me that never happened) at same time when Stalin & Co. were preparing another Jewish Holocaust? And of course people who were falsely accused deserve all apologies in the world. [/B]

hahahahahahahhaha jesus christ. and here i was, thinking this was the 21st century.

[lunatic]

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
hahahahahahahhaha jesus christ. and here i was, thinking this was the 21st century.

Whatever. Have a nice day.
P.S. Welcome to the very brutal 21st fucking century.

[lunatic]

Originally posted by bigred760
The movie isn't about McCarthy accusing a specific person. This isn't a whodunit or a mystery. We never find out if one certain person is a Communist or not.
McCarthy went after anybody he thought MIGHT be a Communist. There's a scene in the movie where they should some old footage (which I believe to be actual footage from the HUAC - House on Unamerican Activities Committee) of a cafeteria lunchlady being questioned.

The movie is about one person's fight for people's civil liberties against McCarthy's accusations and baseless attacks.

Baseless attacks?
So tell me how exactly the Soviet subhumans made their atom bomb and continued their survival for four more decades? If you do not know, please send me some money...

[someguy]

It's nice to see a schmoe on JoBlo's live up to their username :p

Watch the movie and then make your thoughts, I see what you're saying though. I just disagree with it.

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by lunatic
Save your irony, Someguy. Knowing the range of "talents" and the true nature of fucking George I will not even try to think of watching that. I know it's mostly praised for the content - the radio host fighting for freedom of speech with the senator, who, as time and KGB archives showed, was kinda right about "the red scare". And to me, anyone who uses freedom of speech or any other freedoms to sympathize with subhumans or their ideas is a scoundrel. Should I really care about the moronic Jew in 1950s Hollywood who was blacklisted and made less movies for his deep sympathy towards the Soviet Union (don't tell me that never happened) at same time when Stalin & Co. were preparing another Jewish Holocaust? And of course people who were falsely accused deserve all apologies in the world.

I agree on your stand about this movie. Clooney is well known for his communist sympathies. Commies were enemies of freedom and I would consider McCarthy to be one of the great american heroes for putting them down. Without his efforts America could be now a communist country. And this is a fact. Lke you said, American commie traitors stole the nuclear secrets and gave them to U.S.S.R. And they supported Russia financially for FOUR decades without intervention from american goverment.

If McCarthy would have been able to work earlier (and later) and more effeciently, this would have never happened. And as you pointed out, he was kinda right about red scare existing. The cold war was the ultimate proof of this, so I can't see why anyone would disagree to agree. And russians had nukes, which is of great importance.

But I would also like to remind you that the Jews ARE responsible for brutally murdering our savior Jesus Christ, and they have always been the arch enemy of christianity. If they could put us down, they would. I wouldn't hesitate to call Jews subhumans, althought I apologize for calling the Jewish members of the board in that name - You didn't choose to be born to be Jewish, I understand that.

...I haven't seen this movie either. But I trust your word about it's content.

[someguy]

tuukka..........you are not being serious of course

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by someguy
tuukka..........you are not being serious of course

McCarthyism rocks! :)

[bigred760]

Originally posted by lunatic
Baseless attacks?
So tell me how exactly the Soviet subhumans made their atom bomb and continued their survival for four more decades? If you do not know, please send me some money...

Watch the movie, then talk to me.


Soviet subhumans?:rolleyes: :confused:

[Commodore]

How can you make a movie about someone who wrongfully accused people of being communists and not identify one such person in the film?

[bigred760]

Originally posted by Commodore
How can you make a movie about someone who wrongfully accused people of being communists and not identify one such person in the film?

The movie's not about the man who accused people. It's about the man who challenged the man who accused people.

[lunatic]

Originally posted by someguy
It's nice to see a schmoe on JoBlo's live up to their username :p

Watch the movie and then make your thoughts, I see what you're saying though. I just disagree with it.

Lunatic is my name on Fangoria.com forums and I decided to keep the same name on all forums. Plus lunatic is the least you must become after 28 years living in hell/crazy house/socialistic paradise.
I am not ready to watch anything with George Clooney name attached. And don't forget: I have already watched too many "ideological" movies done in USSR by much more talented people. I better save some time to watch the TV adaptation of Master and Margarita, the legendary novel with supernatural overtones and very anti-totalitarian with great pieces of bitter humor. Plus I got Sergio Corbucci's (Django) comedy I never watched. And 200 more movies I bought or rented and had no time to enjoy/dislike.
:cool: :D ;)

[lunatic]

Originally posted by bigred760
Watch the movie, then talk to me.


