In praise of the movie Network

[madbrian]

Posted: 7/8/11 at 9:37am

TCM showed Network the other night, and I recorded it and got around to watching it last night. Has there ever been a more prescient movie? It's just brilliant. One of the best screenplays ever.

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 7/8/11 at 10:25am

Brilliant. Sidney Lumet was a genius. I wish Faye Dunaway had a somewhat more illustrious career after this, she could've given so many more great performances.

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/8/11 at 10:26am

My big issue with "Network" is the same issue I had with "The Social Network."

Both are well-crafted films (Network is better) ... but I really dislike all the characters in those movies. I think they're despicable, so when they crash and burn in their respective plots, I really don't care. At all.

I feel nothing ... other than admiration for the fine work that went into them. Ultimately, I'm left cold, though.

Updated On: 7/8/11 at 10:26 AM

[strummergirl]

Posted: 7/8/11 at 11:11am

I liked Comrade Laureen Hobbs. Make of that what you will. I do understand that point of contention, besty. Like The Social Network (Network is indeed better and has a dream cast to boot) these people all come from different schools and 'networks' of the industry. Howard Beale and Max Schumacher were very old-boy network in the beginning of the film, for example.

[tazber]

Posted: 7/8/11 at 11:16am

This film has been in my top 5 all time faves since the day I saw it.

And Chayefsky's screenplay is simply brilliant.

That Rocky beat this for the Oscar is equal to Shakespeare In Love beating Private Ryan.

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/8/11 at 11:32am

Taz, I have to say I agree with both of the Academy's choices, in those cases.

[tazber]

Posted: 7/8/11 at 11:43am

Well I would imagine most people agree with you Besty.

The only Oscar winner I truly feel is a complete disgrace is "Gigi".
Forget the Oscar, I think it's one of the worst films I have ever endured. Kinda like Roscoe feels about Chicago.

There is no creepier moment in modern film than an aging Chevalier singing "Thank Heaven For Little Girls" while trolling a public park.

[madbrian]

Posted: 7/8/11 at 11:59am

My choice for worst Best Picture decision: The English Patient over Fargo.

[StageManager2]

Posted: 7/8/11 at 12:32pm

"That Rocky beat this for the Oscar is equal to Shakespeare In Love beating Private Ryan"

I would say it's more akin to KING'S SPEECH winning over SOCIAL NETWORK. KP was fun but schlock nonetheless -- or as someone on another forum put it: "A what-used-to-be-Sunday-Evening-Westinghouse-special-presentation-of-a-made-for-TV-movie, nothing more." SN is simply great filmmaking.

My pick for worst Best Picture is OLIVER! I could never get through that dreck -- and I tried several times! And to think 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY wasn't even nominated.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 7/8/11 at 12:38pm

I love OLIVER! Particularly Shani Wallis!!!

I came to Network late. Early 30's when I saw it. I found it interesting. But I can't abide Faye Dunaway. In anything. Ever. She sets my teeth on edge.

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/8/11 at 12:45pm

Man, SM2, you and I have completely opposite tastes in those instances.

[strummergirl]

Posted: 7/8/11 at 12:59pm

I personally hate the Rocky movies but 1976 had some good Best Picture nominees that I cannot really call Network the obvious apparent choice. Taxi Driver and All The President's Men could have easily been chosen.

I thought The Social Network elevated a rather lame story and turned it into a hyper-paced court room drama but the lessons were pretty predictable. Same goes for The King's Speech which I think got partially rewarded for it being an independent film that made the most out of what it had (not to mention its original production body has ceased to exist). Fincher though was very much robbed for Directing.

Worst Oscar robbery was Going My Way over Double Indemnity anyway.
Updated On: 7/8/11 at 12:59 PM

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/8/11 at 1:09pm

Taz, I absolutely love Gigi, but it's definitely a product of its time, both in its setting and the year it was released.

I think way too many people trip out over the "Thank Heaven ..." song, because their minds are going places that were never intended. The lyric is "without them, what would little boys do?", not "old men." And Henri is not trying to get involved with any of them in the park. He is merely admiring these diamonds in the rough. These potential beauties. Nothing more. It's not suggesting or recommending pedophilia, yet that's the knee-jerk reaction from so many today. Perhaps we are too "educated" and inundated with examples, and that's the reason for going straight to a very dark place.

I've given my schpeel on Gigi before ... all about how select young girls and young women were groomed to be courtesans. Women of that era had very few options. They couldn't own property outright, they couldn't vote, or register their own businesses, and social classes were clearly defined with immobile boundaries. You had two choices if you were from Gigi's class: marry the "miller's son" and, if he allowed you to, work in a shop ... or have an ongoing affair with the "Prince of Wales" and live a life of pampered luxury until you could retire early in a chateau ala Madame Armfeldt or Gigi's own Aunt Alicia.

