After reading Chapter 10 of Lost Illusions, identify and discuss two ways in which television influenced film exhibition in the 1970s.
How does this speech by Mr. Jensen (Ned Beatty) fit in to Network's portrayal of the intersections between news, entertainment, and commerce? Compare and contrast the representation of the news media in All the President's Men and Network.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
47 comments:
Television changed movie viewing in several ways, but there are two that I consider especially relevant. The first is the general enhancement of the theater experience. Movie houses had to compete with the readily available entertainment available through television, and to do that, they needed to make the experience of movie going special. Thus, they improved sound quality through Surround sound and other techniques. Second, the “Edited for Television” films began to take their familiar shape. Besides being cut on the sides to fit the screen, the movies were also edited to fit the time slot, interrupted by commercials, and censored at various non- family friendly points. It was a second rate movie experience that led to cable channels made specifically for showing movies in their entirety.
Beatty’s speech in Network served to show an exaggerated view of the corporate aspect of television. Inherent in it was the generation struggle between old truth seekers and a new “truth,” the dehumanization of human run organizations, and fears of the future.
Compared to All the President’s Men, I would say that Network, while more pessimistic in some ways of the press, is much more romantic in it’s telling.
Nicholas Naber
11.25.07
In the 1970’s television had a huge impact on how movies were made and viewed. The television became a medium in which films could be shown after its release. It made Hollywood films accessible to everyone, even people in far off areas. Also as Victor mentioned they needed to make the movie going experience something worth going to see. As Victor and Cook discuss they had to enhance the films audio, and other various improvements to the theaters themselves.
Mr. Jensen’s speech reflects completely news, entertainment and business. Many businesses own big networks like GE and NBC. Obviously the company isn’t going to allow their news network to run stories that would reflect the business poorly as Jensen did with the news anchor from UBS. Entertainment is almost a staple of American television and news, they barley report important things like the war in Iraq or the problems in Sudan. People are more interested in whom Britney Spears is sleeping with or what celebrity is in rehab. All the Presidents Men showed us newspaper reporters in a good light looking for facts and working a story; Network showed us corporate greed and not caring about getting the facts straight. Network showed the news industry in a bad light but a very legitimate light, it is eerily close to the American network news today.
Television was harsh competition for film in the 1970’s. This competition influenced theatrical exhibition of the time. Technological advances were employed to try to draw an audience. For example, Dolby surround sound was created to drown out any background noise in the theater making for better sound experience in the theater. Television on a more negative note influenced the audience itself. People became used to talking during a movie on television so talking in the movie theater became the norm.
Mr. Jenson’s speech underlines a dominate theme in the movie “Network” which is that money has become the ruling factor in modern society. Jenson raises money to a point where it is bigger than man. He says that economics has become so huge and influential that we cannot even control it, much like we can’t control a hurricane or earthquake. The movie “Network” shows how that the media and the entertainment business work solely to gain profits through ratings even by going to extreme measures to get there. The film shows the media as a form that ignores high culture in order to appeal to the unwashed masses. This is an opposing view point from that of “All the President’s Men”. In “All the Presidents Men” the media is portrayed as a medium where injustices are exposed and the people are informed in order for their own protection. The journalists didn’t write to appeal to an audience just to sell papers, they wanted to expose a conspiracy and tell of abuse toward the American people.
Unlike the years before, movie makers had more pressure then ever to create the best films that they could. They needed to make movies that attracted all ages, genders, races, and so on possible. Television was becoming very popular and growing on many people. Movie Theaters and Companies would combine to expand what they had and increase the amount of money they had to work with. Multiplexes and mall cinemas began to appear, along with concession stands and drive-ins. Families were large back then and to be able to take your family to the mall for come shopping, see a movie, and get food was the way to go for many people. When movies came to television, just like today, they were edited and not showed in their original form. Not until HBO and Showtime came about that is. However, these films were not free to view, so it was almost the same as actually going to the movie theater to see it.
As far as Mr. Jensen’s speech goes I agree with Nicholas. Howard Beale went on the air and said whatever it was that was on his mind and caused something to happen that the Network and moneymakers did not expect to happen. The general public listened to Howard and did whatever it was that he said. It went from a bad thing, then a good thing, then back to a bad thing. Jensen knew that if he could brainwash Beale into thinking something else that he would do the same to the viewers. He tells Howard “You’re on television dummy!” Everyone watches his and listens to what he is saying. Matthew talks about ALL THE PRESIDENT’S MEN and how they inform the public about what is going on. They are doing it because they feel the people have a right to know what is happening. In NETWORK, all they care about is their ratings and how much money they are or are not bringing in.
Shiraz Bhathena
Television had become so successful in the 1970s that by the time the decade came, it was used to run more and more movies on television- if there was a 16mm print of a film, and it met the censor needs, it could be run. The downside, however, was that television was not embracing the idea of widescreen yet, and the stations were not running high quality videos of films, they were running cheap prints of them. In addition, the prints being shown were usually of movies that could be afforded to be printed to 16mm, so usually B movies. While one would probably not get a chance to see a film such as The Godfather a few years after it came out, films such as The Stepford Wives and The Legend of Nigger Charlie were being shown repeatedly- some films even knowing that they would be run on TV during production would shoot milder footage to compensate for TV runs (Nigger Charlie is a good example of this).
Beatty’s speech to me always reminds me of the fear that the media possessed, as it did in ATPM. One must realize that in the 1970s, television was now no longer an experiment. While it wasn’t considered one for long in the 1950s, the invention of color tv brought that new feeling to it once again. In addition, the price of television went down drastically, meaning that a larger audience and more importantly a wider demographic had to be reached. It’s interesting in noting how the two films are shot when portraying the evil of television. There’s the final shot in ATPM with the rack focus that stands out as eerie, making the television seem contradictory to all reality that goes on in the world. In the same respect, the speech given in Network by Beatty portrays a new world of television that is not noticed by the common viewer throughout the film until the scene presents itself. For the first time, just as in ATPM, we as viewers are afraid of television and its potential. It can make a president seem human, and it can be controlled by the most evil forces without the common viewer knowing.
Kevin Stephan
11.27.07
Television influenced movies in two major ways. One being that now you can watch everyday kind of movies, in the comfort in your own home. No longer do you have to drive a ways away to go see a movie, now you can just turn on your television and just flip through the channels and when you see a good film, leave it on and enjoy. Now with being able to watch tv at home, you will now be able to talk during the films, when your with your friends, unlike at the movies when it has to be dead silent. Now the other reason TV helped is for made for TV movies, basically movies edited for TV. Now this is something i hate, i feel if ur going to watch a movie, you should watch the original version, but i understand how it helps parents whith kids, who now can watch movies, they couldnt watch before because of too much violence, or language. However i feel these edited versions are just something i laugh at, because just the way they edit them, and change the words around is just hilarious.
the one big thing about businesses, is how basically any somehwat big business will own another business, and they dont want their news broadcasts to look poorly on there stations, so they make sure they have all the good things to say about there companies. all they care about is ratings. Now i think the journalists in "all the presidents men" were the opposite because they didnt care what people thought of them, or about the rating, all they cared about was exposing the truth behind watergate. and they didn't care if it cost them there job but they just wanted to show america the real scandal.
