Discussion:
"Network"
Add Reply
JD Chase
2015-03-31 04:55:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
It just started on TCM... What a brilliant, prescient movie, and like "a face in the crowd", way ahead of it's time... Faye Dunaway was stunning in the role and absolutely deserved her academy award... She was also superb in "Mommie Dearest", but was even better in "Network"...
m***@gmail.com
2015-03-31 15:44:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JD Chase
It just started on TCM... What a brilliant, prescient movie, and like "a face in the crowd", way ahead of it's time... Faye Dunaway was stunning in the role and absolutely deserved her academy award... She was also superb in "Mommie Dearest", but was even better in "Network"...
I haven't seen NETWORK since it came out. I wonder how it would hold up today...
gtr
2015-03-31 17:17:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by JD Chase
It just started on TCM... What a brilliant, prescient movie, and like
"a face in the crowd", way ahead of it's time... Faye Dunaway was
stunning in the role and absolutely deserved her academy award... She
was also superb in "Mommie Dearest", but was even better in "Network"...
I haven't seen NETWORK since it came out. I wonder how it would hold up today...
I'm surprised how well it does hold up. Most of Chayevsky's writing
throughout his career didn't pivot on momentary cultural shifts. So
Network is much bigger an idea than this; it really is about
significant characters and not about their time in culture. I think
much of what Network used as somewhat satirical stuff has come about.
And with a cast like that, it can't help but be good.

I've seen Network about 6 or 8 times over the years and always have a
number of moments or quote stuck in my brain. Beatrice Straight's
relatively small "abandoned wife" speech makes you wonder why she
wasn't better used during her career. There are a number of monologues
built for actor's auditions, Ned Beatty's among them.

To relive a few:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074958/quotes

My absolute favorite which I quote chunks of from time to time:

Howard Beale: This is not a psychotic episode. This is a cleansing
moment of clarity. I'm imbued, Max. I'm imbued with some special
spirit. It's not a religious feeling at all. It's a shocking eruption
of great electrical energy. I feel vivid and flashing, as if suddenly
I'd been plugged into some great electromagnetic field. I feel
connected to all living things. To flowers, birds, all the animals of
the world. And even to some great, unseen, living force. What I think
the Hindus call prana. But it's not a breakdown. I've never felt more
orderly in my life. It is a shattering and beautiful sensation. It is
the exalted flow of the space-time continuum, save that it is spaceless
and timeless and... of such loveliness. I feel on the verge of some
great, ultimate truth.

And you will not take me off the air for now or for any other spaceless time!
moviePig
2015-03-31 18:37:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gtr
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by JD Chase
It just started on TCM... What a brilliant, prescient movie, and like
"a face in the crowd", way ahead of it's time... Faye Dunaway was
stunning in the role and absolutely deserved her academy award... She
was also superb in "Mommie Dearest", but was even better in "Network"...
I haven't seen NETWORK since it came out. I wonder how it would hold up today...
I'm surprised how well it does hold up. Most of Chayevsky's writing
throughout his career didn't pivot on momentary cultural shifts. So
Network is much bigger an idea than this; it really is about significant
characters and not about their time in culture. I think much of what
Network used as somewhat satirical stuff has come about. And with a cast
like that, it can't help but be good.
I've seen Network about 6 or 8 times over the years and always have a
number of moments or quote stuck in my brain. Beatrice Straight's
relatively small "abandoned wife" speech makes you wonder why she wasn't
better used during her career. There are a number of monologues built
for actor's auditions, Ned Beatty's among them.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074958/quotes
Howard Beale: This is not a psychotic episode. This is a cleansing
moment of clarity. I'm imbued, Max. I'm imbued with some special spirit.
It's not a religious feeling at all. It's a shocking eruption of great
electrical energy. I feel vivid and flashing, as if suddenly I'd been
plugged into some great electromagnetic field. I feel connected to all
living things. To flowers, birds, all the animals of the world. And even
to some great, unseen, living force. What I think the Hindus call prana.
But it's not a breakdown. I've never felt more orderly in my life. It is
a shattering and beautiful sensation. It is the exalted flow of the
space-time continuum, save that it is spaceless and timeless and... of
such loveliness. I feel on the verge of some great, ultimate truth.
And you will not take me off the air for now or for any other spaceless time!
And whenever the Paddy wagon rolls by, I always feel compelled to
mention ALTERED STATES -- an ambitious flick that science and philosophy
not only haven't dated, but maybe even made more relevant.
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Alan Smithee
2015-04-15 02:21:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I'm surprised how well it does hold up. Most of Chayevsky's writing
throughout his career didn't pivot on momentary cultural shifts.
At the time everyone said he was crazy for writing such things.
But he predicted Jerry Springer, Geraldo, Kardashians, et al.
There are a number of monologues built for actor's auditions, Ned Beatty's among them.
Didn't he get a nomination for that monologue?
gtr
2015-04-15 03:45:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Smithee
I'm surprised how well it does hold up. Most of Chayevsky's writing
throughout his career didn't pivot on momentary cultural shifts.
At the time everyone said he was crazy for writing such things.
But he predicted Jerry Springer, Geraldo, Kardashians, et al.
There are a number of monologues built for actor's auditions, Ned Beatty's among them.
Didn't he get a nomination for that monologue?
He got a nomination for best supporting actor for Network. And that
speech really was his big hammer.
gtr
2015-04-15 03:49:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Smithee
There are a number of monologues built for actor's auditions, Ned Beatty's among them.
Didn't he get a nomination for that monologue?
In total:

'Network' becomes the second film to win three awards for acting,
following A Streetcar Named Desire.