Gaston doesn't pounce on Gigi as a child. He's not even thinking along those lines, until her grandmother and her grandmother's sister point out the potential. Once Gigi reaches a certain age (I'm guessing 15-ish), she starts her classes. And yes, there is tension there, because both Gigi and Gaston are resisting this change in their relationship.

Ultimately, the story says you don't have to be a miller's wife, a shop girl, or a courtesan. You CAN marry the prince and live happily ever after. Sure, it's a fairy tale, just like any other romantic "she marries the prince" stories are.

I still find it beautifully told, beautifully written, acted, directed, and presented. I love its innocence, not its smuttiness. That's why Gigi could never work today. We've lost that innocence and can only jump from "girlhood to bed" without any of the delicate and necessary steps and decisions in between. We don't have that "delicate sensibility" anymore. And most of us can't even project it long enough to appreciate the story.

I'm also not implying that there wasn't ugliness and pedophilia going on in that era. Of course, sadly, there was. But that's not the story being told here, nor is it the outcome of Gigi's situation. I think Colette (the author) found a very sweet and simple way to make a very strong statement.

Updated On: 7/8/11 at 01:09 PM

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/8/11 at 1:13pm

Ugh! You're all picking some of my favorite Best Picture wins (including Going My Way now).

My choice for worst Best Pic, since we're all out on that tangent now ...

The Hurt Locker
The English Patient
Chariots of Fire
The Departed

Dishonorable mentions:

The Lost Weekend
Platoon

[Eris0303]

Posted: 7/8/11 at 1:31pm

I love Gigi. Yes, it has its dark points but shot with such love that it rises above that. Besty has already pointed out much about the film so I won't reiterate.

And as for "Thank Heaven for Little Girls" - maybe because I was introduced to the film long before any understanding of the dynamic Taz menions set in but I never saw anything dirty in the song. It's just an appreciation of their innocent youth which they will lose eventually.

As for the Rocky films - the first and last ones are great. The middle three are more or less forgettable.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 7/8/11 at 1:53pm

I've always found GIGI to be a big fat crashing bore, prettily made and all that, but an utter waste of time and resources. I've never found the story, about the education of a whore, to be of any interest at all. There are some lovely location shots of France, and I'll cop to liking "I Remember It Well" and the suddenly controversial "Thank Heaven For Little Girls" but that's about it. Vincente Minelli is among the most overrated directors ever.

I like NETWORK a great deal, but I've never had a problem with movies about despicable characters. NETWORK, for me, manages to locate the humanity in pretty much all of them, and it brings them all to the screen with a degree of energy that makes it just plain irresistible, like most good satires. And it gets serious points for sheer prescience -- much like that Onion headline of a few years back: "George W. Bush promises an end to our national nightmare of peace and prosperity." We can't say we weren't warned.

For what it's worth -- Worst Oscar winners:

CHICAGO -- duh.
MY FAIR LADY -- Dreadful.
ENGLISH PATIENT -- Minghella is burning in hell over this one.
YOU CAN'T TAKE IT WITH YOU -- Capra ruins Kaufman/Hart.
AN AMERICAN IN PARIS -- Overblown crap with some glimmers.
OUT OF AFRICA -- Horrors.
RAIN MAN -- My God. Remember this? It won the OSCAR FOR BEST PICTURE. Can you believe it?
DANCES WITH WOLVES -- the real NeverEnding Story.
FORREST GUMP
BRAVEHEART
AMERICAN BEAUTY
A BEAUTIFUL MIND
CRASH
SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE -- in the RAIN MAN folder for WTF? Factor.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 7/8/11 at 2:04pm

Ugh! Forrest Gump!!! Right-wing reactionary claptrap that was more emotionally manipulative than Titanic and Terms of Endearment combined!!!!

I actaully liked Slumdog Millionaire in the theatre...but I tried to watch it again and I was like, 'WTF was I thinking???'

That was the MILK year, right? SH*T.

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 7/8/11 at 11:22pm

I think MY FAIR LADY is the worst Best Picture winner, hands down. As for NETWORK, I detested it, in 1976 (I never like films where I hate all the characters), and I've never had the slightest desire to ever see it again.

[singtopher]

Posted: 7/9/11 at 8:53am

I recently watched Network on Netflix and absolutely loved it. I see why folk aruge there are "no likable characters" but for me that's almost like saying "I didn't like it. It was depressing" Do we always have to fall in love with these characters?

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/9/11 at 10:47am

No, we don't have to fall in love with dislikable characters.

