Is This Thing On? A Review

IS THIS THING ON?

Dying is easy, comedy is hard. Thus goes a familiar refrain in the world of acting. What if, however, you are dying while doing stand-up comedy? Is This Thing On? uses the world of comedy clubs to deal with serious issues. Well-acted and directed, Is This Thing On? works as a character study and a portrait of healing through laughter.

Alex and Tess Novak (Will Arnett and Laura Dern) are separating after twenty-six years and two children. There is no outlying issue, no adultery or abuse. They have just grown apart. Alex works in finance. Tess, a former Olympic volleyball athlete, has been primarily a stay-at-home parent. 

The impending divorce is not generally known to their circle of friends, especially obnoxious actor Balls (director and cowriter Bradley Cooper) and his wife Christine (Audra Day). Alex does tell his mother Marilyn (Christine Ebersole), who isn't happy because she likes Tess more than she does Alex. Alex's immigrant father Jan (Ciaran Hands) is aware and more understanding of the situation. 

Alex is sad and slightly high after he and Tess took a marijuana-laced cookie from Christine. In his addled state, Alex hits a bar but rather than pay a cover charge he signs up for a stand-up comedy set (comics can get in free). To his utter surprise, Alex's commiserating on his life proves a mild hit with the audience. To his greater surprise, Alex finds his growing stand-up act therapeutic and enjoyable. He starts enjoying the company of professional comics, even managing to have a one-night stand with brash comedienne Jill (Jordan Jensen).

Tess, for her part, is unaware of any of this. Even if she were, she is more focused on restarting her life. Tess soon starts looking to return to athletics via coaching for colleges. This gets the attention of Laird (Peyton Manning), a former friend and recent divorcee. To get their minds off their troubles, they hit a comedy club where a last-minute up-and-comer makes jokes about his fraught relationship. Despite it all, Tess and Alex still love each other. They love their children Felix (Blake Kane) and Jude (Calvin Knegten). Will Alex and Tess be able to rebuild their lives separately? Will they be able to rebuild their lives together?

Is This Thing On? is, I don't think, original in where it takes our characters. The screenplay, cowritten by Cooper, Arnett and Mark Chappell with story by Cooper, Arnett and John Bishop, seems oddly familiar to me. I do not mean in terms actual plot but in terms of situations and circumstances. Here is a middle-aged man, going through a crisis, who finds both an outlet and camaraderie in a new world. It hits similar notes as the original Shall We Dance? but in the world of stand-up. Despite the feeling that Is This Thing On? covers familiar ground, I found myself drawn into the film.

Major credit for that is due to most of the cast. Will Arnett is excellent as our everyman who finds stand-up comedy cheaper than therapy. Arnett's gravelly voice adds to Alex's haggard nature. This is a good man, a decent man, who finds himself in a difficult situation. "You're not naive. You're innocent", Alex is told by comic club impresaria Kemp (Amy Sedaris). Alex is clearly not a trained or professional stand-up comic. Is This Thing On? shows that he is not interested in starting a new career or even a sideline. At one point, he sarcastically says that he is not going to go on tour. He even seems almost apologetic about the whole thing when he has to cover up his joke folder that his children find. 

In this scene, we see Alex's genuine desire to protect his children while also trying to find an outlet for the deep confusion and hurt that he carries. What stand-up comedy is to Alex, in Arnett's excellent performance, is an outlet and chance to take stock of where he is and how he got there. Alex lets himself be loose on stage, and in a sense, allows himself to lose himself there. It is perhaps not unexpected when he has a disastrous set where instead of finding humor, he uses the stage to vent a rage. Is This Thing On? is, if nothing else, going to hit some expected moments.

I knew that it would be only a matter of time before Tess found Alex's act while trying to enjoy the show. Granted, I was not expecting to see former football quarterback and Pro Football Hall of Famer Peyton Manning as her unofficial date at the comedy club. 

The rush to make a last-minute gig is a bit cliched. However, I appreciated how Is This Thing On? did not overdramatize the rush to find people to watch Felix and Jude. It even allowed for some realism and comedy to come through. Alex, in a hesitant but direct way, tells Marilyn and Jan that he has a stand-up booking. "I had no idea your life was so bad", Marilyn tells her son. For his part, Jan tells Alex that this is a sign of a midlife crisis and that he's better off buying a motorcycle.

In other films, this might have made for a big moment. Instead, director Bradley Cooper made it as realistic as possible. He did not draw attention to it nor build it up for some major punchline. 

I was impressed with how Bradley Cooper directed his actors. Of particular note is Alex's stand-up scenes. They are almost if not always with close-ups, rarely breaking away from Alex. We are there to see Alex stumble, bumble and occasionally successfully hit his routines. Cooper directs most of his cast quite well. Laura Dern makes Tess into a competent woman who does struggle with the potential end of her marriage. She too is also trying to move on. She too loves her children. She too has regrets and unrecognized anger within herself. One should give major credit to someone who made a professional athlete, particularly one with a strong Southern drawl, not look as if he was just making a glorified cameo appearance. Manning does a respectable job as Laird, though any suggestions that he will be a romantic rival to Alex quickly disappear. 

In their smaller roles, Ebersole and Hinds do strong work as Alex's parents. Ebersole handles more of the lighter moments, such as when she expresses sadness over the impending divorce because she happens to like Tess as a friend. Hinds plays Jan as well-meaning and not as unaware as Marilyn thinks he is. He has a nice moment near the end when he unexpectedly shows up at Alex's gig. Jan offers him words of encouragement and wisdom, which I think will move the audience. 

Is This Thing On? does two good things with our couple. First, it does not demonize one over the other. Tess is not a shrew or harpy. Alex is not disengaged nor self-absorbed. They at heart are good people, well-meaning but flawed in their efforts. Second, it portrays much of its story realistically, or as realistically as a film about someone using comedy to deal with his life can. Is This Thing On? respects the audience that will allow for a little leeway in silliness but won't go full-on absurd.

This is why the Balls/Christine subplot keeps floundering. Cooper as Balls in particular is such an unwelcome distraction. I do not know if Balls and Christine were meant as some kind of parallel to Alex and Tess. However, Balls as a character did not work. He was too cartoonish as the arrogant, clueless actor. Cooper should have removed him altogether, or at least not made him so absurd. The gay couple played by Sean Hayes and Scott Icenogle were pointless and added nothing to the film. Well, maybe enough diversity for Best Picture consideration. 

"I was unhappy in our marriage. I wasn't unhappy with our marriage", Alex tells Tess near the end of Is This Thing On? I found that to be a moving statement, an acknowledgement that troubles will always come in a long-term relationship. Is This Thing On? is a good film about how two people can find themselves and each other after losing themselves. Laughter, it seems, really is the best medicine. 

DECISION: B+

With Love, Meghan Episode Fourteen: Just for the Halibut

WITH LOVE, MEGHAN: JUST FOR THE HALIBUT

Original Airdate: August 26, 2025

Special Guest: Claire Smyth

Mentions of "Joy": 0

Mentions of Edible Flower Sprinkles: Yes

Passive-Aggressive Moments: 2

Gushing Praise for Markle: "I just love all this stuff that you do. You just make everything so beautiful".

"Teacher's pet. I want to be Teacher's Pet. I want to be huddled, and cuddled, as close to you as I can get. (That's the lesson we're guessin' you're best in)". So sang Doris Day in the title song to her film Teacher's Pet. That song came to mind while watching Just for the Halibut, the fourteenth of sixteen With Love, Meghan episodes. I do not think that Her Royal Highness Meghan, Duchess of Sussex actually wants to cuddle with her guest. However, as Just for the Halibut played on, I felt something that I have never felt before as we get close to closing out this lifestyle series. I felt genuine sorrow for Mrs. Saxe-Coburg & Gotha, watching her desperate efforts for approval go repeatedly rejected and ignored.

