"Quiz" biz

In the 20 years since Robert Redford's "Quiz Show" first hit theaters, the pervasive and insidious nature of television--one of the key themes of this picture--has become even more problematic, as evidenced by the proliferation of lowest-common-denominator entertainment abundant across the airwaves and the increased focus on "infotainment" over hard news and contrived verite style (a ka reality TV) over quality writing. These were among the conclusions reached by our group following its discussion of this movie. Here's a recap:

WHAT IS DIFFERENT AND DISTINGUISHABLE ABOUT QUIZ SHOW THAT SURPRISED YOU?

·       The plot is relatively simple and devoid of much action, although there is plenty of conflict.

·       The film feels exceptionally well cast, especially in even the smallest roles, where even bit parts shine with resonance.

·       Most docudramas based on real-life past events change names and facts; while “Quiz Show” is not completely historically accurate in its retelling of the quiz show scandal, it does name real names of the people involved, including the TV execs, the network (NBC), and even the sponsor (Geritol).

·       The movie doesn’t attempt to answer every question related to this scandal, the most prominent one being: what tempted Van Doren to cheat?

CAN YOU NAME ANY SIGNIFICANT THEMES EXPLORED IN “QUIZ SHOW”?

·       It asks the question: What would you do if someone asked you to lie in exchange for money and fame?

·       The dangers of being misled by seductive temptations, whether it be a game show contestant agreeing to cheat, TV viewers being fooled but still wanting to watch even when told the truth, or the young man who is intrigued by the trappings of the shiny new Chrysler.

·       The moral compromises people make, even those who claim to take the moral high ground: consider how Goodwin, who vows to expose and prosecute the quiz show perpetrators, goes easy on Van Doren. Why? Perhaps it’s a reflection of his desire to protect someone of his own class more than an eagerness to bring down the real culprits (TV execs).

·       The rich get richer and the small man gets the blame: Consider how the only quiz show scandal offender that walks away unpunished is television itself; the fat cat TV executives are acquitted, and even the lower-level suit gets his job back and returns to programming. Meanwhile, Van Doren and Stempel have to wear their badge of shame for the rest of their lives.

·       The contrast between the allure and easiness associated with cheating (as seen in Van Doren’s privileged lifestyle) versus the frustration and hard work of investigation (exemplified by the pavement-pounding Goodwin).

ALTHOUGH IT’S SET IN THE 1950s, AND MUCH HAS CHANGED IN POPULAR CULTURE AND SOCIETY SINCE THEN, HOW IS QUIZ SHOW STILL RELEVANT AND TOPICAL?

·       It conveys the dark message that we’re still a gullible society of consumers who are drawn to the allure of television, a very dishonest, manipulative medium that promotes celebrity, cosmetic beauty, immediate gratification and entertainment over truth and veracity.

·       While it points the finger at the individual perpetrators (Van Doren, Enright, Stempel, etc.), Quiz Show reminds us that the medium of TV is even more reprehensible and blame-worthy.

·       Its themes are echoed in today’s vapid television choices, most of which are dominated by reality TV programs that also appear as authentic, unaltered reflections of real life but which are also rigged with contrived situations and people selected by central casting.

·       It suggests a timeless message and universal question: Is it wrong to cheat? And when is cheating ever acceptable?

·       Redford aimed to depict the cultural moment when America lost its innocence, claiming that the quiz show scandal was that moment, taking place in the Eisenhower era when people had faith in politicians and in what they saw and read in the media; yet, it feels like we’re continually losing our innocence all over again with each new transgression made by popular entertainment (e.g., the transition from hard news programming to “infotainment,” the blurring between documentary style realism and fabricated fake reality TV, the lowering of standards related to violence and sex on TV and in movies, etc.).

·       Roger Ebert summed it up well when he said, in his review of this film: “Take stock of what we have lost in the four decades since "Twenty-One" came crashing down. We have lost a respect for intelligence; we reward people for whatever they happen to have learned, instead of feeling they might learn more. We have forgotten that the end does not justify the means - especially when the end is a high TV rating or any other kind of popular success. And we have lost a certain innocent idealism.”

DOES THIS FILM REMIND YOU OF ANY OTHERS?

·       Pleasantville

·       Good Night, and Good Luck

·       Network

·       The Truman Show

·       Slumdog Millionaire

OTHER FILMS DIRECTED BY ROBERT REDFORD

·       Ordinary People

·       The Milagro Beanfield War

·       A River Runs Through It

·       The Horse Whisperer