MovieChat Forums > Network (1976) Discussion > LOOK AT ME...I'M REALLY SMART!!!

LOOK AT ME...I'M REALLY SMART!!!

posted 14 years ago by Rupert__Pupkin
163 replies | jump to latest

From what I can tell, when Paddy Chayefsky wrote Network, he was trying really hard to convince America that he was smart. Whenever anyone spoke in this movie, it was a long diatribe delivered at auctioneer speed and littered with 5-syllable esoteric words. I have a Ph.D. from an accredited university and consider myself to be well-read and fairly intelligent, but there were several times in the movie where I had to rewind because I misunderstood a word. When I put the subtitles on, I realized that the word used was one I had never seen nor heard before. This happened again and again.

I'm sure I'm going to get some comments from Network fans telling me that I must be an ignorant buffoon. Fine. But I'm reminded of the Einstein quote, "If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself." Well I'm a 42-year old, and I didn't understand a lot of the words used in Network. Putting them in context, I made guesses.

If I (a seemingly well-educated person) did not understand much of the dialogue, what are the chances that the average Joe off the street would understand it? If Chayefsky had an important message to convey, he should have voiced it in a way that people could better understand. I don't mean Chayefsky should have dumbed the script down so that it's on par with Daddy Daycare and Shrek 4, but the movie's dialogue shouldn't be so arcane that a college professor has to run to his dictionary every 10 minutes to look up a word.

[–] denbeez 14 years ago

I don't know how to respond, other than saying I didn't have a problem with the dialogue.

And Paddy Chayefsky WAS smart. Check out "The Americanization of Emily" and "The Hospital" as well.

Emoticons are for people who haven't learned to express themselves with actual words.

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 14 years ago

I was able to understand the movie because I could put the words in context. Maybe I was just aware of the unusual words because I had the subtitles on for most of the movie. (I often use subtitles as not to wake my baby in the next room.) But when I came across the unusual words, I wondered, "Why?" Surely there were about a dozen other words that would have made the same point equally well. Not a big deal, but every time I encountered such a word, I was taken out of the movie, only because I don't anyone who uses such words, especially several at a time, and at lightning speed.

[–] denbeez 14 years ago

I'm pretty close to your age (45) and worked in television programming and promotion throughout the '90s. Many of those people (especially in executive positions, as seen in "Network") are pretty damned educated and articulate. I admit to breaking out my thesaurus a few times after a couple of meetings and reading some memos.

It could be argued that George Bernard Shaw, Eugene O'Neill, David Mamet, Tony Kushner, and pretty much every other playwrite who penned a work in English over the past century could have "simplified" their characters' dialogue to make it more "realistic." (Who rattles off quips and one-liners like the characters in a Neil Simon play?) But I would rather be challenged to RISE TO an author's expectations than require that he/she write so that "kids from 1 to 92" understand it. Robert Browning wrote, "A man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's heaven for?"

The fact that anyone's still discussing the writing in "Network" after nearly 35 years means that it's a classic. (In many ways it owes more to the traditions of theatre than it does to the conventions of film.) Perhaps the ability to "reach/move" many generations over significant periods of time defines the word "art" itself.

Emoticons are for people who haven't learned to express themselves with actual words.

[–] gnolti 14 years ago

Chayefsky's love of high-falutin' talk -- big diction, ricocheting cultural references, etc -- marks him as a native New Yorker of a certain type, often but not always Jewish, almost exclusively mid-20th century. Jules Feiffer, Woody Allen, and Norman Mailer were all like this. Of course, this manner of speaking probably masked personal insecurities but unless you're going to attack people for their insecurities, why attack them for how they choose to cope with them, especially if the result is entertaining? What's more, I've found New Yorkers in general to be pretty vain of how much trivia they carry around in their heads -- the result of living under a constant cultural barrage, and of the need to distinguish yourself from the millions of other culturally barraged people you share the city with.

Personally, I find Chayefsky's outrageous rhetoric as charming as David Mamet's outrageous vulgarity.

There, daddy, do I get a gold star?

[–] rping 10 years ago

Very well stated...

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 14 years ago

denbeez,

Thank you for the thoughtful response. I particularly liked the Browning quote. I hadn't heard that before.

I should clarify that I'm 32, not 42. Apparently I made a typo in my original post.

Thanks again!

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Mandy_Whitsands 14 years ago

@denbeez:
judging from your posting, I guess you don't agree with my verdict here http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074958/board/nest/165945820 , right? I'd of course be interested, given your professional background.

