Last Seen Movie - The Latest Movie You Have Seen; ratings
I used to play this dialogue over and over. LolEric wrote:Don't FUCK with my distribution costs! I'm making a lousy two-fifteen per segment! I'm already deficiting 25 grand a week with Metro! I'm paying William Morris 10 percent off the TOP! And I'm giving ten-thou per segment for this turkey and another five for this fruitcake!flipp525 wrote:If Eric is lurking around here today, I'm sure he'll co-sign as well.
And, Helen, don't start no shit with me about a piece again! I'm paying Metro for ALL foreign and Canadian distribution, and that's after recoupment! The communist party's not going to see a nickel out of this goddamned show until we go into syndication!
... and, yes, I typed that all from memory.
-
Eric
- Tenured
- Posts: 2749
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:18 pm
- Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
- Contact:
Don't FUCK with my distribution costs! I'm making a lousy two-fifteen per segment! I'm already deficiting 25 grand a week with Metro! I'm paying William Morris 10 percent off the TOP! And I'm giving ten-thou per segment for this turkey and another five for this fruitcake!flipp525 wrote:If Eric is lurking around here today, I'm sure he'll co-sign as well.
And, Helen, don't start no shit with me about a piece again! I'm paying Metro for ALL foreign and Canadian distribution, and that's after recoupment! The communist party's not going to see a nickel out of this goddamned show until we go into syndication!
... and, yes, I typed that all from memory.
Well, even Italian screenwriters today seem to have seen too many American movies and not to have a life, a real life. It's not like Italian cinemas is as good as it used to be - actually its downfall may even be more dramatic than the American one. Italians may be very happy now because Bertolucci will get the honorary Golden Palm at Cannes, but one should be worried when one's country get more "honorary" and "career" film prizes than competitive ones.Sabin wrote:(ITALIANO @ Apr. 16 2011,2:01)BOOM!...Rather than an endless collection of young soulless writers who have only seen American movies (and never had a life), and two many script revisions.
Hi, Marco-hates-America! Dude, it's been forever!
Still, we do very good and interesting movies once in a while - movies like Gomorra, Il Divo, Vincere, hopefully Nanni Moretti's Habemus Papam which I still have to see. American cinema can also produce works of art, and for example one of the most beautiful, most intelligent movies I've seen in the last 15 years IS American - The Thin Red Line.
No, I don't love The Blind Side, but it's not just a bad movie, it's a bad AMERICAN movie, which means bad in a very American way. It's atrocious but its roots are firmly into American ground, and Americans - only Americans - loved it. So I use it always when I need a good example of a terrible American movie. I'm open to suggestions so next time I can use another title though.
(ITALIANO @ Apr. 16 2011,2:01)
Still haven't seen The Blind Side. Guess I'm Canadian or something.
(ITALIANO @ Apr. 16 2011,2:01)
Even without the results, are you seriously saying that Network has the scope and bite of La Dolce Vita? I don't think Network even attempts that. And the last word I would use to describe Network is "Novelistic".
(ITALIANO @ Apr. 16 2011,2:01)
Well, you see here we certainly agree. I like Network. And the fact that I can disagree with some of its points means that it's some kind of worthy achievement, as certain dubbed "Classic" films suffer from time to time from being indoctrinated into the canon and much of it being a part of the collective consciousness. For instance, I can't know the shock of watching the "Mad as Hell!" sequence for the first time. I'm glad we could come together on this without resorting again to societal slams and - wait, hold on, I have another call:
(ITALIANO @ Apr. 16 2011,2:01)
BOOM!
Hi, Marco-hates-America! Dude, it's been forever! It's been literally fore - oh, that's right. It's been since the beginning of the post when you brought up The Blind Side again.
I'm kidding. I agree with you on the above post, but I'm kidding. Although at this point, you're like a homophobe who can't shut up about gay people. Like when gay people didn't think about being gay as much as Eddie Murphy in the 80's, and you started to wonder if he was trying to tell us something. Is there a person in the world who has talked about The Blind Side more than you in the past year? Do you love The Blind Side?
