Good Night, and Good Luck

Good Night, and Good LuckGeorge
A candid Clooney takes on Communism and the Fourth Estate.

By Karl Rozemeyer

Never one to shy away from expressing a strong stance on issues ranging from the current government to the War in Iraq, Clooney took advantage of Wednesday’s press conference for his second film as director “Good Night and Good Luck” to call into question the role of contemporary television journalism. Asked if he had decided the time was ripe to raise the debate about television reporting in light of recent domestic and political events, he responded: “I think that certainly we saw some real teeth in the journalism that we saw in the last two weeks that has been missing at times…There is a lot of good journalism going on. But there certainly was a pause taken. I am the son of a journalist. My father was an anchorman for thirty years and there are always the same sort of fights: there are the dangers of being called unpatriotic if you ask difficult questions during difficult times…As my father says - not just as a journalist but also as an American citizen - …it is not just your right, it is your duty to question authority. Always. No matter who is in charge. Because we all know that authority unchecked and unchallenged always corrupts.” When the packed audience breaks out into loud supportive applause, he quips with self-deprecation: “That was more family members by the way.”

“Good Night and Good Luck” is Clooney’s black-and-white homage to CBS newsman Edward R. Murrow, a man remembered for standing his ground against Senator Joseph McCarthy, the leader of the witch hunt for Communist sympathizers during the 1950s. Murrow was one of handful of reporters that brought about McCarthy’s political demise and ended a terrifying inquisition that gripped the nation for years. “Three quarters of the country thought that McCarthy was wrong but they didn’t know it, “ says Clooney. “They all thought that they were in their rooms by themselves and when Murrow came out and said: ‘Everybody step out who thinks that this bullshit,’ suddenly they were thirteen to one. It was the power of television for the good at that point to come out and say: ‘Guess what? We are not descendent from fearful men, we are not a panicked community. We actually believe in the right of the individual and civil liberties. The same thing happened with Howard Dean when he jumped up all of a sudden and we were shocked by how many people actually said ‘Hey, wait a minute!’ about the war. I think that we get overwhelmed at times by things on television seeming like that is the end all and be all and it represents so much more than it does.”

The press conference was attended by George Clooney, who writes and directs as well as plays the role of television journalist Fred Friendly, by writer and producer Grant Heslov, by Patricia Clarkson who is Shirley Wershba in the film and by David Straithairn who took on the daunting task of representing the well-known figure of Murrow.

…on how the project came together.
“There was a Murrow project, a movie of the week, that I had worked on with a writer named Walon Green for CBS and we fictionalized a lot the characters. And it was probably exactly the wrong thing to do. Thank God CBS didn’t make it. And then Grant (Heslov) and I started working on this about three years ago and we felt like it was a good time to talk about some of the issues again. I thought it was a good time to re-invest in the questions about the responsibility of the Fourth Estate. I thought it was a good time to talk and raise the debate. (To) not answer questions but at least (to) raise questions about using fear to erode away civil liberties. And I thought it was good time to show it in a historical context rather than to try and preach to anybody. I thought it was a great story and I thought it was time to do it.

…on when the decision was made to shoot in black-and-white.
This morning. But we are going to colorize it (Laughs). From the very beginning we knew that we were going to use McCarthy in his own words. First(ly) because that was what Murrow did and secondly because if you had an actor play him, you wouldn’t believe it. He did a perfect job. You would say no-one could really actually have been like that. Knowing that we were going to use that footage and restore that footage, we knew that we would have to then shoot the rest of the film in black-and-white.

…on the cost of archival footage.
The expense of some of it was prohibitive. Believe it or not, all of the McCarthy army stuff was the stuff that was the most expensive. NBC had it and that was the stuff what made it hard to get. But we are wealthy, wealthy people so we got it.

…on documentation that shows the relationships between Fred Friendly, William Paley and Edward J. Murrow?
The one thing that we did through the whole film because is there is this sort of revisionist history now. Some people want to come out and say that McCarthy was right and Murrow was wrong. I talked to my father about it before we started and Grant and I decided along with my Dad in a way that the secret, the way to do this was to double-source every scene that we were doing. Every one. So that the scenes happened; the actual dialogue a lot of times happened because there were recorders and they kept great notes. We used references; not just Joe and Shirely Wershba not just Milo Radulovich or Don Hewitt. We used the (David) Halberstam book, we used (Fred) Friendly’s book. We cross-referenced; we tried to double-source everything. The conversations between Friendly and Murrow are accurate in this sense…
Because we wanted to be able to say that we picked up all the sides in this. But there is documentation on each one of the scenes. In fact, a lot of times it is written in several of the books.

… on gaining weight.
It is sort of a long story but I did a film before that called Syriana that has yet to come out where I put on about thirty-five pounds and was injured. For me, a fairly severe injury. I have had a lot of back surgery and spinal fluid leaks and things so I wasn’t really able to shake all the weight by the time we started the movie which was okay because Fred (Friendly) was a rather big sort of guy anyway so I thought it worked fine for the part.

