In Network Paddy Chayefsky Bit The Hand That Fed Him Clean Off. We Need to Separate The Artist From the Art Here

 

Last night I was watching some of TCM's documentary about Paddy Chayefsky, to date the only screenwriter to win three Oscars for Best Screenplay. I've seen and loved many of his movies and I once had a collections of the plays for television he wrote during the 1950s. These include not just Marty but other works such as The Mother and The Bachelor Party.

He was a genius in every medium he touched, not just in television but the theater. I've seen some of his 'lesser' films such as In the Middle of The Night and The Americanization of Emily and I know what an extraordinary artist he was. And he deserves all the praise he gets for his work. But having read many books about Chayefsky's life I also know that, like many genius artists, he had a very high opinion of himself and his ego got even bigger the most movies he made and the more awards he won. And I know something that by the time he wrote Network, like so many writers of that era, he had begun to turn on the industry that had made him famous.

This is not uncommon by a long shot, particularly among writers. I saw it in William Goldman's attitude towards the industry as he got older and how he chose to lash out at it for never giving him the credit he deserved. David Mamet famously described Hollywood as 'Bambi vs. Godzilla', which is essentially blaming studios for choosing to focus on movies that draw audiences rather than making art. And a host of other writers from Charles Beaumont to Harlan Ellison and directors like Paul Schrader and Brian DePalma have frequently attacked the industry for chasing money rather than art.

I suspect that these writers do so because they can't do what they really want to do and blame the masses for going to see blockbuster films in giant numbers rather than the brilliant works they make. Some of them will hint at it in their own private writings but they are smart enough never to say the quiet part out loud. All of these intelligent men know in their hearts that Hollywood is a business first and anything else second. They know the only reason any of their visions make it to the silver screen in the first place is because the studio system they rail against thinks there's a way to make money from it. This bothers them for many reasons, not the least of which is they frequently believe what critics and their colleagues say: that they are artists in a gallant and noble profession, trying to impart wisdom to the vulgar plebs who don't get their messages. (If you've read my Criticizing Criticism series you know why it would be understandable writers would think this.) And I also think they have to believe that they are artists rather than entertainers because they really think there is shame in being the latter then the former.

Frankly I don't know why they believe this is a bad thing. Speaking for myself I have never gone to a new movie or a new television show hoping for some kind of great film that will raise my intellect, make me question my way of life and rethink my entire philosophy. I honestly think if that's my first reaction to a movie or TV show, they've completely missed the mission statement. I come to film and television wanted to escape from the world I live, to be entertaining, to disappear into a different world even if its similar to our own. All of the other stuff is secondary and should be talked or written about afterwards. This may seem facetious considering that I am  a critic myself but I'm a fan first and I really think most viewers are otherwise. There is no shame in this really but the people in Hollywood and a lot of the people who work around it seem to think there is. And this brings me, in a roundabout way, to Network.

In this most recent tribute to the film we saw new additions to Chayefsky's vision. Now in addition to everything else it is responsible for the rise of Trump (strange, last I heard it was comic book movies that were responsible for that) and how it foresaw Citizens United (as if Samuel Alito cited Ned Beatty's monologue as a footnote in the majority decision) as well as of course indicting the entire human race for being mindless automatons who will do anything they see on television. That last one, of course, is nothing new: it's basically the same argument Hollywood liberals and so many intellectuals have been making to explain why America is the way it is today. They've clearly spent a lot of time and energy in the last decade trying to find a way so much of today's America something that was in their films that was taken out of context. Oliver Stone is seen in this film showing as always the clip of Wall Street where Gordon Gekko says, 'Greed is good' and then argues people misinterpreted what he was trying to say. (Odd that he doesn't think society has taken JFK out of context and is responsible for the world we live in today. I'd argue there's a more direct link there. Another essay.)

I truly believe that so many of these people in Hollywood are trying very hard to draw a direct line between the work they've made and the world today as an effort to make sense of it. This is a flawed idea for many reasons and I may write about it later on. For now, however, I'd like to focus on Network and why I really do think Chayefsky's tone made it work as well as it did while also stating the views of the writer himself.

To be clear Network is by far one of the greatest films ever made, with some of the greatest dialogue, extraordinary images and some of the most outstanding performances of the decade and maybe of all time. It is also a polemic in which the author doesn't bother to hide his contempt for every aspect of the human race with the biggest middle finger being shown to the medium that put him on the map in the first place.

I'm not saying that Network couldn't have been the masterpiece it is without that latter being true or that it might not have become iconic if it wasn't for it. But the fact remains that Chayefsky first cut his teeth making some of the greatest plays for television during the 1950s and it was only because his big-screen adaptation of Marty became such a critical hit, eventually winning Best Picture and him his first Academy Award. Without television Chayefsky would never have been in the position to be one of the greatest screenwriters of all time. But it was clear well before he even wrote Network that there was always a part of him that felt this medium was beneath him. "Television always struck me as democracy at its worst," he said in an interview. "Give the people what they want."

This statement is, in its own way, a foreshadowing of how so many other artists often viewed working in the medium: David Chase famously later seemed to hate every minute he was working on network TV and never seemed to enjoy writing The Sopranos much either. And at its core it shows a visceral contempt by the writer for the people who potentially want to see his films or indeed anything. Oh, I'm sure he meant to attack the networks for chewing up his visions to make them more accessible to a mass audience but even that shows a measure of contempt for a person's intelligence too. That the people are too dumb to appreciate my vision.