WON

Best Actor in a Leading Role
Peter Finch
Nomination and award were posthumous. Finch became the first posthumous
winner in an acting category

Best Actress in a Leading Role
Faye Dunaway

Best Actress in a Supporting Role
Beatrice Straight

Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen
Paddy Chayefsky

NOMINATED

Best Picture
Howard Gottfried

Best Actor in a Leading Role
William Holden

Best Actor in a Supporting Role
Ned Beatty

Best Director
Sidney Lumet

Best Cinematography
Owen Roizman

Best Film Editing
Alan Heim
Alan Smithee
2015-04-16 02:20:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gtr
Post by Alan Smithee
There are a number of monologues built for actor's auditions, Ned Beatty's among them.
Didn't he get a nomination for that monologue?
'Network' becomes the second film to win three awards for acting,
following A Streetcar Named Desire.
They don't make movies like that anymore. Now it's millions for FX but
pocket change for the story, if there is one.
moviePig
2015-04-16 13:19:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Smithee
Post by gtr
Post by Alan Smithee
There are a number of monologues built for actor's auditions, Ned
Beatty's among them.
Didn't he get a nomination for that monologue?
'Network' becomes the second film to win three awards for acting,
following A Streetcar Named Desire.
They don't make movies like that anymore. Now it's millions for FX but
pocket change for the story, if there is one.
Sidney Lumet filming Paddy Chayefsky. It's hard to think of a
comparable modern potential combo...
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
m***@gmail.com
2015-04-16 14:22:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by Alan Smithee
Post by gtr
Post by Alan Smithee
There are a number of monologues built for actor's auditions, Ned
Beatty's among them.
Didn't he get a nomination for that monologue?
'Network' becomes the second film to win three awards for acting,
following A Streetcar Named Desire.
They don't make movies like that anymore. Now it's millions for FX but
pocket change for the story, if there is one.
Sidney Lumet filming Paddy Chayefsky. It's hard to think of a
comparable modern potential combo...
Jason Reitman filming Diablo Cody...NOT!
moviePig
2015-04-16 14:34:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by moviePig
Post by Alan Smithee
Post by gtr
Post by Alan Smithee
There are a number of monologues built for actor's auditions, Ned
Beatty's among them.
Didn't he get a nomination for that monologue?
'Network' becomes the second film to win three awards for acting,
following A Streetcar Named Desire.
They don't make movies like that anymore. Now it's millions for FX but
pocket change for the story, if there is one.
Sidney Lumet filming Paddy Chayefsky. It's hard to think of a
comparable modern potential combo...
Jason Reitman filming Diablo Cody...NOT!
Well, I thought of Aaron Sorkin (whom I greatly like), but even he
doesn't seem "pointed" enough. And, for a director, I don't know who
today has both Lumet's recognized talent and clout.
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
gtr
2015-04-16 18:50:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Well, I thought of Aaron Sorkin (whom I greatly like), but even he
doesn't seem "pointed" enough.
Seeing "Network" as a single artifact is misleading. Chayevsky also
wrote "Marty", another brilliant work occupying a far distant esthetic.
Post by moviePig
And, for a director, I don't know who today has both Lumet's recognized
talent and clout.
Martin Scorsese comes to mind. One of Lumet's significant talents was
getting the best performance out of his actors. An "actor's director",
as they say. I'm not sure that is who Scorsese is. It's always
difficult to ask questions like "who is the X of our time", since time
isn't really the marker; different directors lead different lives, have
different mindsets about different challenges.

But when thinking only of two descriptors, we certainly have director's
today with talent and clout.
tomcervo
2015-04-15 14:17:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Smithee
I'm surprised how well it does hold up. Most of Chayevsky's writing
throughout his career didn't pivot on momentary cultural shifts.
At the time everyone said he was crazy for writing such things.
But he predicted Jerry Springer, Geraldo, Kardashians, et al.
There are a number of monologues built for actor's auditions, Ned Beatty's among them.
Didn't he get a nomination for that monologue?
Yes--and Thomas Friedman based two books and countless lectures on it.
gtr
2015-04-15 16:14:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tomcervo
Post by Alan Smithee
I'm surprised how well it does hold up. Most of Chayevsky's writing
throughout his career didn't pivot on momentary cultural shifts.
At the time everyone said he was crazy for writing such things.
But he predicted Jerry Springer, Geraldo, Kardashians, et al.
There are a number of monologues built for actor's auditions, Ned Beatty's among them.
Didn't he get a nomination for that monologue?
Yes--and Thomas Friedman based two books and countless lectures on it.
Friedman based all that on one monologue performed by Beatty!?
tomcervo
2015-04-16 02:24:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gtr
Post by tomcervo
Yes--and Thomas Friedman based two books and countless lectures on it.
Friedman based all that on one monologue performed by Beatty!?
That and what the cab driver who picks him at the airport in Singapore or Buenos Aires tells him.
JD Chase
2015-04-16 02:56:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
http://www.npr.org/2014/02/19/279141533/book-review-mad-as-hell
gtr
2015-04-16 03:55:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tomcervo
Post by gtr
Post by tomcervo
Yes--and Thomas Friedman based two books and countless lectures on it.
Friedman based all that on one monologue performed by Beatty!?
That and what the cab driver who picks him at the airport in Singapore
or Buenos Aires tells him.
Some writer's hardly need a drop of material to pack a book full.
JD Chase
2015-04-15 23:42:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tomcervo
Post by Alan Smithee
I'm surprised how well it does hold up. Most of Chayevsky's writing
throughout his career didn't pivot on momentary cultural shifts.
At the time everyone said he was crazy for writing such things.
But he predicted Jerry Springer, Geraldo, Kardashians, et al.
There are a number of monologues built for actor's auditions, Ned Beatty's among them.
Didn't he get a nomination for that monologue?
Yes--and Thomas Friedman based two books and countless lectures on it.
There was also last year's book "Mad as hell:The Making of Network..." By Dave Itzkoff...
tomcervo
2015-04-01 00:19:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
I haven't seen NETWORK since it came out. I wonder how it would hold up today...
It's our marching orders:

