MovieChat Forums > Network (1976) Discussion > I didn't care for it and here's why:

I didn't care for it and here's why:

posted 14 years ago by tnkd2
35 replies | jump to latest

I watched this movie alone, and I still felt embarrassed by all the overacting. Especially Faye Dunaway. And by about the millionth pontificating monologue, I could actually feel the knuckles of the writer's hand grinding against my esophagus as he was shoving themes and points down my throat. I personally don't like movies with urgent morals. I was also annoyed by the shallowness of the characters--they all seemed to me as cardboard cutouts which the writer moved around to carry out his agenda. And I found that agenda to be much much less about the subject matter--media politics and the political state of America in the 70s---and more about nostalgia for the good ole' days when there were no humanoids and boob tubes. I felt Network was a backward thinking, cartoon of a movie that wanted to be about 20 different things and wound up being about nothing worth pondering.

Hail nothing full of nothing, nothing is with thee.

[–] davemccrea-1 14 years ago

you must be pretty young, i'm guessing 23 at the most. This movie is an acting CLINIC, it is not overacting. Yes, there are guys just as bombastic as Robert Duvall in offices in Manhattan. Faye Dunaway's enthusiasm for her career, the way she gushed her ideas to Robert Duvall so fast that she had to catch her breath was acting as its finest. None of the characters were cardboard cutouts. Shallow? What are you talking about?? Compared to what? Here's a tip, Mr. Expert Characterization Guy: A good sign that a movie does not have shallow cardboard cutouts is how we feel about them. The masterful way in which the writer of Network constructed this is we understand every character and can empathize with all of them. The fact that we can empathize with the protagonist even though he cheats on his wife, In another scene he takes back a job from a guy who a few scenes earlier had stiffed him! Talk about nuanced characters! If they were "cardboard" "shallow" characters the jerk who fired him would still be a jerk and he'd be a faithful husband. lol, the fact that you got this so upside down proves you know nothing about film or writing.
Also, regarding viewpoint, the writer have a viewpoint but did not ram it down our throats - having a viewpoint is actually the hallmark of good writing, something else you apparently don't know. He CAPTURED the reality of the network TV scene in the 70s. So give yourself a break, give yourself some time in the world and learn about what good films are and maybe you'll realize that this is actually a masterfully written, directed and performed movie that blows most of today's even Oscar-caliber movies out of the water.

[–] tnkd2 14 years ago

You seem to take my remarks on this movie personally. Please don't. Also, please don't accuse me of knowing nothing about film or writing based on one short paragraph of my opinions on a movie.

you must be pretty young, i'm guessing 23 at the most. This movie is an acting CLINIC, it is not overacting.

No, I am not that young. If you think it's an acting CLINIC, that's fine by me. I stand by my original comment, though--the Network was overacted. One reason why I love films from the 70s is because much of the writing and acting relied on subtle, oftentimes silent moments, not ranting monologues. I don't appreciate being yelled at in movies. But that's just my personal preference.

Shallow? What are you talking about?? Compared to what?

Compared to, say, Taxi Driver, which relies as much on silence as it does on what's said. By the end of Taxi Driver, I feel like I have watched a complex story from which I can draw my own conclusions. There is no moral or message spelled out for the audience; they have to ponder about it (if they choose) and try to understand its complexities. In the Network, all the conclusions are drawn for me, making it shallow. The same goes for the characters, who frequently tell us what they are feeling and doing, before/rather than show us through action. Network was over-the-top, but it wasn't absurd, so we're not left with satire, we're left with a rant. Really, 2/3 of this movie is monologues of the characters telling "each other" (but really the audience) how they feel.

Here's a tip, Mr. Expert Characterization Guy: A good sign that a movie does not have shallow cardboard cutouts is how we feel about them.

I entirely agree, and as I explained above, I feel nothing for these characters, because I was not allowed to be a participator in the story; I was told everything I was supposed to feel about them. Like when Max starts talking about his life like it's a script to his wife--all the emotion of that scene gets pushed into his long rant and deflates anything genuine that could have occurred. Instead, we get a character's commentary. It's just a way for the writer to get around working hard at the relationships he created--it's much easier to write a ten line monologue explaining things from a characters' mouth than it is to show it through action.

I cared very little for Howard when he was killed. It was just the final plot point of the story. The audience was never even given the opportunity to care for Howard after he went "crazy," at which point he became Mr. Magoo.

having a viewpoint is actually the hallmark of good writing, something else you apparently don't know.

By what standard are you basing that hallmark? Do you willfully exclude the high modernists, avant gardists, and technomodernists? They certainly wouldn't agree with your hallmark. Tell that to Gertrude Stein . . .
What I'm getting at is that there are no hallmarks in writing; there is only what has been written and what hasn't.

