MovieChat Forums > Network (1976) Discussion > LOOK AT ME...I'M REALLY SMART!!!

LOOK AT ME...I'M REALLY SMART!!!

posted 15 years ago by Rupert__Pupkin
163 replies | jump to latest

From what I can tell, when Paddy Chayefsky wrote Network, he was trying really hard to convince America that he was smart. Whenever anyone spoke in this movie, it was a long diatribe delivered at auctioneer speed and littered with 5-syllable esoteric words. I have a Ph.D. from an accredited university and consider myself to be well-read and fairly intelligent, but there were several times in the movie where I had to rewind because I misunderstood a word. When I put the subtitles on, I realized that the word used was one I had never seen nor heard before. This happened again and again.

I'm sure I'm going to get some comments from Network fans telling me that I must be an ignorant buffoon. Fine. But I'm reminded of the Einstein quote, "If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself." Well I'm a 42-year old, and I didn't understand a lot of the words used in Network. Putting them in context, I made guesses.

If I (a seemingly well-educated person) did not understand much of the dialogue, what are the chances that the average Joe off the street would understand it? If Chayefsky had an important message to convey, he should have voiced it in a way that people could better understand. I don't mean Chayefsky should have dumbed the script down so that it's on par with Daddy Daycare and Shrek 4, but the movie's dialogue shouldn't be so arcane that a college professor has to run to his dictionary every 10 minutes to look up a word.

[–] Eumenides_0 12 years ago

What were those complicated words that you struggled with?

This world is a comedy to those that think, a tragedy to those that feel.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] pullman1881 12 years ago

Gee, I have a high-school education and had absolutely no problem with the dialogue or understanding the big words. If you had a film where actors spoke like real people, it would be all like awesome and amazing. Heaven forbid that dialogue be eloquent and interesting. That wouldn't be like awesome.

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 12 years ago

Not buying it. Sorry.

[–] pullman1881 12 years ago

Hi, again.

So, I'm watching Network again on IFC for maybe the 50th time in the last 37 years, and I don't mean to beat a dead horse here, but what precisely did you not understand when you first watched this film? I will admit to having to look up Savanarola, but that's about it. I'm not sure if oraculate and auspigatory are words, for instance, but it's obvious that they're derivatives of oracle and auspicious. If you know what those two words mean, you understand what oraculate and auspigatory mean. I suppose Chayefsky could have used auspicious, but I think oraculate is pretty descriptive, even if it isn't an actual word. I really do only have a HS education. My sister, with whom I saw Network, never finished HS and neither of us had any problem with the language. I'm really curious about what you did not understand. If I remember from your original post, you mentioned having to look up certain words; like what? Again, I'm really not being snarky; I'm seriously interested.

[–] nutsberryfarm 12 years ago

i had to look up 'precipitate'. that's it, tho. i promise.

A day without sunshine is like, you know, night.

[–] modica 12 years ago

Just finished watching the movie for the 10th time and I still don't know how the OP got a PHD and still finds the movies dialogue difficult to understand. I don't get it.

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 12 years ago

No worries. I watched the movie three years ago, and I didn't think to take notes. I don't have the desire to watch it again. If I ever see it a second time, I'll play closer attention.

[–] modica 12 years ago

Ah, sure, ok.

[–] dkgambler 11 years ago

I get what you're saying, but after watching Mamet's "Oleanna" and its dialogue that was off the charts and nothing like the way real people speak, this came off tame in comparison. I read a few other posts, one of which struck a nerve: The one that spoke about news people and their "articulateness". I would agree with that, news types seem obsessed with taking the dialogue up a notch to let the commoners know just how simple-minded they are. I live in the Phoenix area, and in the summer we get weather that creates dust storms. Decade after decade, we had dust storms. Then, suddenly, a few years ago a smarty pants in the media found a word, "haboob", used in Africa to describe their dust storms, sand storms, etc.. Suddenly, every other media type followed suit and now our dust storms are known as haboobs. Yes, I'm a dirty, unwashed, mouth-breathing and knuckle-dragging Arizona native and I've dug in and stuck with dust storm, but I concede the high ground to my linguistic superiors in the media.

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 11 years ago

Ha ha! Haboob! I'm going to have to work that into some conversations this week. Thanks for posting.

