Omnipotant look at the social-political struggle of powers

Rating: 8/10 (2 August 2013)

This is an absolutely beautiful film.
I only saw parts of it, but the glaring reflective commentary about modern issues voiced through a period piece and its conversations was never missed.
Clooney clearly voices his concern about issues of government power and accountability, and makes certain his passion shows through his character.
Then he also addresses the issue of media responsibility to both the citizens, the public, and the audience-consumer and its ability to counter-balance the growth and proliferation (of basically unchecked) government behavior.
I personally found it entertaining to the extent to which the dialogue in fact reflected the issues of our day rather than those of its time period.
The one line where the CBS boss (or one of his contacts) highlighted the matter at stake by drawing attention to the contracts certain parties had with the government seemed describe perfectly the government- contractor relations of today.
And of course the speech questioning the extent to which any single "threat" to national security really was a credible threat just seemed completely analogous to the dialogue brought forth in many works of the 00's discussing the US response to 9/11 and counter-terrorism.
I certainly don't find these points problematic; I am all the more impressed that they so appropriately describe modern life despite sitting in an older period.
The passionate line by Clooney questioning how the evidence against the officer was necessarily substantive felt like he was immediately rebuking back in the face of our modern decision makers the policies of cavalierly detaining individuals suspected of terrorism.
It no longer felt like he was producing just another line in that context. It felt like he was reaching out and making a bold, clear, unhesitant, and fiery protest against legal overreach in any context, in any time period by any party, making it a universal appeal.
It did feel like maybe the voice/perspective was too modern. The viewpoints and psychology put forth by the character seemed distinctly modern, (coming from a history buff -- I am more familiar with attitudes of certain eras), though I am not sure what the background/true perspectives of the period were, as I hadn't researched the film/setting before viewing the segments.
For example the discussion about the harms that TV would eventually bring- the disformation of personal integrity that would result-- seemed too much like a more modern - state of the art perspective of television.
I have serious doubts that the perspective and critique of television was nearly as developed back then as it was portrayed in the movie.
The discussion of McCarthyism seemed far less ominous than it probably would have been back during that time period.
Furthermore the urgency and insight revealed by the media bosses seemed representative more of the way our media structure functions today rather than back then.
I do not believe the executives back than held as far-reaching and thorough a scope of information that they do today.
The pressingness of decisions to release information and what to discuss I sure would have been far less magnified back then. I believe discussions of what would have been appropriate material would have been far simpler and not as informed as portrayed in the film.
But what impresses me is the ability of the writers to imagine what the people of that era would have thought and how smoothly they put our oversight/checkback perspective into the stances of the men of that era.