Harvest of Fame

George Clooney, actor and director, on his new movie about Edward R. Murrow, McCarthyism, and fear in America.
Where Clooneys underrated Confessions of a Dangerous Mind picked the febrile brain of The Gong Show host Chuck Barris, his new Good Night, and Good Luck salutes TV-news pioneer Edward R. Murrow, whose on-air battles with Red-baiting Senator Joseph McCarthy helped make the country safe for free speechat least temporarily. (Also see a review of The Edward R. Murrow Collection.) Albeit set in the 50s, Good Night is hardly yesterdays news: The movie completed production not long before the New York Times broke the story that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting had hired a researcher to investigate the political leanings (read: liberal bias) of commentators such as PBSs own Bill Moyers.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Clooneys uncanny timing extends to his telephoning Mother Jones just two days before the death of anchorman Peter Jenningsa news event that would compel Big Media to wonder aloud whether Murrows legacy had died, too.
Mother Jones: Lets start with the devils advocate question: At a time when the world is on fire, why make a black-and-white period piece about a TV journalist who did his greatest work some 50 years ago?
George Clooney: Were in an awkward period in this country where, as an actor or a storyteller, youre not really allowed to take on contemporary issues anymore because theyve found a way to marginalize you if you do. So the trick was to keep the issues in a historical context. The more footage of McCarthy and Murrow we pulled, the more we realized how prescient this material appearsnot just in terms of the government, but the Fourth Estate, too. In 1958, Murrow was talking about how television is a wasteland, how were all fat and wealthy and terrified of addressing the things that disturb us. He actually advised taking an hour away from The Ed Sullivan Show and devoting it to a thoroughgoing study of problems in the Middle East. In 1958! That shows you how American history is cyclical.
MJ: You see the current era as a reprise, then?
GC: Its similar. I dont find that the government today is quite as intrusive as it was in 1953although the new Patriot Act is a bit of a concern. [Laughs.] When an FBI agent can get information from your doctor, without a subpoena, that your doctor isnt even allowed to give you, thats worrisome.
MJ: Fear is the common denominator in these two periods, right?
GC: Rightand how fear and paranoia breed the ability to attack civil liberties. The rationale is that to preserve the union, its safer if we take these Guantanamo Bay kids and rescind their right to a speedy trial. Its safer not to call them prisoners of war because then we dont have to follow the Geneva Convention. You look at it and you go, Wait a minutewhat union are we protecting? In the McCarthy era, there was fear of the bomb going off, fear of your neighbor being a communist, fear of being labeled a communist yourself and losing your job. When you listen to Murrow saying that McCarthy didnt create this climate of fear, that he just exploited it rather successfully, you go, Oh, wow. I tell you, if any candidate in 2004 had given one of these speeches that Murrow gave on his show, hed be president today. You hear Murrow say, Remember that we are not descended from fearful men, and you just go, Goddammit, where is that guy?
MJ: How did he come to take on McCarthy?
GC: Murrow didnt necessarily want to go to war with McCarthy. But after his show about Milo Radulovichthe kid who got kicked out of the Air Force because his sister and father might have gone to some Communist Party meetingsa guy who worked for both Hoover and McCarthy gave a reporter information that he said would prove Murrow had worked for the IWW, that he was a communist sympathizer since 1934. The minute that happened, Murrow knew he had to hit McCarthy before McCarthy hit him. So he went after him head-on, using his own wordswhich was a brilliant strategy, because how are you going to rebut your own words?
MJ: A good strategy, but he made it artful, too, wouldnt you say?
GC: It was a stunning show, made beautiful by the end speech, where Murrow says, We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty; we must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that conviction de- pends upon evidence and due process of law. Its an astonishing moment. But the funny thing is, thats not what brought McCarthy downit was his rebuttal, in which he spent half an hour trying to prove Murrow was a communist. Everyone knew that wasnt true, because they had listened to him on the radio reporting the bombing of London and they knew he was a hero.
MJ: I imagine you must have read the books that argue that Murrow is overrated, that hes highly flawed as a reporter, and so on.
GC: Sure. We put some of those arguments in the film. We had [the character of CBS chairman William] Paley take up some of those fightslike the idea that Murrow introduced editorializing to television, that he opened the door for Fox News. Murrow was cranky and he drank too much and he obviously smoked too much. But there isnt one misstep that he makes at any point in that whole McCarthy period. Murrow understood that if he didnt play it exactly right, the country was going to be saddled with McCarthy for another 10 years. Murrow became tough to be around. He was uncompromising. But in a way, we need that every once in a while. I miss that.
MJ: Your view of American history as cyclical assumes that if we were to look into the future, wed see that the tide is going to turn. What do you think its going to take?
GC: Well, at some point its going to require a public outcrywhich you can already see happening. For a while, everyone was afraid to ask questions because it was too soon after 9/11 and they would be called unpatriotic. White House reporters were afraid of getting pushed to the back during one of the presidents very rare press conferences. Now theyre laying into him more. Theyre going after the Karl Rove thing pretty hard. Theyre not going to get muchperhaps a cover-up charge. But the point is, youre starting to see an element thats saying, Wheres the evidence? Wheres the proof? You cant just dismiss us.
MJ: Have the movies played a strong enough role in that tug-of-war?
GC: They havent. But Ill tell you who really doesnt speak out often enough: musicians. In the 60s, when I was growing up, one of the great elements of American culture was the protest song. There were songs about the civil rights movement, the womens rights movement, the antiwar movement. It wasnt just Bob Dylan, it was everybody at the time. Now you can find only two or three bands thatll do that. I think its just part of the corporate world: The more big corporations own music and movie companies, it becomes harder for artists. But you know what? Weve got Syriana [based on the book See No Evil: The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIAs War on Terrorism] coming out and thats a balls-out film. We got Three Kings made. It can happen. It just takes stick-to-it-ness.
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.



