SPOILER WARNING. Plot details and scenes are discussed and shown below that are best avoided if you have yet to see Network and wish to do so knowing as little as possible.
Released in 1976, if it weren’t for the picture quality and any film knowledge which tells you Robert Duvall is now an old man, you would be forgiven for thinking that Network was a recent release. Its dynamic dialogue remains so, and its themes and story are arguably more relevant and reflective today than they were upon release, with the satire of Chayefsky which some people at the time considered paranoid and far-fetched, now an eerie reality. Howard Beale (Peter Finch) is a depressed news anchor, who in the last days of his career, proclaims that he will kill himself on air. Given one last chance by his old friend Max Schumacher (William Holden) to make a farewell to his audience, Howard Beale rants and raves about the state of America, attracting large ratings as a result. Diana Christensen (Faye Dunaway), the network’s young, driven, head of programming senses an opportunity, to turn Beale into the, “Prophet of the airwaves” and transform the financially lagging news show, into one of the biggest entertainment shows on the network.
One could criticize Network for being overwritten and admittedly nobody in real life can speak as dynamically and as memorably as these characters do, however when the dialogue is this good, who cares? I’m sure the characters in Shakespeare’s plays when removed from his words could not spout such iconic lines, then again, as in Network, it is the scribe and not the players who is the star. While this may be harsh on Network’s superb performances, it is the screenplay by Paddy Chayefsky, which is nothing short of brilliant. It is no wonder Aaron Sorkin referenced this movie when he won his Academy Award for The Social Network; this is a screenplay I bet he and many others wish they had written, with some of the monologues in this movie surely being Sorkin’s and every writer’s dream and benchmark.
While some of the characters can be seen as archetypal rather than three dimensional, this is a metaphorical, allegorical and (initially) speculative piece of fiction. It is a thematic, thought-provoking film where actions speak louder than words, yet the action, is words. As those high in the 20th floor of the network exploit Beale’s emotionally damaged state what upon release may have been seen as scathing, speculative, satire is now reminiscent of the way in which contestants on a reality TV show are covertly and overtly manipulated. It is the character of Max Schumacher who is the walking, talking soul and conscience of the film, pleading for the executives to take Beale off the air and falling into a doomed love affair with Diana.
It is William Holden, who is arguably given the best character in this film. Robert Duvall is brilliant yet plays a one-note archetypal villain, as does Faye Dunaway. Peter Finch, while winning the Academy Award for Best Actor, has most of his scenes comprised of rants and raves, which while very well performed and written, does not offer a lot of range in his performance and character. This is not a criticism of Finch or Chayefsky, merely an observation that Holden has what can be seen as the most complex character, in the sense that it is he who must alternate across a range of emotions and situations. The scene, in which Schumacher ends it with his wife, is one of the few genuinely emotional parts of the film. Its effectiveness evidenced by the fact, that Beatrice Straight (The actress who played his wife) won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for only five minutes and forty seconds of screen time; the shortest ever amount for a winner of that award.
While I initially found his relationship with Dunaway’s character to be an unnecessary subplot, it culminated in what is perhaps my favourite break-up scene in film history, not a particularly hard fought contest however. It is a relationship, which actually serves to develop both its participants and demonstrates that you can have romantic subplots in films, which augment the characters involved and continue to highlight the themes of the picture as a whole. Too many subplot love stories in film these days seem detached from the rest of the narrative and are only serving to develop one of its participants.
What many remember and quote from this film is now the iconic, “I’M MAD AS HELL...AND I’M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE¨” speech, the scene, which undoubtedly won Finch his Oscar. It is a tremendously powerful scene with Finch at his delirious best with the moment that follows it, where in one block of apartments everybody’s heads come out the window to proclaim the words of their newfound prophet, leading to a scary symphony of shouting that dissolves into one, singular, loud noise...the noise of excitement infused anger. The character of Dunaway states that after Watergate and Vietnam, the U.S. people want, “angry” television, Beale frequently references the, “recession” during his speech and the price of oil...substitute Vietnam for Iraq and perhaps Obama’s failure to achieve world peace for Watergate and you have something that is not just reminiscent of today...it is today.