Bill Anderson
2015-03-31 15:58:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JD Chase
It just started on TCM... What a brilliant, prescient movie, and like "a face in the crowd", way ahead of it's time...
They are very good movies, but I'm pretty sure both are precisely of
their time. When issues raised long ago are as pertinent now as they
were then, my take-away is that we haven't learned much over the years.
--
Bill Anderson

I am the Mighty Favog
gtr
2015-03-31 17:18:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bill Anderson
Post by JD Chase
It just started on TCM... What a brilliant, prescient movie, and like
"a face in the crowd", way ahead of it's time...
They are very good movies, but I'm pretty sure both are precisely of
their time.
There were, but they are broad enough in scope to be precisely of many
other times. Like now.
Post by Bill Anderson
When issues raised long ago are as pertinent now as they were then, my
take-away is that we haven't learned much over the years.
Hey this Jesus thing, though clearly of its time, seems to have gotten
a foothold!
Bill Anderson
2015-03-31 23:02:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gtr
Post by Bill Anderson
Post by JD Chase
It just started on TCM... What a brilliant, prescient movie, and like
"a face in the crowd", way ahead of it's time...
They are very good movies, but I'm pretty sure both are precisely of
their time.
There were, but they are broad enough in scope to be precisely of many
other times. Like now.
Post by Bill Anderson
When issues raised long ago are as pertinent now as they were then, my
take-away is that we haven't learned much over the years.
Hey this Jesus thing, though clearly of its time, seems to have gotten a
foothold!
Exactly, and that was my point. There are plenty of other examples in
the arts and sciences -- Euclidian geometry (mostly), Newtonian physics
(mostly), Shakespearean plays and poetry (mostly): all of their time,
none ahead of their time, still relevant, and in that sense similar to
the referenced works of Budd Schulberg and Paddy Chayefsky, whose themes
are, as I said, as pertinent now as they were then.

So what works are "of their time" only? Off the top of my head I'd say
BIRTH OF A NATION qualifies, as do the commie scare movies of the 50s,
maybe arguably possibly GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT, early silent melodramas,
40s serials, etc etc. Even Johnny Carson's TONIGHT SHOW. Think about it.

And what works were "ahead of their time?" I argue that in the absence
of time machines there are none, but I'm willing to be suaded. Can you
come up with any?
--
Bill Anderson

I am the Mighty Favog
gtr
2015-04-01 01:06:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bill Anderson
Post by gtr
Hey this Jesus thing, though clearly of its time, seems to have gotten a
foothold!
Exactly, and that was my point. There are plenty of other examples in
the arts and sciences -- Euclidian geometry (mostly), Newtonian physics
(mostly), Shakespearean plays and poetry (mostly): all of their time,
none ahead of their time, still relevant, and in that sense similar to
the referenced works of Budd Schulberg and Paddy Chayefsky, whose
themes are, as I said, as pertinent now as they were then.
So what works are "of their time" only?
Not my assertion at all, no.

What works is what works. But when time changes works more hard-wired
to their time frequently lose their qualities. But it doesn't always
happen. I think some of Clara Bow's "It"--wholly absorbed by cultural
immediacies--still has incredible charm, but much from that time,
ostensibly similar, don't. I don't know where the bludgeon of humor in
"Blazing Saddles" went to. I was stunned to find the vessel near empty
the last time I tried.
Post by Bill Anderson
Off the top of my head I'd say BIRTH OF A NATION qualifies, as do the
commie scare movies of the 50s, maybe arguably possibly GENTLEMAN'S
AGREEMENT, early silent melodramas, 40s serials, etc etc. Even Johnny
Carson's TONIGHT SHOW. Think about it.
And what works were "ahead of their time?" I argue that in the absence
of time machines there are none, but I'm willing to be suaded. Can you
come up with any?
Nope, not my viewpoint. There's some confusion upstream. Maybe
sarcasm didn't get followed by a emoticon or something.
David O.
2015-04-01 04:11:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 31 Mar 2015 18:02:46 -0500, Bill Anderson
Post by Bill Anderson
And what works were "ahead of their time?" I argue that in the absence
of time machines there are none, but I'm willing to be suaded. Can you
come up with any?
The Beethoven Große Fuge contains absolutely no characteristic
(structural, harmonic, tonal, mimetic, political, philosophical, or
otherwise) that situates it in its time (mid 1820s). It took 75 to 100
years for the piece to thoroughly affect the face of music, but it
ultimately did so. Oddly enough, it has left little musical residue on
its compositional descendants, instead being seen as something of a
compositional and philosophical obstacle to interpretive unity.
Bill Anderson
2015-04-01 04:47:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David O.
On Tue, 31 Mar 2015 18:02:46 -0500, Bill Anderson
Post by Bill Anderson
And what works were "ahead of their time?" I argue that in the absence
of time machines there are none, but I'm willing to be suaded. Can you
come up with any?
The Beethoven Große Fuge contains absolutely no characteristic
(structural, harmonic, tonal, mimetic, political, philosophical, or
otherwise) that situates it in its time (mid 1820s). It took 75 to 100
years for the piece to thoroughly affect the face of music, but it
ultimately did so. Oddly enough, it has left little musical residue on
its compositional descendants, instead being seen as something of a
compositional and philosophical obstacle to interpretive unity.
That's because Ludwig Van was a strange visitor from another planet, I'm
pretty sure.
--
Bill Anderson

