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

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

Nanobots aren’t just for Christmas.

No Time to Die (2021) (SPOILERS) You know a Bond movie is in trouble when it resorts to wholesale appropriation of lines and even the theme song from another in order to “boost” its emotional heft. That No Time to Die – which previewed its own title song a year and a half before its release to resoundingly underwhelmed response, Grammys aside – goes there is a damning indictment of its ability to eke out such audience investment in Daniel Craig’s final outing as James (less so as 007). As with Spectre , the first half of No Time to Die is, on the whole, more than decent Bond fare, before it once again gets bogged down in the quest for substance and depth from a character who, regardless of how dapper his gear is, resolutely resists such outfitting.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Big things have small beginnings.

Prometheus (2012) Post- Gladiator , Ridley Scott opted for an “All work and no pondering” approach to film making. The result has been the completion of as many movies since the turn of the Millennium as he directed in the previous twenty years. Now well into his seventies, he has experienced the most sustained period of success of his career.  For me, it’s also been easily the least-interesting period. All of them entirely competently made, but all displaying the machine-tooled approach that was previously more associated with his brother.

Beer is for breakfast around here. Drink or begone.

Cocktail (1988) (SPOILERS) When Tarantino claims the 1980s (and 1950s) as the worst movie decade, I’m inclined to invite him to shut his butt down. But should he then flourish Cocktail as Exhibit A, I’d be forced to admit he has a point. Cocktail is a horrifying, malignant piece of dreck, a testament to the efficacy of persuasive star power on a blithely rapt and undiscerning audience. Not only is it morally vacuous, it’s dramatically inert. And it relies on Tom’s toothy charms to a degree that would have any sensitive soul rushed to the A&E suffering from toxic shock (Tom’s most recently displayed toothy charms will likely have even his staunchest devotees less than sure of themselves, however, as he metamorphoses into your favourite grandma). And it was a huge box office hit.

Isn’t sugar better than vinegar?

Femme Fatale (2002) (SPOILERS) Some have attempted to rescue Femme Fatale from the dumpster of critical rejection and audience indifference with the claim that it’s De Palma’s last great movie. It isn’t that by a long shot, but it might rank as the last truly unfettered display of his obsessions and sensibilities, complete with a ludicrous twist – so ludicrous, it’s either a stroke of genius or mile-long pile up.

It's something trying to get out.

The Owl Service (1969-70) I may have caught a glimpse of Channel 4’s repeat of  The Owl Service  in 1987, but not enough to stick in the mind. My formative experience was Alan Garner’s novel, which was read several years earlier during English lessons. Garner’s tapestry of magical-mythical storytelling had an impact, with its possession theme and blending of legend with the here and now. Garner depicts a Britain where past and present are mutable, and where there is no safety net of objective reality; life becomes a strange waking dream. His fantasy landscapes are both attractive and disturbing; the uncanny reaching out from the corners of the attic.  But I have to admit that the themes of class and discrimination went virtually unnoticed in the wake of such high weirdness. The other Garner books I read saw young protagonists transported to fantasy realms. The resonance of  The Owl Service  came from the fragmenting of the rural normal. When the author notes that he neve

Who’s got the Figgy Port?

Loki (2021) (SPOILERS) Can something be of redeemable value and shot through with woke (the answer is: Mad Max: Fury Road )? The two attributes certainly sound essentially irreconcilable, and Loki ’s tendencies – obviously, with new improved super-progressive Kevin Feige touting Disney’s uber-agenda – undeniably get in the way of what might have been a top-tier MCU entry from realising its full potential. But there are nevertheless solid bursts of highly engaging storytelling in the mix here, for all its less cherishable motivations. It also boasts an effortlessly commanding lead performance from Tom Hiddleston; that alone puts Loki head and shoulders above the other limited series thus far.

These are not soda cans you asked me to get for you.

The Devil’s Own (1997) (SPOILERS) Naturally, a Hollywood movie taking the Troubles as a backdrop is sure to encounter difficulties. It’s the push-pull of wanting to make a big meaningful statement about something weighty, sobering and significant in the real world and bottling it when it comes to the messy intricacies of the same. So inevitably, the results invariably tend to the facile and trite. I’m entirely sure The Devil’s Own would have floundered even if Harrison Ford hadn’t come on board and demanded rewrites, but as it is, the finished movie packs a lot of talent to largely redundant end.

Did you not just hand over a chicken to someone?

The Father (2020) (SPOILERS) I was in no great rush to see The Father , expecting it to be it to be something of an ordeal in the manner of that lavishly overpraised euthanasia-fest Amour. As with the previous Oscars, though, the Best Picture nominee I saw last turned out to be the best of the bunch. In that case, Parasite , its very title beckoning the psychic global warfare sprouting shoots around it, would win the top prize. The Father , in a year of disappointing nominees, had to settle for Best Actor. Ant’s good, naturally, but I was most impressed with the unpandering manner in which Florian Zeller and Christopher Hampton approached material that might easily render one highly unstuck.