Quiz Show Reviews

Quiz Show is a movie I've watched multiple times since it's release. A quiet rumination on many things, it's one of those movies you sit back and watch on a lazy afternoon when you have nothing to do and all day to do it.
About those quiet ruminations: it's the 1950s and television is experiencing a nascent innocence. New York City is arguably the entertainment and financial center of the Western hemisphere and, therefore, many of the contestants on games shows are homegrown locals (unlike the later shift to Hollywood, where you needed to block off a day of your vacation to attend or participate in most games shows).
But underneath the champagne bubbles of post-WWII NYC life lay deep divisions: Manhattan vs the Outer Boroughs, old money vs a burgeoning post-war middle class, and an unspoken anti-Semitism in a city with a large Jewish population.
Herbie Stempel is the embodiment of many of those things: a working-class Jew from Brooklyn, he's keeping a roof over his family's head, while cashing in on his encyclopedic memory on a the quiz show "21." But Herbie isn't photogenic, he lacks the social graces of a Manhattanite and, obviously, Jewish. And 21's ratings are dropping because of it.
Charles Van Doren is an English professor at Columbia University. But he chafes under a career laid out for him by virtue of his family name and WASP upbringing. Yearning to make a name of his own, he applies to be a contestant on 21.
Photogenic, young and urbane, he is the answer to the producers' prayers! But what to do with poor Herbie Stempel? Ahh,...the curtain is now peeled back and ugly truth about 21 is revealed! The show is rigged: random and "hermetically-sealed" questions and answers are given to the champions in advance. Herbie is forced to throw the game in favor of Charles. And rubbing salt into the wound, he "loses" on a simple question near to his heart. Embarrassed, he limped back to Brooklyn with his tale between his legs. Spurred to anger by his wife, Herbie calls out the inherent anti-Semitism on the show (in reality, a Jewish champion on 21 was always succeeded by a Christian who made significantly more money during their reign). Of note, the real Charles Van Doren made nearly $2 million adjusted to 21st Century's economy!
Word reaches up-and-coming Congressional lawyer and "shadow" Jew, Dick Goodwin. Intrigued by Herbie's claims, he smells a rat. But Goodwin is conflicted as well: his Jewish roots tell him he should support Herbie, but his desire to advance up the social ladder is forcing him to hide his Judaism. This has him admiring Charles and all the social graces of his stature.
Goodwin initially turns a blind eye, but more proof piles on and Van Doren's house of cards, guarded by Goodwin, and viewed by Stempel, comes crashing down. In the end, even Van Doren's family name can't save him from disgrace and the show shuts down under the weight of new television oversight and rules.
The real 21's producer, Dan Enright and host, Jack Barry, went on to continued fame in various game shows through the 60s and 70s.
In an era where "reality TV" is scripted, manipulated and poorly-acted, you can see where it all began.

First of all, I have noticed that even though Robert Redford managed to win the Best Director and Best Picture Academy award for his directing debut ‘Ordinary People’, I have the feeling that the guy has never been really taken seriously as a director. Maybe it’s because we couldn’t accept the fact that ‘Ordinary People’ won over ‘Raging Bull’ which was arguably superior. Anyway, I always had a weak spot for this director, by now, I have seen all his directing efforts, and I think this flick was one of his best. Indeed, I thought it was a very subtle and intriguing study about the impact of television, already 60 years ago. Eventually, it shows that television can be entertaining but also terribly manipulative, something that has never changed. Back in those days, Ralph Fiennes just had his breakthrough in ‘Schindler's List’ and, here, he once again delivered a solid performance. Eventually, he would eventually become one of the best actors of his generation. To conclude, even though it is nowadays pretty much forgotten, I thought it was a rather fascinating feature and I think it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Robert Redford’s work as a director.

Deep film with many amazing themes that I admire on the reality of TV broadcast. This film has aged well!

Based on Richard Goodwin's book Remembering America, this film pushes the message that in its infancy, Television was to entertain first, sell product and then inform. Thanks to lack of oversight and regulation, companies soon cottoned on to the massive earning potential of the medium.

It's worth remembering that Goodwin was Kennedy's (and later Johnson's) speechwriter so his recollection of the 1950s might show signs of self-serving polish.

Be that as it may, the film itself does not claim to be accurate and as a visual and cultural feast it really does charm by showing us an America that was giddily spinning up after the war to become a superpower, economically and militarily. Living standards went through the roof and America became the wish-stone for the rest of the world.

The acting in this is very fine, but the visuals are the jewel. The Van Doren family picnic scene is just gorgeous (as is Shawn Batten) and warm and the interplay is believable because these people were, mostly, academics full of the charm and grace of their very comfortable lives.

I've seen this film many times and it never fails to charm. A real tonic, unlike Geritol.

"For $64,000 I hope they ask: 'What is the meaning of life?'."

I'm currently reading Down and Dirty Pictures by Peter Biskind (the Easy Riders, Raging Bulls guy) which details the independent movie scene in the 1990s. It's mostly centred on Miramax, but there's a lot of stuff about the Sundance Festival and Robert Redford's film community. It doesn't paint a particularly kind picture of Redford, but the stuff surrounding the creation of Quiz Show fascinated me. With the film apparently set up as initially a project for Steven Soderbergh before Redford himself took it on. I was never a fan of Redford's work, but the account of the films creation made me want to check it out.

Taken away from the politicing behind its creation the movie is kind of fascinating in of itself. For whatever reason this film feels vibrant and alive in a way that few Redford movies actually do, there are a number of shots and moments which just feel like they come from a completely different creative place from Redford's usual staid style. In particular a push in shot behind Van Doren, accentuating the audience he's staring at, is the kind of showy manouvere you don't often get in his films.

The story itself is fascinating and kind of tragic, exploring the inherent corruption of game shows in the 1950s. It seems to sort of represent a first clash between the government and television and it's a perfect indication of Redford's own views on Hollywood and the studio system. He paints both Herbie Stempel and Charles van Doren as people who made a mistake, focusing the film on their dissatisfaction at cheating and laying the blame on studio executives. The films final moments exemplify this with Charles van Doren's life in tatters whilst the TV producers, who concocted the sheme, are rewarded.

It's a very black and white look at a complex issue and it probably absolves van Doren and Stempel of their cheating ways. In particular the film goes out of its way to make van Doren into a tragic kind of figure, Fiennes polite and genteel performance really selling a kind of desperation to be accepted. It's an unusual, bitter, kind of David vs. Goliath story and I think it's succesful as a character study and as a shwocase for Redford's directorial talent.

Its amazing to see how the TV industry works in the 50s. Has anything changed? it hink the TV industry is the same they are smarter in covering up we need to see a movie about Reality TV! is it real or just another Quiz Show fake? Good movie.