bo the nook's movie review
yes, kiddies, it's time once again for "bo the nook's movie review". tonights review is "good night and good luck".
i'll keep it short. real short. if you don't go see this movie, you will have missed one of the best movies of the year.
how's that for short?
ok, a couple of observations to back up my statement:
1. the acting was incredible. i really felt i was sitting watching edward r. murrow on that screen. using black and white film, and interjecting actual clips from the telecasts was brilliant.
2. the heroism presented was unbelievable. these guys really took their futures in hand when they took on mccarthy during the peak of the insanity of the HUAC hearings.
i'll let others better equiped extoll the virtues of this movie. and i'll repeat... go see this flick. if for no other reason than the soundtrack, which fit the mood and texture of the movie perfectly
i'll keep it short. real short. if you don't go see this movie, you will have missed one of the best movies of the year.
how's that for short?
ok, a couple of observations to back up my statement:
1. the acting was incredible. i really felt i was sitting watching edward r. murrow on that screen. using black and white film, and interjecting actual clips from the telecasts was brilliant.
2. the heroism presented was unbelievable. these guys really took their futures in hand when they took on mccarthy during the peak of the insanity of the HUAC hearings.
i'll let others better equiped extoll the virtues of this movie. and i'll repeat... go see this flick. if for no other reason than the soundtrack, which fit the mood and texture of the movie perfectly
posted by bothenook at 22:53
5 Comments:
I haven't seen the movie, so what I have to say must be taken with a grain of salt (eww, salt grains, plahhh!)
I respect the fact that you admire the aesthetics of the film and film making, not to mention the acting.
Yet after reading this posting of a recommended review/take-down of the film by Slate's Jack Schafer, I don't think I could stomach the film's historical distortions. Hagiography (Podhoretz's word) is definitely the term that comes to mind, and we see it so often in the self-interested and self-obsessed media of today, that I can't bring myself to go to a theater and witness more of it. (Though when my buddy Bothenook recommends that I do, I must confess I have second thoughts!)
Still, I might go check out the soundtrack at Amazon!
Thanks for the recommendation though.
ok, i'll conceed some of the points made in the article. but that doesn't detract from the fact that this was a riviting and engaging movie. what i found most interesting about it was that almost the entire dialog in this flick can be found in kinescope archives. the interplay between the players off camera may have "slant" applied, but you will not find a perfectly neutral rendition of history anywhere on film. murrow may have had his faults, as we all do, but he did something that no other television journalist did at the time. he took his fight to the people without the 1st ammendment's protection, as the article does point out.
willy, it's true that there is almost nothing in our recent history that can't be hacked and spun by those on either side of the intellectual and/or political divide. i've been a student of our recent history, and know that no publicly presented case is ever given a true and honest appraisal, showing both the good and the bad. this movie does a credible job of showing the trepidation and foot dragging on the part of the entire cbs organization, and it also shows that there were others tired of the junior senator's antics, including members of his own committee.
put the criticisms aside, and see the flick for yourself. knowing the flaws ahead of time will in no way detract from the movie. you will enjoy it. and you will also have an experience that most flicks don't give to the audience. it will engage you and make you think. the artistry alone makes this movie worth the bucks to see.
bothenook sez check it out.
Thanks, Bo. And I hope that (& it seems you have) you take my comments only as an "FYI" about something that I read about the movie, and not a critique of your judgment. I will indeed follow your advice and at least rent it when it comes out on video.
mcarthy was a senator. he was not part of the house uac. funny they never get that right. besides the venona cables vindicated much of what he was saying. he was a true american patriot who challenged the leftists in this country. funny they never get that right either.
true. but the methodologies were dispicable. and before you get all wound up, i happen to think that the "secret eavesdropping" that is currently being flapped about was not only ok, but manditory.
mccarthy was a putz, a self centered alcoholic demigod that help destroy a lot of innocent american's lives. yes, there were many "commies" infiltrated throughout our society, in government and the entertainment world. you won't get an argument from me in that regard. but if you dig deeper, you'll find that many of those he was after were "red herrings". it's been speculated that one of the reasons he got it so wrong was there were those on his staff pointing him in the wrong direction. and many of those he persecuted (the correct word) were patently innocent. in his single minded drive he failed to see that the abridgement of our rights was not justified in light of the targets he chose. and i think that was all part of the program to discredit any later investigations. he was such a weasel he fell for the bait, and now any attempts to clean our government gets compared to mccarthy's ham fisted and wrongheaded approach.
that's why he had to be stopped. but the damage was done
Post a Comment
<< Home