An interesting, ambitious, and somewhat entertaining satire of television, but one that pretty much fails for a number of reasons. It's difficult to believe almost everything that happens in it. Not one of the characters rings true. William Holden is as boring in 1976 as he was in 1955, and his cliché relationship with Faye Dunnaway is not at all believable, and not even that interesting. Their scenes together go on forever, and Holden's character carries the trite and obvious metaphor of Dunnaway as television personified, and their relationship as soap opera far further than necessary. Dunnaway herself puts an amazing amount of energy into her performance, and she didn't not deserve the Oscar she won, if you'll excuse my double negative. But her character really is only the metaphor that Holden attributes her, so what ground can she win with that? Beatrice Straight gives a performance that's most famous for being the shortest that ever won an Oscar, only three minutes. I didn't know who Beatrice Straight was, but it's obvious when she starts giving her big speech, so showy that she induced me to roll my eyes as many times as inches tall her Oscar is; that must be a record, too. Robert Duvall fares the best among the major cast members, although he hasn't much of a character either.
Peter Finch's performance is interesting, but his ranting gets old quick. While Howard Beale's first couple of ravings would undoubtedly raise people's interest (the `I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore' scene is as great as it is famous), but I doubt the television show that is developed for him, which apparently airs five days a week and runs for many months before the film ends, would ever attract an audience of any kind, except maybe a small bit who have a taste for public access television, which is what it seems like. I think people, especially the kind of disenfranchised, cynical people to whom Beale's show is supposed to appeal, would be much more critical and suspicious of a man who does his show opposite a psychic and in front of stained glass window.
People always refer to Network as `prophetic,' and then claim their proof is stuff like Jerry Springer, Hard Copy and reality television. As much as some of us may hate those kinds of television shows, only the deranged or stupid would ever believe that When Animals Attack is harmful to anybody other than those who are being attacked by animals. Does anybody really believe that anyone would ever air programs like The Ecumenical Liberation League or whatever that was? Some of the scenes focusing on this new show which the network is developing seem to want to be comedy, although the film is too heavy-seeming to ever succeed in being comic. Anyhow, in the world of reality, in which Holden's character keeps trying to convince Dunnaway and the film's audience that the story is really happening, the network's lawyers would have stopped them immediately. I will say that the film is prescient in only one way: Ned Beatty, who appears for one scene, has the most intriguing part, where he says, among other things:
"It is the international system of currency which determines the vitality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today! And you have meddled with the primal forces of nature! And you will atone! Am I getting through to you, Mr. Beale? You get up on your little 21 inch screen and howl about America and democracy. There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and ITT, and AT&T, and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today."
It comes out of right field in the film - well, kind of. The almighty dollar is the driving force of the film, and, the film realizes correctly, the world. But what Network does not understand is how television works to propagate this system, or perhaps how it would. It's too busy finding its subject, television, overtly evil when it misses the ways it can be more subtly evil. Not that I think all TV is evil or anything. Personally, I watch a lot of television and enjoy it immensely. I don't think it is particularly wicked, and I actually think that there's a lot of great art to be found on television (yes I do!). However, most of the evil I do see comes from the news. I wasn't around in 1976, so I can't say whether or not the news was as suspicious and creepy back then, but, if Network really had been prophetic, it would have at least got some of the satire right. 7/10.
Peter Finch's performance is interesting, but his ranting gets old quick. While Howard Beale's first couple of ravings would undoubtedly raise people's interest (the `I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore' scene is as great as it is famous), but I doubt the television show that is developed for him, which apparently airs five days a week and runs for many months before the film ends, would ever attract an audience of any kind, except maybe a small bit who have a taste for public access television, which is what it seems like. I think people, especially the kind of disenfranchised, cynical people to whom Beale's show is supposed to appeal, would be much more critical and suspicious of a man who does his show opposite a psychic and in front of stained glass window.
People always refer to Network as `prophetic,' and then claim their proof is stuff like Jerry Springer, Hard Copy and reality television. As much as some of us may hate those kinds of television shows, only the deranged or stupid would ever believe that When Animals Attack is harmful to anybody other than those who are being attacked by animals. Does anybody really believe that anyone would ever air programs like The Ecumenical Liberation League or whatever that was? Some of the scenes focusing on this new show which the network is developing seem to want to be comedy, although the film is too heavy-seeming to ever succeed in being comic. Anyhow, in the world of reality, in which Holden's character keeps trying to convince Dunnaway and the film's audience that the story is really happening, the network's lawyers would have stopped them immediately. I will say that the film is prescient in only one way: Ned Beatty, who appears for one scene, has the most intriguing part, where he says, among other things:
"It is the international system of currency which determines the vitality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today! And you have meddled with the primal forces of nature! And you will atone! Am I getting through to you, Mr. Beale? You get up on your little 21 inch screen and howl about America and democracy. There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and ITT, and AT&T, and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today."
It comes out of right field in the film - well, kind of. The almighty dollar is the driving force of the film, and, the film realizes correctly, the world. But what Network does not understand is how television works to propagate this system, or perhaps how it would. It's too busy finding its subject, television, overtly evil when it misses the ways it can be more subtly evil. Not that I think all TV is evil or anything. Personally, I watch a lot of television and enjoy it immensely. I don't think it is particularly wicked, and I actually think that there's a lot of great art to be found on television (yes I do!). However, most of the evil I do see comes from the news. I wasn't around in 1976, so I can't say whether or not the news was as suspicious and creepy back then, but, if Network really had been prophetic, it would have at least got some of the satire right. 7/10.