Big scandal on the small screen

At a time when corruption, lies, public disgraces, and distrust in politicians, institutions, and the media are at an all-time high, it’s ironically somewhat comforting to revisit a more innocent time in our country’s history, when a nothingburger like a minor quiz program cheating scandal commanded the headlines and Americans began to wonder if they could trust what they saw on their television sets. Oh, how far we’ve fallen down that slippery slope.

That’s the major takeaway from director Robert Redford’s Quiz Show, originally released in 1994, which chronicles the real-life 1950s scandals surrounding the then popular television program Twenty-One. The plot concerns the moral and legal fallout after it is revealed that the high-stakes competition is rigged to favor more "marketable" contestants, leading to a Congressional investigation. At the film’s heart is the intellectual rivalry between the charismatic, waspy, Ivy League-educated reigning champion Charles Van Doren (Ralph Fiennes) and the awkward, disenfranchised former winner Herb Stempel (John Turturro), a middle-class Jew who feels betrayed by the network. As the fraud begins to unravel, they are pursued by the relentless and principled Congressional investigator Richard Goodwin (Rob Morrow), who is determined to expose the corruption of the television industry.

To listen to a recording of our CineVerse group discussion of Quiz Show, conducted last week, click here.

What’s surprising about Quiz Show is that the plot is relatively simple and devoid of much action, although there’s plenty of conflict. Additionally, the movie feels appropriately cast, especially in the smallest roles, where even bit parts shine with resonance. Also, consider that 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 scandal, it does use the real names of the people involved, including the TV executives, the network (NBC), and even the sponsor (Geritol). Perhaps what’s most unexpected is that Quiz Show doesn’t attempt to answer every question related to this scandal, the most prominent one being: What tempted Van Doren to cheat?

Ultimately, Redford’s picture forces a fundamental moral question on its audience: What would you do if someone asked you to lie in exchange for money and fame? The filmmakers adroitly explore the dangers of being misled by tantalizing 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 even being seduced by the trappings of a shiny new car in the showroom (depicted in the opening scene).

Quiz Show cleverly contrasts the allure and ease 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). And it impressively navigates the moral compromises people make, even those who claim to take the moral high ground, like Goodwin. Case in point: Why, when he vows to expose and prosecute the perpetrators, does he go easy on Van Doren? 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 (the TV executives).

Consider, too, how the only 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. Meanwhile, Van Doren and Stempel have to wear their badge of shame for the rest of their lives. It’s a sad reminder that, as the adage goes, the rich get richer while the "small man" is left holding the bag.

Quiz Show conveys the pessimistic point that, even decades later, we remain a gullible society of consumers who are drawn to the allure of television—a deceitful, manipulative medium that promotes celebrity culture, cosmetic beauty, immediate gratification, and disposable entertainment over truth and veracity. While it points the finger at individual perpetrators like Van Doren, Enright, and Stempel, the film reminds us that the idiot box is even more reprehensible and blameworthy. These themes are echoed in today’s vapid television choices, which reflect the seemingly irreversible transition from hard news programming to infotainment, the blurring between documentary-style realism and fabricated reality TV, and the lowering of standards related to sex and violence.

Redford aimed to depict the cultural moment when America lost its innocence, claiming that the 21 Questions brouhaha was that turning point. But what have we learned, and lost, in the interim? Roger Ebert summed it up well in his review of the 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.”

Similar works

• Network (1976)
• Pleasantville (1998)
• The Truman Show (1998)
• Good Night, and Good Luck. (2005)
• Slumdog Millionaire (2008)

Other films directed by Robert Redford

• The Milagro Beanfield War (1988)
• A River Runs Through It (1992)
• The Horse Whisperer (1998)
• The Legend of Bagger Vance (2000)