Agreed. This should have been the story of Howard Beale.
-
roreyking — 9 years ago(August 20, 2016 10:14 PM)
Agreed. This should have been the story of Howard Beale.
LOL! The Howard Beale plot was just one aspect of the story Chayefsky was telling of the corruption of television. Holden's and Dunaway's characters, et al were others.
If it was just been about Beale, it would've been a different story. -
brefane — 9 years ago(August 24, 2016 03:05 PM)
The narrator at the end says: This was the story of Howard BealeLOL! The film never delves into what is going on with him and despite Finch's win for Best Actor it's more of a supporting role. Is he crazy, a put on? The film needed more about him and less about William Holden's personal life which had nothing to do with the corruption of television and featured the usual and predictable soap opera melodramatics dulling the film's edge.
-
roreyking — 9 years ago(August 26, 2016 09:01 PM)
Sounds like you mistook the unseen TV-style announcer character as representing Chayefsky's viewpoint vs. - a TV-style announcer character. If Chayefsky were just telling the story of Howard Beale vs. a broader story, then that's what he would've written. Hello?
And where do you get the notion that Beale's madness could be a "put on"? -
brefane-41162 — 9 years ago(September 02, 2016 07:57 PM)
From my interpretation of the film it's certainly in the realm of possibility. Why wouldn't he act up or act out for ratings as he said his job was the only thing he had going for him? Again his character is not explored while time is wasted on an affair between Diana and Max and oh don't forget the suffering wife all of which belongs in another film. As the OP said it's irrelevant.
-
roreyking — 9 years ago(September 04, 2016 07:57 AM)
In other words, you can't point to anything in the script that indicates that Beale's insanity is a put-on. So it's not in the realm of possibility in the script that Chayefsky wrote. You keep trying to fault Chayefsky for writing the story he wanted to write, vs. the one you wish he'd written.
-
brefane — 9 years ago(September 04, 2016 04:21 PM)
It's my interpretation. There's nothing one could point to in the script that says he IS really crazy. To me he never seems really out of control and is putting on a show for the benefit of the audience and ratings. That's the beauty of art, it's open to interpretation.
-
MikeyBoomBoom — 9 years ago(October 10, 2016 10:26 AM)
There's a moment when, at the end of one of his sermons, he drops to the floor in a faint. Just before he drops, we get a close up of Max's eyes. They flick, left, then right, then he swoons. There's this moment of hesitation that to me, reveals that it's contrived.
-
starlit-sky — 9 years ago(September 12, 2016 09:24 PM)
In my opinion, love affair was part of the plot, not technically a sub-plot. The flaws in Diana's character mirrored the flaws in our society (and in the corporate world) the movie is trying to depict, therefore strengthened the movie's message.
The love affair was a window into the private lives of those characters who, otherwise, would be only shown in a business setting.
It also showed how someone (like Diana) could be so successful at work but could be devoid of any real feelings (she was sexually turned on by talking business in bed as shown in a couple of scenes).
The lover affair also showed the vulnerable side of Max. He was an older man infatuated with a younger, sexy, powerful executive woman. That happens to a lot of older men; people fall out of marriages even after 15 years. -
brefane-41162 — 9 years ago(September 16, 2016 04:25 PM)
Whether you consider it a subplot or part of the main plot it's unnecessary, trite and old hat. It's out of keeping with the film's generally wilder tone. It seems like it belongs in another movie or a daytime soap. Chayefsy's script for the Americanization of Emily (1964) has a similar fracture between the anti-war satire and the old fashioned romance between Julie Andrews and James Garner.
-
mattjoes — 9 years ago(December 19, 2016 05:39 AM)
As others have said, I think the subplot does carry meaning, in that Diana is a metaphor for television's corrupted magnetism. I do feel, however, that Max seems aware of Diana's coldness much too early. He
claims
he's infatuated, obsessed, in love with her, but doesn't
sound
like it (he says to his wife: "I'm not sure she's capable of any real feelings"). Now, in and of itself, that contradiction is probably thematically significant ("TV seduces us and manipulates us, and we can't fight it, even if we know it's harmful for us"), but it adversely affects the way Max is presented, because his feelings for Diana are not convincing. In terms of the character, the contradiction is not dealt with properly.
I think in this case it would've been preferable to sacrifice meaning for character, and have Max refer to Diana in positive terms, emphasizing her youth, vitality, etc., when discussing the matter with his wife. Make us really believe he wants her, giving more weight to the eventual realization that he has to go back to his wife.
(Still, I must say the scene with the wife is very well written, and while I have problems with it, the matter of fact way in which Max talks about Diana is interesting and refreshing in how it defies convention.)