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.

[–] Jose_Accent_On_E 10 years ago

I have a Ph.D. from an accredited university

Not necessary to state this as your intelligence would have become readily apparent to anyone. Despite the predictable response it would elicit from other participants, if you felt compelled to preface your remarks with such a pronouncement, it would have been more useful to state the specific area of your studies, rather than the exact level of your degree. For example, knowing that you were an English Literature major instead of a chemist would have been more useful for me to assess your thesis.

"Accredited"?

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 10 years ago

PhD in clinical psychology, accredited by the APA.

[–] jkholman 10 years ago

Let's see.....I was born in 1961 and have a high school education. I had no problem following the dialogue. May be because I read more books and watched less television coming up [in the '70s]. Aside from films and an occasional ball game, I do not watch TV (in the way of prime time). Even as a teenager, I could tell television was junk.

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 10 years ago

I had no problem following the movie. There were just several lines that whizzed by me. It didn't stop me from understanding the plot, the characters, or the point of the movie. I just missed a few lines here and there. It felt like an Aaron Sorkin script on crack.

[–] phillipsdan83 10 years ago

While NETWORK isn't the most fun movie I can think of, the arguments it presents were pretty original when it was made. I encountered the OP on the site for THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE and would like to ask; what movies DO you like?

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 10 years ago

LOL. I admit that I tend to comment more on the movies I don't like than those I do. (It's more fun.)

I love a ton of movies. Where do I start? My favorite movies of all time are probably It's a Wonderful Life; Planes, Train, and Automobiles; Raiders of the Lost Ark; 12 Angry Men; Shawshank Redemption; and so many more. I love virtually every genre, from Westerns to gross-out comedies; from 80s B-horror movies to sweeping historical epics.

[–] MrBlondee 10 years ago

I had no such problem, and I don't have a Ph.D.

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 10 years ago

I've gotten this response from a lot of people.

Like me, you probably had no problem understanding the film as a whole or the general themes. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the lightning-fast dialogue and the high number of arcane words used throughout the film. (I referred to this movie before as an Aaron Sorkin script on crack.) With the provided context, most of us could keep up with the plot and understand the basic themes, but there's no way that most of the people on this board knew all of the words used in the movie.

[–] MrBlondee 10 years ago

I have to watch the film again and really focus on the words to hear what you mean. You could be right, but I never noticed it before.

[–] zwolf 10 years ago

I had no problem understanding the dialogue and didn't have to look any words up. It would never have occurred to me that anyone would.

This sounds like a "you" problem.

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 10 years ago

You sound like a problem.

[–] Worst-Movie-Ever 10 years ago

You can always go back to watching Fast and the Furious

Here's yer sign.

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 10 years ago

That's the best you can do? And you're pretending that you even watched Network? Ha!

[–] Worst-Movie-Ever 10 years ago

watched it...great film...foreshadowed all the trash tv people watch today. and if you didn't understand the words...use subtitles and grab a dictionary.

Here's yer sign.

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 10 years ago

I did.

[–] !!!deleted!!! (49761343) 10 years ago

From what I can tell, when Paddy Chayefsky wrote Network, he was trying really hard to convince America that he was smart.

This is the thing that has always turned me off this movie. It's a very pompous film that seems to say a lot but isn't saying anything at all. Once you get the "joke" inside of the first 15 minutes (which is about as subtle as a hammer, BTW), it's just nothing but scenes of endless bloviating.

Whenever anyone spoke in this movie, it was a long diatribe delivered at auctioneer speed and littered with 5-syllable esoteric words.

I wouldn't say they're esoteric, but I know what you mean. He uses a lot of big words that don't really make sense in the context of the way they're being used.

For example, the "Ecumenical Liberation Army." Ecumenical makes zero sense. Obviously they were a parody of the Symbolese Liberation Army, an ultra-black militant group. But "ecumenical" means encompassing all Christian faith. What on earth does "ecumenical" have to do with far left wing black militantism, anyway? Nothing. It's like Chayevsky pulled the term out of a hat without really caring what it meant. All he knew is that it sounded "smart" and so he used it.

---
Emojis=💩 Emoticons=

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 10 years ago

atomicgirl - Thanks for the support. I've gotten enough hate from people who have accused me of being a neanderthal. I'm glad that we agree that pretentious does not equal intelligent.