I think I mentioned this in passing but when I read for New Regency in the fall of 2007, I read The Blind Side and gave it terrible notices. They asked me what my opinion was and I told them that nothing was developed, that it was condescending, that none of the parts rang interestingly, that it had nothing to say, that it's mildly offensive, that it's predictable. Then I saw the trailer for it a few years later and it blew my mind.
I'll be the first to admit that American movies are getting worse. On the other hand, siskelandebert.org featured an old Sneak Previews for Year in Review where they called 1976 a terrible year for movies and Gene Siskel directly agreed with everything I had to say about the second half of Network. I'm not quoting Gene Siskel's paradigm of mediocrity sensibilities as a defense, but rather in an effort to put a classic into context, something that happens any time Raging Bull is brought up.
Are American movies getting worse? Sure, but every two or three years, we get a year like 2007 or 1999 where we're treated to a slew of astonishing pictures that additionally utilize new technology and sensibilities that would be impossible decades ago. I know that I've brought up a specific period of time this moment that wasn't initially being debated but from what I gather, 1976 was not an incredibly proud year for films, a year of horrible 3D rehash, of sequelitus, of every movie being "Basically Jaws", and we are essentially harkening back to a time where All the President's Men, Network, and Rocky may as likely have been nominated alongside Voyage of the Damned and Voyage of the Damned again. I don't buy it that this period of time is that much worse.
(ITALIANO @ Apr. 16 2011,2:01)
That's nice.
Well, they were like Network in many ways - not "perfectly" structured, and because of this not "predictably" structured. A movie could even be, like you say this one is, a series of monologues - and still be not only good or at least well-received by critics, but even commercially successful. You won't find monologues or Beatrice-Straight-type scenes in The Blind Side, believe me.
Still haven't seen The Blind Side. Guess I'm Canadian or something.
(ITALIANO @ Apr. 16 2011,2:01)
It's also a movie which wants to portray (and to say something relevant about) contemporary society - not just parts of it, ALL of it, like "big" novels do. Which is of course what even movies should do, and what some movies used to do back then (today, when movies try to be this ambitious the result is something like Biutiful. Decades ago we got La Dolce Vita. Network isn't of course as good as La Dolce Vita is, and Sidney Lumet isn't Federico Fellini, but at least Chayefsky as a writer shares Ennio Flaiano's scope and bite, if not necessarily his results).
Even without the results, are you seriously saying that Network has the scope and bite of La Dolce Vita? I don't think Network even attempts that. And the last word I would use to describe Network is "Novelistic".
(ITALIANO @ Apr. 16 2011,2:01)
And then yes, the movie is messy, moody, shouted, everything you say and that you are perfectly right to say. But one feels that there is a mind, one you can even not agree with but at least a mind, behind it...
Well, you see here we certainly agree. I like Network. And the fact that I can disagree with some of its points means that it's some kind of worthy achievement, as certain dubbed "Classic" films suffer from time to time from being indoctrinated into the canon and much of it being a part of the collective consciousness. For instance, I can't know the shock of watching the "Mad as Hell!" sequence for the first time. I'm glad we could come together on this without resorting again to societal slams and - wait, hold on, I have another call:
(ITALIANO @ Apr. 16 2011,2:01)
...Rather than an endless collection of young soulless writers who have only seen American movies (and never had a life), and two many script revisions.
BOOM!
Hi, Marco-hates-America! Dude, it's been forever! It's been literally fore - oh, that's right. It's been since the beginning of the post when you brought up The Blind Side again.
I'm kidding. I agree with you on the above post, but I'm kidding. Although at this point, you're like a homophobe who can't shut up about gay people. Like when gay people didn't think about being gay as much as Eddie Murphy in the 80's, and you started to wonder if he was trying to tell us something. Is there a person in the world who has talked about The Blind Side more than you in the past year? Do you love The Blind Side?
I think I mentioned this in passing but when I read for New Regency in the fall of 2007, I read The Blind Side and gave it terrible notices. They asked me what my opinion was and I told them that nothing was developed, that it was condescending, that none of the parts rang interestingly, that it had nothing to say, that it's mildly offensive, that it's predictable. Then I saw the trailer for it a few years later and it blew my mind.
