In 'Quiz Show,' one gets the feeling that Robert Redford has made a movie that is more interesting than the subject it covers. In the annals of great events of the twentieth century, the quiz show scandals of the late fifties would rank pretty low even then, and less so today. Why? I'm not sure. Perhaps because so many entertainments today are blatantly phony, it's hard to get very worked up about a rigged TV program from fifty years ago. Pro wrestling is the obvious example, but there is the whole phenomenon of 'reality' television that, while perhaps not technically 'rigged,' is so overblown in its self-importance as to feel unnervingly fake to most discerning people. But then, that shouldn't really matter, should it? Movies don't have to be about big subjects. Certainly some of the very best have been about small or intimate themes. And 'Quiz Show' does a good job of telling its story, large, small or in-between. It has a nice feel of time and place, though it doesn't portray the fifties as convincingly as some other films have. I think this has more to do with the dialogue than set decorations or any other visual element. It seems a bit too knowing, too obviously written from a current perspective, especially from the show-in-question's two producers, which seem right out of present day. Maybe Redford is making a point: some things never change. Part of the fun of 'Quiz Show' is identifying the various actors. None are megastars but a lot of them are familiar and I found myself saying, there's Griffin Dunne, there's the guy from 'Ed Wood' and there's the chief of staff from 'Air Force One', etc. I suppose that is not unusual except that there are so many of them in 'Quiz Show;' it seems a mini who's who of working actors. Oh, and Ralph Fiennes as Charles Van Doren. He's certainly photogenic and is meant to project the shy, somewhat self-deprecating intelligence of the real Van Doren as well as his tortured conscience. The self-deprecation though is largely a pose as the character is really quite full of himself. Fiennes' performance is adequate, but he smiles too much. You begin to wonder if he has any other expression than smiling winsomely at whomever he's speaking to. The story, as well as the truth behind it, is simple enough. A Jeopardy-type program in the late 50's, 'Twenty-One,' supplies Van Doren with answers for some of the questions (as it had for the preceding champion, whose popularity had 'plateaued'), thus ensuring Van Doren wins every time and remains on the air. A federal investigator learns the truth and eventually Van Doren confesses in a hearing. It was a big deal at the time, giving impetus to the quiz shows being 'cleaned up.' (How 1950's is that? First horror comic books, then quiz shows.) Looking at it today though, it's strictly gossip column fodder, right up there with "did the Monkees play their own instruments?" Charles Van Doren's father, who was a rather famous professor and intellectual in his own right, considers the programs hardly worthy of contempt, and that cheating on them was roughly equivalent to "plagiarizing comic books." Then at the end, Twenty-One's producers further make the argument that the hearings are a big to-do over nothing. According to one, the sponsor makes money, the network makes money, the contestants make money, and the public is entertained. So, he asks, who is hurt? I find it hard to argue his point. There is a charm in the naiveté' of past decades, yet at times one is inclined to shake one's head and think, "those people had WAY too much time on their hands." For all its well-informed nostalgia, 'Quiz Show' seems a perfect example of that.
Review of Quiz Show
