Network Response

1. Describe how the film "Network" has demonstrated the importance of money and ratings to the UBS network.
The network was willing to keep Beale on the air despite his obvious psychological problems. Beale was being embarrassed and exploited and probably didn't even completely realize that he'd gone crazy because no one confronted him. The people who worked at UBS were willing to lower their standards and let integrity die so that their ratings would go up. This film also explores the American society's crave for entertainment, even when it comes to news programs. The executives wanted ratings and extra money enough that leaving a man on the air who was saying extreme things was worth it to them. They knew that people would tune in to see what Beale would do next. A show that contains the unexpected will keep people watching. How far will Beale take this? How crazy will he get?

2. What points of view are represented by the three major characters and what are the filmmakers using these characters to say about television? Do you agree with the points they are making?

1. Howard Beale - The anchor man

Beale was "as mad as hell" and was "not going to take it anymore!" He was frustrated with his mundane job and had the guts to say extreme things on the air. I doubt when he first started, he thought that they would keep him on. He probably expected to get kicked off immediately. However, when the response was completely opposite, Beale used television as a way to communicate with the audience to take action. He seems like he gradually gets more crazy and dramatic as time goes on, but he truly does tell it like it is. However, he does seem insane, unkempt, angry, and not really "with it". He keeps repeating his catch phrase and the audience responds well.

I think Beale has points that can be agreed with. However, he tells things like they are with no censor or respect for news on television, and this is where I disagree with him. He seems to think because his life is going off the deep end, it is acceptable to abuse his privilege of communicating with thousands of people during an expected news time and switch to talking about whatever he wants. Then, as they give him his own show, it just gets more and more absurd.

I think the filmmakers are using Beale's character to show the drastic things people will do for attention in almost a comedic way.

2. Max Schumacher - the head of the news division
Max seems to be one of the only characters with his head on straight in this movie (for the most part). He is genuinely concerned about Beale's mental health and the way that the producers are exploiting him on television solely for their own benefit. Max thinks that news should be a quality program and not something that is scripted just for entertainment purposes to kick up the ratings.

I agree with Max's views. He knows what the purpose of the news segments should be and tries to stand up for his friend at first. However, sadly, he buys into Diana's programming schemes not because he agrees with them, but because he finds himself attracted to her.

I think the filmmakers are using Max to show the overall struggle of TV ethics - when is it acceptable to entertain and find ways to bring your ratings up (it is a business and you have to make money at it) and when do you draw the line because of "simple human decency"?...(as Max tells Diana in their break-up scene).

3. Diana Christensen - the programmer
Diana is willing to stop at nothing to get ratings. She sees the television industry as solely an entertainment business, so whatever outrageous things she can think of that would appeal to audiences despite any kind of moral code are acceptable to her. You can tell that she is frustrated when her ideas get shot down from Max. She tries to use her professionalism to convince him, and when this doesn't work, she resorts to sex appeal. Her own life and these actions almost resemble how she feels about television - do whatever it takes to get what you want to succeed in life - there are no limits and nothing is more important than success and money.

I don't agree with Diana's views at all. They are outrageous and of course that way for a reason. The film needs someone like her to show what can happen when you are blinded by your own desires. She has no regret for any of her actions, even when it comes to killing off Beale at the end because the executives don't seem to know of any other way to deal with him.

I think the filmmakers are using Diana's character to show the extremities of desiring ratings and how for some, when it comes to this issue, there is no line to cross of what is acceptable moral behavior. Anything goes.

3. What parallels can you find between the programming Diana Christensen is advocating in this 1976 film - and radio or TV programming currently on the air?
This kind of attitude towards television reminds me of a lot of programming that is currently on the air. It is almost like screenwriter Paddy predicted the future. It is sad to see "exclusive interviews" with famous people who are bashing other famous people, such as the recent Donald Trump and Rosie O'Donnell banter. I think the Jerry Springer show can be a very good example of this kind of programming. Other daytime talk shows that are about ridiculous subjects such as "My husband is not really the father of my baby and he doesn't know it" also parallel themes from the Network. I think some reality shows can also be this way - not only allowing crazy things to air for entertainment ratings, but also because people get on the shows and do ridiculous things because they know it will get them more attention and airtime.

4. Why did the network put Howard Beale back on the air as an "Angry Prophet"? Did the network believe that Beale really was a prophet?
Diana sells Beale as a prophet by saying he is truly revealing how every American feels. I'm sure many people actually did resonate with Beale's words, but "every American" may be stretching it. I don't think most of the executives for the network truly believed he was a prophet. For them, it was all about the shock factor and the ratings that it would supply. I think some of them just wanted to almost run it as an experiment: what would actually happen if we let Beale say whatever he wants to say? Will the ratings go up? Will anyone get in trouble?