I'll be the first to admit that American movies are getting worse. On the other hand, siskelandebert.org featured an old Sneak Previews for Year in Review where they called 1976 a terrible year for movies and Gene Siskel directly agreed with everything I had to say about the second half of Network. I'm not quoting Gene Siskel's paradigm of mediocrity sensibilities as a defense, but rather in an effort to put a classic into context, something that happens any time Raging Bull is brought up.
Are American movies getting worse? Sure, but every two or three years, we get a year like 2007 or 1999 where we're treated to a slew of astonishing pictures that additionally utilize new technology and sensibilities that would be impossible decades ago. I know that I've brought up a specific period of time this moment that wasn't initially being debated but from what I gather, 1976 was not an incredibly proud year for films, a year of horrible 3D rehash, of sequelitus, of every movie being "Basically Jaws", and we are essentially harkening back to a time where All the President's Men, Network, and Rocky may as likely have been nominated alongside Voyage of the Damned and Voyage of the Damned again. I don't buy it that this period of time is that much worse.
(ITALIANO @ Apr. 16 2011,2:01)
Do we care about the relationship between Holden and Straight in the movie? Because of that one scene they share. at least I do.
That's nice.
"How's the despair?"
Sabin wrote:I'm not entirely sure what you mean when you say "Movies in the 70's were like this.".
Well, they were like Network in many ways - not "perfectly" structured, and because of this not "predictably" structured. A movie could even be, like you say this one is, a series of monologues - and still be not only good or at least well-received by critics, but even commercially successful. You won't find monologues or Beatrice-Straight-type scenes in The Blind Side, believe me.
It's also a movie which wants to portray (and to say something relevant about) contemporary society - not just parts of it, ALL of it, like "big" novels do. Which is of course what even movies should do, and what some movies used to do back then (today, when movies try to be this ambitious the result is something like Biutiful. Decades ago we got La Dolce Vita. Network isn't of course as good as La Dolce Vita is, and Sidney Lumet isn't Federico Fellini, but at least Chayefsky as a writer shares Ennio Flaiano's scope and bite, if not necessarily his results). And then yes, the movie is messy, moody, shouted, everything you say and that you are perfectly right to say. But one feels that there is a mind, one you can even not agree with but at least a mind, behind it. Rather than an endless collection of young soulless writers who have only seen American movies (and never had a life), and too many script revisions.
Do we care about the relationship between Holden and Straight in the movie? Because of that one scene they share. at least I do.
Edited By ITALIANO on 1302981062
(ITALIANO @ Apr. 16 2011,1:09)
If it wasn't for Jonathan Rosenbaum's fascinating essay on Taxi Driver and the nature of authorship, I might agree. But no, there's just as much to discuss in Taxi Driver today as Network. I don't agree. In a way, both films have become lionized into classics, even though they're both imperfect in varying ways.
(ITALIANO @ Apr. 16 2011,1:09)
That's a straw man argument, Marco. I'm not objecting to the scene because it doesn't make it a commercial script. Lord knows, it's not like the remainder of the script is anything commercial on paper, as it's entirely monologues. I'm objecting to it because it has nothing to do with the rest of the movie, not simply because of plot but also because we're never given a reason to care about Max and Diane's relationship, a reason to believe it's to be taken seriously, a reason to feel good or bad if it works or not, a reason to care about any of these peoples' personal lives, and - beyond all this - a reason to even think including personal lives in this business belongs in the same universe as this film. I have absolutely no problem on Earth with movies that are overstuffed, mixed bags, take chances by varying tones here and there...but that doesn't work in this film. Is it an "unexpected pleasure?" I suppose so, but it's also another five or six minute scene consisting entirely of one person's exhaustive monologue, and perhaps it might carry a little more weight if the previous scene wasn't a five or six minute scene consisting entirely of one person's exhaustive monologue or if the next scene wasn't a five or six minute scene consisting entirely of one person's exhaustive monologue. It's not that it's different that I object, Marco, it's that like the rest of the scene half of the movie it's sadly the same.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean when you say "Movies in the 70's were like this.".
