I've Seen the Future
Tim Cavanaugh | December 3, 2004, 3:52pm
I have never agreed with the view that the movie Network was a "prophetic" look at the television industry. Though I always enjoy the record-breaking amounts of scenery-chewing by everybody involved in that picture, Network stands out (to me at any rate) not as visionary but as extremely dated, and mostly wrong in its view of which way television was headed. Beyond the overall observation that the networks would continue to seek ratings in more desperate ways—which, as a prediction, was not much of a stretch even in 1976—I don't think America ended up looking very much like the picture Network painted. (For movies from Sydney Lumet's seventies golden age, give me Dog Day Afternoon every time!)
I think it's time to put the prophetic-movie crown on the movie that really deserves it: Demolition Man. Dismissed as anti-PC bombthrowing at the time (and, like so much of the Sylvester Stallone oeuvre, criminally underrated even now), Demolition Man is striking for its many specific, falsifiable predictions that now seem well on the way to becoming true: There's a serious movement to amend the constitution to allow Arnold Schwarzenegger to become President; fattening foods are now routinely referred to as Schedule 1 substances; virtual sex has become so mainstream that many respectable, germ-phobic people use it as their primary outlet; Scott Peterson, briefly namechecked in Demolition Man's roll call of famous murderers, has in fact become a famous murderer; Dennis Leary is the undisputed king of the lowlifes... Check out the laundry list and you'll see how right Demolition Man was about just about everything. Network, 1984, Wag the Dog, take a back seat: Demolition Man is the Nostradamus of movies.
Henry | December 4, 2004, 12:43am | #
Actually, Network was quite prophetic--about Saudi influence in the US. Just ask Bandar Bush.
How could you miss that elephant in the living room, Tim?
It also did a fair job on the dangers of the news media being owned by large "conglomerates".
Movies aren't dated--viewers are. Most younger people can't even appreciate Network, since it presents what was then a completely over-the-top view of television news--before Fox, before even Geraldo. When the film opens with 4 screens--Cronkite, Chancellor, Howard K. Smith (I think) and Howard Beal, people then understood they were seeing in Beal a (fictional) contemporary of these great, respected news oracles--the presumed "wise men". Today, such oracles have been long ago destroyed or just ignored. Television news is largely ignored by an ever increasing segment of the populace (except, perhaps, the brainless Fox drones). In short, the whole import of that opening scene is lost on younger viewers of the film.
Older films are often loaded with such subtexts, fully understood by contemporary audiences, that just go over most of our heads nowadays. If that is what you mean by "dated", OK. But I don't really see what that concept adds to anything.
Anyway, the criticism about the "accuracy" of the "prophesy" of some work of art is often just inane. 1984 is the worst example. It wasn't a "prophecy" ("Hey, it is 1985--we made it, Orwell!"). It was about the nature of totalitarianism, regardless of time. Similarly, Network was about the unbridled "lowest common denominator" urge of the popular media, and how it could infect even (the then) citadel of "The News".
How wrong was it again?
James Anderson Merritt | December 4, 2004, 5:50pm | #
KevRob says, "Things could be worse. We could be living in the world of Americathon. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078766/"
Let's see: the sleazebag President wins office with the slogan, "I'm not a schmuck." How different is that, really, from "anyone but Bush" or "anyone but Kerry"?
England, the 57th State? Close!
Things grind to a halt temporaily while technos await repair modules from CHINA? This was the height of absurdity in the 70s. Not so funny anymore is it?
San Diego sold back to Mexico to help pay US federal debt? Hmmm ... how is the peso holding up against the dollar these days?
Everybody wearing sweatsuits, athletic shoes, and other clothing that bears a Nike (or similar) logo?
Indian tribes with $400B or more circa 1998, and the government in need of that kind of cash? Just thinking about federal budgets that big, not to mention deficits of that magnitude, gave people nosebleeds when this movie was released. These days, however, "Americathon's" predictions are too modest, albeit respectably in the ballpark.
Also, did anyone pay attention to the ballot propositions that were considered in California this past November? There was much rhetoric bandied about, to the effect that Indian tribes (made ultra-wealthy by running gambling casinos) needed to pay "their fair share" to help bring our heavily indebted state government back into the black. In the fantasy world of "Americathon," the Indians loaned the US government money it needed, and then called the loan, precipitating a financial crisis; in the real world, the California financial crisis came first, and people then voted on propositions dedicated to taking Indian money by force. (I think those propositions were defeated primarily because the Governator sent out signals that he could get an even BETTER deal for the state -- i.e., squeeze the tribes more -- without them.)
There's more, but those are the key highlights. It's my opinion that Neal Israel and the Firesign Theater guys got a lot of things right. "Does that make me a bad guy?"