There are several things that television had influenced film exhibition in the 1970s. One is that the motion picture image is much wider and therefore needs to be cut off at the sides to fit into the smaller video screen. Also re-edited so that the action is in the center of the screen. The second thing is shortening the film length in order to fit into television time slots due to commercials. For example, a ninety-minute film needs to be trim down to seventy-eight minutes.
Mr. Jensen’s only concern is money or in his words “currency”, nothing else matters. He does not care if the public/viewers are brainwash or not as long as the network receives high ratings. All the President’s Men represents news or journalism in a true exciting way of finding the facts and nothing more/less. They are not there to sell their newspapers just as long as they are stating the facts, they also do not care who they are dealing with just as long as the public knows the facts. Network on the other hand, does everything within its power to capture viewers and thus gets high ratings. If the public wants to see a mad man cry on television, they show the mad man crying. They are after the “currency” and not facts. They even shot Mr. Beal on national television and still the public loves it.
Xiong, Koua
I always knew I was right to buy widescreen than full screen when getting a dvd. I was told by friends that I was crazy, but I knew there was a reason. That is exactly the case with the 1970s as people here have already said. That and movie theater experience (Equipped with better sound) turned out to be the superior entertainment, when compared to watching it on a small screen at home. Time, again like other have said, was a major concern. They still do that with movies today. They cut parts out, censor it, and butcher it to death. It's obviously not the same experience as seeing the unedited version.
Beatty's little speech is exactly why I've grown numb to all the negative headlines that fill my computer and newspaper. Beatty is right, the world is a business that cannot be stopped because it's in the world's nature to act the way it is. The news reports the ugly side of the world, where there are no ideologies anymore. John Lennon's dream was a pipe dream. I hate to say it but it's true
It's much different than "All the President's Men". "Presidents" at least gives you hope that there are heroes out there who will save the world from the grip of political economy. But Woodsteins feat is only the tip of a huge iceberg. "Network" is the pessimistic view and the exact opposite. Also, "Network" glorfies the ugly news that comes from the world (Terrorist bombing, murders etc). I always knew that the news was bias towards the ugly side of the world, but it's still sick to watch the news treat world affairs as a money making scheme. "Presidents" is more than a representation of greedy reporters, because their greed is for the truth, not just a promotion (I think). "Network" represents everything I hate about the media.
Although not the most important change film exhibition experienced in the 1970's, sound enhancement was an early attempt in theatres to compete with television. Movie theatres accepting that they had large screens over television sets, went to the next obvious level of sound enhancement. It was "Dolby sound systems that managed to outdo the tv set by eliminationg all the extraneous noises". By placing speakers in every corner of the theater and even behind the screen to improve the movie going experience. However, it was a double edged sword like so many other changes in the seventies, considering the "shoe-horn" seating that was used in shopping mall screening rooms, theatres padded the walls between screens poorly thus the sound from one film would pour through to another screening. On top of the sound leaks, another trend was made in response to Dolby, the television audience brought with them "constant conversation" to the movies now that it was part of their personal viewing experience. Although, that would have happened regardless, sound has become a major part of the theater and has only improved over time.
More importantly in the 70's were the pay cable channels of likes of HBO, SHOWTIME, and Cinemax. Hollywood benefited from this as much as the home viewer earning $5-7 million more on pictures depending on the deal being made with the movie channels. I think that the flood of movies on television and the changes made to theaters was all part of advertising for film in general, like a "got milk" ad where there is no brand or specific film promoted, but movies in general. This may be the reason for Hollywood ending the decade with a record high of domestic box office.
Ned Beatty's speech in Network has to be one of the best monologues in American film history. Mr. Jensen seems to be the personification of the entity of television the way he intertwines how tv is necessary and why, understanding that without it society would be drastically different. Almost defending his life as tv would if it could speak. It's almost too general to say the intersections of news, entertainment and commerce considering the influence of the peoples lives around, as when William Holden tells Faye Dunaway that "this is not movie," breaking her heart. Beatty also delivers the cherry on top of his speech with "you're on tv dummy," saying so matter of factly that if there is any question or doubt as to why people are responding to these rants by Howard Beale, he is not important, the important thing is that he is being televised.
A simple comparison between the two would be that MEN is using the news media for good and NETWORK's news media is evil. MEN is such a serious film and I think has more to do with the government's deciet than the importance of media, although WoodStein's story could have been a factor in Watergate's conclusion. NETWORK is a satire and can be very funny in making it's own statements about the importance of the news media. Using UBS and other networks as the government, constantly plotting to turn a profit. The numbers of viewers in NETWORK are spoken as if they are the currency, and in television viewers equal money. In MEN we have the reporters digging so deep for the story that they are heroes, real heroes taking real chances in uncovering what they did. Even Jason Robards character is at first an atagonistic editor, but comes around near the end by relating WoodStein's actions to a younger version of himself. The media is not humanized that much in NETWORK, at least not that sentimental, between Dunaway, Duvall and Beatty you wonder if there's an ounce of good in them as we see them operate with or as part of the machine of news media on television.
Showing movies on Television began to change the way that films were shown in theater. Enhancements needed to be made in order to make films more exciting to go see in the theater. In order to do this, theaters were updated. Sound quality was improved and also widescreen was developed. I think that seeing a movie in a theater will always feel a bit more special than watching on TV any way. Television is saturated with commercials and time elapsed films which I really can't stand.
Mr. Jensen's speech in NETWORK really sums up the unfortunate amounts of control that companies have. The world runs on greed.
The way that the news was portrayed in NETWORK, as one character so elequently put it: as whores. It came down to a point where it no longer mattered what material they were showing, just as long as the ratings were good. Nothing else mattered. In contrast with ALL THE PRESIDENTS MEN, the two characters are searching for the truth as if that was all that matters. They weren't trying it as some money making ploy.
~Jonathan Porter
During the 1970's, the release of the television influenced film exhibition because it enabled the people who were unable to go to the theatres, to see the movie. Before the time of the television, the only people that could go see the movies that came out were the people with the money to go see them or who actually had the time to go see them. So the release of the television actually helped the film exhibition because it enabled more money to come with them because it was aired on television.
The speech by Mr. Jensen shows really how companies run. If it wasnt for money in our world then we wouldnt have anything. If it wasnt for money all the rich people couldnt be happy. I dont agree with this because those people dont know what its like to not have any money, so if they didnt have money the world would come to an end for them. To sum it all up, this just shows that the world is Greedy!
Jordan Robbins
Brian Cooney
With televisions being able to show movies, movie theaters had to step up their game in order to attract audiences. One way they did this was with the surround sound feeling during the films. During the 70's this feeling could not possibly be created within the home. Films that were editied for television actually make most people want to go to the theater because they are butchered so terribly. Virtually every swear word has to be cut or replaced (usually hilariously) with some rediculous word that matches the actors mouth movements, no nudity, no graphic violence, screen cut on both sides, scenes cut to fit time length. The experience was just not nearly as effective as a theater. The thing I hate most about watching films at my home with other people is the talking. In movie theaters, at least most of the time, people know to shut up.
Beatty's speech was extremely effective in the film, most of all because the same exact speech is just as meaningful today. Most media corporations are in it for the money, not the truth or the decency of what they put out. Some of the things Mr. Beal said during the film were just so inappropriate for public television, it makes the audience laugh.
