Rating: 
Summary: A tremendous achievement
Review: This film is well-made, from the 50's style of presentation, to the costuming, dialogue and sensibilities of the times. The acting is superb. The characterization is splendid. It is well worth watching again and again.
Rating:
Summary: Many Symbols
Review: This is a great film on so many levels...dialogue, performances, cinematography, editing...all supporting the central metaphor of the quiz show scandals as a watershed event, marking the loss of innocence and shattering societal changes that began in the 1950s and are still playing out today.Along the way, many subtle symbols are interjected which support this thesis, and it is these elements that raise the movie to the same level as some of the best films ever made. Here's my favotite example; one that most people probably didn't notice: In the opening credits, we hear the bouncy 1950s hit-single version of "Mack the Knife". Then, over the closing credits we hear the much darker 1970s version of the same song (which is actually a truer translation of the Weill "Threepenny Opera" classic). Thus, these two "bookends" symbolize the loss of innocence and change of mood that take place during the course of the film's events. What an amazing element, yet so inconspicuous that it passes largely undetected. "Quiz Show" is packed with these...making multiple viewings a highly rewarding experience. Essential.
Rating: 
Summary: Good
Review: This is a well-crafted film. It did not do well, and Redford whined that the American public wasn't ready to face their loss of innocence. Blaming the public for the failure of a movie is a cop out. Redford is at fault. He himself said, "I wanted the first half of the movie to move quickly, like television itself. Then the second half I wanted to have a slower pace." A basic rule of movie narrative is the ONLY time you can be leisurely is at the beginning, and toward the end you really have to pick up the pace. I truly believe Redford's choice to slow the movie down in the second half is why it failed. Rob Morrow's awful acting job doesn't help. But aside from those major caveats, this film is intelligent, well-written, the other performances are first-rate, and it's worth a look.
Rating: 
Summary: Why, oh why?
Review: This is an utterly brilliant film, to be sure, worthy of every star or series of stars ever given in cinematic history. Its prelude, alone, is worthy of 5 stars, as are its performances, screenplay, cinematography, and striking use of the song "Mack the Knife" -- in two totally different performances.
So why do I only award it 4 stars?
A film of this caliber surely deserves more special features on its DVD release. (?) At the very least, Robert Redford should sit down and record his insights into this masterfully understated, superbly crafted, and exquistitely wrought drama. (?) Those who have seen the film are virtually begging for more, aren't we?
To be completely (and embarrasingly) honest, I only liked the film the first time I saw it, which was in the theatre when I was too young to appreciate its finer points. But I also believe its finer points defy the first viewing, as every subsequent showing of the film has uncovered a new dynamic, a new layer, a new penetrating insight. For one, I marvel at the bookending of the drama by totally different versions of "Mack the Knife" -- a song that we associate with the 50's by virtue of the famous Bobby Darrin and Louis Armstrong recorings, but that few know to have been written originally (and far more stringently) in the native German of Bertolt Brecht and Kurt Weill. The use of the song belies the filmmakers' knowledge of its incendiary message and content -- also the realization that the legendary Darrin recording superficially glosses over the bite of the original lyrics, via a TAME translation. (The story behind this is fascinating, but irrelevant.) Specifically, the opening credits are attended by the familiar, the period, the almost inane version recorded by Bobby Darrin -- but the final credits, with the ceaseless zooming in of the images of the audience, is accompanied by Lyle Lovett's far more knowing rendition: sinister, cynical and bitter.
And dare I mention the engrossing but mysterious first scene? A scene that has (at a glance) virtually nothing whatsoever to do with the plot of the film? Mira Sorvino mentions in passing that Rob Morrow has been car-shopping at a point; that is the only reference (albeit oblique) to the opening scene in the main body of the film. And yet: its exquisite disection of the 1950's in America, and the hopes, fears, insecurities, and aspirations that attended it, is shocking. Watch as the camera carresses the rampant materialism and nearly seduces the car for us. Watch as the salesman (in this film about sales pitches) never loses a beat. Watch as the carpet is pulled out from under us: Sputnik flies over, the USSR beats us into space, the camera loses control. For the first time, it shows us the *entire* field of view, rather than a coquettish close-up. It loses focus on the objective: to sell. But Mr. slick salesman doesn't: he doesn't lose a beat in tying the calamity into his pitch. This is the kind of filmmaking that all of Hollywood should aspire to. And I defy any thinking, conscientious person to watch the entire movie and return to the opening scene without seeing it as a kind of overture to the film, reducing its themes and intentions into a brief and enticing summary.
