Quiz Show (1994)

3/4Back in 1957, there was a scandal concerning a game-show called "21". The producers of the show were working with the contestants to rig the show by providing the favored players with the answers to the questions. "After all, it's a show."Robert Redford's account of the downfall of game-shows is very intellectually stimulating. It provides an all-encompassing glimpse at each individual character leading up to the trial. Every characters motive is reconciled with the audience as it builds up to the conclusion (It's rare that you see this in movies similar to Quiz Show). In my perspective, no character was either a protagonist or antagonist. This is a rare example of where the dilemma is arguable to both sides. Kudos to Redford.Most of the preformances are good, with Morrow giving the undisputed standout. The producers' efforts seemed lacking in authenticity at times, but they did their roles fine. I found the characters to be little developed past their time on screen, which slightly marred the movie for me.There are quite a few questions left un-answered for me. Most of them involve the final court case, because it felt slightly sped through in the midst of the rest of the movie. A bit more resolution and clarity in general would suffice, without being redundant.Quiz Show is entertaining, informative, and historical. They take fewer liberties than most true-story movie renditions, which is a plus in my book. It also never feels to keep you engaged.

This is a classy, intelligent and hugely entertaining drama about a seemingly forgotten part of television history. It's one of the smartest and most sophisticated films I've ever seen about the meaning of "truth" in a socially practical sense.Redford tells the (true) story about a fixed quiz show very thoughtfully. He passionately sympathizes with the side of truth, but he's also smart enough to not get out of his role as an observer either. He trusts the viewers to meditate about the subject themselves and to each individually draw conclusions about how meaningful and valuable "truth" really is in our current system.I've always been interested and fascinated about the "illusion of truth" and the practical side of lying. Everyone knows that being truthful and honest is the right thing to do as a human being, but paradoxically it also seems that, in our practical society, "making your own truths" can make you much more successful. It goes even further. When you're able to keep up a specific strong illusion of truth, you can even fabricate a situation where everyone involved seems to get an advantage out of it! It's only when the bubble actually bursts that most people start to realize that they prefer the truth over fabrications, even though it's sometimes hard to rationally explain why.I guess people are so angry when they are confronted with other people's lies, because lies can also produce very terrible consequences. It's impossible to truly draw a fine line between when it is acceptable and when it is not. A society would implode if there wasn't any "certainty of truth" anymore, because there would be no trust. A whole society can lose its credibility just as much as one individual can.You, yourself, can choose what kind of person you want to be. 1) You can be one of the many people who tries to make a profit from that inevitable, immoral loophole in our society. The immorality of lying can be compensated by the generally good (personal) consequences those lies might carry with them.2) You can be a person who believes in the values of honesty and trust and who believes that those values are an inherent part of the moral foundations of a free society. Bending the truth to gain profits can have horrible, sometimes unforeseeable side effects, even if it's only in the long term.The most valuable thing this film may actually show, is that it is especially important to be aware of what both sides of the argument imply and ultimately may have in store. It's a very interesting film overall. It's well acted (the cast is fantastic), it's very solidly directed (I wonder if Redford got any tips from Scorsese, who played a small role in the film) and it has a very strong script about themes that will always be endlessly fascinating to me. Quiz Show managed to keep me entertained both dramatically and intellectually. I'm very much impressed and I strongly recommend seeing this film!

Robert Redford's Quiz Show is a pretty decent film that has some social, economic, and political morals to share. This drama is mostly riveting and it has an interesting story to tell. It's well-directed film by Redford who turned out to be a good director. The acting is great by everybody. My only problem is this film runs a little too long and it seems stale at some points.Redford's film is based off a true story. In 1958, NBC started a game show craze especially with their hit show 21. When champion Herb Stampel is kicked out and replaced by the popular Charles Van Doren, NBC comes under fire as it's revealed that the champions may have been given the answers to the questions.As mentioned before, the acting is phenomenal. John Turturro and Ralph Fiennes are great in their respective roles as the champions. David Paymer certainly makes a slimy guy. I was very surprised to see Martin Scorcese in an acting role, but I was very pleased.Overall, this is a decent film that goes on about corruption. Despite some staleness, I rather liked this film. It's not the best film of 1994, but it's easily entertaining. As for the subject matter, it's very hard to make a good mainstream film with it. But, somehow Robert Redford did it. I rate this film 8/10.

In the era of reality TV, we're used to the blurred line between fiction and non, but in the early days of television, the public was easily suckered in by the grandeur of that magical living room box. "Quiz Show" examines the public's right to the truth and perfectly captures an America bobbing in the wake of McCarthyism.Robert Redford brings his filmmaking pedigree to this adaptation of the Richard N. Goodwin book documenting Goodwin's (played by Robert Morrow) investigation that ignited the quiz show scandal of the late '50s. Paul Attanasio's screenplay weaves a story of TV bigwigs and little everyday men blinded by tastes of fame and money, along with the public deception they engaged in for their various reasons.The film begins predominantly with Herbie Stempel (John Turturro), a contestant on the popular NBC primetime game show "Twenty One." Herbie's long run on the show is about to come to a halt as the producers have seen their ratings plateau and want to bring in a new face to liven things up. Producer Dan Enright (David Paymer) tells Herbie he must throw the next show (in Herb's words, "take a dive") by flubbing an answer to a question as simple as who won the 1955 Oscar for Best Picture.Herbie is replaced with Charles Van Doren (Ralph Fiennes), the unremarkable son of a wealthy Pulitzer winner with a mind for trivia. Enright and co-producer Albert Freedman (Hank Azaria) propose an agreement in which they'll feed Charles answers to questions he already knows. He's rich, the public is enthralled and the ratings go up — everyone wins.The film builds this story for awhile until Richard Goodwin comes into the picture as a member of the legislative oversight committee for the House of Representatives. Goodwin senses something is awry with these quiz shows and slowly uncovers the truth."Quiz Show" isn't suspenseful from start to finish given it's clear the fraudulent quiz show operation will be exposed at some point, but what's fascinating to watch is how these otherwise small men in Stempel and Van Doren deal with the situation as it unfolds. How warped their egos have become after they agree to commit the "slight" transgression becomes a factor in the film. Are they good guys or bad guys, or more appropriately, how black and white is this situation, really?Equally intriguing is how Goodwin goes about interrogating all the parties involved as if private eye solving a murder. He demands the truth and it becomes apparent as hearings begin to be held that the public does too. "Quiz Show" paints an honest portrait of "the business" back in the '50s, the way that the TV people in that age were so dedicated to the dollar and justified everything as "it's what the people want." Things haven't changed so much, however. We now willfully indulge in contrived situations, believing that what the TV shows us is in fact the reality. "Quiz Show," even today, reveals to us that while we demand truth and honesty as consumers, we also long to believe and prefer it to skepticism because it's so much easier. In that sense, how much of a scandal was this really?~StevenThanks for reading! Visit moviemusereviews.com for more!