Network

Network_360P

One thing you got in 70s cinema, as the 60s generation began to grow up and relaxations on content stopped being threatening and started being normal, was that the message movie went mainstream. Understandably, the eloquence of the message was always going to be more important than its real importance. Network was scripted by Paddy Chayefsky, who was less the angry young man of the anti-Vietnam generation, and more the grumpy middle-aged man of any and every generation. Appropriately enough the picture is a cynical and grouchy rant. It is preachy, hysterically so in places, and yet it is so pessimistic, offering no solutions to the problems it builds up to ridiculous proportions, that watching it is a rather draining experience. Its message is not as clever as it thinks it is, conflating a new technology with ongoing social problems, as short-sighted cynics have done for centuries. There is even a none-too-subtle dig at women who take on masculine roles, which just goes to show how bitter and reactionary Network is. And the idea of someone so obsessed with an idea it causes them * prematurely is simple a sad mix of bad psychology and playground puerility. And yet, the 70s were also a time in which Hollywood was starting to regain some semblance of professionalism, after the unevenness of the previous decade. Network seems to have been made by a highly consistent production team. Sets and costumes are designed to perpetuate a pattern of regular black and white shapes arranged in rows. Not just ceiling lights or skyscraper windows, but filing cabinets, radiators all conform to this same style. Director Sidney Lumet, with his usual mode of subtle stylisation, even keeps it up in the few outdoor daytime, with the even framing of the tree-lined boulevard in the scene after Ruddy's funeral. Lumet also often has opposing shots of two actors with one in bright white and the other in black, so the switching back-and-forth between them is like a light flicking on and off. The 70s was also a time in which acting really started to successfully reconcile dramatic realism with theatrical exuberance, and here we have some great examples of both. William Holden, looking decidedly weary and craggy, seems to have entered the age which suits his style best, and he brings a layer of genuine humanity which Network sorely needs. Beatrice Straight gives a small yet impassioned performance as his wife, and though barely five minutes long her performance is among the more memorable. Another excellent bit performance is that of Ned Beatty, whose glorious hamming is the complete opposite of Straight's straightness, but nevertheless provides one of the most entertaining scenes of the whole picture. Of course any more than a few minutes of screen time and these two performances would unbalance the entire thing. Which brings us onto Peter Finch, who again is pure ham, but of the classic Charles Laughton variety, putting every ounce of strength he has into a compelling act. Had it not been Lumet's policy to ensure the real-world cinema screen never becomes the same as the film-world TV screen, we in the audience would be truly mesmerised by those mad prophet speeches. And thus Network delivers its message with great force and power. And of course the film has now gained a new raft of fans because this banal grumble about TV was supposedly "ahead of its time", except that TV never has been and never will be quite that way, because audiences – human beings – are not as stupid as Chayefsky thinks they are. In fact, the thing that Network probably best predicts is the wave of movies like Fight Club that didn't really say much but said it with an original twist and thus became cult hits. Which is a pity. And now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to watch the new series of X-Factor, which though lowbrow at least makes good entertainment.

In 1976 when this film came out, there was no cable television, no internet, no cell phones. All that existed, apart from newspapers and radio, were three or four "broadcast" television channels. Since then, technology has exploded with a cornucopia of communication devices. Which renders the story in "Network" painfully dated. And yet ... The story's theme is as valid now as it was thirty-three years ago. The theme is that the ratings business has corrupted television, because ad revenue, and therefore profit, is tied to the ratings. Programs and events then, and now, get aired if, and only if, they are likely to result in high ratings. It's all very seamy, very dishonorable, very shabby, and very relevant to today's world of ten thousand channels. Though most of the characters in "Network" end up being corrupted by television, Howard Beale (Peter Finch) is one who does not. His vision is pure. And he speaks the truth: "... television is an ... amusement park ... a circus, a carnival, a traveling troupe of ... story tellers ... jugglers, sideshow freaks ... and football players ... You're never going to get any truth from us (television) ... We lie like hell ... We deal in illusions, none of it is true. But you people ... believe the illusions ... You do whatever the tube tells you ... you even think like the tube". Worse yet, people elect their leaders based on how they look and sound, and how their words are interpreted by boob tube "pundits". "Network" is a film wherein thematic import is conveyed almost entirely through dialogue. Some of the dialogue devolves into speechifying, which may come across to viewers as preachy. Still, the film's message was highly prophetic. Except for the film's climax, everything predicted in this film has already happened. And credit should go to script writer Paddy Chayefsky for his futuristic vision. Some parts of the film seem superfluous in retrospect, like the romance between two main characters. But the film has a sense of realism, helped along by the use of technical jargon and a general absence of background music. The film's technical elements, including direction, casting, acting, editing, and cinematography, are fine. As social commentary, "Network" is one of the best films ever made, despite a dated, time-bound, story. That "there are no nations, only currency" is becoming increasingly obvious, and as Ned Beatty's arrogant character explains in a frighteningly ominous tone: "The world is a business, Mr. Beale".

