GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK Previews- Page 2

[BETTY22]

Posted: 3/21/25 at 3:45pm

Review: Good Night, and Good Luck – A Starry Letdown That Misses the Mark

George Clooney’s Broadway debut in Good Night, and Good Luck should’ve been a moment. A timely story, a beloved star, and a marquee theater—it all sounds like the recipe for a hit. Instead, what’s onstage at the Winter Garden is a bloated, sluggish, and strangely lifeless production that feels more like a museum exhibit than a play.

The most glaring problem? There’s barely a play at all. Much of the two-and-a-half-hour runtime is consumed by video montages and projected archival footage, leaving the cast—Clooney included—playing second fiddle to a screen.

It’s less a theatrical experience than a dramatized newsreel, padded with live music and long transitions that feel like attempts to justify the ticket price.

Clooney, a natural on camera, seems strangely adrift onstage. His performance as Edward R. Murrow is polished but distant, and at times, he appeared to stumble through lines. Whether he was reading from a physical script or not, it felt under-rehearsed.

The rest of the cast is equally lost in the production’s cavernous scale—especially in a space like the Winter Garden, where the intimacy this material needs is drowned out by the distance.

The climactic TV montage—meant to send the audience out with a swell of emotion—feels manipulative and overproduced. It plays more like a YouTube tribute video than a theatrical payoff, though judging by the cheers in the audience, it hit its mark for some.

Still, it’s hard to ignore the sense that this show was assembled as a star vehicle, not a piece of living, breathing theater.

The producers may be raking it in, but audiences are left with a flat, uninspired experience.

A BIG STAGE, A BIG NAME, AND VERY LITTLE TO SAY.

[TotallyEffed]

Posted: 3/21/25 at 4:04pm

I thought this was an hour and forty minutes?

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 3/21/25 at 4:12pm

TotallyEffed said: "I thought this was an hour and forty minutes?"

It is, indeed. (Though it feels like 2.5 hours…)

[KevinKlawitter]

Posted: 3/26/25 at 12:03pm

102-year-old Shirley Wershba (portrayed in the play by Ilana Glazer) to attend opening night

[TotallyEffed]

Posted: 3/26/25 at 12:07pm

KevinKlawitter said: "102-year-old Shirley Wershba (portrayed in the play by Ilana Glazer) to attend opening night"


Let that old lady take a nap in the comfort of her own home.

[Tom-497]

Posted: 3/29/25 at 1:14pm

I saw last night's performance from a $99 seat (first row of the mezz, which still seemed pretty distant in the too-large Winter Garden). I think the show is worth seeing, although it's a mixed bag.

On the plus side:

- I didn't realize until I got to the theater that Paul Gross from Slings & Arrows was in this - if I had, he would have been the biggest of several big draws for me. He gives a good performance as the head of CBS and has, I think, the play's key lines, telling Clooney's Edward R. Murrow that even Murrow injects his opinion into supposed straight news and asking (rhetorically) what it will be like when less responsible people start doing that.

- Because the above is such a significant aspect of the story, I liked the near-closing montage of TV images leading up to the present, showing the ever-increasing propaganda spewed out as "news." It felt, to me, like an effective illustration rather than the usual fatuous attempt to indicate that the past might actually still be relevant. (And, even if for other reasons, it got an extremely positive audience response.)

- Clooney gives a good, restrained performance that makes sense in the dramatic context: Murrow is the star and focal point of a show that involves many other significant players, and so is Clooney. He also has a particularly funny, character-revealing moment when wordlessly responding to a compliment.

- The multimedia presentation is effective: you can choose what to focus on. And while some have seen it as a weakness, the contrast between a huge, imposing TV close-up and the life-size guy who's just reading words off a page struck me as intentional and successful.

As for the negatives:

-  The multiple songs are far too prominent and occasionally intrusive. The evening begins with a complete number that, to my taste, added nothing other than a few minutes of running time. And much worse, a song destroys what might otherwise have been an excellent sequence where the spread of sad news brings a loud, bustling room to silence.

- The subplot involving two young lovers is relevant but still feels like an uninspired attempt to inject some light romantic comedy. (The serious part of the subplot, McCarthyism hitting close to home, is already there with regard to Clooney's character.)

- As someone else mentioned, the very large stage sometimes gets in the way of tightness and sharpness of pacing, and also just swallows things up. The production tries to get around this, with mixed results, by having, in effect, mini-stages in which to confine action (e.g., a small corner of an office; a small, overcrowded conference table).

Last, I'd just mention that the audience seemed pretty tuned-in overall. And there were a few big responses - one joke stopped the show for several seconds, and the actor had to make an effort to get back on track.

[MasterThespian 2]

Posted: 3/29/25 at 5:49pm

Thanks for the detailed review. Hearing the same things over and over. A thin story being stretched with video montages and a live band. 

[jared123]

Posted: 3/30/25 at 12:59am

I really wanted to like this, but agree with the mixed word.   Its kind of lifeless, despite a great cast.   The theatre is also gigantic.   I was an aisle seat on row G and even there i felt really far from the stage.   I can't imagine the rest behind me not feeling the same and that's like 75% of the room.   Im glad I snagged a $299 ticket, if I had spent more id be more annoyed.