QUIZ SHOW
A film review by Jeffrey Graebner
Copyright 1994 Jeffrey Graebner
On a recent edition of his CBS talk show, David Letterman jokingly stated that he had just seen Robert Redford's new film QUIZ SHOW and that he felt compelled to confess that his show is completely fixed. The basis of the humor in this joke is the fact that nobody today would ever believe that the show *wasn't* mostly carefully planned and scripted. Letterman's joke actually hit on the essence of what Redford's film is all about.
QUIZ SHOW is a dramatization of the mid-1950s investigation into early quiz shows that eventually resulted in the discovery that the winners were pre- determined by providing contestants with the answers ahead of time. The film specifically follows young congressional lawyer Dick Goodwin (Rob Morrow) as he investigates the claims of disgruntled contestant Herbert Stempel (John Turturro) that the producers of the popular quiz show "Twenty-One" forced him to take a dive allowing charming intellectual Charles Van Doren (Ralph Fiennes) to become the new champion.
Paul Attanasio's smart, witty, and insightful screenplay feels much like a detective story as Goodwin interviews suspects and digs through papers and kinescopes slowly uncovering details about how deeply the fraud extends. The film gives the audience most of the details up front, mostly in scenes where producer Dan Enright (David Paymer) and his assistant Albert Freedman (Hank Azaria) are coaching the contestants. Giving the audience an omniscient view was a smart move since most people will already have some familiarity with the true events and would likely been annoyed if the film hadn't acknowledged that.
None of the characters in this film are clearly heroes or villains. Stempel is portrayed as an opportunistic man who comes forward only when he no longer feels that staying silent is to his own best advantage. The film makes it rather clear that Enright could have easily bought his silence if he had been willing to meet his price. Stempel eventually does the right thing, but not entirely for the right reasons. Still, he isn't an evil man by any means. He is shown to be mostly a loving husband and father who is mostly looking for a better life for himself. We learn that his family has largely been supported by his wife's parents and that he wants nothing more than to be able to support his family on his own.
Van Doren is shown as being an essentially good man who is seduced by the easy fame and fortune being offered to him. He is initially reluctant to accept the answers and spends quite a bit of time trying to figure out ways to justify his actions to himself. Goodwin is also less than perfect. He takes a strong liking to Van Doren and clearly doesn't care much for Stempel. As a result, he attempts to protect Van Doren while essentially allowing Stempel to hang himself. In one of the film's best written sequences, Van Doren asks Goodwin outright whether or not he would have given into the same temptations. Goodwin repeatedly stammers a "no" as if he is struggling to convince himself.
Even Enright and Freedman are not pure villains. They are both shown as being under strong directives from both the network and the sponsor to hold on to popular contestants who generate high ratings. On a larger scale, the shows are fixed simply because that is what the audience demands. They want to see the contestants that they like best win and the producers are essentially giving them what they want. At one point, the sponsor (well-played by Martin Scorsese in a rare acting role) tells Goodwin that if he succeeds in stopping the quiz shows from being fixed that the result will be that the games will simply become easier. Of course, we all know that quiz shows survived this scandal and that they *are* now much easier (witness the popularity of "Wheel of Fortune," for example).
On the surface, it might appear that Goodwin is the character we are meant to identify with the most, but in truth the film also expects us to recognize a bit of ourselves in Stempel and Van Doren. Turturro plays Stempel as a nerdy little guy whose strongest asset is his ability to remember trivial information (often with little comprehension). The quiz show provides him with an opportunity for fame and fortune but, more importantly, it provides him with some *respect*. Could any of us truly resist the opportunity to suddenly be viewed as being smarter and more successful than we ever were before?
As played by Fiennes, Van Doren is shown as being a true intellectual with an upper-crust background. He probably could have had a great deal of success on the quiz show *without* cheating, but he is seduced by the chance at an easy road to success. Van Doren lives under the shadow of his scholarly, Pulitzer-Prize-winning father (wonderfully played by Paul Scofield). His success on "Twenty-One" helps him to move out of that shadow, in a sense gaining some of the same respect that Stempel was seeking. In the end, it is this desire for his father's respect that makes it impossible for Van Doren to continue to keep his secret.
Goodwin essentially is the film's stand-in for the viewing audience. He is a fan of the quiz shows and is somewhat shocked to learn that his trust has been betrayed. He is also seduced by Van Doren's charm and even becomes friends with him. Morrow and Fiennes play very well together and their scenes together are many of the film's best. Morrow plays Goodwin as a man who is somewhat trapped between Stemple's and Van Doren's worlds. He comes from a humble, New York background much like Stemple's, but also likes to repeatedly point out that he was first in his class at Harvard. Morrow even plays the role with a bizarre accent that seems to be a combination of Brooklyn and Boston (unfortunately, this accent does make his dialog a bit difficult to understand at times).
Redford's direction, Michael Ballhaus' photography, and the work of the production designers all do a great job of capturing the feel of a simpler time period. Everything looks right and the general attitudes and ideas of the people on screen all seem correct. Some of the shock at the scandal comes from the simple fact that people were less cynical back then.
At its heart, this is really a movie about the point where mass communications started to erode the naive trust that the public once felt for the media. As television has increased the flow of information into our homes, it has also caused the public to become more aware and less trusting. Today, most people are very aware of the business aspects of television. Today's quiz shows may not be directly fixed, but most people are certainly aware of the care they take to audition contestants to determine how they will go over with the audience. As the sponsor in the film suggested, they have also been made easier. Today's audience also tend to show a certain amount of distrust towards other parts of television as well. Letterman's joke is particularly ironic since the "realism" of today's talk shows is probably as questionable as the quiz shows shown in the film. With the growing influence of tabloid-style journalism, even the news has become suspect.
QUIZ SHOW provides an interesting expansion on some of the ideas considered just last month in Oliver Stone's NATURAL BORN KILLERS. Stone brought up the question of when news starts to become sensationalism that is unworthy of reporting. Redford's film may lead one to question whether or not the stories being reported are even *true*.
Ironically, Redford's film itself is generating some controversy about its accuracy. The film fictionalizes some of the situations and beefs up the importance of certain personalities (particularly Goodwin). It also narrows the story by concentrating solely on "Twenty-One," only obliquely referencing the fact that other quiz shows of the time were also fixed. This bit of controversy may actually *increase* the impact of the film. It helps to underscore the fact that the media frequently skews the truth to fit a specific agenda (in this case, the alterations are largely made simply to make the film more dramatic, entertaining, and easier to follow) and that one should never depend completely on any one source for information
QUIZ SHOW is one of the most fascinating, entertaining, and thought-provoking films of 1994. It is bound to generate a lot of worthwhile discussion while also providing a simple, old-fashioned good time at the movies.
-- Jeffrey P. Graebner Columbus, Ohio
.
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews