The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewTrevor Lynch Archive
NETWORK: A Populist Classic
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Written by Paddy Chayefsky and directed by Sidney Lumet, Network (1976) is a sardonic, dark-comic satire of America at the very moment that its trajectory of decline became apparent (to perceptive eyes, at least).

Network has an outstanding script and incandescent performances, which were duly recognized. Chayefsky won the Oscar for Best Screenplay. Peter Finch won the Oscar for Best Actor for his portrayal of TV anchorman Howard Beale. Faye Dunaway won Best Actress for playing the reptilian cynical career girl Diana Christensen. William Holden turns in a warm and credible performance of TV news executive Max Schumacher. Beatrice Straight plays Schumacher’s wife Louise. She won Best Supporting Actress for basically one scene, where she denounces her cheating husband, a measure of the talent this movie lavished on even minor roles. Robert Duvall is a convincingly loathsome corporate creep named Frank Hackett. Maureen Warfield is electrifying and utterly hilarious as my favorite character, Laureen Hobbs, who introduces herself as a “bad-ass commie nigger.”

Remarkably, Network has no film score, and it is not really missed. The script and performances stand on their own. We don’t need violins to tell us what to feel.

Network is a serious movie of ideas. What’s more, these ideas are objectively Right-wing, even though that may not have been the intention of Chayefsky and Lumet.

Network offers a scathing tableau of the cynicism, corruption, and propagandistic agenda of the mainstream media, one of the cultural citadels of the Left. Network offers a particularly dark portrait of a scheming, sociopathic career woman (Faye Dunaway’s Diana Christiansen) who sleeps with a married superior.

Network also portrays the sixties generation, then rising into positions of influence, as cynical and decadent—disdaining the morals and basic decency of their parents’ generation as mere sentiment. Indeed, Network portrays the Marxist-terrorist fringe of the Sixties Left as clownish hysterical thugs who instantly sell-out when offered a TV contract.

But Network’s Right-wing themes that resonate the most today center around the conflict between nationalism and populism on the one hand and globalism and elitism on the other.

The plot of Network is fairly simple. Howard Beale (played by Peter Finch) is the evening news anchor at America’s fourth television network, UBS, which stands for Union Broadcasting System, but it sounds like “You BS,” which means something very different. Beale has been declining personally and professionally for some time, and finally his old friend Max Schumacher (William Holden), the head of the News Division, was forced to fire him. The two got roaring drunk, and when Howard tells Max he plans to kill himself on the air, Max playfully suggests that it would get a hell of a rating. Then he reels off a whole list of equally lurid shows, which at the time seemed like an obscene parody, but seem like old hat to today’s generation, who have easy online access to terrorist and cartel murder videos.

Of course Max was not serious, and he did not dream that Howard would actually go through with it. But Howard really does go on the air the next day and announce that he will kill himself on live television. The network, of course, cuts the camera. But the stunt garners enormous attention.

Howard begs to go back on the air the next day to say a more dignified goodbye, but when he broadcast goes live, he launches into a tirade about having run out of “bullshit.” (This is “You BS,” after all.) The broadcast is a hit, but both Max and Howard are canned by the UBS brass, who think gutter language is beneath the dignity of their television network. (Those were the days.)

Enter Faye Dunaway’s character Diana Christensen, who is in charge of entertainment programming. She, along with fellow young cynic Frank Hackett (Robert Duvall), persuade UBS to keep Beale on the air for much-needed ratings. (UBS is struggling in fourth rank.) As Diana puts it, “Howard Beale is processed instant God, and right now it looks like he may just go over bigger than Mary Tyler Moore.”

What sends Beale into ratings heaven is his famous “Mad as Hell” tirade, which seems even more poignant in the age of Trump and Brexit and at the brink of a global depression.

I don’t have to tell you things are bad. Everybody knows things are bad. It’s a depression. Everybody’s out of work or scared of losing their job, the dollar buys a nickel’s worth, banks are going bust, shopkeepers keep a gun under the counter, punks are running wild in the streets, and there’s nobody anywhere who seems to know what to do, and there’s no end to it.