Soviet subhumans?:rolleyes: :confused:

I prefer that word over Russians because, as you probably heard, Russian is a nationality and the Soviet Union had more than 100 nationalities living there and it would be unfair to use the word subhumans or scoundrels next to the Russians only. Plus, back in 20th century, we called themselves Soviets (read: the citizen /kill me!/ of the the Soviet Union).
And thank you, but no. Can not stand the guy - Clooney, not the radio host.
My thoughts and attitude based on what was published or shown from different sources of information (including declassified Moscow achieves) for the last 20 years and NOT on the House of Un-American Activities Committee. I was more interested to learn about the real volume of pus produced and exported all over by the subhumans we mentioned above. If Clooney will ever make a movie about that I will be probably more interested to suffer through his talents...

[lunatic]

Originally posted by Tuukka
I agree on your stand about this movie. Clooney is well known for his communist sympathies. Commies were enemies of freedom and I would consider McCarthy to be one of the great american heroes for putting them down. Without his efforts America could be now a communist country. And this is a fact. Lke you said, American commie traitors stole the nuclear secrets and gave them to U.S.S.R. And they supported Russia financially for FOUR decades without intervention from american goverment.

If McCarthy would have been able to work earlier (and later) and more effeciently, this would have never happened. And as you pointed out, he was kinda right about red scare existing. The cold war was the ultimate proof of this, so I can't see why anyone would disagree to agree. And russians had nukes, which is of great importance.

But I would also like to remind you that the Jews ARE responsible for brutally murdering our savior Jesus Christ, and they have always been the arch enemy of christianity. If they could put us down, they would. I wouldn't hesitate to call Jews subhumans, althought I apologize for calling the Jewish members of the board in that name - You didn't choose to be born to be Jewish, I understand that.

...I haven't seen this movie either. But I trust your word about it's content.

My friends from Leningrad/Petersburg told me about the strange people called Finnish. They spent tons of money on visiting Russia and vodka (dry law!). Maybe that's why your humor is so finnish to me. Anyway, as a Jew/Israeli supporter/Christian women fucker I can only hope you were joking this time.
But you were serious I have one advise for you - go to finnish sauna and make love to the beautiful blonde. That will ease your pain. Still, if you just joked I feel uncomfortable because you kinda thought I was anti-Jewish. No. I only feel sorry for the Jews who refuse to be tough enough to forget about the notorious Jewish guilt of being accused of everything by everyone.
Shalom, my Suomi friend.;)

[Commodore]

Originally posted by bigred760
The movie's not about the man who accused people. It's about the man who challenged the man who accused people. What did the man challenge if not the validity of the Senator's accusations? His right to make them?

[jackson13]

I just wanna say, the Cold War is over fellas.

Let's talk about the movie.

[bigred760]

Originally posted by Commodore
What did the man challenge if not the validity of the Senator's accusations? His right to make them?

Not his right, but his methods. While McCarthy was very good at what he did; it just seemed he either fabricated or targeted certain people that had absolutely had nothing to do with the Communist Party - sometimes by breaching people's right to privacy, speech, etc. The movie just shows how Murrow, and his staff, risked a lot to open some people's eyes on what McCarthy was doing.

[Commodore]

Originally posted by bigred760
Not his right, but his methods. While McCarthy was very good at what he did; it just seemed he either fabricated or targeted certain people that had absolutely had nothing to do with the Communist Party - sometimes by breaching people's right to privacy, speech, etc. The movie just shows how Murrow, and his staff, risked a lot to open some people's eyes on what McCarthy was doing. it seemed ? you mean they couldnt even identify one person who was falsely accused, only the appearance of such? That is a weak presmise to base an entire film on. Hanging someone on appearances. I'm not going to pay to see a film about some supposed hero's righteous indignation if they can't even back it up with facts. I can disagree with a film and still enjoy it, but I expect some degree of intellectual honesty. Don't insult my intelligence by making a pretty film and then not even substantiating its basic premise (that this senator wrongly accused people, when the film can't even identify such a person). Pathetic.

[someguy]

In the film a member of the Air Force was tried due to communist sympathies (they said that his father read a 'Serbian newspaper' and this is why he became a target). They would drop the charges if he denounced his father, but he told them to 'take a hike.' He was tried and kicked out of the Air Force, but all the evidence was in a sealed envelope that nobody in the case got to see. At first they go after this since it was an unfair trial. After their success, they decide to go after McCarthy for his simple thought of anybody who questions or dislikes his methods are considered communists.

