Good Night, and Good Luck. And Good Job.
Over the weekend, I went to see Good Night, and Good Luck at The Arclight. I liked it a lot, not only for its strong performances, but also its complete disregard for anything approaching traditional narrative structure.
The screenplay, by George Clooney and Grant Heslov, is full of good dialogue — much of it apparently drawn from transcripts. What it doesn’t have are other Syd Field essentials, such as character arcs, reversals, and clear motivations.
Stripped of such niceties as backstory and personal lives, the characters are left only with The Issue: challenging Joseph McCarthy and his destructive campaign against supposed Communists. Much like The Crucible can be read as an allegory about McCarthyism, Clooney’s movie draws parallels with the current between the media and the government (replace “Communist” with “terrorist” et voilá). But to the script’s credit, it works without this “meta” aspect. Execution matters, and it in this case, it’s executed terrifically well.
In its thematic austerity, it feels more like a play than a movie — and the fact that it’s entirely interiors adds to that sense. Some people may not like the film for that reason, and that’s valid. But the claustrophobia worked for me. Had it gone outside, I think I would have applied more “movie” expectations to it. By keeping it close and focussed, I never worried about what I was missing.
October 20th, 2005 at 2:54 pm
When I first moved to Los Angeles, I ended up renting a pool house. I came to understand that Ed Binns, of 12 Angry Men, left the house to his widow and family. My Land Lady had great stories of her late husband working with Sidney Lumet. In the film, the only “exterior” scene is when jurors take a break to use the restroom and considered that “on location”.
Likewise to Clooney’s film, how would you argue to an executive who is trying to have some exteriors shots done? In “Good Night,” I would mention that most America experienced this saga from their living rooms. It would seem out of context to the story and disrupting in a “4th Wall” type of way.
What are your thoughts?
October 20th, 2005 at 3:29 pm
Another movie set entirely indoors is a favorite of mine, “Rope” by Alfred Hitchcock…based on an english play and extremely underrated in my opinion, not just as a technical work of wonder (shot in around eight long takes) but also from a narrative point of view. Flopped completely in the States but did better in europe, aparantly the strong gay undercurrent (which is almost to subtle to notice in our days) was to much for the puritanistic America of 1948…anyway I whole heartidly recomend it.
October 20th, 2005 at 4:22 pm
Maybe some of that austerity was about keeping the budget tight. If only student filmmakers could manage that so artfully. Side note: I heard on the news that the doofuses in the test audiences thought the “actor” who “played” Joseph McCarthy in the Newsreel footage was way over the top. I’ll say he was.
October 20th, 2005 at 7:52 pm
There are those that felt the subplot of the couple’s backstory (you know the one) actually distracts from the story at hand. I’m curious, don’t you think that there could be more films that focus on events rather than character arcs (are there any character arcs or transformations in this?) that could still be successful? Just interested, thanks John!
October 20th, 2005 at 9:50 pm
There is an ‘action’ campaign associated with the film over at http://www.participate.net/. I did a little writeup about it @ http://chrisnolan.ca/archive/ID/665.
October 21st, 2005 at 2:00 am
It’s nice to see Clooney back in the directing chair; as soon as the film is available over here, it’s definitely a must-see.
Obviously, Clooney will never be a “mainstream” blockbuster big-budget director - so, what type of films could he do best? Intelligent drama?
October 21st, 2005 at 5:35 am
I’ve just read comments from another working writer on another site who seriously disses Syd Field and all his works.
Should aspiring writers avoid his and Robert McKee’s manuals on how to write great scripts if they want to develop as writers and find their own voice?
October 21st, 2005 at 7:36 am
I sent a question to you the other day and this semi-answered it. I don’t know if this is just a conincidence, so semi-thanks. I’m looking forward’s to this movie.
Wait’s 6 months for it to come out in the UK.
October 21st, 2005 at 9:44 am
I’m so glad you brought this up.
I saw it last weekend. Loved it. Loved their approach. A pressure cooker of a movie.
On the way out though I kept imagining, had the script not been by Clooney and Heslov with 2929’s money, the studio notes would have come back to the screenwriter, “Too many talking heads.”, “What about Mrs. Murrow?”, “We need to know more about their lives.”, “It’s too inside - Nobody in Wyoming is going to know who Fred Friendly is or Bill Paley for that matter.”, “The characters need to be fleshed out more.”, “It’s better suited as a TV movie rather than a feature.” Etc.
Anyway, the performances, in my opinion, were pristine.
I especially liked the quietness of it. Know what I mean?
Thanks for the post.
Mark
October 21st, 2005 at 9:51 am
I, too, enjoyed this film immensely. About halfway through, I suddenly realized that I WASN’T watching a play and thinking about this over the past week, am still cloaked in a profoundly unique sense of satisfaction in the film. Grant Heslov and George Clooney did an admirable job of crafting a historical piece that’s very relevant. On the way out of the theatre a couple of folks were grumbling about the lack structure and character backstory. Myself, I decided to see it again.
October 22nd, 2005 at 12:45 pm
Fascinating perspective. I’ve read (and heard) nothing but rave reviews, and from people who aren’t ordinarily effusive, but this is the first I’ve heard of its unusual structural underpinnings.
