MovieChat Forums > Network (1976) Discussion > I enjoyed this film but....

I enjoyed this film but....

posted 11 years ago by MsJackieO
20 replies | jump to latest

I have no idea what the point of it was. What the moral was. I love the speeches, especially Ned Beatty's, but fear I am missing the message. I also love Beale's rant about people not reading and believing whatever comes out of the television - a great point about the brainwashing of civilization by the weapon of mass distraction - but was that his primary point or, as I suspect, another point altogether? One that is part of the larger fabric that is the film itself?

I thought Beale had a wake-up call, and was able to see just how crummy the world was, how cynical, how governments and media lie to us, make us (as Tyler Durden said) work hard to buy stuff we don't need but later on he readily agrees to become a mouthpiece for Ned Beatty's multi-corporate commercialism.

Was Beale insightful and right or was he just a crackpot? I get the TV station let him rant and rave because it was good for business but not sure of much else. Your help is much appreciated.

[–] BobbyDupea 10 years ago

Beale was both insightful and right AND mentally ill. It is difficult to tell when his behavior reflects reasoned, intelligent criticism of the economic and media systems and when it simply reflects the addled percolations of a troubled mind. At a certain point, Holden's character realizes that Beale's behavior is neither healthy nor rational, but by that time it is too late to stop the other forces dictating what happens at the station.

You're on the right track in guessing that a major theme is the abandonment of quality in favor of ratings and money. But the script also suggests something more going on, in the form of the abandonment of integrity and honesty along with meaningful content in television programming and meaningful relationships between people.

This movie's themes and the way it conveyed them were very startling and contrarian at the time this movie was released. We don't see them in the same way today because we have been conditioned to accept the degradation of media content depicted in the movie, and our sensibilities have been dulled by the very changes in the media and in our lives about which the film is a warning.

My real name is Jeff

[–] AndrewGS 8 years ago

The message isn't entirely clear but I think it generally amounts to
-Television networks are willing to put anything on for popularity regardless of content and the film writer and director had a lot of disdain for that, that people should care a lot more about the content.
-Populist rage can be helpful, or at least have some value, in bouts but television ultimately diffuses whatever anti-establishment views it may air.
-Kind of at odds with the previous two points, corporations may be willing to take losses to air their preferred views; regardless of whether they do or not, it does matter who owns a network.