I am the Mighty Favog
moviePig
2015-04-01 14:09:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bill Anderson
Post by David O.
On Tue, 31 Mar 2015 18:02:46 -0500, Bill Anderson
Post by Bill Anderson
And what works were "ahead of their time?" I argue that in the absence
of time machines there are none, but I'm willing to be suaded. Can you
come up with any?
The Beethoven Große Fuge contains absolutely no characteristic
(structural, harmonic, tonal, mimetic, political, philosophical, or
otherwise) that situates it in its time (mid 1820s). It took 75 to 100
years for the piece to thoroughly affect the face of music, but it
ultimately did so. Oddly enough, it has left little musical residue on
its compositional descendants, instead being seen as something of a
compositional and philosophical obstacle to interpretive unity.
That's because Ludwig Van was a strange visitor from another planet, I'm
pretty sure.
In COPYING BEETHOVEN, Ed Van Harris says he wrote the Grosse Fugue to
outdistance his audience and critics, but in so speaking he may have
been blessed with screenwriter's hindsight.

In movies, iirc, BEAT THE DEVIL (1953) was re-released in '63' with the
blurb that, "10 years ago, this film was '10 years ahead of its time.'"
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Bill Anderson
2015-04-01 14:45:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
In movies, iirc, BEAT THE DEVIL (1953) was re-released in '63' with the
blurb that, "10 years ago, this film was '10 years ahead of its time.'"
What occurred to me when I first responded to the thread was that
whenever somebody says a movie was "ahead of its time," what they're
really saying is that when it was released, people were too dumb to
appreciate the work, and we're much smarter now than they were then. I
don't buy it.

When Marty McFly had played the final heavy metal lick on his guitar at
the high school dance, it was obvious from the stunned looks on the
faces of the teenagers that this is what it means to be ahead of your time.
--
Bill Anderson

I am the Mighty Favog
moviePig
2015-04-01 15:27:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bill Anderson
Post by moviePig
In movies, iirc, BEAT THE DEVIL (1953) was re-released in '63' with the
blurb that, "10 years ago, this film was '10 years ahead of its time.'"
What occurred to me when I first responded to the thread was that
whenever somebody says a movie was "ahead of its time," what they're
really saying is that when it was released, people were too dumb to
appreciate the work, and we're much smarter now than they were then. I
don't buy it.
When Marty McFly had played the final heavy metal lick on his guitar at
the high school dance, it was obvious from the stunned looks on the
faces of the teenagers that this is what it means to be ahead of your time.
So, it seems you want something that failed then, but is commonplace
now. It's a tough order, because the more usual result is that things
"ahead of their time" are more likely to revolutionize than to fail.
(Was Jules Verne ahead of his time or merely of his technology?)
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Bill Anderson
2015-04-01 15:41:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by Bill Anderson
Post by moviePig
In movies, iirc, BEAT THE DEVIL (1953) was re-released in '63' with the
blurb that, "10 years ago, this film was '10 years ahead of its time.'"
What occurred to me when I first responded to the thread was that
whenever somebody says a movie was "ahead of its time," what they're
really saying is that when it was released, people were too dumb to
appreciate the work, and we're much smarter now than they were then. I
don't buy it.
When Marty McFly had played the final heavy metal lick on his guitar at
the high school dance, it was obvious from the stunned looks on the
faces of the teenagers that this is what it means to be ahead of your time.
So, it seems you want something that failed then, but is commonplace
now. It's a tough order, because the more usual result is that things
"ahead of their time" are more likely to revolutionize than to fail.
(Was Jules Verne ahead of his time or merely of his technology?)
He was prescient, but he was of his time and that's my point. The
Wright Brothers' invention was revolutionary, but it's ridiculous to
think of it as "ahead of its time." That phrase is both snobbish and
silly, I think maybe probably.
--
Bill Anderson