We know the air’s unfit to breathe and our food is unfit to eat, and we sit and watch our TVs while some local newscaster tells us today, we had fifteen homicides and sixty-three violent crimes, as if that’s the way it’s supposed to be. We all know things are bad. Worse than bad. They’re crazy. It’s like everything’s going crazy.

So we don’t go out any more. We sit in the house, and slowly the world we live in gets smaller, and all we ask is please, at least leave us alone in our own living rooms. Let me have my toaster and my TV and my hair-dryer and my steel-belted radials, and I won’t say anything, just leave us alone.

Well, I’m not going to leave you alone. I want you to get mad—I don’t want you to riot. I don’t want you to protest. I don’t want you to write your congressmen. Because I wouldn’t know what to tell you to write. I don’t know what to do about the depression and the inflation and the defense budget and the Russians and crime in the street.

All I know is first you’ve got to get mad. You’ve got to say: “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore. I’m a human being, goddammit. My life has value.” So I want you to get up now. I want you to get out of your chairs and go to the window. Right now. I want you to go to the window, open it, and stick your head out and yell. I want you to yell: “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore!”—Get up from your chairs. Go to the window. Open it. Stick your head out and yell and keep yelling . . .

There is a deep political truth here. Before we can have any political change at all, the people need to be angry. But for the people to get angry, they have to be assertive. And to be assertive, we require self-esteem. It is an amazingly dramatic sequence. If you don’t find it stirring, check your pulse, because you might be dead.

In her bid to take over Beale’s show, Diana begins an affair with Max Schumacher, who is old enough to be her father and married to boot. Max, however, is disgusted by the desire to exploit Howard Beale, who has obviously gone insane. (Howard shows clear signs of mania.) Eventually, however, Christensen and Hackett team up to fire Schumacher. Then Christensen turns the UBS news program into The Howard Beale Show, a grotesque variety program featuring Howard as “The Mad Prophet of the Airwaves.”

Diana argues that Howard is popular because he is “articulating the popular rage.” She wants a whole new slate of angry, anti-establishment programming. Diana, mind you, doesn’t want to change society to make people less angry. She simply wants to exploit popular discontent and channel it into ratings and money. She wants to make it into a commodity. This is brought home brilliantly in Howard’s first speech on The Howard Beale Show.

Edward George Ruddy died today! Edward George Ruddy was the Chairman of the Board of the Union Broadcasting Systems—and woe is us if it ever falls in the hands of the wrong people. And that’s why woe is us that Edward George Ruddy died. Because this network is now in the hands of CC&A, the Communications Corporation of America.

We’ve got a new Chairman of the Board, a man named Frank Hackett now sitting in Mr. Ruddy’s office on the twentieth floor. And when the twelfth largest company in the world controls the most awesome goddamned propaganda force in the whole godless world, who knows what shit will be peddled for truth on this tube?

So, listen to me! Television is not the truth! Television is a goddamned amusement park; that’s what television is! Television is a circus, a carnival, a travelling troupe of acrobats and story-tellers, singers and dancers, jugglers, side-show freaks, lion-tamers, and football players. We’re in the boredom-killing business! If you want truth, go to God, go to your guru, go to yourself because that’s the only place you’ll ever find any real truth!

But, man, you’re never going to get any truth from us. We’ll tell you anything you want to hear. We lie like hell! We’ll tell you Kojak always gets the killer, and nobody ever gets cancer in Archie Bunker’s house. And no matter how much trouble the hero is in, don’t worry: just look at your watch—at the end of the hour, he’s going to win. We’ll tell you any shit you want to hear!

We deal in illusion, man! None of it’s true! But you people sit there—all of you—day after day, night after night, all ages, colors, creeds—we’re all you know. You’re beginning to believe this illusion we’re spinning here. You’re beginning to think the tube is reality and your own lives are unreal. You do whatever the tube tells you. You dress like the tube, you eat like the tube, you raise your children like the tube, you think like the tube.

