Is Charles Van Doren really at fault?
-
Vervainkryptonite — 19 years ago(October 26, 2006 02:11 AM)
When a person does something wrong, they should be punished. In this movie the criminals are the people who choose to take the money and lie to public about what they really know. That is selfishness and evil. But who of us has never contemplated something similar? "He is without sin, should cast the first stone"
I'm glad that in the movie Van Doren finally confessed what he did. Should he have been fired and publicly humiliated? In compassion, I say, no. In the end, Herbert Stempel seemed to understand this too. His actions led to not only Van Doren's humiliation, but also his family's.
Punishment is complicated. We, as a nation tend to rake celebrities and politicians across the coals for things that we do every day. We think little of abusing them or "bringing them down". But, how do we know we'd act differently in their situation? We might just do the exact same thing. Sometimes, I think that's why we are so self-righteouss about it, because at the end of the day, we're all the same. We're all selfish.
When Goodwin says he wouldn't have done it, it really seems impossible to believe. In that instance, though, maybe he would be able to just walk away. But surely he has some price. Everyone does, don't they?
To conclude: he's at fault and I would say the punishment fit the crime very well, though I wouldn't wish it on anyone. This movie reminded me so much of Reality TV. Is is really "reality" or do they script most or even everything on the show? I wonder, wonder ,wonder -
hoggy_warty_hogwarts — 19 years ago(October 29, 2006 04:46 PM)
I totally agree, mime. But I believed Goodwin when he said he wouldn't have lied because the difference between Goodwin and Van Doran is that Van Doran never really had to work for anything and Goodwin did. Therefore, Van Doran is more comfortable with getting money for nothing because he doesn't know what it really means to "earn" something. Goodwin does.
Van Doran is a bit of a sophisticated spoiled brat and he confesses that in the end. I think he really did learn a lot about himself but it's sad that he had to learn the hard way because he is a genuinely good person. NBC took advantage of his weaknesses and they destroyed his life, which is wrong (obviously). I think ultimately the network should have been blamed for their deception, but you're right that Van Doran had to learn his lesson. -
SBL84 — 19 years ago(November 23, 2006 05:45 AM)
I think it'd be harder to cover up something like that today.
You'd probably get more attention/money for bringing down a game show by exposing its shady dealings than winning a few times. Either that or collecting evidence and blackmailing the people behind it for a larger amount than they'd let you build up on the show (even though that'd be more risky to go through.) Be another X amount of games winner or the person that brings all of those victories into question?
With people suing over every thing they can think of, trying to get the most money for the least work, it'd be foolish for a show to trust its contestants with the secret that the whole thing is fixed. -
englisher101 — 13 years ago(August 03, 2012 05:49 AM)
Punishment is complicated. We, as a nation tend to rake celebrities and politicians across the coals for things that we do every day. We think little of abusing them or "bringing them down". But, how do we know we'd act differently in their situation? We might just do the exact same thing. Sometimes, I think that's why we are so self-righteouss about it, because at the end of the day, we're all the same. We're all selfish.
Well said. I hate self-righteousness since few such people can really do better if put in the exact same situation. Actually I don't hate self-righteousness so much as the hypocrisy behind it. -
defiant-10 — 19 years ago(March 03, 2007 04:03 AM)
The question is a good test of ethics: the correct answer is "yes". I don't for a moment think I'd not take the same advantage, given the chance. So I suppose my honesty scores higher than my ethics.
What I had in mind was boxing the compass. -
stevenackerman69 — 18 years ago(December 09, 2007 06:15 PM)
Well, it was wrong for him to play the rigged games, yes, as the film says. But what was also wrong was that only he suffered, not the people in charge. Everyone else got away clear. Even Barry and Enright came back to TV with more shows, like The Joker's Wild (hosted by Barry), Tic Tac Dough (a newer version with Wink Martindale), Bullseye, Hot Potato, and Play the Percentages. I got the last one from reading a book that lists game shows, by the way, although I do remember watching it. I just didn't remember they were behind it. It is sort of like the little people suffering while the king lives in luxury, paraphrasing from Snoopy's It Was a Dark and Stormy Night.