Network and All the President's Men contain completely opposite points of view on the role of the media. Network shows the media very negatively as money-grubbers with no care put forth towards anything but ratings and profits. ATPM shows no care for ratings or critics, and only care for getting the truth out to the American people no matter what.
Television in the 1970's gave way to movies being aired for free in your home. With commercials and family friendly editing, it made films more accessible to the people. This made the notion of going to the movies a special one, as Cook states the theaters had to be equipped with a new more defined sound and the film was represented in a larger than life way. This gave way to the special movie going experience we have today. But as of now technology is allowing us to gain the exact same picture quality and sound quality in homes.
Network compared to presidents men, network gains all its tension and story off of greed and money. Corrupt run the world, and those how stand to conquer should be embraced by wrong and evil. The speech reflects that the world doesnt care about the right thing just the most profitable venture. It shows the television as a sub-human life form that somehow survives on its knowledge that its ruining our society, corporate fat heads gain money on others pain and work. In a sense its a more real light than that placed on the reporters in all the presidents men. They were shown as avengers looking for the right story to end greed and corruption, but network just keeps asking for more power and less right.
Television globalized and de-localized the distribution of films even further in the 1970's; which actually antagonized the world of film because it became increasingly easier and more accessible for audiences to watch a large number of films, old and new, in the comfort of their own home. However, change always comes with pros and cons, and this was no exception. First of all, it was possible to distribute films with only one print, which made it very easy for old and b-films to be discovered and enjoyed. Also, with adversity came an increase in demand for innovation, which led to immense technical revolutions, including sound design and picture quality. Production companies and movie houses need to stand out from television to get them out of the house and into the theater, and surely movies such as Jaws and Star Wars didn't hurt either.
The speech reflects the portrayal in a negative light, which may seem pessimistic but is actually more along the lines of idealistic. Television is widely distributed around the world, and naturally it is an interest of big business, because of the large profit potential. Sure big business widens the gap between the rich and the poor, but would stopping it really solve any problem? While both films portray the media in terms of business, particularly men being of one of many in a large pool of employees, their interests are widely different. Network aims to comment on the media and its ties with business itself, while All the President's Men aims to comment on the power of employees within a business, using its resources, to accomplish a goal.
Melissa Neumann
November 27, 2007
With television in the 1970s, people could start depending on what was on in their own homes for entertainment instead of going out. Movies were formatted for television; a flick could be watched from the comfort of home. And besides being formatted to fit the screen, movies were made to fit specific time slots by adding commercial breaks between; though the interruption of advertisements was annoying for some people, and in order to fit the time slots, movies had to be cut down, which some really were not pleased with. Then channels like HBO and Showtime were created. With these, movies were not interrupted with ads and you didn’t have to wait forever for the blockbusters to appear on the small screen. Of course movie theatres had to compete, so theatres went through changes. Multiplex’s appeared, movie theatres could be found in malls, and the sound quality was improved with Sensurround and Dolby. More and more theatres popped up around the United States, and the conditions in the theatres went through changes, some that were good, some that weren’t.
In “Network,” the media is depicted as controlling and money hungry. The big bosses are in it for what they can get. It is competition for ratings: who has the most power over viewers and the best shows. In “All The President’s Men,” the media is trying to get the truth out. They aren’t trying to control anyone; the reporters want their facts to release the story. Of course, the story is huge and releasing it would get the men instant fame and attention, like hit shows get people who work at the networks. But that isn’t what they were doing it for, unlike in “Network.” They wanted to make a difference. The media in “All The President’s Men” wants to use their power for good, while the media in “Network” wants to use their power for bad. The media in “Network” can control people. And they can get their message out through the biggest show on television.
I had never seen Network prior to this. I had heard of it but never seen it and was wholly unprepared for its power. It's an immensely and richly talky film, breathless and even at two hours short on space for words, leaving nothing unexplored in its quest for philosophical satisfaction.
I have thought long, madly and fiercely about the topics and concepts of Network, and I arrived at a startling conclusion: Jensen is the ultimate and singular standard-bearer of Truth here. Even beyond the efforts of the Max Schumacher character, who was merely an old die-hard pursuer of Objective Journalistic Truth, itself a relic, a myth that vaporized in front of his own wrinkled face.
Firstly, let me make the following assumption: Jensen is NOT the voice of Television. He is the voice of Commerce, the God which Television and every other human enterprise depends upon for providence and must ultimately bow down before. Our trouble here is that the network heads (the Dunaway and Duvall characters, et al) are essentially heathens in regards to the God of Commerce, worshipping the false idol of Spectacle.
Ludwig von Mises, the founder of the "Austrian school" of economics said it best in his treatise "Human Action"; trade is the fundamental human activity. He even coined a word for it; praxeology - the study of all that people do, and it is a science that holds that wealth is subjective and virtually infinite, and accessed through the central, inescapable, fundamental core of human activity - trade. Jensen is as much an adversary of the UBS Network as he is their benefactor - their livelihood hinges quite centrally on him as Chairman and it remains the most remarkable and telling thing to me that Jensen stood inflexibly behind keeping Beale on the air after installing the Second Revelation.
Most prophets are only good for one of those at best, and it's not surprising that the popularity of the message declined afterwards. Then again, Beale's coherency and relevance as a prophet peaked with the first "mad as hell" sequence, a scene so raw and pure that I actually wept on viewing it. There it was, the pent-up voice of a nation, summoning whatever power it had to ask the question of "Why?" To ask for wisdom, to ask for knowledge, to ask for a path out of darkness and into the Truth of Why Things Is What They Is. That was the singular showering light of power that made the world stand up and take notice...and it was in trying to answer the question of "What next?" that both Beale and the network execs tied the nooses around their own necks.
Power without knowledge only goes so far. With nothing left to lose, a singular man (Beale) brings power without knowledge to an audience who has neither power nor knowledge. Eager to exploit the power and utterly indifferent to all knowledge, the Network makes a tacky sensation of the old man; still a rant, still a howl, but stripped of any legitimacy, stuck on a cheap set flanked by ludicrous gingerbread, removed from and ultimately party to the sensationalist mindset of the Network that confuses popularity with success. Power without knowledge can be very popular but also very dangerous.
Jensen recognizes this. Jensen is the embodiment of power with knowledge. He is perhaps the only man in the film who truly knows which side our bread is buttered on and his only error is perhaps his faith in the idea that his system can work with everyone's eyes open. Utopian ideals (regardless of ideological extraction) are universally impossible, and while Jensen's dream is very much rooted in the truth of human nature, I myself do not share his faith that the positive human nature of trade will ever fully overcome the negative human nature of chaotic self-destruction. No man is truly united with himself and therefore there can be no Total Harmony, no lasting ecumenical peace, no permanent justice. The behavior of Jensen's own employees conspiring behind his back to murder his instrument of truth is proof of this.
At any rate, Beale was a fragile instrument. Exposed to knowledge, he lost that persuasive power. The Network, frantically chasing the shiny bauble of Popularity in ignorance of the pursuit of Truth, cut off its nose in the name of the Next Spectacle.