It is time for fish stories as Meghan Markle eagerly awaits her guest, chef Claire Smyth. Smyth catered Markle's wedding reception to her spouse, almost always referred to as "my husband" and occasionally known as "Aitch". She will make some juice for Smyth even if the Duchess Hostess with the Mostess has not juiced in 20 years. She will make a travel kit for Smyth, appreciating that the flight from London to Montecito is over twelve hours. "A carry-on size of love", Mrs. Sussex declares. In preparation for Smyth's arrival, we also get How to Make Salt and Vinegar Crisps.

"What is more satisfying than the smell of fried potatoes?", the Duchess of Sussex asks. I'm still trying to figure out why a crepe feels more special than a pancake, so I cannot answer that question. 

Now, Smyth is here to give us her Michelin-star culinary skills. The Norther Irish chef catered the Duke and Duchess' wedding reception and anniversary party. Smyth will prepare Parker House Rolls. She is also highly interested in the kind of fish that California has. Therefore, they go to the Santa Barbara Fish Market. Here, Brian Colgate guides them through the various items until they find a perfect halibut, which is the most plentiful fish in the area.

Meghan judges the weight of their selected halibut at 23 pounds, about the same weight as her daughter, Princess Lilibet. The actual weight of the halibut is 8 pounds exactly.

Once selected, Meghan and Clare return to check on the rolls and prepare the halibut. We get My Guide to Compound Butter, which will include Mrs. Sussex's beloved edible flower sprinkles. "Make a cinnamon sugar butter with pressed flowers. We know I like my edible flowers" she tells the camera crew. At last, the meal is finished, one that Clare and Meghan can enjoy; Meghan presents the chef with various gifts and we get a picture of a "surprise visit" from "my husband", whom no one knows what the Aitch his name is.

One of the delights in Just for the Halibut is how Meghan clearly cuts no ice with Clare Smyth. No matter how pleasing the Duchess tries to be, no matter how much enthusiasm and sugary sweetness she throws at her, Smyth is having none of it. The more that Meghan tries to butter up or put Clare down, the more Clare pushes against it.  Just for the Halibut is cringe watching, but in a positive way.  

Take this exchange between the chef and the Duchess. Smyth has instructed that the roll dough be covered. Meghan, attempting to be chatty and friendly (and maybe a little shady and superior), says, "What do you guys say? Aluminium instead of aluminum foil? Aluminium?" Smyth, clearly displeased that her British pronunciations are being mocked, replies, "Tin foil", visibly put off by Meghan's haughty manner. "Tin. Great," Mrs. Sussex replies in a surprisingly disappointed tone.

I think Markle expected Smyth to play along with Meghan's manner. However, Smyth is not amused by any of this. It seems that the whole "aluminium/aluminum/tin" exchange was a semi-subconscious way for Meghan to make fun of the differences in language. Smyth, I think, took it as this American attempting to show herself as superior. Smyth seemed quite put off by it and would not play along. It is odd that Just for the Halibut had a lot about British vs. American pronunciations. We had "aluminium vs. aluminum". We had "herbs vs. 'erbs". I do not know why that was, but it was.

Clare Smyth gave as good as she got when she talked about the wedding reception catering. She remarked how she had to prepare fried chicken. Smyth, I think, found making the fried chicken a chore, a dish outside her palate. She mentioned that the fried chicken is now part of her off-menu at Smyth's restaurants. However, the impression Smyth left, intention or not, is that she found fried chicken an "American" dish that was wholly unsuitable for a British meal. 

Throughout Just for the Halibut, Meghan Markle grows more and more desperate to ingratiate herself to Clare Smyth. Throughout Just for the Halibut, Clare Smyth gently but firmly rejects the overtures. Smyth clearly loves cooking. The times that she expressed both joy and interest is when she is preparing or guiding the meal prep. Smyth was having a good time in the tour of the Santa Barbara Fish Market. It was not because she was with Meghan Saxe-Coburg & Gotha. It was because she genuinely wanted to learn about what types of fish California waters had to offer.

This segment inadvertently revealed Meghan Markle's stupidity. She holds this halibut and judges it to be 23 pounds. The fish ends up weighing 8 pounds. How can someone misjudge weight to such a degree? How does someone not know the difference between 8 pounds and 23 pounds? If you go to the gym, you can see a 5 pound and a 25-pound dumbbell. You would know that they would be different in terms of heaviness. Yet, somehow, in some way, Meghan Markle, who prides herself on her sociopolitical acumen and culinary craftsmanship, cannot distinguish between those two weights. 

Worse, she claims to think that the halibut is 23 pounds based on how the fish feels in comparison to her daughter. Does she then think that Princess Lilibet weights 23 pounds? Lili is four years old. I would imagine that a four-year-old would weigh more than 23 pounds. That Markle thinks Lili apparently weighs the equivalent of eight pounds is strange and alarming. How does someone wildly misjudge something like that?

Just for the Halibut contains some oddball comments and statements that would make those awake for it howl with laughter. As Her Royal Highness prepares this travel kit, she muses that it is "a carry-on size of love". In her growing desperation to keep a warm conversation going with Smyth, she waxes rhapsodic on bread. "But no one thinks about the level of focus and love that goes into a dinner roll", the Duchess of Sussex tells Smyth. 

I am simply astounded that such words of deep wisdom are expressed publicly. I am more astounded that Her Royal Highness Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, did not think that they sound odd to insipid. Does one really have a level of love when making dinner rolls? This might be news to my baker. Markle, when pushing down on the dough, remarks that the rolls are "squidgy". This turn of phrase brings to mind "Squidgygate", the infamous telephone recording of Aitch's late mother discussing her misery within the House of Windsor. In this case, I think it was an unintentional callback. It is, unfortunately, a very odd thing to say. I would imagine that we Americans would say "squishy" versus "squidgy". 

Just for the Halibut has a couple of moments where Meghan Markle does not appear pleased. There is the "aluminium/tin foil" slap-down. Another is in the My Guide to Compound Butter segment. She tells us that "my husband" mocks her for how she pronounces "herbs". Most Americans drop the "h" and say "erbs". The British pronounce it as "herbs" (Smyth and apparently Mr. Sussex do). "You're so American. 'Erbs. 'Erbs", her generation's Wallis Simpson tells her television crew (as Meghan never looks into the camera). Yes, it may be my own sense of things. However, there seemed to be a veiled sense of hostility in what she I think wanted to make sound as amusing. This "herbs/'erbs" difference came across in Markle's telling as almost a source of irritation. Somehow, it suggested, at least to me, that she thought that "my husband" was wrong to pick on her for how she pronounces a word.

It is, however, fine when Meghan Markle does it.

Just for the Halibut is best when Clare Smyth is our guide. Smyth has a clear love and passion and dare I say, "joy" for cooking. She takes it seriously and is a total professional. She came across as warm and engaging when in the kitchen. She also came across as barely tolerant of Her Royal Highness. Both those qualities elevated Just for the Halibut. The episodes where Markle is pushed off to the side, where the genuine cooks do their thing, are the ones that work. 

Markle is aware that her children pronounce the word as "zeh-bra" instead of "zee-bra". Markle, however, makes no mention of whether her children pronounce the word as "aluminium" or "aluminum". Meghan Markle drops the "h" in "herbs". "Aitch" has yet to drop Markle, not even for the halibut.

