LOOK AT ME…I'M REALLY SMART!!!
-
Rupert__Pupkin — 15 years ago(June 07, 2010 01:41 PM)
I was able to understand the movie because I could put the words in context. Maybe I was just aware of the unusual words because I had the subtitles on for most of the movie. (I often use subtitles as not to wake my baby in the next room.) But when I came across the unusual words, I wondered, "Why?" Surely there were about a dozen other words that would have made the same point equally well. Not a big deal, but every time I encountered such a word, I was taken out of the movie, only because I don't anyone who uses such words, especially several at a time, and at lightning speed.
-
denbeez — 15 years ago(June 07, 2010 02:22 PM)
I'm pretty close to your age (45) and worked in television programming and promotion throughout the '90s. Many of those people (especially in executive positions, as seen in "Network") are pretty damned educated and articulate. I admit to breaking out my thesaurus a few times after a couple of meetings and reading some memos.
It could be argued that George Bernard Shaw, Eugene O'Neill, David Mamet, Tony Kushner, and pretty much every other playwrite who penned a work in English over the past century could have "simplified" their characters' dialogue to make it more "realistic." (Who rattles off quips and one-liners like the characters in a Neil Simon play?) But I would rather be challenged to RISE TO an author's expectations than require that he/she write so that "kids from 1 to 92" understand it. Robert Browning wrote, "A man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's heaven for?"
The fact that anyone's still discussing the writing in "Network" after nearly 35 years means that it's a classic. (In many ways it owes more to the traditions of theatre than it does to the conventions of film.) Perhaps the ability to "reach/move" many generations over significant periods of time defines the word "art" itself.
Emoticons are for people who haven't learned to express themselves with actual words. -
gnolti — 15 years ago(June 08, 2010 05:00 AM)
Chayefsky's love of high-falutin' talk big diction, ricocheting cultural references, etc marks him as a native New Yorker of a certain type, often but not always Jewish, almost exclusively mid-20th century. Jules Feiffer, Woody Allen, and Norman Mailer were all like this. Of course, this manner of speaking probably masked personal insecurities but unless you're going to attack people for their insecurities, why attack them for how they choose to cope with them, especially if the result is entertaining? What's more, I've found New Yorkers in general to be pretty vain of how much trivia they carry around in their heads the result of living under a constant cultural barrage, and of the need to distinguish yourself from the millions of other culturally barraged people you share the city with.
Personally, I find Chayefsky's outrageous rhetoric as charming as David Mamet's outrageous vulgarity.
There, daddy, do I get a gold star? -
Rupert__Pupkin — 15 years ago(June 08, 2010 09:49 AM)
denbeez,
Thank you for the thoughtful response. I particularly liked the Browning quote. I hadn't heard that before.
I should clarify that I'm 32, not 42. Apparently I made a typo in my original post.
Thanks again! -
Mandy_Whitsands — 15 years ago(June 30, 2010 06:27 PM)
@denbeez:
judging from your posting, I guess you don't agree with my verdict here
http://www.imdb.com/board/10074958/board/nest/165945820
, right? I'd of course be interested, given your professional background. -
Seanpdineen — 14 years ago(March 12, 2012 02:37 PM)
Reminded me, although I didnt know this when first watching it of film noir, that kind of snappy, arcane langague.
I am glad faye dunnway was picked nothing aginst V but faye deserved more than The HANDmaids tale, and Bonnie and clyde. -
pullman1881 — 12 years ago(May 20, 2013 04:56 PM)
Do you really want characters in drama to speak like real people? That's like the idiots who wanted Sarah Palin as VP, because "she's just like me". Have you listened to what passes for conversation lately? It's all like awesome and amazingand whatever.
-
MsLadybird99 — 15 years ago(June 11, 2010 09:22 AM)
I first saw Network when I was about 12 or 13 and had no problem with the dialogue. Some of the cultural references flew over my head at the time, but I found the film funny and compelling, even at that tender age. It's still my favorite movie all these many years later.
~~
Oz never did give nothing to the Tin Man that he didn't already have. -
Owlwise — 15 years ago(June 11, 2010 10:12 AM)
Besides, let's remember that the writing for movies & TV was once of a much higher quality, drawing on the theater, as a previous poster mentioned. The dialogue for "Network" isn't a case of the author trying to show off or impress anyone; he's simply using the vocabulary that came naturally to him. Those weren't "big" or unusual words to him, they're the words he was familiar with from a lifetime of reading & writing.
Moreover, the audience of those earlier decades was used to articulate, well-written dialogue, and took it for granted that they'd be getting something more than the lowest common denominator in writing. They didn't want their movies dumbed down; they appreciated being treated like intelligent, perceptive adults. -
killbill_tarantino2003 — 15 years ago(June 29, 2010 05:45 AM)
I feel sorry for you, you admit that you have Phd but still watching 'Daddy day Care' and "Shrek 4". Please, SIR.. don't convince us too hard, in here (at imdb.com's message board) that you're smart.
OVER THE TOP SURREALISM IN CINEMA :
8 1/2 (1963)
PERSONA (1966)
BELLE DE JOUR (1967)