The Prescience of 'Network'
Feb. 24th, 2010 11:51 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
gonzaiWe're continuing to enjoy the good movie avalanche that TCM has rolled out for the '31 Days of Oscar' and one of the films I watched over the weekend was 'Network'. Which turned out to be quite the ironic choice, coming a couple days after one s***head flew his plane into a building.
(While I will try not to ruin the movie for you, given that it came out in 1976 I'm not really going to go out of my way to avoid spoilers either.)
When it first came out, 'Network' was supposed to be a comedy/satire. Now, almost 35 years later, it's neither. It's reality, and it's not funny. Obviously networks and channels behaved like this with regard to ratings, advertising, etc. before then and after that, with little changing recently other than the addition of digital/internet. But note that during the course of the film, the network's news division is put under the control of the entertainment division. Something which has indeed happened, either in reality or for all intents and purposes, at today's news channels and networks.
But let's take a look at what this fictional network put on the air, shall we? A 'first person' glimpse of the inner workings of a political/terrorist group, including their own films of themselves committing crimes. Reality television, anyone? Furthermore, it's a leftist group that they're filming, with at least some intent of humiliating them. Anyone think Fox would gladly do that today if they could get such a group to let them film? And then there's Howard Beale's show. A barely stable middle-aged white man venting his barely coherent rage to the delight of a sycophantic audience. Oh wait, that's Fox News. Or talk radio. Granted, I don't watch Fox News or its ilk, but from what I hear, Glenn Beck, et al are Beale's direct descendants. And as for the film's ending...if it made enough financial profit, I could see that happening for real. Indeed, a scandal could produce the same result, or an untimely accident, and those things have happened.
Then there's Beale himself. Enraged, but barely and rarely able to actually articulate what he's angry about, and certainly with no semblance of a solution to the problems even if he could properly identify them. So he's just angry, all the time, rarely with a specific target but just a bunch of boogeymen. This description would cover what, 2/3rd+ of Tea Partiers? Beale should be their mascot, fer cryin' out loud.
And this movie was written 35 years ago. So, I ask you: is life imitating art, or was 'Network' spectacularly prescient?
(While I will try not to ruin the movie for you, given that it came out in 1976 I'm not really going to go out of my way to avoid spoilers either.)
When it first came out, 'Network' was supposed to be a comedy/satire. Now, almost 35 years later, it's neither. It's reality, and it's not funny. Obviously networks and channels behaved like this with regard to ratings, advertising, etc. before then and after that, with little changing recently other than the addition of digital/internet. But note that during the course of the film, the network's news division is put under the control of the entertainment division. Something which has indeed happened, either in reality or for all intents and purposes, at today's news channels and networks.
But let's take a look at what this fictional network put on the air, shall we? A 'first person' glimpse of the inner workings of a political/terrorist group, including their own films of themselves committing crimes. Reality television, anyone? Furthermore, it's a leftist group that they're filming, with at least some intent of humiliating them. Anyone think Fox would gladly do that today if they could get such a group to let them film? And then there's Howard Beale's show. A barely stable middle-aged white man venting his barely coherent rage to the delight of a sycophantic audience. Oh wait, that's Fox News. Or talk radio. Granted, I don't watch Fox News or its ilk, but from what I hear, Glenn Beck, et al are Beale's direct descendants. And as for the film's ending...if it made enough financial profit, I could see that happening for real. Indeed, a scandal could produce the same result, or an untimely accident, and those things have happened.
Then there's Beale himself. Enraged, but barely and rarely able to actually articulate what he's angry about, and certainly with no semblance of a solution to the problems even if he could properly identify them. So he's just angry, all the time, rarely with a specific target but just a bunch of boogeymen. This description would cover what, 2/3rd+ of Tea Partiers? Beale should be their mascot, fer cryin' out loud.
And this movie was written 35 years ago. So, I ask you: is life imitating art, or was 'Network' spectacularly prescient?
