Jeremiad - Consumerism

The American population is inherently a consumer population. It is built off of our urge to compete with one another in this on going race to wealth. We are haunted by the American dream and we put it on a pedestal as if it is the only source of happiness. We give the idea of affluence such high regards, that we forgot the fact that an overabundance of wealth will not make us content. Granted, it would sure be useful for more than half of the population to have even a miniscule amount of riches, but it would only help them financially. American’s biggest flaw’s believing money is the cure to all of their problems.
Without giving up this ludicrous belief that money makes our world go ‘round, we will not prosper mentally. What type of a person wants to live their life in perpetual competition? Apparently everyone in American society, because we devote so much of our time of buying the biggest, shiniest, newest object, instead of enriching our minds by exploring with people in the world around us. Until we are able to cease our fixation on material things, our society will be unfit to achieve further development. And really, how embarrassing would it be for the apocalypse to come as we’re all rushing around shopping malls trying to find our favorite name brand, or searching the Internet for the latest trends in technology? I’ll just be happy when the day comes when no one will care about such trivial things as the make of his neighbor’s car.

Andersson Good Night Red Scare

The red-scare of the 1950s, in which Good Night and Good Luck is set, is not all too different from the political situation of 2005. To me, both periods in American history are scarred with government-induced fear. In both cases the American government fabricated a false enemy that did not actually exist in order to manipulate American citizens. The title of “communist” was one of the worst slanders a person could get, when in reality most citizens in America had no idea what Communism was. Joseph Stalin was portrayed as a tyrannical leader who would slaughter anyone in his path to conquer the world. While Joseph Stalin was responsible for many horrific acts of mass murder, most Americans had no idea that their own government had supported Stalin at one time. A similar situation occurred in 2005. Americans were told to fear and loath Saddam Hussein, a leader that had long been supported by the American government. Neither dictator was a huge threat to American well-being, but both went against what the American government wanted. Americans today need to understand that their government, time and time again, has intentionally sparked fear within the country for the sole reason of controlling its people.

We see that in this movie the Government at the time was lieing the American people. There was Communist and looking for WM D's. I see that the government might lie to the people for the actions they take because they might see that what they are doing is right, but to do it there might be some immoral things about it. It might just all be benefit for them, but who is really to know other then the ones dong the action. When we see this movie today, we can think of the war that is going on now. In my opinion there is great men and woman over seas giving up their life for something they believe in. Its hard to say what is really going on over there, but I know its nothing good. First the government tells us that there is weapons of mass destruction over there. We find out that, that is not true, but we know that there is terrorist willing to give up their lives to hurt Americans. Back then the government lied to us, and they lie again. We only know this because of the media. They are like men and tight jeans, they don't go together, but they still happen. The media got the information and set it out so people can see. So this movie and what is going on today have a lot to do with each other. I don't like the fact that the government would lie to its own people and there has been more than one time we catch them doing this. I know its something I am willing to fight for because eve though we see lie after lie, America stands for something greater, its history is full of honor and the blood it took to make it and that is something to fight for.

Parsons: Jeremiad

The Random House Dictionary says a jeremiad is “a prolonged lamentation or mournful complaint,” and for some reason this idea took a while to stick for me. However when I really sat down and thought about issues in American today, many problems came to mind. But I choose to write about one that affects my generation in particular in a highly negative way. The most interesting modern problem I see now, one that I wish to lament, is the problem of using the ‘anonymity’ the internet provides to say cruel things to and about people.

Websites like formspring.com and collegeacb.com are anonymous websites that allow people to post whatever they want, with what seem to be no consequences. People are able to compliment or trash another person’s character, appearance or personality however they choose and no one can stop them. Websites like these, and there are others I have heard of, bring animosity to our generation and allow for battles to be fought without people ever seeing one another. These websites kill people’s self-esteems and lead to real world problems, like depression, school problems, broken relationships and sometimes these fights even lead to lawsuits.

I personally do not understand what the appeal of such websites is. These websites breed immaturity and cause students to, rather than confront people with their problems, lash out at people online with anonymity keeping them safe from repercussions. I am not a person that has a problem with social websites, I use facebook like everyone else, however social websites that lead to bullying and unnecessary cruelty are uncalled for.

Peterson GNGL

Edward Murrow was one of the biggest names in broadcasting during his time. He was mostly known for coving the McCarthy scandals and exposing Senator McCarthy's idiotic ideas to the public. This was one of the biggest scandals in United States history. I believe if he was able to be so successful covering this story, then he would definitely be successful during this time. As a whole, society today loves to here about scandals. We thrive off of what is going on and how serious it is. It creates something for us to gossip about. Mr. Murrow was great at informing Americans of what was going on. He did not hold back when it came to calling out Senator McCarthy. I believe Americans today would appreciate this quality. The only thing that possibly could keep him from being as successful was his style. Today, the audiences personalities have greatly changed. It would probably be necessary for him to change his style in order to get a lot of viewers. Today many people need it to be extremely interesting and entertaining in order to watch the program rather than just watching a man sit there with a blank back drop and just ramble on about a subject. But I do believe if he was able to change his style up to a more modern day approach then he would be very successful today. Many people would be captivated by his information and news.

Cawley Good Night & Good Luck

Good Night and Good Luck is a film set in the 1950’s. That being said, the way it was shot was very much akin to those times. Overall, the way the movie was filmed supplemented the action and swept the viewer away into the 50’s in a sense. The focus of the film surrounds Edward R. Murrow, the television hit See It Now, and the employees that work the show. Right off the bat, the fact that the movie is filmed in black & white helps set the nostalgic feeling of the fifties. The setting is almost entirely focused in the workplace of the station that plays See It Now (CBS). Because of the indoor set, the entire film is comprised of mostly close-up shots, which rarely pan out very far. Many first time viewers initially mark the camera and shot work as drab and bland, however, as the movies plot unfurls, the film techniques used help immerse the audience to the character’s world. The basic shot set-up for the See It Now program itself can be used as an example of this observation. The close-ups of Murrow and his profile as well as the attention paid to his cigarette smoking help raise the tension and interest in the stories he is telling. Not only this, but it helps the viewers pay closer attention to the facts that Murrow presents. Overall, the film does a fantastic job grabbing its audience and taking them to another place. The black and white photography helps do this of course, however, the camera angles and shots are what pulls everything together to deliver a 50’s era experience.

Brennan Good Night and Good Luck

I think Edward R. Murrow would be successful in today's media simply because he focused on a scandal unfolding in the United States. All Americans, no matter what they say, are interested in some kind of scandal, whether it be political or for entertainment purposes. Edward R. Murrow's tactics for publicly criticizing McCarthy made his show successful. His strong dedication towards this investigation allowed him to become one of the most prestigious and well-respected newscasters of all time.

