Network (1976)

Whatever its flaws, Network is a picture that can stand on its own. And does.

Network is an outstanding satire that has become more rather than less relevant with each passing year. It is bitingly funny, whip smart and as mad as hell.

Sidney Lumet’s direction is outstanding.

Timeless and essential.

So the movie's flawed. So it leaves us with loose ends and questions. That finally doesn't bother me, because what it does accomplish is done so well, is seen so sharply, is presented so unforgivingly, that Network will outlive a lot of tidier movies.

Network is typical of the cool intelligence of '70s American cinema.

This still-prescient vivisection of modern culture’s vapidity crackles with the nervous energy of midtown’s hothouse broadcasters.

[A] prescient and sharply drawn comedy about the depths to which one unscrupulous station will sink.

Network can be faulted both for going too far and not far enough, but it's also something that very few commercial films are these days. It's alive. This, I suspect, is the Lumet drive. It's also the wit of performers like Mr. Finch, Mr. Holden, and Miss Dunaway.

A great movie, but one I didn't particularly like. I would even argue that -- in parts -- it is not particularly well-made. The story of a crazed, aging newsman who is used and abused and discarded by ruthless TV networks is perhaps not as shocking today as it might have been in 1976. But evaluating it based on its terms at the time it was made, it was very prescient in its anticipation that outrage (at what? everything!) sells and that crime & violence, especially "reality" based, can be the basis for media empires. The acting is quite good, particularly Faye Dunaway. You see what she won Best Acrtress playing a driven, soulless woman TV exec who knows she is an awful person, but can't stop herself because that's who she is. Other acting roles are done very well (though I have no idea why the wife of Schumacher - played by William Holden -- was nominated. She is barely on the screen, and I think had a histrionic scene and did just OK with it. That's the thing about the movie -- there is yelling. A lot. Just screaming and emoting, and then quiet moments of almost whispering as the reckon, and then YELLING AGAIN. There is no character development; in fact, characters just do what is needed for the scene or the speech, regardless of whether it makes sense. And sure, people do stupid senseless things but: - why was William Holden in love with Faye Dunaway? Attracted to her, sure. Infatuated in the successful, pretty young thing who looks up to him? Of course. But *in love*? Please. Yet there are multiple scenes where he goes on about how he loves her and you don't believe him for a second -- but you're supposed to. - Robert Duvall's CCA exec is at first portrayed as uncertain about putting Howard Beale back on the air. But in the next scene, he's a hard-edged, take no BS, this-is-what-we're-going-to-do corporate exec running roughshod over people. - The network president objects; then he sits down intimidated; then he just kind of hangs around, as needed. Why? Who knows? I have guesses, but he's not developed. This movie has some absolutely fabulous speeches. You'd love it if you're an actor. But people often don't talk to each other, they just make speeches. It's monologue city, often at volume. The cinematography and set design are top-notch. Finally, one its key point -- that's corporations, not countries (and their people) actually rule the world has not turned out to be true. Looking at the nationalism around the world, corporations have bowed to the authoritarians in our midst. It's not Exxon and AT&T bossing presidents around -- it's a lot more complicated than that. Definitely worth seeing, but be ready for a lot of yelling and speechifying.

i can't believe a film from the seventies resonates so hard with themes we're living today. very enjoyable to watch too

Your "friends" will kill you for a bonus. I would say colleagues, but the problem is that we can often confuse our colleagues with friends. They behave in many of the ways you would expect: cheering with your successes, buying you a drink after a hard won victory, and commiserating after the loss of loved ones. Yet, if you disrupt that common thread which brought you together in the first place, your careers, they will be "mad as hell" and will not take another moment of your combined existence. Network is great fiction, that is all too real. It is the Matrix in a 70's news production setting. Highbrow, preachy, bleak, but still satisfying on its surface.

More than 40 years later, anchorman Howard Beale’s (Peter Finch) tirade about being mad as hell and not taking it anymore feels more relevant than ever. Written by Paddy Chayefsky as if he was looking through a crystal ball, "Network" imagines what would happen if a television channel exploited its newsman’s mental breakdown for ratings. Duvall is the ratings-hungry executive, Faye Dunaway the craven programming executive, and William Holden the world-weary news producer. Director Sidney Lumet handles this absurd premise with a subtlety that makes it all the more nightmarishly realistic. The film won four Oscars (Chayefsky, Finch, Dunaway, and Beatrice Straight as Holden’s wife) and got six more nominations, including acting bids for Holden and Ned Beatty as a loquacious corporate chairman. How the hell did Duvall get snubbed for this in Supporting Actor despite reaping a BAFTA nom. BAFTA voters definitely know what's up!

