Quiz Show

Although I can recall quite clearly when Robert Redford's QUIZ SHOW first came out (in 1994), I never actually watched the film until last night. Let me say first that I have rarely seen either a movie re-creation of the 1950's that rings truer or an opening sequence (shots of New York and New Yorkers, accompanied by Bobby Darin's rendition of "Mack the Knife") that is smoother or more engaging. The behind-the-cameras and before-the-cameras views of the (re-enacted) quiz program "Twenty-One" are still more seamless and riveting; this is direction at its very best. The film's plot, of course, deals with the quiz-show scandal of the late 1950's that involved contestants Herbert Stempel, a working class Jewish man from Queens, and Charles Van Doren, a privileged, Ivy Leaguer who resided in Connecticut. Other reviewers have summarized the plot; I will only add that QUIZ SHOW's script vilifies no one involved, though it does present moral and ethical issues for our consideration.The performances are uniformly excellent, with John Turturro as Herb Stempel (a bigger role than that of Charles Van Doren) making the strongest impression. Paul Scofield is entirely believable as Charles' venerable father, the academic Mark Van Doren. Scofield's countryman, the young Ralph Fiennes, was perfectly cast as Charles himself. Blond and blue eyed -- the opposite physical type to the "ethnic" Turturro, which is apt -- Fiennes makes Van Doren's internal, moral dilemma abundantly clear. His beautifully delivered, genuinely humble address at the Congressional hearing in the penultimate scene of the film will have you in tears. Although he does not sound fully at ease with the American accent, which turns his voice nasal, Fiennes' mouth and eyes are most expressive: he is an actor capable of evoking audience sympathy with his gaze alone. David Paymer and Hank Azaria as the two NBC executives who "discard" Stempel and lure Van Doren, and Rob Morrow as the lawyer who handles the wronged contestants' cases, are all equally effective. As written, Paymer's and Azaria's characters might be one-dimensional; their acting is not.It is a mystery to me why QUIZ SHOW was not honored with Oscars, as nearly everything about it seems ideal. Rarely has there been an American movie that better evokes the era in which it is set or that handles a past "scandal" with such fairness. Highly recommended.

This reviewer will not presume the surpass the other reviews for this film. This is a great film. If the story had not been based actual on real events, the story of the Quiz Show Scandals in the late 1950s could have been conceived by Shakespeare. It moves with the drama of a thriller, the mystery of a detective story, and ends with the pathos of King Lear. The impact is made greater from the fact that the underlying core of the story was accurate — some artistic license was given to the unfolding of the actual events, to which Redford replied that he was trying to make a compelling movie, not a documentary — and actual dialogue was used.In the quiz show scandals, Charles Van Doren, an upper class educator from a distinguished literary family, overtook the national attention by unseating Herb Stempel, an equally educated but idiosyncratic, working class joe, by having the answers fed to him, in the quiz show $64,000.00 Question. Stempel had also had the answers fed to him, but regretted it and later attempted to expose the fraud. Van Doren never did. Once on the cover of Time magazine, Van Doren became a national disgrace. This movie is graced with fine performances of all around.Charles Van Doren is living proof that intellectual acuity and upper class upbringing does not equate moral rectitude.The crucial point of the film is when the Van Doren family and friends are leisurely enjoying an afternoon meal in their tony, country estate. While the tony guests are cheerfully talking, Charles Van Doren, a main protagonist, quotes from Much Ado About Nothing:What men dare do,What men may do,What men daily do,Not knowing what they do.This quotation becomes the metaphor for this movie and of the entire quiz show scandal.Indeed, the makers of the $64,000.00 Question dared to present a phony quiz show, and rather than have the contestants achieve their riches through merit, rigged the game in the avowed aim of giving the viewing audience a good show.The federal prosecutor, Richard Goodwin, dared to start Congressional investigations for possible federal law violations. In order to do so, he found it necessary to ingratiate himself with the Van Dorens and their ilk, taking care not to get too close. The viewer — and the Goodwin character — at times is left with the impression that sometimes he got too close.Herb Stempel, the every-day, common man, dared to expose the scandal in his own foible ridden, imperfect way.Charles Van Doren, on the other hand, went along with the fix, and indeed, for all his education, erudition, and privilege, did not realize, until, that is, when it was too late, that the entire process was wrong, exposing the moral bankruptcy of his class. The entire picture is summarized by the comments of Congressman Derounian, who, at the Congressional hearings commented, both in the movie and in the actual hearings, that Charles Van Doren should not be commended for telling the truth.Van Doren thus became an embarrassment to the nation and his class and has largely lived outside of the national spotlight ever since. This movie can be seen as a moral, political and social allegory, a narrative of events, or of a simple example of human hubris, and it is even more poignant because it is based on actual events. It works well on many levels.