5. What "sweet nothings" was Diana speaking to Max during their lovemaking and what point were the filmmakers making in this scene?
Diana is talking of the network and all of the success it is gaining. From this you can tell that Diana has a one-track mind: success in her business life. It reveals that her relationship with Max is strictly superficial and primarily for the purpose of keeping him from changing his mind about her freedoms as the programmer. I think the filmmakers are using this scene to reveal more about Diana's character - not only does she have no morals or ethics when it comes to television, but she has no true life outside of tv either. Her work life is her paradigm - the glasses she sees the world through.

6. Do you think there are any TV or radio personalities on the air today who remind you of Howard Beale, "the angry prophet of the airwaves"? If so, who and why or how are they similar to Howard Beale?
I do not know too much about either of these men, but I've heard that Howard Stern and Rush Limbaugh can get pretty riled up. I think they use the radio as a way to blow off steam about subjects that upset or convict them. I think they voice extreme opinions, maybe most of the time because that's really what they believe, but maybe some of the time just to see how audiences will respond. I think Beale was definitely doing this several times: "how will people react if I actually say this out loud?".

7. In the 1970s films, it was not as common as it is today to have profanity spoken by the characters. Yet, in Network, there is extreme and profusive profanity throughout the film by most of the characters- this was a real shocker for 1970s audiences. What point do you think the filmmakers are trying to get across by such overwhelming use of profanity by UBS network officials?
It seems that the filmmakers are demonstrating the extremities of how the public views television broadcasting compared to how it may be playing out behind the scenes. The news is thought to be a credible and professional entity, yet the businessmen behind it all had low values and just wanted the good ratings. I think the filmmakers were trying to also show symbolism by revealing the shock-factor experienced by audiences when watching this film in a theater tied with shock of the audiences in the movie witnessing Beale's actions on television. Maybe the filmmakers wanted the real audiences to feel like they were actually experiencing and living this shock of what is expected from a television network with the fake audiences in the film.

More comments...
I checked out the 2006 DVD edition of this film and had the privilege of getting to see the special features, which gave way more insight into this film then I think I would have gained otherwise. The interview with Paddy the screenwriter was very interesting. The main theme he kept expressing that he wanted to get across to his audience was "dehumanization". He told his interviewers on the show Dinah!, "When do we say - hold it - human life is a hell of a lot more important than a lousy dollar?" which I think was definitely the main theme running throughout this film and can be tied to many other instances in our lives than just television.

One of the main things that surprised me throughout the process of watching the special features was how many times this film was referred to as a satire, parody, and comedy. I felt some of that while watching it. Some of it was so outrageous that you couldn't help but laugh. But mostly to me and I guess maybe because of growing up when I did, I thought a lot of the points he was making were very serious and this film seemed like something that could almost happen in real life - save the murder at the end, hopefully. I think that in the 70's, there wasn't as much of this actually going on. The director and screenwriter both pointed out that when they went to screenings of this and sat with audiences, the people would laugh during Beale's outbreak and most would eventually join in with him. However, with today's television industry, it seems more and more that we see this kind of outrageous programming that is lousy and truly dehumanizing and yet these types of shows prove to do very well among audiences.

I think one of the scenes in this film that resonated with me most was Max's teenage daughter getting up off the couch and wanting to peek out the window to see if anyone would respond to Beale's request. By doing this, she is thinking, "if others are responding well to Howard Beale, then I might too." She is also observing the effects that the show is having on people. This will keep her tuned in for the next show, and the next. Other people like the show and accept it, so she can too. What will Beale ask his audience to do next? Will they do it? Will she? These questions compel Max's daughter to keep watching the show out of fascination of what is going on around her. I think this is the same with today's audiences when it comes to shows that are similar with their unpredictability, outrageousness, and behavior. Just like the teenage girl, we observe how others around us are reacting and keep tuning in to see just how far things will be taken.

Quiz Show Responses

What was the reason that Dan Enright gave to Herb Stemple to make him lose? What was the real reason behind this decision?

The ratings "plateaued"

Predictability

Keep audience interested, give them something they wouldn't expect

Why do you think Host Jack Barry told the audience that the questions for the quiz show were kept in a bank vault before the show. Was that a true statement?

Barry said this to add drama to the show. It made everything seem confidential and probably also helped to cover-up any possibilities that the show might be rigged.

The questions may have actually been in a bank vault so that that the producers could claim their statements were true, but in reality, it was not entirely true since the questions were not kept confidential like the "bake vault" statement implied.

The plots of most films turn on one or more ethical choices which must be made by the characters in the movie. Describe the choices made by Stemple and Van Doren in the question booth in the last scene when Van Doren defeated Stemple.
Tell us whether the ethical decision made by each character can be justified and do you consider it to be a good or bad choice. Fully explain your opinion.

Stemple could have answered correctly, especially since he actually knew the answer this time. His choice was between saying the answer and risking no more television opportunities in the future, or sticking with his agreement with the producers, and continuing with the lie.

Van Doren was surprised in that he had not expected to have to make this choice. I think the pressure of being on television and the possibility of fame, recognition, and money was too great an appeal for Van Doren to refuse. If he had had more time to think about future consequences and had not been under so much pressure, the outcome may have been different.

