Good Night, and Good Luck

This was a very realistic film, you could imagine that it was like this back in the 1950s.  The choice of black and white was great for this film because it gave you a sense of the 1950s era as well as letting you pay attention to the characters without being distracted.  I think color would have had a negative impact on this film (The Art of Watching Films, p. 91).

Wide-screen format was used in making the film, but it appeared wider on my television screen than Slumdog Millionaire did.  Most of the shots in Good Night, and Good Luck revolved around an office setting whereas Slumdog Millionaire revolved around an entire city.  Panning was also used a lot less in this film compared to Slumdog Millionaire.

I couldn't tell if this was filmed using smooth-grain or rough-grain film stock, but I am going to say rough-grain film stock was used even though there were a lot of close-up shots.  In The Art of Watching Films, it says that rough-grain film stock has become associated with a documentary here and now quality (p. 93), and this film seemed like sort of a documentary theme to me.

The script was well written.  It gave you an idea of what kind of power the government had over you back then, I guess the correct terminology would be censorship, and the script gave you a sense of the fear Murrow, as well as his colleagues, felt in trying to butt heads with the power of McCarthy.

The four factors on the setting and its effects were done well in this film:

1. Temporal factors - The story takes place in the 1950s and its characters reflected that as well as the office setting.
2. Geographical factors - Having the bulk of the scenes shot in a newsroom setting let you see how hectic news deadlines can get and let you feel the tension.
3. Social structure and economic factors - Murrow wanted to let the public know what McCarthy was doing even though he didn't have the power McCarthy had, and it wasn't the norm for reporting.
4. Customs, moral attitudes and codes of behavior - It was customary for newsrooms to entertain the public and to not make waves with the government in the 1950s, and the moral attitudes of the people involved in telling the injustices McCarthy was doing changed as they tiptoed through the processes (The Art of Watching Films, p. 101).

Setting was used as a determiner of character and as a microcosm; what happened in that newsroom was representative of the world as a whole (The Art of Watching Films, p. 105).

Hard front lighting was used and it made you see the film as you would see it if you were really there (The Art of Watching Films, p. 117).  The film seemed mostly shot as an objective point of view, you felt like you were watching through a window.  Even the close-up scenes felt like you were just watching, like when you would get a close-up of Murrow, he wasn't looking at you, you knew he was looking at Mr. Friendly (The Art of Watching Films, p. 127).

The camera technique used fixed-frame movement with some panning and tilting.  Most of the panning was done during McCarthy's answer to Murrow's previous telecasts and all the shots seems to be at eye level (The Art of Watching Films, pp. 138-139).

This was a good film, and the director did a good job of letting you know what it was like back in the 1950s.  Freedom of speech has come a long way since then.