One could criticize Network for being overwritten and admittedly nobody in real life can speak as dynamically and as memorably as these characters do, however when the dialogue is this good, who cares? I’m sure the characters in Shakespeare’s plays when removed from his words could not spout such iconic lines, then again, as in Network, it is the scribe and not the players who is the star. While this may be harsh on Network’s superb performances, it is the screenplay by Paddy Chayefsky, which is nothing short of brilliant. It is no wonder Aaron Sorkin referenced this movie when he won his Academy Award for The Social Network; this is a screenplay I bet he and many others wish they had written, with some of the monologues in this movie surely being Sorkin’s and every writer’s dream and benchmark.
While some of the characters can be seen as archetypal rather than three dimensional, this is a metaphorical, allegorical and (initially) speculative piece of fiction. It is a thematic, thought-provoking film where actions speak louder than words, yet the action, is words. As those high in the 20th floor of the network exploit Beale’s emotionally damaged state what upon release may have been seen as scathing, speculative, satire is now reminiscent of the way in which contestants on a reality TV show are covertly and overtly manipulated. It is the character of Max Schumacher who is the walking, talking soul and conscience of the film, pleading for the executives to take Beale off the air and falling into a doomed love affair with Diana.
It is William Holden, who is arguably given the best character in this film. Robert Duvall is brilliant yet plays a one-note archetypal villain, as does Faye Dunaway. Peter Finch, while winning the Academy Award for Best Actor, has most of his scenes comprised of rants and raves, which while very well performed and written, does not offer a lot of range in his performance and character. This is not a criticism of Finch or Chayefsky, merely an observation that Holden has what can be seen as the most complex character, in the sense that it is he who must alternate across a range of emotions and situations. The scene, in which Schumacher ends it with his wife, is one of the few genuinely emotional parts of the film. Its effectiveness evidenced by the fact, that Beatrice Straight (The actress who played his wife) won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for only five minutes and forty seconds of screen time; the shortest ever amount for a winner of that award.
While I initially found his relationship with Dunaway’s character to be an unnecessary subplot, it culminated in what is perhaps my favourite break-up scene in film history, not a particularly hard fought contest however. It is a relationship, which actually serves to develop both its participants and demonstrates that you can have romantic subplots in films, which augment the characters involved and continue to highlight the themes of the picture as a whole. Too many subplot love stories in film these days seem detached from the rest of the narrative and are only serving to develop one of its participants.
What many remember and quote from this film is now the iconic, “I’M MAD AS HELL...AND I’M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE¨” speech, the scene, which undoubtedly won Finch his Oscar. It is a tremendously powerful scene with Finch at his delirious best with the moment that follows it, where in one block of apartments everybody’s heads come out the window to proclaim the words of their newfound prophet, leading to a scary symphony of shouting that dissolves into one, singular, loud noise...the noise of excitement infused anger. The character of Dunaway states that after Watergate and Vietnam, the U.S. people want, “angry” television, Beale frequently references the, “recession” during his speech and the price of oil...substitute Vietnam for Iraq and perhaps Obama’s failure to achieve world peace for Watergate and you have something that is not just reminiscent of today...it is today.
That rant however is not my favourite in the film. It is the one wherein Beale talks about the death of his friend Schumacher, where he goes on an electric tirade about the power of television. It is a speech that has not lost its ferocity or its truth over time. What is interesting to note is the comments that the clip of this speech has got on Youtube. When I finished watching Network, I considered jokingly titling this review, “Network: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Internet” As an initial thought of mine and something expressed in the comments on Youtube, was that the internet is the savior for those of us dismayed, or scared, by exploitative, manipulative, corrupt television...or is it?
This leads us to an important question, where does the internet stand in Chayefsky’s vision...are we soon to see a film which will be, “Network for the internet”? Has the satire of Network become so eerily fulfilled that now with its edge arguably gone, it will no longer continue to be an important film as the internet will fix and fill in the wrongs of television? I argue that Network will remain relevant as a satire of today’s television, as a satire of the entertainment industry as a whole (This film is allegorical and metaphorical as well as satirical in my view, or at least can be if viewed as such) and potentially have its dialogue changed from Television to the Internet and be just as valid in its claims.