[–] partydjz (424) 7 years ago

Robert Altman would be pleased

[–] purple_honey1 10 years ago

I thought the script was brilliant. There is nothing wrong with having your intellect challenged...

_________
Cheers!

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 10 years ago

I never said there was.

[–] Albatoss 13 years ago

I agree. The dialogue was unrealistic in parts and hard to understand. I can't imagine real people talking like that. Whatever.

[–] Seanpdineen 13 years ago

Reminded me, although I didnt know this when first watching it of film noir, that kind of snappy, arcane langague.
I am glad faye dunnway was picked nothing aginst V but faye deserved more than The HANDmaids tale, and Bonnie and clyde.

[–] pullman1881 12 years ago

Do you really want characters in drama to speak like real people? That's like the idiots who wanted Sarah Palin as VP, because "she's just like me". Have you listened to what passes for conversation lately? It's all like awesome and amazing...and whatever.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MsLadybird99 14 years ago

I first saw Network when I was about 12 or 13 and had no problem with the dialogue. Some of the cultural references flew over my head at the time, but I found the film funny and compelling, even at that tender age. It's still my favorite movie all these many years later.

~~
Oz never did give nothing to the Tin Man that he didn't already have.

[–] Owlwise 14 years ago

Besides, let's remember that the writing for movies & TV was once of a much higher quality, drawing on the theater, as a previous poster mentioned. The dialogue for "Network" isn't a case of the author trying to show off or impress anyone; he's simply using the vocabulary that came naturally to him. Those weren't "big" or unusual words to him, they're the words he was familiar with from a lifetime of reading & writing.

Moreover, the audience of those earlier decades was used to articulate, well-written dialogue, and took it for granted that they'd be getting something more than the lowest common denominator in writing. They didn't want their movies dumbed down; they appreciated being treated like intelligent, perceptive adults.

[–] killbill_tarantino2003 14 years ago

I feel sorry for you, you admit that you have Phd but still watching 'Daddy day Care' and "Shrek 4". Please, SIR.. don't convince us too hard, in here (at imdb.com's message board) that you're smart.

OVER THE TOP SURREALISM IN CINEMA :
8 1/2 (1963)
PERSONA (1966)
BELLE DE JOUR (1967)

[–] stickydisgust 14 years ago

*sniff*
You reek of elitism.

[–] Xcobidoo 14 years ago

Because educated people wants to constantly challenge their mind even when they are trying to relax or is watching it with someone else etc. true story.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nutsberryfarm 13 years ago

you're on here! wow. network is funny. i agree.

We're not soldiers and he's not the enemy. He's a pizza man.

[–] nutsberryfarm 9 years ago

i bet nat likes it too.

🌴🌴🌴🌴🌴🌴🌴🌴🌴

[–] Mr_Beale 14 years ago

The film involves high level TV executives speaking the language of the trade.

It's the same as a group of doctors talking over the results of a catscan - they're going to use terminology that sounds greek to people who aren't in that line of work.

Give to Causes For Free: http://theanimalrescuesite.com

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 14 years ago

If the movie only speaks to those in the biz, what's the point?

[–] gnolti 14 years ago

The film doesn't only speak to those in the biz. It speaks to those who can understand different languages -- including that of those in the biz.

There, daddy, do I get a gold star?

[–] Al_Scarface_Capone 14 years ago

I don't remember having trouble with the dialog, but I saw Network a few years ago.

However, if this sort of "trade talk" realism annoys you, I suggest that you never watch Primer. If you thought this was bad, Primer was written and directed (as well as everything else) by a former engineer, and all the technical stuff in the film is almost 100% accurate, and it is sci-fi.

"You gonna bark all day little doggie, or are you gonna bite?"

[–] jmbwithcats 14 years ago

I didn't have any problem with the dialogue. Maybe he just was smart.

www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=6751188
www.kittysafe.net
Mews, Poetry, Ideas

[–] SpikeHat 14 years ago

<Look out, "big words" coming up>
This is one of the best-written films IMO. Network contains language that is indicative of folks who more than likely have degrees. Why..? Well, journalists are paid to work with words, not do manual labor or manipulate physical items. As such, aren't these the people you'd expect to have large vocabularies, and to enjoy expanded wordplay? And so what if there's ten-dollar words in a film? I'm not afraid of learning something from watching a movie.
No, Chayefsky wasn't trying to show off; check out Marty, a classic, well-written script that doesn't require a dictionary. For an intellectual contrast, there's Chayefsky's Altered States which goes over lots of heads-- but that's got more to do with Ken Russell (he's crazy).