It's not a perfect movie, but like other not-perfect movies it's still worth discussing today, after so many years. Does anyone really want to discuss Rocky? Or - though it is a better movie than Network, and a greatly respected one - Taxi Driver? And does anyone even just remember Bound for Glory? Network is hated by some, but it's certainly not forgotten. Just for this Paddy Chayefsky should be proud.
If it wasn't for Jonathan Rosenbaum's fascinating essay on Taxi Driver and the nature of authorship, I might agree. But no, there's just as much to discuss in Taxi Driver today as Network. I don't agree. In a way, both films have become lionized into classics, even though they're both imperfect in varying ways.
(ITALIANO @ Apr. 16 2011,1:09)
This doesn't make it a masterpiece, of course, and this movie isn't a masterpiece. But compared to American movies today, it seems like a towering achievement. Even its imperfections - like that famous Beatrice Straight scene. Yes, I know, one shouldn't give such a good scene to a character who never appears again in the movie, and any American book about "how to write a good commercial screenplay" would consider it an unforgivable mistake. But those books are one of the reasons why today American movies are all similar, all alike - no surprises, no sudden, unexpected pleasures. The scene is very good, and that's the point, that's its raison d'etre. Movies in the 70s were like this.
That's a straw man argument, Marco. I'm not objecting to the scene because it doesn't make it a commercial script. Lord knows, it's not like the remainder of the script is anything commercial on paper, as it's entirely monologues. I'm objecting to it because it has nothing to do with the rest of the movie, not simply because of plot but also because we're never given a reason to care about Max and Diane's relationship, a reason to believe it's to be taken seriously, a reason to feel good or bad if it works or not, a reason to care about any of these peoples' personal lives, and - beyond all this - a reason to even think including personal lives in this business belongs in the same universe as this film. I have absolutely no problem on Earth with movies that are overstuffed, mixed bags, take chances by varying tones here and there...but that doesn't work in this film. Is it an "unexpected pleasure?" I suppose so, but it's also another five or six minute scene consisting entirely of one person's exhaustive monologue, and perhaps it might carry a little more weight if the previous scene wasn't a five or six minute scene consisting entirely of one person's exhaustive monologue or if the next scene wasn't a five or six minute scene consisting entirely of one person's exhaustive monologue. It's not that it's different that I object, Marco, it's that like the rest of the scene half of the movie it's sadly the same.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean when you say "Movies in the 70's were like this.".
"How's the despair?"
It's not a perfect movie, but like other not-perfect movies it's still worth discussing today, after so many years. Does anyone really want to discuss Rocky? Or - though it is a better movie than Network, and a greatly respected one - Taxi Driver? And does anyone even just remember Bound for Glory? Network is hated by some, but it's certainly not forgotten. Just for this Paddy Chayefsky should be proud.
In 1976 Italy (it was actually shown here in early 1977) Network was seen as, more or less, science fiction. It could only be so in a country which, back then, had only two tv channels, both public and state-owned. Two years later everything changed, and one of the men responsible for this change, tv tycoon Silvio Berlusconi, would be the first today to appreciate Network's view of television - if he were honest, I mean. I don't know much about American television, but what Network says about the subject, and about its political implication, could be easily applied to Italy.
This doesn't make it a masterpiece, of course, and this movie isn't a masterpiece. But compared to American movies today, it seems like a towering achievement. Even its imperfections - like that famous Beatrice Straight scene. Yes, I know, one shouldn't give such a good scene to a character who never appears again in the movie, and any American book about "how to write a good commercial screenplay" would consider it an unforgivable mistake. But those books are one of the reasons why today American movies are all similar, all alike - no surprises, no sudden, unexpected pleasures. The scene is very good, and that's the point, that's its raison d'etre. Movies in the 70s were like this.
In 1976 Italy (it was actually shown here in early 1977) Network was seen as, more or less, science fiction. It could only be so in a country which, back then, had only two tv channels, both public and state-owned. Two years later everything changed, and one of the men responsible for this change, tv tycoon Silvio Berlusconi, would be the first today to appreciate Network's view of television - if he were honest, I mean. I don't know much about American television, but what Network says about the subject, and about its political implication, could be easily applied to Italy.