I am the Mighty Favog
moviePig
2015-04-01 16:03:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bill Anderson
Post by moviePig
Post by Bill Anderson
Post by moviePig
In movies, iirc, BEAT THE DEVIL (1953) was re-released in '63' with the
blurb that, "10 years ago, this film was '10 years ahead of its time.'"
What occurred to me when I first responded to the thread was that
whenever somebody says a movie was "ahead of its time," what they're
really saying is that when it was released, people were too dumb to
appreciate the work, and we're much smarter now than they were then. I
don't buy it.
When Marty McFly had played the final heavy metal lick on his guitar at
the high school dance, it was obvious from the stunned looks on the
faces of the teenagers that this is what it means to be ahead of your time.
So, it seems you want something that failed then, but is commonplace
now. It's a tough order, because the more usual result is that things
"ahead of their time" are more likely to revolutionize than to fail.
(Was Jules Verne ahead of his time or merely of his technology?)
He was prescient, but he was of his time and that's my point. The
Wright Brothers' invention was revolutionary, but it's ridiculous to
think of it as "ahead of its time." That phrase is both snobbish and
silly, I think maybe probably.
Well, couldn't we nominate just about any artist who lived and died
relatively poor but is a household word today? Van Gogh, maybe?
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Bill Anderson
2015-04-01 16:21:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by Bill Anderson
Post by moviePig
Post by Bill Anderson
Post by moviePig
In movies, iirc, BEAT THE DEVIL (1953) was re-released in '63' with the
blurb that, "10 years ago, this film was '10 years ahead of its time.'"
What occurred to me when I first responded to the thread was that
whenever somebody says a movie was "ahead of its time," what they're
really saying is that when it was released, people were too dumb to
appreciate the work, and we're much smarter now than they were then. I
don't buy it.
When Marty McFly had played the final heavy metal lick on his guitar at
the high school dance, it was obvious from the stunned looks on the
faces of the teenagers that this is what it means to be ahead of your time.
So, it seems you want something that failed then, but is commonplace
now. It's a tough order, because the more usual result is that things
"ahead of their time" are more likely to revolutionize than to fail.
(Was Jules Verne ahead of his time or merely of his technology?)
He was prescient, but he was of his time and that's my point. The
Wright Brothers' invention was revolutionary, but it's ridiculous to
think of it as "ahead of its time." That phrase is both snobbish and
silly, I think maybe probably.
Well, couldn't we nominate just about any artist who lived and died
relatively poor but is a household word today? Van Gogh, maybe?
OK, sure. I guess there's no need to interpret the phrase literally.
It's just a figure of speech intended to imply that people back then,
whenever then was, were unenlightened imbeciles, and we, of course, are not.
--
Bill Anderson

I am the Mighty Favog
moviePig
2015-04-01 17:16:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bill Anderson
Post by moviePig
Post by Bill Anderson
Post by moviePig
Post by Bill Anderson
Post by moviePig
In movies, iirc, BEAT THE DEVIL (1953) was re-released in '63' with the
blurb that, "10 years ago, this film was '10 years ahead of its time.'"
What occurred to me when I first responded to the thread was that
whenever somebody says a movie was "ahead of its time," what they're
really saying is that when it was released, people were too dumb to
appreciate the work, and we're much smarter now than they were then. I
don't buy it.
When Marty McFly had played the final heavy metal lick on his guitar at
the high school dance, it was obvious from the stunned looks on the
faces of the teenagers that this is what it means to be ahead of your time.
So, it seems you want something that failed then, but is commonplace
now. It's a tough order, because the more usual result is that things
"ahead of their time" are more likely to revolutionize than to fail.
(Was Jules Verne ahead of his time or merely of his technology?)
He was prescient, but he was of his time and that's my point. The
Wright Brothers' invention was revolutionary, but it's ridiculous to
think of it as "ahead of its time." That phrase is both snobbish and
silly, I think maybe probably.
Well, couldn't we nominate just about any artist who lived and died
relatively poor but is a household word today? Van Gogh, maybe?
OK, sure. I guess there's no need to interpret the phrase literally.
It's just a figure of speech intended to imply that people back then,
whenever then was, were unenlightened imbeciles, and we, of course, are not.
Ah, I see what you're getting at. (I would've seen it earlier but you
were ahead of your time.)
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
gtr
2015-04-01 17:29:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bill Anderson
Post by moviePig
Post by Bill Anderson
He was prescient, but he was of his time and that's my point. The
Wright Brothers' invention was revolutionary, but it's ridiculous to
think of it as "ahead of its time." That phrase is both snobbish and
silly, I think maybe probably.
Well, couldn't we nominate just about any artist who lived and died
relatively poor but is a household word today? Van Gogh, maybe?
OK, sure. I guess there's no need to interpret the phrase literally.
It's just a figure of speech intended to imply that people back then,
whenever then was, were unenlightened imbeciles, and we, of course, are not.
I guess I must be insensitive: I've never considered calling someone
"ahead of their time" a clever way to bad-rap most of humanity.
moviePig
2015-04-01 18:11:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gtr
Post by Bill Anderson
Post by moviePig
Post by Bill Anderson
He was prescient, but he was of his time and that's my point. The
Wright Brothers' invention was revolutionary, but it's ridiculous to
think of it as "ahead of its time." That phrase is both snobbish and
silly, I think maybe probably.
Well, couldn't we nominate just about any artist who lived and died
relatively poor but is a household word today? Van Gogh, maybe?
OK, sure. I guess there's no need to interpret the phrase literally.
It's just a figure of speech intended to imply that people back then,
whenever then was, were unenlightened imbeciles, and we, of course, are not.
I guess I must be insensitive: I've never considered calling someone
"ahead of their time" a clever way to bad-rap most of humanity.
Since you put it that way, I suppose I remember debates a few (or more)
years after its release, entailing claims that 2001:ASO was "ahead of
its time" -- leveled by the pro- crowd to shame the con- one.
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Lewis
2015-04-02 00:47:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bill Anderson
Post by moviePig
Post by Bill Anderson
Post by moviePig
In movies, iirc, BEAT THE DEVIL (1953) was re-released in '63' with the
blurb that, "10 years ago, this film was '10 years ahead of its time.'"
What occurred to me when I first responded to the thread was that
whenever somebody says a movie was "ahead of its time," what they're
really saying is that when it was released, people were too dumb to
appreciate the work, and we're much smarter now than they were then. I
don't buy it.
When Marty McFly had played the final heavy metal lick on his guitar at
the high school dance, it was obvious from the stunned looks on the
faces of the teenagers that this is what it means to be ahead of your time.
So, it seems you want something that failed then, but is commonplace
now. It's a tough order, because the more usual result is that things
"ahead of their time" are more likely to revolutionize than to fail.
(Was Jules Verne ahead of his time or merely of his technology?)
He was prescient, but he was of his time and that's my point. The
Wright Brothers' invention was revolutionary, but it's ridiculous to
think of it as "ahead of its time." That phrase is both snobbish and
silly, I think maybe probably.
Ahead of its time means that something comes out before the public or
the rest of the industry or <fill in blank> is ready for it.

