George Clooney, David Strathairn, Patricia Clarkson and Grant Heslov

Patriotic Acts

by Jay S. Jacobs

Copyright ©2005 PopEntertaiment.com. All rights reserved. Posted: October 1, 2005.

The word legendary is tossed about way too cavalierly, however Edward R. Murrow is legitimately a legend of television broadcasting. The newsman took his radio fame (from his current affairs show Hear It Now) and translated it to See It Now for the nascent art form of television.

Murrow was an old school journalist, one to whom the truth was of paramount importance. It was more important than money. It was more important than the job. It was more important than the corporation. However, Murrow did have to make some concessions for his show. The biggest one was hosting a fluffy personality-based series called Person to Person, in which he interviewed the personalities of the day, like Liberace.

However, Murrow's real talent was as a newsman, and he took his responsibility very much to heart. His career reached its ultimate crossroads when Murrow became the first journalist to question the tactics of Senator Joseph McCarthy. McCarthy had become a cause celebre by insisting that the State Department was infested by "card-carrying" Communist sympathizers. This started the so-called "Red Scare" and caused very public trials in which many innocent Americans were branded communists.

Murrow was horrified by the misuse of power, so he stood up and used film of McCarthy to condemn him. Murrow knew that the stand would cause him great grief. As Murrow predicted, McCarthy responded by accusing him of communism and having sympathetic journalists and citizens vilify Murrow and his associates. He knew it would not be a popular stance with his network, CBS. Network honcho Bill Paley kept the wolves from the door as long as he could, but they lost advertisers and angered executives and stock-holders.

This very public feud ended up effectively destroying both men's professions. McCarthy was disgraced and defanged in public and served out the rest of his term in disgrace. Murrow's career was never the same, either, he was demoted, given a lesser timeslot, and eventually left journalism a few years later.

The Murrow-McCarthy showdown has been visualized in the evocative new film Good Night, and Good Luck. (The title is derived from Murrow's nightly sign-off.) The movie is a long-planned dream project for movie star George Clooney, who directed and co-wrote the film with long-time creative partner Grant Heslov. "Grant and I go back twenty-some years," Clooney reminisces. "He loaned me a hundred bucks to get headshots for a Joanie Loves Chachi episode, which I did not get... I’m still paying him back for it."

Even though Clooney had no real urge to act in the film, he does that as well, taking a supporting role, portraying Murrow's legendary producer and partner Fred Friendly. Taking this role, Clooney acknowledges, was in part playing a necessary piece in the Hollywood game.

"I didn’t really want to act in the film," Clooney says. "It isn’t fun directing yourself. 'How was I? Fantastic. I think you look younger.' It’s not fun, but it was a black-and-white movie starring David Strathairn, for seven-and-a-half million dollars, so they were gonna make sure that I was in it one way or another."

However, he knew even though he may be the most recognizable member of a well-respected cast, he was not going to be the face of the film. In fact, being a face in the crowd is the way he prefers to work. "I like ensembles... ER was an ensemble. I had all of my successes out of ensembles. Quite honestly, I like working with people that are friends. Its fun. I have a fun set when we’re there. The set’s a fun place to be, because I think it’s healthy and good work comes out of it."

Of course, there is a certain accountability in playing real characters. Most of this burden falls right upon the capable shoulders of David Strathairn. Strathairn has been a respected actor in Hollywood for over two decades, and yet his quality has not translated in him becoming a household name. He has done notable turns such as playing innocent-but-tormented Chicago Black Sox pitcher Eddie Cicotte in Eight Men Out, Meryl Streep's worried husband in The River Wild, the violent husband in Dolores Claibourne, a priest with a secret in Simon Birch and Helen Keller's father in the TV remake of The Miracle Worker. He has also appeared in Silkwood, Ice Man, At Close Range, A League of Their Own, Sneakers, Lost In Yonkers, The Firm, LA Confidential and several films by friend and director John Sayles. "He was really the only guy we ever talked about," Heslov says. Clooney takes it a step farther, "He was the only guy we ever thought of."

