Quiz Show was nominated for Six Academy Awards and won four. Click the spoiler below to reveal the plot. While that text provides and overview of the story line, you are being asked to watch the movie for its character development aspects. The visual storytelling in this film is masterful and is very useful in your analysis. However, your real job is to look at the characters and note their challenges and judgments. Also note the throughlines.. something happens .. causing one to notice and to have to make a judgment… Note the teachable moments. While the specific morale of the story is not what we are looking for, we are instead trying to demonstrate this story as an exemplar of the elements of story creation in terms of Branigan and Kintsch. Is the ending /what happens to each character predictable? If so, how did Redford develop the throughlines? If not, why not? We see how Van Doren and Stemple are ‘going down the rabbit hole’ so-to-speak… what are the judgments they are making to cause this? How are these revealed? Who is the main character and who are the supporting ones?
The search begins….
Enright and Freedman are surprised when Columbia University instructor Charles Van Doren (Ralph Fiennes), son of a prominent literary family, visits their office to audition. .. for a completely different show… Realizing that they have found an ideal challenger for Stempel, they subtly offer to rig the game in Van Doren’s favor, but he refuses. Enright later informs Stempel that he must lose in order to boost the show’s ratings. Stempel begrudgingly agrees, on the condition that he can remain on television. He threatens to reveal the true reason for his success: he had been given the answers in advance.
Stempel and Van Doren face each other on Twenty One, where the match comes down to a predetermined question regarding Marty, the 1955 winner of the Academy Award for Best Picture. Despite knowing the correct film, Stempel gives the wrong answer of On the Waterfront, allowing Van Doren to win by correctly answering a question he had been asked during his audition.
In the weeks that follow, Van Doren’s winning streak makes him a national celebrity, but he buckles under the pressure and allows Enright and Freedman to start giving him the answers. Meanwhile, Stempel, having lost his prize money to an unscrupulous bookie, begins threatening legal action against NBC after weeks go by without his return to television. He visits New York County District Attorney Frank Hogan, who convenes a grand jury to look into his allegations.
Richard Goodwin (Rob Morrow), a young Congressional lawyer, learns that the grand jury findings have been sealed and travels to New York City to investigate rumors of rigged quiz shows. Visiting a number of contestants, including Stempel and Van Doren, he begins to suspect that Twenty One is a fixed operation. However, Stempel’s volatile personality damages his credibility, and nobody else seems willing at first to confirm that the show is rigged.
Stempel desperately confesses to Goodwin that he was in on the fix, and further insists that Van Doren must have been involved as well. As Goodwin collects more evidence, Van Doren deliberately loses. He is rewarded by NBC with a lucrative contract to appear as a special correspondent on the morning Today show. The House Committee for Legislative Oversight convenes a hearing, at which Goodwin presents his evidence of the quiz show’s corruption.
During the hearing, Stempel’s testimony fails to convince the committee. Both NBC network head Robert Kintner (Allan Rich) and Geritol executive Martin Rittenhome (Martin Scorsese) deny any knowledge of Twenty One being rigged. After being subpoenaed by Goodwin, Van Doren testifies before the committee and admits his role in the deception. After the hearing adjourns, he learns from reporters that he has been fired from Today and that Columbia’s trustees are going to ask for his resignation.
Goodwin believes he is on the verge of a victory against Geritol and NBC, but realizes that Enright and Freedman will not jeopardize their own futures in television by turning against their bosses. He silently watches the producers’ testimony, vindicating the sponsors and the network from any wrongdoing, and taking full responsibility for rigging the show.