You mention viewpoints three times in your paragraph, and I never even used the word. The words I used were themes and points, which lead the audience to a moral--something to do with humanoids and the evils of TV, which all translates to the writer feeling nostalgic about the past. I was not at all surprised to find that both the writer and director were Hollywood veterans--the exact type of people who would rant about the good ole' days.

So give yourself a break, give yourself some time in the world and learn about what good films are and maybe you'll realize that this is actually a masterfully written, directed and performed movie that blows most of today's even Oscar-caliber movies out of the water.

I am trying to learn about those good films; that should be apparent . . . I'm on IMDb writing about one and thinking about one right now. Just because I have a different opinion than you doesn't mean I don't know anything. Rather, I have proposed and defended my opinion of Network, which is all I can do. You might have had a point (that I know nothing) if I wasn't able to elaborate upon my feelings, but clearly I can.

Hail nothing full of nothing, nothing is with thee.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tnkd2 14 years ago

Groovy response. I never said I HATED this movie. I also didn't come here to say my reasons for not caring for the movie was the opinion everyone should have; I came here to work out my own thoughts on the movie through the discussion processes. I'm not sure what that has to do with border collies or Rodney King . . .

And I feel that one someone totally "disses" a movie that I adore, I feel trampled on as well.

I wouldn't call a detailed explanation as to why I don't care for the movie a "diss." I don't feel like my sentiments have been hollow at all, considering I am defending those sentiments with thought-out explanations and examples from the text.

I never set up any dichotomy. For some reason, when I go on IMDb, I expect to discuss a movie rather than get personally attacked for expressing my opinions. It reminds me why I don't post on here too often anymore.

Network was a SATIRE, it was not supposed to have long silences and subtlety.

I think Network has satire in it, but I don't think the film as a whole is a satire. What would it be a satire on? It seems a lot of the efforts in defending this movie is that the scenes at times realistically depict the network business. A satire would be something like Animal Farm, where talking animals overtaking a farm is always ironic. Greedy business people selling each other out and resorting to murder is not ironic; it's literal.

Regardless on whether one classifies Network as a satire or not, I've also never taken satire to mean "lacking long silences and subtlety." There's satire in Apocalypse Now, and there's plenty of subtlety in that. And people aren't constantly yelling monologues at me . . .

For the record: Network is one of the most astounding, phenomenal pieces of film making ever put on celluoid. AND so was Taxi Driver....

For the record: that's, like, your opinion, man.

Hail nothing full of nothing, nothing is with thee.

[–] akin-2-grieve 14 years ago

"For the record: Network is one of the most astounding, phenomenal pieces of film making ever put on celluoid. AND so was Taxi Driver....

For the record: that's, like, your opinion, man. "

True story. But it is also important to note that his opinion is, in fact, correct.

[–] tnkd2 14 years ago

Like, totally, dude: I have noted it. Thanks for the meaningful contribution.

Hail nothing full of nothing, nothing is with thee.

[–] akin-2-grieve 14 years ago

No worries William / Theodore (delete as appropriate)

[–] tnkd2 14 years ago

Are you referring to the deleted post on this thread? B/c that wasn't me.

Can I ask you to explain yourself--why you disagree with my opinion on this movie? I'd like to understand. Brief, general statements just aren't worth much.

Hail nothing full of nothing, nothing is with thee.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] akin-2-grieve 14 years ago

I, and others, spoke about some themes here:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074958/board/flat/177067753

As to the pure cinematic elements of the film I may reply later. In terms of the 'incorrect' thing, well you can take that as seriously as you want...Also the 'delete' thing, I guess you have to be familiar with comedy time travel films of the late 80's / early 90's. No offence intended, just cheap laughs.

[–] tnkd2 14 years ago

Sorry; I don't go on this frequently enough to have seen this post just now. I'll check out the other thread, although I may have already. I'm not trying to change anyone's minds here; I'm just thinking . . . but now it's been a couple months since I've seen it, and I've moved on (The Lives of Others--highly recommended).

Hail nothing full of nothing, nothing is with thee.

[–] tnkd2 14 years ago

Okay, I just read through the thread, but it doesn't seem at all on topic with my issues with Network. I wasn't questioning the social relevance of the film in today's world and etc.; I was analyzing the story-telling aspects + acting, which I felt were contrived(to generally sum up my articulated arguments above).

Hail nothing full of nothing, nothing is with thee.

[–] Owlwise 14 years ago

I think what you call "contrived" is simply & deliberately over the top for satiric effect, but I can understand that such an approach may grate against the sensibilities of some viewers. While I disagree with it personally, I think your objection is fair enough. In the end, it's a matter of taste, after all!

[–] tnkd2 14 years ago

Thanks, Owlwise, I think that's the best possible point I can arrive at--I don't view this as a straight satire (although it has satire), because it tries to be convincingly believable in some areas. To me, it was inconsistent and leaned toward preaching to me more than engaging me in the story.
Not every classic film can be a hit for everyone . . .

