If you missed my first post where I explain what this is and how I’m scoring things, here you go, and if you missed where I talked about my Monday posts, click here.
Satire isn’t usually something that ages particularly well. By its very definition, for something to be satire, it needs to be contemporary or topical, so usually it has a very short shelf life. Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal, for example, requires at least a basic understanding of early 18th century church and political relations for most of the humorous elements to land at all. Watching old episodes of satirical cartoons like South Park or The Simpsons can still be funny in a “oh I remember that” kind of nostalgia, but many of the issues they address have aged significantly.
Sometimes, though, a piece of satire can be ahead of its time, and the issues it pokes fun at can be just as relevant, if not more so, many years later. That’s where this next film on the AFI Top 100, Network, happens to fall.
Network is a satire about how the broadcast news industry has been selling out for ratings, and will go to extreme lengths to get the absolute best ratings they can get. Now, I am not sure what watching the news was like in 1976, when the film was released. What I do know is how the news industry operates in the twenty-first century, and yeah, this all hits home. News companies, in most cases, are run by for-profit corporations. Those corporations need to make a profit. The way you make profit in news is by selling advertising, whether that is on television or online, and advertisers pay more money to websites and channels that have more eyes on them. Over time, these corporations have figured out what they need to say in order to reach a larger target of their demographic, because it’s all about the money. So now, we have a society where if you actually want to be informed on anything, you need to get news from multiple sources and put the story together like a jigsaw puzzle, which takes effort, so most people just pick whatever news source suits their views, and that becomes how they are informed on every issue, biases and all.
If it seems like I’m getting off track, it’s because I probably am, but this movie really fired me up.
I’ll talk more about the actual movie when I get into the categories:
Entertainment Value- 2/2
The plot of this movie centers around a news anchor, Howard Beale, who has been told that he is being let go due to the fact that his ratings on his evening news show have plummeted. Since he still is allowed to be on the air for two more weeks, Beale starts going on rants about the unfairness of life. The producers allow for his rants to be broadcast, because they decide that if Beale wants to go out that way, he has that choice. What ends up happening is that the rants cause the ratings of the show to shoot up, as more and more people are drawn to his honesty, and the entertainment value behind it. Since the ratings are going up, the executives at the network decide to keep Beale on, and they take the show from the news department and give it to the programming department, which causes tension. Beale’s show becomes a sensation, for a while, but the novelty begins to wear off after several weeks, so the network has to find a way to replace Beale while also increasing public interest in the nightly show, which has become something far removed from a desk news program.
All of it is entertaining, if not frustrating to watch, as Beale’s show becomes comparable to many shows that are shown on various twenty-first century “news” networks.
Correctness- 1/2
Network deals with some complicated issues that I am kind of letting slide because they are intentionally used to make a statement. One such example of this is in the opening scene of the film, where Beale declares on the air that his is going to commit suicide on the show the next week. While I think an update to the film would probably handle this a little differently, it plays right into the absurdity that the network was willing to go to in order to improve their ratings.
Where I am docking a point here, though, is in the representation of this film. There is some diversity, but all but one of the main roles are occupied by a white male, and the one role that isn’t is a white female.
Influence- 1/2
Satire as a whole has taken a major hit in the last ten years or so, and a big reason for that is because of the political influence of news networks. It is incredibly unfair to do this, but I’m taking a point away here because Network failed to change the trajectory of broadcast news.
“Rewatchability”- 1/2
I’m sure there will come a time where I decide to watch Network again, but it is not something that I was so drawn to that it will be a part of my go-to rewatch collection.
Technical Score- 2/2
There are some really memorable shots in this movie, and it is edited very crisply, which makes it feel more modern than many of the films from this era that I’ve seen. It was nominated for ten Academy Awards, including Sidney Lumet for best director. Peter Finch won for Best Actor for his role as Howard Beale, Faye Dunaway won for Best Actress for playing director of programming Diana Christensen, and Beatrice Straight won Best Supporting Actress. The film’s script, written by Paddy Chayefsky, won for Best Original Screenplay.
Overall- 7/10
I’d say this one fairly earned its spot among the greatest movies ever made, even if some of the aspects of the plot don’t necessarily age very well. This movie also sort of predicted the future, which is horrifying, but true.
You can rent Network from the platform of your choice.
Hasta luego,
Josh
Up Next: #65 The Silence of the Lambs (Available on Max)