 |
| Scene from Quiz Show |
Welcome to a weekly column called Theory Thursdays, which will be released every Thursday and discuss my "controversial opinion" related to something relative to the week of release. Sometimes it will be birthdays while others is current events or a new film release. Whatever the case may be, this is a personal defense for why I disagree with the general opinion and hope to convince you of the same. While I don't expect you to be on my side, I do hope for a rational argument. After all, film is a subjective medium and this is merely just a theory that can be proven either way.
Subject: The Old Man and the Gun is released in theaters this Friday.
Theory: Quiz Show (1994) is underrated.
Whether it ends up being true or not, this Friday's release of The Old Man and the Gun is getting a lot of buzz for one reason: it's primed to be legendary actor Robert Redford's swan song, at least in front of the camera. Considering that it could be seen as a riff on one of his most iconic films (The Sting), there's a lot of poignancy in what the film could represent. Still, there's no talk as to whether he will still be a director behind the camera. It's easy to forget that he once was an excellent director, including for his debut Ordinary People - which won Best Picture that year. While his recent work is maybe not as powerful (I for one didn't like The Conspirator), there's a chance that centralizing his interests could make his work more effective. His recent work on screen has been great thanks to director David Lowery's collaboration on the film Pete's Dragon (itself one of the more underrated films of recent years).
But how could you possibly pay tribute to a man whose career spans back to the 60's? Well, I thought that I would take a look at one of his greatest achievements that nobody talks about. In fact, nobody even acknowledges that it got a Best Picture nomination in 1994. The general argument for that year goes between three undisputed masterpieces in one of the most hotly contested years for the category. People think that there's a Rorschach test to be had if you think that Forrest Gump, Pulp Fiction, or The Shawshank Redemption should've won Best Picture that year. Nobody even considers the rare comedy nominee Four Weddings and a Funeral, but it does raise an interesting point about the division between audiences that still remains. There's the "safe" pick of Forrest Gump, whose technical innovation and nostalgic story play well into an older Academy's mentality in the early 90's. Pulp Fiction is too edgy and The Shawshank Redemption, regardless of what people think in 2018, was always going to lose because it was not on enough radars.
I can't speak to the success of Quiz Show in 1994, though it was coming off of Ralph Fiennes' performance in Schindler's List, and in general the narrative was a crackerjack mix of media commentary and courtroom drama. It even has one of the best jokes about the Oscars in it, if just because of who delivers the punchline. Still, there's way too much going right with the film to ignore why it deserves more credit. Sure, it doesn't have a hook on par with the aforementioned three films, but it's one of the most adept films in Redford's career and easily my favorite of his work as a director. There's no flashy camera work, but what is here is a great study of ethics in the media, and something that feels more important in an era where "fake news" runs both as a punchline and a problem that has become more apparent with the expansive nature of the internet.
It starts like any show nowadays would: how do you get viewers to watch the real life game show Twenty-One? It's about believing in the individual, who must act and look like the viewer in order to create interest in them winning tons of cash. In that regards, it becomes the dream of John Turturro, a brainiac who adores the show and wants to be a contestant. When he's on, he's a whiz. But the issue soon becomes apparent when ratings go down. They need a fresh new face, and the network executives set out to replace him with the more handsome Fiennes, who also has a better resume - considering his father is a high intellectual. The question soon becomes how to deal with the ethics of buying someone out. What would happen if Turturro said no? Even if he didn't, what would be the purpose of suing Twenty-One when he knowingly bought into his own fate?
In a lot of ways, this is a film that is a gold mine for people who love the titular quiz shows, where intellect is the only thing that separates American citizens. Still, Redford wants to get to the heart of how it manipulates everything in order to appease an audience more than fairness of play. What follows is one man's desperation at redemption (Turturro) and the other dealing with new found fame and the struggle to be loved by a father (Fiennes). Even as it deals with a lot of legal mumbo jumbo, it's an emotional story about the people who were helplessly pitted into the situation. Quiz shows mean a lot to everyone, and it is as much about ethics as it is the sudden shift in everyone's personal lives as it happens. The network executives are running a show while the contestants are living out dreams. There's enough depth there to make it an effective study of what it takes to live the American Dream.
The film definitely deserved its Best Picture nomination, and if anything deserved to be talked in the same breath as Forrest Gump. The only issue is that Forrest Gump is and remains the more innovative and flashy film of the two. However, I'd argue that future generations should consider the depth to which Quiz Show relates to the modern era. It helps that the ensemble cast is one of Redford's strongest, and it produces a performance that was one of many that should've gotten Turturro an Oscar nomination (see also: Barton Fink). He brings a charismatic charm as someone both obsessive about knowledge and desperate for a glory that he feels he's overdue. Meanwhile, Fiennes' conflict with his father produces some provocative conversation on how knowledge is used to inform as well as unite people in times of need. It's a script that has a lot to offer, and it easily appeals to those wanting to watch a crime drama, or something small and intimate about how we all seek some sort of validation, whether by media or family.
It's tough to say if this is the end of the line for Redford's acting career. He has recently come out and argued that he may reconsider. However, it's as good of a time as any to look back on the great work he has done on film and behind the scenes. I think to some extent he's a bit undervalued as a director, if just because films like Ordinary People and Quiz Show reflect his ability to bring strong ensembles to life and present stories that get to the heart of human emotion. As time goes on, it gets tougher to understand why Quiz Show hasn't garnered a reputation on par with The Shawshank Redemption. Sure, it's less sappy and maybe doesn't have an iconic shot on par with the rain scene, but it does have so much more traditional excellence in its film making and story. It's hard not to love how Redford made a thought provoking film that has a little something for most of his audience. It won't disappoint, and it will prove that quiz shows have just as much dramatic value as anything found in a prison or rewritten American history.
