Recently, this Site’s integrity has been challenged. A member of our Junior Staff, though well-intentioned, has violated one of the precepts of reviewing. This review reviews that review, explains its shortcomings, then concludes with an establishment of goals for both The Site and its Junior Staff.
Nate takes aim at the press but hits George Clooney instead.
Having also seen Good Night and Good Luck., I’m more than adequately qualified to weigh in on the movie’s merits (or lack thereof). But why a review of Nate’s review instead of the movie itself? Nate made the oh-so-common mistake of confusing a movie’s hype with the actual movie itself (this confusion can be found in any reviewable product, not just movies.) It’s not George Clooney’s fault that critics think his movie’s all that and a bag of chips. Nate didn’t separate the hype from the product, and because of that, he gave the movie an unfair review, which casts this Site in an equally unfair light.
What I assume to be Nate’s gripes about the movie, what I called its “superficiality” during our initial discussion of it (before the publishing of Nate’s review), should not be gripes. They should be supporting details, leading to an informed opinion, and therefore, an informed review. Was George Clooney doing something evil when he chose to let the historical actions speak for themselves? Is it wrong to assume that history can and will repeat itself? Even if George Clooney were to consider his movie a parable (I do not believe that it is or is meant to be a parable, just a vaguely cautionary tale.), he’s not the first. If we were to consider this movie to be the thread connecting McCarthyism to the “war on terror,” we must remember that this same thread extends also to the Salem Witch Trials in Arthur Miller’s “The Crucible.” Though “The Crucible” explicitly called back/forward to the HUAC proceedings, it remained a rather superficial examination of a community of fear. Was Arthur Miller only giving Two-and-a-Half stars worth of effort in his famous play, simply because he had the (gasp!) audacity to think to himself, “Gosh, this has happened before, and it’s practically happening again.” Again, though I don’t consider “Good Night, and Good Luck” allegorical, I will say that any “depth” comes solely from the (re)viewers’ minds. If George Clooney were to say, “Gee, I hope that people vote democrat after seeing my movie!” go ahead and spend the effort bashing him (and his movie) because as an allegory, political tool, etc. it fails. It fails miserably.
Because the anti-political crowd (think of “The Daily Show” — soon to be mega-reviewed on this very site) is so large, vocal, and lacking perspective, they’re unaware of the fact that because being against politicians (or claiming that a movie is politically preachy) is just as much a political opinion as hating Hillary Clinton is a political opinion. If they’re looking for “Good Night, and Good Luck” to be a political tool, it will be. It’s been said that human minds better create horror than human eyes. Given the freedom to imagine their personal nightmare as opposed to a finite, real horror, they imagine the worst. George Clooney gives the audience that opportunity: look in the box, and what you see is only what you want to see.
No, it’s not a perfect movie. It does lack depth, it does simply re-create existing history. The actors aren’t so much “acting” as “impersonating.” but despite all of this, it remains intriguing. Metaphorically, I knew McCarthy’s ship would sink, but that doesn’t mean I don’t want to watch him scramble for a lifeboat. It is not one of the “best films of the year;” it’s not particularly “important,” no one “needs to see this movie.” But even though other critics are on record saying these things about the movie, George Clooney is not. The movie speaks for itself. It doesn’t say much of value, but certainly more than two-and-a-half stars worth. Nate’s expectations of the critics were not met, not Nate’s expectations of the movie. This is not the fault of the movie or George Clooney. Once the unwarranted, incorrect hyperbole of the critics is cast off, what’s left? A particularly solid, entertaining movie, nothing else. This is not a review of the movie, but a review of Nate’s review. The absolute star ranking of the movie is not important, as its now widely understood that it’s better than the two-and-a-half bitter stars that Nate threw at it. Nate’s review was well-written, had a particularly funny caption for its photo, maintained coherency despite its length, so I will be more fair in my review of his work than his review of Clooney’s.
