Skip to main content

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show
(1994)

(SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

I put that partly down to Redford himself, who brings the baggage of nostalgia for a period he’s also, ostensibly, supposed to be making a frontal assault on. He ends up nearly drowning the material with earnest respectability; this needed a passionate filmmaker, or an angry one, someone who could bring the full force of attitude to bear, rather than measured restraint. As such, I don’t think the man for the job was Steven Soderbergh either, whom Redford strong armed out of pole position in what was, by Soderbergh’s account, extremely underhand fashion; Soderbergh and the film’s producer agreed he’d direct, but then he found, while making another film first, that he had been ousted (“The image that is given [of Redford] – as being a friend of the filmmaker – is not what I experienced”). Soderbergh’s version of Quiz Show might have been formally more interesting, but I seriously doubt there wouldn’t have been any less clinically efficient exercise than, say, Erin Brokovich.

Ten years later, this is the kind of fare Soderbergh’s mucker George Clooney would doubtless have jumped head first into, as the similarly starchy, diligent Good Night, and Good Luck, another TV morality tale set during that decade, bears witness. Don’t get me wrong, Quiz Show is engrossing enough – Attanasio irresistibly documents how TV show Twenty-One, which fed contestants questions as a matter of course and so dictated the reigning champion’s stint and exit, was exposed by a federal investigation – it’s just that you know it might have also have had a pulse, in the way prior Redford movies had (All the President’s Men, for example) rather than following the line of his later directorial efforts (Lions for Lambs).

There are two points here. One is that a director can cite historic material’s relevance to the here-and-now all they want (as Clooney did with Good Night, and pretty much anything he touches with his preaching-to-the-choir, indifferently populist perspective), but as soon as one wraps oneself in a different era’s trappings, that sense of time and place tends to take over and begin dictating approach. The other is that the mood of the moment when making a movie is everything. Sidney Lumet rose in the ranks as a director during the 1950s, but he still turned out the vital Network in the 1970s (a flawed but admirably enraged picture). Whatever themes Redford wished to explore four decades later in his ‘50s period piece, they were translated into a “tell us something we don’t know” finished film.

As ever with a Hollywood dramatisation, Quiz Show plays fast and loose with the facts, ironically presenting more sympathy for Charles Van Doren (Ralph Fiennes) than it probably ought to (ironically, since Rob Morrow’s congressional lawyer Dick Goodwin is accused of making excuses for the privileged, Harvard-educated university instructor). This sort of thing is to be expected, though, and if you rate a historical movie or biopic on the basis of fidelity, you’re unlikely to have many favourites.

Charles Van Doren: I’m just trying to imagine what Kant would make of this.
Albert Freedman: I don’t think he’d have a problem.

Besides approach, Redford also rather trips up with the casting of Fiennes, fresh from Schindler’s List and prospectively the next big (English) thing (that never really happened, despite The English Patient; following a couple of failed flirtations with Hollywood, The Avengers and Strange Days, his Hollywood presence would be largely limited to the odd well-remunerated villain). The more obvious offender might seem to be Rob Morrow’s lead, brandishing a very dodgy Boston accent – I’m not generally one to take issue with crap accents, but even I thought this one sounded ripe – and looking like he’s trying to devour his cigar rather than smoke it, but Morrow, then a small-screen star in Northern Exposure and never really destined to make the transition to the big (indeed, this would be his only serious bid) brings all-important personability, despite those performance rods for his back. Fiennes is technically assured, even if his accent is also a bit iffy, but he lacks emotional warmth. There’s a frosty, distanced unease to his Van Doren, and in the tale Redford wants to tell, you really have to want him notto be the guy who did what he did, to see him the way Goodwin sees him; Fiennes naturally brings an air of the glassy or glacial that lends itself to the ethically compromised, the inherently dubious.

Herb Stempel: I might add that my wife no longer suffers from tired blood, now that I’ve got her on Gentol.

If Morrow and Fiennes have their demerits, John Turturro delivers a definitive John Turturro performance as goofball Herb Stempel, the champ Van Doren is brought in to beat. Arguably, Stempel has been sign-posted as a comedy Jewish caricature, but the actor effortlessly steals any scene he’s in as the self-inflated little guy reluctant to leave the spotlight and reacting very badly to what he sees as the studio failing to keep its promises (it doesn’t help matters that Stempel is broke: “You gave your money to a bookie who skipped town?”) Herb’s shameless ingratiation and belief in his own entitlement and unjust side-lining provides for a classic Turturro turn, and the best part of the hearings isn’t the sly observations (the committee and studio boss discussing golf games like buddies) but Stempel basking in an audience amused at his energetic forthrightness; the reproof of the press that follows, as he’s asked to gate-crash Van Doren’s moment of shame for a photo op, is a perhaps a little much (particularly as again, it’s ultimately designed to stoke sympathy for Van Doren we don’t really feel) but by now we know what to expect from Redford’s movie.

Mark Van Doren: Your name is mine.

