MovieChat Forums > Network (1976) Discussion > LOOK AT ME...I'M REALLY SMART!!!

LOOK AT ME...I'M REALLY SMART!!!

posted 14 years ago by Rupert__Pupkin
163 replies | jump to latest

From what I can tell, when Paddy Chayefsky wrote Network, he was trying really hard to convince America that he was smart. Whenever anyone spoke in this movie, it was a long diatribe delivered at auctioneer speed and littered with 5-syllable esoteric words. I have a Ph.D. from an accredited university and consider myself to be well-read and fairly intelligent, but there were several times in the movie where I had to rewind because I misunderstood a word. When I put the subtitles on, I realized that the word used was one I had never seen nor heard before. This happened again and again.

I'm sure I'm going to get some comments from Network fans telling me that I must be an ignorant buffoon. Fine. But I'm reminded of the Einstein quote, "If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself." Well I'm a 42-year old, and I didn't understand a lot of the words used in Network. Putting them in context, I made guesses.

If I (a seemingly well-educated person) did not understand much of the dialogue, what are the chances that the average Joe off the street would understand it? If Chayefsky had an important message to convey, he should have voiced it in a way that people could better understand. I don't mean Chayefsky should have dumbed the script down so that it's on par with Daddy Daycare and Shrek 4, but the movie's dialogue shouldn't be so arcane that a college professor has to run to his dictionary every 10 minutes to look up a word.

[–] syildirim89 9 years ago

What were the words you didn't understand?

'And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high saying, O Lord bless this thy hand grenade'

[–] BobbyDupea 9 years ago

The problem with the complaint in the op that the script/dialog was too "smart" or too difficult to understand is that the entire movie is a protest and warning against the dumbing-down of media. Given that, you can't expect Chayefsky to have written the script "down" to be understandable to someone with an eighth grade reading ability.

In addition, the movie's theme's and meanings can be gleaned readily from the dialog and action as a whole, even if certain words aren't comprehended. I don't believe Cheyefsky can be faulted in this case for refusing to write down to or coddle the movie's audience.

My real name is Jeff

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 9 years ago

No one said the dialogue had to be dumbed down to an 8th grade reading level, and no one said the audience had to be coddled. Congratulations on creating a false dichotomy. Either a script has to be esoteric and pedantic, or it has to be written for a child. How about we aim for something in the middle?

[–] franzkabuki 9 years ago

Instead of moaning here for years about some alleged "big words", you might as well get busy and make the effort to enlarge your f-cking vocabulary. Or is educating oneself too elitist a notion to consider?

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 9 years ago

I have no problem with educating myself. My only complaint is when pedantic pseudo-intellectuals like yourself come on this thread and try to pull rank.

[–] franzkabuki 9 years ago

Why are you trying to be funny?

What I did, was that I actually read most of the Network screenplay available on the Internet... and trust me, dear lad, there really is no "esoteric language" anywhere at all! So, if I may offer some friendly advice, what you should do now, is admit to yourself you've got a nasty disability, that Mother Nature has dealt you a poor hand, and seek treatment instead of setting yourself up for ridicule on the world wide web! I really do feel honestly sorry for you and I'm sure the other lads do, too! Trust me, they wouldn't have been so rude if they knew it is something you cannot help! So I recommend you give your county psychiatrist a little ring and I'm sure you'll be able to understand written language in no time - just like all the other lads in your county do! Good luck and remember - literacy is not THAT hard to come by!

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 9 years ago

Wow. When I described you as pedantic, I was clearly just scraping the tip of the iceberg. Your personality flaws run much deeper. I cannot determine your level of intelligence from a message board thread (yet you strangely believe you have the ability to determine mine). But here's what I can determine: You are a very angry and condescending individual who feels fit to take out his frustration on on-line message boards rather than in a healthy or productive way.