And this contempt is shown in great form in every aspect of Chayefsky's screenplay. It's worth noting that there was a great deal of dissatisfaction in the late 1970s because of Vietnam, Watergate, inflation and all the other factors in society. (Faye Dunaway's Diana lists them all at a point in the film.) Indeed Jimmy Carter would later argue in the White House that America was undergoing a crisis of confidence for this very reason. And while Dunaway's network executive is something of a corporate monster for trying to find a way to turn this into ratings and money for the network, there's something even more cynical about how Chayefsky is arguing that this frustration itself  - this need to feel like you're doing something – is somehow meaningless because the people can only express it when they're told about it on television. That's a darker view of humanity then anything most of the characters put in the words during the film.

Indeed it's worth noting that Beale starts to lose his popularity when he starts giving speeches about how the human race and America is doomed. This comes not long after Ned Beatty's character talks to him in the board room. Left out of the discussion of this movie when it comes to it is that Beale is popular because he's giving his viewers the possibility that they can bring about great change by the actions take – something they've done when their outrage helped kill a corporate deal. After that happens Beale then starts arguing that nothing like that will happen again and humanity as a whole has run its course. I can't tell you how many times I've heard variations on this in so many left-wing articles on sites like this, particularly in the last decade. Beale is essentially arguing the left-wing point of view: the human race's best days are behind it and we are all doomed. Small wonder his ratings start to plummet after this: it's hardly a call to the barricades.

And its worth noting Chayefsky shows little compassion or use for Beale beyond his appearances on camera. For all his rage at the world, he's very much a pawn being manipulated by larger forces, the bosses at UBS and later the corporate head. One can't forget the first broadcast when he gives a speech saying that at the end of the week he will blow his brains out and everyone in the broadcast booth is so focused on doing their jobs that no one notices until he's finished. Peter Finch's energy and rage make Beale resonate and seem more dimensional than he is but Chayefsky seems more content to speak about what he's doing then show him. The discussion to have him killed is given more attention than his actual murder.

To be clear none of this makes Network any less of a masterpiece. But what it shows is that Chayefsky really thinks that the TV viewing audience – and by extension, humanity itself – is powerless against the force of capitalism, that television controls corporate greed and that people are so easily manipulated that the individual or even the group is fundamentally mindless to act on its own. I suspect this is a lot of the reason why so many critics and filmmakers love it – it expresses their opinion of humanity perfectly. They don't have to say the quiet part out loud; Chayefsky's doing it for them.

Chayefsky was not shy about his contempt for humanity: in interviews seen he is very free about it. When he's asked if he has any hope about this he says: "Yes. I hope I'm wrong." No statement could prove the ego of the man or indeed so many Hollywood liberals then this. They think the worst of humanity and it us up to humanity to prove them wrong, not to work to do go for humanity and help it.

I think that among the other things that Chayefsky predicted – but is not given credit for in these interviews – was the rise of the meanness in so many of Hollywood personalities when it comes to politics and how they show it, both in public and in their work. There's an argument that his most direct heir is not Aaron Sorkin or Oliver Stone but Adam McKay whose movies take the grim view Chayefsky shows in Network and double down on it, most notably in Don't Look Up. Films like The Big Short and Vice do not subtly make their points as Chayefsky does but lecture the audience as if they're dumb and show such a grim view of the world you leave the theater yearning for the comparatively cheerful work of Yorgos Lanthimos. McKay is just as grim and unrelenting in his satire but unlike Chayefsky doesn't have anywhere near the talent to back it up.

We are approaching the 50^th anniversary of Network's original release so I expect there will be far more discussion. Analysis and endless debate on how much it foresaw the closer we get to it as is always the case. But as critics and viewers we have to remember that context matters and at some level a movie is just a movie. By its nature it must reflect the views the writer put in at the time and that real life does not follow the arc of a screenplay, much as those in Hollywood would like it to. There's no single event in Act One that  leads to what happens in Act Three in a country's history for many reasons, not the least of which is the final page of America has not, much as these same liberals will tell you forcefully, has not been written yet.

There's also the fact that everything, including movies, only look prophetic in hindsight. They do not cause future events, much as these critics and celebrities would like to believe they do. They can't predict the future any more than they create it, and if you believe that you've been listening to far too much of the Moral Majority – you know the kind of people Hollywood hates on principle. It is the simplistic and cynical view of humanity that is at the core of not just Network but much of Chayefsky's writing in general. It's understandable particularly given the age we live in but it doesn't solve anything either.

As for myself I will always think of Network as a great film that did foresee certain events in television in particular that were to come. But I know that correlation doesn't equal causation and that even the greatest film has less power to change history then the act of the individual who chooses to work towards that goal. I am mad as hell about the way the world is and I'm not going to take it anymore. But that doesn't mean I'm going to stop trying to make it better – or to go to a movie or watching television, hoping a prophet will come along to show me the way. No I'll watch the film or show, then I'll work on the rest. Screaming out the window – that's never going to accomplish anything in the long run. Working together, that can. Network told us that too – but we missed that message.