Hail nothing full of nothing, nothing is with thee.

[–] PopularDemand 14 years ago

Writing and acting styles are subjective, so no use arguing whether either is good or bad because it is an OPINION. Writing and acting classes can point you in the right direction but ultimatly it is up to the talent of the individuals acting or writing and the audience they are playing to. Its like Charlie Sheens live show, an audience in NYC might hate it and walk out, but an audience in Philly loves it and sells out(likely depending on sobriety and age of people attending).

[–] ccr1633 14 years ago

aurileo wrote:
"Well then I don't mind being "incorrect", because I happen to agree with the OP on this movie. For largely the same reasons he outlined. I was very disappointed when I saw Network."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which means you are probably one of the tools that Chayefsky was ranting about, bringing down the collective IQ.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ccr1633 14 years ago

puplover wrote:
"Don't make me quote Rodney King here, kay?"
------------------------------------------------

So stay out of it then. The reasoned arguments on the pro and the con side that began this thread was a hell of a lot more interesting than you tediously insinuating yourself as keeper of the peace.

[–] cookiela2001 14 years ago

<< regarding viewpoint, the writer have a viewpoint but did not ram it down our throats... >>

? ? ? ? ?

Pauline Kael's review famously said that in this film, writer Paddy Chayefsky "spends two hours yelling at us soulless masses."

(I like this film, but it's hardly subtle!)

[–] AssetsonFire 13 years ago

This movie is an acting CLINIC

Overactors anonymous?

Oh whisky, leave me alone.

[–] zeemaza 14 years ago

Personally, I can relate to what you write and the fact that you feel nothing for these characters is proof of the movie's success.

I believe that this movie is about how people start off on one path, in this case it is about news and telling the truth, and ending up lost and completely astray. You think you have a grip on the world and then a couple of decades down the line you realise that no one has any control over anything.

I am 48 and I have worked in television all my life. I am sure that this occurs in many fields but I can particularly relate to this movie because I have workde in it. You see, television is indeed, as the movie points out, a very powerful instrument. Ideally, you start out by trying to offer truth. Not just in news but in drama too. You try to satisfy the audience but the audience is always diverse and you also have ratings in mind. You compromise the truth here and there and before you know it you feel as though you have sold your soul to the devil!

The people in this movie are trivial, shallow and heartless. they think they are on top of things but everything spirals out of their control and they all fail. Even William Holden's character - Shcumacher I think his name was - has failed but he is the only one willing to admit it and endorse it.

Instead of being an uplifting movie of success it is a nightmare of reality. I personally do not want to have anything to do with these characters but sadly I have seen them in real life everywhere. I feel nothing for them either but not because of the quality of the movie but because I want to stay as far away form them as I can. I want to remain oblivious to my own failures that are actually the result of my very success.

I think the movie is more philosophical than you take it for. It is light years ahead of its time. But hey - your opinion is your opinion. Cheers.

[–] evil_chipmunk31 14 years ago

I watched this movie for the first time tonight, and I was a bit disappointed by it as well. Don't get me wrong, overall I thought it was a good movie, but I think the OP made some legitimate points.

The core themes and concepts, like zeemaza discussed, in the movie were very inspired. I appreciated the dark satire as well, especially the scene where Frank very quickly and casually suggests killing Beally.

However, I felt the writing was too heavy handed at certain points. This was especially prominent in the scenes when Max is breaking up with his wife and Dianna. The writer literally spelled out everything Max was thinking, feeling, and was motivated by. I agree with the OP that a mark of a skilled writer is showing the audience these things, rather than having the characters lecture them. The exchange where Diana literally says she doesn't know how to love people was flat out condescending to the audience. IMHO, the movie would have been better if they trusted the audience's intelligence a little more in pivotal scenes such as these.

[–] nutsberryfarm 13 years ago

'a nightmare of reality.' i like that phrase. kudos.

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

[–] bithok 14 years ago

Are you an aspie?

[–] tnkd2 11 years ago

I'm analytical. I don't have asperger syndrome; I only have delayed responses to smug, narrow-minded, rhetorical questions.

Hail nothing full of nothing, nothing is with thee.

[–] Meanstoend 14 years ago

What is really interesting is how just after I watched this with my girlfriend we looked at who won awards. I noticed DeNiro was up for Taxi Driver and I made a comment how outstanding and realistic the acting was in Network and having recently watched Taxi Driver realized that DeNiro though great, was over the top. I found him a bit dated. Finch, Dunaway, Beatty and Holden were all top notch for the characters.We all seem to have different views on what acting is. I do agree that this film was a clinic.

[–] Naughty-God 13 years ago

Sorry you feel this way but my reaction to this film upon my first viewing was NOTHING like yours.

(¯`i´¯)´·¸.)‹^›

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]