5/10

Next Episode: A Weekend Away

With Love, Meghan Episode Thirteen: Spice Up Your Life

WITH LOVE, MEGHAN: SPICE UP YOUR LIFE

Original Airdate: August 26, 2025

Special Guests: Jay Shetty and Radhi Devlukia, with cameos from Jim Lind Arlon, Phil Asquith and Jamie Kern Lima 

Mentions of "Joy": 2

Mentions of Edible Flower Sprinkles: Yes

Passive-Aggressive Moments: 0

Gushing Praise for Markel: "We really feel like we've got memories to take away with us, which is really beautiful". 

"Colors of the world, Spice Up Your Life! Every boy and every girl, Spice Up Your Life! People of the world, Spice Up Your Life! AHH!" So sang the Spice Girls in Spice Up Your Life, which I think is a fun pop song from an unfairly bashed musical act. It might have been a Netflix meltdown if Meghan, Duchess of Sussex had shared the screen with Victoria, Lady Beckham on Spice Up Your Life, the thirteenth With Love, Meghan episode. Alas, we will not see them chew the fat here. Instead, we will get vegan and soap delights as well as questions on who exactly these people are. 

Mrs. Sussex is hosting "author and podcaster" Jay Shetty and his wife, "plant-based cook and author" Radhi Devlukia for crafts and food. Mr. and Mrs. Shetty are vegans, so Meghan Saxe-Coburg & Gotha has to cater to their specific food requirements. As such, it is the perfect time for a quick visit to the Ojai Olive Oil Company with "entrepreneur and friend" Jamie Kern Lima. Both grove manager Jim Lind Arlon and owner Phil Asquith guide our gal pals through the olive oil process. Once Meghan finishes marveling at the wonders of olive oil making, she welcomes Jay and Radhi. 

Some of that olive oil will be used for making soap. Radhi is delighted to be in the craft barn. Jay is less so, constantly belittling his skills at soap making. This Eeyore-like manner from the life coach continues into the kitchen. Radhi has no problem making meals for up to 40 people, which is something that amazes Meghan Markle.

One can only wonder what her reaction would be had she attended a state banquet at Windsor Castle which can have more than a 100 people. At the recent state dinner for President Donald Trump, there were 160 guests in attendance. More than likely, Her Royal Highness Meghan, Duchess of Sussex would have thrown her organic Norfolk chicken ballotine at the President and started screaming at him about how he's putting people in literal concentration camps and is literally the New/Worse Than Hitler. Yet, I digress.

Once the joy of handmade soap is done, Radhi Devlukia will guide the royal hand through potato & green bean curry and naan bread. Jay continues to put down his abilities to do anything. He is chided about this by Meghan and Radhi, the former pointing out that his whole podcast is about positivity. We get a tutorial on How to Make Coconut Macaroons from Meghan. "There's something very satisfying watching you do that", With Love, Meghan's director Michael Steed remarks off camera as she spreads her beloved edible flower sprinkles on said macaroons. They check in on the soap, which turned out great and will make for great, personal gifts. With the cooking done, out trio can enjoy the fruits of their labor, satisfied in all the joyful memories that they have made today.

I confess to having absolutely no idea who Jay Shetty is, let alone who his wife is. Actually, I'm going to walk that back just a touch. I am vaguely familiar with Shetty thanks to seeing the cover of his book Think Like a Monk, his admittedly pretty eyes but somewhat frightening grin staring back at me. Actually, both Shetty and Devlukia have very arresting eyes, yet I digress. Granted, I've no idea what a monk thinks like or why Shetty specifically has such insight into those matters. I also was unaware that monks of any faith were tatted up, but times have changed.

Spice Up Your Life is a showcase for Radhi Devlukia. She is a mistress of cooking and really of all that she surveys. Devlukia is confident in her cooking skills, able to wax rhapsodic about both the dishes and her family background. It almost makes one yearn for a With Love, Radhi. I wouldn't watch as I am a devout carnivore. Still, Spice Up Your Life does what With Love, Meghan occasionally stumbles onto: entertaining and educating viewers. You do still have to use the QR Code to get details on the dishes. However, Devlukia demonstrated a confidence and self-assurance that past professional chefs have done on With Love, Meghan. When professionals are allowed to take center stage, the results are positive.

Unfortunately, Spice Up Your Life is pretty much a disaster for Jay Shetty. His whole brand, per my understanding, is built on overcoming negativity and stopping overthinking. Yet, that is exactly what Shetty does throughout Spice Up Your Life. He looks lost, befuddled and persistently insists that everything that he does will turn out wrong. Shetty looks and sounds totally incompetent and sometimes bored throughout Spice Up Your Life. It does not help that he sounds like a less confident Eeyore during Spice Up Your Life. It got to a point where Meghan herself told him that he was doing the exact opposite of what his podcast was all about. In his light brown cardigan, he looked like a meek librarian suddenly thrust in front of a television crew and trying to not get noticed.

That did not stop him from unleashing one of the most oddball gushing praises for Her Royal Highness that With Love, Meghan has given us. "You've been so wonderful today. Honestly, this has been such a joy. We really feel like we've got memories to take away with us, which is really beautiful. Thank you so much. I mean that. Thank you. Such a sweet day to spend with you. Such a special day" (emphasis mine). I wonder if these declarations seemed a bit grandiose for our ex-monk. At least Shetty gave us a rare moment when Markle wasn't the one bringing up "joy". When you add "honestly" and "I mean that", my mind thinks that you are not sincere.

I have the sense that Spice Up Your Life was originally going to be titled Herb Your Enthusiasm. This is based on the chalkboard message that Meghan, Duchess of Sussex wrote out in her grandiose handwriting. Whatever this With Love, Meghan episode was meant to be called, Spice Up Your Life hardly did that. It felt curiously disengaging and uninteresting, not to mention haphazard. 

We start with her visit to the Ojai Olive Oil Company fields. Meghan has her friend Jamie Kern Lima by her side, marveling at olive oil production. Unlike in the last go-round, we were told whom the Duchess was speaking to at the olive oil grove. Still, while Lima was there, she played no part in the overall part of Spice Up Your Life. Why was Lima accompanying Markle to the olive oil grove? What part did she have to play in any of this? Mrs. Sussex could not bring "her husband" to walk among the olive trees? Was she unable to even bring the mysterious Hawthorn Markle to join her? 

At this early point in Spice Up Your Life, I thought about how With Love, Meghan could have been good. Granted, a documentary about olive oil production could have made for dry viewing (no pun intended). However, a good hostess will make any subject interesting. Perhaps there is the problem. Meghan is not a good hostess. I think that she attempts to look interested in her guests. She might actually even be interested in her guests and what they say. She just struggles to truly engage her guests.

Markle certainly struggles to engage her viewers. She still will not look directly into the camera. If one looks at all other television show hosts, whether for chat or cooking shows, they will look at us. Markle never does. She will look at the camera crew. However, her inability or refusal to look directly at us always suggests that Markle really does not acknowledge her viewers. Worse, it suggests that she really does not want us to be there. This runs counter to With Love, Meghan's efforts to be warm and engaging. You cannot be a hostess if you refuse to acknowledge your guests. 

I sincerely doubt that With Love, Meghan will be renewed for a second/third series. Were it to be renewed, the best piece of direction that Steed could have given Her Royal Highness was "look directly into the camera". Markle simultaneously wants to welcome viewers in and keep them at a distance. It is very odd how she wants this "fly on the wall" manner when with guests but also wants to be teacher with her viewers. In the kitchen and craft barn, Markle can be chatty when with others, sometimes excessively so. When alone, such as in the How to Make Coconut Macaroons segment, she never looks at us. She will talk to Michael Steed or perhaps another crew member. However, she appears not to attempt to speak to her viewers.

