Tuesday, October 25, 2005

Excerpts From...Movie Review Of: "Good Night, Good Luck"

In which: George Clooney makes a movie about how awful Senator Joe McCarthy was, and doesn't name one person who was wrongfully accused by the Senator. Not One? Not One. Then what was The Point again? Why, The Point was to bash the Right. Can you even imagine someone online providing you with information they couldn't reference? Well, Hollyweird can, and does, and expects you to believe in something, well, just because.

HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE :: George Clooney’s Clueless Movie by Allan H. Ryskind

If George Clooney’s Good Night, and Good Luck is the best shot the left can unload on Joe McCarthy these days, the famous Red hunter is well on his way to a thorough rehabilitation. Ann Coulter has already begun the process in Treason and Stan Evans’ much anticipated book—due out next year—is likely to boost the late Wisconsin senator’s stock even further.

The movie is really about CBS’s star journalist, Edward R. Murrow (played by David Strathairn), and how he went after McCarthy, who is featured only in film footage from the archives. As Clooney (and most historians) would have it, the senator was a vicious, unscrupulous bully who ruined the lives of scores of innocent people by labeling them Reds. So where are the bloody corpses in Clooney’s movie? They’re totally missing. In fact, Clooney—who directed and helped write the movie—doesn’t show a single person who was done in by the senator’s supposedly reckless charges. Not one!

-The March 11, 1954, McCarthy hearing, in truth, was a devastating indictment of Army security procedures—and Moss herself. McCarthy’s chief purpose was to find out how Moss, with her Red background, had been promoted from a cafeteria worker to a Pentagon code clerk with access to classified information.

-A committee of the New York Legislature, back in 1928, reached the following conclusion: “The American Civil Liberties Union, in the last analysis, is a supporter of all subversive movements; its propaganda is detrimental to the interests of the State.”

It's a good read, and more of an indictment against those who've seen fit to bash away at Tailgunner Joe than a movie review, mostly because the movie didn't spend a tenth of the time this reviewer did in researching the subject matter.

Researching? You mean that boring, um, what do they call it, looking up FACTS? Yuck.

No comments: