September 1, 2005

Good Night, And Good Luck is a very good movie.

There is not a false performance in it. George Clooney is developing some signatures as a director. The cinematographer, Bob Elswit, did a wonderful job with the black and white, not only giving it a richness reminiscent of the cinematic world before color, but also matching ancient kinescopes and film with aplomb. The story is important and the film is tightly paced and edited.

So why isn't it destined to be remembered in one of the very top group of great movies this year? Well, outside of journalists, who are suckers for movies that make heroes out of journalists, the lack of any artificial movie drama is sure to limit the excitement around this movie. It is too artful to be dismissed as a Frontline episode in a movie theater, but in many ways, it is just that.

Clooney is a bit of a 50s/early 60s fetishist, which is actually one of the charms of his directorial work. He is a detail man, lingering on sounds that are usually left in the background and on the quiet intimacies between characters. As he is as an actor, he is a charmer as a director, finding moments between characters that can bring a glow to any moment, no matter how stressed the characters. But as I watched Good Night, And Good Luck, I wondered whether there was much more to the small digressions than charm.

The film is, first and last, about seven months during which Edward R. Murrow took sides against Senator Joseph McCarthy and McCarthyism, first with a "little picture" story on a man who was unfairly drummed out of the Air Force based on unproven allegations about his father and eventually by going head-to-head with McCarthy.

It is interesting looking back at the six-month real time period between that episode of See It Now on Lieutenant Milo Radulovich and the ultimate showdown with McCarthy, since in the film it seems like just a week or two separate. I suppose that the lack of time awareness is my fault since I didn't memorize dates put on the screen now and again… but I'm not sure that is a responsibility an audience member should have. The context of the world outside of CBS News does not exist in Clooney's film. And that is one of the most intriguing things about it. But it also leads to a bit of claustrophobia that keeps the film from being the rousing experience that the trailer so smartly tries to create.

Don't misunderstand. I really liked this film… both times I saw it. In fact, Clooney's sparseness as a director grew on me on the repeat viewing. Elements like a jazz singing black woman (the great Dianne Reeves), inexplicably singing at odd hours at the network (maybe it was real… maybe it was just texture… the film never explains), felt less contrived the second time around. It sounds like a putdown to say that not thinking about elements like that and what they mean makes the film work better. But it does. It is style, used by an interesting career-young director. And that is a good thing.

David Strathairn is impeccable, as usual. This is his 26th year in the movies, a career launched by John Sayles' Return of the Secaucus Seven, continuing with most of Sayles' films, and a wide array of movie work that has gotten him award buzz. He has been Indie Spirit-nominated three times, winning once, all for Sayles films. Beyond Sayles, he is often remembered for Silkwood, Sneakers, The Firm, The River Wild, Delores Claiborne, L.A. Confidential and Blue Car. From now on, even if he isn't Oscar nominated, it will be the Sayles connection first and Good Night, And Good Luck. next. If he is Oscar nominated, flip 'em.

I'm not sure that this performance is headed for a nomination. In fact, I have strong doubts. It is a hard character to feel anything much about. You know Murrow is a man of skill and honor. And you know that Strathairn could act his way out of a steel-reinforced cement bag. But there is little warmth there. And, like another Best Actor hopeful - Phillip Seymour Hoffman - he is best known as a supporting actor and is always expected to deliver… which creates a problem, since the Academy tends to award well known (in the industry) actors when they break the mold, not just do great. Or, to turn an old knife, could anyone have been more deserving than Paul Giamatti in the last two years?

The rest of the cast is truly supporting, though Clooney, Frank Langella and Ray Wise have somewhat more to do than most. It is a sign of the respect for both Clooney and Murrow's legacy that he was able to assemble a cast of almost all "knowns" (many form TV) in tiny, tiny roles. If McCarthy could be nominated for his performance, he would have a shot. And cameos from Roy Cohn and Joseph Welsh remain amont the most award-worthy in American television history. But unless Cohn has made a new deal with the devil, he remains ineligible.

The movie does speak to today's world, but I suspect it will be a Rorschach test for audiences. It can be about the trouble with media… or Bush… or the government… or business… or smoking. The film is, actually, far more ambivalent about the world than the story it focuses upon would suggest. Clooney gets laughs with smoking, homosexuality, and booze. What do those jokes mean? Well, it depends what you want them to mean.

In the end, the power of the story Good Luck, And Good Night. tells is too well known to be shocking… too well trod to be stimulating of too much fresh thinking… and too small to ever feel like an epic. But aren't we asking too much of George Clooney's little movie when it has to service more than its own artistry? I think so.

So I don't think it an insult of any size to say that I don't think this film will be a player in the Best Picture race and will find hard slogging for Best Actor or Best Screenplay. But it's a really worthwhile American film and if you are reading this, you should see it.

E-ME.