The film is evidently a labor of love for Clooney, who directed, co-wrote, and stars in it as Murrow's producer. Whatever his levels of skill at any of those crafts (I like him as a movie star but haven't seen his previous film as director), no one can doubt his willingness to put his money where his mouth is.
According to an article written for The Wall Street Journal and syndicated to The Seattle Times, which is where I saw it:
To keep costs down, Clooney took only $1 as co-writer of the screenplay, and he endorsed his $120,000 directed-fee check back over to the production. As an actor in the movie...he was paid the SAG minimum.
At one point, Clooney says, the insurance company for the film yanked its policy because it feared his back problems...would prevent him from finishing. To get the policy reinstated, Clooney volunteered his home, valued at $7 million, as collateral.
Right-wing blogger Don Surber writes:
I see where George Clooney is doing a movie on Edward R. Murrow vs. Joe McCarthy.
Well, actually, he has done such a movie. A little thing called tense. But more importantly, Mr. Suber also wants to know:
...how about for his next little-guy-takes-down-the-big-guy flick Clooney does the Ray Donovan story? You know, the Reagan appointee who faced false prosecution? I even have a title for it: "Where Do I Go To Get My Reputation Back?" Those were Donovan's words after an after-the-fact acquittal.
Ah yes, Ray Donovan. For those of you who don't recognize the name, Donovan was Reagan's first Labor Secretary (not a "little guy"). He distinguished himself by easing requirements for the labeling of hazardous chemicals in the workplace. An investigation regarding a union payoff by his former firm did not, at first, produce sufficient evidence to prosecute. But neither did it exonerate him. Two years later he was indicted, saying the investigation was (sound familiar?) "obviously partisan." He resigned after being ordered to stand trial, but it's true he was aquitted of those specific charges. But to assume his "reputation" was spotless beforehand seems to be stretching it, according to contemporaneous reports.
Everyone has done McCarthy to death. How about something fresh, Clooney?
Really? According to that same WSJ article, in a June test screening:
Less than half of the audience knew about the communist witch-hunts of the 1950's that serve as a backdrop to the plot.
Clooney has also said in TV interviews that people who've seen the film, in which McCarthy is represented by TV and film clips of the genuine article, have asked who the actor playing him is.
If you know the story, and especially if you've seen tape of the broadcasts, you know Clooney is right when he calls it a peak of broadcast journalism. Does that sound like something "Everyone has done to death?" Or does that sound like something that, if well-told, at least has the ingredients for a critically praised, maybe even award-worthy movie(think Redford's Quiz Show)? No one expects a blockbuster. It'll be a good movie or it won't, but the unshaded light in which Surber is attempting to put it-
Ronnie Earle is more Hollywood's caveman politics style: Conservative evil, liberal good.-is both disingenuous and dull.
No comments:
Post a Comment