…on working with Grant Heslov
(He) has such big shoulders for me to lean on. We have been very close friends for about 25 years. He loaned me $100 in 1982 to get heads shots for "Joanie Loves Chachi" that he got and I didn’t. (And I am still paying him back for that. I’m still using those heads shots by the way.) But, it was a difficult time physically for me to do this film and this group (of) Patty and David, you know actors that you can stick a camera on and not move the camera for five minutes and just stay on their faces, you’ve got really good actors. And Grant single-handedly as a producer would literally pick me up off of a board and go: “Let’s go and get this shot.” He was the guy whose shoulders I most relied on and he really made the difference in this film. It was great to have one of my oldest and dearest friends be a part of helping us get through this. I didn’t really mean it. (Pause). I just had to say it because his Mom is here.

… on why the film wasn’t more vigorous in it’s support of the idea that one could be a Communist during those years in comparison to its condemnation of the smear campaign.
Because Murrow (was)n’t in his attacks. The reason it worked and the reason it is timeless is because it is constitutional. He never once got into it. And the beauty of it is that he never once defended any one for being or not being a Communist. It was important. Because if you read Ann Coulter’s book, for instance, and she talks about how Annie Moss actually is a Communist and Murrow got it wrong and Murrow was a traitor. Murrow …says: “You will note that neither the Senator nor this reporter knows. We simply demand that she has the right to face her accuser.” I was a young man in 1982 when Fred Friendly—and those of you who know Fred and some of you have worked with him before—gave me a tiny version of the constitution. If you stick to constitutional issues, you are not going to lose. It is timeless. Those speeches hold water today for any issues. You could change the word “Communism” to anything, to “Muslim”. You could change it to almost anything and say you cannot do that. “Terrorist”, whatever. The foundation and the structure of it was constitutional.

… on perspective in television journalism
I think that we get overwhelmed at times by things on television seeming like that is the end all and be all and it represents so much more than it does. My father as an anchorman always tried to show perspective. There would be skinheads protesting on Fountain Square, (but) there were (just) six kids. And they were yelling everything bad that they could yell. And you have got to go public because it is news in Cincinnati, Ohio and there is five thousand people out there yelling at them. And he says the important thing was he took the camera back about a quarter of a mile and he turned around and he shot it from there. And he said” “Now this is how six people look in this perspective.” And this is the real perspective here. This is what matters. We are going to cover it because they are yelling: “Doodie!” But we are going to show perspective. And I think that is something that lacks at time in reporting, sometimes in television; it’s not good guys or bad guys. It is just mistakes that get made. So I am not necessarily sure that is always required to have the majority to have the leadership along they way. And I think that anybody who has the opportunity to speak on what it is they believe in has the right to speak. That is why we left King George. So…

… on integrating Diana Reeves’ songs
We brought in Allen Sviridoff who was my Aunt Rosemary’s manager and a lot of the band guys on a bunch of her albums. And started pulling out songs that we thought would fit. And then we recorded everything live. There is no lip synching to it. So all the music you see is done livemndash;even those long shots from the elevator, all the way into the room, it’s all done live. There is an energy to it. Even if it messes up, it feels right. It reminds me of live television when I was growing up. We also liked the idea that she was sort of a touchstone that you could come back to and sort of like Joel Grey was in “Cabaret” in a way. A place to land it. Also, having grown up in a newsroom where they would push the newsroom aside and bring in the three thirty Money Movie backdrop and then they would pull that up and lift up the floor and there was a bowling alley underneath it for ‘Bowling for Dollars”. And then they would put it back down for the eleven o’clock news. I like the idea of watching “The Shower of Stars”, which was a real show, sort of pushing off the “See It Now” set and then pushing it back in because that to us always felt very familiar with the constant battles of entertainment pushing news off the air. So we thought that it was an interesting way of landing it. I don’t know whether it landed like that but it was something that we considered when we were doing it.

… on filming in black-and-white
There were a lot of camera tests first. Gavin and I went through a whole series: we started with (Jean Luc-)Godard films and we thought we were going to start with Super Sixteen. We even tried to get a hold of those lenses where they sort of leak the light. And then we began to realize that the words were so important that we were going to focus more on Penebaker documentaries and crisis and documentaries. The first film I directed I made the character in the film, purposefully made it. And this one was one were the camera actually needed not to be involved. It really needed to happen to catch people at the right time and I thought importantly (to) catch them at the wrong time: to stay on too long, to be on the wrong person, a lot of that stuff. But for us Robert Elswit was just a beautiful cimematographer and after we came to terms with not trying to match film stock with kinescopes which was inmpossible. Then all of us had a responsibility to find the simplest, a simplicity. Because that is the secret to it. It is why silences are sort of interesting in this film. Silences you don’t see any more. I think there are the most tense things. It is the same thing here. Walls don’t have anything on them, not pictures to fill up the frame. But we stuck mostly to the format of trying to use it as if it were a Penebaker documentary in a way. But that was also Robert who is such a beautiful shooter.