This is mass madness, you maniacs! In God’s name, you people are the real thing! We’re the illusions! So turn off this goddamn set! Turn it off right now! Turn it off and leave it off. Turn it off right now, right in the middle of this very sentence I’m speaking now—

Then Howard collapses in a dead faint, the camera dollies forward and looms up over him. Cue music. Cue applause. The audience goes wild. Thus television turns a critique of television into more television. And, arguably, Chayefsky and Lumet are turning their own critique of the media into more media. A critique of the media becomes just another media experience, which might resonate for a bit but is eventually ousted by yet another media experience. Thus the critical impetus never meshes with anything real; it poses no threat to the existing system.

Howard’s speech centers around an important distinction between friendship and flattery. A friend tells you what you need to hear, namely the truth, whereas a flatterer tells you want to hear. Any truth we don’t want to hear is basically bad news. But we need to hear bad news. We need to know about problems if we are to overcome them. Bad news about ourselves is usually about personal failings and inadequacies. Friends force us to confront them, which is a necessary condition of growth. Television, however, is a flatterer, not a friend. It dispenses comforting illusions that at best promote complacency and increasingly promote corruption.

Another important distinction is edification versus pandering. To edify means to build up: to build up a person’s knowledge, character, tastes, and ultimately his individuality. To pander is to stoop down, to cater to a person’s existing knowledge, character, and tastes, no matter how inadequate and immature.

Human beings are not blank slates, but we are born ignorant, amoral, crude, fearful, and weak. As Thomas Sowell once put it, every new generation is an invasion of barbarians. We have to civilize them, or civilization will perish. The purpose of education and high culture is to edify: to turn barbarians into civilized men.


The culture industry, however, has the diametrically opposite agenda. Its goal is to make money by appealing to people’s “given preferences”: the given preferences of barbarians. No matter how ignorant, tasteless, immoral, or undifferentiated you may be, you will always find people who will cater to your preferences because they want to separate you from your money.

But the culture industry does not just breed complacency. It also encourages corruption. Having a developed personality—including tastes and morals—means that certain things are beneath you. There are things you will not do, things you will not look at or listen to, things you will not buy. Thus, to sell us more things, the culture industry has to break down the inhibitions of morality and taste that forbid certain pleasures. Edification breeds discrimination. The culture industry wants us to be less discriminating, because that means we are willing to consume more. Thus the culture industry has an incentive to dissolve all standards of morals and taste in the acid of cynicism. Civilization can’t compete with barbarism in the “free market,” which means that capitalism will slowly liquidate civilization, unless education and high culture are preserved from market forces.

Howard’s commodified discontent is a hit. It entertains all and threatens none. The big lines kept going up. But then Howard made a speech that actually changed something, something big, something important:

All right, listen to me! Listen carefully! This is your goddamn life I’m talking about today! In this country, when one company takes over another company, they simply buy up a controlling share of the stock. But first they have to file notice with the government. That’s how CC&A—the Communications Corporation of America—bought up the company that owns this network. And now somebody’s buying up CC&A! Some company named Western World Funding Corporation is buying up CC&A! They filed their notice this morning!

Well, just who the hell is Western World Funding Corporation? It’s a consortium of banks and insurance companies who are not buying CC&A for themselves but as agents for somebody else! Well, who’s this somebody else? They won’t tell you! They won’t tell you, they won’t tell the Senate, they won’t tell the SEC, the FCC, the Justice Department, they won’t tell anybody! They say it’s none of our business! The hell it ain’t!