Babbage's Difference Engine was ahead of its time. Had anyone with money
had the slightest idea what it could do they would have poured all their
money into it and drastically changed the world. But no one "groked" it
and so it was never built.
--
I get the feeling that some people's idea of heaven is an "I told you
so" T-shirt - mmalc
w***@gmail.com
2015-04-02 00:53:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Babbage's Difference Engine was ahead of its time. Had anyone with money
had the slightest idea what it could do they would have poured all their
money into it and drastically changed the world. But no one "groked" it
and so it was never built.
And Ada Lovelace would have ended up with the first copyright on Illustrator.
Martin Leese
2015-04-02 17:25:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Lewis wrote:
...
Post by Lewis
Babbage's Difference Engine was ahead of its time.
...
Post by Lewis
But no one "groked" it
and so it was never built.
Until recently, visit:
http://www.computerhistory.org/babbage/
--
Regards,
Martin Leese
E-mail: ***@see.Web.for.e-mail.INVALID
Web: http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/
David O.
2015-04-02 03:58:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
In COPYING BEETHOVEN, Ed Van Harris says he wrote the Grosse Fugue to
outdistance his audience and critics, but in so speaking he may have
been blessed with screenwriter's hindsight.
Beethoven didn't write with audience response _in mind_. He sought to
please only himself in composing. But after he wrote something, he
would often say that the Viennese public wasn't "ready" for it.
w***@gmail.com
2015-04-02 04:05:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David O.
Beethoven didn't write with audience response _in mind_. He sought to
please only himself in composing. But after he wrote something, he
would often say that the Viennese public wasn't "ready" for it.
Or so he said or you suppose. People say a lot of things and we collect those we wish to believe. You have no idea what Beethoven had _in mind_.
David O.
2015-04-02 04:12:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by w***@gmail.com
Post by David O.
Beethoven didn't write with audience response _in mind_. He sought to
please only himself in composing. But after he wrote something, he
would often say that the Viennese public wasn't "ready" for it.
Or so he said or you suppose. People say a lot of things and we collect those we wish to believe. You have no idea what Beethoven had _in mind_.
Not true, buster. It's well documented. You can trust me, cowboy.
w***@gmail.com
2015-04-02 04:59:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David O.
Not true, buster. It's well documented. You can trust me, cowboy.
Get along li'l dogie, I know better than that.
David O.
2015-04-02 04:11:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David O.
The Beethoven Große Fuge contains absolutely no characteristic
(structural, harmonic, tonal, mimetic, political, philosophical, or
otherwise) that situates it in its time (mid 1820s). It took 75 to 100
years for the piece to thoroughly affect the face of music, but it
ultimately did so. Oddly enough, it has left little musical residue on
its compositional descendants, instead being seen as something of a
compositional and philosophical obstacle to interpretive unity.
I'm surprised nobody called me on this pompous language.
moviePig
2015-04-02 13:32:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David O.
Post by David O.
The Beethoven Große Fuge contains absolutely no characteristic
(structural, harmonic, tonal, mimetic, political, philosophical, or
otherwise) that situates it in its time (mid 1820s). It took 75 to 100
years for the piece to thoroughly affect the face of music, but it
ultimately did so. Oddly enough, it has left little musical residue on
its compositional descendants, instead being seen as something of a
compositional and philosophical obstacle to interpretive unity.
I'm surprised nobody called me on this pompous language.
But the surrounding terrain is littered with readers' broken corpses...
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
JD Chase
2015-04-01 05:25:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bill Anderson
Post by gtr
Post by Bill Anderson
Post by JD Chase
It just started on TCM... What a brilliant, prescient movie, and like
"a face in the crowd", way ahead of it's time...
They are very good movies, but I'm pretty sure both are precisely of
their time.
There were, but they are broad enough in scope to be precisely of many
other times. Like now.
Post by Bill Anderson
When issues raised long ago are as pertinent now as they were then, my
take-away is that we haven't learned much over the years.
Hey this Jesus thing, though clearly of its time, seems to have gotten a
foothold!
Exactly, and that was my point. There are plenty of other examples in
the arts and sciences -- Euclidian geometry (mostly), Newtonian physics
(mostly), Shakespearean plays and poetry (mostly): all of their time,
none ahead of their time, still relevant, and in that sense similar to
the referenced works of Budd Schulberg and Paddy Chayefsky, whose themes
are, as I said, as pertinent now as they were then.
So what works are "of their time" only? Off the top of my head I'd say
BIRTH OF A NATION qualifies, as do the commie scare movies of the 50s,
maybe arguably possibly GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT, early silent melodramas,
40s serials, etc etc. Even Johnny Carson's TONIGHT SHOW. Think about it.
Certainly agree about "Gentleman's Agreement", while it's a well done movie in many respects, it's undeniably dated and also rather preachy and didactic... And Gregory Peck should have married Celeste Holm, rather than the other lady...
w***@gmail.com
2015-04-01 05:29:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JD Chase
Certainly agree about "Gentleman's Agreement", while it's a well done movie in many respects, it's undeniably dated and also rather preachy and didactic... And Gregory Peck should have married Celeste Holm, rather than the other lady...
Interesting that Hollywood's response to the Holocaust was this film and "Crossfire," one of the best examples of a misnomered "film noir." Pretty pathetic if you look at Hollywood as a place that reflects society -- which of course, it isn't -- and completely standard if you don't.
tomcervo
2015-04-01 13:40:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by w***@gmail.com
Interesting that Hollywood's response to the Holocaust was this film and "Crossfire," one of the best examples of a misnomered "film noir." Pretty pathetic if you look at Hollywood as a place that reflects society -- which of course, it isn't -- and completely standard if you don't.
Shocker:
"Difference from the novel[edit]
Richard Brooks wrote his novel while he was a sergeant in the U.S. Marine Corps making training films at Quantico, Virginia and Camp Pendleton, California. In the novel, the victim was homosexual. As told in the film The Celluloid Closet and in the documentary included on the DVD edition of the Crossfire film, the Hollywood Hays Code prohibited any mention of homosexuality because it was seen as a sexual perversion. Hence, the book's theme of homophobia was changed to one about racism and antisemitism. The book was published while Brooks was serving in the Marine Corps. A fellow Marine by the name of Robert Ryan met Brooks and told him he was determined to play in a version of the book on screen.[15][16]"

