In the 1970’s universe of Network, the general populace is glued to their television screens. The executives behind the glass thrive off the market shares they can get, which turn into profit via advertisements.  Network was certainly prophetic in its depiction of new media – Sybil the Soothsayer, Miss Mata Hari, Jim Webbing, and the Vox Populi all have their place in the present.

But perhaps now television has been unseated as the junction between the masses and the marketplace.  As discussed in a recent report by The New York Times, Facebook has pulled in astonishing numbers in advertising dollars, and only displays more and more capacity to grow:

Your addiction is making Facebook astonishingly profitable. Put a little more kindly, your emotional and intellectual interactions on the social network are creating a great place for companies to advertise.

What this means in dollars and cents for Facebook can be seen in numbers contained in its first-quarter financial results, released on Wednesday. For the United States and Canada, Facebook pulled in $11.86 in advertising revenue per user in the first quarter. That’s what advertisers are willing to pay to catch your attention as you argue with your friends and relatives over Donald Trump or coo over baby pictures or both.

As the advertising potential of Facebook, or some other social media company, continues to grow, more content must be generated to continue to increase profit margins.  And as social media permeates our life in every way- on our computers, on our phones, by our side at all times- the threat to our humanity grows more and more insidious.  Are we becoming the human automata that Howard Beale predicted, addicted to checking our phones and our computers at every possible instant? And who will dictate the media visible to us, and what goes unseen?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/28/opinion/sunday/kicking-the-facebook-habit.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/29/opinion/sunday/addicted-to-distraction.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/30/upshot/how-youre-making-facebook-a-money-machine.html

After analyzing the format of the Howard Beale Show in Network, I came to the conclusion that the various segments relate to the basic framework of a typical advertisement. This theory does seem valid, because just like advertisements, the Howard Beale Show was designed to appeal to the masses. Below, I have outlined how each segment mirrors the components of a conventional advertisement.

“Sybil: The Soothsayer” and the Promise of a Better Reality

The “Sybil: The Soothsayer” segment on the Howard Beale Show is meant to portray the notion that society yearns for a glimpse into the future, perhaps to eliminate the anxiety of uncertainty and to keep aspirations alive for an idealized reality that lies ahead. Advertisement are similar in convincing the consumer that a certain product or service has the ability to provide this aspirational state. Advertisements are meant to highlight a need, whether existing or fabricated, and how a specific product or service can fulfill that need. Similar to “Sybil: The Soothsayer,” advertisements provide a sense of comfort that a current dissatisfaction will be overcome, and an idealized reality lies ahead. A more obvious example of this type of marketing can be seen in weight loss ads, which ensure that your “idealized state” can be achieved in the very near future.

“Skeletons in the Closet” and the Life of the Elite

“Skeletons in the Closet” was meant to represent audience members’ desires to escape the detriments of their current lives by listening to the misfortunes of others, namely celebrities. Modern advertisements with celebrity endorsers somewhat portray this concept. Aside from providing more credibility behind advertisements, utilizing celebrity endorses shows the audience that celebrities have mutual misfortunes and needs, whether it be a remedy for acne, weight loss, etc. When people view these testimonials, recognize the struggles of public figures, and associate the success of celebrities with the product/service solving these setbacks, they are enticed to make a purchase in the hopes of escaping their struggles and experiencing the reality of celebrities’ lives.

“Vox Populi” and Conforming to the Majority

The “Vox Populi,” or popular opinion segment of the Howard Beale Show represents peoples’ desire to not only listen to perspectives that resemble their own, but also the yearning to remain in synch with a larger community. This strategy is very similar to the methods many advertisers employ. Ads are obviously designed in a way that appeal to the needs and beliefs of the majority of a specific target audience, but also underscore the necessity of a specific product or service in fitting in among society. For example, the commercial for Bumpits (a plastic piece inserted into the hair to give the illusion of more volume) emphasizes the belief that all women allegedly desire and look better with more voluminous hair. Whether this notion is true or not, the commercial is meant to persuade women to believe that in order to fit in and obtain approval from others in society, they must purchase this product. Both the “Vox Populi” and commercials for products similar to Bumpit manipulate individuals to conform their individual desires and needs to what is portrayed as popular opinion.

