In this age of tumultuous politics, George Clooney's film "Good Night and Good Luck," which pays tribute to 1950s broadcast journalist Edward R. Murrow (whose connections to Tufts are many), leaves modern America asking, "Why don't we have one of those?" Murrow's courage in exposing the bogus "communist" accusations and false fear inspired by Senator Joseph McCarthy greatly altered the realm of post-World War II politics. The new millennium should only be so lucky. The Daily spoke with actor David Strathairn, who plays Murrow in the film, to discuss the challenges and rewards associated with portraying such a pivotal character in American history.
Question: Did you watch a lot of Murrow to prepare for this role?
David Strathairn: Yeah, a lot of Murrow, read a lot of stuff in the kinescopes and the actual broadcasts. I had to learn the script like a piece of music.
Q: Was there a challenge in putting him across, because you don't really see a lot of him outside of the job?
DS: Sort of. We couldn't really indulge in what he was like at home and off the job, but that was George [Clooney]'s intention for me. It's not really a biopic; it's mostly about the event, that piece of history. Murrow was one of the greatest broadcast journalists there ever was other than [Walter] Kronkite...But his story was the main thing, so we didn't really want to investigate his life outside of that.
Q: What would you say Murrow's main characteristics were that you tried to weave into the character?
DS: I think how he listened so intently to everything, about everything. Especially this issue; the intensity he applied to making the decisions to go with the story. His sense of purpose, his sense of objectivity, and his sense of how, in the broadcast, clear and articulate and poetic his writing is, or was. To stay within that very clean, objective presentation and, at the same time, try to indicate that underneath that was this driving force or driving desire to do the right thing.
Q: What was it like seeing yourself in black and white? It's not really done that much.
DS: I love black and white. I think it's much more evocative to me than color; we respond emotionally to color differently than in black and white, we receive the information differently.
Q: Was there ever any thought of hiring an actor [to play McCarthy]?
DS: I don't think so, no. It would have been sort of irresponsible, not only to McCarthy but to the intention to make the film as a journalist would make a film: present it truthfully and plausibly. Everything in the film was double-sourced, so every action, every scene, every event, everything that happened was double-sourced - sometimes triple-sourced - by Joe Wershba [a colleague of Murrow's], who is alive and helped George and Grant [Heslov, the film's writer].
Q: So the movie takes place, obviously, in 1953, but it's not hard to see the application to the present day. Have you gotten a lot of reaction to that? Are people branding this a political movie?
DS: They [want] to make it a platform for political discussion. George didn't want to make a political movie; he just wanted to tell the story about a great American... But people are responding to it; they're making direct parallels. You can't help it; [the connection] is pretty obvious.
Q: Was that something you were aware of when you were preparing for the role and when you were acting?
DS: Yeah, we all thought about it; it was in the air...It's the things that Murrow says [that] apply directly to today: "We shall not confuse dissent with disloyalty," and "You can't defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home," and "Whether you're guilty or not, you have a right to face your accuser." Things like that.
Q: What about Murrow's successors? Do you watch a lot of cable news? Where do you think this industry has gone since?
DS: Well, [it has] exploded... Murrow was this crystal ball who just dropped, and [it has] shattered over the last 50 years. So there are pieces of it everywhere, but they're catching different light now. It's fascinating, because the film offers that insight; it's sort of that perspective from now to back then.
Q: When [Murrow] had the fight with Paley, that was a very important part of the film. What do you think about how he [Paley] had to deal with the whole corporate structure?
DS: That confrontation, that's where it first happened. Because "I Love Lucy," and "Jack Benny," and all those entertainment shows were getting lots and lots of ratings - people were watching those more than anything else. Fred Friendly resigned from CBS because the station refused to show the Senate sub-committee hearings when, instead, they showed "I Love Lucy." The collision of those two things was then, was right then.
Q: Did you ever think you'd be interviewing Liberace in your lifetime? [Laughter]
DS: That was a great interview! [More laughter] There's another thing that Murrow sort of started the ball rolling: he was the first Barbara Walters. As well as an amazing journalist, he was this celebrity at the same time. It's been said and been written that he really didn't like doing those... but he realized he had to make the money to keep "See It Now" [Murrow's weekly investigative news show] going. He would have much rather interviewed people like Oppenheimer, scientists, college presidents - that was more his inclination.
Q: That was one of the best things about [the film], that it was very serious subject matter, but there was still that sort of light, in-the-office-type atmosphere.
DS: That was George and the camera work. The energy of the camera doesn't make it feel so ponderous all the time; it's clipping along and catching candid things from people. And yeah, these guys were at the edge of a wilderness of television: what to do with it and how to use it. And the issue at hand was crucial - one of the most important moments in our history - but they didn't really know that; they were just doing their jobs.