It makes for curious television. Meghan Markle wants to be both friend and teacher with her viewers. She, however, cannot or will not engage with them, except perhaps to lecture them.

As for the overall program, Spice Up Your Life seems rather dull. Making hand soap seems such a strange thing to have your guests do. I should figure that Markle genuinely believes that having your guests participate in these joyful activities is wonderful. I personally would find it tedious, dull and uninteresting. It does not help that Meghan constantly tells us how much of an amateur she is. "This is my first time. We're learning this together", she tells Shetty and Devlukia when making the soap. That does not inspire confidence. It also becomes a bit schizophrenic, to be a guide on crafting while openly stating that you have no experience in what you are guiding others in doing. 

Perhaps that is why when With Love, Meghan features professional chefs like Roy Choi, Ramon Velasquez, Samin Nosrat and now Radhi Devlukia, the show does better. You know that they know what they are doing. More importantly, THEY know that they know what they are doing. You are in competent and confident hands. Meghan Markle consistently shows that she barely has any idea what she is doing. She persistently protests both her culinary acumen and her total lack of experience. It makes for torturous viewing. 

Spice Up Your Life is interesting in certain ways. It does not make a case for why carnivores should go vegetarian or vegan. It makes the case for how Meghan, Duchess of Sussex and Jay Shetty have no business being considered experts on whatever they claim to have knowledge of. It showcases Radhi Devlukia as someone to watch. 

"We're not going for perfect. We're going for real", Meghan Markle states in Spice Up Your Life. Color Me Dubious that she is truthful on both counts.

To think, here is Meghan Markle, living her best life in Montecito with the mysterious "Aitch" by her side. To be preparing coconut macaroons with edible flower sprinkles must be a step up from having to wear tiaras and be served on golden plates. 

Why have this when you can have edible flower sprinkles? 

4/10

Next Episode: Just for the Halibut

Wallis & Edward: The Television Movie

WALLIS & EDWARD

Helen of Troy was referred to by Christopher Marlowe as "the face that launched a thousand ships". Wallis Simpson was referred to by His Majesty Edward VIII, later the Duke of Windsor, as "the woman I love". Long seen as a scheming adventuress who tried to sleep her way to being Empress of India, her generation's Meghan Markle gets a more sympathetic portrayal in Wallis & Edward. Respectably acted with smooth pacing, Wallis & Edward shows Mrs. Simpson as a victim of her circumstances.

Life seems like a bowl of cherries for Wallis Simpson (Joely Richardson) and her second husband, Ernest (David Westhead). The Simpsons are welcomed in British high society despite their American roots. One person who soon takes a shine to the couple is Edward, the Prince of Wales (Stephen Campbell Moore). The happily unmarried heir to the British throne is currently involved with his latest mistress Thelma, Viscountess Furness (Helena Mitchell). 

It is not long, however, before the Prince Edward looks upon the brassy American as more than a friend. Wallis is conflicted. She loves Ernest and the security that he provides. However, Edward is besotted with her, and she soon falls to his charms. Wallis' aunt Bessie Merryman (Miriam Margolyes) advises her niece to not let His Royal Highness' attention and affection go to her head. Wallis is convinced that her liaison will be a temporary thing. Edward, she knows, will find a younger and prettier woman to romance and perhaps marry.

Wallis, however, had not counted on the Prince of Wales becoming bewitched by her, body and soul. She had done nothing to encourage his growing obsession. Worse, she is horrified at what the romance is doing to her reputation. Ernest confronts Edward about his intentions. Ernest also confesses that he has been having his own affair with a mutual friend. With that, the Simpsons agree to a divorce.

The timing of the Simpson divorce could not have come at a worse time. Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin (Richard Johnson) is both aghast and alarmed at Mrs. Simpson's arrival. If everything goes according to the now King Edward VIII's plans, there will be just enough of a gap between Wallis' divorce and his coronation for them to marry. The prospect of a twice-divorced American as Queen of England brings about a full constitutional crisis. The government is prepared to resign en masse. That would trigger a general election where the potential Queen would be the issue. A marriage, even morganatic, would be bad enough. Edward's offer to abdicate is more horrifying. 

Wallis does not want Edward to abdicate. Baldwin does not want Edward to abdicate. Edward's brother Bertie, Duke of York (Bill Champion), does not want Edward to abdicate. What will the future hold for our thwarted lovers?

Wallis & Edward has a major plus in Joely Richardson as the Duchess of Windsor. Richardson is part of two legendary British acting dynasties (Richardson and Redgrave). Despite her origins, Richardson's Southern tones never sounded forced or exaggerated. I do not know if they would convince Baltimore natives that her Wallis was indeed one of their own. However, Joely Richardson sounds just American enough to make it believable that she is not British.  

That is on the technical aspect. On the dramatic side, Richardson does well in portraying Wallis Simpson as someone caught up in this scandalous situation. The impression most people have of Wallis Simpson, I believe, is that she engineered so much of her affair with Edward to try and become Queen. Wallis & Edward, as written by Sarah Williams, argues that she in reality was horrified that things had spun so out of control. Had it been up to her, if Wallis & Edward is to be believed, Mrs. Simpson would rather have stayed married with Ernest. I believe that she at one point tells Ernest "Just because he's the King doesn't mean you have to hand over your wife". 

Wallis & Edward has a wonderful scene between Joely Richardson and David Westhead when he brings up the subject of divorce. Richardson's Wallis looks genuinely stunned at both the prospect of a divorce and Ernest's admission of his own adultery. Richardson makes Wallis into an almost innocent figure, someone convinced that her liaison is both unserious and fleeting.

I think Stephen Campbell Moore, curiously enough, is too handsome to be believable as Edward VIII. That being said, he also does well portraying Edward's growing obsession with his American mistress. When he claims that he will kill himself if she attempts to leave him, one does think that His Majesty is slipping into dangerous waters. Wallis & Edward also gives Moore a wonderful scene where he shows Edward's common touch. After giving a brief speech to working-class people, a young child's soccer ball accidentally goes towards the King. Instead of being startled, His Majesty begins an impromptu soccer match, bounding and kicking the ball in a friendly manner. It shows how Edward connected to his people and why some of his subjects fiercely opposed his abdication. 

Credit should also go to David Westhead for having, like Richardson, a very convincing American accent. Clifford Rose and Margaret Tyzack as King George V and Queen Mary also do strong work. Rose's declaration to Richard Johnson's Prime Minister Baldwin that "after I'm gone, the boy will ruin himself in twelve months" works well.

Miriam Margolyes has a smaller role as Aunt Bessie. She is also British, but she does her American accent well too. She is the voice of reason and comfort to the besieged Wallis.

I think a lesser appreciated performance is that of Bill Champion as Albert, Duke of York, who must succeed his elder brother as George VI. His scene where he silently breaks down sobbing on hearing Edward's abdication speech is quite effective. Less effective is Monica Dolan as Elizabeth, Duchess of York. She is portrayed as a bit elitist. Elizabeth is genuinely puzzled over why Mrs. Simpson's husband would have to work. This is a very strange tact to take given that Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, while hardly a coal miner's daughter, was more aware of society than her Windsor in-laws. 