He felt the need to be as realistic as possible, because his role of Murrow is an iconic figure in journalism and American History. "When you have to pull something out of the imagination of the author – the fictitious thing – at the get go, you’re responsible to a different set of circumstances, I think," Strathairn acknowledges. "Because always you’re responsible to the script. In this particular case, it wasn’t a bio pic, so George wasn’t exploring the man alone at the bar or at home on his farm. That, to a certain extent, focused what I had to be attentive to. Yes, there is a responsibility when it’s a historical character, especially of such magnitude as someone like Edward R. Murrow. You are respectful of the image of people who know him and are still alive have of him. They’re remembering that image. Then, also, in many ways there is a responsibility to present as an objective and respectful image to people who have no idea who he is." However, he insists, it is not a simple job of mimicking the man. "George said no, this is not an impersonation."

Patricia Clarkson is also a part of the talented ensemble. She has been one of the busiest actors in Hollywood in recent years, starring in the acclaimed films Far From Heaven, Pieces of April, The Station Agent, Dogville, Miracle and The Woods, as well as playing the recurring role of Ruth Fisher's hippie sister on the series Six Feet Under. Clarkson, who plays pioneering female television exec Shirley Wershba in Good Night, and Good Luck, admits she had it a little easier than Strathairn.

"The main reason [is] that there's not a lot of footage of Shirley," Clarkson says. "I also was fortunate in that she’s still very much alive and I met with her. I’m just madly in love with her. She’s a remarkable woman, still. She’s had a remarkable life. She’s funny and winning, still at… I don’t want to give away her age… I met with Shirley, talked to her. I feel like I have a new friend in my life. I extracted what I could. I wanted to be a part of this movie. There was not a lot of Shirley, but what there is, is choice. I wanted to try to capture her spirit. Her essence. Her wit and intelligence, which she has mountains of. So, it was lovely. It was a beautiful thing that happened on this film for me. Meeting this wonderful woman and just extracting a little part of her and taking it into the film with me."

As far as Clooney, he decided to be a little less lifelike in his portrayal of producer Fred Friendly. Not because of any humbleness on the part of the actor, but mostly because of the personality of the character. "Fred, those of you who knew him or know of him -- he really took over a room. He came in and he was bombastic. I decided early on that that can’t be the nature of this character because this was about the story and about these words. So, I took it just because I thought it’s a big enough part that I can help get the money and I have a sense as a director of how much or how little of Fred I wanted it to be. I wanted it to be the relationship between the guys. I wanted it to be the camaraderie. I wanted it to be some of the fun. I wanted there to be the drive. But, I don’t want him to take over a room. As an actor I’m most proud of the fact that I’m in those scenes and you’d never look at me, which you know is [significant] because I really enjoy looking at me."

And what was Grant Heslov's motivation in portraying future CBS exec Don Hewitt? "Well I chose my character because we couldn’t find any one else to play it," Heslov acknowledges cheerfully. "Because it was easy for me to do it. We never really knew when that character was going to work and that way I could just suit up if I had to and just go in the scene. It was so simple."

Not so simple is the film's politics. It's hard not to notice that many of the concerns which Murrow had are being replayed now in the United States halls of power. In particular, the case of Navy pilot Milo Radulovich, who was discharged from the military for no apparent reason other than the fact that his father and sister may or may not have had communist ties. It is guilt by association, and the story, which is covered in great depth in the film (including a replay of Murrow's original story on the subject) is eerie in its similarity to recent claims of Arab citizens who claim that they were held against their will, without legal advice or any limits on the time which they can be questioned.

So is Good Night, and Good Luck something of an indictment of the Patriot Act? "Maybe it’s no coincidence that the film is being released the same week that it’s being voted on," Strathairn allows.

