Posted on 11/15/2005 11:32:32 AM PST by fight_truth_decay
Emily: Can you talk about the pre-production backlash you received and are still receiving regarding the whole sordid McCarthy Era?
George: Sure. For example, in one of Murrow's original broadcast speeches, that we put in purposely, he says, "You will note, that I do not know nor does the lawyer, know that Annie Lee Moss is a communist." Murrow was the master of using the Constitution. The problem is that McCarthy didn't care about facts; he used fear to gain popularity. This meeting of the titans (Murrow and McCarthy) was an incident and that whole "time" has been a passion of mine because it is one of the few times you could point to where broadcast journalism actually changed the world and people's minds. McCarthy was untouchable till Murrow stepped up. It was one of those great moments where you really had to be brave. And it ultimately ended both their careers. Page Six ran a story about how we were producing a liberal piece condemning McCarthy and so forth. We (Clooney and co-writer Grant Heslov) had already decided not to use an actor as McCarthy; we would use the real footage. As Heslov says, "otherwise whomever we got to play McCarthy, no matter how good they were, nobody was going to believe it!" So, we decided to use the real footage. That's also why the film is in black and white - to stay congruent to the actual clips.
Emily: Yeah, you can't make this stuff up. What about the fact that folks are asking,"Who's the actor playing McCarthy?"
George: (laughter) We are thinking of taking out an ad in the trades next spring, "For your consideration for Best Supporting Actor: Joseph P. McCarthy!" (laughter) "A Stunning Portrayal." (laughter). Yes, a few folks really don't know who is he - like 20% Emily. And here's an opportunity that one in a hundred young kids actually might learn who Murrow is! Aand have some discussion and have some understanding of what, and how dangerous, a democracy can be if fear is used as a weapon. (<-Blunt Aside: I swear I heard a bar of Grand Old Flag queue in my head…. Beautiful dreamer…)
Emily: Are there any Murrows among us today?
George: Back in Murrow's day you had three channels. Now you can watch the news that fits your belief - the channel that agrees with your point of view. I was really heartened during the hurricane coverage - the teeth I saw in the journalists. It was nice to see it again. You haven't seen this since Clinton was getting serviced (laughter). It was good to see that kind of appetite again for challenging authority. There are no Murrow's of today - that doesn't mean there are not great people of ethic. There is no longer one man who can change a policy. The last of those was really truly when Cronkite stood up and came back from Viet Nam and said, "At best this is a stalemate." And Johnson didn't re-run for president ' cause he said, "If I lost Cronkite, I lost the American people." We don't have that anymore. That's not to say you can't sit and listen to Bill Moyer all day. It's not they aren't out there…it's that they don't have the same power. So, I don't think you can have a Murrow any more - because we are too fractured to do it. It DOES NOT mean those guys are not out there. I think the contrary - there are a lot of them out there. Kids get killed in Afghanistan and Iraq everyday - and I find there's some of the best reporting I've ever seen out there.
Emily: What inspired you to even create this film, this document - that's so incredibly hauntingly timely?
George: Yeah! Well, my dad was an anchorman back home and wrote his own news..more
Clooney never said his film was a documentary. The needs of the story outweigh any obligation to be 100% factual.
After all, even Shakespeare changed historical details left and right to tell his story. Likewise, Mel Gibson freely adapted characters and details with "Braveheart."
Say that the story's not well done, but don't fault the historical accuracy of a tale that never pretends to be a documentary. That's a standard every fiction writer will fail to meet.
The left is always better at propaganda. It is a clever device to use film clips of McCarthy, and actors for everyone else. Perhaps it is too clever.
"Clooney never said his film was a documentary. The needs of the story outweigh any obligation to be 100% factual."
That's what makes Clooney's argument worse. This 'story' is based on actual events; and reality is twisted or ignored when Clooney decides it doesn't fit the agenda he's trying to promote.
This movie could have been made my Oliver Stone, another filmaker who manipulated actual events to tell his 'story.'
Clooney:" I double sourced everything - every scene. We used all the pieces we could use - we didn't make that up.
Blunt Interview referenced above.
Nope, I've had this conversation with a couple of friends. It really doesn't matter how much you try to defend and or define McCarthy you will never be able to.
The left has successfully painted him as wrong on all counts. Nothing will sadly ever change this. All defending McCarthy and or pointing out obvious truths gets one is a wierd look and "he must be cuckcoo" response.
So ... It turns out Murrow really was a Communist after all.
Joe ping
Or Mel Gibson?
Or Shakespeare?
If Clooney's claiming that it's 100% factual, then he deserves to be slammed. If he's not, then you can't expect a fictional story to actually be a documentary.
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."
[Actor David] 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."
[Actress Patricia] Clarkson agrees, "No, I think it actually began out of George’s love for Murrow." CUT
"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."
George Clooney, David Strathairn, Patricia Clarkson and Grant Heslov
Patriotic Acts
by Jay S. Jacobs
Full interview: http://www.popentertainment.com/clooneystrathairnclarksonheslov.htm
I already get those "he's weird looks". I just tell them to store the information away and perhaps someday they will be mature enough to understand.
I gratefully stand corrected for this one film.
But until a filmmaker shoots his mouth off about historical accuracy, we can't criticize him for making a fiction film.
Once again the amazing Ann Coulter walks with away with pin-head Looney's stunted cojones in her stylish purse. (Actually its a gun-bag)
http://www.anncoulter.org/cgi-local/welcome.cgi
..and you are correct in saying he never said it was a "documentary" and correct that their interviews often reveal their motivations, bias; and use of other similar tag words, in this case, "historical".."facts double checked".."historical facts" being the operative words here. Clooney writes history and therefore we should consider him a historian? Most would not even come close to even saying so out-loud, unless naive.
Historians, it is said, fall into one of three categories:
Those who lie.
Those who are mistaken.
Those who do not know.
-Anonymous
..And George Clooney may have been inspired by Ann Coulter's "Treason"; therefore, Coulter is now Clooney's muse?
Thanks for the link.
"This movie could have been made my Oliver Stone, another filmaker who manipulated actual events to tell his 'story.'
Or Mel Gibson?
The answer is no. Gibson was clearly targeting a Christian audience when he made his movie, not a general audience with no preconcieved beliefs.
Re-read my posts above - I was referring to "Braveheart," which was a fictionalized story of a real event and real people.
"But until a filmmaker shoots his mouth off about historical accuracy, we can't criticize him for making a fiction film."
I couldn't disagree more.
We know that the characters in this movie are real. The audience therefore is led to accept that what happens to them (and us) is real too. And Clooney makes no effort to inform them otherwise.
What about "Braveheart?" Should we castigate Gibson for the liberties he takes with historical figures?
What about Shakespeare? He played very fast and loose with real people from history when he put them in his plays. Should we slam him for this as well?
Unless it's specifically labeled as "100% accurate," a filmmaker is permitted to take liberties with real events and people to tell his story.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.