One particularly ghastly moment in Wallis & Edward has nothing to do with the acting or David Moore's direction. It has to do with a horrendous error in Sarah Williams' screenplay. Winston Churchill (David Calder) is portrayed as Edward's greatest champion and friend. He and Moore have a wonderful scene where Churchill urges him to remain on the throne even if it means giving up Mrs. Simpson. Edward remarks that if Winston were asked to give up his wife and children for the throne, would he do it, leaving their pause to answer the question. 

The error is when Churchill, at the ball that Ernest and Wallis essentially crashed, addresses Edward as "Your Majesty". George V was very much alive at the time of this scene. He was the monarch giving the ball. As such, addressing the then-Prince of Wales as "Your Majesty" would have been more than incorrect. It would have been almost sacrilegious, suggesting that George V was either dead or overthrown. A devoted monarchist like Churchill, well-versed in Court etiquette, would never have called Edward, Prince of Wales as "Your Majesty" but instead as "Your Royal Highness". Granted, I'm one of the few who would notice such a thing. I am surprised that the British cast and crew did not notice that gaff. 

Wallis & Edward is a well-acted and produced production. It is sympathetic towards the Duchess, which is rather rare in how Wallis Simpson is usually seen. The television film ends at their wedding, so we do not get the story of their long exile. "You have no idea how hard it is to live out a great romance", the Duchess of Windsor once observed. Wallis & Edward makes for a good quick primer on this story, be it one of the twentieth century's greatest love stories or one of its greatest tragedies. 

Edward, Duke of Windsor: 1894-1972
Wallis, Duchess of Windsor: 1896-1986

7/10

Riefenstahl: A Review (Review #2100)

RIEFENSTAHL

"What did the President know, and when did he know it?" This question from Senator Howard Baker during the Watergate hearings could be altered for German filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl. What did Leni Riefenstahl know, and when did she know it? Riefenstahl, the last living witness to Nazi cinema, spent nearly sixty years denying or deflecting her role in the Third Reich. The documentary Riefenstahl now looks at this most controversial of filmmakers. 

Culled from her personal archives, Riefenstahl paints a dark, ominous portrait of the director of Triumph of the Will and Olympia. While even her fiercest detractors grudgingly acknowledged her visual artistry, she is still damned for her association with the Nazi regime. However, how close was it? The contradictions, deflections and defensiveness that Leni Riefenstahl had throughout her life make it hard to fully defend or fully condemn her.

Riefenstahl does not cover the entirety of her 101 years. Instead, it lets others do most of the talking. That is not to say that Leni herself does not get a chance to speak. The documentary features more than just footage from various talk shows and interviews that she gave. Riefenstahl kept meticulous records of telephone calls from all sorts of people. We get to hear her speak with supporters, enraged that she was in their eyes set up on a German television show. We also get to hear her rapport with Albert Speer, whom she kept in contact with after his release from prison for crimes against humanity.

The Riefenstahl/Speer telephone excerpts are brief. However, I think they give more insight into Riefenstahl's involvement and worldview than perhaps Riefenstahl director Andres Veiel intended. Both Speer and Riefenstahl insisted to their dying day that they were apolitical figures caught up in the Nazi machinery. Both had celebrated postwar lives. Both attempted to whitewash or at minimum downplay their roles in the Third Reich. Both of them, with the evidence we have now, probably knew much more than they let on. 

However, can Leni Riefenstahl really be blamed for the execution of Jews in Konskie, Poland? In one of Riefenstahl's most damning charges, the events in one Polish town make her a de facto murderess. When the Nazis first invaded Poland, Leni Riefenstahl went as a war correspondent. The story as related in Riefenstahl states that she objected to some men being made to dig a ditch (presumably their own graves). If memory serves right, she told the troops that "the Jews have to be removed from there", as they were a distraction to her camera. This direction was translated as "Get rid of the Jews". That in turn led to the German soldiers shooting the men right then and there. In narrator Andrew Bird's conclusion, "If this statement is true, Riefenstahl's set direction played a role in the death of the Jews in Konskie".

This, I think, is shaping things to fit an idea. It is similar to the Derek Bentley case. In that situation, nineteen-year-old Bentley and an accomplice were caught robbing a warehouse. The police officer demanded his accomplice's weapon. In the confusion and chaos, Bentley told his accomplice, "Let him have it!". However, did Bentley mean "Hand the gun over" to the officer, or did he mean "shoot him"? That phrase, "let him have it" could mean either. Context matters.

The same applies to Riefenstahl's "the Jews have to be removed from there" statement. If we accept what Riefenstahl appears to propose, we are meant to believe that Leni Riefenstahl basically ordered the men killed and/or knew that such a thing would happen. This, to me at least, is a very dicey thing to prove. There is no direct evidence that Leni Riefenstahl knew that the men would be killed at her mere request. Riefenstahl might have genuinely thought that they would be moved out of camera shot but not be literally shot. Moreover, given how virulently antisemitic and anti-Slavic many Nazi military officers and troops were, I doubt that they would need one woman's directions to kill anyone. To place such a heavy burden on Riefenstahl seems a bit of a stretch.

There are other elements about Riefenstahl's World War II activities that are much more damning. The most damning is her use of Sinti and Roma prisoners as extras for her film Tiefland (Lowlands). She claimed that after the war, the Sinti and Roma extras (most of them children) were alive and well and that she had met them all. The truth was that many were murdered in the Holocaust. Surprisingly, this was given less attention than what happened in Konskie. 

She is apparently also blamed for the fate of one of her Olympia cameramen. Wilhelm "Willy" Zielke, a director in his own right, filmed the Olympia opening prologue. After he completed his part, Zielke was forcibly sterilized and went mad. Somehow, this is all Leni Riefenstahl's fault. I cannot remember why Zielke's awful fate was somehow Riefenstahl's doing. I remember being astounded that such a thing could be put wholly and squarely at her feet.

It is not as if Leni Riefenstahl does not make a case against herself with awful moments and comments. Using unaired footage from The Wonderful, Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl, she tells the interviewer about her tense relationship with Joseph Goebbels. She uses the phrase, "All the affairs he had with me...", which the interviewer himself had to point out to her that it sounded odd. She, if memory serves right, chuckles and says that she misspoke. This again could be an accidental choice of words, as "affairs" could mean something other than sexual. It does come across as funny, as does when she fervently denies a close relationship with the bad doctor.

Later in Riefenstahl, we hear her own words say something downright ghastly. Facing yet another defamation lawsuit over the Tiefland filming, she tells someone over the recorded telephone, "I wouldn't say Gypsies have to lie, but you have to decide who's more likely to commit perjury: me or the Gypsies".  The joy she expresses while watching footage of Triumph of the Will is to me still more alarming than any suggestion that Leni Riefenstahl had a hand in the Final Solution. It does, to me, suggest that she is truthful in one element: her total blindness (willing or not) to how her work is connected to total human evil. 

Riefenstahl has excellent editing that I imagine would have made her proud. This is especially true in the various montages of her aging via her vast photographic collection. The use of various past television and documentary appearances, along with footage of her films, is well-crafted to give us this look at one of the most controversial and contradictory cinematic figures. She is shown as permanently defensive, bristling at the notion that Triumph of the Will or Olympia were "Pied Piper films", luring the German volk into a pact with the Devil. 

However, I think one of the most revealing parts in Riefenstahl may be an unexpected one. It is when she is on a German talk show with Elfriede Kretschmer, another German who was also of her generation. Unlike Riefenstahl, however, Kretschmer dismisses Riefenstahl's suggestions that she could have been unaware of what the Third Reich was up to. She also condemns Riefenstahl for having made her films. Riefenstahl defends herself by essentially saying that people like Kretschmer have the benefit of hindsight. Leni later gives an impassioned defense of herself and her generation, that they have not fully healed from what happened. The audience applauds Riefenstahl's monologue, with Riefenstahl later playing recordings of supportive callers.