In the film the main reason for the whole issue was over McCarthy's forcing the people to not question him since he will accuse them of Communist sympathies. There was a scene when they were reporting on one woman being tried and I believe that they said that they couldn't defend her and instead went for her Constitutional rights.

That's what the film is about.

[MadsenOMC]

Originally posted by Commodore
it seemed ? you mean they couldnt even identify one person who was falsely accused, only the appearance of such? That is a weak presmise to base an entire film on. Hanging someone on appearances. I'm not going to pay to see a film about some supposed hero's righteous indignation if they can't even back it up with facts. I can disagree with a film and still enjoy it, but I expect some degree of intellectual honesty. Don't insult my intelligence by making a pretty film and then not even substantiating its basic premise (that this senator wrongly accused people, when the film can't even identify such a person). Pathetic.

You should see the movie. You would benefit from it. Apparently you know very little about Joseph McCarthy. Very, very little. There's a good reason rational, reasonable people (not the Ann Coulter's of the world) cringe when they hear the man's name. He was a world class piece of shit.

[MadsenOMC]

Joseph Raymond McCarthy (November 14, 1908 – May 2, 1957) was a Republican Senator from the state of Wisconsin from 1947 to 1957. During his ten years in the Senate, McCarthy and his staff gained notoriety for making freewheeling accusations of membership in the communist party or of communist sympathies. These accusations were directed towards people in the U.S. government, particularly employees of the State Department, those whose works were carried in government libraries overseas, and some say generally anyone who opposed McCarthy and/or his methods.

As a result, the term McCarthyism was coined to specifically describe the intense anti-Communist movement that existed in America from 1950 to about 1956, a time which became popularly known as the Red Scare. During this period, people working in the government, or whose works were carried in government institutions, and were suspected of being Soviet spies or Communist sympathizers were brought before Congressional inquiries. These inquiries later came to be known as "witch hunts" to McCarthy's detractors, some of whom broadly denied that a Communist threat existed. Senator McCarthy was accused of victimizing innocent people -
and to this day, dictionary definitions of "McCarthyism" include the practice of publicizing accusations of political disloyalty or subversion with insufficient regard to evidence and the use of unfair investigatory or accusatory methods in order to suppress opposition.

As I believe lunatic said, some individuals did turn out to have Communist sympathies, but that is no excuse for McCarthy's actions. If he had utilized different methods, he may be remembered in a different light today. But he was a dangerous man and many of his actions are inexcusable. You can't just go around calling people Communists for the hell of it. Especially at that point in history.

[lunatic]

Originally posted by jackson13
I just wanna say, the Cold War is over fellas.

Let's talk about the movie.

You are wrong, man. The anti-Americanism, anti-EU and anti-Semitism on a huge raise in Russia now. And their friends? Anyone who hates West (Iran included). The New Cold War in action. No doubt, Clooney would sympathize with a fair fight against the American imperialism with a country that desperately wants to be Empire again.
:( :mad: :(

[MadsenOMC]

Russia is certainly a country in turmoil, but you have no idea if George Clooney would support them in a fight against America. Clooney is not anti-American. Saying so is both ridiculous and untrue.

[lunatic]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
Russia is certainly a country in turmoil, but you have no idea if George Clooney would support them in a fight against America. Clooney is not anti-American. Saying so is both ridiculous and untrue.

I hope you're right. I am not optimist anymore and rather do not trust good intentions including my own. But that crap about "all evil in the world comes from American imperialism and only Hollywood stands against that" must stop.

Turmoil is a very weak word to describe what is going on in Russia right now. My mother has a few Russian-American TV channels and only based on that I can say the rehabilitation of the old nice Soviet Union is a priority number one.

[MadsenOMC]

The Atlantic (an outstanding magazine) had an excellent article about Russia a few issues back. Turmoil is probably not a strong enough word. It appears that life for ordinary citizens there is as bad as it has ever been in that country. Sorry for meandering off-topic.

[MadsenOMC]

To get back to the movie, I don't think Clooney's main goal was to attack McCarthy. He has said that it is a tribute to his father, and IMO it is about Murrow far more than it is about McCarthy. I think he sees Murrow's kind as a dying, if not already extinct breed. There aren't many men or women with that kind of courage and integrity working in the media these days. People willing to stand up for what they believe in with no concern for the consequences. And it's also about TV turning into the idiot box. Murrow's speech that bookends the movie is a powerful one. He talks about the potential for television to educate and inform, while worrying about it turning into just wood and wires (I forget his exact words). It seems to me that those issues are more important to Clooney and are the true focus of the movie, rather than "McCarthy was bad."