"Yeah, maybe you’re right…," Clarkson laughs.

"It’s not an indictment," Clooney insists. "It is a debate of it. Certainly we’re about to have this new vote. I don’t know which one [version of the Act] you’ve read; if you’ve read the House or the Senate one. The House one’s terrifying. But I think that with any luck we’re at a place now in our country where it isn’t 'my country, right or wrong,' again, and that people will have honest discussions about whether or not you want to give away certain civil liberties in the pursuit of saving the State. I think it’s an important debate to have. I don’t have the answers for it. But I think its important to be talking about."

Straithain continues, "If it is a platform for potential neurosurgery to be applied on [the Patriot Act], yeah. [However,] George and Grant will adamantly say that this was not intended as a proselytizing, polarizing picture."

Clarkson agrees, "No, I think it actually began out of George’s love for Murrow."

That love and respect suffuses every frame of Good Night, and Good Luck. Clooney had been fascinated with Murrow's story for years, introduced to the maverick newsman by his father Nick, a long-time reporter and anchorman who is currently a Congressional candidate in Kentucky.

"It started obviously because I grew up on a newsroom floor," Clooney recalls, "watching my dad work with reporters like Deborah Dickson in Cincinnati, Ohio and Howard Ain and these really wonderful reporters. Watching them piece a news show together. Murrow was always the high watermark that everyone aims for. So it was my love of that and it was certainly a tip of the hat to my dad and the sacrifices that he made over the years."

Nick Clooney was thrilled his son would be making a film about his hero, and he gave George a piece of advice. "He just said the one thing to me constantly, that was important," George Clooney says. "We talked about [it] a lot, Grant and I. He said, treat it like a journalist. Double check, double source every scene so that when the people that want to marginalize it, and they are out there, they can [try to] marginalize the film all they want. But, we wanted it to be based strictly - each scene happened. It's important to say that because there is sort of a revisionist history going on that McCarthy was right and Murrow was a traitor. Page Six [in The New York Post] actually wrote a nice story about that. Ann Coulter certainly has a lovely book about it, about Murrow getting the story wrong. It was important to recalibrate fact, period fact. So my dad said get the facts right.

"In doing the research we learned that it was important for us to go back to the original material," Clooney continues. "For instance, Point of Order, which some of you may know, is the documentary made about the Army-McCarthy hearings. If we just used that as our source, the problem is -- and I’m an old liberal -- it's really unbelievably, manipulatively bad. Bad. I mean, they have that scene where McCarthy is screaming at Senator Simonton, 'don’t you ...' and they cut to this wide shot of him and it looks like Frederick March at the end of Inherit the Wind. 'Where you think your going? Don't go anywhere!' When we got into the archival footage and watched [it] all, Grant called me up and said, 'you’re not going to believe this.' It was two different days. So the problem is -- what our job was -- is to make sure that we went back to all of the source material from the very beginning so that we weren’t going to compound any sort of myth that had been made in an editing room. That was our job and it made it more complicated because we thought we could just use the source material that we had. We found ourselves having to check everything."

Another way in which they assured accuracy was that Clooney and Heslov decided to use real footage of Murrow's stories and of Senator McCarthy. They tried out the idea of an actor to play the red-baiting senator, but in the end they realized that Senator McCarthy was so over-the-top that any actor they brought in to play him would look like he was chewing the scenery. So they decided to let McCarthy speak for himself, just like Murrow did fifty years ago.

"We wanted to use McCarthy’s own words," Heslov says. "We thought that in the end it would be most effective..."

"And it was much cheaper," Clooney interjects.

Heslov agrees, "And it was cheaper."

"We were also going to take out an ad in the trades," Clooney continues. "Best supporting actor -- for your consideration -- Joe McCarthy."

Not only did they have to worry about the facts of the case, they also spent an inordinate amount of time making sure they got the everyday details of life in 1953-54 correct. And despite the fact that he is a non-smoker, Strathairn was one of many characters who smoked like a chimney, "Because that’s what they did."