His unruly, hard-headed attitude is why Americans liked him so much. He didn't follow the rules presented to him. He worked around those rules to create something so interesting and entertaining, yet also informative at the same time. He took control and never let his superiors ruin his chance of success.

I think his broadcast would bring in millions of viewers simply because it was a once a week show. If a story is showed every day of the week, it becomes boring and uneventful. His once a week slot allowed him, and would allow him today, to have a more successful rating and audience following.

Americans are always looking for a scandal and are always hoping someone will be brave enough to uncover and investigate that scandal. Edward R. Murrow was that individual. He had the guts to investigate one of the biggest scandals in American political history. Everyone sat around and watched or listened to his show, just like we watch and listen to Perez Hilton or entertainment tonight. I am not comparing Murrow's program to these shows, but these shows do have influence over our media involvement. Murrow's educated, gutsy tactics allowed him to be successful then, and I think his success would continue into today's society.

THE MAJOR THEME- INGLORIOUS BASTERDS

Inglorious basterds depicted the war in a sense of satisfaction to all Jews. This is shown as the victory the Jews always wanted or how it should've taken place, but instead it was the complete opposite in reality. This movie was obnoxious and had a spin with a true motive, and that motive was to ensure people that after years of human discrimination people still don't care. THE AMERICANS are the main protagonist in this slick comedy, Nazi slaying, action packed film. In a way this movie actually gives the jews something reminisce about it almost seems they were given a Hollywood revenge pass for this movie. A damn good movie I would say, I would defintley choose to see war movies in this manor than in the serious way beacuse to me war is pointless and highly unnecessary, but when needed it's mandatory.

Jeremiads in Today's society

Jeremiads in Today's society - K.O.

America is blind not knowing the actual falsehood upon it's on brotherhood, which would be a little to much for most patrons to swallow let alone intake something that could change their views on everything america has built it's self to be. An empire that thrives on mind control and manipulation but in a fun harmless way. What way you ask? Television, The Internet, etc..... Movies??? I mean it's obvious why were considered one of the dumbest countries in the world it's because we as a race (Human Race) are being held back from our true nature. So stuck on seeing the shores of Jersey with a bunch of "ra'tards" which is ironic  doesn't take place in Jersey they're in Miami?? There are so many things I could talk about, but the point is this. We as a nation need to take some responsibility as a whole and actually learn what the government is doing, I feel as if nobody can see it but me and a few others. Entertainment can keep you blinded for as long as your eyes can stay open.

thompson GNGL

2) Good Luck and Good night was released in the United States at a time when Americans could relate to the fear of another human being views and beliefs. In 2005, the war in Iraq was still in full effect. This war seemed to have no real value and to be going nowhere in the search for the "weapons of mass destruction". The Weapons of Mass Destruction was broadcast throughout the media. It was made into a big deal and given major attention. Americans were frighten of the Iraq people and the fatal possibilities of the Weapons of Mass Destructions. These are similar actions that took place in the movie Good Luck and Good Night when McCarthy exposed his beliefs of communist in the government and America experienced the Red Scare in 1950s.

The similarites between both 1953 and 2005 was the government mislead the United States. The media played a huge part in bringing out the truth behind all of the mischief of the lies and scandals. Thanks to shows and different news programs, like The New Republic and See it Now, journalists worked hard to uncover the truth in both 1953 and 2005 for all Americans.

In 2005, when Good Luck and Good Night was shown in the United States I am pretty sure that people was well aware of the vivd comparison it had with the related issues at that particular time. Hopefully this movie was a guiding force for the people of America to understand that everything that you hear is not true and as much as we hate to think it; our government may not always give us complete honesty and serenity. I say this because so many our troops have died in Iraq and so many people have been accused and persecuted for being communist. All of this pain and tears was uncalled for. This movie allowed for Americans to look at the whole big picture and learn how not to let fear overwhelm them and to think past what is being shown.

Bellelo "Good Night and Good Luck"

1. Choose three cinematic techniques (black and white photography, all indoor shots, many extreme close ups, many tight frames, lots of high contrast shots, etc) and discuss how those techniques influenced your perception of the material of the film.
In Good Night and Good Luck George Clooney uses black and white, close ups, and indoor shots to really give us a good perception of how the 1950s really were. This movie was originally made in color and converted to black and white to give us a realistic view of the 1950s. The contribution of black and white gave viewers an authentic feel for how people saw things back then. Close ups were a big part presence in this film. They added tension, realness, and seriousness of the situation that Edward Murrow was discussing. Close up shots draw the audience in and make them feel like they were a part of this time. The black and white shots brings you back in time and the close ups draw you in and feel as though you are part of this time with the fear of communism. Also the Camera moving closer and closer to Edward Murrow’s face, it attaches the movie watchers and draws them closer to the film. Lastly, the use of indoor shots was a big part in this film. In the 1950s, television had just started to come out. There are no outdoor shots in this movie because television just came out and objects were usually not easily moved. Good Night and Good Luck gives viewers of this film a very authentic 1950’s feel that will make you keep guessing what will happen next. I enjoyed the film because even though it was produced in 2005, they did a great job of bringing the viewer’s back to the 1950’s. This film was very authentic, and if the movie would have been produced in color I do not believe I would have been as attracted to it because it would not have gave me a real sense of the tension and realness that people lived with back in 1950.

Curtis WMDs and Communism

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” – George W. Bush. Sure, W. The United States government in the year 2005 was just as out of line with their accusation of Iraq concealing weapons of mass destruction as Senator Joseph McCarthy was with accusing people of being communists. Obviously, George Clooney was trying to illustrate this with his directorial debut Goodnight and Good Luck.

In 2005, we could prove nothing, just as McCarthy had no proof that those he accused of being communist were actually communist in 1963. What happened in both situations is the government found a common enemy for society in both times, and exploited them. In times of despair and lack of hope Americans want someone to blame. Jumping on the coat tails of the Soviet Union in the 50s and the animosity towards Middle Eastern countries after 9/11. The timing of the release of Goodnight and Good Luck clearly had to do with the fact that George Clooney wanted to make a statement: our government is full of loons. The movie examines how the media responded to McCarthy, objecting to and challenging his claims. Evidently, Clooney believes that Bush’s claims were just as fallacious, or else the subject matter of this film would be quite different.

There’s a simple way to sum up Goodnight and Good Luck: No physical evidence? No need to speak, boys.