[bigred760]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
And it's also about TV turning into the idiot box. Murrow's speech that bookends the movie is a powerful one. He talks about the potential for television to educate and inform, while worrying about it turning into just wood and wires (I forget his exact words). It seems to me that those issues are more important to Clooney and are the true focus of the movie, rather than "McCarthy was bad."

That was my favorite part. I work at a TV network, and it seems that his speech is right on.

[Commodore]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
Joseph Raymond McCarthy (November 14, 1908 – May 2, 1957) was a Republican Senator from the state of Wisconsin from 1947 to 1957. During his ten years in the Senate, McCarthy and his staff gained notoriety for making freewheeling accusations of membership in the communist party or of communist sympathies. These accusations were directed towards people in the U.S. government, particularly employees of the State Department, those whose works were carried in government libraries overseas, and some say generally anyone who opposed McCarthy and/or his methods.

As a result, the term McCarthyism was coined to specifically describe the intense anti-Communist movement that existed in America from 1950 to about 1956, a time which became popularly known as the Red Scare. During this period, people working in the government, or whose works were carried in government institutions, and were suspected of being Soviet spies or Communist sympathizers were brought before Congressional inquiries. These inquiries later came to be known as "witch hunts" to McCarthy's detractors, some of whom broadly denied that a Communist threat existed. Senator McCarthy was accused of victimizing innocent people -
and to this day, dictionary definitions of "McCarthyism" include the practice of publicizing accusations of political disloyalty or subversion with insufficient regard to evidence and the use of unfair investigatory or accusatory methods in order to suppress opposition.

As I believe lunatic said, some individuals did turn out to have Communist sympathies, but that is no excuse for McCarthy's actions. If he had utilized different methods, he may be remembered in a different light today. But he was a dangerous man and many of his actions are inexcusable. You can't just go around calling people Communists for the hell of it. Especially at that point in history. Very interesting information, but again, you failed to identify a single person who was wrongfully accused of being a communist. I don't know much about McCarthy, but I do know there were Soviet spies at the highest levels of American government and American media during that period. If we had members of Al Quaeda in such positions of power today, there would be legitimate outrage.

As far as the argument that things were better back in Murrow's day, that is bogus as well. Back then, there were only a few places one could get news. Today there are literally millions of choices to get information, and you don't have these all powerful elites like Murrow who control the flow of information. The result is greater accountability and a more informed public. That is a good thing.

[MadsenOMC]

Please explain to me how Murrow was an all-powerful elite who controlled the flow of information. He wasn't the head of the network. That statement makes little sense and is factually flawed. Again, it's annoying to have people who haven't even seen the movie continue to criticize it, especially when their criticisms are off-base. And who were these spies at the highest levels of American government and American media? I'm curious about that. No one has to identify a person by name to prove that what McCarthy did was wrong, and anyway, I believe someone else already pointed out the military man whose father was falsely accused of being a Communist merely because of the newspaper he read. Do I have to remember his name before you'll accept that McCarthy falsely accused people of being Communists?

[Commodore]

Alger Hiss, a high official at the State Dept. and Secretary General to the United Nations, was a Soviet spy.

Lawrence Duggan, a good friend of Murrow's and State Dept. official, was also a Soviet spy.

Ronald Reagan, as president of the Screen Actors Guild, reported to the FBI members of Hollywood he he knew to have Soviet sympathies.

------------

Back then there were only a few network news casts and maybe a newspaper or two one could obtain news from. Murrow controlled one of these precious outlets, and therefore the public was in large part dependent on him for information. So in that sense he was very powerful and very elite. Today anchors no longer have a stranglehold on the flow of information and are therefore more accountable. News broadcasters today must compete in an exponentially larger arena of ideas, and this competition and makes it easier to scrutinize what they say and choose something else if they are deemed uncredible (example: Dan Rather). I'm sure some in Hollywood long for the days when a news broadcaster like Murrow was important by virtue of his control of information, but those days are long gone, and we are better off for it.

I'm sure this is a well made, well acted film. But I expect intellectual honesty or I won't pay to see it.

[MadsenOMC]

Important only because he controlled information? That is a complete and total crock of shit. And how do you know if the movie is intellectually honest or not when you haven't even seen it? You can't. Murrow didn't control everything. He had to fight with the powers that be at the network to accomplish what he did. He wasn't the head of CBS.

[brodeurnumber1]

Originally posted by Commodore
Alger Hiss, a high official at the State Dept. and Secretary General to the United Nations, was a Soviet spy.