…on chain smoking throughout the film.
We all did a lot of smoking. (David Strathairn) doesn’t smoke—which was the amazing thing to me. He doesn’t smoke and he was smoking four packs a day. It was insane.

…on being Batman
I was in Batman and Robin so bring on the shit. I can take it. I had nipples on a bat suit! I was standing up for bats everywhere.

David Straithairn

…on the challenges in preparing for the role of Edward R. Murrow.
Well, you mentioned how much there is accessible information and image and sound of him, the challenge is—in this one in particular —in weeding through all of that information and to figure out what apropos for the moment in the film. I mean we weren’t making a biopic about his time in the fields in the North West or his Washington State University time or even in London (Murrow is remembered for his broadcasts from the British capital during the Second World War). So, part of the challenge was selecting moments about him, information about him that I could apply to the film. And trying to replicate respectfully the image that people have of him and also to objectively present a person who a lot of people have know idea who he was. And to weave that into our ensemble so that it is part of the story and not is something that would derail an audience’s appreciation of the film…

… on the role of the artist.
(There is) this phenomenon of the artist in society and an artist as a voice and even more specifically as an artist to whom people go for certain kinds of support, political people in particular. The artist was the most revered voice in the Greek society. That is where they found out about their Gods. And the artist is somewhat culled from the herd in many ways positively and negatively by what they do vis-a-vis popular culture. Do we represent it? Are we a conduit for it? Are we a shill for it ? Or are we an illuminator for it. All of those exist in our culture. It is up to every individual artist to choose which thing they want to do. I personally believemdash;as this film doesmdash;it is the artist’s responsibility if they pick up the gauntlet of being a voice for their world. It is their responsibility to be as objective as possible. That’s with this film. Now people are going to take runs at this film. But that is just their own particular agenda. People may look at “Guernica” and say this is (just) a black-and-white mish-mash. Or they may look at Goya or they may listen to Phillip Glass…or they may watch reality TV. It all depends on what the culture we are talking about wants. So there is a double-edged responsibility. You get what you deserve. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that the artist should cater to one particular thing. I think it is our responsibility to honor an age-old notion that we are somehow conduits for what is happening around us. That is why it is sad that you don’t see films like this. But it is because we are not asking for films like this. For the most part. And it takes intelligence, it takes bravery, it takes money, it takes accessibility, and it takes a sense of history—all of which George brings to this film—to actualize it. I don’t know. Artists are citizens first. They just choose to be artists. And it’s a fine line. And to be maligned for saying, “Look at this and think about this.” I mean, Murrow was an artist. He was a poet, he was an amazingly articulate man, and he was professional and at bottom he was a common, common man, very much a product of the American way. There is a lot in there.

Patricia Clarkson

… on meeting Shirley Wershba.
Well, I actually did get to meetmdash;best of allmdash;Shirley Wershba. And it was quite informative and a real treat just to meet her. The real thing. I found it very helpful and very exciting. Fortunately, women’s place in the news has drastically changed. You know, back then they were very much kept to the side and behind the scenes. But they did do real work. People relied on them for facts and they had real jobs. It’s just that you rarely saw them. And now that’s of course very different.

…on the artist’s role in culture.
I think that in terms of an artist’s role in popular culture, I think we may be the messenger but I think that we somehow have to be aligned with the message and I do try my darndest to do films that are important to me and that reflect my values, my thoughts, my wishes. And I am broke because of it… I think we are responsible and I think we do have to take the hit, take the praise, take whatever comes at us for what we do. I mean, obviously it was why I wanted to be part of this film and I just wish and hope there is demand for this. I always hope when I do some art film that there is some demand out there. I think it is growing. I do think it is changing.

…on being offered forty bucks by Clooney after claiming pauperism.
I really do need this because I think I made $800 shooting your film.

Grant Heslov

…on the jazz songs by Diana Reeves.
It was in the script. Particularly in the scene when (Don) Hollenbeck kills himself. That was a song that George wanted in from the very beginning—it is one that his aunt (Rosemary Clooney) actually sang. And from that Diane Reeves actually sent us a tape of herselfmdash;she wanted to do it. We heard it and we were floored by it.

…on the close proximity between Fred Friendly and Edward J. Murrow during the broadcasts.
There are umpteen books on the subject and they all talk about that. They would record conversations and Fred often would write notes and stuff during the broadcast and flash them to him.

… on obtaining archival footage.
No, we knew the footage that we wanted. We had looked through a lot of footage. We looked through a year and a half of footage and then when we finally decided on what we wanted and went after it, we were able to get everything. Some of it wasn’t in the condition that we wanted and that took a lot of work. We found everything we wanted. The problem was that there was so much great footage that (the problem was deciding) what to actually use.