Due to Nate’s nature as the Site’s Junior-Reviewer -at-Large, we can’t expect perfect, objective reviews. He’s only human. We all are. Should I hold The Site to a higher standard of quality, demanding insight and unbiased objectivity in reviews written by all contributors? Naturally I should (and so should all of the Junior Staff), but until that point arrives, we will use each review as an example in time, a time-capsule of sorts, of each writer’s strengths and weaknesses so that the readership-at-large sees our Junior Reviewers accomplish all of their opinionary goals. What is insight without perspective? What is opinion without foresight? What are sweeping generalizations in the absence of nuance? What is getting on one’s soapbox without a safety net of objectivity? These are the questions for which I know the answers and for which The Site’s readership demand answers. We read on as our Junior staff grabs the first handle in the philosophical jungle-gym that begins the pursuit of their own personal answers to these inquiries. Between the lines of each review we gain a clearer understanding of their answers. Between the lines of each review we see them learning to better tell others what to think. I have utmost confidence in The Site’s Junior Staff’s ability to not only learn from their mistakes, but to rise above them, and truly establish themselves, and therefore, this Site, as a premiere opinion-making entity in the world.
Nate, we’re all rooting for you.
5 responses to “Nate’s Review of Good Night, and Good Luck.”
Wow. Thanks Dan. I feel served. Hopefully my article about how much Real Big Fish’s most recent album sucked will be less tainted by the fact that certain people like it than this last review was. Aw crap, that means I’m gonna have to listen to it all.
I give Nate 5/5 stars, you 0/5 stars, and George Clooney 2/5 stars for managing to play Batman during his career.
Hmm, well, those ratings seem a bit arbitrary.
[…] May 2nd, 2006 Nate This review might be rendered irrelevant by now, considering the extremely poor showing of the movie financially, and its inevitable disappearance from theatres within the next two weeks. In fact, after being totally overwhelmed with the ubiquitous advertising campaign, I’ve heard nothing about it in the past few weeks. I’m sure by now you probably don’t care about this movie, or have totally forgotten about it. I’ve written it though, and you’re going to read it. Now imagine a comedy that was funny. That’s right keep imagining. Coming off of seeing “Thank You for Smoking” the week before, I was hoping that “Hollywood” would be two for two in the satire game. I was thoroughly disappointed. I should’ve known better after looking at other people’s reviews, but I’ve been known to not agree with most critics sometimes, see “Good night and Good Luck”, “Matchpoint”, and that terrible Robert Altman murder-mystery, “Gosford Park”. But I hate it when they’re right and I don’t listen to them. I mean seriously, how could it fail? It’s got a great premise (a president who’s losing face with the country is booked to be a guest judge on a fake american idol show, and terrorists, seeing an opportunity to come face to face with the POTUS, have one of their own attempt to make the finals in order to blow him up), the director of some good movies, including “About a Boy” and “In Good Company”, and it’s got a great cast. AND NY1’s own Neil Rosen gave it a big four out of four apples!! I have a confession to make that’s kinda off subject. I like Hugh Grant. I think he’s entertaining and enjoyable in pretty much every movie I’ve seen him in. I do like him better in non-romantic comedy movies, and I know he’s got a limited range, but he’s good at what he does. Having him play a Simon Cowell character here is absolutely brilliant, as I can’t think of anyone who could pull it off better. The rest of the cast is stacked as well, with 3 academy award nominees. The direction is fine, and the acting passable, Grant, Mandy Moore, Seth Meyers, and the Arab performer are the standouts, with everyone else kinda coasting along with not much to do except play bland cookie-cutter stereotypes. I think the reason that both of these aspects come across as mediocre, however, is because the writing is just below the quality it should be. Sure the idea and the story are interesting and relevant, but somehow, it’s not funny. There’s no jokes. No punchlines, no pratfalls, no double entendres or mistaken identities, and only a few asinine situations. The humor in a satire is supposed to come from exaggerating reality the point of ridiculousness to show our foibles. Most of this movie, however, just goes for imitation and not exaggeration. The President story is actually the least interesting, as instead of trying to come up with completely outlandish politician generalizations (dr. strangelove perfectly showed this, without having to resort to cheap imitations), they go for the tired bush/cheney imitation, with nothing new or funny to say about either. It’s as if they