I do not imagine Jensen to have been pleased with the murder of Beale, but like an apathetic God, His Will shall be done, His System shall run the world, be the world come along willingly or ignorantly blindfolded. And as long as the kids at UBS can keep the blindfolds selling at a profit, either system shall serve him. Trade remains the ultimate human truth and indeed the only proven way to benefit both from both the good and the evil components of Human Nature.
Viva la vox populi, but do we know what we are saying? Do we know the words placed in our mouths, and do we know who put them there, and why?
Then again, perhaps the network kids are right...are the American people unprimed for Truth? The 1970's really were the era when Television rose to prominence as the primary vessel of influence in the Western world. Underwritten by advertising money, in turn driven by popularity metrics, the implication of history is that, by and large, the Western masses would rather enjoy the fruits of global commerce while cheerfully and willfully ignorant of the overarching Truths at play here. We don't want Knowledge. We want Entertainment.
Film creates its own world and creates its own reality. Television resides firmly in our world and aims to control our reality. The aim of Commerce, compared with the role that Mass Media has attained, is relatively benign; the simple search for profit by exploiting the inherently subjective nature of wealth. Although it cannot exist without Commerce, Mass Media plays the usurper by commoditizing and monopolizing control of our population's mindset. We are talking about nothing less than the wholesale theft of mankind's capacity for independent thought. Theft, though, maybe isn't the right word - we sold it to them. We sold it to them in exactly the same way that Native Americans sold an entire continent for beads and whiskey. We sold it cheap and we sold it dumb, fixated only on the pursuit of novelty. We were blind to the machinations of an ignorant, belligerent, but highly persuasive entity whose component members Knew Not What They Did, so Please Forgive Them.
I myself believe in the action of Trade, and I will try to walk in this world with my eyes wide, wide open, but the miserable fact is that we have no one to hold culpable but ourselves, for this is Justice. This is the Yin and the Yang. This is Human Nature coming back to bite us in the ass, and that's the Truth.
- Timothy W. Hansen
I agree with what many of my classmates say regarding the affect of television on movies. I think television helped more people see movies by playing them in network channels. It got people interested in films, maybe those who were unable to see it in the theatre. Like Victor said it caused more television channels to come into existence because people didn’t want to see a cut version of their favorite movies, or movies they haven’t seen and wanted the full effect. The two medias merged with the VCR and DVD and now you could watch your movies anytime you wanted, and also people could buy movies that they liked but didn’t necessarily last long in the theatre, and don’t forget the straight to VCR/DVD releases. I’m all for seeing films in the theatre, if possible, but it’s also nice now that one can see them in the comfort of their own homes, keeping the old movies alive and finding new favorites.
In All the President’s Men Woodward and Bernstein wanted the facts told to help better the country. To inform American’s that something wasn’t right and they should know about it. They wanted justice in a way, not necessarily to sell more papers. In Network, it was all about ratings. How to get more money and better ratings no matter what. Mr. Jensen knew how to manipulate Howard and did it. He wanted it a certain way even if the public was fooled. As long as he was making money and had high ratings he was happy and would do anything to get it.
~Tara L. Vickery~
Nathan Pratt
Television impacted the viewing of films in many different ways. In one way it made the moovies seem to be n enhanced viewing of the visual arts because of the surround sound and large screen, which was not available for wiewing in the home at that time. The movies were also free of interruption by commercials and cuts made by the tv station so the film would fit in its time slot.
Mr. Jensen's speech in "The Network" is helping to provide information on how money is beginning to be the overlying power on everything. For example the big companies who own TV stations only broadcast what they want, and can edit out what they believe will make them look bad. This is different from "All the Presidents Men" because the journalists in the film didn't care what their readers thought of them, all they wanted was a good story. Therefore in "The Network" TV is thoguth to be negative because of the false advertisements and thoughts put into the news and shows, while the journalists in the news are thought to be totally truthful and without false information.
Television changed the ways movies were thought of and viewed. Television now gave the viewer the option of watching movies at home when they would come to syndicated TV. However free showings had its drawback the movie would be cut down into time and content. The movie would also be interrupted by commercials and advertisements. Theaters now had to compete with this luxury. As Cook and many other students have said theaters added surround sound and better visuals that would lure people outside the house and into the theater.
Beatty's speech at the end is still relevant today. The media runs the news; there is always a slant to what is being said, the new truth and the old truth. People can only believe what they are told. As network puts it, it is a scary thing when the tellers aren�t telling you the whole story. Corporations who sponsored the news were now looking like the heroes because they had the money to control the storyline, when in reality they were just as bad as the crooks who they were reporting about.
The airing of films on television had both positive and negative effects on the films themselves. A positive result was the availability of films to greater audience. People who might not have left their home to see a movie were now able to enjoy it from the comfort of their own home. With the emergence of HBO the viewer could even see the film in its entirety, free of commercials. However, films on tv were greatly compromised. Sound quality did not compare to movie theaters, films were edited for content, and often times films were shortened to provide more time for commercials. The example Cook pointed out that seemed insane to me was Jailhouse Rock. The film was edited so much for time, none of Elvis's musical numbers appeared in the televised version!
I think Mr. Jensen's speech is still applicable today. The television industry has a clear agenda that is often not in the viewers interest. Americans rely on television for so much of their news. However, as Nicholas pointed out, our culture is concerned with entertainment more than they are concerned with reality. The media sensationalizes the news that they do report and intersperse celebrity news to hold the viewers attention. Networks control the message they want to portray (just look at Fox News). In the film, viewers preferred to get their weather from a psychic and their news commentary from an exaggerated skeptic. Although this was clearly a satire, it scarily reflects the tv audience of the 21st century.
Like many of my classmates have mentioned, during this time television became a competition with films. More made for tv movies and films being shown for the first time on television were premiering. Why would someone pay to see something that they can eventually watch on television for free? So they improved the movie experience with the quality of the film and sound.
All The President's Men was a true story, represented by one side, the side of news that was there to help people, to seek the truth, not manipulate and take advantage of its audience. In Network it feels like it tackles both sides. Faye Dunaway's character takes advantage of her audience, she hears they are angry and wants to create programming to help them with their anger, but really it feels as if she's just pushing for more anger, Howard represents 'the people' he says what everyone is thinking, he is the voice, and finally Ned Beatty's character is the voice of reason, at least I think so. During his speech he says things that make it seem as if he knows where Howard is coming from, but that doesn't mean he's right. Everything works off everything else. The news informs the public, and the public uses that information. Sometimes it may be entertainment, but like Beatty said, it is eb and flow, an ecological balance. The public has a right to voice, but that doesn't mean its always right, there must be a balance between the news and public and the rest of the media. But I feel like I'm just babbling and not getting to the point, because it feels as if Ned Beatty answered the question in his speech itself.