And "Gentleman's Agreement" was a massive best-seller, so its filming was almost a lock Holocaust or not. The actual Holocaust was regarded as not suitable for film because no one could put a handle on it--either it was a horrific disaster, like the Spanish flu, or a marker for passivity--"Why didn't they fight back?".
w***@gmail.com
2015-04-01 20:25:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tomcervo
Post by w***@gmail.com
Interesting that Hollywood's response to the Holocaust was this film and "Crossfire," one of the best examples of a misnomered "film noir." Pretty pathetic if you look at Hollywood as a place that reflects society -- which of course, it isn't -- and completely standard if you don't.
"Difference from the novel[edit]
Richard Brooks wrote his novel while he was a sergeant in the U.S. Marine Corps making training films at Quantico, Virginia and Camp Pendleton, California. In the novel, the victim was homosexual. As told in the film The Celluloid Closet and in the documentary included on the DVD edition of the Crossfire film, the Hollywood Hays Code prohibited any mention of homosexuality because it was seen as a sexual perversion. Hence, the book's theme of homophobia was changed to one about racism and antisemitism. The book was published while Brooks was serving in the Marine Corps. A fellow Marine by the name of Robert Ryan met Brooks and told him he was determined to play in a version of the book on screen.[15][16]"
Oh, please, everyone knows that story. There is no shocker. That's why it was changed to a Jew. Please watch Imaginary Witness and catch up.
Post by tomcervo
And "Gentleman's Agreement" was a massive best-seller, so its filming was almost a lock Holocaust or not. The actual Holocaust was regarded as not suitable for film because no one could put a handle on it--either it was a horrific disaster, like the Spanish flu, or a marker for passivity--"Why didn't they fight back?".
That's nonsense. Not all bestsellers become movies. As to why no holocaust movies were made, there are tons of reasons. It's amazing how everything is so simple for you. All it takes is a moldy reference.
JD Chase
2015-04-01 21:07:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by w***@gmail.com
Post by tomcervo
Post by w***@gmail.com
Interesting that Hollywood's response to the Holocaust was this film and "Crossfire," one of the best examples of a misnomered "film noir." Pretty pathetic if you look at Hollywood as a place that reflects society -- which of course, it isn't -- and completely standard if you don't.
"Difference from the novel[edit]
Richard Brooks wrote his novel while he was a sergeant in the U.S. Marine Corps making training films at Quantico, Virginia and Camp Pendleton, California. In the novel, the victim was homosexual. As told in the film The Celluloid Closet and in the documentary included on the DVD edition of the Crossfire film, the Hollywood Hays Code prohibited any mention of homosexuality because it was seen as a sexual perversion. Hence, the book's theme of homophobia was changed to one about racism and antisemitism. The book was published while Brooks was serving in the Marine Corps. A fellow Marine by the name of Robert Ryan met Brooks and told him he was determined to play in a version of the book on screen.[15][16]"
Oh, please, everyone knows that story. There is no shocker. That's why it was changed to a Jew. Please watch Imaginary Witness and catch up.
Post by tomcervo
And "Gentleman's Agreement" was a massive best-seller, so its filming was almost a lock Holocaust or not. The actual Holocaust was regarded as not suitable for film because no one could put a handle on it--either it was a horrific disaster, like the Spanish flu, or a marker for passivity--"Why didn't they fight back?".
That's nonsense. Not all bestsellers become movies. As to why no holocaust movies were made, there are tons of reasons. It's amazing how everything is so simple for you. All it takes is a moldy reference.
I'm pretty sure that I read that "The Pawnbroken" from 1964 was the first movie to reference the holocaust... It was a powerful movie, despite it's flaws...
w***@gmail.com
2015-04-01 21:24:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JD Chase
I'm pretty sure that I read that "The Pawnbroken" from 1964 was the first movie to reference the holocaust... It was a powerful movie, despite it's flaws...
I think it's a brilliant film but that is neither here nor there. What The Pawnbroker did do was to get deathcamp survivors talking about their experiences. One of the problems with making a Holocaust film was that -- other than documentary footage -- there was little first person reportage and The Pawnbroker changed that. In an odd way, Roots inspired the 1978 four-part TV show Holocaust that ended up rattling the Germans who began dealing with the issue. The foregoing is a simplified history -- these things are always more complicated than that -- although The Pawnbroker is usually cited as the catalyst.
David O.
2015-04-02 04:09:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 1 Apr 2015 14:07:07 -0700 (PDT), JD Chase
Post by JD Chase
I'm pretty sure that I read that "The Pawnbroken" from 1964 was the first movie to reference the holocaust... It was a powerful movie, despite it's flaws...
The Diary of Anne Frank
Exodus
Judgment at Nuremberg