Innella: GNGL Prompt 2

The events of 1953 with McCarthyism is strikingly similar to the search for weapons of mass destruction that took place in 2005. Both events were extremely controversial. During a speech in 1950, Senator Joseph McCarthy claimed that he had a list containing 205 names of known communists that were working for the State Department. This started a flow of anti-communism feelings in the country. During this time, many were accused of being communists. If accused, there was very little one could do to prove themselves innocent, so many were sent to jail. Many of these accusations turned out to be incorrect. These times were very similar to those of the Salem Witch Trials, in that, if one was accused, they were considered guilty. This attitude led to an extremely high rate of paranoia in the country because citizens were worried that they could be arrested for communism at any point in time. Many also felt that the government could not be trusted at this time and many openly opposed the government.

In 2005, President George W. Bush ordered a rigorous search of Iraq for weapons of mass destruction. Many Americans thought that the search was wrong, stating that there was no concrete evidence of such weapons in Iraq. Despite the uproar, the search continued. Billions of dollars were put into this search that ended up coming finding nothing. Many criticized the President, claiming that he carried out the search in interest of his own personal agenda. This started a great feeling of paranoia in the country, making many Americans feel like they could not trust the government. This is very similar to McCarthyism in the way that there was a lack of trust in the government and the public felt as if the government did not have their best interests in mind.

Vucic GNGL

People in present time love political scandals and for that very reason, Edward R. Murrow would be very successfully if he were to live out his career now in 2010. Murrow was a famous american TV personality during the 1950's and the McCarthy era. He is more notably known for attacking McCarthy for his radical views during the red scare where american citizens were being prosecuted for allegedly having communist ties. Murrow did what many were afraid to do at the time, call McCarthy out for accusing people for supporting the communist party even when he had little or no evidence to support his claims. He would be very famous and popular in todays society and would most likely be the one calling out bush for his claims of how there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in the middle east when he too had little evidence. Im sure he would have a huge following on the liberal side now a days and would still be exercising his first amendment rights to the fullest extent. Its no wonder that George Clooney, the director of Good Night and Good Luck, made this movie during the Bush administration for McCarthy and Bush can easily be comparable. The enemy in the 50's was the Soviet Union and now its the various terrorist groups in the middle east. I believe that america would greatly benefit from Edward R. Murrow if he were still to be alive today but his time has come and passed and now it is on the shoulders of the citizens of america to keep their eyes peeled for any political wrong doings that might be occurring behind closed doors.

Wilson GN&GL

In todays society with the many political issues going on in the country, I feel like Edward R. Murrow would not be very successful if he approached the issues as he did to Senator McCarthy. His manor of straight forward conversations, directly delivering the facts, and his ability to do a great amount of research on the topics he's arguing could be very captivating to today's audiences. However, I do feel that his audience has changed dramatically since he was on air in the 50's. today's audiences will be more prone to flipping through channels if the topic isn't as interesting as they want it to be, or not listening to the broadcast, while in the 50's, the audience would gather around the television to watch a program, and made sure that everyone was quiet and giving their full attention to the broadcast. While we did not get a good taste of the audience in the movie, I did get a feeling by the set up of the show that it was very personal: the close shots of Murrow sitting in a comfortable arm chair, the his eye contact with the camera a well lit studio to show his full face, etc. In today's television environment, I feel that the same level of intimacy wouldn't go over as well as it did in the 50's simply because thats not what television viewers want. Todays viewers want informed reports by professionals, while Murrow's show was more of a conversation.

Motsinger GN&GL

During his time Edward R. Murrow was popular because people could put their trust in his news. I'm sure in the present day he would be popular, because he would search out the truth-- as he did when he exposed senator McCarthy's tactics. I'm sure he was biased in some cases; but it's impossible to be unbiased completely, especially when it comes to news.

If Mr. Murrow was still alive today and still broadcasting his show, I'm sure the American public would benefit from his wisdom. Having the camera zoomed in on Mr. Murrow at all times, the viewer would feel a sort of bond with the host as well. News today still speaks on current events, but channels like FOX and MSNBC are known to be sickeningly biased, whether slanted conservatively or liberally. Mr. Murrow was all about laying down the facts and exposing the truth. I feel that he would not take opportunities to take other's statements out of context-- that just wasn't the kind of man he was.

Turner Good Night and Good Luck

In the movie Good Night and Good Luck, George Clooney uses several cinematic techniques that influenced my perception of the film. His use of black and white, only indoor shots, and close tight frames added to the film in both positive and negative ways. The black and white effect gives the movie an authentic 1950’s feel and blends well with the actual 1950’s footage used in the film. Though this is a nice touch it made it harder for me to keep interested. I don’t dislike black and white movies but because Good Night and Good luck is focused mainly on dialogue I needed a visual aspect to hold my attention and the black and white did not. The only indoor shots had a similar affect. Because there were so few locations where the movie took place, and they were all indoors, it was hard to keep engaged in the action of the scenes. The close up shots added to the intensity of the film. The close tight shots focused my attention to the person speaking and made me pay close attention to every word. The tight shots also added a claustrophobic stressful affect to the scene which may be conveying what the character is feeling in that scene. In my opinion most of the cinematic techniques Clooney uses in this movie are not successful but I do think it is a movie worth seeing and I can understand how someone would find it intriguing and interesting.

Simon Good Night, and Good Luck

Edward R. Morrow (picture to the left) was arguably the most famous t.v. personality of his time. He spoke of many things that Americans during the 1950's were to scared to even think about. But it is interesting to question, would Edward R. Morrow be as successful doing his job in modern day America? Personally I am not sure. Morrow had a style and ease in the way he talked. He spoke in a very humanistic way, very calm, but very powerful. That does not sound like many of the famous news reporters of our time. Today we can watch people like Al Roker and Kathie Lee Gifford all but making a fool of themselves on national t.v. everyday, and yet America seems to not be able to get enough of it. The work of Morrow has gone completely to the circus in that sense. Although, I could very well see him working as the new Larry King. They both seem to have that charisma and magnetism that almost entrances people in what they say. Even though Larry King has become more of a celebrity interviewer, it would not be a far stretch to see him tackling and issue like Morrow addressed when speaking of Senator McCarthy. So to fully answer the question, yes, I do believe that Edward R. Morrow would be successful in the modern world of HD television, but I also think that he would have to change some things to be as affective. He would have to give a bit more energy and make his broadcast more of a show to compete with the monkeys dancing around on the new today.