Watch Quiz Show
After watching the movie check yourself that you understood the plot line as it relates to character development. Once you complete the quiz post your confirmation in Canvas. Don’t forget to post your response to the character empathy question there also
If you were creating an Oscar for Best Actor, which of the characters would you place in the "Best Actor in a Leading Role" category?
| It is really hard in this film... but you re correct Normally the one who is placed in leading role is the one who's life is interrupted and is forced to make a (moral) judgment. while several individuals lives were interrupted, only one transformed and made a judgment and faced consequences. Others while facing a dilemma, their character flaws or make-up would not allow them to change. |
|
| It is really hard in this film... normally the one who is placed in leading role is the one who's life is interrupted and is forced to make a (moral) judgment. while several individuals lives were interrupted, only one transformed and made a judgment and faced consequences. Others while facing a dilemma, their character flaws or make-up would not allow them to change. In this case it was Van Doren | |
| It is really hard in this film... normally the one who is placed in leading role is the one who's life is interrupted and is forced to make a (moral) judgment. while several individuals lives were interrupted, only one transformed and made a judgment and faced consequences. Others while facing a dilemma, their character flaws or make-up would not allow them to change. In this case it was Van Doren | |
| It is really hard in this film... normally the one who is placed in leading role is the one who's life is interrupted and is forced to make a (moral) judgment. while several individuals lives were interrupted, only one transformed and made a judgment and faced consequences. Others while facing a dilemma, their character flaws or make-up would not allow them to change. In this case it was Van Doren |
Think about this question and formulate in your head a response. The check your answer.
In the end, what was the dilemma that Van Doren was facing?
Whether or not he was actually cheating. He had convinced himself that, because he did not actually receive the questions per-se, he was simply 'cramming'/practicing for the test. At first, he had a moral crisis but by the time he got to the bottom of the spiral staircase (notice the metaphor the staircase plays in this scene ) he had made up his mind.
Another reflective question: What was the moment that got Richard Goodwin's attention? How did he think this case was going to make a name for himself? In the end, was he giving in to his ego or was he 'after the higher good'?
Goodwin was a recent grad from law school and was ambitious about his career. He noticed a small article in the newspaper about the case being sealed, which was unusual. He began his Woodward and Bernstein style search for truth and began to realize he could put TV on trial (In those early days of television, TV was basically an arm of the government and that anything deemed crooked .. like giving out answers to a quiz show.. was considered a crime against the government... ). This is one of those moment when folks began to realize that TV, like the movies, was simply entertainment.. and perhaps we all took things too seriously... while Goodwin wanted to be pure about it, his ego did get to him... he also began to have empathy towards Van Doren and tried to save him from himself...
Think about this question and formulate in your mind an answer.. then click the box for some insights.
At what was the real importance of the picnic scene in which the Van Doren family played their quiz games?
Actually this scene is very important.. it does reveal that the family loved to play these games and hat they were very intellectual. It is also the scene that played back later because one of the questions actually came up in the show.. at the picnic Van Doren knew the answer.. on the show he pretended he did not know it.. that same question Goodwin recalled Van Doren actually knew the answer.
Reflective response:
At what point do you think Van Doren was starting to feel guilty and could not live with himself?
This actually came along gradually... starting when he first met Goodwin in his office. On the sailboat during the picnic. During the several occasions that they ran into each other. Culminating when Van Doren sneaked into the family kitchen and spoke to his father... His relapse back into reality became totally predictable...
One last one....
What was the real moral of the story here?
Sure this is about character development... some changed (Van Doren), some tried but couldn't (Stemple). Goodwin thought he was on moral high ground but became the victim of his own ego. All three were victims of their own naivete. As it turns out TV was on trial here... and it marked the end of an era in which to some it began its descent from being this moralistic arm of the government into "just entertainment'. So the challenge/disruption evolved from being individual one to the bigger question... maybe that's the epic finish here...
This is a thinking question.
- How does Redford build empathy for the main characters (Van Doren and Herb Stempel, who is a secondary main character)?
- How does that help make you buy into the premise?
- While this particular story is based on true facts, can you see how this works even it the incident did not really happen?
- Do you understand the cause and effect here? ... The judgment that each one made and how the characters could conceivably rationalize themselves into make those judgments?
- Alternatively look what happened to the prosecutor (Richard Goodwin). How did his judgments play out?