The film Network shows that there are two essential aspects directly connected to media: finances (capitalism) and ratings (popular sensationalism), and that the media needs both entities in order to survive. This concept is best portrayed between the embodiment of ratings, Diana Christensen, and the embodiment of capitalism, Mr. Jensen, and the conflict that results between these two symbolic characters. Since these two entities are directly connected and are both important aspects of the media, when one aspect is ignored or isn’t recognized, the media in itself fails. The ratings represent the popularity of the show that is presented, and Diana realizes that sensational programming can manipulate audience response and ratings. Because of this, Diana promotes the prophetic unscripted notions of a spontaneous individual Howard Beale. As Howard Beale promotes his own unscripted philosophy and a mentality that appeals directly to the American public, the media becomes prominent, profitable, and successful. However, by allowing Beale to speak his own unscripted beliefs, the media becomes unaware and fails to recognize the possible contradictions that Beale’s personal philosophy might have on the finances they depend upon. The media unknowingly places the crucial financial aspect of the show at risk by allowing Beale to criticize aspects of society, including criticism in regards to notions of corporate trade. Diana, whose concern has been only with ratings, creates a media panic by allowing a popular yet financially destructive mentality to appear to the American public. Diana realizes the manipulation that sensationalism presents on the audience and media recognition, however, this same sensationalism fails to impress financial investors as predictions of economic destruction begin to emerge by simply being involved in the show. So, while Diana’s presentation of sensational beliefs can control ratings and other aspects of the media, it cannot control the financial security of the show, and with the overemphasis of ratings over financial stability, the show’s prospects begin to fail.
In desperation, Mr. Jensen is consulted to resolve the situation. Jensen proposes a convincing argument of a global perspective devoid of humanity, where only business, commercialism, and finances are considered essential to the movement of progress. Mr. Jensen’s philosophy permanently alters Beale’s mentality, and Jensen uses financial manipulation and control to allow the enforcement of this new mentality. However, despite Mr. Jensen’s claims that finances control all world forces, this mentality is proven incorrect. While Mr. Jensen may have produced accurate statements in regards to financial control of overall world affairs, these same finances fail to control popular opinion and belief. The audience recognizes the change in Beale’s mentality from one of democratic criticism to a mentality based on bleak dehumanizing capitalistic notions, and the public becomes so disappointed in this alteration that ratings begin to rapidly decrease. Diana realizes that Jensen’s overemphasis on a capitalistic mentality over ratings and the financial power he represents fails to impress the audience and is leading to the show’s ultimate destruction. She also realizes that while Jensen’s financial mentality can control the content of a media program as well as particular notions on world affairs, these same finances cannot control ratings. Because of this, Diana resorts to sensationalism in order to manipulate the audience in order to recreate a high rated media program based on secure financial support.
In this complete manipulation of finances and sensational public opinion, the one aspect that is completely disregarded is the concept of journalistic integrity. The film presents an environment where ratings are considered more respectable than quality journalism. The film differs completely from All the President’s Men in this regards. While the media in All the President’s Men is only concerned with the importance of informing the public, the media in Network is only interested in sensationalism. While the media channel has created a successful program, the program is devoid of anything relating to reliable information and sacrifices journalistic integrity for the popularity of prophetic notions and beliefs that are unrecognized in regards to informative news.
While a notion of competition is emphasized in Network through portrayals of extreme competition between TV stations and the effect it had on media programming, another competition was occurring between television programming and Hollywood. With the comfortable environment that television viewing provided, movies had to explore ways in which to still appeal to a mainstream audience. Because of this, the concept of the movie experience was emphasized with use of sound technology, the concept of watching a film on its original form on a large screen, and quality in script format compared to featured movies made for a television audience.
Television in the 70’s became quite competitive with theater and challenged Hollywood to create bigger and better films. The first most notable change has to be in the audio and visual advancements of the time. Film became more clear and frame rates increased (however not as much as television would) and audio became more clear; productions started wiring all actors and parts to the set rather than a standard ambient mic. This allowed for me detailed and more dynamic sound. The second most noticeable change in the 70’s is the film content. Anybody can flip on television and watch a story about family on a farm, but one couldn’t watch Straw Dogs or Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Films in theaters became more controversial and more subjective drawing larger crowds to see what couldn’t be seen on TV.
Mr. Jensen’s speech sums up American News then and most importantly now. The news is all about attention, at one point in time the news was about the news and nobody watched, so now its about attention. The news runs stories that aren’t necessarily relevant however share a specific human interest. For example, rather than hearing about how three fire fighters single handedly put out a fire on Locust and Downer, one hears how a six year stole his fathers gun and shot out the window into the street. The first event is news, and the second is just some story that is shocking and interesting. The news would never run the first story, who cares. But the second story would make a top story. All Jensen is trying to say is, give the people what they want to hear, so that they will watch out show and our ratings will go up.
brennan o'lena
The profound impact that the TV had on the Hollywood industry was very valuable to the future success of the film industry. First movies were being shown on TV for the first time ever, the Wizard of OZ is a prime example of this as it was the most watched film on TV during the decade. The film industry then had to be able to align itself with and sell to the TV networks in order to ensure future success. On top of the this, the overhaul of the technology became necessary to stay competitive. New sound techniques and higher quality movie going experience was needed. If people were going to pay money to see a movie then it better be a different experience than sitting at home on your couch and watching a TV movie.
In the Network the intertwining of media and big business is clear. As Nick Naber pointed out in his blog, the corporate alliances such as NBC and GE help to protect both sides. NBC would surely never publicize a GE fiasco but would surely exploit a rivals fiasco. At the same time GE advertises for all of it subsideraries on NBC, thus promoting a strong working relationship. The "system" between the media and big business is seen in a necessary evil sense, in my opinion, in the Network. In All the Presidents Men the relationship really does not exist and in fact is quite the opposite because the protagonists fight for the truth, not the corporate line of truth.
brennan olena
Television of the 1970’s played a big role in its effect on the movies. First television was a big competition to the movies. People were not going to the movies on as regular a basis as they had before television. People were now going to the movies to see specific films where in the past people went to the movies to go to the movies and were not necessarily concerned about what the film was. The film industry had to compete with television and make the movie experience different and special from what the viewer could get watching television. The second effect that television had on the film industry was that it became another market for the film industry to show their movies. You began to get the movies of the week in the 1970’s and the networks were now showing films that had been in the theaters. Movies would play on television soon after they had been in the theaters. Also, this was a way for the studios to make extra money on a film by selling it to the networks. The last thing is cable television began in the 1970’s with the start of HBO in 1975. Cable television would eventually have a great impact of the film industry in the years to come.
Mr. Jensen’s speech is very true today with media conglomerates that are own by international companies. The line between news and entertainment has been blurred in recent years. Britney Spears is now a top story on the evening news and especially the 24-hour news channels. Television news has become more tabloids and serious news has taken a back seat to sensationalized stories. The difference between the portrayal of the media in All the Presidents Men and Network is that the first film showed the pressure the government could put on the media but how the media was still independent and could really cover a news story. The second film showed how’d the news departments are now influenced by the entertainment sections of the networks and how the international corporations influence what is seen on the news and television. Today you have news magazine shows in primetime; many of these shows are a cross between news and entertainment. The line between news and entertainment has been so blurred that there is no real distinction between the evening news and shows like Entertainment Tonight, Extra, or Access Hollywood.
I think Beatty's speech captured alot of what American news and tv are about today. They push sensationalized info to the fron to capture the viewer, i.e. have better ratings, yet they don't neccessarily care what the content is on. Beatty figured he had gained a soapbox to push the idea that bic companies are important and should be supported through Howard, as he had gained the nations trust and support and would be able to lead them by the hand. The fact that he delivered the message to him the way he delivered his weekly message kind of drove home the fact that you the way he was delivering a message kind of put the delivery as more important than the actual message.
