I have a theory that self-examination, self-criticism, and soul searching usually make for better art than an outright condemnation of something by someone who is not tempted or interested in that thing. For instance, Michael Moore’s “Bowling for Columbine” and “Fahrenheit 9/11” are both fine movies, but “Bowling” will almost certainly have a longer shelf life because Moore is a lifetime NRA member and understands the allure of guns. This ambivalence makes for a richer film than “9/11’s” barefaced name-calling. Similarly, “Aliens” is one of the harshest and most fascinating critiques of hypercapitalism, yet it was made by Hollywood Republican James Cameron (I mean, I heard somewhere he votes Republican, but Mr. Internet is really letting me down on this one; I predict a correction appearing at the bottom of this review some day), whose vote (one could argue) moves us closer and closer to the day when The Company runs everything. And let’s not forget how Orson Welles decided to follow up “Citizen Kane,” which was to become as much of bloated, thwarted recluse as Kane himself.
Why do I mention this? Because the studio which made the TV critique “Good Night, and Good Luck,” is none other than Warner Bros., which has its own television station—and the movie is, incidentally, directed by a man who used to be on “Roseanne” and “E.R.” I have next to me a copy of Jerry Mander’s “Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television.” I have not started reading it properly, although I have leafed through it. Mander is of the opinion that the technology of television is inherently unhealthy and, while it may occasionally educate, inform, or enlighten, those benefits are offset by its inescapable negative effects (he has no issue with film though). Whether he’s correct or not, somehow I get the feeling that if he were to make “Good Night” it would lack that rich ambivalence that it has right now.
Finished Friday, December 9th, 2005
Copyright © 2005 Friday & Saturday Night
Page one of "Good Night, and Good Luck." Back to home.