Well, I’ll tell you who they’re buying CC&A for. They’re buying it for the Saudi-Arabian Investment Corporation! They’re buying it for the Arabs! . . . We know the Arabs control more than sixteen billion dollars in this country! They own a chunk of Fifth Avenue, twenty downtown pieces of Boston, a part of the port of New Orleans, an industrial park in Salt Lake City. They own big hunks of the Atlanta Hilton, the Arizona Land and Cattle Company, the Security National Bank in California, the Bank of the Commonwealth in Detroit! They control ARAMCO, so that puts them into Exxon, Texaco, and Mobil oil! They’re all over—New Jersey, Louisville, St. Louis, Missouri! And that’s only what we know about! There’s a hell of a lot more we don’t know about because all those Arab petro-dollars are washed through Switzerland and Canada and the biggest banks in this country! . . . And there’s not a single law on the books to stop them!

There’s only one thing that can stop them—you! So I want you to get up now. I want you to get out of your chairs and go to the phone. Right now. I want you to go to your phone or get in your car and drive into the Western Union office in town. I want everybody listening to me to get up right now and send a telegram to the White House . . . By midnight tonight I want a million telegrams in the White House! I want them wading knee-deep in telegrams at the White House! Get up! Right now! And send President Ford a telegram saying: “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore! I don’t want the banks selling my country to the Arabs! I want this CC&A deal stopped now!”

This is pure red-meat National Populism. From a nationalist point of view, it makes no sense to allow crucial industries to fall into the hands of foreign powers, especially global rivals. For instance, the coronavirus crisis has brought home the folly of outsourcing most of our pharmaceutical and medical supply manufacturing to China. Of course our global business elites see things differently, which is where populism comes in. It is the American masses who have to rise up, shove aside the elites, and mobilize the government to intervene in the economy in the national interest.

Howard’s speech is a great success. Within hours, the White House was awash in millions of telegrams—six million, to be precise—and the Saudi acquisition of CC&A was halted. It was a glorious outpouring of democracy.

But the head of CC&A, Arthur Jensen (played by Ned Beatty), is not amused. CC&A is deep in debt, and they need the Saudi money badly. So Mr. Jensen calls Howard into this office, with the goal of selling him on globalism rather than nationalism. After ushering him into the CC&A boardroom with the words “Valhalla, Mr. Beale,” Jensen closes the curtains and sets the stage for a Mephistophelean harangue.

You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale, and I won’t have it, is that clear?! You think you have merely stopped a business deal—that is not the case! The Arabs have taken billions of dollars out of this country, and now they must put it back. It is ebb and flow, tidal gravity, it is ecological balance! You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations! There are no peoples! There are no Russians. There are no Arabs! There are no Third Worlds! There is no West! There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multi-variate, multi-national dominion of dollars! petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars!, Reichsmarks, rubles, rin, pounds and shekels! It is the international system of currency that determines the totality of life on this planet! That is the natural order of things today! That is the atomic, subatomic, and galactic structure of things today! And you have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and you will atone!

Am I getting through to you, Mr. Beale? You get up on your little twenty-one-inch screen, and howl about America and democracy. There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and ITT and AT&T and Dupont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today. What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state—Karl Marx? They pull out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories, and minimax solutions and compute the price-cost probabilities of their transactions and investments just like we do.


We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale. The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable by-laws of business. The world is a business, Mr. Beale! It has been since man crawled out of the slime, and our children, Mr. Beale, will live to see that perfect world in which there is no war and famine, oppression and brutality—one vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock, all necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused. And I have chosen you, Mr. Beale, to preach this evangel.

Howard is thunderstruck: “I have seen the face of God!” To which Jensen replies, “You just might be right, Mr. Beale.” It is a brilliant scene, but Beatty’s delivery verges on parody.

Jensen’s speech is a stunning encapsulation of modern political thought and its ultimate telos: what Alexandre Kojève called the “end of history” in a “universal homogeneous state.” Modern political philosophy seeks to build a stable social and political order on the broad, low foundation of something shared by all men, namely desire: desire for the necessities of life, desire for comfort and security, desire for a long, healthy life and a peaceful death in the midst of plenty, rather than a short life, ending in want or violence.