This was a vast contrat to All the President's men where they went to great lengths to preserve the truth and present it to the American people rather than dilute or sensationalize. Whether or not Howard actually believed what he was preaching is another story,a s I am unclear whether he cooked up this scheme to preserve his job security or whether he really just went off the deep end. Either way I though it a highly entertaining and effective movie.
--Jennifer Campbell
It is obvious that television had altered the way theaters were run in the 1970's. Although many of the movies (especially at this time) were consistently revolutionary for their time, so was the idea of broadcasting movies and legitimate entertainment on national television. Obviously, unlike the generations before, people didn't feel the need to leave their homes to sit in front of a screen to be entertained. You could grab a six-pack, some pretzels, and sit and enjoy a movie with your friends on your favorite couch. When this was happening, theaters took steps to try and get people to come out to them. They tried to make theaters and movie-going as luxurious as possible. Soft chairs, popcorn and candy, and a giant screen with surround sound to make you feel closer and more into a movie as ever while at the same time as comfortable as possible without being at home. Ned Beatty's speech kind of summarized the cut-throat spectacle of news, if you can call it that. It's a business, and the goal of the business in this case is to have a large following that is so invested. The people in NETWORK don't care about the truth as much as their ratings. The opposite can be said about out boys in ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN. All these guys wanted to do was uncover the truth, no matter how ugly it was. It wasn't all about public acceptance early on, it was all about truth. The public would accept the truth when they knew the truth. It may not have been as glitzy and as much of a spectacle as portrayed in NETWORK but you have to appreciate the guys for standing up for truth, not ratings....Chris Krombach
Television allowed for a greater access to films. Films were made and released into theaters but then they were later broadcasted to everyone television in every home allowing people in all places to see their films. Also, films used to bring the unseen to eye of the viewer. Now television had news reports with reporters showing the world the unseen everyday ie the vietnam war. Theaters had to beef up their presentation to make the theater become an experience that overpowers the personal home viewing.
The speech shows the correlation between news and entertainment. The news in "Network" represents a business and the media is out to turn a profit. They will report whatever is necessary to boost ratings. "Network" represents false reporting compared the actual reporting and justified truth that came out in "All The Presidents Men". Ironically, "Network" is the film that is proving to still be true today with the way the news is reported and how news stations are run. Everything is corporate, and the dollar bill is greater than anything factor in 'story' telling. It is hard to find a reporter with the drive to find the absolute truth at any cost.
Reid Goldberg
Throughout the '70s televison contributed greatly to the world of filmmaking. First, the '70's marked the a time in which films were being shown prominently on television, which had not been done often in the years before. Secondly, television became an advertising landmark for films, when viewers at home were able to see previews for films not yet released, which made home audiences much more involved in the world of film, even if was involuntary.
Mr. Jensen's speech in Network essentially puts America under a microscope as a nation that cares about ratings/popularity and uses those elements as a way of improving the world as a business. Unlike All the President's Men, in which those reporting were concerned only with the truthfulness of the story, those reporting in Network operate on a business-basis only, concerned with how the final product will make them look as professionals, rather than the story's content.
I wouldn't say that film reshaped the film industry as much as it redefined it. The film industry had to change in order to create its own niche in the world of entertainment. If the industry couldn't change efficiently it may become obsolete. The speech given in the film reflects that there is no objectivity on television as long as the subject is viewed through another humans individual perspective. As we often see on the news there is always an agenda being presented which can be as obvious as the commercials during breaks or as subtle as a reporter's own personal bias, or the push for ratings. These are all factors that give way to inaccurate or biased reporting.
-brian Shea
Television in the 1970’s influenced expedition in a few ways during this time period. The first way I think it had some influence was that people are now able to watch these movies at home on there own television. The people who were unable to afford or unable to go see the movie in the theater are now able to do so in there home. Another way was that due to television they had to start editing this movies in different ways in order to be able to put them on TV. They had to do things such as make the film short in order to fit the time slot on channel. Also, had to cut out scenes to make films appropriate to show. Television had some influence but I don’t thing it was huge.
There are some similar and difference we see in Network and All Presidents men in a the way that media was portrayed. Network was in it for the money and higher ratings. They didn’t care weather or not the facts were right but that they had a good story to tell. On the other hand All presidents Men they were in it for the people and to benefit them. They had the facts right and informed the people what was going on.
Kelly Grzybowski
Television had influenced the film exhibition in a huge way. In the 70s film were now able to be cut into the size that could be view on the smaller screen. Families could stay at home and just watch it on TV rather than going out and watching it on the big screen which was cheaper. It may not be the same experience as to watching it on the big screen with the blasted sound system, but more people were able to see more movies.
Mr. Jensen’s speech fits in to Network’s portrayal of the intersections between news, entertainment, and commerce because his speech was about the media and how the media always have a selfish intention with money and business. They don’t care what is on, as long as people are welling to watch it and keep it going. It’s all about the money. In All the President’s Men the media portrayed a nobler role of informing the country about the government. The two main characters did all their research about the Watergate scandals and informing the public about the corruption of the government that was covered from the eyes of the public. It was their duty to correct the government. In the Network, the media played a role of entertainment with a business intention. The lady producer would do anything to get more ratings and if there were a lot of viewers, then she would try to keep it up. She promoted a counter-cultural view that is fresh and newer.
Both movies have the intention of business and competition, where the Washington Post tried to out do their opponent, The New York Time, while in the Network, it was CNN against the other news networks. They only want it for themselves and what would make them get more viewers.
Television is a theater in your own home. People didn't need to travel out to their local theater, they had the same ends in the leisure of their homes. No longer did theaters monopolize the movie experience. Thus film had to evolve. Television became the recycler, rerunning older movies on the small screen, already released movies instantly became marketable. While theaters amped up their quality, including the addition of dolby surround.All of these advances were put in place to combat at convenience of television.
Mr. Jensen conveys an ultra conservative view. A view in which the people rely on those in power, where we have no power and can only trust. But media was developed so that we as a people don't even have to trust, we can just be lied to. We can be tricked to believe we still have a say when we have none, so that we believe in democracy when it isn't a reality. Media is a lesser evolution of THE MATRIX in a sense. Captivate people, make them amused rather than curious. Enough time spent sitting will lead to some deep thinking, business doesn't want that. Business wants working hours, a product to be made and packaged, and then those same people to purchase them. Useless items, any item, so long as it makes revenue. Yet when Jensen started talking about our children, the next or future generation, it doesn't matter which, his view changed. It became idealized, it became almost socialist, almost dictatorial. A society of one, finally unified by a common company or business. I fear this, because I know it is a real and possible future. I fear who will run this company, and what its agendas will be. Lets just hope its priority is the people.
Television changed the ways that movies were viewed. People could sit at home with their families and enjoy something in the comfort of their own homes. Movie theaters had to step it up. They made advance that made seeing movies in the theaters worth seeing. One of these, for example, was surround sound. But this also affected how the movies were seen at home. Violent and graphic parts had to cut out or censored so children at home couldn't see these things if they were too young. Then there was the aspect ratio. Televisions were completely different from a theater. Movies had to be edited to fit the screen - meaning that the sides were cut off.