This is one of those wonderful films where everything comes together. The acting and the writing is by far the most impressive elements of this film. William Holden and Peter Finch should have both received Oscars for their performances, instead of just Peter Finch. Faye Dunaway pulls of the most dynamic and emotional characters she has ever played. The true brilliance of this film is that all elements of it fade appropriately behind the actors and their messages. The film is completely a work of storytelling and, at least for the writer, stunning clarity of message and purpose. Political films come and go but few remain in the annals of film because of their effectiveness at their own message. The cinematography, editing, sound, costume design, art direction and production design are all quite simplistic. In some scenes the film can be accused of being almost ugly. However this all lends to the back-washing of the film so as to allow the message to ring loudest. In my opinion, Sidney Lumet took this just a little too far and thus I give it a 9 instead of a 10. This is certainly a film for the history books. Every connoisseur of film should be exposed to this movie at some point in their life. If you happen to be cynical, then you will love every minute of this movie as its stark view of life in the 1970's (and onward) touches the hard of even the hardest of cynics. For those educators out there, GREAT film for classes on Media and Politics.

"Network". If there was ever a film that foreshadowed to events of the future it would be "Network". Much like "Midnight Cowboy" seven years earlier, "Network" was hailed because it took risks and it was like nothing that the cinema had ever experienced before. Both films were great when they were initially released, but few great films become so much better with time like "Midnight Cowboy" and "Network". The fictional fourth network of 1976 is UBS. Ratings are bad and the network desperately needs some new show to give them a boost to challenge NBC, CBS, and ABC. Enter the network's national news anchorman (Peter Finch in his posthumous Oscar-winning role). He, like the network, is going through a crossroads. His wife has just passed away, he is about to be fired, and he is slowly losing his mind. The firing is imminent and he decides that he will announce to the world that he will commit suicide on his last evening news broadcast. Of course a national frenzy starts, but Finch surprises all by showing just how crazy he is. Instead of committing suicide, he goes on the air and becomes a modern-day Moses to some with crazed ravings and outlandish statements that really are just the ramblings of a man slowly spinning out-of-control. Faye Dunaway (Oscar-winning) and Robert Duvall are the key people at the network who find a way to market Finch and boost anemic ratings. Finch is given a variety show which could be best described as "The Tonight Show" gone stark-raving mad. He gets on stage and basically says whatever is on his mind and the crowds love it. Co-worker and close personal friend William Holden (Oscar-nominated) knows that Finch is out of control, but cannot do anything and eventually is let go due to his disapproval and interference. Holden though has fallen in love, or lust, with the unfeeling Dunaway. Wife Beatrice Straight (in an Oscar-winning performance in which she has less than 10 minutes of screen-time) learns of what is going on and more trouble ensues for Holden on the home-front. Finch meanwhile continues his ravings as he hears voices in his head telling him what he must do each time he is asked to perform. Soon his act grows stale as the public tires of his antics and the network must always defend speeches that they themselves do not really understand. Finch's "15 minutes" of fame eventually come to an end, but not in the conventional way that one may think. "Network" is a cinematic masterpiece because it is so strong in the major elements of the industry. The acting is exceptional. There were five performing nominations from this film (Ned Beatty was the fifth) and three wins. The only other film to accomplish that was "A Streetcar Named Desire" from 1951. Sidney Lumet was great before this film, but he became even greater afterwards. This is arguably his greatest directing job. The screenplay by Paddy Chayefsky is one of the smartest ever written. It is insightful and has a real depth to it. "Network" was looked upon as a sort of "far-fetched black comedy" in 1976. However, "Network" is a film that is all too realistic 25 years later. In many ways the fictional UBS station is much like the FOX station which came on the air in the late-1980s and stole audiences with wild shows that were quite different from the other three networks. Reality television, perverted talk shows, and other types of variety programming run wild today. "Network" did not have much to do with all this occurring, but it is like those who worked on the film had a crystal ball into the future. A great movie that becomes greater as time passes. 5 stars out of 5.