[–] !!!deleted!!! (49761343) 10 years ago

atomicgirl - Thanks for the support. I've gotten enough hate from people who have accused me of being a neanderthal. I'm glad that we agree that pretentious does not equal intelligent.

No problem. I got where you were coming from.  I've never been able to warm up to Network because the writing has always come across as very smug. There's a difference between writing that is intelligent and writing that tries hard to make you believe that it's intelligent. Network has always come across to me as the latter especially, when you get down to it, the "message" it conveys is not really all that subtly conveyed.

---
Emojis=💩 Emoticons=

[–] baileythedog 9 years ago

For example, the "Ecumenical Liberation Army." Ecumenical makes zero sense. Obviously they were a parody of the Symbolese Liberation Army, an ultra-black militant group. But "ecumenical" means encompassing all Christian faith. What on earth does "ecumenical" have to do with far left wing black militantism, anyway? Nothing. It's like Chayevsky pulled the term out of a hat without really caring what it meant. All he knew is that it sounded "smart" and so he used it.

"Ecumenical" makes perfect sense. Yes, the term is meant to convey a whole umbrella of Christian sects. And that is exactly the point -- the "Ecumenical Liberation Army" doesn't have a focused viewpoint; they get off on tangents and tripped up by in-fighting over the smallest details or having their Communist militarism compromised by the distribution cut of he Mao Tse-Tung Hour. Chayevsky certainly didn't "pull this term out of a hat" - it was well considered and precisely used.

[–] !!!deleted!!! (49761343) 9 years ago

"Ecumenical" makes perfect sense.

Sorry I didn't respond sooner; I forgot about this thread and only revisited it today.

Yes, the term is meant to convey a whole umbrella of Christian sects. And that is exactly the point -- the "Ecumenical Liberation Army" doesn't have a focused viewpoint.

No, that's not what the term means at all, to "convey a whole umbrella of Christian sects." The term refers to a movement pushing for a greater cooperation and a unification between all the Christian faiths, as opposed to the fragmentation and separation that defines Christianity now, where you have Protestants, Catholic, East Orthodox, etc. all doing their own thing.

So, for example, a charity run together by Protestants and Catholics would be ecumenical; a symposium in which all Christians regardless of faith are asked to discuss the state of Christianity in the world today would be ecumenical.

That is what ecumenical means--the inclusion of Christian faiths. It doesn't mean "lack of a focused viewpoint." Which is neither here nor there, because when you get down to it, its usage doesn't make sense at all, since--like I said in an earlier post--ecumenicism strictly in the realm of religion. It has nothing to do with politics, especially not the extremism displayed by the black militant group. An extreme leftwing black group would never use that term, and its usage makes as much as sense as a group calling itself the "Catechetical Liberation Army" or something to that effect.

---
Emojis=💩 Emoticons=

[–] urgeking 9 years ago

"Ecumenical" DOES make perfect sense.

Why? Because it doesn't make sense.

The group doesn't "make sense". They think they're radicals on the cutting edge, but in no time they're arguing about market share and residuals.

"Symbionese" didn't make sense to the vast majority of us back in the '70s, either.

"Ecumenical" doesn't "make sense", and THAT WAS CHAYEFSKY'S POINT.

[–] activista 10 years ago

@Rupert

You're a fraud and a troll. If you have a damn Ph.D. then you should have had NO problem understanding it. Apparently, you just couldn't get with a film that actually made you think for a change. Don't put down movies, writers, and people with broad vocabularies just because YOU didn't get it. And the film wasn't that damn hard to understand in the first place--that's just you complaining about it.
Admit,you're just threatened by smart people,and you're insecure, that's why you put them down. You got issues, and I don't believe you have a Ph.D, so quit fronting and admit you just aren't smart enough to get this movie. Ha ha ha!

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 10 years ago

Why so angry? May I recommend some individual therapy?

[–] balthazar_bee 10 years ago

To be fair, I also found the whole "I've got a Ph.D." thing a bit dubious in conjunction with a lack of understanding of this film.

It hasn't seemed to damage the health of this thread though.

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 10 years ago

Okay.

[–] I_Love_Hutch 10 years ago

I am curious as to some of your opinions on other writers and/or directors who might have this tendency towards pretentiousness, like Paul Thomas Anderson or Quentin Tarantino or the Coen brothers?