were conflicted between making fun of the president and humanizing him. He’s not completely stupid, just sheltered by his chief of staff, and a bit socially akward, and he barely says anything that would remotely be considered a bush-ism. The Mandy Moore story is good, until they attempt to make a dramatic turn with her and Hugh Grant, which would actually work well in any other movie, but doesn’t seem to fit here. It’s as if they can’t decide between sweeping generalization and dedicated character examination. In fact, these are the only two characters in the entire thing that don’t play as stereotypes and have any sort of internal conflict (outside of the arab contestant, whose conscience seems entirely motivated by having us feel sympathetic for him for plot reasons). The most interesting aspect of the entire movie, and the only one that actually could qualify as satire and not just imitation, is the show itself. The characatures are spot on, from the sassy black woman, to the Clay Aiken pretty-boy and the rocker (one of which was played by trey parker, but with as little screen time as they got, I couldn’t tell which one it was), whose song pretty much consists of variations of the phrases “I’m a rockin man”, “I like to rock”, and “I’m the real thing”. In addition, the other two finalists (aside from Mandy Moore) consist of the aforementioned arab, who’s often hilarious in his on-stage performances, and a hasidic jew who sings about getting down with the ladies. The only time that the movie really goes for a straightforward joke, it nails it. After a huge disaster happens at the show’s finale, and the technical difficulties sign comes up, it says, “The voting lines are now open”. We are shown images of people all over the world watching in shock at the events, but then picking up their phones simultaneously to vote, including the terrorists who vote via satellite phone. Basically that’s it. The movie had promise, but without a better script it just came across as boring and for the most part, unfunny. Oh yeah, and there’s a gay arab choreographer. If something like that doesn’t get on your nerves after five minutes, this may be the movie for you. I wanted to like it, there just weren’t enough good things for me to justify myself liking it. American Dreamz gets one and a half stars for being a movie that set itself up well, but opted not to go for many punchlines at all. The cast was game, and the direction a little confused at times, but most of that confusion falls on the writers. I was bored for at least half of it, and without any characters to root for, (because the only ones that weren’t poorly realized characatures were too self-loathing) you kinda just find yourself hoping that the movie will end soon. In “Thank You for Smoking”, the main character is more self-indifferent than self-loathing, and that’s why it’s easier to root for him, and that movie as a whole. I highly suggest that movie over this one, as it’s much smarter, deeper, and more biting. […]
[…] August 11th, 2006 Nate Oh, those kids. Always at it. You guys really shouldn’t’ve. So here we are at the first of what may be a few reviews of our first milestone, 100 reviews. Not only is this the first review of this milestone, but of what could be very many milestones. We here at the Bookshelf like the word “milestone”, and don’t believe in Thesauruses. So here we go, our first hundred in a nutshell. The first actual review happened way back in October of 2005… remember that time before the Steelers won the superbowl, before “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire” movie, before Dick Cheny accidentally shot his friend while hunting, and before Bristol, United Kingdom celebrated the 200th birthday of Isambard Kingdom Brunel (actually April 9) by relighting the Clifton Suspension Bridge? Dan’s first review was aimed at complaining about post-game hype surrounding an extremely long baseball game. Of course our readers probably care about boring Astros-Braves baseball games as much as they seemed to care about my terrible review of the dictionary. Even though that picture was good, it was nowhere near the five star quality of this image. I too tried my hand at reviewing food, but it was an utter failure. On the plus side, my review of the letter to the editor is one of my favorites, and my first review actually got eight comments, including this link. The few following that grilled chese review focused mostly on music, my opinion of “Good Night, and Good Luck”, a particular episode of Trading Spouses, and Dan’s opinion of My opinion of “Good Night, and Good Luck”. Dan also said that the Colbert report wouldn’t last, which seems to have been proven false. October seemed to be us finding our footing. November saw Dan’s Cleveland Trifecta, a diatribe against horses, a road that he liked, an episode of “Coach”, and his complaints about how much he aches, now that he’s an old man. I started the month strong with the Beth review, but struggled through the rest of it, with lame reviews like