Many details about their past lives were brought into the picture. Van Doren born into a rich family trying to measure up.. starting out as an ethical guy who gave into greed, money and fame.. and who in the end figured out what he did wrong.. Herb a blue collar guy from Queens who also had a self-worth problem.. thinking he was doing the right thing and also gave into greed and fame.. then thinking he was doing the right thing ended up playing the fool... The prosecutor (Richard Goodwin) thinking he was going to indict television ended up hurting the folks he came to like .. and Enright and his crowd who were part of the greed etc seemed to get away with it all... this is all about the greed in television and how it was originally portrayed as 'trustworthy'... all because it was owned and operated by the FCC and the government (it could be trusted.. in fact the code word for the original regulation about the industry was "in the public trust") ... journalist would be viewed as an entirely non biased ethical profession... seems so long ago in today's world no? but these were the times.. a powerful story by which character development.. so real so compelling helps find the teachable moments
Let's talk about the five elements of story construction. Think about these questions and formulate your response:
(Understand that according to those who study the blockbuster films, the most successfully commercial movies seem to have at least three story lines that take place)
- First let's explore Branigan
- What is the setting? (think time and place and why that makes a difference to the story as to how the plots evolved)
- What is/are the cause and effect moment(s)?
- What judgment(s) is/are being made
- What makes the story that is being told credible
- Now Kintsch's subject predicate analysis
- Was the outcome for Van Doren predicable or a surprise? What in the character's development led you to that conclusion?
- How about the prosecutor, Richard Goodwin? What led you to that conclusion?
- Last, what about the NBC execs?
- For which character did you have the most empathy for? Why?
Understand there is really no one right or wrong answer here...that is the beauty of story.. everyone can derive from them his or her own take-aways, especially as it relates to characters and empathy.
- Branigan -
- The setting is the 1950s a simpler time in a city full of immigrants and a tale of two cities (boroughs actually).. Queens and Manhattan... when tv was the main social gathering.. not everyone owned a tv.. neighbors meeting together in homes that actually had one... television prime time was in its "prime".. with the Quiz Show Twenty One at the top of the ratings... the relationship between television and the government was very tight (the original FCC regulations included the words IN THE PUBLIC TRUST notice the contradictions as you begin to see what is happening with that show and how they were violating that trust... notice how everyone smoked even on the job...
- There are several defining moments in this film.... the cause and effect moments was when Herb Stemple lost and NBC needed a new contestant. Van Doren, an otherwise erudite academic becoming infatuated with television so he decided to apply for the show. During his interviews Charles begins to see that the show was rigged. The metaphor for the spiral staircase when Van Doren was confused but by the time he got to the bottom he gave into greed and the money... how Goodwin saw the newspaper article in which the indictment was sealed and began to wonder why.. how he was intent in indicting television for violating the public TRUST... the moment on the rowboat where Van Doren began to notice that Goodwin was one to him.. but the most defining moment was the little quiz game played and how that plated out later in the film... in all of these scenes judgments were made to move the story forward some of which became very important to how the story played out.
- What makes this credible was the set up and all the setting scenes with the automobiles and how true it was to history.. Redford took a long time to set this up to have you buy into not only the story but gain empathy for the characters...
- Kintsch -
- It should not have been a surprise as to what happened to Van Doren as there were several scenes to demonstrate how his sense of guilt grew to the point that he could not overcome it .. he was a fatal character in this.
- Goodwin's sense of 'getting' television was too intense.. several hints came along the way ... even the scene in the elevator when the NBC exec was so smug (he admitted that he and several governments officials and generals were his friends.. and asked Goodwin why he was the one who was sweating).. we thought that he might have won when he confronted the Quiz Show producers.. but the surprise came when the congress folks turned it all around (which should have been predictable from the elevator scene)
- Empathy -
- This one is an open question.. post your response in the confirmation survey on Canvas... it should relate to how Redford developed his characters and tie back to this cycle's module on that subject.
In Activities-6646. Both comments and pings are currently closed.