To secure this desire-based social order, competing foundations must be eliminated. Since all men share the same basic desires, the modern state is in principle global. Therefore, the existence of distinct nations and the patriotic sentiments that dispose us to prefer our homelands to strange lands must be eliminated. Thus Jensen dismisses nationalism as a regressive folly of old men. The world is also divided by ideologies, like Marxism. Jensen dismisses those as well. If mankind is not divided by ideologies or national identities, we will have peace, so we can get down to the business of abolishing want and satisfying desire—business like the CC&A deal with the Saudis.

However, when Howard goes back on the air to preach Mr. Jensen’s vision of global capitalist utopia, he paints it in depressingly dystopian tones, for he sees that a world devoted solely to creature comforts and lacking identity, patriotism, and principles is a world without passion, nobility, and soul-expanding sentiments. It is also a world of self-indulgence, not self-edification. Thus it’s also a world without the tastes, standards, and strength of character necessary to resist the crowd. Thus it is also a world without individuality. Hence, “It’s the individual that’s finished. It’s the single, solitary human being who’s finished. It’s every single one of you out there who’s finished. Because this is no longer a nation of independent individuals. This is a nation of two hundred odd million transistorized, deodorized, whiter-than-white, steel-belted bodies, totally unnecessary as human beings and as replaceable as piston rods.”

This perversely bleak utopia resembles Kojève’s description of the universal homogeneous post-historical state as a realm of dehumanization, for desires don’t set us apart from the animals, thus a society in which desire is sovereign and reason and sentiments are subordinate, puts the distinctly human in service of the subhuman. It is a society of clever animals, not men. Such a depiction of utopia can only lead to its rejection, which was Kojève’s intent, as I argue in my lecture “Alexandre Kojève and the End of History.”

Howard’s depressive utopianism could only provoke revulsion. People started changing the channel, and The Howard Beale Show went into steep decline. Mr. Jensen, however, was adamant that Howard remain on the air and on message, regardless of the consequences. Thus Christensen, Hackett, and others at the network hatch a plot to have Beale assassinated, on air.

At this point, we get the payoff for the movie’s funniest subplot: Christensen’s plan to create a one-hour weekly dramatic series called The Mao Tse-Tung Hour, based on the real-life activities of a terrorist group called the Ecumenical Liberation Army (obviously patterned on the Symbionese Liberation Army). Christiansen gives the Communist Party complete control of the ideological content of the show. They can stick any Marxist propaganda they want on television as long as the show makes money, which pretty much sums up network television today.

Christiansen’s contact with the guerrillas is Laureen Hobbs (who is supposed to remind you of Angela Davis). Hobbs’ transformation from pedantically rattling off Marxist duck-speak to hysterically ranting about contracts is absolutely priceless. Actress Maureen Warfield somehow manages to make dialogue like this hilarious:

Don’t fuck with my distribution costs! I’m getting a lousy two-fifteen per segment, and I’m already deficiting twenty-five grand a week with Metro. I’m paying William Morris ten percent off the top! . . . I’m paying Metro twenty percent of all foreign and Canadian distribution, and that’s after recoupment! The Communist Party’s not going to see a nickel out of this goddam show until we go into syndication!

The name Hobbs is supposed to call to mind Thomas Hobbes, the theorist of dog-eat-dog capitalism, though nobody, in truth, outdoes Marxists in cannibalism. Since Beale’s show is in the slot before The Mao Tse-Tung Hour and dragging down its ratings, Hobbs agrees to have the Ecumenicals assassinate Howard Beale. They think it will be a great two-hour opener for the new season.

The scene in which the network executives decide to murder Howard Beale is quite chilling. Every one of them is a sociopath. Moral considerations never creep in at all.

When the Ecumenicals kill Howard on live television, we cut to four television screens, one tuned to each of the four networks. We simultaneously see and hear the coverage of the shooting as well as various commercials. Then the narrator proclaims over the cacophony: “This was the story of Howard Beale, the first known instance of a man who was killed because he had lousy ratings.” As far as I know, television networks still do not resort to assassinations, but Network was dead right about the plunge of network television into gutter depravity and crude Left-wing agitprop.