-
jbartelone — 18 years ago(December 14, 2007 01:51 AM)
Well,
My hatred has always been more directed at Barry and Enright along with other producers who played along with the charade. It seems like they should have been punished more severely than public humiliation and an exile from TV for 20 years. But than again, what could have been done? At that time, (and not until 1961) did Congress make it a federal offense to rig a game show.
However, having said that, I will always resent Van Doren for why he played along with the charade. This is because he was born with a golden spoon in his mouth and while "likable," there is another side of him that makes me think, "You pompous SOB!" Maybe my feelings would be different if Charlie had to work for what he wanted like Herb did. Stemple was 100 times more sincere and genuine than Van Doren ever was. Take away the Van Doren family connection and he would have been nothing. I LOVE Herb's comment in the movie, "Van Doren wouldn't know the answer to a beep doorbell if you didn't give it to him!" My father had watched Twenty One in the 50's and spotted Van Doren's "acting" back then. You look at the clips of the original show on You Tube, and the fraud is SOOOOO painfully obvious!
Joe -
Earthbjorn — 18 years ago(December 25, 2007 06:37 PM)
The true scam is how much money ends up in the hands of a select few who. I hate to see billions of dollars locked up in networks and executives who spend millions of dollars on a cheesy movie or silly game show and get pay checks that make the president's salary look like a welfare case when most communities can't afford decent teachers for their schools.
What's frustrating though is that they are not really breaking or even bending any laws, or doing anything wrong and when we attempt to regulate the business we only find that we threaten the freedoms we so desperately cherish.
The 'capitalists' have found ( and there is nothing inherently wrong with this ) that they can take spectators for all their worth and do it on a national scale.
We simply need to find a way to channel this power for good instead of useless endeavors. We need some type of system that puts the citizens in charge. There might not be such a system, but on the other hand the answer might be right in front of us.
When it comes to having the people choose our president, most don't know who to vote for, and dont see how it matters one way or another. We have fallen into a system that separates the person from his nation.
Its amazing how a show like American Idol can inspire more votes than a presidential election, but there IS a reason. American Idol and other reality voting shows test their applicants and let the viewer get to know them. They also do something invaluable which the elections dont: that is they give EVERYONE an equal chance. How many of us actually get a good shot at becoming president? American Idol gives the average American the chance to be a super star. If Simon and Randy can interview tens of thousands of applicants for something as unimportant as a singer, why cant we get someone to do it to find the next president. If we allowed thousands of people to apply and go on tv and state their case, then gave them some tests and allowed them to show us who they are and what they can do for us, I bet more people would vote and there would be more of a chance of finding someone that could really make a difference for our nation.
Now I realize that pulling someone off the streets and putting them in charge of our nation is not necessarily the brightest thing to do, But perhaps we could invent an office of an advisory sort, or perhaps even a council. Call it the Peoples advisory to the Nation or the Democratic Council or something like that. But at least it creates a path for ideas from the bottom to reach the top without giving all the bigwigs a chance to shoot it down or bury it with paper work. -
shurbanm — 14 years ago(November 14, 2011 10:31 AM)
The problem is human nature and most humans are greedy and inherently sociopathic. Or at least the ones that are rise to the top.
So no system works. Democracy or totalitarian systems are all equally corrupt and end up pretty much the same -
hodie — 18 years ago(December 27, 2007 10:19 AM)
Of course he should have been held accountable. I think that HE even thought he should be held accountable. He knew that what he was doing was wrong, and even said as much later on in the film.
God save Donald Duck, vaudeville and variety -
blackhawkswincup2010 — 18 years ago(February 15, 2008 09:31 AM)
The thing about Van Doren is that he has spent his entire life trying to get past this episode. Fiennes only got a look at him by going to his house in Connecticut and pretending to be a lost motorist looking for directions. He wanted nothing to do with this film, unlike Herb Stempel, who got an uncredited cameo as one of the former contestants interviewed by Goodwin.