This doesn't make it a masterpiece, of course, and this movie isn't a masterpiece. But compared to American movies today, it seems like a towering achievement. Even its imperfections - like that famous Beatrice Straight scene. Yes, I know, one shouldn't give such a good scene to a character who never appears again in the movie, and any American book about "how to write a good commercial screenplay" would consider it an unforgivable mistake. But those books are one of the reasons why today American movies are all similar, all alike - no surprises, no sudden, unexpected pleasures. The scene is very good, and that's the point, that's its raison d'etre. Movies in the 70s were like this.
Sabin wrote:Everyone in Network yells. There were times when I had to hit mute on my computer because Faye Dunaway's voice just wrecked me. But Marsha Warfield's invisible transformation from ecumenical liberation arm radical to ratings monger is such an invisible transformation and yet identical in tone and rage that she might be the film's MVP. She's great.
Love this. If Eric is lurking around here today, I'm sure he'll co-sign as well.
And, er, I meant Marlene Warfield :p
Edited By flipp525 on 1302900279
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
(flipp525 @ Apr. 15 2011,12:52)
First of all, I'm not discrediting the strength of Straight's performance. And I agree that she breaks the film into a different movie. I'm saying that the second half of the film veers into two different movies, and both of them are different kinds of exhaustive menopausal diatribes. I don't think human beings have any place in Network. You can say that she represents a human being, but a human being being what? All she plays is a jilted wife, jilted by years prior and moments present. Right? It's a beautiful scene, but it's all wrong for this film. Whatever Network is about, this recognizably human scene has nothing to do with. This scene is a direct product of a subplot that I was uninterested in, which is to say that we have to take Max and Diane's relationship seriously as the centerpiece of the film.
Let me put it another way: I don't care about Max's private life. I care about his relationship with Howard Beale which is not touched on again, and I care about his relationship with Diane within the context of satire because the film doesn't work as anything but.
Nothing against Straight personally. And while I don't think she deserved to win over Jodie Foster or Piper Laurie (haven't seen All the President's Men in ages), I certainly can't fault the Academy because it is a devastating turn. But, um, who cares?
(flipp525 @ Apr. 15 2011,12:52)
Why the fuck did everyone decide to screw up the 1976 Academy Awards with this placement nonsense! We've got cameos winning Oscars, and supporting performers trying to win leading Oscars. There's a world out there where Talia Shire won Best Supporting Actress and Peter Finch won Best Supporting Actor, and that would leave Best Actor to William Holden? Robert De Niro? Sylvester Stallone?!?
Everyone in Network yells. There were times when I had to hit mute on my computer because Faye Dunaway's voice just wrecked me. But Marsha Warfield's invisible transformation from ecumenical liberation arm radical to ratings monger is such an invisible transformation and yet identical in tone and rage that she might be the film's MVP. She's great.
(ITALIANO @ Apr. 15 2011,1:29)
Que?
Edited By Sabin on 1302896559
(Sabin @ Apr. 15 2011,12:10)Beatrice Straight is great but why do we need her? The film isn't about her. This film is a satire first and foremost, and halfway through the film, it's like Chayefsky forgets that.
Beatrice Straight is very good, but her scene is needless and indicative of where the film is going wrong.
I totally disagree with you on that. What Beatrice Straight manages to pull off as Louise Schumacher is, effectively, to create real reality amidst all the fake scriptedness surrounding her and Max. It's not just a brilliant monologue; it's a heartbreakingly genuine moment in a movie largely comprised of satire and artifice. Her sense of urgency breaks through the screen like a window, almost into a different movie, demanding the audience's attention and getting it. She goes from hurt to anger to complicity to, finally, acceptance and shared humor with Holden - and all in only, what is the agreed-upon time now, four minutes and forty-seven seconds? It was a brilliant turn that was worthily acknowledged by the Academy. She belongs in the movie if for nothing else than to represent a human being.