And again, I wonder: why doesn't a dumbfounding masterpiece like this not merit more in the way of commentary?
The film itself gets at least 5 stars; the by-the-numbers DVD presentation, 3-ish.
Rating:
Summary: A bare bones DVD of a good movie
Review: This is the Robert Redford's best movie in my opinion. He does a great job with the period and the gets a great cast led by Ralph Fiennes to tell a personal story of Quiz Show scandals. The bad guys are maybe too bold about their predictions of the future, because Redford knows the future already, but otherwise the movie flows nicely with the main characters facing all sorts of moral dilemmas, and answering them as they come along. The problem with the DVD is that is has nothing special to offer. It has no commentary or making-of segment, and not even one of those documentaries on the real scandals. You can pick it up cheap now or wait until somebody releases a special edition of this fine movie.
Rating:
Summary: "It's Television, Dad. Just Television."
Review: This marvelous film has been rightly praised for the excellence of its actors and the intelligence and wit of its dialogue. What has not been singled out sufficiently, though, is the film's insightful, indeed unerring documentation of that lamentable Post World War II transition in the States from a brahmin culture of family and/or intellect to one merely of celebrity and new money, very much our society of today, from which the old Wasp elite and the New York Jewish intellectuals, each the upholders of higher standards, have essentially disappeared. Unlike the gracious old Van Doren and the ethical young Goodwin, Charles Van Doren, the young Wasp intellectual, Stempel, the Jewish self-taught proficient,and the relatively new medium, television itself, represent the unbeatable wave of a debased future. For its poise and shrewd wit in illuminating this decline, the film deserves the highest marks.
Rating:
Summary: Fabulous
Review: This movie is fantastic. The casting is wonderful (Ralph Fiennes, John Turturro, Paul Schoefield) and I was very impressed with how the movie dealt with the personal issues surrounding historical events. I expected to watch a bland movie, but was surprised by how interesting it was.
Rating:
Summary: "You Have Twenty-Won!"
Review: Thus spoke Jack Barry, host of NBC's "Twenty-One," the game show which pitted two erstwhile brainiacs against each other on a weekly basis. Millions of Americans tuned in each week to see contestants breeze through subjects that would give many college graduates a headache . . . and win thousands of dollars in the process. But, as is often the case, the seemingly clean-cut, family-oriented show had a dark underbelly. The game was a fix, with the questions tailor-made and spoon-fed to the champion of the moment, whose permanence depended on their ratings momentum. When Herb Stempel (John Turturro), the self-made reigning champ, is asked to take a dive because his ratings have "plateaued" the producers of the show recruit the young, handsome and brilliant Charles Van Doren (Ralph Fiennes), a member of one of America's most prestigious academic dynasties, to be the new champ. The ambitious Van Doren, eager to step out from under his famous father's shadow, proves to be a media darling and relishes his newfound fame. When Richard Goodwin (Rob Morrow), a crusading staff member from the Congressional Oversight Committee, starts suspecting the scam, he finds Stempel. Resentful at his being replaced, the ex-champ sets about to blow the lid off the scandal. The brilliance in Robert Redford's direction lies in the flawless way in which he intertwines the four main subtexts in "Quiz Show." First, "Twenty-One" is a metaphor for American life in the 1950's: seemingly squeaky clean and wholesome, but in reality a place where a lot of dirt was swept under the rug. Second, the admiration that Goodwin feels towards Van Doren, on the one hand, and the resentment and vindictiveness of Stempel, on the other, are an incisive illustration of the tension in inter-cultural relations at the time, particularly between the Jews and the WASPs. This is perhaps best seen when Goodwin, eating a Reuben sandwich at the Country Club, comments to the Van Dorens "they have the sandwich but there doesn't seem to be any Reubens." Van Doren's father (the unforgettable Paul Scofield), recognizing the prejudice within his social circle candidly admits, "Touche!" Third and, in my opinion, most poignant, is Van Doren's struggle to make a name for himself. The film shows us some of the lengths to which some sons will go to be recognized on their own terms and for their own achievements. The flight of fancy comes crashing down when, in a heartbreaking scene, Van Doren's father announces: "Your name is mine!" Finally, there is television. Paul Attanasio's brilliant screenplay evens out the blame on what happened between the Machiavellian, corporate machine behind television (particularly seen in Martin Scorsese's razor-sharp performance as the show's sponsor) and the audience, for which television was, is and probably always will be a blank screen for them to project both the best and the worst in themselves. With top-notch performances, photography, editing and writing, "Quiz Show" finds Robert Redford in top form, a master student of the flaws in human nature.