Network offers a feast of truth on the media, popular culture, capitalism, feminism, Leftism, nationalism, populism, globalization, and decadence. Network is absolutely right that we need to worry about who controls the mass media, especially hostile aliens. But when Network raises the alarm about foreign influence on the American media, it names the wrong tribe of Semites.


Indeed, although the American television and movie industries are famously Jewish, Network portrays UBS as almost entirely non-Jewish. In the context of a TV network, a name like Max Schumacher sounds Jewish, but William Holden was not Jewish and neither is his portrayal of Schumacher. Of course if Schumacher is supposed to be Jewish, we also have to note that he is the most decent character in the bunch. A minor character—little more than an extra—is named Barbara Schlesinger, a likely Jewish name, but she is played by Conchata Ferrell, who is not Jewish. Jews, however, are not confined to minor roles in the American media.

Everybody else at UBS is conspicuously white. Howard Beale is an English name, and Peter Finch, who played him, was of Anglo-Scottish ancestry. The main villains are named Christensen and Jensen, both Scandinavian names, and Hackett, an English name with Scandinavian roots. (Another corporate sociopath is named Amundsen in the script.) This is such a neat inversion of the truth that it cannot be accidental. Indeed, the main reason there are so few Jews in front of the cameras in Network is that the main people behind the camera, writer Paddy Chayefsky and director Sidney Lumet, were both Jewish. One has to give them credit for all the truths that they did put on screen, but it was clearly dishonest of them to omit their own ethnic group’s presiding role in the corruption and degeneracy of American television. There’s a lesson in that too.

Hide 150 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. syonredux says:

    Peter Finch, who played Howard Beale, was Jewish,

    Is he? Here’s his ancestry according to Ethnic Celebs:

    Birth Name: Frederick George Peter Ingle-Finch

    Date of Birth: September 28, 1916

    Place of Birth: Kensington, London, England, U.K.

    Date of Death: January 14, 1977

    Place of Death: Beverly Hills, California, U.S.

    Ethnicity: English, Scottish, possibly other

    Peter was the biological son of Alicia Gladys (Fisher) and Wentworth Edward Dallas “Jock” Campbell, an army officer. Alicia was English. Wentworth was born in Worcestershire, England, and was an officer in the Indian Army. His surname is of Scottish origin.

    Peter’s mother had an affair with Peter’s biological father, while married to George Finch, an Australian chemist and mountaineer. Alicia and George divorced when Peter was four years old. Peter’s biological parents married two years later. After the divorce, Peter was raised by George Finch’s mother, Laura in Vaucresson, France, and later partly in Adyar, India.

    • Replies: @Trevor Lynch
  2. @syonredux

    You make a good case that I was simply misinformed about Finch’s ethnicity. I will change the text.

    I think this mistake may be rooted in the role he played in Sunday, Bloody Sunday.

    • Replies: @syonredux
  3. Antoniof says:

    Thanks , really good review.

    Its more or less the same with ” the wolf of wall street”leonardo di caprio playing the rol of a broker to whitewash the frauds of the 2008 subprime crisis where jews were heavily involved .

    • Replies: @Alden
  4. syonredux says:
    @Trevor Lynch

    The main villains are named Christensen and Jensen, both Scandinavian names, and Hackett, an English name with Scandinavian roots.

    Yes, I’ve always wondered about the intentionally deceptive use of Scando names in the film. Perhaps it’s an allusion to Waugh’s The Loved One, where the high-ranking studio executive at “Megalopolitan Pictures” is a Nordic fellow named Erikson?

    • Replies: @Z-man
  5. Anon[378] • Disclaimer says:

    If I wanted to be yelled at for 90 minutes I’d go home.

    • Agree: R.G. Camara
    • Replies: @padre
  6. Magnificent review of one of my favorite movies! Thank you!