Roulakis - Good Night and Good Luck

Was George W. Bush just as out of line with his “weapons of mass destruction” as Senator McCarthy was with accusing people of being communists? I think Goodnight and Good Luck was trying to ask that question. In 2005, we didn’t actually know for sure whether or not any of the countries we were accusing of having these weapons actually had them. The same thing happened in 2005. McCarthy found an enemy that everyone could hate and created this paranoid mindset that most Americans could relate to. The enemy in the 50’s was the Soviet Union, and the enemy that was created shortly after 9/11 was Iraq.

George Clooney must have very intentionally released this movie two years after our invasion of Iraq. This point could probably be defended, but the timing of the movie makes it seem as though he wanted to make a point that Bush was being as crazy as McCarthy by using this phrase. The entire movie is about these journalists trying to prove how McCarthy’s fear tactic is unjust, and I think Clooney was trying to hint that Bush’s was as well.

Oria, GNGL

I think that Edward R. Murrow would have been very successful if this happened today. He stood up for what he believed in, and took a stand against Senator McCarthy. McCarthy made accusations against several Americans calling them communist in the 1950s. Many lives were ruined by his accusations and were blacklisted as a result. No one ever wanted to stand up to McCarthy out of fear of being called a communist but Murrow did. Murrow’s actions were so controversial and unheard of in this time. He covered subjects that no one else had the guts to talk about and took many risks.

Edwar R. Murrow would have definitely been successful today because people now in days love anything that is controversial. Also the media and people are much more open and flexible now then they were in the 1950s. Everything in the 50s was scripted and cookie cutter that anyone who stepped out of the way things were “supposed to be,” then they were looked down upon, it is definitely not like that now. Now people are praised for being brave enough speak their opinion, especially when it involves issues such as this. What Senator McCarthy did was wrong and it ruined many lives. Murrow took initiative and spoke against McCarthy for being ethically wrong with his action but he was unsuccessful because of the constraints placed upon him by the society.

Leary-Good Night and Good Luck

Three cinematic techniques used in Good Night and Good Luck that really caught my attention were black and white photography, close up shots/tight frames, and all the indoor shots. Personally, I think it was a great idea to film the movie in black and white because it makes the audience feel more like they are actually in 1953, watching this as it is happening. If the movie was in color, I feel like it wouldn’t seem as realistic and would make you feel like you are just watching what happened back then which isn’t as exciting as watching an event as it occurs. The black and white photography also seems to say that this movie is actually “black and white”, meaning that McCarthy is black because he is doing wrong and Murrow is white because he is doing what is right. McCarthy is doing wrong in this movie by accusing innocent people of being communists when he has no actual proof. Murrow and the news crew are doing the right thing by standing up to McCarthy when no one else will and showing the viewers why/how what he is doing is wrong. Black and white photography seemed to really make the movie. It actually made me more alert to what was going on in the movie because since black and white seems boring and dull, the message the movie is trying to make really stands out.

The second cinematic technique I chose was how this movie has a lot of close up shots and tight frames. Every time the camera zooms in on a persons face, you actually feel like you are right in front of that person, actually talking to them, which makes it so much more personal. It makes the audience feel like they are dealing with the conflict with the person whose face is zoomed in on. Each time the camera does a close up, it seems to also have a tight frame. This tight framing shows that whoever is zoomed in on is in a very tight position and doesn’t have much room to move. I saw many tight frames where the person was in a very difficult situation where they didn’t really know what they should do and what was right or wrong (black and white). I think using tight framing was a very smart idea that also made the audience feel the stress that the characters were feeling which made the movie very relatable.

The last technique I chose was the indoor shots. The shots in this movie were all indoor shots that were pretty much all in the television-recording studio. The indoor shots make the characters in the movie seem trapped in one area. These shots also make the characters not have much room to move since they are taking on such a serious issue that will affect everyone watching their television show. Since they are never outside, it may seem like they will never see daylight. What I mean by this is that they are trapped indoors with the communist issue and since the shots are never outside, they might never see the sunlight as in happiness or peace. This relates to the plot of the movie because the characters are taking on a very serious issue that the characters feel troubled by. I think the indoor shots were a very good, creative idea. I would of never thought about the relationship between the shots being in doors and the struggle for room to move. It is a very interesting idea that makes the movie even better.

Overall, I believe that all three of these cinematic techniques were great ideas that helped the movie prove its point. All of these techniques sent out the message that Murrow and the television crew were trying to do what was right but ended up with tough decisions that trapped them between what is right and what is wrong.

Lucio Good Night and Good Luck

There are amazing similarities between the events which took place in the film Good Night and Good Luck to what was going on in 2005 during the film’s release. The movie is set in 1953 with all the horrors of Hitler and World War II still fresh in the minds of the American people. American media was antagonizing anything and anyone whom they believed to be a threat to American society, specifically the communists. Senator Joseph McCarthy simply used this fear for his own personal gain, falsely accusing hundreds of people of being communist. Because of the general American fear and animosity towards communists, very few people were willing to speak against him. This McCarthyism is all too similar to the events which took place in 2005. After the horrific terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, the American people gained a similar fear and animosity towards terrorists, Muslims, and pretty much every middle-eastern country in general. Thus, George Bush was able to use this fear and heightened sense of American patriotism to his own advantage. Just as McCarthy shouted terrorist, Bush shouted WMDs, both accusations being void of any real proof or confirmation.

Rivera: Good Luck America

The film is based on Edward Murrow's public attempts to reveal McCarthy's completely ridiculous witch hunt for what it truly was. It wasn't a ploy to reveal potential communists within the US government, but a ploy to shine light on his career. The film was made at an important time in modern US history, the reelection of bush just occurred, and the war in the middle east is still underway, and maybe most importantly, there still has been no discovery of WMD's in the Middle East. The similarities between the film and the events occurring 2005 are clear; should we stand by and accept what our government tells us? As Murrow said, “Our history will be what we make of it”.
“The war on terror” has received plenty of controversy, and very little praise, sense the events of 9/11. It seems as though our government is constantly issuing statements, only later to retract or change them to correct errors. All the while expecting the American people to stand by and mindlessly accept any information given as proof. Murrow's statements then, are just as important to us now, for the issue he was speaking of remains never-ending; no matter how afraid we are, no matter how severe the punishment, the most important thing we can do as people is to always stand up for what is right. The government says there are WMD's in Iraq? Prove it. McCarthy says he knows there are communist ties in our government? Where was his proof? Murrow shows there is no wrong in deciding your government can be wrong. “We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it.” He is saying do not lose ourselves, not just as individuals, but as a nation. By standing by and letting our government lie to us, to bring terror into our hearts and offer no proof is simply unacceptable. Today, with war still in the Middle East, it is hard to say if Murrow would be heard by Americans. The events of the 1953 Red Scare were so easy to continue because the government was able to instil fear into Americans by creating an enemy, Stalin, Socialist governments. The government said they were going to protect us from the evils of Stalin, so we allowed them to feed us, we accepted their safety without question. In 2005, Americans believed they had a clear idea of who the enemy was, there was no need for the government to paint us a picture. Yet, they did. They told us “these people over here are enemies, and so are these people, they have these weapons and they want to hurt us”. Well again, Americans wanted to feels safe, safer than after 9/11. See, the events of 9/11 changed America, maybe shook us back in time even. It brought us back to a time when we were afraid, and all we wanted was safety. Our government was the source of that safety. America had been pushed back to the state that Murrow had warned us about, just like in 1953. Edward Murrow was a very persistent man in '53, and he would be just as persistent today. He would not accept conviction without evidence then and would not do it today. It's hard to say if he would be heard by American people today however. I mean, he said it then, so why did we stop listening?