“It’s the Emmes Truth Department” and Deceitfulness

The “Emmes Truth Department” most likely depicts news stories in a fictional light in order to appeal to audiences. Such practices allows the audience members to hear only what they would like to hear and protects them from any type of news that would upset them. This deceitful nature is very present in the advertising industry as well. The benefits and quality of many products and services are often fabricated and exaggerated. Commercials and advertisements are designed to reflect what people would want to hear (e.g. “Loose weight easily and fast,” “xyz product is the #1 choice as voted by doctors,” etc.). By solely conveying what consumers want to hear, consumers are at risk of potentially wasting their time and money buying sub-par products, and even putting themselves in danger if the side effects of certain products are unclear. These ramifications are similar to sugar-coating news stories — the audience remains uneducated and potentially vulnerable to the harsh realities of the world.

“Mad Prophet of the Airways” and Masking Individual Thinking

Howard Beale provided an outlet for audience members to express their anger, but he also essentially dictated what the audience should believe in. The audience enjoys his segment because they can outwardly express emotions, but these emotions do not involve any type of personal thinking or formation of unique perspectives. Similarly, advertisements are created to influence consumers’ opinions on a product or service. The ultimate goal of advertising is to induce sales by showing a product/service in a positive light and ensuring it is easy for the consumers to choose a specific product/service over those of competitors. Because advertisements dictate how consumers should view a product and aim to trump any existing perceptions, they are very similar to the underlying goal of Howard Beale’s segment.

Although some of my explanations may have been a bit of a stretch, I do think the Howard Beale Show adequately reflects consumers’ dangerous relationship with advertising.

I won’t lie, my favorite thing about watching movies is learning about the actors and actresses in them. I know this is reminiscent of Old Hollywood but literally after every Monday I google the film and then look at the starring actor/actress’s Wikipedia page. Though I normally recognize at least one of the actors in each film we have watched, I am especially intrigued when I do not know who they are and upon looking them up and find a unique trivial fact.

When I was watching Network, I found it difficult to sympathize with Max’s wife Louise when she found out her husband was leaving her, mainly because the script did not focus on or even fully develop her character in the narrative, using her only as an emotional punching bag for the audience to reconsider their view of Max. So, imagine my surprise when I found out that the actress who played Louise Schumacher (Beatrice Straight) was not only nominated for the Best Supporting Actress Academy Award, but won the category as well for her role as the heartbroken wife in Network. In fact, Beatrice Straight also holds the Academy record for the shortest performance to win, only being on screen for a total of 5 minutes and 40 seconds. Though Academy Award  wins are not the end all-be all of an actor’s talent (I’m looking at you, Leo), I was still intrigued that a character with such little screen time could warrant both a nomination and a win on the Oscar night. Therefore, I decided to scrounge the Internet for what people consider “The Worst Oscar Winners”. Though I am not strongly against Beatrice Straight winning an Academy Award for her work, I figured that this was not the first time the Academy went against the popular choices (and their better judgement) in both nominees and winners.

Starting with the men, here are the top 5 winners considered “the worst” Best Actors:

1.  Sean Penn in 2003 for Mystic River
   • Viewed as an over-actor, many believed Bill Murray should have won for his performance in Lost in Translation
2. Roberto Benigni in 1998 for Life is Beautiful
   • Viewed as a tasteless comedy about the holocaust, Benigni’s performance was seen as one-dimensional.
3. John Wayne in 1970 for True Grit
   • This win was viewed as a lifetime achievement award from the Academy to John Wayne as an icon, not for his performance in True Grit.
4. Rex Harrison in 1964 for My Fair Lady
   • Seen as an awkward, forced performance, many believe this award would have been more suited for Richard Burton or Peter O’Toole in Becket.
5. Al Pacino in 1992 for Scent of a Woman
   • Everyone can agree that Pacino, in his prime, was a talented actor. However, many thought this performance was undeserving of an Oscar and that it was a sympathy Oscar for Pacino not winning for his past, stronger performances.