-
canuckteach — 17 years ago(May 22, 2008 05:26 PM)
"I was hoping to
get
Television - the truth is: Television is going to get
us
." Richard Goodwin - Quiz Show (a close quote). Well,
us
now, but the Van Doren family first. A proud, intellectual family that despised corruption and shifty politics what a disappointment to see their son disgraced in this manner, like a politician caught in a seedy scandal.
btw: Richard Goodwin's book is a good read.
canuckteach -
canuckteach — 17 years ago(May 25, 2008 07:51 AM)
"A man's reputation is coin of the realm."
- Kittner to Van Doren, dolfanatic! it's ironic that Van Doren allowed the Quiz Show producers (including the conveniently pious Kittner) to 'steal' his family's reputation. Anyway, if the taking of $$$ was not
stealing
, the deception involved was certainly egregious. All those kids running home to do their homework to be like Charlie - only to find out the deal was rigged?
And did you notice how Van Doren begins to believe his own masquerade? At first meeting, he admits that he's only an
Instructor - but after being called 'Professor' repeatedly, he later exclaims, "It's not the same thing - I'm a University Professor!"
The potential harm of TV itself - from its early days - is one of the underlying themes of this film, a viewpoint echoed in the recent "Good Night and Good Luck" with David Strathairn.
canuckteach
- Kittner to Van Doren, dolfanatic! it's ironic that Van Doren allowed the Quiz Show producers (including the conveniently pious Kittner) to 'steal' his family's reputation. Anyway, if the taking of $$$ was not
-
Yyvonnelang — 17 years ago(July 22, 2008 07:52 PM)
To me it's a question of integrity or lack thereof. I don't see any grey areas here. Van Doren was responsible for his own actions. He payed with the damage to his and his family's reputation. What would I have done in his place: expose the ruse in any way I could. He still would have had damage to his reputation, the media would have seen to that, but it may have been easier for him to live with himself. A conscience is a good thing to have.
-
mixedmed — 13 years ago(April 28, 2012 08:48 AM)
I'm not sure how what he did is any different than acting, I see nothing wrong with it
The difference is that when you're watching an actor you KNOW they're actingthe audience didn't know that Van Doren was acting. That's the deception. -
ancatdoh — 14 years ago(March 04, 2012 11:43 AM)
Do you think Charles Van Doren should or should not be held accountable for his actions? why?
Van Doren was a college professor, and he knew that going along with the suggestion by the game show guys to answer questions he knew in advance was unethical. He wonders what Kant would make of it, and when he at first refuses, he says "it just doesn't seem right." So we know full well HE knows it's wrong at that point.
When he's asked the question on the show about General Halleck he'd been asked in the interview, that was where he decided he'd take part in the deceit.
He was "held accountable" by being fired from Columbia, and that was about conduct unbecoming, not because he'd broken any law.
He also had to deal with the embarassment and shame he'd brought on his family's name just for faking it all those weeks and accepting money for "winning" a rigged game.
He could and should have refused, but he chose to go along and for weeks was the most important part of the grand deceit. Not ALL his fault, but mostly his fault because it never would have happended had he just done the right thing and told the truth.
I see quite a few posts about how Van Doren did nothing "illegal," but this was about ethics, ie, right and wrong, not legal or illegal.
You do the right thing because it's the right thing, not because you can be arrested or jailed if you do anything other than the right thing.
Hank Azaria's character makes an interesting comment"It's entertainment. Everybody knows the lady doesn't really get sawed in half."
But 21 was not presented as a magic show, it's presented as a contest of one intellect versus another.
Van Doren is a college professor as well as a Van Doren, so he's held to a much higher standard of ethics than a game show huckster like Azaria or another contestant like Herbie.
In Allie McBeal's cameo when Van Doren and Goodwin first meet, they're talking about Ode to a Grecian Urn"Beauty is truth, truth beauty," that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.
That was a nice touch, as well as a major theme in this flick.