Armentor Goodnight Sweet Prince

While the arena of Goodnight and Goodluck highlighted a major socio-political contraversey in our young history, the ideas in question, at least under the lens of a broadcasting station, are still as relevant today as they were in the 1950's. Although I feel some view this overall conflict as a fued between two men, McCarthy and Murrow, the film Goodnight and Goodluck serves not only as a political commentary on Habeas Corpus (highlighted by Eisenhower's speech at the end), but as an insight into the interworkings of a broadcasting station. The station encounters problems such as censorship, advertising disputes, and accusations of bias. Now if I were to ask Anderson Cooper if he encounters all three of these issues on a daily basis, would anyone think he would tell me no? One hears all the time of the apparent monopoly left wing politics has on Television, with syndecates such as MSNBC, CBS, and CNN holding more cards then poor little Fox News. It was interesting to see the backroom crafting of the news, how a story presented as objective really goes under intense scrutiny and editing before its presented as a 30 minute "product" for visual consumers. This sense of "inventing the news" is not only still practiced but has maybe even intensified; for example I can recall a few months back when the Sean Hannity show ran a clip in the fall depicting imagery from a protest in the spring (the trees gave it away) that was a blatant example of news fabrication.

About the only thing that has changed in this whole process is the scale and the audience. In the time of Ed Murrow, the variety of television was severely limited, making Ed Murrow's face a more widely recgonized face then that of Katie Kourac. But now, everythings bigger, the audience, the channels, the news stations...now there are specialized programming for different political slants, is not Rachel Maddow set up to serve a particular interest? But also, the whole idea of media has now changed. Whereas in 1950 when THE media was two television stations and newspapers, now with the internet, an intense new media culture has blossomed. With the spread of media has come accessibility and today everyone has access to all forms of news, allowing people to edit the news for themselves.

Calderon Good Night and Good Luck

Black and white photography sets a completely different mode for the movie. It mainly focuses on a speech from Edward Murrow, but the black and white photography captures the audience into the era. George Clooney wanted to set the stage for the feel of the 1950s. The black ties and crisp white shirts with smoke in the background are a meticulous example. The inside shots also very clearly reveal how people in the 50s worked in offices. Every scene is inside and in the studio. It really shows the seriousness about work and how much work was put into the show. The tightness and extreme close-ups, especially on Edward Murrow, show the seriousness again & focus solely on Edward Murrow. He was the leader and he stood up against McCarthy, so he had to be the sole focus. The picture posted here again demonstrates the closeness of the team working in the studios. The shot is medium closeness so it is not completely focused on one person. They were a team, so it shows how they always worked together. Altogether, the cinematography of black and white gives the movie a sort of history feel to it. It seems as though it is a history movie with the black and white, but it is perfect in black and white. It would definitely not have the same feel if the movie were in color.

Lighter - Authentic 1950's

George Clooney’s movie Good Night and Good Luck uses a authentic 1950’s feel by using black and white, close ups, and only indoor shots. Clooney originally shot this movie in color and later switched it to black and white. The black and white effect is a realistic attribute to this film because in the 1950’s all film was in black in white. The choice to do this was very influential to how the viewers experienced the film, it gives the viewers authentic feel and it blends well with real footage from the 1950’s. The dramatic close ups were also an important part of the viewing experience; they added a stressful or intense feeling to the film. The viewers can feel “closer” to the film with these close ups because of the feeling it makes someone feel as the camera slowly moves closer to the speakers face. Finally, the indoor shots are another authentic part of the film. This time period is the beginning of television, which also means they are using the first video cameras. A trend in technology is that everything when it first comes out is quite large and was not easily moved, which is why there are no outdoor shots, because the transportation was simply not easy. Overall, the general feeling all this effects has on a viewers is a very authentic 1950’s feel with a intensity that keeps you on the edge of your seat waiting for what will happen next. I enjoyed the film because of the authenticity and because of the differences from other films made in 2005. I find this film to be more interesting because of how authentic it is, if it was in color the feel of the movie would be unnatural and would not be as enjoyable.

Bone GNGL

The three cinematic techniques that really influenced how I
felt about Goodnight and Good luck were the indoor shots,
close ups, and tight frames. All of these different aspects
really show how the people's minds of this time period were
like. Everyone kept close tabs on everyone else this is displayed in the
tight frames. The close shots reminds people that they were
always being watched. Everyone is very paranoid in this movie. The couple that worked together hid their relationship from their fellow employees. They did this so they could keep their jobs. We see them in tight frames, and this describes the relationship between two people who are married. They cannot express their love but we witness it in the close ups. The people in the movie are afraid to bad mouth McCarthy because of the paranoid attitude symptomatic of the era, during which the blacklisting of notable figures who expressed views of dissension was commonplace.
Edward R. Murrow was filmed in a close tight frame. During these slow moving zoomed-in shots we as viewers feel he is talking to us directly. The time period made it so that with the limited people on television that people felt a personal relationship with the people who were broadcasted into their homes. The statements Murrow made influenced many people because of this personal relationship the viewers felt.

The indoor shots made me realize how suffocating the people felt. There was no room for anyone to made a mistake or say something that made them sound communist. The characters never got any fresh air or relief.

Cassimere; Good Night and Good Luck

The use of tight framing, all indoor shots, and black and white photography gives the viewer a sense of anxiety and allows them to identify with the characters. Cinematography aims at making the viewer feel as if they are with the characters in the movie, and in this case, the cinematography causes the viewer to almost experience the same pressure and anxiety that the characters in the movie are experiencing. The makers of Good Night and Good Luck wanted the audience to feel like they were in the same situation as the characters in the movie.

