Review of Quiz Show (1994) by R.c. K — 30 Nov 2008

I'm going to wear this out before long, but I think this is actually the last example (hopefully, before I've worn it out): when I was younger, it was rare for a movie that did not include aliens, monsters or anything not-human (or at least some futuristic technology) to interest me. Generally I rejected them outright, refusing to give them a chance, but often becoming bored even when I did. The movies that broke that rule for me hold a special place in my mind (or heart, for you saps). Quiz Show (as you might have guessed from context) is one such film. There was a strange "anachronistic/futuristic" tension with the bizarre booths that Twenty-One used, but clearly nothing that really fits with my tastes as described above really makes sense. It's a fascinating topic though, an otherwise unseen corruption and an easily seen tension growing from it. Injustice was always an easy way to sucker me in, and this was no exception--while the natural drama of a quiz show kept my interest in pacing terms.

Herbie Stempel (John Turturro) is a schmuck, a putz, who is winning endlessly on the television quiz show Twenty-One, but when his fame starts to creep into his brain and leads him to interrupt host Jack Barry (Christopher McDonald) to further push sponsor Geritol, it somewhat ironically offends the sponsor itself--through the company that owns it, Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and head Martin Rittenhome (Martin Scorsese). Rittenhome then uses an intermediary (Griffin Dunne) to suggest that NBC grand poobah Robert Kittner (Allan Rich) should find a replacement for the nerdy Stempel. Meanwhile, Stempel revels in his fame and fortune, feeling he will finally be financially free of the family of his wife Toby (Johann Carlo) and grinning at all of his beaming neighbors. The producers in charge of the show, Dan Enright (David Paymer) and Al Freedman (Hank Azaria), begin to search for a replacement for the show that we see literally everyone is watching. They stumble upon Charles Van Doren (Ralph Fiennes), son of writers Dorothy (Elizabeth Wilson) and Mark (Paul Scofield) Van Doren, trying out for Enright's other quiz show Tic-Tac-Dough. Charlie fits the bill easily--he's good-looking, smart and has a strong enough background (a masters in astrophysics and doctorate in literature!) to hold up to the very basic scrutiny of the public. Here Enright and Freedman take the opportunity to suggest feeding questions to him that he has already answered, leading to the enraged, now-booted champion Stempel pursuing legal action that gains the attention of Richard Goodwin (Rob Morrow), a Harvard-educated lawyer (first in his class, as he's wont to note), who begins to pursue the show in an attempt to bring fiduciary regulation to the television industry and its sponsors.

Quiz Show most certainly lived up to the quality of my memories, if not the details of them. I was convinced of some things like the sneaky use of the ubiquitous headphones to pipe answers into the contestants' ears, when in truth they were simply fed to Van Doren in advance. I didn't recall the legal aspect of the scandal forming so much of the film, either, instead envisioning a film that was based purely around the show, with a sort of deafeningly serious tone that emphasized the television drama of the pressure the contestants felt, with the subtle dramatic irony of the piped-in answers over the headphones. I think this would still make an interesting movie, actually--but this one is something else entirely, and a very, very good film for that. It's probably more pleasing to be able to watch now knowing who Ralph is (and how to pronounce his strange "Rafe" name), and Turturro, for that matter. Heck, Dunne, Scorsese, little cameos by Calista Flockhart and Ethan Hawke, even Bill Fichtner and a somewhat meaty role for Barry Levinson, even Christopher McDonald, and definitely Paul Scofield.

Fiennes plays Van Doren as a sort of free-floating intellectual, doing as he pleases comfortably and at his own pace, always with an amiable smile and a quick wit, rarely an unkind word of anyone. When first faced with the moral quandary as proposed by Freedman and Enright, he rejects it out of hand, thinking it sounds dishonest, but when forcibly confronted with it under pressure, he caves and finds himself pleased by the monetary gain and eventually the fame that follows it--in a telling scene, he even manufactures an occasion to "stumble across" students who naturally mob him with questions and adoration. Some have suggested he seems to be trying to escape his father's shadow*, but I think nothing of the case is true. He wants his father's respect, certainly, but he doesn't fail to recognize that he has much of it already--he simply wants to prevent its removal. His father is occasionally a tad bit jealous, it seems, of Charlie's theft of the spotlight, but never enough to act out on it. Scofield's Mark Van Doren is as well-spoken and well-thought as his Sir Thomas More, quoting deftly and parrying flawlessly in all verbal exchanges, primarily with Fiennes and Morrow. A special nod for Fiennes fine (sorry) and slight Dutch accent.