[–] dkgambler 11 years ago

Yeah you do that and show everyone just how smart you are.

[–] nutsberryfarm 11 years ago

mamet's characters seem like suffer from tourettes syndrome.

Key to winning baseball games? Pitching, fundamentals, and three run homers.-Earl Weaver

[–] willow_wizard11 11 years ago

I'm a community college drop-out and had no issue with the script. You may take that however you wish.

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 11 years ago

No issues with the script is a little vague. Although I was unfamiliar with many of the words used, I was able to understand the dialogue by taking into account the context of the language used. So in terms of understanding the film, I didn't have any issues. But it still struck me as pretentious, the same way it strikes me as pretentious when people use the verb "utilize" instead of "use." There's no reason for it other than trying to look smart.

[–] Eumenides_0 11 years ago

And even if some words are unfamiliar, what's wrong with looking them up on the dictionary? It's actually a funny activity.

This world is a comedy to those that think, a tragedy to those that feel.

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 11 years ago

Yes it's simply hysterical to pause a movie, reach for your dictionary, find a word, read the defenition, apply it to the movie, watch for a few minutes more, and repeat the cycle. I couldn't stop laughing.

[–] Eumenides_0 11 years ago

I'm sorry you have a stormy relationship with language and dictionaries; mine is a love affair.

This world is a comedy to those that think, a tragedy to those that feel.

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 11 years ago

May I suggest a love affair with something a bit warmer than a dictionary?

[–] Eumenides_0 10 years ago

May I suggest a love affair with something a bit warmer than a dictionary?

Sorry, I'm a necrophile, I like my love cold...

This world is a comedy to those that think, a tragedy to those that feel.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] SloppyJ30 11 years ago

Your reason for criticizing Network is the very reason it's my favorite movie. No doubt Chayefsky went bonkers with the dialogue, but this was clearly a conscious choice. His other scripts don't exhibit the same tendency. Was it the right choice for this story? I'd say, absoulutely yes. Would I want to see a whole slew of movies where characters talk like this? No; no I would not.

I just caught part of Minority Report the other day. I know Spielberg's decision to use that odd "bleach bypass" process cause a lot of people heartburn. To me it worked well with the material, although I wouldn't want that to start popping up every other weekend. Same principle.

As to his specific word choices, yes, there were some I hadn't heard, and one I just looked up two minutes ago for the first time ("immane"). Didn't bother me a bit, but then I didn't stop to consult a dictionary every time I was stumped. I just went with it, and I don't feel I missed any meanings or shades of any importance, even the first time I saw it. I'm guessing Shakespeare would've loved this movie.

-------------------------

I have meddled with the primal forces of nature and I will atone.

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 11 years ago

Fair point...the first one I've seen in this thread. Maybe I'll change my mind about the movie. Thanks.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jkholman 10 years ago

To the OP:
you quote Albert Einstein (along the lines of an explanation so simple a child could understand ....). That applies to a big idea, not a complex dialogue between two mature minds. And as for Chayefsky using big words that are "not used in everyday speech", that is all a part of our dumbing down as a culture dependent on television for our spiritual and intellectual growth. Gee, I am starting to sound like Howard Beal.
I work with engineers. All of them are smart, but most are emotionally and socially underdeveloped and inept [respectively]. Some are so smart they miss their own shortcomings (or are too proud to acknowledge them, even privately).
In other words, they individually suffer a bankrupt personality. Of the scores of engineers I worked with in twenty-five years, only two had what I would call attractive personalities. Oddly enough, both were under thirty.
OP, there are people who use "big words" (what a clunky expression) in conversation, they are simply far and few and, unfortunately, dying out. You would never be able to tell by my writing (I have been told I speak better than I write (Alas!)), but I have a broad vocabulary (once again, told by others). When a friend of mine retired a few months ago, there went ninety per cent of my intellectual conversation. Fortunately, I had the good sense to hide my dismay. I am sure there are things about me that disappoint my coworkers, but they are decent enough to leave it alone.
OP, you write well. And sound as if you have a good mind (by that, I mean trained). I do not. I accept that. Accept that the dialogue was over your head.

best of wishes,

JKHolman

[–] Harold_Robbins 10 years ago

He was more than 'smart' - he was downright psychic.

"In my case, self-absorption is completely justified."