First of all, I'm not discrediting the strength of Straight's performance. And I agree that she breaks the film into a different movie. I'm saying that the second half of the film veers into two different movies, and both of them are different kinds of exhaustive menopausal diatribes. I don't think human beings have any place in Network. You can say that she represents a human being, but a human being being what? All she plays is a jilted wife, jilted by years prior and moments present. Right? It's a beautiful scene, but it's all wrong for this film. Whatever Network is about, this recognizably human scene has nothing to do with. This scene is a direct product of a subplot that I was uninterested in, which is to say that we have to take Max and Diane's relationship seriously as the centerpiece of the film.
Let me put it another way: I don't care about Max's private life. I care about his relationship with Howard Beale which is not touched on again, and I care about his relationship with Diane within the context of satire because the film doesn't work as anything but.
Nothing against Straight personally. And while I don't think she deserved to win over Jodie Foster or Piper Laurie (haven't seen All the President's Men in ages), I certainly can't fault the Academy because it is a devastating turn. But, um, who cares?
(flipp525 @ Apr. 15 2011,12:52)
You're right that William Holden is best in show here. I think the furniture chewing and his recent death must've pushed Peter Finch into the winner's circle, but Holden would've made a wonderful two-time winner.
And how can anyone possibly review Network without at least a casual mention of Marsha Warfield's brilliant turn as Laureen Hobbs?
Why the fuck did everyone decide to screw up the 1976 Academy Awards with this placement nonsense! We've got cameos winning Oscars, and supporting performers trying to win leading Oscars. There's a world out there where Talia Shire won Best Supporting Actress and Peter Finch won Best Supporting Actor, and that would leave Best Actor to William Holden? Robert De Niro? Sylvester Stallone?!?
Everyone in Network yells. There were times when I had to hit mute on my computer because Faye Dunaway's voice just wrecked me. But Marsha Warfield's invisible transformation from ecumenical liberation arm radical to ratings monger is such an invisible transformation and yet identical in tone and rage that she might be the film's MVP. She's great.
(ITALIANO @ Apr. 15 2011,1:29)
It may not be about America, but it's certainly about Italy.
Que?
Edited By Sabin on 1302896559
"How's the despair?"
I totally disagree with you on that. What Beatrice Straight manages to pull off as Louise Schumacher is, effectively, to create real reality amidst all the fake scriptedness surrounding her and Max. It's not just a brilliant monologue; it's a heartbreakingly genuine moment in a movie largely comprised of satire and artifice. Her sense of urgency breaks through the screen like a window, almost into a different movie, demanding the audience's attention and getting it. She goes from hurt to anger to complicity to, finally, acceptance and shared humor with Holden - and all in only, what is the agreed-upon time now, four minutes and forty-seven seconds? It was a brilliant turn that was worthily acknowledged by the Academy. She belongs in the movie if for nothing else than to represent a human being.Sabin wrote:Beatrice Straight is great but why do we need her? The film isn't about her. This film is a satire first and foremost, and halfway through the film, it's like Chayefsky forgets that.
Beatrice Straight is very good, but her scene is needless and indicative of where the film is going wrong.
You're right that William Holden is best in show here. I think the furniture chewing and his recent death must've pushed Peter Finch into the winner's circle, but Holden would've made a wonderful two-time winner.
And how can anyone possibly review Network without at least a casual mention of Marsha Warfield's brilliant turn as Laureen Hobbs?
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
/Network/ (Sidney Lumet) - 7/10
I'm genuinely conflicted about this film. Well, first off all, let's remove any notion that Network is any kind of prophetic about where we're going. Oh yes, it gets some of the attitudes right, hell, maybe most of attitudes as well. But what it gets fundamentally wrong is that America today (and, perhaps then, I'm not sure) could care about tabloid politics like the Ecumenical Liberation Army in the Mao Tse Tung hour. Chayefsky (let's be honest, not Lumet) sets them up as hatchet men early on and somewhat successfully, but it's, to paraphrase Howard Beale, all bullshit. I know it's a satire and all and to be taken as such, but I don't buy its reach. I also don't buy comparisons to the Glenn Beck show, because that is a case of idiotic rating-thirsted homage, of desperation for ratings, fame, a venue for which to peddle gold, and not sooth-saying, though what man would watch Network and look at Howard Beale and say "Yeah, I wanna be that guy!" I couldn't tell you. Actually I could: Beck.
