Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Good Luck and Good Night

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Good Luck and Good Night

    Too bad many posts were lost when the old MM went down. I wrote about this movie and all is lost, I still want to publish a few thoughts on it, even if the movies' calendar suggests it is a trifle late.

    While bashing V for Vendetta for its mediocrity and its simplistic political approach (also lost unfortunately) I mentioned I was looking forward very much to Good Luck, and Good Night. However, I was dissapointed again. The main problem was that I felt it was unnecessarily boring. A pity really. I suspect the historic events really stood in the way of building up a truly suspenseful conflict. A) One knew the outcome. But not just because you know your 20th century history, instead you were told right in the beginning that the good guy was going to win! B) The intercut footage with historical TV appearances of Senator McCarthy actually undid the "villain", - he seemed to talk a lot of gibberish and incoherent stuff that you wondered how anybody could take him seriously in the first place (one knows, of course, it did at the time). With a practised eye of today you saw he was already in decline, down the drain pipe. At the time, in the 50's you didn't have the seasoned "eye" to see that. But the movie is made for today! C) The characters smoked a lot, but never really developed.
    D) All was very brainy, or in other words, the conflict remained very theoretical. The stakes are foggy. Okay, one journalist commits suicide (but we're only told he does). Even the CBS bosses don't threaten Murrow, but back him instead, so how do you build up tension this way?
    This in short is what I objected to. We know the Clooney's father was a journalist in that period, so the movie can be seen as hommage to old style, incorruptible journalism, but it only comes across as a "message movie" pointing to the menace of politics taking over the media... But then if you want such a warning message movie, why not make one about the ignominious and nearly complete surrender of US media to GWB's politics and propaganda war in the wake of 9/11????
    Google ergo sum


  • #2
    Originally posted by LEtranger
    But then if you want such a warning message movie, why not make one about the ignominious and nearly complete surrender of US media to GWB's politics and propaganda war in the wake of 9/11????
    Good question !

    May be because the Hollywood business is controlled by the true business who controls and profits from the war ?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Morgan Kane
      Good question !

      May be because the Hollywood business is controlled by the true business who controls and profits from the war ?
      Hmmm, the trouble is that here in Europe we feel that American Cinema often does the job American Journalism should be doing - asking the important questions!
      Google ergo sum

      Comment


      • #4
        But then if you want such a warning message movie, why not make one about the ignominious and nearly complete surrender of US media to GWB's politics and propaganda war in the wake of 9/11????

        Excellent question. Though had a different reaction than yours,
        I'd say that it serves to "historify" such acts. That they are not isolated.
        That such folly can occur when the masses drink the Kool Aid.
        I'd say that the message is reinforced by setting it when they did
        rather than making a contemporary piece about Bush.

        Comment

        Working...
        X