There was the great Alain Resnais documentary from the '50s. If any of
you guys haven't seen that, please do see it. It's only half an hour
in length, but it's a deracinating classic—it almost unmoors you from
human decency. Naturally you'd expect a death camp documentary to be
disturbing, but this marks you for a lifetime. Criterion has it.
w***@gmail.com
2015-04-02 04:40:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David O.
On Wed, 1 Apr 2015 14:07:07 -0700 (PDT), JD Chase
Post by JD Chase
I'm pretty sure that I read that "The Pawnbroken" from 1964 was the first movie to reference the holocaust... It was a powerful movie, despite it's flaws...
The Diary of Anne Frank
Exodus
Judgment at Nuremberg
None of these film depict life in the concentration camps except for documentary footage in Judgement. If you think that these films were as powerful as the personal reference of The Pawnbroker, you are deluded. It was The Pawnbroker that got the survivors to speak about it and not the other self-serving, self-important, Hollywood issue films. If you want to go to the earliest use of concentration camp footage in a feature film, it was in Orson Welles' The Stranger although all of that had been covered in documentaries by Billy Wilder and George Stevens that were released after the war and shown in local theaters all over the US.
David O.
2015-04-02 05:59:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by w***@gmail.com
Post by David O.
On Wed, 1 Apr 2015 14:07:07 -0700 (PDT), JD Chase
Post by JD Chase
I'm pretty sure that I read that "The Pawnbroken" from 1964 was the first movie to reference the holocaust... It was a powerful movie, despite it's flaws...
The Diary of Anne Frank
Exodus
Judgment at Nuremberg
None of these film depict life in the concentration camps except for documentary footage in Judgement. If you think that these films were as powerful as the personal reference of The Pawnbroker, you are deluded. It was The Pawnbroker that got the survivors to speak about it and not the other self-serving, self-important, Hollywood issue films. If you want to go to the earliest use of concentration camp footage in a feature film, it was in Orson Welles' The Stranger although all of that had been covered in documentaries by Billy Wilder and George Stevens that were released after the war and shown in local theaters all over the US.
"I'm pretty sure that I read that "The Pawnbroken" from 1964 was the
first movie to reference the holocaust." <--I'm replying to that. (I
don't remember ever seeing "The Pawnbroker")
w***@gmail.com
2015-04-02 06:33:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David O.
"I'm pretty sure that I read that "The Pawnbroken" from 1964 was the
first movie to reference the holocaust." <--I'm replying to that. (I
don't remember ever seeing "The Pawnbroker")
First, see the film. One of the best Hollywood films ever made. Second, the term "reference" is misleading here. For example, in 1953, Stanley Kramer produced The Juggler, directed by Edward Dmytryk and starring Kirk Douglas that was about a Holocaust survivor and while no scenes from the death camp appeared in the film, that certainly can be considered a reference. What The Pawnbroker did was to utterly personalize the death camp experience even if the character doesn't want to remember and while it's also a reference, it's also far more than that. The other films made it a part of history; The Pawnbroker made it real.
gggg gggg
2021-08-02 04:07:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JD Chase
It just started on TCM... What a brilliant, prescient movie, and like "a face in the crowd", way ahead of it's time... Faye Dunaway was stunning in the role and absolutely deserved her academy award... She was also superb in "Mommie Dearest", but was even better in "Network"...
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-15/orwell-1984-brave-new-world-network-dark-future-predictions/11291960
gggg gggg
2021-10-21 08:11:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JD Chase
It just started on TCM... What a brilliant, prescient movie, and like "a face in the crowd", way ahead of it's time... Faye Dunaway was stunning in the role and absolutely deserved her academy award... She was also superb in "Mommie Dearest", but was even better in "Network"...
"Mad as Hell: The Making of Network and the Fateful Vision of the Angriest Man in Movies" (2015 book):

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/mad-as-hell-david-itzkoff/1115295544?ean=9781250062246
Loading...