Is Network right? No, I don't think so. We don't position our network prophets like carnival barkers. At least not like this. My favorite part of the film happens a couple times, and that is when Howard Beale falls to the ground, the audience cheers like maniacs and sometimes in the back of the scene there's a little guy raising his arms up for people to applaud. That guy is hilarious. Lumet gets that very right. And much of the first half is very entertaining, I can't ignore that. What Chayefsky seems to do within the first half of Network is position the stories of an old newsman (Holden) and a young newswoman (Dunaway) meeting mid-way in their respective rise and falls, and aims to mine their lives for as much satire as Howard Beale's, and all the while there is this little crazy man running around as a million dollar prophet. Well, Chayefsky gets the latter part down just fine. Howard Beale is the supporting role in this picture and I don't think we need another moment with him. But Chayefsky has no idea what to do with Max and Diane at all. He is positioning them as a real couple, which is something I never bought. We get what feels like fifteen minutes of empty (yet lovely (yet empty)) monologuing. Beatrice Straight is great but why do we need her? The film isn't about her. This film is a satire first and foremost, and halfway through the film, it's like Chayefsky forgets that. Some might say that it turns dark. I think it turns old. Middle-aged and old. Angry, venting about life, insecurities, greying haired, balding haired old.
To repeat: when I found out that Dunaway and Holden were a legitimate couple, I rolled my eyes. There is one good scene between them and that is the scene where she cannot shut up about ratings their entire date and then she immediately climaxes during sex, and keeps going until she says "What do you think?" That is the only scene following the first half of set-up between them that I like. In a satire, what is important is what a character must represent, not the minutiae of their lives. Chayefsky treats every scene after the first half like it's the climactic final scene in the film, and Lumet compensates by having everybody scream which gives it a feeling of tonal sameness. Chayefsky does a bad job of handling the Robert Duvall. Whatever spark Diane sees in him, I don't know. Ned Beatty's scene is the only spleen-venting one that I liked, and while Lumet tries to push himself to get it right like a dark, cut scene from Oz, it doesn't really work.
I was a hater of Network even though I hadn't seen it in a while. It reminds me a lot of The Social Network in that it is an enjoyable film of attitudes with not a ton to say, it gets far too much credit as a writer's film when really people praise the moments and the dialogue but the film is hampered by the overall scope of the film, both films have fantastic final scenes and marginalized third acts, and both films lost to lesser crowd-pleasers. I see that it received ten Oscar nominations. The only one it flat out doesn't deserve is Owen Roizman's nom for Cinematography. There isn't an angle in the film I would say deserves to be preserved. Can't really argue with Film Editing, as you work with what you've got. Beatrice Straight is very good, but her scene is needless and indicative of where the film is going wrong. Don't really understand Ned Beatty's nomination as he's barely seen in more than a WS. At least Beatrice Straight got a close up. I don't really understand any of those noms (except Film Editing). I don't think that Peter Finch should be a lead in Network, but it's not like anybody else has an effective character arc, until we're supposed to take Max and Diane's relationship seriously and I don't. I take Howard's arc seriously as a satire. Faye Dunaway has been better elsewhere, like in Chinatown. I can't say she deserved her win because she's just screaming the entire time, but Lord knows that's exactly what the role deserves and she's up to the task.
...and then there's William Holden who just knocks it out of the park. He gives such an effortlessly wonderful performance that actually grounds the bullshit of the second half. When he lectures Faye Dunaway on being a person of television, he almost sells this facile conceit. Very impressive work. Was his nomination any kind of expected? I see he wasn't nominated by the Globes.