Turturro reels out a very interesting character, volatile and apparently in complete opposition to the real Stempel, managing to careen back and forth between understandably sympathetic to obnoxiously repugnant. At first we glory with him in his victories and his feelings of independence, then feel grated by his vindictive pursuit of others, finally seeing that he isn't a stupid or uncaring man when he sees what results are wrought by his actions. He has a perfect mannerism to portray the character of Stempel that was created for the film: a big nerd with a sponge-like brain and no sense of style, appearance or social acceptability. He constantly refers to his uncapped teeth, asking many a character whether he should get them capped to make himself more presentable, failing to recognize that he has asked this person before, he's asking at an inappropriate time, and that the problem comes not from the cap's absence but his emphasis of the tooth, visually, in its absence.

All of the conspirators are brilliantly cast, with motormouth Marty as the coldly cynical money behind the fix who holds no end result higher than increased revenue, the always either slimy or wussy (or both!) Paymer as the slick producer Enright and the more gruff, plainspoken Freedman in Azaria to act as Enright's foil in discussions with prospective contestants or other sources of income. Rich has the warm eyes and falsely friendly expression of the man in power who recognizes the value of the appearance of warmth but also knows that he has enough power to drop it at will, the most confident of all the characters short of perhaps Marty's Rittenhome.

The most interesting aspect to me was the discussion of the morality of the shows. As always, I think I saw things in a scale of grey shifted slightly away from the direction of most people--or at least director Robert Redford's intentions in adapting the real-life Goodwin's writing. I saw Charles Van Doren as a man who fell into the idea of easy money and simple fame, who failed to think through the possible consequences of his actions, but did not fail in any truly meaningful way, while the repulsively destructive behaviour of Stempel offended me most, short of Goodwin's wife Sandra (Mira Sorvino), who says that Goodwin is "ten times the man" Charles is, insisting he take down Charles and reveal his deception to the world. Stempel is motivated by only his own greed, for the spotlight and for money, but backed by a past that has put him down consistently in the past. Enright and Freedman simply work the game as best they can, as do Rich and Rittenhome. Sandra (likely due to being the least-described by the film because of her small role) is the only one who seems utterly ridiculous--though no less realistic for it. I can appreciate Dick Goodwin's motivation to bring regulation to the financial abuse of television by deceiving the public, and the viewpoints of most others, even Enright and Freedman. But the real paradigm shift between myself and what I believe is intended is that I do not become outraged by the idea of a rigged quiz show. It seems to me that it matters rather little in the end whether they are real or false--the money is not being stolen from charities or routed into terrorism, and thus equates to acting, after a fashion. I do not feel there is an obligation for a program other than the news to portray only absolutely real events, nor that a game show of any kind has an obligation to tell me the truth about the skills of its contestants--it affects me little. But, this may simply fall down to the simple truth that I have little interest left in gameshows, and do watch them purely for the sport--just shy of what Rittenhome describes to Goodwin (claiming audiences watch the money). In the end I was more disgusted by those whose desire was to bring down and discredit Van Doren than anything else. Even if I didn't see a particular need to do it, I could stand behind Goodwin's crusade against television.

In the end, though--it's a film of excellent performances from excellent actors on an interesting topic that many of us have difficulty hiding our interest in--corruption. Marrying it to popcorn interest like gameshows was just a bonus.

*I feel this is as good a time as any to note that I'm just going to completely disregard the contrast between reality and fiction here, because I don't have similar elements to compare. Come back when someone makes a film of someone I know and we'll see what I think then. Purist that I am, I'll no doubt hate it.