Good night, and good luck.

Last night Megan, our friend Pat, and I all went to AMC and checked out George Clooney's new film Good night, and good luck. Good night centers around television newsman Edward R. Murrow's battle with Senator Joseph McCarthy. McCarthy was at the time riding the wave of the Red Scare in America and was holding "hearings" to supposedly root out communist spies here in the States. Murrow, found these hearings unfair and many of McCarthy's accusations to not only be false but to often be outright lies. At one point in the film Murrow tells CBS President William S. Paley that McCarthy's allegations are wrong 99% of the time and that somebody has to go after him because the senate seems happy to wait until he's wrong 100% of time. So, with no one else willing to stand up to McCarthy, Murrow decides that he's going to have to be the one to do it.

The movie is solid. The acting by everyone involved is superb, with David Strathairn as Murrow especially great. Clooney has come under some scrutiny for not casting someone who looked more like Murrow, but I don't think that he could have found anyone who sounded more like him. For his part, Clooney (who directed, co-wrote and co-starred in the movie) really did a great job on with the visuals. Good night is shot entirely in black and white and is full of great transitions and camera moves. Where the movie stumbled a little is it's lack of suspense. The pacing and structure were very economical, which I actually have no problem with. It's just that the movie never seem to build to anything, and therefore had no real tension. Maybe it's because I was familiar with the story, but I've seen movies before where I knew the outcome (Apollo 13 comes to mind) but still got caught up in story as it played out on screen. Honestly, though, that's a small complaint and I highly recommend checking it out.

The movie is not only meant to laud the courage and accomplishments of arguably the greatest broadcast journalist of all time in all of his chain-smoking glory, but also as an indictment of the the politics of fear we have allowed to hijack our county. It also gives voice to those who are tired of being called unpatriotic for challenging the war or even the current administration. And it does so without being preachy and without demonizing those on the other side as is often the case of other films that seek to challenge the current administration (Michael Moore I'm looking in your direction.) In fact, the film never spells out correlations between the Red Scare and the current War On Terror, but rather allows the viewers to come to those conclusions on their own.

Make no mistake though, the correlations are there. The Red Scare has been an interest of mine ever since I read about it in it grade school. Even then I couldn't understand how a country who guaranteed it's citizens in it's constitution freedom of political ideals could then persecute them for those ideals. I understand then, as I do now, the want and need to get rid of spies, but destroying people's lives for ever even attending a communist meeting or simply reading a communist newsletter is unforgivable. As Murrow himself put it:

"If none of us ever read a book that was 'dangerous', had a friend who was 'different', or joined an organization that advocated 'change', we would all be just the kind of people Joe McCarthy wants."

I don't think that I'm the only one who thinks that you could easily substitute the words "Joe McCarthy," with say the words " the Radical Right" and it would apply perfectly to today.

Yeah, yeah. "Now who's demonizing," right? Maybe, but I'm demonizing the Radical Right, not everyone who's on the Right (Hey, I'm voting Republican in 2008, remember?) And besides, is it even possible to demonize those who are so obviously bad guys? After all, they did lie us into war. They also continue to use 9/11 and the War On Terror to scare us all into giving them more and more power. And if anyone questions their actions or stands up to them? Well, they smear and discredit them by calling them unpatriotic, liberal, or "French-looking." If that doesn't sound like McCarthyism 2.0, then I must need to get my hearing checked.

Okay, I'm stepping down from my soapbox now, but before I do, I just want to share the following excerpt from Murrow's broadcast on McCarthy. Take note on how he doesn't place the blame on McCarthy alone, but all U.S. citizens. His statement about how the rest of world sees us is also just as true now as it was when he said it in 1954. Anyhow, here it is:

We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men— not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular. This is no time for men who oppose Senator McCarthy's methods to keep silent, or for those who approve. We can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the result. There is no way for a citizen of a republic to abdicate his responsibilities. As a nation we have come into our full inheritance at a tender age. We proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom, wherever it continues to exist in the world, but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.

The actions of the junior Senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and dismay amongst our allies abroad, and given considerable comfort to our enemies. And whose fault is that? Not really his. He didn't create this situation of fear; he merely exploited it— and rather successfully. Cassius was right. "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves."

Good night, and good luck.

Good night, and good luck, indeed. Thanks, Ed. We need all the luck we can get.