The newsmen were made to learn about the stories of the time. "We were given the copy of The New York Times from March, 1953," Strathairn says. "We had the headlines. What was actually happening that day, or the day before. George would say, 'Okay, Matt, you’re going to cover local news. Robert Downey, you’re going to do the obits. Come up with a story about today. Pitch your story in the scene. So, okay, off you go.' Now, also try to find something that was not directly related to what is in the script for that day, but something that’s germane to the issues. So everybody, they went back and put the hair and make-up on, and everybody was memorizing lines. (Then they went back) and he’d say, 'Okay, what have you got?' 'Umm, well, let’s see, the Brooklyn Dodgers… was it Jackie Robinson…' They got it so it was live, really live. It was a real testament to the ensemble, these guys were amazing. I’d sit in the back of the room…"

Clarkson adds, "And a lot of it’s all on the cutting room floor, but I mean, they would riff on the day, like the events of the day."

"Which is a tall order, because they talked differently back then," Strathairn continues. There was no 'like, you know,' 'like,' 'like'…"

"And the speed of the dialogue was different," Clarkson agrees. "Oh, yes. Everything louder, faster…"

"In the mornings, they would come in and we had a real newsroom set up with their own typewriters and their own desks," Clooney recalls. "Every morning you’d say today is October 4, 1954, and they had The New York Times, The New York Post, The Washington Post of that day with all the ads and everything. They would sit there with their little manual typewriters and they would go through the papers and they would pick their stories. Then we would go into the room after a couple hours when we were ready to start, with the cameras set, and we’d have two cameras going and they’d start rolling and I would go, 'OK what’s your lead, let’s hear it.' We did it the way I’d watch my dad put together a news program every night. That had an energy to it that I really loved and I felt. It reminded me of the things I grew up watching in the news. It’s a funny thing how these guys will take on these characters. Trying to pitch. It’s like my dad trying to pitch Metro stories, which just never are going to make it to the front. I think it should be a lead. No, Metro."

"George knows that world," Strathairn concludes. "He grew up in that world."

Clarkson also had the strange experience of being the only woman in the Boys Club of the newsroom. This was odd coming right after working with so many women on Six Feet Under. "I loved doing Six Feet Under and working with Frannie Conroy and Kathy Bates," Clarkson says. "It was a dream. One that I think I miss already. It’s difficult for me to articulate, actually. It’s just a different feeling. They’re both lively."

Strathairn laughs, "With men she walks into a room and they all look at her. I don’t know, maybe she walks into a room like with a bunch of women they just look that her clothes."

"Every time I walked in in those little 50s dresses," Clarkson agrees. "They give you like…" She mimes watching someone walk past. "Yeah, whenever I’d walk in in that red dress, all the boys were like, 'whoooaaa…' I’m telling you. I didn’t want to go home... It was sexy. It was very sexy... Well, let’s get down to it. It was sexy and flattering. Come on. I’m in a room with all these intelligent, smart men. With like a 23-inch waisted dress. My hair all dingy-doingy."

So, does this immersion into the world of Journalism give any of the makers of Good Night, and Good Luck pangs of regret for the road not taken? "No, I don’t have the talent for [journalism]," Clooney admits freely. "I tried it when I was young. My dad’s one of the best I’ve ever seen. [I couldn't keep up with] the people who do this really well . The people who ask direct questions and are fearless."

Clarkson, on the other hand, would give it a try. "I would love to," she says enthusiatically. "I’m a news junkie. I’m obsessed. I love reporters and journalists. I think in my next life, that’s what I’d like to be. Maybe not an anchor, but I’d love to be a journalist. I’d love to sit and interview people."