    I’ve pasted links numerous times around here to the very same scenes.

    So many points in the review to consider, all of them right on. Just one example:

    Civilization can’t compete with barbarism in the “free market,” which means that capitalism will slowly liquidate civilization, unless education and high culture are preserved from market forces.

    I first noticed that my education was beholden to market forces when I was in college. It dawned on me that my university was a business. “The world is a business.” I think I was standing in line at the bursar’s office to pay my tuition when it really hit me.

    How do we preserve our education and high culture from market forces? I ask as a supporter of capitalism and private enterprise who agrees that one function today of our government should be to protect our sovereignty and personal capital from the free reign of cheap global labor, and to give similar protection to education and culture. Freedom and enterprise do not mean mass cultural suicide.

    Too many points to discuss. I will stop here. Truly great film, as meaningful and enjoyable today as then, even though, sadly, the very last point in the review is true:

    One has to give them credit for all the truths that they did put on screen, but it was clearly dishonest of them to omit their own ethnic group’s presiding role in the corruption and degeneracy of American television.

    • Replies: @Fuerchtegott
    , @Alden
  7. But when Network raises the alarm about foreign influence on the American media, it names the wrong tribe of Semites.

    Thank you, Trevor Lynch, for noticing.

    • Replies: @mark green
  8. Russ says:

    Maureen Warfield is electrifying and utterly hilarious as my favorite character, Laureen Hobbs

    Marlene Warfield; that “aureen” tripped Trevor as similar constructs in parallel situations always trip me. And yes, the scene in which Laureen informs the Great Ahmed Khan (eating a barrel full of Kentucky Fried Chicken) that’s he’s bound for TV stardom was most choice.

    In the execution-plotting scene, network president Nelson Chaney does say “we’re talking about a capital crime here,” but the other big shots either don’t hear him or fully ignore him. Of course, Holden’s Schumacher had established early in the movie that Chaney had no say over anything anyway.

    • Replies: @Trevor Lynch
  9. Gast [AKA "Gast (noch immer)2"] says:

    Yeah, “populist classic”… brought to you by your “populist” jewish producers in Hollywood, who warn you that Arabs are taking over “our” mass media. Populist “hero” thinks there might be the danger that the foreign ownership means dangerous propaganda. Thank god, that jews that have run the networks before only brought the objective truth, so this foreign propaganda would be a brand new thing. For Lynch/Johnson halting the takeover was a “glorious outpouring of democracy”. And then the message by “technocrat” Jensen is: There is no propaganda only money making. And this is for Lynch/Johnson the ultimate cynicism. So dear readers rest assured there is no heavy handed propaganda in this technocratic world.

    Does Lynch/Johnson think, his readers are idiots? Probably.

    Lynch/Johnson is more cynical than the jewish director (Sidney Lumet) and jewish writer (Paddy Chayefsky) of this stupid movie.

    That this joker who constantly shills for the jews (currently he is shilling hard for their Corona mega-hoax) pretends to run a dissident website (“Counter Currents”) is the apex of cynicism. But rest assured, there is propaganda, not only money making (sure, Johnson is greedy, currently he wants 150 000 bucks from his readers for the continuation of his disinformation site).

  10. seeuhay says:

    This was 1976. The whites were still in power. The Network was a hack-job to ridicule them into oblivion. It did not succeed. In 1981 Reagan was elected. It was only after he was shot at, the plan finally suceeded.

    My point is that the “pictures” take you only so far. Actions cut much deeper.

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
  11. @Buzz Mohawk

    Just look at a classical market.
    A very limited space.
    Typically in the center of a city.

  12. @Russ

    Yes, but “a capital crime” is merely a concern with legal consequences, of no more moral weight than calculating the buyout value of Beale’s contract.

    • Replies: @Russ
    , @Alden
  13. @Gast

    And then the message by “technocrat” Jensen is: There is no propaganda only money making.