Populating the supporting ranks are a range of fine players, from David Paymer and Hank Azaria as the duplicitous producers (the former dutifully falling on his sword to protect his bosses), to Christopher McDonald as host Jack Barry, to Paul Scofield as Van Doren’s dad, the figure of honour and respect and dignity, a bastion of a bygone era and impossible to live up to (so explaining Charles’ choice to go on the show in the first place). Griffin Dunne, Barry Levinson and Martin Scorsese (as the Geritol exec, presenting the voice of hindsight that this won’t kill off the quiz show, as “They just wanted to watch the money” before giving Dick a mob-esque warning to “Watch yourself out there”). There’s also Mira Sorvino as Goodwin’s wife, a year before her Oscar, reminding us why she should have remained in the spotlight (“You’re like the Uncle Tom of the Jews” she accuses Dick).

Quiz Show was released by Disney’s Hollywood Pictures brand, which seemed to have a permanent identity crisis during its decade and a half tenure. Most of its fare was forgettable, the odd Bruckheimer picture aside, but it didmanage to boast two Best Picture nominees, this and The Sixth Sense. The latter is your classic box office titan subsequently endorsed by the Academy (either cynically to boost ratings, or because they’re genuinely impressed by the acumen, take your pick). The former has been precision engineered as awards bait, something the majority of Redford’s directorial efforts appeared tailored towards, successfully or otherwise. That being the case, I don’t think he’s ever equalled the one that did hit the jackpot, his first.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

I'm reliable, I'm a very good listener, and I'm extremely funny.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I wrote my 23 to see in 2019, I speculated that James Cameron might be purposefully giving his hand-me-downs to lesser talents because he hubristically didn’t want anyone making a movie that was within a spit of the proficiency we’ve come to expect from him. Certainly, Robert Rodriguez and Tim Miller are leagues beneath Kathryn Bigelow, Jimbo’s former spouse and director of his Strange Days screenplay. Miller’s no slouch when it comes to action – which is what these movies are all about, let’s face it – but neither is he a craftsman, so all those reviews attesting that Terminator: Dark Fate is the best in the franchise since Terminator 2: Judgment Day may be right, but there’s a considerable gulf between the first sequel (which I’m not that big a fan of) and this retcon sequel to that sequel.

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

What about the meaningless line of indifference?

The Lion King (2019)
(SPOILERS) And so the Disney “live-action” remake train thunders on regardless (I wonder how long the live-action claim would last if there was a slim hope of a Best Animated Feature Oscar nod?) I know I keep repeating myself, but the early ‘90s Disney animation renaissance didn’t mean very much to me; I found their pictures during that period fine, but none of them blew me away as they did critics and audiences generally. As such, I have scant nostalgia to bring to bear on the prospect of a remake, which I’m sure can work both ways. Aladdin proved to be a lot of fun. Beauty and the Beast entirely tepid. The Lion King, well, it isn’t a badfilm, but it’s wearying its slavish respectfulness towards the original and so diligent in doing it justice, you’d think it was some kind of religious artefact. As a result, it is, ironically, for the most part, dramatically dead in the water.

The world is one big hospice with fresh air.

Doctor Sleep (2019)
(SPOILERS) Doctor Sleep is a much better movie than it probably ought to be. Which is to say, it’s an adaption of a 2013 novel that, by most accounts, was a bit of a dud. That novel was a sequel to The Shining, one of Stephen King’s most beloved works, made into a film that diverged heavily, and in King’s view detrimentally, from the source material. Accordingly, Mike Flanagan’s Doctor Sleep also operates as a follow up to the legendary Kubrick film. In which regard, it doesn’t even come close. And yet, judged as its own thing, which can at times be difficult due to the overt referencing, it’s an affecting and often effective tale of personal redemption and facing the – in this case literal – ghosts of one’s past.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…

It’s like being smothered in beige.

The Good Liar (2019)
(SPOILERS) I probably ought to have twigged, based on the specific setting of The Good Liar that World War II would be involved – ten years ago, rather than the present day, so making the involvement of Ian McKellen and Helen Mirren just about believable – but I really wish it hadn’t been. Jeffrey Hatcher’s screenplay, adapting Nicholas Searle’s 2016 novel, offers a nifty little conning-the-conman tale that would work much, much better without the ungainly backstory and motivation that impose themselves about halfway through and then get paid off with equal lack of finesse.

I’m the famous comedian, Arnold Braunschweiger.

Last Action Hero (1993)
(SPOILERS) Make no mistake, Last Action Hero is a mess. But even as a mess, it might be more interesting than any other movie Arnie made during that decade, perhaps even in his entire career. Hellzapoppin’ (after the 1941 picture, itself based on a Broadway revue) has virtually become an adjective to describe films that comment upon their own artifice, break the fourth wall, and generally disrespect the convention of suspending disbelief in the fictions we see parading across the screen. It was fairly audacious, some would say foolish, of Arnie to attempt something of that nature at this point in his career, which was at its peak, rather than playing it safe. That he stumbled profoundly, emphatically so since he went up against the behemoth that is Jurassic Park (slotted in after the fact to open first), should not blind one to the considerable merits of his ultimate, and final, really, attempt to experiment with the limits of his screen persona.

Of course, one m…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…