Few Hollywood productions have been as utterly prescient as director Sidney Lumet’s cinematic masterpiece “Network” (1976), a chillingly serious satire about the television business in the 1970s and where it was ultimately headed in years to come. Written by TV pioneer Paddy Chayefsky, this winner of four Oscars on 10 total nominations provides a comical but cynically disturbing look inside the workings of a fictitious American television network. In telling this story, the film eerily forecast the direction this medium would take in the decades that followed with remarkable accuracy, stunningly predicting such developments as the tabloidization of TV, the consolidation of media ownership, the impact of foreign influence and investment, and the dumbing down, sensationalism and line-blurring of its content in both its entertainment and journalistic programming. It also nailed developments outside the television business with great clarity by focusing on the pivotal role that TV played (and would come to play) in those occurrences. And, even though it’s something of a nostalgic time capsule of the period in which it was filmed, the picture has held up remarkably well, even unwittingly providing viewers with an ironic and unsettling metaphor for the ubiquitous rise of social media (with TV serving as a stunningly fitting stand-in). Chayefsky’s Academy Award-winning script is positively brilliant, epitomizing what good screenwriting can (and should) be. And its casting is about as good as it gets, earning Oscars for the performances of Faye Dunaway, Peter Finch and Beatrice Straight, along with well-deserved nominations for William Holden and Ned Beatty and noteworthy accolades for Robert Duvall and Marlene Warfield. In fact, I’m stunned that this offering lost out to “Rocky” for best picture and that nominee Lumet was passed over for the best director award. Those oversights aside, however, I was nevertheless privileged to view this offering at a retrospective screening in honor of the filmmaker’s 100th birthday to a nearly sold-out audience. I’m pleased to see that this celluloid gem still garners so much viewer attention nearly 50 years after its release and that it’s attracting the interest of moviegoers of all ages. This is an absolute must-see for avid cinephiles, as well as highly recommended viewing for anyone who truly wants a poignant, insightful look at what’s truly going on in the world around them, particularly when it comes to the workings of said world and the selective filtering of information about it. “Network” just might deservedly open a few eyes – and raise quite a few eyebrows at the same time.

What best spices up this satire is its sinister resemblance to reality: television, which uses the most Machiavellian means to engage the public. The character played by Peter Finch is one of the most difficult to forget.

A brilliant satire, which sadly is still relevant today, on the lack of morals within the ratings driven world of commercial television. One of the best movies of the 1970's.

A tough nut to crack. Great dialogues (and even better monologues!) and acting. Seemingly, it's daringly revealing. Some points it rises hit eerily close to home (esp. during this covid craze). But, it's still programming. And I've a feeling I missed the gist of it (apart from the usual: spreading despair, nihilism, atheism and moral rot). The melodrama arc is not believable and way too meta. The movie's focal point, the Howard Beale character, feels an artificial stooge. Strange one, for sure.

One of Sidney Lumet's best movies, Network serves as a messy, biting satire of the television networks of the 1970s. Even so, it is incredibly and sometimes frightfully relevant even today. Faye Dunaway, Robert Duvall, Peter Finch and company are an extremely well put together ensemble that elevate Paddy Chayefsky's script to new heights. One of the best films from the 1970s, and a must watch for serious cinephiles.

This is the most effective satire film I've ever watched. It's thoroughly devastating, and that's because it doesn't work on one level. While Network's wry humor is very sharp and truly sore, it's the sympathy I had for Howard Beale, Peter Finch's character, that got me. Actually, the movie's obvious flaw is that the aspect that is focused on, which is the political satirical one, is underdeveloped, or let's say that all small changes that happen don't make the story any better, instead, they made the satire less sharp, and made me less interested in the story. By contrast, the character of Beale is continuously developed, and it's character arc is painful to witness from the very beginning to the end. However, what really made me engaged despite the semi-hollow main plot are two things: the first thing is the intelligent dialogue; it should be listed in top 10 movie dialogues of all-time. It easily can trick us as the plot is very well-developed. The second thing is the characters, not only Howard Beale, but almost every character is a three-dimensional one. Specially when I was totally invested in all the characters, and how couldn't I with, maybe, the greatest cast ensemble performing the roles? Of course, Peter Finch is great, and balances very well between his moments of wrath, and his moments of psychopathic coldness. But, c'mon, his performance is far cry from De Niro's in Taxi Driver, which is arguably the best performance in film. The performances that standout for me are William Holden's as Max Schumacher, he really deserved to win the Oscar, and Faye Dunaway's performance as Diana Christensen, which I think this is her best performance ever even better than her performance in Chinatown , and, fortunately, she took the Oscar for this role as the Best Actress in a Leading Role. Robert Duvall also, and as usual, gave a terrific performance. Needless to say, the entire cast is phenomenal! I want to say that I love Sidney Lumet direction. He always shot the conversations in his movies in a way that make us feel they actually happen in real life, and 12 Angry Men and Dog Day Afternoon are the finest examples. But in the case of Network, there are some scenes that don't need to be shot this fast, they needed a little more focus, a little more dramatic feeling. The result is some scenes that could have been more effective if they were less rushed, also, there are some acting, which is great, that seemed to be over the top. And that's just because the direction, not the acting itself, except one scene in which the acting was really hammy. Also, the ending is rushed, but it's very shocking. With that being said, Lumet established a disturbing atmosphere, that due to it, nothing in this movie would have worked. All in all, I enjoyed watching this movie that left a bitter taste in mouth, because of nothing but its accuracy which made it very relevant nowadays. And despite all its major flaws, Sidney Lumet made a satirical drama that still one of a kind. (8/10)

One of the most important American films of the Seventies, Network is messy and takes on more than it can properly chew, but the writing, directing and cast are top notch. The reason it's so good may well be its willingness to take risks. They don't always work but the net effect, sustained in this film, is it's got something to say that's worth thinking about. Flashes of humor with characters and situations that are vividly recognizable. Of its time and --40 years later-- timeless?...

for god's sake, you are supposed to be the romantic.. Network Paddy Chayefsky; the writer, is the real protagonist in here, for his keen vision on creating a fiction in a white-collar office and still keeping it real and resembling towards the practicality is what helps the stunning craft sail off to the shore, safely. Sidney Lumet is in his A game and along with a beautiful cinematography and conservative editing, the 'directorial' objective is successfully achieved. Faye Dunaway and William Holden are convincingly good in their parallel role but the real game changer is Peter Finch as a supporting cast. Network is not your typical controversial informative feature, but is more brutal and dark that is depicted nicely with the help of a cunning script, stellar performances and brilliant execution on its side.