But we have to be drawn to them in some way if they're at the center of the story. We should either be rooting for them to win or lose. Have some sort of vested interest in the story's outcome.

In the case of Network, I just didn't care either way. I found it beautifully crafted, but as I said before, it left me cold.

Antiheroes are tough characters anyway. Billy Bigelow. Jerry Maguire. But when there are no "Julie Jordans' in the room to balance it out, and everyone is a big fat jerk, you wonder why you're still watching. I felt the same way about The Social Network. A bunch of socially retarded, self-involved jerks. I didn't care who got the money or the credit for the work. No interest in the outcome whatsoever.

Good examples of antiheroes who were central characters that I'm drawn to: Stanley Kowalski, Norman Bates, Hannibal Lecter, George & Martha in Virginia Woolf, Baby Jane Hudson, Tom Ripley, etc. There's some sense of (very) twisted humanity in all of them. And I'm not talking about "moral values," I realize that a "boardroom bitch" is much less of a menace to society than a serial killer. I'm not rating their evil deeds, just my interest in the characters from a dramatic POV.

I'm also not talking about secondary leads or supporting characters. They can be pure villains and utterly dislikable when they're not at the core of a story. Every good drama needs a villain, human or otherwise.

Updated On: 7/9/11 at 10:47 AM

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 7/9/11 at 11:43am

What Besty said.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 7/9/11 at 7:36pm

I love NETWORK, my boyfriend sort of forced me to watch it since it is one of his favorites so I only saw it last year but I completely fell in love with it. It's such a wonderful film, what a brilliant screenplay! And those performances!
I actually see THE SOCIAL NETWORK as a pale, not so great version of NETWORK.
Besty, I had the same problem you had with THE SOCIAL NETWORK, I absolutely did not care for ANY of the characters, I found them all so unlikable, and to me their problems felt so irrelevant (the character that ends up "screwed" at the end still gets millions of dollars, sorry can't feel bad for you!), and I hated that they cast a British actor to play a Brazilian character. I also can't stand Aaron Sorkin's writing, it's dripping with his own brand of arrogance and self-importance.
However, I loved NETWORK because it is so satirical. I couldn't take the characters seriously because they are such cliches of themselves and the movie knows it. I actually found it to be quite hilarious while being incredibly upsetting, especially seeing the way the media works today with reality shows and whatnot.
Faye Dunaway's performance is pretty brilliant and while Peter Finch won the Oscar, I thought William Holder was miles better.

[strummergirl]

Posted: 7/9/11 at 8:38pm

My issue was Sorkin, who admitted to being something of a luddite never mind never roaming social networking until the film was happening, making it a court room piece. If the script did not say Facebook, you could have believed it was any website. The whole intricacies of Facebook and the culture of social networking is skimmed over and at times ever shooed in with a totally expected 'A-HA!' moment that makes Facebook exist. It did not help the book that it was based on was a pretty terrible book that was practically a gang-up on Zuckerberg. There was also plenty of people pushed out of the film and story.

I still have a hard time believing it took being drunk on Appletinis for Mark Zuckerberg to think Sean Parker was cool when Timberlake made him ooze 'snake oil salesman' (but that casting is a whole other issue together). The only character who was sympathetic that movie Rooney Mara's character, who does not exist in real-life. Eisenberg and Armie Hammer were quite good though, but if not for Fincher's direction I really think the film's flaws would stood out more than it did but the pacing was done in flash to really pick on it (except for that completely out of place English crew scene).

Back to Network, I think the characters were all consumed by television, whether part of the old boy network or the upstarts or the in-betweeners. The negotiations scene for The Mao Tse Tung hour showed how it was even getting to these ultra leftists. Chayefsky and Lumet started on TV so they were certainly partial to the old guard, Holden's character while imperfect gets to moralize and remark on Faye Dunaway's character in the end. It's satire, but the message is there well enough.

I personally think the people who come off the least sympathetic are the anonymous audience who allegedly eat this up. That was a major point of contention in many of negative criticism of the film though Chayefsky argued the Networks were always in the crosshairs of his criticism.

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 7/10/11 at 10:04am

best12, I think the person you're supposed to feel sorry for and have an investment in is yourself, and the greater society in general - as strummergirl says there is an anonymous audience who eats it up, but that just emphasizes the point I feel.

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/11/11 at 4:43am

I actually don't feel sorry for the audience (or the greater society, as you put it) for being sheep. They get what they deserve, and they bring the "crap TV" on themselves.

That's the thing about these so-called "powerful" network people. They have NO power or influence at all, unless the viewership enables them.

I also don't lump myself in with them, since I have never followed the trends of viewership on network TV. Not since I was a kid. I don't watch any network shows now. None. Zero.