Good Night, and Good Luck: History Lessons

Reminders from the past

I recently learned that George Clooney has brought to Broadway an adaptation of his 2005 historical drama film Good Night, and Good Luck. I was interested in checking out the play. I’m a fan of Clooney’s work, and though my first watch of the film was many years back, I remember having a positive response to it. Unfortunately, I later learned that the prices for the tickets are way beyond the scope of what I can afford for leisure. Still, I thought now would be as good a time as any to revisit the film.

After all, I don’t think the timing of the play’s release is a coincidence.

Good Night, and Good Luck (directed by George Clooney, written by Clooney & Grant Heslov) focuses on journalist Edward R. Murrow’s public battle against Senator Joseph McCarthy during the 1950s when the senator was leading witch hunts against people he suspected of being communists. The film commend’s Murrow’s courage for standing against the senator’s abuses of power and denials of the due process of law.

Based on articles I have read about the play, the stage adaptation is quite faithful to the film, with Clooney and Heslov credited as the writers again. The main difference, besides the fact that Clooney isn’t the director of the play, is the fact that Clooney plays Murrow on stage. In the film, he plays Fred Friendly, a co-producer of the CBS show See It Now, which has Murrow as the host. In his film performance, Clooney balances professionalism with amiability as he leads his team to tackle important stories while keeping a calm and pleasant demeanor. Indeed, one of my favorite things about the film is that it shows the inner workings of a news station in the 1950s, with writers, producers, and technical crew members working tirelessly to make sure the live broadcasts go smoothly. The fact that the film is in black and white is also a great choice to help immersion, in my view. The color palette is reminiscent of what broadcasts from the 1950s from U.S. news stations looked like.

I also admire the period-appropriate sets and costumes, which also transport the viewers to that era. The score is amazing, too; it is made up of jazz songs performed by a band led by singer Dianne Reeves. The musicians are shown performing in the studio at CBS, giving the score a diegetic quality. The performers are amazing, and I love jazz music; I really appreciate this aspect of the film.

The ensemble cast is great. Jeff Daniels, Patricia Clarkson, and Robert Downey, Jr. are excellent as workers at CBS who have to brace themselves as they join Murrow’s quest to speak truth to power. Of course, the center of the film is Murrow himself, played masterfully by David Strathairn. While Clooney as Friendly is warm, Strathairn is somber. There’s an electricity behind his eyes as he speaks into the camera during his live broadcasts. He understands both the magnitude of his actions and the necessity for them. The film captures him in deep close up as he presents his reports on his evening news show, and viewers of the film get a sense that they are watching Murrow’s original broadcasts.

An interesting creative decision is that the film uses a lot of real historical footage of the Senate hearings that McCarthy led. McCarthy plays himself, essentially, as he appears in the film entirely through real archival footage. The film thus takes on the feeling of an editorial, commenting on real-world facts. This isn’t a bad thing; I think film’s can be overtly political and have a direct message. I also think the theme of editorializing is an essential one in the film. There’s a powerful scene in which Jeff Daniels as director Sig Mickelson, Murrow’s boss, tells the journalist that even-handedness must be preserved, and Murrow sharply asserts that not every matter has two equally valid perspectives. The denial of the due process of law, which McCarthy and his Senate hearings are committing, are simply wrong, Murrow says.

Form and theme match in this film.

The film is essentially a valorization of an integral moment in history in which a prominent journalist and his team used their position to fight for the rights of their fellow people and to reject the fear-mongering falsehoods of power hungry politicians. The film came out in 2005, soon after the start of George W. Bush’s second term. The context of the first film was a context in which organizations claiming to be news networks peddled propaganda and lies. This reality has only gotten worse in twenty years. There are so many far-right groups claiming to report the news while spreading lies, and even mainstream outlets are predominantly pro-capitalism and also afraid to challenge politicians directly due to the fear of being deemed as biased.

The film itself comments on the bad faith criticism of right-wing politicians and organizations whenever they are confronted with any challenge. McCarthy calls Murrow an anti-American communist with zero basis. Newspapers discussing Murrow’s reports on McCarthy claim that the reports are too far left. The film seems to be saying that bad faith attacks are to be expected when speaking truth to power, and I agree with this perspective. I also agree with the film that these attacks shouldn’t stop people from doing the right thing.

Honestly, before watching the film this past week, I thought I wouldn’t enjoy it because I wouldn’t accept its central message. Since my first watch of the film, I’ve become further left in my politics. I don’t think institutions will protect us. Case in point: the courts failing to hold the current administration accountable for its monstrous actions in deporting migrants to a gulag in El Salvador. People are being kidnapped and denied their due process rights. The overall mainstream news media, too, has failed to convey the true magnitude of the danger and illegal acts of this administration.

The film knows that in systems of power connected to capital, doing the necessary act is hard. The film is framed by two halves of a speech Murrow gives at an event honoring his career, in which he criticizes the profit motives of television networks as undermining their ability to inform the public about their world. He advocates for members of the media to strive for uplifting the awareness and knowledge of their viewers. The film, unlike me, seems to suggest that longstanding institutions can be reshaped to serve greater purposes.

The thing is, I don’t think the mainstream media will truly ever do that. I think meaningful change will come despite the mainstream media due to how deeply mainstream media upholds capital. Fear of losing viewers or sponsors or ad revenue or money due to lawsuits stops these mega organizations from doing much meaningful work.

Ultimately, we need to replace the old with the new. New institutions and organizations must emerge that fight for people’s rights and that hold those in power accountable when they abuse their power.

Yet, despite my skepticism toward deeply ingrained institutions, I was moved by the story in this film. A team of reporters fought for justice, despite the monetary and professional risks, and good things came of that. The film seems to suggest that Murrow’s report on the unfair treatment of Milo Radulovich, who had been kicked out of the Air Force due to paper thin charges as part of the communist witch hunt, played some part in having Radulovich getting reinstated to the Air Force.

I watched this film with my mom, and when Murrow was refuting McCarthy’s lies one by one live on television, I said aloud, “Imagine if more journalists did this today.”

The fact that I don’t have much faith in today’s institutions doesn’t mean that I remove any responsibility from them. While meaningful and lasting change will take time, things will no doubt improve if people in positions such as the news media (as well as law firms and universities, which are also being attacked by the current presidential administration) stand up to abuses of power and promote justice and equality. I believe that this is their duty.

For that reason, stories like the one in Good Night, and Good Luck should be told and retold. These stories remind us that there are moments in history when brave actions made a difference. When people upheld their duties to truth and justice, people’s lives were saved from ruin. Such clarity and conviction of purpose can do the same today.