Most of the situations in the movie are very tense, and the tight framing emphasizes this tension. Characters are placed on the edges of the screen and given very little room to move around. This focuses the viewer’s attention to only the person speaking, which, in my opinion, causes the viewer to pay critical attention to what the person is saying. Tight framing also gives the impression that the characters can sense the small amount of space around them, which adds a claustrophobic element to the scene. The use of only indoor shots adds to the claustrophobic element. Outdoor shots offer a sense of relief and openness, which is not found in this movie.

The use of black and white photography gives the movie a vintage look, as if it were made in the same year it is set in. I think it is important that the film was shot in black and white because it adds to the ability of the audience to identify with the characters. It also makes everything a little darker, which I think adds to the anxiety factor of the film as well.

McGowan GNGL

Good Night And Good Luck is

a film that portrayed the red scare in 1953. This film did a great job of showing the nature of the decade. For example, it was shot in black and white. This is the most obvious element that influences perception of this film. Although it was filmed in 2005, viewers feel as though they are watching a classic. I think this is one of the most important elements of the film. The black and white of the film made me perceive it as if it was actually shot in the 1950's.

Another element that I noticed was the high contrast lighting. It was a lot of black and white and not a lot of grey. This harsh lighting showed the material as being very harsh, as this was a harsh time for America. It is almost as if you are in the middle of a horror film because everyone is frightened. I think that this painted an excellent picture of the nature of the red scare in the 1950's.

The last element that I would like to discuss would have to be the many slow close ups of the film. I think it is very interesting that the camera goes from a very formal distance to an up close and personal distance. This made me perceive the film as being very intense. I honestly had a hard time watching this film because it made me feel the tension in the scenes.

Lanaux Good Night and Good Luck

The use of black and white photography gave the film a classic and realistic feel. I thought it was interesting because not a lot of movies made these days are shot in black and white. I like old movies so the photography made the movie stand out to me compared to other movies that take place in the past. Whenever Murrow was doing his television program, it looked like I was watching the actual event rather than a reenactment.

There were many of tight frames in the movie. It showed that this was a stressful time to the characters. Seeing such tight frames creates tension between the characters and shows how this political situation was terrifying for some and affecting not only peoples' personal lives but their professional too. When Murrow is doing his television program, it is done in close-up. Murrow is the center of attention and the only thing to focus on. With this, all your attention is on him and you listen to everything he says. I noticed during some of these scenes, the camera is shooting his profile but right above him is the television with him looking right at us.

I enjoyed Good Night and Good Luck and thought it was a very interesting film. There were some parts that didn't hold my attention completely but the techniques made the movie stand out.

Palmer GNGL Prompt 1

Although the content of Good Night and Good Luck was very good, the execution of the film was outdated for the present. I understand that the movie was filmed this way to be reminiscent of the time portrayed in the film. However, the film lacked variety and did not hold my attention.

The film lacked a wide variety of scene locations. While this technique helped to keep me grounded in the location, it failed to keep me engaged in the action of the scene. If memory serves me correct, the film spanned mainly over four locations, primarily the studio. Also, the close up frames did not have any positive effect on the film. The reason for this is because the majority of the character did not offer a wide variety of facial expressions and emotional content. The only real emotions expressed were happiness, sadness, and anger. The black and white did not help the film. It created a dull atmosphere and limited the visual affect that the film could have had on me and other viewers. Once everything has been considered, one can say that these affects made for a lackluster film. The movie had great substance, but it was visually exhausting.

Rayburn GNGL - Prompt #1

This movie is largely driven by dialogue, and so Clooney, in order to keep the interest of the modern American viewer, had to get creative with his use of camera work. I found that many of the elements he used subconsciously piqued my interest in the things Murrow said:

• For one, the use of black and white was a way to emphasize the dialogue. Without color, which can so easily become a distraction, the brain has less elements to process, so, more availability for the words to really be heard.

• Secondly, the shots typically were split between two main speakers. For instance, when McCarthy is televising his reply to CBS, the camera keeps both Murrow and McCarthy in the shot, focusing slowly back and forth between the two (see image). Even when McCarthy is not in focus, you find yourself staring at his blurred figure, wanting to see the face behind the words.

• Also, despite the movie being exclusively indoors, Clooney uses camera work that pans from one speaker to another in moments of high-stress or overlapping dialogue, giving the scene a feeling of motion, almost mimicking an action movie.

• Lastly, you find yourself listening so intently to Murrow because you are simultaneously watching people listen to Murrow. Every so often, during Murrow's particularly long monologues, the camera will show studio workers behind the booth staring intently at Murrow's face, soaking in every word he says. They are captivated by him, and so is the audience because of it. Not to mention David Strathairn's portrayal of Murrow is spot-on, down to every nuance, and if you don't always hear what he says, you can still marvel at the way he says it.

All of these elements took a potentially boring movie and made it into a captivating one. A movie that incites thought and reflection on our world today, and maybe causes a little more appreciation for the way the news used to be.

Nguyen Good Night and Good Luck

Good Night and Good Luck is a film that attempts to show us what happened during the time of the red scarce brought on by Senator McCarthy. The film itself uses different cinematic techniques to make the film feel as though it was made in 1953 as well as incorporating different forms of symbolism.
The most obvious technique is the fact that the movie is in black and white. The lack of color allows the audience to imagine as if they were watching the events of the red scare as it was happening in 1953. It adds a realistic yet fictional aspect to the film. The lack of color also shows that the situation with the communist was also black and white. It was clear that what McCarthy was doing is wrong, yet no one had the courage to stand up to him because they feared retaliation.
Another key technique are the constant close ups with the many characters. The close-ups allow Murrow, the newscaster, to be more intimate with the viewers. It creates a more intense and personal atmosphere throughout the movie because the red scare was a serious matter that endangered many innocent lives. The close-ups also showed that Murrow was taking the situation very personal even though he never really admitted it.
A subtle element of the film is that all the shots of the movie was made inside never outside in the open. Symbolically it shows that the communist threat was affecting people’s personal lives within there home and not just the outside world. The mere assumption that a person was affiliated with the communist party does not ruin just the individual’s life but the lives of his family as well.

Parker Good Night and Good Luck

When I first heard we were watching Good Night and Good Luck, I immediately went to look it up to see what the movie was about. When I did this, I saw that George Clooney and Robert Downey Jr. starred in it, my first thought was, "Wow, this is going to be a good movie." However, not even the cast of amazing actors could make up for the problems I had with this movie.

Once the movie started and I saw that it was in black and white, I was turned off right away. I don't particularly like black and white movies. They don't hold my attention very well.

