A terrible reminder of the dangers of undirected feelings. Of having feelings.

Rating: 8/10 (1 July 2009)

Racism wasn't defeated in World War II. Fascism was not finally defeated with McCarthy. This is when they began. The president of Oberlin college once remarked, "I was a student during the McCarthy era, to tell you the truth there is less freedom now than there was then". Journalist Bernard Goldberg once said on TV, "(back then) all you had to do was not be a communist". More people are being fired today in a week, for endless reasons, than ever lost their job during the McCarthy era. But no one lionizes or aggrandizes them, they're not communists. These folks are getting what they deserve.
A more sensible reviewer might try and compare those who use the phrase 'McCarthyism', modern sensitive folks, to McCarthy himself - years ago my local paper wrote, "Hitler, McCarthy, Political Correctness: the totalitarian parade marches on", but McCarthy is actually a hero of mine. Perhaps I'm a masochist of sorts and enjoy a bit of pain. Perhaps my love for McCarthy serves as a warning, a reminder of the terrible danger of undirected feelings. Feelings lead to thoughts. Thoughts lead to ideas. Don't be too concerned, however. We live in a simpler time where a single word provides the incentive or 'correction' needed.
For me, though, Joseph McCarthy was the greatest American of the 20th Century. Is there someone, anyone, willing to stand up and say the truth! Is there someone not afraid to say the truth! I just can't bring myself to believe McCarthy is just another actor. Not McCarthy! Silly idea, I know. And what IS going on? Is it a crime to know? It's just a romantic notion, I really don't know all that much about the man, and I don't take it too seriously. 'Goodnight and Good Luck' didn't reveal much about McCarthy I hadn't heard before. True or not (and probably, not), this movie agrees with my silly notion. It presents the idea that something big was happening. This was a turning point in our history. McCarthy was not simply a final speed bump to be run over on the road to the Jerry Springer Show. No.
Some reviewers said there wasn't any tension or emotion (at least not the kind they expected). One objected to it's, "minimalist and neutral stance". One reviewer said, and I suspect he was being facetious in part, "(Murrow) stands as a symbol for the continuation of truth (someone) who is willing to bring it out to the public. The end has a very honest bleak tone to it--we want to see Murrow continue to let the public know what's actually going on in the country, but one man's fight isn't good enough. Clooney chooses a perfect and powerful ending. He makes a bold statement on how public interest in television has contributed to the decay of society, whether it is 1950 or 2005."
Goodnight and Good Luck isn't truly neutral. It has a message or two. Due to the low-key nature of the film, we'll call them 'suggestions'.
What this movie suggests (most of it probably not true).
1. This was a watershed moment in history.
2. Edward R Murrow, Don Hollenbeck, and also another CBS employee, working closer to Murrow, did attend some kind of 'subversive' meeting. The newsmen were motivated to go after McCarthy at least in part by self interest (providing a set up for us to agree with McCarthy).
3. The black lady singing Jazz or whatever during the interludes didn't seem very happy with the proceedings.
4. The outcome of this watershed event was determined by public opinion. Once public opinion turned against McCarthy, it was his undoing. The government and media bend to public opinion, they don't create it in the first place (coming from a film that subtly manipulates our opinions, this one is a bit rich?). I suppose the underlying message being next time we should support 'McCarthy'.
5. Don Hollenbeck's suicide, in a movie that was surprisingly 'balanced', is the event that must force the humane viewer to ultimately side against McCarthy.
6. Should the media themselves be monitored/regulated?
The last point I'll admit is a stretch - It may have been the scene with Murrow arguing with the president of CBS news. His boss says something like (while Murrow is arguing to protect an accused American soldier), "And who will protect McCarthy from you (your accusations)"? He ultimately comes down on the side of 'journalist freedom', allowing Murrow to do the story the way he wants. It may have been the scene (that made me think a bit outside the movie) near the end where Robert Downy JR, no relation to Morton Downy (who was taken off television for being too communistic, oops I mean too 'insensitive'), where he lies in bed looking up at the ceiling, saying, "I wonder if we did the right thing"?
'Goodnight and Good Luck' brings up the idea, should the content of television be overseen? Does freedom always lead to exploitation? Should 'whatever sells best' be the final arbiter? Perhaps I'm being alarmist, and am just engaging in more 'McCarthyism', and we already have a system in place that works just fine - well educated, conscientious employees themselves. And that in the battle between censorship and freedom, the debate between protecting citizens on the one hand and allowing them freedom on the other, there can be no contest. As a society, clearly we've come down on the side of forethought. Examining all the pertinent facts, we've decided that protecting ourselves from white men is more important than freedom.
Murrow may be right, we may not be descended from fearful men. But we have certainly descended into fearful ones. Fear has become a given, we expect fear. In fact it's considered enlightenment to make people afraid. Then we condemn and disparage them for it.