Now on to the “worst” actress wins

1. Elizabeth Taylor in 1980 for Butterfield 8
   • Most critics concede that Taylor was a remarkably talented actress and definitely deserved an Oscar, just not for this film.
2. Helen Hunt in 1997 for As Good as it Gets
   • Seen as an underwhelming, boring performance.
3. Cher in 1987 for Moonstruck
   •  Seen as a good, yet overwhelming that should not have beaten out Glenn Close’s performance in Fatal Attraction.
4. Halle Berry in 2002 for Monster’s Ball
   • Though Berry’s win was of historical significance (first African American female to win) many critics believed that Berry deserved a better character and better film to win for.
5. Gwyneth Paltrow in 1998 for Shakespeare in Love
   • Seen as a romantic comedy performance that should have not even been nominated.

Though award shows are not everything, it is interesting to see how perception of  what is someone’s “best” or “worst” performance changes over time.

Sources:

http://www.azcentral.com/story/entertainment/movies/2016/02/16/worst-best-actress-oscar-winners/80003620/

http://www.filmsite.org/worstoscars.html

http://www.azcentral.com/story/entertainment/movies/2016/02/16/worst-best-actor-oscar-winners/80014628/

Network with all of its themes about media contains a very interesting contradiction central to the plot. It is the fact that Howard Beale’s attempt to break away from TV only drives himself closer to it. It’s a very strange dynamic that persists throughout the film, and we didn’t talk about it much in class, so I just wanted to draw some attention to it.

At the beginning of the movie, Beale goes on TV and calls out the media for its “bullshit.” The result is not that Beale quits TV and urges others to do the same; the result is instead that Beale becomes further enveloped in the world of TV and creates a bigger media monster than the news with his Howard Beale Show that propels as much “bullshit” as his old news job. Beale on the show tells people to turn off their TV and stop paying attention to the media, even though he himself is the media, and he just gets more views from these statements rather than less. We even get visual irony in these scenes because while Beale denounces media, a camera in the frame reminds us that Beale is the media too.

So Network with this interesting contradiction is communicating the inescapability of TV. Anyone who stays on TV is getting good ratings, so even if they have good intentions, they might still be part of the problem. This inescapability is actually a bit similar to some themes we’ll see in Fight Club shortly wherein a revolution to escape a materialistic society just turns into a materialistic society itself.

I think this dynamic in Network really adds a lot to the movie because it makes the audience question a lot about what they think about TV and their own viewing habits. There’s the question of whether the Howard Beale Show has merit. If Beale can get good messages across while still being part of the system he is fighting against, is he still accomplishing his goal? Or is Beale just feeding the monster he is fighting against? Is it possible to fight against a system while being part of it? Or on the other extreme, is it necessary to be a part of a system to fight against it? I think these are all really good questions without clear answers. They are certainly important to consider in order to understand the beast that is media.

Ultimately, Network does have a bit of a defeatist attitude. It does not even attempt to offer any solutions because frankly there probably aren’t any. As Network shows, media just gives audiences what they want, so any change has to originate from the viewers of a show, not the show itself. Many humans just prefer sensational presentation, and we won’t evolve an aversion to it anytime soon, so things will probably stay the way they have been.

Much to everyones dismay, I am NOT going to write about Donald Trump and politics and media today. Instead, I think it’s important to recognize the importance of ratings and how not everyone might agree with the ratings, but thats business. If a show doesn’t have good enough ratings, essentially it is destined to be cancelled. This was the motivation behind the Howard Beale Show, to expand the audience and eventually ratings would skyrocket! But can there be a way to beat the rating system and are we, in fact, headed in that very direction?