I'm genuinely conflicted about this film. Well, first off all, let's remove any notion that Network is any kind of prophetic about where we're going. Oh yes, it gets some of the attitudes right, hell, maybe most of attitudes as well. But what it gets fundamentally wrong is that America today (and, perhaps then, I'm not sure) could care about tabloid politics like the Ecumenical Liberation Army in the Mao Tse Tung hour. Chayefsky (let's be honest, not Lumet) sets them up as hatchet men early on and somewhat successfully, but it's, to paraphrase Howard Beale, all bullshit. I know it's a satire and all and to be taken as such, but I don't buy its reach. I also don't buy comparisons to the Glenn Beck show, because that is a case of idiotic rating-thirsted homage, of desperation for ratings, fame, a venue for which to peddle gold, and not sooth-saying, though what man would watch Network and look at Howard Beale and say "Yeah, I wanna be that guy!" I couldn't tell you. Actually I could: Beck.
Is Network right? No, I don't think so. We don't position our network prophets like carnival barkers. At least not like this. My favorite part of the film happens a couple times, and that is when Howard Beale falls to the ground, the audience cheers like maniacs and sometimes in the back of the scene there's a little guy raising his arms up for people to applaud. That guy is hilarious. Lumet gets that very right. And much of the first half is very entertaining, I can't ignore that. What Chayefsky seems to do within the first half of Network is position the stories of an old newsman (Holden) and a young newswoman (Dunaway) meeting mid-way in their respective rise and falls, and aims to mine their lives for as much satire as Howard Beale's, and all the while there is this little crazy man running around as a million dollar prophet. Well, Chayefsky gets the latter part down just fine. Howard Beale is the supporting role in this picture and I don't think we need another moment with him. But Chayefsky has no idea what to do with Max and Diane at all. He is positioning them as a real couple, which is something I never bought. We get what feels like fifteen minutes of empty (yet lovely (yet empty)) monologuing. Beatrice Straight is great but why do we need her? The film isn't about her. This film is a satire first and foremost, and halfway through the film, it's like Chayefsky forgets that. Some might say that it turns dark. I think it turns old. Middle-aged and old. Angry, venting about life, insecurities, greying haired, balding haired old.
To repeat: when I found out that Dunaway and Holden were a legitimate couple, I rolled my eyes. There is one good scene between them and that is the scene where she cannot shut up about ratings their entire date and then she immediately climaxes during sex, and keeps going until she says "What do you think?" That is the only scene following the first half of set-up between them that I like. In a satire, what is important is what a character must represent, not the minutiae of their lives. Chayefsky treats every scene after the first half like it's the climactic final scene in the film, and Lumet compensates by having everybody scream which gives it a feeling of tonal sameness. Chayefsky does a bad job of handling the Robert Duvall. Whatever spark Diane sees in him, I don't know. Ned Beatty's scene is the only spleen-venting one that I liked, and while Lumet tries to push himself to get it right like a dark, cut scene from Oz, it doesn't really work.
I was a hater of Network even though I hadn't seen it in a while. It reminds me a lot of The Social Network in that it is an enjoyable film of attitudes with not a ton to say, it gets far too much credit as a writer's film when really people praise the moments and the dialogue but the film is hampered by the overall scope of the film, both films have fantastic final scenes and marginalized third acts, and both films lost to lesser crowd-pleasers. I see that it received ten Oscar nominations. The only one it flat out doesn't deserve is Owen Roizman's nom for Cinematography. There isn't an angle in the film I would say deserves to be preserved. Can't really argue with Film Editing, as you work with what you've got. Beatrice Straight is very good, but her scene is needless and indicative of where the film is going wrong. Don't really understand Ned Beatty's nomination as he's barely seen in more than a WS. At least Beatrice Straight got a close up. I don't really understand any of those noms (except Film Editing). I don't think that Peter Finch should be a lead in Network, but it's not like anybody else has an effective character arc, until we're supposed to take Max and Diane's relationship seriously and I don't. I take Howard's arc seriously as a satire. Faye Dunaway has been better elsewhere, like in Chinatown. I can't say she deserved her win because she's just screaming the entire time, but Lord knows that's exactly what the role deserves and she's up to the task.
...and then there's William Holden who just knocks it out of the park. He gives such an effortlessly wonderful performance that actually grounds the bullshit of the second half. When he lectures Faye Dunaway on being a person of television, he almost sells this facile conceit. Very impressive work. Was his nomination any kind of expected? I see he wasn't nominated by the Globes.
"How's the despair?"