Viewed in
2000, 2010
Formats Watched
DVD
Premise
A satire about television when a station stumbles upon a cash cow in the form of a news anchor gone insane on live television.
Loved
The performances, monologues, and timeless themes.
Disliked
The bad lighting.
Thoughts
When I first watched it in 2000, I was astounded by how most of the film still applied to television 25 years later. A decade later, I was in awe by how relevancy it had to 24-cable television and the internet. I am certain this masterpiece will still apply a hundred years from now in whatever technological entertainment form.
The themes, satire and commentary were, rich, vibrant and thick with honesty. I laughed with glee at some of the stranger-than-fiction absurdities in the film that reflected my current world. Sensationalism, blind celebrity-worshiping, fact-less punditry, the Middle East, dehumanizing apathy, and the power of money were just some of the issues explored.
The monologues, especially in the second half, were some of the greatest I have ever heard. Howard Beale (Peter Finch) got all the glitz, but re-watching it, I'm reminded about how much human truth was painfully explored between Max (William Holden) and the ratings-mad Diana (Faye Dunaway), as well as Max and his wife (Beatrice Straight) after admitting the affair. Diana's monologue, incessantly talking about ratings during a weekend getaway, climaxing in sex, was pure genius in writing and delivery.
The cast was phenomenal. Most usually only remember Finch, but Holden, Dunaway, and Straight were the heart of the film. Everyone got a chance to deliver these wonderful lines with soul and pain. Walter Cronkite's daughter played a Stockholm syndrome hostage. Tim Robbins had a small, but noticeable part. So many cool actors that I haven't even mentioned Robert Duvall. Lastly, how in the world did Ned Beatty NOT win for best supporting actor?
It definitely felt like I was watching a play. Turned out the screenwriter, Paddy Chayefsky, was a playwright. Plus, there were words that nearly had me pausing and scrambling for the dictionary. Another reason for the vibe was the lack of a score, save music within the story.
My only complaint was some of the scenes seemed to lack good lighting. I don't know if it was budget, logistics, or intentional. In any case, it was distracting when I could not see a character's face or reaction.
I cannot think of a greater satire masterpiece than this for intelligent moviegoers (with a little patience for talking heads).
What I would change
Nothing.