Beatty's fits the theme of Network that the news isn't important. What really matters is the ratings and the money that the company can bring in. It doesn't matter if the story has no worth or if it's a tragic story playing off someones death. If it was good for the ratings it was going to be shown. Well, All the Presidents Men and Network do share the theme of relaying the news, I think that's pretty much were the similarities end. In All the Presidents Men they showed the news as telling the truth and fighting for justice, but in Network, it was all about greed, lying, and ratings.
Two ways in which television influenced the film exhibition by forcing it to improve would be that TV made the wide screen more valuable and surround sound was only offered by movie theaters. Television was a great competitor for movie theaters. The convenience of having a television right at home forced the movie theaters to give people incentive that TV didn't offer to leave their homes and pay to watch a movie. One reason to ditch the TV was to watch a movie in wide screen format. This adds in more detail and is a better viewing experience. Another reason being that surround sound, much better than sound emitted from a TV, was only available in movie theaters. The introduction of TV forced movie theaters to find things to do better than a TV to make it worth while to leave the TV and pay to watch a movie at a theater. The over all movie theater experience does this quite well and we have TV to thank for it because TV forced movie theaters to improve. If movie theaters ignored TV, they'd lose revenue and go out of business.
Mr. Jensen's speech talks about the intersections between news, entertainment, and commerce in the sense that the world is fueled by commerce, and that commerce is fueled by news and entertainment. In Network all the TV shows featured the same character types and all the news programs were reduced down to a science. They of the network understood their programming and reports were basically marketing designed to fuel commerce in whichever way was beneficial to the network. So when Mr. Beale ruined the beneficial business deal for his network, Mr. Jensen was naturally displeased.
In All the President's Men, the news media was portrayed as being a watch dog, a fail safe, for the people. The reporters in All the President's Men made the Watergate conspiracy public and benefited the American people for it by helping to defend their liberty. The news media was a virtuous protector of the people. In Network, the news media is more like the Watergate conspirators. They influence the behavior of people, taking liberties from them by controlling their interests. The news media dehumanizes everyone that watches it in Network while in All the President's Men, it seemingly strives to protect their humanity. Overall, the news media in All the President's Men was good and beneficial to humans while the news media in Network had a negative effect on humans and made them assimilate and conform to the programming they were being broadcasted.
Dylan Statz (301-004)
The main influence in my mind was television’s popularity/competition forcing Hollywood to create content you had to leave the house to see. People enjoyed their home entertainment and this content tactic forced consumers to come back to the theatres
People were so comfortable in their homes around the television in part because there were a lot of movies being played there that they could see. The problem was that the quality wasn’t great and they weren’t really seeing anything new. This combined with theatres’ efforts to beef of the experience and sound quality forced consumers to depart their homes.
Mr. Jensen’s speech is perfect for the film but I find it sad because it rings some truth today. I wish that the media could be more like Woodward and Bernstein but feel that they are more reminiscent of the depiction in “Network”.
The light in which the players are shown is quite different in ATPM and “Network”. Hoffman and Redford were honest and sincere, very likable. The media represented in “Network” were crooked, ruthless slimeballs. Even so, the “Network” depiction is probably more accurate in its depiction.
Kelly Doucette
11.28.07
There were several ways in which TV changed movie viewing in the 1970s. When TV was first developed in the LATE 1940s/early 1950s, more people stayed at home to watch this new medium rather than go to movie houses. However, when TV became an aging medium, movies again started to flock to movie houses, especially for films like 1964's A HARD DAY'S NIGHT, TV audiences went down a bit. So, my two reasons why TV changed movie viewing are 1) movies had to compete with TV once again, especially with the likes of such blockbusters as JAWS and STAR WARS in order to maintain their viewership. This is especially important because there was no such thing as movie renting, instead, films were often re-released several times after their initial release. 2) Censorship of films was extremely prevelent when TV stations finally acquired the rights to popular films. While theatres could restrict who went and saw what movie, ANYONE who had a tv could watch it. So, they had to either shorten the timing of the film (to fill a specific time slot) or get rid of foul language, nudity, extreme violence...
When Jensen says "You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale, and I won't have it", he is talking about the Arabs taking $$ out of the United States. But if you were to look closer at this line of dialogue, one could get the understanding that the network was eager to get rid of Howard and by declaring his iminent (sp??) on-air suicide, he gained more popularity than ever, forcing the network to keep him rather than get rid of him. Jensen obviously holds the power of the network/corporation and Beale pretty much overpowered his & his company's decisions. Jensen is saying that while Beale is very lucky to still be on the air as popular as he now is, but it was only luck, and quite frankly, Jensen is really pissed off.
Jensen goes on to say "You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations, there are no peoples...there are no third worlds, there is no west. There is ONLY one wholistic system of systems, one vast...interwoven, interactive, multinational..dominion of dollars..." he goes on to list many different types of dollars. This shows the aspect of corporate greed and how they will do anything to get some money, even skipping over the main facts of life and not caring about getting the facts straight.
Thomas Penglase
In the 1970's the growing popularity of the television greatly influenced how and where films were being watched. Now that the viewer could watch old hollywood classics from the comfort of the home the cinema industry created a cylindrical method of movie output. This method was to build generic movie houses or multiplexes and sell the consumer overly priced snacks,a few previews,and then the block buster of the week.However, this process changed into the brief advent of the outdoordrive thru cinema which was easily acessible to the fast growing population of the baby boomer post war suburbs. The drive thru cinema only llasted a short time because of the poor sound quality/movie selection and the facet that the property owners could sell the land for home owners for a much more substantial profit. The next phase camewith the cinema in the mall which many today still associate with the movie going experience. The invention of cable telvision also influenced film exhibition in the 1970's offering viewers with more movie channels than everto be watched without interruption from commercials or time restricted editings. Essentially T.v didint destroy the film industry, it greatly exemplified it;s possibilitites and with the help of the movie going baby boomers pushed film making and watching to heights previously unreached. Beaty's speech pushes the idea that the entire world is a massive buisness of unstoppable force that is maintained by the manipulation of the media directed at television viewers. It is frighteningly similar to today where entertainments and its resulting comforts can halt the common man from questioning authority and the interest of important worldy issues.
We see two different portrayals of the media in the movies ALl the presidents men and Network. In All the Presidents Men the media is portrayed as a counteractive force against wrongdoing- it's symbolic of a kindof safety netthat checks out corruption. Here the media succeeds in unveiling the evils of an administration. In the Network it shows the exact opposite where the media perpetuates the corruption through the idea that if something is presented on television it has to be true. It also shows that the media can distract viewers from important events by feeding them mind numbing entertainment..
The introduction of television changed the film industry in multiple different ways. First off it gave people the opportunity to not have to leave there house to see a film. The convenience factor of television was what led to its success. I can really see why this would be nice if you lived in Wisconsin and you did not have to bundle up to leave your house to see something entertaining. Another factor that led to this was the movies that were played on television. These were basically the same films people would see in the theater however they were cut down and some of the scenes were clipped so that it would be a family friendly movie.
I think Beatty’s speech mirrors what many people still think today. The speech portrays the corporate viewpoint that many of these big time executives have. “There is no America, there is no democracy, there is only IBM and ITT and AT&T…those are the nations of the world today.” This viewpoint is what many people still feel today, “the world is a business.”