Only Robert Redford could direct a historical piece and make it riveting. He took the simplest chapter from Richard Goodwin's "Remembering America" and created a fast paced, riveting motion picture about the government investigation of the duplicitous game Shows in the mid to late 1950's in which the Networks and Geritol made millions by feeding the answers to guests Herb Stemple and Charles van Doren. The star of this film is Rob Morrow who plays Dick Goodwin. Ralph Fiennes plays van Doren and is expert but it is Morrow who carries the film. Typical of Redford's films, the detail is amazing from real footage, and the use of muted colors, gray, white. He doesn't portray 1956 as it was but as we remember it or WISH it was. Cigarettes are everywhere but with the clean affectation of a 1940's Bogart film. The script is smart, taking pure fact and creating excitement. Once again, Redford earned an Oscar nomination following a list of films that began with "Ordinary People." Robert Redford's contribution to cinematic art is on a par with John Huston and Alfred Hitchcock. This is one of his best films.

This starts promisingly and it's a really interesting subject, based on a true story which is always a bonus. But then it goes on and on and on and on and on and...Until you're praying for it to end.Once upon a time cinemas used to show a main movie and a B movie. Since they stopped doing that, producers and directors seem to think they have to spread every damn movie out to cover the time that the two movies used to take up! Up to 2 hours is just about bearable but after that it usually become unbearable and 'Quiz Show' becomes that. To me it's a potentially great movie ruined by the director's self-indulgence.

It's a brilliant film, one of my favourite ones.Acting is wonderful. The Jewish contestant of the show is fantastic, for example. But others are great too.And all this about a bizarre problem they had in America in the 50s. They seemed to take a trivial TV quiz show deadly seriously, to a point when there was a serious court case because contestants had been given answers in advance, before the show. And they were instructed how to act their part. And they were forced to "dive" i.e. to deliberately give wrong answers when the authors of the show decided they needed a change of face.I was completely stunned when I learned that a TV quiz show could be taken that seriously. It resembled me a reaction of some isolated tibesmen who had no concept of an acted perfomance when confronted with a theatre play. You can imagine: trying to stop the bad guy in the play, attempting to rescue actresses playing damsels in distress etc.Taking TV shows seriously is the same thing. Who on earth would imagine that shows made for entertainment of millions are real? Shown of TV, which is almost a definition of mendacious media by its very nature. I understand that in the 50s fewer people realised it, but still...It's like one of the accused says at the end: "we're not exactly hardened criminals here, it's show business".On top of it there is a notion that a learned academic coming from a prominent intellectual family can be a role model only if shown on the TV, in a little booth, ridiculously adorned with big headphones and answering random questions. Fascinating... What an insight into how primitive American mass culture is and a bitter refection that this primitiveness has spread to almost all corners of the world by now.Another high point comes when in the court many judges say how pleased they are with the intellectual contestant's statement, admitting he had been given answers in advance too. One of the judges says that he thought there was nothing praiseworthy if a man of this kind just says the truth in court. Brilliant and straight to the point. Says something about Americans too.Again, absolutely brilliant film about a trivial problem. It really takes mature filmmakers to take such a triviality and make out of it a film with so many insights. This saves American culture a litle I suppose :)

In 1958 America the most popular form of entertainment was quiz shows and the most successfull was "Twenty-One". Champions of the show were national heroes. One such hero was Charles Van Doren (Ralph Fiennes) a university professor and a product of America's most renowned literary family. People would tune in every week and watch in amazement at Charles drawing on his huge intellect and knowledge to answer the most obscure and difficult questions. No one would believe that this was a fix and the public only saw what the network and the producers wanted you to see. Herbie Stempel (John Turturo) a previous champion brings accusations against the network that this was a fraud which is dismissed but finally dug up by Dick Goodwin (Rob Morrow) a young lawyer working for a Congressional subcommittee. Directed very well by Robert Redford and with fantastic performances from Ralph Fiennes and Rob Morrow but for me this film is all about the amazingly intense performance from John Turturo who literally eats the screen whenever he's on. Good performances also by David Paymer andHank Azaria as the shows producers. This film superby captures the birth of popular television and the rise and fall of the first reality tv stars in an innocent era highly polished filmaking

Very good movie - stylish and athmospheric. Ralph Fiennes puts in a fine performance as the quiz show contestant induced to take part in a bit of skullduggery to maintain high ratings. Fantastic support from John Turturro, Johann Carlo and Rob Morrow

Fantastic movie.