It makes me wonder how many scripts are ruined by trying to adhere too strictly to an industry paradigm (albeit a pretty successful onee) instead of finding their own structure. Maybe it takes as much courage to tell a story in the way it begs to be told as it does to tell the truth, period.
October 24th, 2005 at 10:34 am
Having seen the surprisingly awesome “Confessions of a Dangerous Mind”, I’m glad to hear Mr. Clooney’s sophmore effort is good as well. I look forward to seeing it, and I appreciate the subject matter. It’s about time that Hollywood sounded some kind of alarm with regards to current events and certain select “cabals”.
Doug
October 24th, 2005 at 11:46 am
Heh, I can’t believe no one has replied to this post yet. ** SPOILERS **
I saw GN&GL last night. I don’t think it’s exactly true that it has no traditional narrative structure. There’s setups and payoffs, there’s even something of an act structure… but what there really isn’t any of is tension. There were very few points during the movie when I felt like there was anything at stake. Take the Wershbas’ scene with Sig Mickelson, where he says, I know you’re married, we’re gonna be laying people off… It just ends with a laugh. Oh well, ya got us! Ha ha!
Granted, I’m familiar enough with the history that it was no surprise that either McCarthy finally gets slapped down, or that “See It Now” also gets slapped down by Paley. I can say, however, that when it ended, it was, just… what? It’s over? Oh, I guess that means that was the climax just now…
It was as if they’d taken archival footage of all these things happening at CBS, and then re-shot the footage with actors, and not worried about whether it had a dramatic structure. None of this is to say I didn’t enjoy watching it. David Strathairn was so good that by the end, I forgot what Ed Murrow looked like.
Anyway, two cents, yadda yadda.
October 25th, 2005 at 12:32 pm
You have to wonder how much of that austerity was artfully disguised cost-cutting. If only student filmmakers could make it look so purposeful. On a side note, I heard on the news that the boneheads in the test audiences felt the guy “playing” McCarthy in the authentic newsreel footage was “overacting.”
October 25th, 2005 at 2:47 pm
> You have to wonder how much of that austerity was artfully disguised cost-cutting.
Almost all of it. We were lucky enough to have Robert Elswit come talk to us two weeks ago, and he explained that the entire production was designed to be as lean and mean as possible.
October 26th, 2005 at 1:30 am
Really looking forward to this film at the moment….
On a side note, is it just me, or does that picture of David Straitham (that is who the picture in the post above is, right?) look very like Angus Deaton (a UK TV show host… most well-known for Have I Got News For You….)
(Don’t know if this link will work or not…. If not, the URL is below…)
http://www.highfieldmanagement.com/images/angusdeaton.jpg
October 26th, 2005 at 10:47 am
I loved this pressure-cooker of a movie.
Although when I walked out I kept having the nagging feeling that if this great script had not been written by Clooney and Heslov with 2929’s money, the notes would have come back to the screenwriter: “It’s just too inside.”, “Too many talking heads.”, “What about Mrs. Murrow?”, “Nobody in Wyoming is going to know who the hell Fred Friendly is or Bill Paley for that matter.”, “What about their lives?” etc.
Anyway, I thought the performances were pristine.
October 26th, 2005 at 4:46 pm
Perhaps Clooney was going for a sort of zen feeling, a meditation on what it might have been like in the CBS newsroom with these people, rather than trying for a buildup-climax. I enjoyed seeing the archival footage of McCarthy and his hearings, and they at the same time managed to interest me (because, hey, I love history) and bother me (this hasn’t got much to do with what little story has been presented).
I’m not indifferent to the movie, but I also don’t love it or hate it. It’s a kind of weird zen feeling, really.
December 4th, 2005 at 3:01 pm
This is less a comment on the movie than on our interpretation of that phase in history: Let’s see, a courageous lone Senator, despite pressure from ‘powers that be’ in both parties, pursues a real scandal and coverup inside an Administration and bad guy is … who, again? Too few people realize that the scandals of Watergate, Iran-Contra, and the coverup of communist security risks in the Truman (and earlier Roosevelt) administrations were more similar than dissimilar. And understand that despite the “Crucible” myth of a ‘witch-hunt’ we now know that in fact Communist spies working for the USSR (Alger Hiss) were real in the US Government, and these spies were drawn from the CPUSA, the US Communist Party that had its heyday in the 1930s and was in fact a Soviet front.
Then why do those busting up one administration (”All the Presidents Men”) get to be heros, and McCarthy the goat, branded a dangerous man? The difference was SOLELY in whose ox was getting gored, and on that basis, which side the liberals in Academia (writing the history books) and in Hollywood (making the movies) stuck by their fellow traveller friends, many caught in the maw of red-baiting (which btw McCarthy had nothing to do with, but got labelled as responsible for.) So history has been slanted. I don’t take issue with Clooney and Co. issuing yet another liberal version of that history, but understand the bias. And I think the brave and innovative movie, and the one that would be far more interesting, would be the one that actually took the McCarthy / Roy Cohn point of view, say “McCarthy and His Enemies” (actual title of Bill Buckley book on the subject). Such a story would be Contrarian, controversial - and likely closer to the truth.