I think, in the end, this is why Leni Riefenstahl still holds such power over people to love or hate her. She, I think, has become the embodiment of and to that generation of Germans who feel perpetually blamed and condemned for the horrors of the Third Reich. Leni Riefenstahl is so much: a cinematic craftsman, a manipulative liar, someone who probably supported National Socialism but who also may have been made a scapegoat for everything that the Nazis did. Riefenstahl makes the case that she bears responsibility for her actions during the Nazi era and went to her grave not accepting it. Exactly how much responsibility, how much blame she can and should bear, however, is a harder question.

"I am not responsible for what happened", we hear Leni Riefenstahl say near the end of Riefenstahl. She did not send people to the gas chambers. She, however, hesitated on calling her association with Hitler a mistake. Riefenstahl is a strong introduction to this figure, a woman of evil to some, an artistic innovator to others. Perhaps the truth is that in the final analysis, Leni Riefenstahl can be both. 

DECISION: B+

Miracle on Main Street: A Review

 

MIRACLE ON MAIN STREET

Welcome to Rick's Texan Reviews annual Christmas movie review, where I look at a Christmas-themed film. This year, one that blends film noir elements with themes of redemption and hope. 

1939 is heralded as the greatest year in film history. The epic Gone with the Wind would probably have been enough to make that year illustrious. However, we not only had that Southern spectacle, but among other films released that year were Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, The Women, The Wizard of Oz, Stagecoach, Love Affair, Beau Geste, Ninotchka, and The Hunchback of Notre Dame. 1939 was such a grand year for film that even Poverty Row got in on the act. Miracle on Main Street is a little-known film that has no major stars or big budget. What it does have is a lot of heart and a moving story.

In the Spanish Quarter of Los Angeles, there is the traditional posada Christmas celebration. There is also a seedy sideshow, overseen by shady carnie Dick Porter (Lyle Talbot). Among the various dancers is Florita and her Seven Veils. Florita is really Maria (billed simply as Margo), who happens to be Dick's wife. Maria is unhappy in her demimonde but can't find a way out of it. Without being overt, it is understood that she, through Dick's assistance, sells her charms. They make the mistake of trying that with an undercover cop, but both manage to escape.

In the flight, Maria flees into a church, where she is stunned to discover a newborn in the church creche. Impulsively taking the baby to help in her cover, Maria manages to get back to her apartment. Despite herself and common sense, Maria soon falls in love with the abandoned baby, whom she names Donatio. Aided by gruff but loving landlady Mrs. Herman (Jane Darwell) and drunk Dr. Miles better known as "Doc" (William Collier, Sr.), Maria soon starts a new life.

She also starts a relationship with Jim Foreman (Walter Able), recently divorced who wants a traditional wife and children. They fall in love, but Maria is reluctant to share the truth about her past or Donatio's origins. Though struggling financially, she is happy in her new life as a single mother and seamstress. The past, however, finds her in a quandary. Will she have to go back to dancing? Will Dick, now back, cause her more issues? How will she get out from under Dick's thumb and start anew with Jim?

Miracle on Main Street runs a surprisingly short 78 minutes long yet packs a lot of story within its runtime. Frederick Jackson's screenplay gives us an engaging story with flawed but decent characters to care about. We see early on that Maria really is not suited to be this erotic dancer, but she is also self-aware on her lack of virtues. "Well, say you're pretty nice. And a good-looking kid at that," the undercover cop tells her. "I'm not as good as I look," she replies, the double meaning clear. This is a pretty noir line that would evoke a shady lady. In Miracle on Main Street, it reveals Maria as a good girl trying to be bad.

Almost all the characters, particularly the females, are not saintly or wicked, but complicated and contradictory. Darwell, for example, is gruff and not afraid to push for the rent money, threatening to kick Maria and the child out. However, she also provides cover for Maria and Donatio when Child Protective Services threatens late in the film to separate them, insisting that Maria is Donatio's mother. Maria's two fellow dancers, who also escaped during the raid, end up finding more respectable work. One of them even bizarrely manages to pass herself off as a posh erudite British nanny, with her strong New York accent occasionally breaking through.

This provide some of Miracle on Main Street's comic relief, particularly when she, Maria and Jim are at the beach (though why they are all wearing dresses and suits there is strange). Collier, Sr. is also wonderful as Doc with his comic efforts at both drinking and sobriety. He, however, has surprisingly tender moments too. "A woman will do a lot when she's in love," Doc wisely observes to Maria when she frets over her complicated past.

Major credit should go not just to Jackson's screenplay but to Steve Sekely's directing. He got most of his actors to play the parts in a genuine manner. Darwell and Collier, Sr. were absolutely wonderful in their roles, showing a caring if again, flawed character. Margo and Talbot were a bit melodramatic in their performances, but nothing so wildly out-of-tune. To their credit, especially Margo's, they did bring genuine emotion when sharing scenes. 

Seleky also had some creative visual moments. The entry from outside the Streets of Cairo sideshow to the dance erotique show inside had great camera work. Miracle on Main Street had a surprisingly integrated male audience at the striptease, with black, Asian and Hispanic male patrons alongside white men enjoying the beautiful women dancing their Ripple Dances. 

The film is not perfect. One wonders why the subplot of Jim's first marriage was even there when having him be single would have worked just as well. One also wonders why Maria did not just reveal Dick's blackmail threats instead of trying to drive Jim away with a false story. 

A child is at the heart of both the Christmas Story and Miracle on Main Street. While Miracle on Main Street is a Poverty Row production, the film is mostly so well-acted, well-written and well-directed that the low-rent production oddly enhances the film. This is a hidden Christmas gem, one that might be worth remaking and updating. I was deeply moved by Miracle on Main Street, a film that hopefully will be better-known.

DECISION: A-

2024 Christmas Film: The Holiday Sitter

2023 Christmas Film: Journey to Bethlehem

2022 Christmas Film: Santa Claus (1959)

2021 Christmas Film: It Happened on Fifth Avenue

2020 Christmas Film: Roots: The Gift

2019 Christmas Film: Last Christmas

2018 Christmas Film: Christmas with the Kranks

2017 Christmas Film: The Man Who Invented Christmas

2016 Christmas Film: Batman Returns

2015 Christmas Film: A Madea Christmas

2014 Christmas Film: Prancer

2013 Christmas Film: A Christmas Carol (1951) 

2012 Christmas Film: Arthur Christmas

Women in Love: A Review

WOMEN IN LOVE

I am unfamiliar with the works of one D.H. Lawrence. Therefore, I cannot offer any views on whether or not the film adaptation of Women in Love is a faithful adaptation. I can offer that the film version is slow, deadly dull and almost insufferably pretentious. Women in Love, I figure, was daring for its time. Now, it is a slog to sit through. 

Sisters Ursula (Jennie Linden) and Gudrun (Glenda Jackson) Brangwen are intelligent and artistic. They are as such, different from most of their community members, who are coal miners. Ursula is a schoolteacher and Gudrun a sculptress. The Brangwen sisters do travel in slightly elevated society circles despite not being either middle or upper class. They soon both become attracted to and are attracted by two distinct men.

School inspector Rupert Birkin (Alan Bates) is a somewhat morose fellow, his high intellect more a curse than a blessing. He finds himself drawn to Ursula, who reciprocates the feeling. Rupert's bosom buddy is coal mining heir Gerald Critch (Oliver Reed), who starts eyeing Gudrun. Love, sex and death all start uniting them. Rupert gives up his liaison with wealthy heiress Hermione Roddice (Eleanor Bron), a woman with grand artistic pretensions. A local picnic has the foursome indulge in the pleasures of the flesh. It also ends in tragedy for Gerald's sister and new husband. 