I think the ethical decision that Stemple had to make is difficult to say whether it was good or bad. He kept his word to the producers by doing what he said he would do. However, he could have answered correctly and that would have been telling the truth. It is hard to say which "truth" is more important in this case.

Van Doren did not make a good choice in this situation. Even though he knew the answer, I think he could have refused to give in, especially since he had already told the producers that he wouldn't play it their way.

How did the people in Herb Stemple’s neighborhood greet him on his way home after winning on the quiz show? Why do you think this scene is important?

They were proud of him and it also unified their community. They were probably proud to know him as well. This scene shows Stemple's reasons behind justifying his cheating. It is an appreciation and fame that he never would have received for the knowledge he possess, but instead for his winning a well-liked television show.

What are the differences between Herb Stemple and Charles Van Doren as illustrated in the movie? What are the filmmakers telling us by emphasizing these differences?
Stemple comes from a family that must work hard to earn a living. He also gets no recognition or positive feedback from his peers, neighborhood, or even family.

Van Doren is the complete opposite. He has a good reputation and the reputations of his family. He gets admiration and recognition from everyone, including people he has never met.

The filmmakers make this distinction in order to show the desire for television producers and audiences to root for an attractive, well-liked man. I think it also shows how despite these great differences between the two men, they still had one thing in common: a desire to sacrifice honesty in order to gain fame and respect.

What was the point of the “quotations game” that Charlie and his father played at the outdoor luncheon at their estate?

I think they like to prove and show off their knowledge to each other and everyone else. However, in this particular game, his father brings up quotes about honesty which obviously prods Charlie into uncomfortable thoughts about his actions that he has been trying to push away.

What is the implication in Albert Freedman’s words to Charlie Van Doren:
“What did you do wrong? Everybody knows the magician don’t saw the lady in half.”

Freedman is trying to justify Van Doren's actions by saying that people would on some level know that the Quiz Show wasn't entirely truthful in its claims, but for entertainment purposes it was permissible.

What did NBC do when Charlie Van Doren was defeated on the quiz show? Why did they do this?

NBC offered Van Doren $50,000 to be on another television show. I think they showed it publicly to entice viewers to watch another NBC show, as well as to help the viewers not feel too disappointed that Van Doren had lost.

Charlie Van Doren asked Dick Goodwin, “If someone offered you all this money to be on some rigged quiz show, instant fame, the works… would you do it?

It is one of those things that is understandably appealing. There are many benefits and the risks of getting caught are pretty low. Plus, some can justify that it is okay to have a rigged show because it is entertainment. However, I would not do it. I think it is dishonest and the guilt that would come along with receiving the fame and money would not be worth it. I would hate to contribute to a scam that was fooling thousands of people, and then have to live with the lie the rest of my life.

Having said that, I think that if in different situations throughout my life, I will choose to be dishonest about something without difficulty if I don't think I will get caught (sneaking food into movie theaters, speeding, etc.) Although Van Doren's dishonesty seems "bigger" or "worse" compared to other things, a lie is a lie.

What were the filmmakers saying in the scene when Dick Goodwin’s wife told Goodwin, “You are like the Uncle Tom of the Jews”?

Goodwin's wife was frustrated with the time and effort that he was spending in his investigation and more specifically, his relationship with Van Doren. At one point, she said he was "bending over backwards" for Van Doren and she couldn't understand why. She used the "Uncle Tom" reference in order to demonstrate her belief that Goodwin was spending time with Van Doren in order to be associated with a well-liked famous person, and be on his good side. I think that in a most situations, the majority of people would have a similar reaction when someone had faith that all people will eventually doing the right thing. However, Goodwin's faith in Van Doren, not his condemnation, is what I believe helped Van Doren realize that he could make the good (but difficult) decision.

The president of Geritol told Dick Goodwin that the public has a very short memory but the corporations (NBC) never forget. What did he mean by this?

The president was explaining to Goodwin that in general, the public's main desire for watching television was to be entertained. Even if they learned of the deceit, it would not permanently effect their choice to turn on the TV.

However, for NBC, Goodwin's efforts damaged their credibility and took away time and money from important executives of the corporation. Also, NBC would now have to keep in mind creating a scam did have greater risks than they had originally anticipated.

What did Dick Goodwin mean when he said, “I thought we were gonna get television. The truth is, television is gonna get us.” ?

Goodwin was sure that revealing the truth would have serious consequences for NBC. Instead, the idea that television is a source of entertainment seemed to precede over all else, including truth.

First Post

JR -
I thought this might be a good way to keep all of my assignments organized in one place since I am currently unable to come back to Abilene. I have too many ups and downs right now and it's such a blessing to have my parents around to take care of me and help me with everyday things that were very tiring for me to do on my own in Abilene.

Anyways, I can post things on here and you can add comments or suggestions to anything that you would like.

If you'd rather just do this all through e-mail that's cool with me too. I just figured this way everything would be all together; I will still e-mail you with updates to this blog so you know when to check it.

Again, thank you for offering me an "Incomplete" in this class and I hope to get as much done as possible within the next few months.