Network and All the President’s Men show different sides of the news media. ATPM shows the reporters actually trying to get the true story while Network portrayed the news media in a negative way. It showed the corruptness of the system and the corrupt nature of the people that control and sell this system.
-Nathan Radoszewski
It was thought in the early days of television that it would wipe out the entire ritual of going to the movies; for a few reasons this was not the case. To compete with the comfort and privacy of the family television or living room, cinemas upgraded their sound systems and jacked up the prices and variety of concessions. Placing theaters in newly-built shopping malls also made movie-going into an event. There are also inherent problems with television viewing of movies, like the differing aspect ratio and the fact that scenes had to be cut out for time or if they were inappropriate.
In the seventies it seems that news and entertainment become commerce, even more so than in previous decades or eras. Funny thing--after a few of Beale's speeches I got to thinking how sad it was that we become sponges for the teachings of the TV, and how it replaces thought and social interaction. And then Mr. Jensen directly spelled that idea out, except making it seem like the ultimate goal of the evolution of humanity--the direct result of the type of advertising and propaganda needed to sustain global commerce in a nationalistic country.
In All The President's Men, it seems that TV is yet again the evil and dishonest factor, with even news programs being manufactured for comfort or to cover up corruption. It's also interesting to note that in this film old-timey print media is being glorified over the television, and is seen as more well-researched and honest.
Matt Ott
I think television influenced film in a quite negative way, Cook talks about the introduction of concession stands and I think this brought the viewer closer to something more of a homely habitat. This allowed viewers to think of these places as their homes which added to the general annoyances now felt in current movie theaters. Being that it is like home people are more apt to talk, television loosened their attention spans and without their 2 minute breaks every 8 minutes they have no place to run their mouth as they feel. It is in my opinion a horrible act that really ruins movies for me because I think a blind man can watch a television show on mute and get the general sense, half of what is put out there is so mundane it really does nothing for you. Laugh tracks and corniness, though enough with the rant.
Television also influenced movies in that television allowed for a much more massive audience, movies would shoot special scenes that will only show on television, they would shoot alternative things that would be for TV just because of the ratings system. This added a level of new ways of thinking of how to make films, for two audiences.
Jensen is seen as entertainment, maybe not unlike the acted rants of Stephen Colbert or everyone’s favorite news source Jon Stewart. He is not there to be what might be considered news, he is truth, he is the seer, and he is all that is outside of the box when it comes to “news”. He is the spectacle. The guys from All the Presidents Men are news men, they are brass balled get the story news men. They right the injustices in the “right” way, the journalistic way, by the books.
Television influenced film exhibition by becoming a leading source of entertainment. The television allowed for films to be shown in the comfort of the household. It allowed for people who lived in the country or suburbs to view a movie without having to travel far distances to a theatre. Television impacted the film industry by pushing them to farther measures. It caused the film industry to go above and beyond in their styles. The film industry had to develop new ways to attract viewers to the theatres. The film studios collaborated with malls where many people would be easily attracted into the movie and have a memorable experience.
Mr. Jensen’s speech combines the views of news, entertainment, and commerce. The network is pushing to higher and higher ratings, and straying about from ‘traditional’ family news. Mr. Jensen’s speech is trying to persuade the station and it’s number one show to preach his corporate word, not the word of the smaller people. Mr. Jensen was fighting for a stronger company with his morals. ‘All the President’s Men’ displayed the media as a source of breaking news. This film views the media as corrupt and greedy. ‘All the President’s Men’ was a film fighting for truth and struggling to continue down the path. That is completely opposite in this film. The network is willing to do whatever it takes to have the highest ratings. The network killed off one show with ‘actors’ from another to boost an upcoming fall show’s rating. It also cut away the dead weeds by killing the news anchor.
Tegan Olness
Dan Boville
Televisions emergence in the 1970’s made a love/hate relationship with the movie business. Many people opted to stay home and entertain themselves with television, yet television offered movies to be shown post-release. Movies eventually found ways to bring in audiences, along with television throughout the years. I think the 70’s proved both strong points in both media.
Basically the speech sums up that everything roots to money. Beatty says it is the “natural order of things” and it seems money seems to balance the country in a homeostatic way. There are realities that the news show, but it is pending on the dollar at the end of the day. Beatty continues saying there is no democracy and no America, Basically summing up that companies run the world, and I has been forever. There is no changing it, and it is basically how mankind is worked.
I think ALL THE PRES. MEN showed a direct opposition to this movie. The characters in the film tried to liberate and set truth to what is going on in America. Not everyone has access to what they did, and they uncovered something that was beneficial to the entire country. What Watergate proved was what was going on in NETWORK, and there were many similarities with both operations. During the 1970’s I think many people could relate to these themes and embraced them. ALL THE PRES. MEN showed hope, that there are people out there fighting for the little guy.
According to Cook, television pushed cinemas to enhance the experience of movie viewing. With television in almost every household, possible movie goers no longer had to leave their houses to watch movies. To enhance the experience of watching a movie at the theatre, as apposed to watching it at home, cinemas introduced surround sound. They also advertised that one was able to view the whole movie instead of only a shorter version which you would see on television due to time slots and editing.
News media is different in the Network then in All The President’s Men because it is showing how corrupt news can be and how evil it is. By only showing one point of view and only certain news segments, news and television corporations are able to control purchasing habits of the viewers. In All The President’s Men, the news is shown as the hero of the movie. If it was not for the Washington Post, then the Watergate scandal would have never been broken and the crooks would have gotten away.
With cable company’s buying up older movies in mass quantity and offering audiences for the first time, a movie experience on TV with uninterrupted runtimes in their very own home, the theater’s were in more trouble than ever before. Initially, theaters did not respond well to this attack and most felt as though they lost the battle with television and the living room. Theaters gave up almost all pretense of the struggle at the level of architectural fantasy and the viewing experience, and actually produced interiors with less to offer than at home: “only function should dictate building form.” However, theaters eventually got wise and added larger screens, more seating and better sound to cater toward “event films” or blockbusters. With this single clear strategy as an example for future standard, theaters would again instill the impression of a “premium” viewing experience and regain part of the audience share. What will happen with the new “home media center” and direct download distribution?
The speech by Mr. Jensen in Network reveals a romanticized paranoia that was conceived of the media’s relationship with politics and big businesses which still is thought about today. The media’s power is undeniable and news will never be completely unbiased or even fully truthful. It also explains that America is filled with gullible wastoids who live and believe only what is shown to them through TV and that behind all of the lovable content that is broadcasted is a web of lies and propaganda that hide the true intentions of it all: government control to allow whatever international hypocrisies they want.
Compared to All the Presidents Men, Network’s “television” is depicted as an uncontrollable entertainment giant thriving on sensationalism and on a quest for ratings. In All the Presidents Men, the newspaper, is depicted as having some real truth to pursue and that any hiding of this truth is wrong. Through this comparison we can see a basic principle behind the importance and power of communication mediums. Television is depicted as “entertainment-izing” anything it swallows, even if it’s at the expensive of seriousness or any real message while the Newspaper seems to be battling the hidden connection and hold that the government has on public media, especially when political scandals are it’s current focus. These films are very important for understanding common depictions of TV and News.
Post a Comment