As Rupert & Ursula and Gerald & Gudrun continue their mating dance, they take different approaches. Rupert convinces Gerald to release some of his pent-up anger and frustration with a little nude wrestling. While Rupert does not confess to being in love or desire for Gerald, their physical contact pretty much speaks for itself. Rupert and Ursula decide to get married. Gudrun becomes Gerald's mistress. Both couples, however, are not particularly happy with these arrangements.

A ski trip to Switzerland will have consequences and revelations for our pair of lovebirds. Will Rupert and Ursula find contentment in bourgeois marriage? Will Gerald and Gudrun continue their unhappily unmarried relationship? Will all four couples live to see the end of these Women in Love?  

If people vaguely recall Women in Love, it is due to a few reasons. Women in Love received four Academy Award nominations, winning one. That win is for Glenda Jackson, who won the first of her two Best Actress Academy Awards. It also features full frontal male nudity. That is rather rare nowadays. I figure that in 1970 such a thing was downright scandalous. 

The film may be titled Women in Love, but I would say that it is actually about one man in love with another. The male nude scene where Rupert and Gerald wrestle against each other naked makes Brokeback Mountain look downright virginal in comparison. It is as homoerotic as anything outside an adult film. I will concede that it is beautifully photographed, which explains its Best Cinematography nomination. I can also concede that Larry Kramer's Oscar-nominated screenplay makes it understood that Rupert wanted a romantic/sexual relationship with Gerald. Their wrestling match ends with Rupert running a finger up and down Gerald's arm, as naked a come-on as imaginable (no pun intended).  

I also think that much in Women in Love, the naked romp went on far too long. The audience had already endured a very long and almost pointless ballet scene. I understand that the ballet scene was meant to ridicule Hermione's artistic pretentions. However, it felt much longer and tedious to sit through. It does not help that after this danse erotique, Hermione reacts to being called out for her lack of spontaneity by whacking Rupert with a paperweight. That sequence is topped off with Rupert, stumbling about the forest, stripping off and falling into mud.  

Women in Love is a very long film, running close to two hours and fifteen minutes. I confess to nodding off more than once, never a good sign. I think that for myself, the biggest issue is that Women in Love feels excessively stylized. Again, I figure that such a thing was the intention. We get an early scene where Rupert uses figs to metaphorically discuss sex, particularly deflowering a woman. However, did we really need to see a long scene of Gudrun dancing to a group of cows? I was not sure at times if Women in Love was a drama or a comedy. Again, I put it down to the film's deliberately stylized manner. When, for example, Gerald's father Thomas (Alan Webb) dies, I was reminded of all things The Ruling Class. That film was meant as a comedy. I do not think that Women in Love was. It just played that way.

One can get the symbolism in Women in Love. "She killed him", Gerald says to Rupert when the nude bodies of Gerald's sister Laura (Sharon Gurney) and her luscious and horny husband Tibby (Christopher Gable) are found in the drained lake. She had killed him by pulling him down when she first began to struggle during a skinny dip at the house garden party. However, the entire sequence to me felt a bit like something out of Tom Jones or the aforementioned The Ruling Class. Those, again, were comedies. Was Women in Love also meant as one?  

The performances overall were acceptable. Glenda Jackson, as mentioned, won the first of her two Best Actress Oscars for Women in Love. I am puzzled over what exactly in her performance got her a nomination, let alone the win. Was it a weak year in the Best Actress race? It was not a terrible performance. Gudrun could be blunt with people. Did she win the Oscar for dancing with bulls? At a climactic moment, I was awake enough to shout, "KILL GLENDA JACKSON! PLEASE!", so I suppose that made her interesting to watch if I cared enough to see Gudrun strangled. Again, I do not think it was a terrible performance. It was acceptable. However, I do not think it is memorable or interesting.

The same goes for Jennie Linden as Ursula. She made her character a bit of a dolt. How else to explain why she would be so unaware that Rupert was more into Gerald than into her? I thought better of Alan Bates as Rupert, the barely suppressed gay or bisexual man. He made Rupert's sometimes pompous musings on love and sex believable. Oliver Reed was also better than the material as Gerald, the cold and coldblooded mining tycoon who struggled with human emotion.

Women in Love is not a film that I think is that well-remembered. I found it far too stylized for its own good. Even in long shots, the nude wrestling came across as crazed to almost downright silly. Some editing would have done Women in Love a world of good.   

DECISION: D-

Network: A Review

NETWORK

When Network premiered, its director insisted that it was not a satire. Sidney Lumet called Network "reportage". Now, with almost fifty years since its release, Network seems actually quite tame in its depiction of the insanity of television. Cruel but horrifyingly accurate and prescient, Network dives into its tale with a mix of sharp wit and bitter cynicism.

Howard Beale (Peter Finch) is the highly respected evening news anchor of the Union Broadcast System (UBS). He also has the worst ratings of all four networks. His friend and boss, Max Schumacher (William Holden) tells Beale that he will be terminated in two weeks due to those poor ratings. Beale, a recent widower with no children, declares on the show that he will kill himself on air. The news barely causes a ripple in the disinterested production booth but by the time they realize exactly what Beale said, it is too late to stop the live broadcast.

Schumacher, albeit reluctantly, agrees to let Beale back on the air to make amends. Beale instead starts becoming unhinged, calling out the "bull****" live. This causes a national scandal. This scandal, however, is brilliant news for two people. The first is Frank Hackett (Robert Duvall), the Communication Corporation of America (CCA) hatchet man who wants to eliminate the news division, which is costing CCA millions. CCA owns UBS and sees this as the perfect opportunity to cut Beale and the moral Schumacher out.  UBS executive Diana Christensen (Faye Dunaway) sees Beale's rants differently. She believes that with some work, Beale's angry and erratic rants could be ratings gold. A revamped news show could be bigger than Mary Tyler Moore according to Diana. 

Some things are clear. Howard Beale is slowly going bonkers, convinced that he can hear otherworldly voices directing him to speak to the world "because he's on television". Max is desperate to keep Beale from humiliating himself and UBS. Hackett and Christensen don't care that Beale is pretty much insane. They are willing to use him to get profits and ratings. Eventually, Howard Beale goes on air in full unhinged mode, pleading with everyone to go out to their window and yell, "I'M AS MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!"

Christensen has taken over the news division. The Network News Hour with Howard Beale is now a massive hit. It has various segments such as Sybil the Soothsayer (a psychic who will predict the news) and Vox Populi, where audience members can vote on a particular topic. The main draw, however, is "the mad prophet of the airwaves". Beale can beg audiences that they are the crazy ones for believing that television is real, but his words and fainting fits only seem to convince viewers that he speaks for them. Christen now uses The Network News Hour to create an even more insane series. Using Communist Party member Laureen Dobbs (Marlene Warfield) as a go-between, Christensen creates The Mao Tse-Tung Hour. The show will feature the crimes of the Ecumenical Liberation Army, a radical leftist group. They will supply footage of their crimes while UBS will craft a series around them. 

