 |
|
 |
 |
|
Hollywood on Clooney-watch Finally Hollywood appears to have regained some of its moxy. Over recent years, the film viewing public has seen too many remakes of old TV series, dead concept sequels, and blockbusters with such intellectual role models as the ever grunt worthy Vin Diesel. Very little from the mainstream has been produced that has intended to provoke thought, or to question the ways of our existence, two of the real duties that any medium has, and particularly that of the popular film industry. In mainstream cinemas, playing now, there are at last some films that promote questions, provoke thought, and inspire action. The two most important of these are Syriana and Good Night, and Good Luck. Both these films have a strong connection to Hollywood's outspoken, but ever charming man of the moment, George Clooney. Reflecting society has always been one of art's most important roles, but every now and then it gets lost into simply delivering entertainment, as opposed to responsibly using its various mediums to promote questions or (and even) provide information. Not that I am trying to say that there is no place for entertainment, even that of the purely mindless variety, but a balance needs to be kept between the two. Too often in the recent era mass media has been seen to rest on its laurels by solely providing distraction and light amusement. Yet perhaps now we have some sense of responsibility creeping back into the executives' incoming box. When I first saw Good Night, and Good Luck two months ago, I was so deeply affected I could not speak beyond 'wow' for a good thirty minutes. Normally it becomes a challenge to get me to be quiet for longer than ten. This film both depressed me about the current state of affairs, and gave me hope that there was a consciousness that wasn't just going to fade out. Good Night…is an account of the McCarthy era and the fear created by his communist witch hunts. It is centred around the courageous and much publicised dispute between McCarthy and newsman Edward R. Murrow. Murrow is an inspiring figure for any journalist with a conscience. A man who literally took the powerful men of his time head on, and stayed true to his convictions and to the belief of writing and saying the truth even when it was unpopular to do so. However, despite its political matter, and the clear parallels of the paranoia of that time and now (not to mention the digression of Civil Liberties in the US), Clooney, the director, co-writer, and co-star is adamant it is not an attack on the current administration. Good Night… is left in its own time frame, and telling it’s own story. The parallels are certainly there for anyone who looks, but it is up to the viewer to explore those in his own time. Rather, it is more clearly an attack on the current state of television, and of the lack of responsibility of today's journalists. Again, this is left up for the viewer, but it is hard to ignore the final words of Murrow: (If) "this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost. This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box. There is a great and perhaps decisive battle to be fought against ignorance, intolerance and indifference. This weapon of television could be useful." The contrast between the courageousness of early day television journalism and the watered down insubstantial television we have now today is very apparent. Journalists are running scared from being accused of editorialising. The work that 60 minutes and 20/20 are doing now a days hardly compares. Television has even gone so far to even suggest that News and Current Affairs are too boring while they attempt to 'increase' interest by creating infotainment, using re-enactments, flashy graphics, music, and numerous other gimmicks to create a news 'spectacle'. It has become scarily reminiscent of the satirical shows that are displayed in the 1976 film Network. Brave and active journalism, and reporters, are paramount to the safety of a democracy. People must be able to question those they have elected to represent them, and this questioning must be done in the public arena. Currently, this is not being done; journalists are shying away from the big questions, and with more and more networks (and papers) coming under the sway of big corporations, varied view points are now few and far between. However, despite the fear of the losing battle expressed by Murrow, hope still flickers inside this tube. If a child of television such as George Clooney is willing to put his head out so far and strongly to attack the very medium (who can forget Dr Douglas Ross???) that raised his star status and bestowing him with the power to be a spokesperson, perhaps we can still believe that some can be encouraged to ask the hard questions. The hour of George (or just over an hour and a half in Good Night…) does not stop there either. While he had a lesser involvement in Syriana (just over two hours…), it is another cinematic triumph he can be proud of (and he won an Oscar for his acting). This film is a no holds barred attack on the oil industry in the US and the corruption surrounding it. It is brutal and in your face, making good use of hand held cameras, and shows that the greed of this industry has affected everyone, leaving none 'pure of spirit'. The only difference between the characters in this film is in the degree of how bad they are willing to act to get what they want. Syriana doesn't offer solutions to the 'oil crisis'. It merely points out all the problems, corruption, and seemingly endless cycle of violence that exists and will exist until we manage to use all the oil up (in about 10 years???!). It also highlights how oil conglomerates exploit the middle-eastern chaos to make profit, and how if stability in the region was achieved, then the profits would be far more difficult to come by. It's a pretty disgusting thing to made aware of, and as consumer's of oil, it's not a hugely palatable message, but at least, and at last, it is being said in the mainstream so that more people can receive it. While both these films needed George Clooney's attachment as producer and actor to get off the ground, he is by no means the only person worthy of mention in this newly found political cinematic movement. A young production company has sprung up with an agenda of funding only ideas that are relevant to our world. That company is Participant Productions. The brain child of Jeff Skoll (former eBay president and well known philanthropist), and citing such films as To Kill a Mockingbird as an example, Participant intends to be ‘the place’ for developing independent cinema in America focusing on the public interest. By funding Good Night, and Good Luck and Syriana, Participant have got themselves off to a good start, already with many awards and nominations, not to mention two truly fantastic films. All good things. Better still, Participant doesn't stop there. For the filming of Syriana, Participant achieved the first real 'climate neutral' production. Accomplished with investments in renewable energy, Participant offset 100% of its estimated (carefully calculated by NativeEnergy) 2,040 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions. Not only that, but by setting up www.particpate.net, they have given movie goers a chance to get involved in projects to make a difference. For every subject or issue raised in one of their productions, there has been a separate section of the website created for active response, and with much more information. And with charity auctions and other similar ideas, it seems that we finally truly do have a production company that really walks its talk. Its just a pity they didn’t stay away from that piece of over-stereotyped, over-sentimentalised piece of garbage, North Country (though with their agenda, I can see why they attached themselves to it, sexual harassment etc etc, blablabla) (apologies for readers who feel I am trivialising sexual harassment. It is not my intention, but the film was just so bad) It seems from its 'coming soon' list, that Participant is now focusing its attention on non-fiction. If this is to become their primary avenue, I think it will be a bad move. Of course, many documentarians have always continued to stand for their beliefs in spite of strong opposition (Robert Greenwald's films are a good example), but the audience for documentaries is small, with the exception of Michael Moore (but then, he is an 'exception' in his documentary methods). It is more important that the far larger reaching, mainstream cinema start conveying important messages for enough people to hear. Documentaries are so often preaching to the converted, the mainstream dramatic mode has more power to carry new people with it. So has Hollywood finally allowed itself to be brave enough to push the limits of the mainstream? The years of 2005/2006 have seen at least a start. Maybe the glory days of the fearless cinema of the seventies can begin to be reclaimed. Maybe even the courage shown in the fifties. We can only wait and see. With Participant Productions, and the ever smooth Mr. Clooney as a poster boy, maybe we can even hope.
For further interest, check out these sites
Dominic da Souza
|
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