Another issue I had with this movie is that it was all filmed inside the studio. There was no change in setting. There was no action. The whole movie was just people talking to each other about communism and then going on the TV to talk about it even more. I felt like it was just a blah movie that didn't dig into the plot enough. The most important issue was that I didn't really like the characters. When I watch a movie, I like static characters or characters that I can relate to. I felt like none of these characters were developed as much as I would have preferred, and of course, I couldn't relate to them at all.

While I like the message behind the movie, I can't say that I liked the movie as a whole.

Parsons: Feeling of the 1950's

Good Night and Good Luck is filmed in a way that emulates the way television looked in the 1950’s. Because television was a new medium, usage of cameras and sound systems were in their infancy. All television had to be filmed in studio and close-ups were typical to show people’s facial expressions more clearly. This film creates this atmosphere that puts the audience into the 1950’s, not only by imitating the film techniques, but also by creating a tense, claustrophobic environment that shows the feeling of the time period. Indoor shots, many close ups, and tight framing made the film feel more like its time and affected the way I watched the movie.

Good Night and Good Luck was filmed in the best way for the affect that director George Clooney wanted to achieve. I watched the film with a feeling of unease. The movie itself was stark and beautiful with amazing shots and great visual images. Incorporating actual footage from the 1950’s, and pairing that with modern film done as antique made the movie really powerful because it made the audience feel like we were really experiencing the events surrounding the McCarthy hearings. Not only did the all indoor shooting make the film seem like it revolved in its own world, but it made us feel like their was no escaping the incidents of Murrow taking on McCarthy and we were right there through the pressure with CBS. The close ups and tight framing added to this feeling. The close ups made us feel like we were talking with Ed Murrow himself, and this was like his actual TV show from the 50's because it was usually just close up shots. Overall I liked the way Good Night and Good Luck was filmed because it added so much to the movie that would not have been there if filmed normally.

McElvaine. Good Night and Good Luck.

Edward R. Murrow would have been very successful in today's society. Murrow's claim to fame was tackling subjects that no one else had the guts to tackle. For example, in the film Good Night and Good Luck, Murrow takes the risk of questioning the soundness of Senator McCarthy's accusations that various American citizens were communists. During this period no one was willing to challenge McCarthy's accusations for fear of being accused themselves and Edward R. Murrow took the bull by the horns and stood up to McCarthy because he believed that what McCarthy was doing was ethically wrong.

Murrow would be successful today because people appreciate controversial opinions today. In contrast to the news of the 1950's, which was completely scripted and prerecorded, we now are capable of receiving live streaming news of many issues 24 hours a day. Because we have such access to the news we also appreciate hearing many different opinions of the news and different interpretations, similar to what Murrow offered during the 50's. Murrow is comparable to today's Bill Maher. Maher takes on controversial issues and awards people the opportunity to tell their side of the story in an open forum. Maher addresses issues that he has an ethical connection to and helps people to better understand both sides of a controversial issue. Maher and Murrow have very similar approaches to tackling difficult issues, Murrow just had much tighter constraints on what he could say on the news. Had Murrow been a reporter or a news caster today he would have had a much more open forum to express his political views and would have had much more success.

Vucic Bastards

The most interesting character in the movie Inglorious Bastards is by far Christoph Waltz who plays the role of Hans Landa, a high ranking official of the Nazi party bent on finding jews in hiding . First and foremost, I have chosen Waltz as my favorite because of his stunning performance on screen. His character stood out most because it was so believable. Brad Pitt's character was well done as well but when I saw him on screen, I knew I was looking at Pitt rather then Aldo Raine. Waltz's character allows you to really get into the movie and start hating this guy. This guy is the most ingenious character in the whole movie. Waltz will talk to you in front of your face and win you with his charm in a matter of seconds, then the next thing you know he will turn it all around on you and be on the floor strangling you to death. Waltz is easily the most compelling character in the entire film and stays that way throughout. Furthermore, Waltz steals the scene of every scene he is in. Pitt is supposed to be the major character in the film but every frame that Waltz appears in has your attention immediately directed towards him. Rather, he demands your attention because he so wonderfully pulls off the sly and cunning character traits that are required for this role. Waltz is one of those characters that we love to hate and leaves a lasting impression on us well after the movie is over.

Farris - Good Night and Good Luck

On the surface, Good Night and Good Luck is about the Red Scare prevalent in the United States in the 1950s in which Americans lived in constant fear of the infiltration of the government by Communists. But, since this film was released in the early 2000s, it can be said that the underlying message of the movie is actually about the “terrorist scare” that was witnessed in the U.S. after the 9/11 attacks in 2001, and is still very much felt to this day.

Senator Joseph McCarthy’s televised proclamations about known communists in the government and in Hollywood did what they were meant to do: instill fear into the American public. These claims, however, were not exactly justified because there was no real proof to back them up, but they were still widely believed anyway. Similarly, President George W. Bush and members of his cabinet made public claims about the confirmed existence of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, which also lacked in proof to back them up.

A country in fear is extremely gullible, and is even willing to give up certain freedoms in order to feel safe. In the 1950s, phone taps were widely used to track down “Commies.” After 9/11 the Patriot Act was passed, allowing the government to have access to people’s emails, phone conversations, and other records. Whether these methods are effective are debatable.

Yes, I do think that Edward R. Murrow would have been as successful today as he was in the 1950s, although he would need have used a few different methods. People today simply do not watch television as diligently as they did in the past because there are so many other forms of entertainment available, especially via the internet. In order to be heard, Murrow would need to adapt his message to these technologies.

Oria, Inglorious Bastards

My favorite character from the movie is Shoshanna. She goes through so much throughout the entire movie and I feel like she has the most reason to burn down the theater with the Nazis in it. Now it is not that the others did not have a reason to kill the Nazis, I mean who did not want to kill the Nazis, but I feel like Shoshanna has such a deeply rooted hatred for them because of what they did to her family. She is such a strong character and that is why I think I like her as much as I do. She sacrifices her life, her theater, and the love of her life Marcel all to seek revenge for the massacre of her family and her people. The entire movie I feel like she is very strong and intense. Whenever Shoshanna is shown, she is working on the cinema. The scene that made her my favorite character was the one where she was getting prepared for the Nazi night in her cinema. She is dressed in a floor length bright, red dress. This is the brightest outfit she wears the entire movie, all of the other ones were very plain and dull colors. I think that this was done because red symbolizes anger, passion, or blood. She is angry with the Nazis and is passionate about killing them. I do not know if this is true or not but I remember hearing in a movie once that if a person was some how involved with the death of a person, at their funeral they wear red. This might not be true but if it is then I found it interesting that she was in red because she is going to be the cause of a lot of Nazi deaths in that theater.

