George Clooney?s second effort at directing suffers from three big problems, any one of which could scupper such a film in the hands of someone less experienced. The first problem is the jarring effect of using stock footage of Joseph McCarthy, in the absence of an actor playing him.… More
George Clooney?s second effort at directing suffers from three big problems, any one of which could scupper such a film in the hands of someone less experienced. The first problem is the jarring effect of using stock footage of Joseph McCarthy, in the absence of an actor playing him. Even with the film being shot in black and white to take the audience into the 1950s setting, the overall result is compromised. Just as in Frost/Nixon?s opening credits there could have been actors playing those tried at the Watergate hearings, so there is no real excuse not to have an actor playing McCarthy. Without this the film can never be truly immersive; the audience understands that something serious is happening, but can never quite connect with it.
The second problem is that many of the supplementary characters are never properly developed, making the film seem even less believable. Outside of the relationship between Edward R. Murrow (David Strathairn) and his producer Fred Friendly (Clooney), the other characters are never properly explored. We never feel entirely sorry for Ray Wise?s character, who commits suicide after being accused of being a ?pinko?. Neither do we completely care about the secret marriage between Robert Downey Jr. and Patricia Clarkson, both of whom have proved themselves to be talented actors (in Chaplin and The Green Mile respectively).
The film would have worked much better as a more claustrophobic thriller. Perhaps it could have been a real-time re-enactment of one of Murrow?s most important shows, or simply consisting of conversations between Murrow and Friendly on the set, conversations which seem mundane but which are actually politically significant. The film as it stands is by no means terrible, but there are so many different ways of making a political film these days, and this film does not always justify its large cast.
The third and most difficult problem with the film is its political standpoint. The points it makes about freedom of speech and manipulation of the media are all well and good, but at certain points in the script one begins to suspect that Clooney is using this film as a mouthpiece to his own views. Not only is the representation of Murrow highly hagiographic, but the film is bookended by a speech of Murrow?s four years after the fall of McCarthy, warning against television simply being a medium of entertainment. It?s not just that these warnings resonate with our society, but that Clooney shapes the dialogue in such a way that he?s almost giving you a lecture ? one which we?ve heard too many times for it to have any profundity left.
On the up side, the film is very professionally shot, with some stylish visuals and a plot which is arresting. David Straithairn plays Murrow with a barbed sense of grace, a man with a face of dignity who could snap at any moment (and indeed he does, in his brief scenes with Frank Langella). It?s not quite as good as his performance in The Bourne Ultimatum, but it?s a career highlight nonetheless.
Ultimately the film is well-directed by Clooney and is a good introduction to both the figure of McCarthy and to the nature of 1950s society. In fact, that is the role which this film should serve, as a way for the audience to dip their toe into a political and social climate which has fascinated filmmakers as far apart as Sam Mendes (Revolutionary Road) and David Lynch (Blue Velvet). As a political film, it?s highly flawed, but it will remain an important film in years to come, if nothing else because of the reputation, both cinematic and political, which its writer and director are rapidly forming.