[–] jmbwithcats 14 years ago

I am somewhat saddened by the low rating Altered States receives on IMDb. I rate it far higher.

www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=6751188
www.kittysafe.net
Mews, Poetry, Ideas

[–] ghtx 14 years ago

"I have a Ph.D. from an accredited university"

????

Who says that?

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 14 years ago

Probably someone with a Ph.D. from an accredited university.

Any other brain busters?

[–] clovis27 14 years ago

I can't think of a single example of dialogue that seemed too difficult, I am very surprised to hear of a PhD (if that is true) having issues with this movie.

Instead of having to dumb down movies for the "average Joe," maybe people should simply be expected to rise up to the level of the film. I never agree with this notion that everything must be catered to the average consumer.

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 14 years ago

I suggest going back and watching it again. It's obvious that the writer has an impressive command of the English language and has a gift for colorful prose. However, no one talks at a lightning-quick pace while using 5-syllable words in every sentence and speaking in complex metaphors and hyperbole, all while making a beautiful and eloquent point that touches on poetry, philosophy, and politics. This happened time and time again and came across as contrived.

[–] paudarco4cancer 14 years ago

I always hated studying Shakespeare in school. I could not understand old English. We seemed to take ten minutes studying every line.

Rupert__Pupkin could you please give an example of a word or some of the words in Network that you had difficulty with ?

[–] Owlwise 14 years ago

You're assuming that every film must have dialogue that's "realistic."

This film is indeed "speaking in complex metaphors and hyperbole, all while making a beautiful and eloquent point that touches on poetry, philosophy, and politics." It's known as literate writing. There used to be an audience for that sort of thing ... and there still is, if much diminished these days. Not everything has to be geared to the lowest common denominator!

The rich, poetic dialogue is one of the great pleasures of this film, as well as one of the aspects that makes it a great film in the first place.

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 14 years ago

Who says that film writing has to be written for the lowest common denominator? I'm not sure why you need to take things to the extreme. According to you, if a script is not written with the complexity of "Network", then it's on par with "Dude, Where's My Car?"

I love great writing as much as the next guy (probaby more in fact), but when every character in a movie speaks like a philosophy professor on crack, it detracts from the realism and takes me out of the movie.

[–] Owlwise 14 years ago

Did you ever hear a group of well-read, educated people talking? The dialogue in this film isn't as "unrealistic" as you seem to think. American culture has changed in the past few decades as well -- once upon a time, plenty of people would have found the dialogue quite acceptable. In fact, they would have relished it for its poetic, literate quality; if anything, it would have taken them MORE into the film.

In any case, "realism" isn't the only mode of art. You need to expand your horizons.

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 14 years ago

Ha ha! So because it happened in a movie, it MUST be true! Hilarious! I suppose the dialogue in "Clerks" is also realistic. Just like the dialogue in "Pulp Fiction." After all, it DID happen in a movie. Ha ha! What a dolt.

[–] Owlwise 14 years ago

You certainly are, Rupert. You certainly are.

[–] beamgra 14 years ago

Why does the OP try to stir up controversy and distract us from the main theme of the film: that huge conglomerates own you, that they've got you by the balls. The one eyed God that is Television has you. Your leaders are bought and paid for year by year.. You buy into the same left/right sideshow while faceless entities slowly extract your liberties and freedoms until they sneak up on you with the final checkmate. The film's message is more relevant today that it was when the damn thing was made

[–] Owlwise 14 years ago

Amen, brother!

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] arman0612 14 years ago

Well, he was smart and the script is perfect, and the movie is perfect. If you want to hear an annoyingly arrogant (but still good) script, watch Annie Hall or any Woody Allen film.

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 14 years ago

The movie is perfect? Well that just sounds stupid.

I like Woody Allen movies. (shrugs)

[–] erikriveros 14 years ago

so in actuality, and where i've been mistaken all these years, is that low brow, highly simplified, mono syllabic words is actually a sign of good writing as well as showing the author's own self assurance b/c he doesn't need to use the big words..

but the writers who know how to cleverly string together more complex words in oscar award winning scripts are ignorant and suffer from low egos?

got it.

it is better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 14 years ago

tsk...trolls are so predictable...especially when they're gun-toting lunatics.