Everything that was once and is currently on television is diffusing across to the internet. Every TV show practically has a website, people don’t even watch shows on the TV anymore, they watch them online. People argue the freedom of the internet, the ability for anybody to post anything, for it not to be ruled by the rich prevents it from being manipulated the way in which the shows are in Network, a correct statement, however...in Network Beale rants about the dangers of television falling into the wrong hands, doesn’t the freedom of the internet also provide the possibility that it is always in the wrong hands? ANYBODY can post ANYTHING, there is more misinformation on the internet than information. I bet one could write a similar rant to my favourite one in Network yet substitute the statistics about Americans reading books (Which I imagine are still the same if not worse) with statistics on how much time we spend online and how much information (Or lack of it, we get online) The internet, its nature and its power does not deflate Network, it merely provides another variable and arguably, only serves to strengthen its timelessness. It may not be able to be manipulated to such an extent (Even though bills like SOPA and CISPA are attempting to do so), however it enjoys just as much power, if not more, over us as TV did (And arguably still does)
What cannot be doubted however is the way in which Network is still relevant and reflective when it comes to how it portrayed corporate America. A speech late on in the movie is my second favourite and it is one wherein Beale is told that there is no democracy or America, the corporations are now the nations. While people could argue that the internet leaves the other rants devoid of relevance today (An argument that is superficially attractive yet in my view wrong) this speech and scene is arguably the one from Network that is most relevant and reflective today.
Everything that was once and is currently on television is diffusing across to the internet. Every TV show practically has a website, people don’t even watch shows on the TV anymore, they watch them online. People argue the freedom of the internet, the ability for anybody to post anything, for it not to be ruled by the rich prevents it from being manipulated the way in which the shows are in Network, a correct statement, however...in Network Beale rants about the dangers of television falling into the wrong hands, doesn’t the freedom of the internet also provide the possibility that it is always in the wrong hands? ANYBODY can post ANYTHING, there is more misinformation on the internet than information. I bet one could write a similar rant to my favourite one in Network yet substitute the statistics about Americans reading books (Which I imagine are still the same if not worse) with statistics on how much time we spend online and how much information (Or lack of it, we get online) The internet, its nature and its power does not deflate Network, it merely provides another variable and arguably, only serves to strengthen its timelessness. It may not be able to be manipulated to such an extent (Even though bills like SOPA and CISPA are attempting to do so), however it enjoys just as much power, if not more, over us as TV did (And arguably still does)
What cannot be doubted however is the way in which Network is still relevant and reflective when it comes to how it portrayed corporate America. A speech late on in the movie is my second favourite and it is one wherein Beale is told that there is no democracy or America, the corporations are now the nations. While people could argue that the internet leaves the other rants devoid of relevance today (An argument that is superficially attractive yet in my view wrong) this speech and scene is arguably the one from Network that is most relevant and reflective today.
Overall Network has incredibly interesting and thought-provoking themes about the power of corporations, the diminishing morality of the entertainment industry, the exploitation of entertainment, the nature of news broadcasting, the public’s desire and willingness to witness and celebrate a public train-wreck (Charlie Sheen, Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan etc.) and the thirst for profitability at the expense of personality. A subplot about a terrorist group was one that initially uninterested me, however became such an integral part of the narrative in its final moments, in a stroke of genius and leading to one of my favourite last lines of all time.
“This was the story of Howard Beale. The first known instance of a man who was killed because he had lousy ratings”
Brilliant. Timeless thematically, a masterpiece of a screenplay and great performances ensure Network is a film I will be revisiting and recommending in the future. This losing Best Picture to Rocky, continues to confirm that all the Academy Awards do, is make the majority of us film fans, mad as hell.
By Movie Parliament Prime Minister,
Michael Dalton
Give us your thoughts on Network in the comments below.
“This was the story of Howard Beale. The first known instance of a man who was killed because he had lousy ratings”
Brilliant. Timeless thematically, a masterpiece of a screenplay and great performances ensure Network is a film I will be revisiting and recommending in the future. This losing Best Picture to Rocky, continues to confirm that all the Academy Awards do, is make the majority of us film fans, mad as hell.
By Movie Parliament Prime Minister,
Michael Dalton
Give us your thoughts on Network in the comments below.
RSS Feed