Well, if the actors will not be journalists (at least in this life), what about the ones out there? Is it possible for a modern TV newsman or reporter to change the world like Murrow did in the 50s? Complaints abound that modern journalists do not ask the tough questions. They tell the cheesy and exploitative stories rather than the truly important ones. They are handcuffed by the bottom-lines of the mega-corporations which own the sources of information. They are locked out by an administration which will not in any way cooperate, instead repeating talking points and spin incessantly. Could there be another Murrow out there?

"I thought Brian Williams," Clooney says. "He’s really articulate and really smart. I think he’s the best of the guys I’ve seen so far. I’ve seen him especially on Jon Stewart. I thought he was smart because he answered some funny questions and then he avoided answering the ones that would get him in Dodge. The difference is, there’s still Bill Moyers. There’s still great reporting going on by a bunch of people. The problem is that I don’t think anybody is ever going to have forty million people watching them again. It may be good that there won’t ever be the most trusted man in America again -- depending on who that man is."

"I think there are shades of Murrow in several journalists now," Clarkson says. "I think there are some great journalists who are vigorous and determined and thoughtful. But I think it’s interesting, with [Hurricane] Katrina, something happened. Everyone started to really step up to the plate."

"I saw some real teeth in journalism in Katrina," Clooney agrees.

"It always seems that we are Monday morning quarterbacks, I guess, in society," Strathairn says. "Shoulda, coulda, woulda, didn’t. Being able to look over our shoulder and then fixing what had happened yesterday and finding a way to do it. Like they are doing in Texas right now. But, I don’t think it’s possible for a Murrow to exist, purely for the reason that he spoke to 40-60 million people at one time. Brian Williams last night said I speak to two to three million. It’s just so fractured now. So diverse. The last high-water mark was Walter Cronkite, in 1968, when he came back and basically changed government policy by what he said about Vietnam. Brian Williams said, 'If I wanted to say, ‘Have you no decency? At long last have you no decency?’ I would have to say it on a blog. I’d have to say it on C-SPAN. I’d have to say it on ESPN…"

"…On HBO…," Clarkson interjects, "you know, just…

"…for people to hear it," Strathairn concludes.

Speaking of reaching people, do they worry about finding an audience for a serious black-and-white drama which looks at serious legal and ethical implications? Also, in this deeply polarized country, will they be able to capture a wide audience or are they just preaching to the converted? Will they be able to get the popcorn viewers to see their quality work?

"Well, even if everyone who is converted goes to see it, that’s still a good thing," Clarkson says. "I don’t want to push away the converted. But, I have to tell you, maybe I’m naïve, but I have this thought. I have many nieces and nephews and I have this feeling that [for] 18-25 year olds on the college campuses where it’s going to play, Murrow might become a new kind of folk hero. I don’t think that’s that far fetched. I think that he might have a resurgence."

"The political air of this film, which is an air that everybody breathes. It’s not just the choir. I think it’s in the air, what’s in this movie," Strathairn says. Then he jokes, "And oh my God, this is an action picture…"

Clarkson laughs, "And there’s a lot of T&A, too."

Heslov says, "We had an alternative ending..."

Clooney chuckles, "It was a musical number."

However, while there is much funny in the film (very little of the thrill-packed tuneful jiggling they just promised, though...) in the end, it is about a deadly serious subject. An issue that is every bit as trenchant today as it was in the McCarthy era.

Clarkson says, "I think the themes of this movie, of course, continue on in the world. In the government. The political system. Responsibility of journalism. Civil rights. Civil liberties. Many things. I think, in a way, you have to kind of present the past so you don’t repeat it. And remember it…"

"It isn’t overtly political," Clooney insists. "It is a film by someone who happens to be political. But it’s a historical piece. We were very careful with our facts to be sure of that. If that opens up a debate of any sort of political or journalistic questions, then good. And if it doesn’t that’s okay. We did our jobs. If some kid in Cincinnati sees it in his journalism class and decides he wants to be a writer because of it and wants to hold certain standards then we win. We win."

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.