Mountain FogRETROSPECT: NETWORK (1976)
June 30th 2009 07:18
William Holden, Robert Duvall and Peter Finch in Network
Satire is a capricious form of artistic expression. Highly effective at flipping striking subtext and potent themes right to the forefront of a narrative, it’s also framed by the era in which it is created, and what was cutting edge at the time of release can sometimes become antiquated and hackneyed.
Network, for its part, was a film that many misunderstood when it first opened in 1976, with a large number of people (including critics) not picking up on its incendiary satire of television studios and the people who work in such a cutthroat industry. In the medium term, however, it became largely celebrated for its no-prisoners approach to the compelling subject matter, and for some time has been recognised as one of the most potent satires to emerge from American filmmaking’s modern 1970s high water mark.
It’s interesting then to find that Network doesn’t quite hold up in a modern context. Many of the biting setups that were used to express television’s buffoonery have in fact come true in the new millennium, so what was once insightful and inspired now seems ribald and impotent.
In Network, Peter Finch plays Howard Beale, the nightly anchorman for the United Broadcasting System, who is sacked when his long decline in audience share finally drops to an untenable level. Howard’s best friend, network executive Max Schumacher (William Holden), is forced to deliver the bad news, but Beale, already troubled in his personal life, can't stomach the idea of losing his post simply because of age, and in his next broadcast announces to the viewers that he's going to commit suicide on his final program.
The network honchos are horrified, but when aggressive executive Frank Hackett (Robert Duvall) prepares to eject Beale from the network premises, he is made to think again by both a compelling set of ratings figures and ambitious programming exec Diana Christensen (Faye Dunaway).
On the next broadcast Beale doesn't go through with his threat, but he does begin rambling about the horrible state of the world, and Christensen, sensing a hit, convinces Hackett to retain the deranged anchorman for a new show that would provide a proper frame for his maundering diatribes. With that, Beale is suddenly TV’s hottest personality, and Diana uses her success to leverage a new batch of sensationalist programmes, designed to propel the UBS to the top of the ratings.
It’s an ambitious setup as Paddy Chayefsky’s screenplay takes aim at the television networks, the people who work in the industry and the wider corporate structure behind the façade (represented here by the conglomerate that owns the UBS), while also saving plenty of ammunition for the viewing public themselves. Generally it juggles its different elements pretty well – although an affair between Schumacher and Christensen is unlikely beyond belief, a clunky device to highlight supposed generational differences.
And it’s the clunkiness of the overall concept and true life familiarity of the central narrative that really makes Network grate in a modern context, things not being helped by a final third that becomes so talky you might as well dim your screen and save half an hour of your LCD/Plasma’s life.
For their part the players are a mixed bag. There’s little give and take between the performances, with half the cast trying to out-loony their competitors. Duvall spits bile at every opportunity, while Dunaway’s Christensen is such a putrid character that the shrill way the actress approaches the role leads her to be little more than a cardboard-cut cliché of the ruthless career woman.
This has the added effect of further short selling the already unlikely relationship between her and the gentle, morally indestructible Schumacher. You can’t help but feel that director Sidney Lumet is partly responsible for not modulating his actors’ performances, and what was perhaps biting in the 70s is now just over chewed.
Faye Dunaway and William Holden make an unlikely couple in Network.
Still, one brilliant highlight of the film is Finch, whose googly eyed tirades are fascinating to watch and his infamous catch cry, “I’m as mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore!” proving to be a stirring piece of dramatic delivery. Of the film’s clutch of Oscars, Finch’s posthumous win was certainly deserved.
Network also looks a million dollars, thanks mainly to Owen Roizman’s crisp cinematography, which plays with angles and lighting so well that it beautifully sells the slightly paranoid tone that Lumet was obviously aiming for.
In a modern assessment, Network adds up to being a very odd viewing experience. What was once a fearless thrust at the television industry now comes across as a lumpy and inconsistent film, heavy-handed satire derailing much of the narrative. It’s easy to imagine how ground breaking Network would have been on the date of its original release, and some of its moments are still darkly humorous in their demented truth, but when most of the film’s outlandish ideas became reality 25 years later, it ceased to be the powerful statement against mass media it once was.
Check out the trailer for Network below:
| 54 |
| Vote |
Comment by MVD
I've always been curious about Network, however, and appreciated this balanced review. After all, opinions tend to be high for this slice of 1970s satire. But I suppose my plasma could use a rest, so perhaps I'll only make half the bag of popcorn and watch the first 60 minutes.
Comment by David O'Connell
Screen Fanatic
Comment by Matt Shea
20/20 Filmsight
Dave - thanks for reading. Lumet does indeed have an excellent track record - you've spoken before about your love for 12 - I love Dog Day, with my favourite of his being Serpico. In a modern context I just don't think it holds up too well. Talking about Chayefsky being a playwright - it definitely shows in that final third, although Lumet keeps it from getting too stagy.
Comment by JohnDoe
Film & TV on DVD
i actually find the film more relevant with time and the comedy seems to come through as more precise with each passing year.
Not Lumet's best, but certainly a great example of his work and style.
Comment by Matt Shea
20/20 Filmsight