Despite all his sense, Max and Diana begin an affair. He leaves his wife Louise (Beatrice Straight) for her, though he knows that Diana has no heart or soul. Hackett has no heart and soul either, but now he fully controls UBS. It is not until Howard Beale starts ranting about a proposed merger of CCA to a Saudi-backed corporation that Hackett begins to look on Beale with fury. Christensen's only concerns are ratings. Those become affected after a by-now totally insane Beale meets CCA head Arthur Jensen (Ned Beatty). Jensen convinces the delusional Beale to preach a message that Jensen favors. This new set of ramblings are depressing to audiences, who soon start tuning out. Schumacher has returned to his wife, but UBS has not returned to sanity. Jensen, Hackett informs UBS executives, flat-out refuses to cancel Howard Beale. Deciding to kill two birds with one stone, Hackett, Christensen and other UBS executives come up with the perfect opening for The Mao Tse-Tung Hour's Season Two that will simultaneously cancel The Network News Hour.

Network is in retrospect rather frightening in how it predicted the devolution of television. "TV is showbiz, Max, and even the news has to have a little showmanship", Diana tells Max when she first attempts to work with him on revamping the UBS Evening News. Audiences at the time would have understood the conventions of national news broadcasts. Other elements would have been somewhat familiar. The Network News Hour with Howard Beale, complete with audiences shouting the catchphrase, would be in the style of something like the more benign human interest show That's Incredible! albeit That's Incredible! came later. 

Some of the programming that Network presented might have seemed outrageous. Paddy Chayefsky's Oscar-winning screenplay makes clear that the title The Mao Tse-Tung Hour was meant as a joke. However, Network shows that it was adopted unironically. More outrageously, Network has television aiding and abetting criminals to draw in viewers. As shocking or outlandish as this premise is, it is not too far removed from how various other networks have done things in a similar spirit. From such shows as Keeping Up with the Kardashians to true crime series like Reelz Channel's Murder Made Me Famous, Network managed to predict how television shows would draw in audiences by presenting the most unimportant or salacious matters for our amusement. 

I find that there is a line connecting the amoral ratings-pursuing ruthlessness of Diana Christensen and the television dominance of Andy Cohen. "I want angry shows", Christensen tells her staff. Could one say that the various catfights on the myriads of Real Housewives shows are "angry" or at least showcase public displays of anger?

The presentation of news also has become more spectacular and less informative. The graphics, the segments and sarcasm, the blending of news and opinion have found their ways onto the airwaves. Howard Beale may not have had biological children in Network. He does have spiritual children in Bill O'Reilly, in Keith Olbermann and the various shows on networks supposedly dedicated to news and information. The Howard Beale Show may have featured a psychic and "Ms. Mata Hari and her Skeletons in the Closet." It, however, did not imagine featuring child drag queens like Good Morning America did. Christensen talks about creating a "homosexual soap opera". The proposed series The Dykes is not too far removed from something like Pose or Boots.

What I find endlessly enjoyable about Network is how intelligent it is. Chayefsky crafted a brilliant, logical script that makes the story flow smoothly. An aspect of Chayefsky's screenplay that I do not think is comment on enough is how literate it is. Christensen tells Schumacher that Beale's initial spontaneous rants come across as curmudgeonly versus apocalyptic. "I think you should take on a couple of writers to write some jeremiads for him", Christensen tells him. Later, a devastated Louise tears into Max when he tells her of his affair. "This is your great winter romance, isn't it? Your last roar of passion before you settle into your emeritus years. Is that what's left for me?! Is that my share? She gets the passion, and I get the dotage?"

What impresses me above all else is Chayefsky believes people would use words like "jeremiads", "emeritus" and "dotage" in regular conversation or in fits of rage. Chayefsky not only uses these words in ordinary conversation. He trusts that audiences will understand them. I have always found that aspect of Network brilliant. Paddy Chayefsky never dumbs down anything in Network. The words are intelligent. The plot is outlandish, but he trusts us to keep up. Chayefsky crafts some wonderful dialogue for his actors. 

Most people, even those who have never seen Network, know Peter Finch's "I'M AS MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!" rant. However, after rewatching Network, I think there is more one meaning to the word "MAD". Howard Beale may be enraged. However, his declaration that he's "mad as hell" might indicate that he subconsciously knows that he's flat-out bonkers. This rant speaks to the frustrations that Americans were going through. This scene, punctuated by a fierce thunderstorm, brilliantly underscores the impending storm and chaos about to be unleashed.

However, Network is more than Howard Beale's completely insane but frighting accurate worldview. All the actors get great dialogue. Of particular note is William Holden's admission that he is frightened by the knowledge that he is "closer to the end than to the beginning". It's a deeply moving moment, the last sane man with feeling. 

Network is brilliantly acted, a major credit to director Sidney Lumet in guiding his cast to three Oscar-winning performances. Peter Finch became the first man to posthumously win an acting Oscar for his Howard Beale. He made Howard Beale into someone who has slipped into total lunacy. Finch managed to sound like an American, with the possible exception of how he pronounces "homicides" as "homo-sides" versus the more familiar "hah-ma-cides". Whether expressing a belief that he is truly in tune with otherworldly knowledge or having fainting fits, Finch goes in totally on the cray-cray. Despite his rantings, the mad prophet of the airwaves is correct in decrying how viewers have turned into the tube.

Faye Dunaway is ice personified as Diana Christensen. This is a woman who cannot achieve romantic or sexual pleasure but will thrill to being the ratings queen. Dunaway is brilliant in showing Diana's total moral blindness. "For God's sake Diana, we're talking about putting a manifestly irresponsible man on national television", Robert Duvall's Frank Hackett tells her early on. Dunaway's face reveals a woman who is almost possessed on the thought that there is nothing wrong with putting a mentally collapsing person like Howard Beale on the air. Even as she seduces Max Schumacher, we sense that she truly is incapable of love. Despite that, a sliver of humanity does come through in a small moment. As Max tells her that he's leaving her, she in a rage goes to the kitchen. Getting a cup and saucer, we see her trembling, perhaps expressing genuine shock at the human emotions that she is unfamiliar with.

Finch and Dunaway won Lead Actor and Actress for Network. A surprise winner was Beatrice Straight in Supporting Actress. Essentially consisting of one scene, Straight portrays the deep hurt and rage at being abandoned after twenty-five years of marriage. Technically, Straight has two scenes, but she dominates in her second. Her screentime of a little over five minutes remains as of this writing the shortest Oscar-winning performance in Academy Award history. 

Ned Beatty also received a Supporting Actor nomination for his single scene as Mr. Jensen. It is a brilliant scene both written and directed. Beatty was able to shift from almost preacher-like rage to almost cuddly. What surprised me is that Robert Duvall was not nominated for the appropriately named Frank Hackett. He delivered his lines with rapid-fire fury, making Hackett frightening and oddly amusing. Duvall is fiery, arrogant and coldblooded, making Hackett a perfect villain. Commenting to the USB executives early on, Hackett dismisses their sense of outrage when he proposes bringing Beale back on the air. "We're not a respectable network. We're a whorehouse network. We have to take whatever we can get". Hackett has no principles. His unholy union with Christensen makes for frightening but electric viewing.

In all of this, we cannot forget William Holden. It is a fair argument that Finch is really a supporting character (he essentially disappears in the middle of Network). Holden, who received a Best Actor nomination for the film, is Network's moral core. He is able to show Max as the lone principled character. He too, however, is corrupted via his liaison with Diana. He, like Merlin, is aware that he is being taken advantage of. However, he does nothing to stop it. In his righteous anger and awareness of the changing world, Holden does an excellent job.

Network does not have any flaws. Perhaps one can quibble over the intermittent voiceover. That, however, works for the film, a little bit of information spaced through the film. Network, in its cynicism, really now looks quaint in how it shows modern television. Funny, dramatic, well-acted, you will not feel mad after watching Network. 

DECISION: A+