ljplicease | Good Night, and Good Luck

We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty--if we deny the right of the individual to be wrong, unpopular, eccentric or unorthodox--if we deny the essence of racial equality then hundreds of millions in Asia and Africa who are shopping about for a new allegiance will conclude that we are concerned to defend a myth and our present privileged status. Every act that denies or limits the freedom of the individual in this country costs us the ... confidence of men and women who aspire to that freedom and independence of which we speak and for which our ancestors fought.

Edward R. Morrow

Yesterday Kathy invited my to see Good Night, and Good Luck with her. Watching this movie about events in the 50s, where everyone is a chain smoker, is a bit like watching a sci-fi movie about an alien culture, except I think the sci-fi alien culture would probably seem considerably less alien. The actor playing Morrow was terrific, and the performance left me wishing that more people were capable of using language as well. Many of the things said by Morrow in the movie are well documented actual quotations. Joseph McCarthy is portrayed by himself using contemporary footage. I've never much liked George Clooney, but he did a great job directing this film.

This movie looks wonderful in black and white: In contrast, Schindler's List was a cop-out using black and white to highlight certain objects using minimal color, and never really felt comfortable in shades of gray. I think it would be great if more films were made (properly) today in black and white, it is a totally under utilized aspect of the art form.

I read one article^[1] that criticized the historical accuracy of the movie. It is almost certainly the case that the actual Murrow was not as pure and angelic as the movie would leave you to believe. In fact, from my reading McCarthy was well into his dissent when Murrow's See It Now on McCarthy program aired. The Slate article attempts to sully Murrow's reputation by pointing out that he also introduced the lowbrow celebrity interview with his show Person to Person, and attacks Clooney for distorting the demise of Morrow's show by presenting it as corporate retribution for taking on McCarthy. In fact, the movie features a fluffy celebrity interview and with good use of levity, articulates Murrow's unease with at using the technique "to pay the bills." Anyone who has ever had to work for a corporation would understand. Also, far from the demise of See It Now being due to corporate retribution, it is in response to the fact that the show never made any money: people would rather watch The $64,000 Question than get a civics lesson. Bizarrely, the Slate article states this, and ignores the fact that this is also what happened in the movie (admittedly, with a compression of the actual time line, which the Slate article also concedes is necessary when making a biopic).

No one man can terrorize a whole nation unless we are all his accomplices.

Edward R. Murrow

To me, this was a key point of the film. I look around myself and see the horrible things which are going on today, and it is not hard to see why: people are too busy to care about people dying in Africa, or "illegal" combatants being tortured in Guantanamo Bay and Iraq. Murrow was uneasy about TV as a new medium. He felt that it focused on pictures, rather than ideas. There is cause for concern too, because I believe that the torture hasn't really stopped, but we've stopped talking about it. Why? Because the tortures have developed the good sense not to photograph it. I think people would rather watch "reality" TV, or Desperate Housewives.

Sometimes I will mention to people that in Australia, voting is considered a civic responsability, and is compulsory for all citizens old enough to do so. I do not say that this is the best way to do things, or that this is the way that it should be in America (in fact, it seems hard to imagine how such a system could work in a country with such an enormous population). I don't usually add, but I think it is true: that however, it appears to work for Australians. This is usually met with strong hostility. In defense of civic responsibility:

Compulsory voting was introduced in 1924, after 60,000 Australians (about 1.3% of the national population) had died in World War I "defending freedom".
Since compulsory voting was introduced, voter turnout has not dropped below 94% since 1955 and in 2001 and 2004 only around 5% of those did not vote (ie went through the motions but did not actually choose a candidate).
Some Australians I have talked to will ask of American democracy: how can you call it a democracy without a majority?
Providing a legitimate reason for not voting may prevent the levying of a fine.
If a fine in sanctioned the amount will be small.

I have never lived in Australia as an adult, but I plan to soon, and I will let you know how all of this works in practice.

This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it for those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box.

Edward R. Murrow

Anyway, sorry about the civics lesson. I'm sure if you switch channels now you can catch the tail end of Desperate Housewives.

[1] here: http://www.slate.com/id/2127595/?nav=mpp