Whether it ends up being true or not, this Friday's release of The Old Man and the Gun is getting a lot of buzz for one reason: it's primed to be legendary actor Robert Redford's swan song, at least in front of the camera. Considering that it could be seen as a riff on one of his most iconic films (The Sting), there's a lot of poignancy in what the film could represent. Still, there's no talk as to whether he will still be a director behind the camera. It's easy to forget that he once was an excellent director, including for his debut Ordinary People - which won Best Picture that year. While his recent work is maybe not as powerful (I for one didn't like The Conspirator), there's a chance that centralizing his interests could make his work more effective. His recent work on screen has been great thanks to director David Lowery's collaboration on the film Pete's Dragon (itself one of the more underrated films of recent years).
But how could you possibly pay tribute to a man whose career spans back to the 60's? Well, I thought that I would take a look at one of his greatest achievements that nobody talks about. In fact, nobody even acknowledges that it got a Best Picture nomination in 1994. The general argument for that year goes between three undisputed masterpieces in one of the most hotly contested years for the category. People think that there's a Rorschach test to be had if you think that Forrest Gump, Pulp Fiction, or The Shawshank Redemption should've won Best Picture that year. Nobody even considers the rare comedy nominee Four Weddings and a Funeral, but it does raise an interesting point about the division between audiences that still remains. There's the "safe" pick of Forrest Gump, whose technical innovation and nostalgic story play well into an older Academy's mentality in the early 90's. Pulp Fiction is too edgy and The Shawshank Redemption, regardless of what people think in 2018, was always going to lose because it was not on enough radars.
I can't speak to the success of Quiz Show in 1994, though it was coming off of Ralph Fiennes' performance in Schindler's List, and in general the narrative was a crackerjack mix of media commentary and courtroom drama. It even has one of the best jokes about the Oscars in it, if just because of who delivers the punchline. Still, there's way too much going right with the film to ignore why it deserves more credit. Sure, it doesn't have a hook on par with the aforementioned three films, but it's one of the most adept films in Redford's career and easily my favorite of his work as a director. There's no flashy camera work, but what is here is a great study of ethics in the media, and something that feels more important in an era where "fake news" runs both as a punchline and a problem that has become more apparent with the expansive nature of the internet.
It starts like any show nowadays would: how do you get viewers to watch the real life game show Twenty-One? It's about believing in the individual, who must act and look like the viewer in order to create interest in them winning tons of cash. In that regards, it becomes the dream of John Turturro, a brainiac who adores the show and wants to be a contestant. When he's on, he's a whiz. But the issue soon becomes apparent when ratings go down. They need a fresh new face, and the network executives set out to replace him with the more handsome Fiennes, who also has a better resume - considering his father is a high intellectual. The question soon becomes how to deal with the ethics of buying someone out. What would happen if Turturro said no? Even if he didn't, what would be the purpose of suing Twenty-One when he knowingly bought into his own fate?
In a lot of ways, this is a film that is a gold mine for people who love the titular quiz shows, where intellect is the only thing that separates American citizens. Still, Redford wants to get to the heart of how it manipulates everything in order to appease an audience more than fairness of play. What follows is one man's desperation at redemption (Turturro) and the other dealing with new found fame and the struggle to be loved by a father (Fiennes). Even as it deals with a lot of legal mumbo jumbo, it's an emotional story about the people who were helplessly pitted into the situation. Quiz shows mean a lot to everyone, and it is as much about ethics as it is the sudden shift in everyone's personal lives as it happens. The network executives are running a show while the contestants are living out dreams. There's enough depth there to make it an effective study of what it takes to live the American Dream.
The film definitely deserved its Best Picture nomination, and if anything deserved to be talked in the same breath as Forrest Gump. The only issue is that Forrest Gump is and remains the more innovative and flashy film of the two. However, I'd argue that future generations should consider the depth to which Quiz Show relates to the modern era. It helps that the ensemble cast is one of Redford's strongest, and it produces a performance that was one of many that should've gotten Turturro an Oscar nomination (see also: Barton Fink). He brings a charismatic charm as someone both obsessive about knowledge and desperate for a glory that he feels he's overdue. Meanwhile, Fiennes' conflict with his father produces some provocative conversation on how knowledge is used to inform as well as unite people in times of need. It's a script that has a lot to offer, and it easily appeals to those wanting to watch a crime drama, or something small and intimate about how we all seek some sort of validation, whether by media or family.
It's tough to say if this is the end of the line for Redford's acting career. He has recently come out and argued that he may reconsider. However, it's as good of a time as any to look back on the great work he has done on film and behind the scenes. I think to some extent he's a bit undervalued as a director, if just because films like Ordinary People and Quiz Show reflect his ability to bring strong ensembles to life and present stories that get to the heart of human emotion. As time goes on, it gets tougher to understand why Quiz Show hasn't garnered a reputation on par with The Shawshank Redemption. Sure, it's less sappy and maybe doesn't have an iconic shot on par with the rain scene, but it does have so much more traditional excellence in its film making and story. It's hard not to love how Redford made a thought provoking film that has a little something for most of his audience. It won't disappoint, and it will prove that quiz shows have just as much dramatic value as anything found in a prison or rewritten American history.
No comments:
Post a Comment