The picture I choose I felt truly describes her; it is when she is about to go see the Nazis. If you look at the lighting, it is lighter around her eyes and that is what I was first drawn to, it was the dominant image. Her eyes are very intense and determined but at the same time they are slightly covered by the black veil. I think that this represents how she knows what she has to do and she is going to do it but at the same time she is not going to reveal it to everyone. Also I think that it is significant that it is not solid piece of fabric over her eyes that completely cover them because it is not like she has tried to hide her distaste towards Frederick Zuller, he just has not gotten the message. The next thing my eyes are drawn to is the swastika in the background. It is kind of blurred but it can still be made out. It is huge but I am not drawn to it at first because it kind it just kind of falls into the background which I believe means that it was all over the place in this time and it was not uncommon to see them everywhere. It could also represent her motivation for burning down the building. It looks like it is apart of the building and she wants to destroy everything that is Nazi. Therefore she must destroy the building because the Nazis are in the building.

del Valle, Good Night, and Good Luck

“His primary achievement has been in confusing the public mind, as between internal and the external threats of Communism. We must not confuse dissent (opposition) with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men -- not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular." (“Of Murrow, McCarthy & Miller” by Jim Emerson)

In the film, Good Night, and Good Luck, there are many uncertainties surrounding Joseph McCarthy and his approach towards “ridding the country of communism”, that are pointed out in newscasts by the reporter Edward R. Murrow. Joseph McCarthy attempted to gain the support of the country through propaganda, “half-truths”, and some “outright lies”. For example, he had claimed that the American Civil Liberties Union was reported as a Communist Party in disguise, however he was never able to state who had reported the group as this, in fact, there was evidence proving this group as the opposite, as a group known to never have been reported as dissident. McCarthy used lies to not only persuade the country, but to also confuse them into consent, convincing them that those being prosecuted were threats to the country in their loyalty to communism and disloyalty to America. He also had a way of confusing disloyalty with disagreement. He seemed to forget that in our country that all people are innocent until proven guilty. Similarly, in 2005, there was skepticism revolving the Bush and Cheney administration and their choice to begin a war with Iraq. The basis of their choice was evidence they claimed to have that proved that there were Weapons of Mass Destruction being made in the country. However, similar to the way McCarthy’s accusations were always just that, and not based on actual facts or evidence, but instead based more in falsehoods, the “discovery” of the weapons, also, was just an accusation, and when further investigated was in fact proven to be false. However, the government continued on their track, insisting the evidence, which had been falsified, still gave reason to start the invasions and wars. McCarthy’s accusations has more evidence opposing his beliefs, however he carried on with his persecutions, similarly the administration in 2005, did the same. When Cheney received documents from the British, from the Italiams, claiming to confirm Iraq’s purchase of uranium of Niger, the CIA was notified and called for a further investigation of the situation, when the investigation was complete, it was verified that the documents were forged, however, the administration still referred to these documents as a form of validation or as a motive for their actions.

Considering the similarity of the two situations, I think Edward R. Murrow would be successful had he taken the same approach in 2005 that he did in 1953. I don’t think it would happen right away, however, I think, through a few steps, he would gain the support of the country. Through presenting the public with the facts, based on evidence, that would prove the government was lying, he would raise doubts in the public, and therefore make them question the administration. Then through his persistence in presenting these truths, he would eventually persuade, some, and possibly all of the public, to see the truth. Finally, he would gain their full support when pointing out things such as how the government is hurting the public in their decisions, creating a “common enemy”, and then by pointing out that our country was based on the idea that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and without proper evidence supporting otherwise, those being attacked are not guilty.

Woodall Good Night, and Good Luck

Although I believe the plot and overall structure of Good Night, and Good Luck was slightly anti-climatic and left more to be desired, the cinematic techniques boosted the film tremendously. First, director George Clooney’s choice to shoot in black and white sets the period and really proves just how much actor David Strathairn resembles Edward R. Murrow. It also symbolizes the clear division between the two factions: Murrow’s team and McCarthy.

The black and white also exaggerates the high contrast lighting used throughout the film. The bright whites mixed with the brooding dark shadows induce a sense of uneasiness and tenseness, which was how Murrow and the nation as a whole felt during the McCarthy trials, and how I felt watching. Black and white film heightens this stark contrast; color would only blend together and deemphasize the contrasting light and dark.

Finally, the use of close up shots throughout the movie brings the audience in and makes us feel a part of the action, not just spectators. We are able to see the expressions of the characters in detail as react to different events. We are able to see Don Hollenbeck unsuccessfully hide his anguish as he listens to the poor review of his show; we see Murrow’s determination when he is fighting for the initial chance to confront McCarthy; and we see Murrow’s subtle satisfaction after the end of every show. These close ups give us an opportunity to really feel what the characters are feeling instead of having to told through dialogue or other techniques.

With all its short-comings, the cinematic techniques Clooney employs bring Good Night, and Good Luck into the upper echelons of film.

Oria, Jeremiad

The biggest issue that I believe needs to be addressed in American society today would have to be discrimination towards others. Many people believe that discrimination and segregation ended when African Americans gained their freedom and rights, but in reality it still exists today. Discrimination can be seen everywhere across the United States, but it is particularly evident with men and women who are Muslim or just of Middle-Eastern decent. People have a hard time accepting what is different from them. Muslims are feared because of the events that took place on 9/11, but is it right to label an entire race just because the actions of a group? What I am trying to say is that all because the terrorist who crashed the planes on 9/11 were Muslim extremists, does not mean that every Muslim you meet shares the same morals or sentiments. Although this generalization should not happen, it still does. As a result, today’s society has developed an “Islamophobia,” they fear Muslims and believe that if they are allowed to practice their religion freely in America, then we are allowing terrorists to have a free for all. There was an incident in Houston, Texas involving a Middle-Eastern man who was shot and wounded by another man. When asked why he shot the Middle-Eastern man, the assailant accused the man of “blowing up the country.” Another story tells of four immigrants who were shot and killed by a man as revenge for 9/11. This country is becoming increasingly discriminative towards Muslims and people who look Middle-Eastern. It needs to end because everyone is equal, no matter what he or she looks like or what he or she believes in. A good majority of the Muslims that occupy America are citizens and have lived here their entire lives. They have just as much of a right to the first amendment as any one else who lives here. If this discrimination does not end, we are going to revert to how it was when African Americans were segregated.