Thursday, a type of tooth”paste” that doesn’t work for me, and an insightful, yet completely unnecessary complaint about my nosebleeds. My FAO Schwarz review kinda made up for them, but the highlight of the month involved Dan and I sparring about how Christmas is coming earlier every year, and something about me being a time-traveling sheep. November didn’t see much improvement over October, but the Christmas stuff was entertaining. December got a bit better, even with a few less reviews. I busted out the old NES games, for a few reviews that I swear are not trying to copy off of XE, another personal favorite, Christmas Cards, Adam’s first review, Dan throwing the hate down on Pitchfork media, and a suprising amount of people commenting on Roger Ebert’s take on video games. The biggest advance in December was the pop-ins, that added added some clarity to our parentheses-obsessed-writing. December was a highly engaging and entertaining month, even with only nine reviews. 2006 rolled around, and January saw Dan get political, review half of a book, not like warm winters a lot. I only contributed three of ten reviews that month, but all three of them were relatively alright, mostly because “Where In Time is Carmen Sandiego”, and “The Simpsons” after season 9 is so easy to complain about. January’s topics fell off a little. February, while being the shortest month, was also a monster for us, as far as number goes. A whopping twenty-one reviews. To be fair, 17 of them came in our envelope-pushing live superbowl reviews, the biggest stunt pulled in the history of reviewing anything and everything on a five star scale. The only other reviews of any substance were my Gauntlet Review of the Beatles albums, and Dan’s digging up of our one-issue underground high-school newspaper. Despite the big stunt, and two good reviews, February was kinda lacking. March just plain sucked. Four reviews total. One by me. Three mega-reviews by Dan. April was slightly better, with another of my top five of my reviews, Legacy of the Wizard. The other four I would give an average of 3 stars to, but since there were only four during the month, that’s going to cancel out the Legacy of the Wizard bonus and take it down a half star. For my money, May was our best month yet. Dan’s contribution was the lengthy three-part TV landscape review. I threw out quality stuff with my Songs for Silverman, and Degree Navigator reviews. The shorter American Dreamz and Davinci Code video game reviews were serviceable, but my immense LOST season 2 review tops everything. June fell off a bit. Four reviews total. Split two and two. Mine were based on a ridiculous news story, and anger at other people for coincidentally coming up with the same ideas as me. Dan tried to put everything into perspective by seeing how well the entire history of human ingenuity and artistry stacked up in the interstellar community, and complained a little about how the national geography of roadways isn’t designed to suit his needs. July was filled with the (I gotta admit my ignorance as to the relevance of this phrase… and wikipedia does nothing to help) Navel Gazing set. I was had for a few minutes by a Jimmy Kimmel hoax, and I thought the critics were a little too harsh on Shayamalan. Despite the mediocre numbers for the month, I’d give it a 3.5 This gives us a per-month average of 3 stars, which isn’t too shabby. In my first ever review, I reviewed the concept of this website. I claimed that we wouldn’t be able to keep it fresh, that we’d run out of ideas, and that we wouldn’t be able to stay somewhat funny at least. I believe my exact quote was “It has the potential to provide hours of entertainment for readers, and shape their lives for years to come. However, the downside is that it could get old real soon, and provide us with nothing but an excuse not to get real jobs.” Well, I think we’ve significantly proven wrong every single point that I just brought up. We have 29 categories, 19 subcategories, and even two sub-sub categories. We’re still writing about reasonably different things, and while we may have slacked on the funny in recent months, we still bring the ‘A’ game on occasion. As far as my quote goes, I’d be willing to bet that we’ve provided maybe a few hours of entertainment for a handful of people, which probably did nothing to shape their lives for even the near fututre. On the upside, it hasn’t gotten old, and we have gotten real-ish jobs. For all of these reasons, I’m willing to up our star rating by half a star, over the average rating of 3. I’ve also realized that my method of calculating the rating might not be the best, so I’m gonna throw in another half star for a final rating of 4 stars out of five. And for those of you playing along at home, yes, this technically is the 100th review and so therefore should be included. This review receives 3 stars for not having much to offer in the way of witty musings, and for having a faulty overall rating method, but for packing so many subjects and links into one review. […]