For example, I think that Nabokov's prose in "Lolita" is absolutely dazzling... and probably just as pretentious and attention seeking as it is stunning. But does the pretentiousness matter all that much if the end result is something so beautiful? Or fun? Or emotionally amazing? Is it possible that it is simply Chayefski's particular style that annoys or distracts you? You mentioned earlier that pretentious does not automatically equal intelligent and I would agree with this, but I also feel that pretentiousness does not necessarily discredit the writer or director, etc. For example, "Last Year at Marienbad" is an extremely pretentious movie, but it is also almost necessarily a pretentious movie and it wouldn't be such an eerily beautiful, moody and sublime film if it had been approached in any other way. Same with most of Bunuel's stuff. In other words, sometimes pretentious can be (in art, not in life) gloriously effective.

I think it's an interesting topic.

[–] rascal67 10 years ago

..does the pretentiousness matter all that much if the end result is something so beautiful? Or fun? Or emotionally amazing?
_______________
Bette Davis quoted:

"Acting should be bigger than life. Scripts should be bigger than life. It should ALL be bigger than life."

Chayefsky's NETWORK script, is insightful, witty, clever and intelligent and while the dialogue exchanges could appear exaggerated, it is also perfect in keeping with films satire. I would rather question, some aspects of Lumet's direction of the script and the choices made.

[–] pturman-929-979676 10 years ago

What words are you talking about? I've seen it countless times and don't EVER remember being tripped up by nine dollar words. Therefore, only logical conclusion: I'm smarter than you are.

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 10 years ago

Or...you weren't paying attention, which strikes me as much more likely.

[–] pturman-929-979676 10 years ago

Actually, Sidney Lumet addressed the "jargon" used in the film in his DVD commentary. He said that he & Chayevsky were well aware that the audience would not know the meaning of many of the terms used. But that they felt that would actually add to the film's authenticity because the audience would subconsciously think that even though THEY (the audience) didn't know what was being talked about, the filmmakers DID know what they were talking about.

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 10 years ago

Thank you for the insight. I find it fascinating that although the director and the writer admit outright that the jargon used in the movie was intentionally arcane, the fans here all agree that it's incredibly easy to understand and I'm just an idiot for not knowing every word. Take that my faux academics.

[–] !!!deleted!!! (49761343) 10 years ago

What words are you talking about? I've seen it countless times and don't EVER remember being tripped up by nine dollar words.

Really? So you knew right off the bat what words like "immane", "ecumenical", "multivariate", "minimax", "auspicatory" and other archaic or very technical terms specific to the world of mathematics or statistics meant?

---
Emojis=💩 Emoticons=

[–] rascal67 10 years ago

So you knew right off the bat what words like......
________
Don't forget those "emeritus" years, atomicgirl... 😄 If anything, this film has made me grab a dictionary, so there is education to be found here.

[–] pturman-929-979676 10 years ago

yeppers

[–] InherentlyYours 10 years ago

Rupert__Pupkin

Yes, my esteemed poster, similar to you telling us about your education and how educated you are. (But, I agree about pompousness and pretentiousness in the workplace.)

You see, because you are formally educated does not mean you have more innate intelligence necessarily, or that you studied the same vocabulary list that other students did. There, now, aren't I a smartie?

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 10 years ago

Smartie? No. Inappropriately condescending? Yes.

[–] InherentlyYours 10 years ago

You mean it's ok (appropriate) to be 'appropriately' condescending?

Let's pass this by a 6 yr old like your analogy regarding explaining things to a 6 yr old, and see what he/she comes up with

"gee, this is fun"
~~lucy ricardo

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 10 years ago

LOL. According to you, you're able to comprehend a script that was intentionally written to be difficult and unwieldy, but you can't understand a simple message board post. Maybe you can explain that to the rest of us.

To answer your question, yes, someone can be appropriately condescending. An example of inappropriately condescending would be if Sarah Palin explained to Bill Clinton, like he was a 4-year old, effective strategies on how to win a political debate.

[–] InherentlyYours 10 years ago

I am not referring to the script of this film. Do also question journalists who use verbose pretentious language routinely to show off?
However, what I do find simpleminded and oh so common is the obligatory political comment, which you included as an example. However, if you feel secure in yourself then you wouldn't feel condescended to.

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 10 years ago

I'm bored by you. Feel free to keep commenting.