Plot intro
Long-standing news anchor Howard Beale (Peter Finch) finds out from his friend and colleague Max Schumacher (William Holden) that he is being fired in two weeks due to declining ratings. Struggling to come to terms with this, Beale suddenly shirks off his news duties and starts giving emotional, inspirational and incendiary political rants. The network is furious at first, but when ambitious programmer Diana Christensen points out that ratings are up. Diana and a reluctant Max team up to exploit Howard’s on-air mental breakdowns for all the ratings they can get. Can they keep such popularity going, or will Howard go too far…?
Faye Dunaway is an actress whose reputation precedes her. She is hailed as both one of the greatest actresses around, but also one of the most difficult to work with. Her reputation as “demanding” does seem to be a result of the usual chauvinist dismissal of any woman who questions male authority, but at the same time there is some smoke…so there must be a fire. She was reportedly late or randomly absent during the making of The Towering Inferno, clashed with director Roman Polanski when making Chinatown, and is known for requesting more retakes than directors are often willing to provide. The ever-outspoken Bette Davis (herself a victim of being labelled “demanding”) criticised Dunaway for unprofessionalism, intimating that the younger actress would turn up late and not know her lines. Most recently, behind-the-scenes footage of Dunaway shooting an ad came to light in which she abruptly asks someone behind the camera to leave because they are “right in my eyeline”.
On the flipside, many other directors and actors have said completely the opposite, complimenting her attention to detail and her tenacious quest for perfectionism in her work. The director and co-stars of Network seem to have all had a positive experience with her, including William Holden with whom she had an altercation during the making of The Towering Inferno. Dunaway has also written about her experience with bipolar disorder which probably contributed to her alleged behind-the-scenes behaviours.
Whatever the truth is (and we will probably never know it), there’s no denying that Dunaway nails this role in Network, which led to her third Oscar nomination and her only win. Diana Christensen is arguably one of the Best Actress roles that is hardest to like. Ambitious is an understatement, she is a ruthless, ratings-hungry, TV executive with all the sympathy and bedside manner of an anaconda. She herself admits that she is useless at friendships, love, domestic affairs or hobbies- all she is good at is work. Dunaway captivates this by seeming to always have Diana moving- circling assistants and execs whom she is trying to persuade, seduce or intimidate (or all three) like a shark. In one scene, she watches Howard’s performances with an insatiable lasciviousness whilst stuffing a sandwich into her mouth, uniting her professional ambition with food-hunger and even some underlying sexual enjoyment.
This all works in wonderful contrast to William Holden’s performance as the old-fashioned, more soft-spoken, sympathetic Max, who reluctantly goes along with Diana’s manipulation of Howard and his skyrocketing ratings. Through them, the film dissects the idea of “old” and “new” programming, the former valuing integrity, dignity and respect, the latter valuing ratings, hysteria and excitement.
Network as a whole is a high-energy, biting and weirdly prescient satire of the dumbing-down of news. Howard’s sensationalised but politically vague rants on air, which usually culminate in the audience yelling about how angry they are about the world and Howard fainting, are akin to the sort of emotive and fact-lite rants one might get from Donald Trump, Piers Morgan, or Jordan Peterson (as well as many others). These sorts of “news” anchors and political activists, regulars on Fox or GB News, deliver diatribes against “wokeism”, political correctness and diversity amongst a myriad of other topics but with very little research or evidence involved, somehow conning swathes of viewers into thinking that they are intelligent commentators. Howard does the same, although he genuinely believes what he is saying and is being puppeteered by Diana and Max. So prescient was the film that some of the satire does get a little lost to modern eyes. George Clooney apparently showed Network to some film students and was surprised to find that they didn’t know it was meant to be satirical, the plot and themes being so similar to modern-day news programming.
Everyone in Network is having a whale of a time. Every actor is almost exhausting themselves with the fast-paced, crescendoing dialogue, and it’s easy to see why the film garnered a whopping five acting nominations at the Oscars and won three. The script is a flowing, effervescent ocean of thrilling speeches, rants and arguments (Aaron Sorkin, who wrote The West Wing and The Social Network has cited it as an influence), and while the satirical edge might be lost, Network remains a funny, whacky and dark dissection of news versus entertainment.
Highlight: There’s a lot of fun scenes in this, but I think one of the most poignant is when Max and Diana hook up. Diana can’t stop discussing work but still manages to put some passion and orgasm into her actions, while Max seems to silently enjoy this combination of work and pleasure.
Lowlight: The final 10 minutes, in which the TV execs decide to assassinate Howard, feels a bit out-of-keeping with the rest of the film. I think this is where the satirical edge becomes fuzzy. To '70s audiences, the entire film is fantastical and ridiculous so the fantastic and ridiculous ending syncs up. But to us, it doesn’t, because modern news shows are not too far away from Howard’s insane performances.
Mark: 8/10
Whatever you may think about Faye Dunaway, Network gives her the platform to prove she’s got acting chops. Leaving all the controversy aside - and as Paul says, there’s a history of chauvinism in Hollywood that sees ambitious and dedicated women labelled as ‘power hungry’ or ‘demanding’ - this was an absolutely terrific watch.
What I loved so much, watching this in 2024, was the slightly chilling realisation that when they made this film in the mid ‘70s, they thought this was a preposterous, over the top scenario. However when we watch it, we nod our heads and say ‘of course’. Because it is the case that the news is no longer purely factual, it has become entertainment. And while we may not have tarot card readers on the air, we have hugely controversial figures hired to stir up feelings and gain viewership. Numbers are what matters, not ethics.
It’s in her role as Diana that Dunaway sparkles. From the off, she is quick, sharp and takes no prisoners. We see her threaten her dull-eyed team with unemployment and she cuts a feminine yet ball-busting figure in a grey suited male environment. She’s ahead of the curve in that she sees that the old regime of news and television is dying and that viewership numbers are all that matters now.
I think it’s an exquisite performance, Dunaway completely inhabits the role (we can tell she must be a perfectionist) through the comic scenes where she orgasms while discussing work to the sadder scenes where she loses her relationship because of her refusal to discuss anything other than her work.
This is the weaker part of the film for me - the romance with much-older Max is a little uninteresting and apparently was significantly reduced in the recent National Theatre production. The news story, with Howard rapidly deteriorating, is far more gripping and on the nose, and it’s no surprise that Aaron Sorkin puts this film as one of his influences. The quick talking, business like dialogue whisks the film along and never lets you get ahead of the plot.
I will also do a shout-out to Beatrice Straight who won Best Supporting Actress for this film and to this day holds the record for winning with the smallest amount of screen time (five minutes and two seconds). It’s a beautifully nuanced performance in which she pleads with her unfaithful husband not to go, before changing her mind - aware that he will one day return to her. Along with Peter Finch as the deranged Howard Beale, these three winners thoroughly deserve their shiny Oscars.
I disagree with Paul about the ending - although it is more noticeably satirical to us than the rest of the film, I think we do actually live in a world where a slightly more conspiracy-loving reviewer could see television executives enacting a murder to protect their numbers.
Highlight: I loved the moment where Diana sees Howard ranting and raving, and realises what this could do for their numbers. Her eyes actually shine with excitement and ambition - it’s a layered performance that’s head and shoulders above many of her fellow winners.
Lowlight: I think the romance sub-plot does get in the way a little - it’s sometimes at odds with the rapid-pace of the story. I wonder if it would even be included if this film were made today as it doesn’t really add anything.
Mark: 9/10
No comments:
Post a Comment