Lawrence Duggan, a good friend of Murrow's and State Dept. official, was also a Soviet spy.

Ronald Reagan, as president of the Screen Actors Guild, reported to the FBI members of Hollywood he he knew to have Soviet sympathies.

------------

Back then there were only a few network news casts and maybe a newspaper or two one could obtain news from. Murrow controlled one of these precious outlets, and therefore the public was in large part dependent on him for information. So in that sense he was very powerful and very elite. Today anchors no longer have a stranglehold on the flow of information and are therefore more accountable. News broadcasters today must compete in an exponentially larger arena of ideas, and this competition and makes it easier to scrutinize what they say and choose something else if they are deemed uncredible (example: Dan Rather). I'm sure some in Hollywood long for the days when a news broadcaster like Murrow was important by virtue of his control of information, but those days are long gone, and we are better off for it.

I'm sure this is a well made, well acted film. But I expect intellectual honesty or I won't pay to see it.

So you gave a few examples of how it sort the search sort of worked out, but who cares. Honestly, as Jackson said the Cold War is over, let it go. If you're going to complain about the movie, please see it first.

[The Heart Collector]

I expect intellectual honesty from someone who's basically implying that George Clooney can't produce the names of the wrongfully accused because they don't exist.

[Commodore]

You can't prove a negative. Clooney is making the claim that McCarthy wrongfully accused people of being communists, so the burden is on him to prove it, which he apparantly wasn't able to do. When you make an accusation and don't support it substantively, you lose all credibility.

[MadsenOMC]

Originally posted by Commodore
You can't prove a negative. Clooney is making the claim that McCarthy wrongfully accused people of being communists, so the burden is on him to prove it, which he apparantly wasn't able to do. When you make an accusation and don't support it substantively, you lose all credibility.

Dude, see the movie. You don't know what you are talking about. McCarthy did wrongfully accuse people. Simple as that. And the movie is more about Murrow and the media. It would make sense if you actually saw it.

[MadsenOMC]

This should satisfy you:


McCarthy first began his witch hunt in February of 1950 in Wheeling, West Virginia. This is when he waved a piece of paper and claimed it had the names of 205 Communist Party members who held high positions in the State Department. A special committee looked into the accusations, and then denounced them all as false, and attacked McCarthy for unethical tactics. For the next couple of years these attacks continued, on several people, no one was safe.

After winning reelection in 1952, McCarthy had guaranteed himself a position of chairman of the Permanent Investigations Subcommittee of the Senate Government Operations Committee. His first attack was on Charles E. Bohlen. This was the man who President Eisenhower had nominated for the ambassador to the Soviet Union. This accusation put quite a distance between the President and the Senator.

Each new investigation into McCarthy's accusations drove him into further excess. In November of 1953, he attacked President Eisenhower on national television of not acting to eliminate subversives from the federal government and that America had been "reduced to a state of whining and whimpering appeasement."

In December of 1953, McCarthy accused one person too many. This time the communist was supposed to be Major Irving Peress, who was a memeber of the left-wing American Labor Party. In November of 1953 Peress had been routinely promoted to the rank of major under the Doctor Draft Law, although he invoked the 5th Amendment when asked about loyalty. A few weeks later the Pentagon learned of his background, and ordered a discharge. McCarthy called Peress before his subcommittee on January 30, 1954. When McCarthy asked about the loyalty of Peress, he again took the 5th. McCarthy then demanded that Peress be court-martialed, but the process of the discharge had already started. Immediately after his appearance before McCarthy, Peress was given an honorable discharge.

[Commodore]

Well there you go, that wasn't hard

[The Poonchy]

arrrrgh i am so angry
george clooney is anti-american because he made a film about the news team that helped take down the starter of the red scare
arrrrgh

p.s. ****/****

[The Heart Collector]

Originally posted by Commodore
You can't prove a negative. Clooney is making the claim that McCarthy wrongfully accused people of being communists, so the burden is on him to prove it, which he apparantly wasn't able to do. When you make an accusation and don't support it substantively, you lose all credibility.

George Clooney doesn't need to prove this because this has been proven a million motherfucking times already. That's like saying it is Steven Spielberg's burden to prove that the Holocaust did in fact happen. That's fucking ridiculous.

[Ender]

Originally posted by Commodore
You can't prove a negative. Clooney is making the claim that McCarthy wrongfully accused people of being communists, so the burden is on him to prove it.

George Clooney is not making that claim. HISTORY makes that claim. If you need it proved to you in big red letters, read any history book.