source: Network

Network

In 1976 when this film came out, there was no cable television, no internet, no cell phones. All that existed, apart from newspapers and radio, were three or four "broadcast" television channels. Since then, technology has exploded with a cornucopia of communication devices. Which renders the story in "Network" painfully dated. And yet ... The story's theme is as valid now as it was thirty-three years ago. The theme is that the ratings business has corrupted television, because ad revenue, and therefore profit, is tied to the ratings. Programs and events then, and now, get aired if, and only if, they are likely to result in high ratings. It's all very seamy, very dishonorable, very shabby, and very relevant to today's world of ten thousand channels. Though most of the characters in "Network" end up being corrupted by television, Howard Beale (Peter Finch) is one who does not. His vision is pure. And he speaks the truth: "... television is an ... amusement park ... a circus, a carnival, a traveling troupe of ... story tellers ... jugglers, sideshow freaks ... and football players ... You're never going to get any truth from us (television) ... We lie like hell ... We deal in illusions, none of it is true. But you people ... believe the illusions ... You do whatever the tube tells you ... you even think like the tube". Worse yet, people elect their leaders based on how they look and sound, and how their words are interpreted by boob tube "pundits". "Network" is a film wherein thematic import is conveyed almost entirely through dialogue. Some of the dialogue devolves into speechifying, which may come across to viewers as preachy. Still, the film's message was highly prophetic. Except for the film's climax, everything predicted in this film has already happened. And credit should go to script writer Paddy Chayefsky for his futuristic vision. Some parts of the film seem superfluous in retrospect, like the romance between two main characters. But the film has a sense of realism, helped along by the use of technical jargon and a general absence of background music. The film's technical elements, including direction, casting, acting, editing, and cinematography, are fine. As social commentary, "Network" is one of the best films ever made, despite a dated, time-bound, story. That "there are no nations, only currency" is becoming increasingly obvious, and as Ned Beatty's arrogant character explains in a frighteningly ominous tone: "The world is a business, Mr. Beale".

Network is satire of the television industry weighed down by age and its heavily pompous dialogues. The script lacks coherence and a strong framework despite raising up a few interesting points and questions. Some story lines seem completely pointless though like the love story between Max and Diana that doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the plot. The actors are disappointing but their shallow, vapid and excessive caricatural characters served them badly. The bland and kind of slow direction emphasizes the dullness of the movie.

I've seen this movie probably ten times since its been released and I have yet to understand what is so wonderful about it. Its not a matter of looking at it now and wondering if time has over taken it, it never worked for me. For me the film simply was "shocking" to seem clever even though it never really was. Certainly it hard to look at the film now and not think how psychic it was, but I think that was by accident, or perhaps it was the networks simply copying what they saw here and using it to boost their ratings. The story of a network which radically rethinks what its going to broadcast after its anchorman goes mad and decides to kill himself on camera is ripe with possibilities. The film makers certainly explore many of them, but at the same time each time I've watched it I've always been left feeling like I've missed something, or rather that the film is not as clever as it thinks it is. Try it, but don't feel stupid if you don't get it...I don't think there is anything to get.