Rating:
Summary: "You Have Twenty-Won!"
Review: Thus spoke Jack Barry, host of NBC's "Twenty-One," the game show which pitted two erstwhile brainiacs against each other on a weekly basis. Millions of Americans tuned in each week to see contestants breeze through subjects that would give many college graduates a headache . . . and win thousands of dollars in the process. But, as is often the case, the seemingly clean-cut, family-oriented show had a dark underbelly. The game was a fix, with the questions tailor-made and spoon-fed to the champion of the moment, whose permanence depended on their ratings momentum. When Herb Stempel (John Turturro), the self-made reigning champ, is asked to take a dive because his ratings have "plateaued" the producers of the show recruit the young, handsome and brilliant Charles Van Doren (Ralph Fiennes), a member of one of America's most prestigious academic dynasties, to be the new champ. The ambitious Van Doren, eager to step out from under his famous father's shadow, proves to be a media darling and relishes his newfound fame. When Richard Goodwin (Rob Morrow), a crusading staff member from the Congressional Oversight Committee, starts suspecting the scam, he finds Stempel. Resentful at his being replaced, the ex-champ sets about to blow the lid off the scandal. The brilliance in Robert Redford's direction lies in the flawless way in which he intertwines the four main subtexts in "Quiz Show." First, "Twenty-One" is a metaphor for American life in the 1950's: seemingly squeaky clean and wholesome, but in reality a place where a lot of dirt was swept under the rug. Second, the admiration that Goodwin feels towards Van Doren, on the one hand, and the resentment and vindictiveness of Stempel, on the other, are an incisive illustration of the tension in inter-cultural relations at the time, particularly between the Jews and the WASPs. This is perhaps best seen when Goodwin, eating a Reuben sandwich at the Country Club, comments to the Van Dorens "they have the sandwich but there doesn't seem to be any Reubens." Van Doren's father (the unforgettable Paul Scofield), recognizing the prejudice within his social circle candidly admits, "Touche!" Third and, in my opinion, most poignant, is Van Doren's struggle to make a name for himself. The film shows us some of the lengths to which some sons will go to be recognized on their own terms and for their own achievements. The flight of fancy comes crashing down when, in a heartbreaking scene, Van Doren's father announces: "Your name is mine!" Finally, there is television. Paul Attanasio's brilliant screenplay evens out the blame on what happened between the Machiavellian, corporate machine behind television (particularly seen in Martin Scorsese's razor-sharp performance as the show's sponsor) and the audience, for which television was, is and probably always will be a blank screen for them to project both the best and the worst in themselves. With top-notch performances, photography, editing and writing, "Quiz Show" finds Robert Redford in top form, a master student of the flaws in human nature.
Rating:
Summary: See the Hero Fall
Review: Tragedy is a hero with a single flaw; Achilles had his heel, Charles Van Doren was weak willed. He was smart, clever, educated, funny, and a good fellow well met. He knew right from wrong, but lacked the fortitude to choose right; he chose money over honor and lost himself in the transaction. This movie is about the inevitability of Van Doren's fall; watch Ralph Feinnes bring life to the character, see the growing glint of desperation behind his eyes as the end approaches, wish it didn't have to happen. The inevitability draws you in and makes this film. The DVD should have been better. The print was dirty, and the transfer soft. There are several artifacts visible: Venetian blinds, the fluting on the columns near the Capitol steps, etc. The disk has too few features, not even a cast biography. Such a highly praised film deserves better treatment. If you prefer story to technique, though, this movie might be worth its price.
|
