This is a critique I wrote on/comparing Good Night, and Good Luck (George Clooney, 2005) and Badlands (Terrence Malick, 1973). Focus on genre and presentation of history.
Both Badlands and Good Night, and Good Luck could be categorized as “historical melodrama”, but in order to analyze the accuracy of this genre label, it must first be determined whether the films are, in fact, historical. And if so, how is this history presented? By analyzing the choices of cinematography in both films, I will discuss how those choices affect the presentation of historical events in Badlands and Good Night, and Good Luck.
The events depicted in Badlands are shown in a way that encourages the audience to simply observe. We are not inclined to root for or against the characters, nor do we feel particularly sorry for them. Kit and Holly are not earnestly unlikeable, they are simply apathetic, and the audience feels apathy towards them as a result. Malick is not here, attempting to tell a story in which the audience can invest, but neither is he relating a straightforward biography. The choice to shoot this film in color, for example, testifies to something more than a simple retelling, even with the brief addition of black and white newsreel footage. The beauty of the flames, when Kit burns down Holly’s father’s house, is a commonly praised aspect of the film, and would have been rendered almost boring in black and white.
Additionally, the detachment that the audience feels from the characters (and even the events) is intentional--the result of deliberate choices in cinematography. Malick’s seemingly random shots of nature and scenery facilitate this detachment by illustrating the indifference of nature as a parallel to the apathetic characters, thus also encouraging the indifference the audience is supposed to feel. The use of montage practically erases a sense of time, and wide open shots of the great plains highlight the insignificance felt by the characters and encourage the audience to experience a sense of extreme objectivity (Hoffman). This facilitates the idea that these events actually occurred, and that the audience is only observing from a distance. This is somewhat true, in fact, because the film is based on historical events; however, Malick has not made a documentary, he has made a commentary, albeit one that is not particularly straightforward. The detachment one may feel from the characters of Badlands is an intentional narrative decision, highlighted by the choices in cinematography and the balance of story and history.
In Good Night, and Good Luck, however, any detachment a viewer might have felt from the characters and events was very likely unintentional on the part of the director. The sensation of spectatorship in Good Night, and Good Luck is due to the factual presentation of a fictional film. The movie is in black and white, to match the archival footage of Senator McCarthy that Clooney chose to use. This choice creates an illusion of history, because although the film is clearly made of facts, those facts are presented in a deliberate and distorted manner. Yes, Clooney’s story is grounded strongly in history, but his decision to pick and choose what bits of history to include, and to present those bits in a “trustworthy”, news-like format combine to create an illusive “historical” melodrama.
The documentary flavor of the film will likely have one of two effects. If one views the film as more of a documentary than a narrative, one may be inclined trust the movie’s version of events and characters more than one should; conversely, one may simply be bored by or skeptical of the straightforward presentation of events. I fall into the latter category. I was not able to suspend my disbelief when viewing Good Night, and Good Luck, and therefore I was critical of the depiction of fabricated events alongside historical footage, as well as the way in which Clooney chose to have the two parts interact.
I am not, by any means, accusing George Clooney of claiming this as a documentary; however, I am accusing the film of presenting a skewed view of history in a format that is traditionally more straightforward--black and white. The choice to convert Good Night, and Good Luck to greyscale to match the McCarthy footage was a clever one, because the movie fit together nicely enough, the scripted bits intermixing with the truly historical. The effect was, however, misleading and ultimately hurtful to the film’s message.
A straightforwardly biased film would have provided the audience with more opportunity to suspend their disbelief, and this approach would (or perhaps, should) have involved chucking the archive footage altogether and casting an actor to play the character of McCarthy. Because in this film, McCarthy is just as much a written character as whoever it is that is played Robert Downey, Jr., even if the words are unscripted. If we are to walk away from Good Night, and Good Luck praising broadcast news as defeating McCarthyism, it is difficult to do so in light of history. But if we were to walk away from the film praising broadcasters for finally standing up for their beliefs in the face of great personal risk, perhaps we would have been better able to do so if the story did not masquerade as fact. Murrow himself reportedly said that he “didn’t do anything” and was effectively quite late to the “party” of journalists attacking McCarthy (Shafer). Clooney’s version of Murrow does not even match up with Murrow’s version of Murrow, and if the director was attempting to chronicle history, he probably should have been a little bit more diligent in his research. Having said that, however, if he had wanted to tell a fictional story with a message, he ought not to have tried so hard to make it feel factual.
Although both Badlands and Good Night, and Good Luck probably fit best into the genre of historical melodrama, their lack of attention to relating historical facts (for better or worse) makes them better candidates for my just-invented genre of ahistorical melodrama. Both films involve the use of very deliberate cinematography, the only question is whether those choices were the best for the story they were trying to tell, or whether they should have taken a second glance.