I have had some bad luck in TV shows when it comes to ratings and being cancelled. A few noteworthy favorites that got the short end of the TV show season renewal stick include: Underemployed, Pan Am, Wicked City, Smash and Glory Daze. Basically, if you really like a TV show, make sure I don’t like the same one because it is destined for cancellation.

Check out this website for more details about the ratings and cancellations: http://tvseriesfinale.com/television-ratings/

I think this is a sad reality of television. The fact that the industry is so driven by ratings and the size of the audience is relevant in more ways than one. In the case of the Howard Beale Show, the fear of bad ratings incentivizes the show to put on an ‘act of sorts’. They get to the point where they are just giving the people what they think they want and that is not always reality. This media corruption should be a reality check for us as an audience to work harder to find the truth and not just rely on the news.

Well, do you know what else the people want? We want answers! I can’t imagine HOW any of the TV series that I mentioned above would have ended. My latest cancelled show, Wicked City, had 3 episodes that were aired before they pulled the plug. WHO KNOWS what kind of potential was in the story. The sad part is, that we may never know. Because of how seriously ratings are taken in the TV world, we may never get the truth or the answers we deserve.

This made me think of the Film Festival this past weekend as well. I saw some well written, genuinely good film. However, with the industry being the way it is, WHO KNOWS if large audiences of people will ever get to see these films. Obviously when it comes to film and TV, different people have different preferences and opinions on things and we can’t make everyone happy.

In conclusion, since TV is really taking a modern transition into streaming and less people are watching traditional cable TV, can we really use the ratings as a justifiable reason to cancel a TV show? Maybe the more important thing is for writers to tell their stories from beginning to end and for the news TV shows, much like the Howard Beale Show, to tell the truth (long shot, but I’m a dreamer), and NOT worry about ratings since they know that they wont be cancelled. It’s kind of like school, if we were graded on a pass fail basis, would we as students experience less stress, more incentive to do better and a better appreciation for schooling in general?

**Side note:
Did anyone else think about this when they were screaming “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore”?

For those of you unfamiliar with what I mean by my title, first go to TheOnion.com and read some of the best parody news in the entire world.

Moving on, Network had this very odd and totally wrong prediction about the future of news and that is that the news department will be trying to manufacture sensational news just to attract viewers. The last scene of the movie is Howard Beale being killed essentially for ratings, ad revenue, and an idea for another show. Thankfully that has never happened oh wait shit strap in.

Remember how Dr. Jordan talked about in class how Trump is getting all of the media coverage and by extension is winning all of these votes essentially because he’s who the news cares about? That’s not just because he says crazy things. Remember that huge poll that CNN had late last year (when we still had 400 candidates) that showed Trump at 36%? Yeah that wasn’t some actual measure of popularity. They designed the poll to give him an edge. Why? If their poll has him leading they get to cover him more, and people tune in for Trump. It’s unethical to say the least and infuriating to say the most. But moving on.

But news reporters don’t do morally awful things just for the sake of ratings? Except for that time a bunch of reporters broke into the apartment of the San Bernadino shooters two days after the shooting. Depending on who you are that might still have been an active crime scene. But no let’s show pictures of children on TV in relation to a terrorist attack and let’s also contaminate potential evidence. It’s actually pretty disgusting. Salvia Eric comments on it in a way better way than I can (warning it is very not safe for work).

I don’t know. I’d like to believe that Network was wrong and everyone involved in news is the Walter Cronkite of their generation always on the hunt for the truth. But you see things like this and you get kind of depressed.

P.S. I found an Onion article from the day after Obama won the election called “After Obama Victory, Shrieking White-Hot Sphere of Pure Rage Early GOP Frontrunner for 2016.” lol