I would strongly recommend some anger management classes as well as an active social life. Anyone who has time to read 40-year old movie scripts on-line clearly needs a few friends and something to do on a Saturday night. My guess is that you have been socially ostracized your whole life, and your anger towards your fellow man leaks out in passive-aggressive tendencies, such as using childish insults and profanity on message boards such as this. At least that's what my local psychiatrist told me.

By the way, why read a script on-line when you've already seen the movie and understood every word of it? Who does that? Why do that? I've got to call BS on this one. What a strange and pathetic thing to lie about. And just to give yourself a leg up on a message board. Just creepy.

When it comes to intelligence, you accused me of having a "disability. If you were half as smart as you think you are, you would know that there is no treatment for low intelligence. Being dim is a chronic condition. But then you suggested that my problem is that I'm illiterate (which is not a measure of intelligence), and we both know that is not true. So which is it? Am I dumb, ignorant, illiterate, or just being funny? I guess the answer depends on whichever hyperbolic insult fits your current state of rage at the moment.

You lack all sense of self-awareness. Your post is obviously very insulting to me, and doesn't make me think much of you. And others reading it will likely think one of two things: (1) That you're a bully who likes to publicly ridicule less intelligent people and a coward because you choose to do it on-line or (2) You're just an idiot who has no idea what the hell he's talking about. Do you really believe there's a third option here (e.g. "Boy, that frazkabuki guy is so smart. Good on him for calling that dumb guy names!"). Give me a break.

Get a clue.

[–] Bobtheawesome 9 years ago

I think arcane and esoteric are a big exaggeration. It's true Chayefsky used relatively sophisticated language, I recall a couple words that I didn't know, myself, but it didn't detract from the movie at all, in fact it added to it. And the plot was conveyed very clearly, not understanding the occasional adjective here and there didn't confuse or serve to ruin the effect of the movie for me, or most others, especially with the offensively sophisticated words in context. And just because Chayefsky had an excellent vocabulary and put it to good use didn't mean he was trying to convince America he was smart, he was just being a good writer. An outstanding writer actually.

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 9 years ago

I guess my measure of excellent writing isn't just about having a stellar vocabulary.

I didn't say the movie was bad. I thought it was decent. I think if the writing was more focused on telling a story and less focused on sounding a certain way, the movie would have been better. Just my opinion obviously.

[–] Bobtheawesome 9 years ago

My measure of excellent writing also involves more than just having a stellar vocabulary. Chayefsky happened to write an incredible script telling a great story, while also incorporating his impressive vocabulary. The big words aren't all that make Network a masterpiece, there's a lot more to it then that.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] baileythedog 9 years ago

Nobody really talks like they do in a Sorkin script, with the rhythmic beats and perfect timing. If you watched old screwball comedies like "His Girl Friday", no one rattled off at that speed, either. The stylized dialogue and pacing is what makes it an art. The sophisticated and often word play choices in the dialogue underscored a story bemoaning the growing illiteracy and stupidity of the American public.

Having said that--there weren't any words in this movie I didn't understand. The first time I saw it was in high school and I've seen it dozens of times since then.

[–] jsm-33292 8 years ago

Kind Hearts and Coronets (Robert Hamer, 1949, UK) is another great black comedy whose dialogue is unrealistic, but thoroughly elegant and enjoyable.

[–] Destinata (2872) 5 years ago

Chayefsky is at his worst when he's wordy. James Garner has to deliver a long, windy speech in The Americanization of Emily which is better read than heard, even when James Garner delivers it. You can't get around the fact that it's written speech, not spoken speech.

Mark Twain, no intellectual slouch himself, was also a lecturer in a day when lecturers could be superstars -- and he was. He knew the difference between written and spoken speech, and when he'd do "readings" from his books, he changed the wording so that they didn't sound artificial. Chayefsky never learned how to do that.

[–] HushPuppy (142) 5 years ago

And what's up with him pretending to be Irish?

[–] illnagas (457) 5 years ago

You don’t have a PhD lmao