    Jensen keeps Beale on the air, preaching globalist propaganda, even when it does not make money.

    But by all means, keep it up. I find your axe-grinding paranoia entertaining.

    • Replies: @Gast
    , @Ray P
    , @utu
    , @R2b
  14. “If you want your truth, go to your God, go to your guru…”

    Now “guru” would be replaced with “rabbi” and no one would flinch. My, how times have changed!

  15. gotmituns says:

    Paddy Chayefsky and directed by Sidney Lumet
    As soon as you see the names of two shitbirdyids, you know everything that follows is a load of crap.

  16. says:

    Another great dark comedy. Better, in fact. Unparalleled. Unheralded. Poignant. Prescient. Perfect.

    • Replies: @Peter D. Bredon
    , @Ray P
  17. says:

    Bill Hicks speaks to the mechanism by which the system, or Borg if you will, usurps and subsumes everything up to and including any opposition to it. It’s like a Black Hole. Just as the system usurped and subsumed Howard Beale in Network and turned him to entertainment for ratings. Just as it turned a reality tv show host into POTUS — Donald Trump afterall is a clownish crude version of Howard Beale. Reality is now a satire. Maybe it always was but it is now for sure more than ever. Satire, like god (the lower case is purposeful because no deity worth its salt would lay claim to this so-called abomination called “creation”), is dead. Satire and the reality from which it was once abstracted are now one and the same. The Singularity is upon us.

    • Thanks: follyofwar
    • Replies: @follyofwar
  18. The problem is that the assassination is so far out of anything the film even comes close to broaching at any time — it’s almost too stark. It needed a more subtle rendering . It remains a 1970’s typical for shock value more than messaging.

    But overall the cynicism of where TV was headed and what it is — pretty solid. And it was wonderfully cast — Not a bad tip for William Holden, Beatrice Straight and Ned Beatty – who then goes on to play bumbler in Superman, and the victim of a rape in Deliverance previously that decade.

  19. … the main reason there are so few Jews in front of the cameras in Network is that the main people behind the camera, writer Paddy Chayefsky and director Sidney Lumet, were both Jewish. One has to give them credit for all the truths that they did put on screen, but it was clearly dishonest of them to omit their own ethnic group’s presiding role in the corruption and degeneracy of American television.

    Yeah, but it’s hard to imagine this movie ever getting made had they told the whole truth!

  20. Russ says:
    @Trevor Lynch

    Yes, but “a capital crime” is merely a concern with legal consequences, of no more moral weight than calculating the buyout value of Beale’s contract.

    Indeed, as the amoral bean-counter Amundsen immediately established (now that I recall). Great review of a classic movie.

  21. Gast [AKA "Gast (noch immer)2"] says:
    @Trevor Lynch

    Yes, one has to be “paranoid”, when one doubts, that a film produced by a jew (Howard Gottfried), written by a jew (Paddy Chayefsky) and directed by a jew (Sidney Lumet) might not be the healthy “populist classic” that you advertise. And really, one has to think only a little bit to see the evil intent. I don’t think that you are that stupid. You misdirect on purpose. And therefore you are evil too.

    Regarding the “axe-grinding”: Yes, I have been thinking that you are an infiltrator agent for a long time. But since you are a heavy censor, I never could get my criticism across (your “philosophy” and “politics” are even more harmful than your movie reviews). So thank you, Ron Unz, for giving me the opportunity to talk back, finally.

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
  22. @EliteCommInc.

    The problem is that the assassination is so far out of anything the film even comes close to broaching at any time — it’s almost too stark.

    Left-wing terrorism was a big thing in the states in the early 1970s. It wasn’t unrealistic.

    • Agree: Alden
    • Replies: @Alden
  23. Anonymous[387] • Disclaimer says:

    Just a thank you to the blog author for being thoughtful enough to include transcripts from the movie. It’s a practice I wish more bloggers would adopt.

    No doubt I am in the minority, but ever since they made it clear that only the “right” kind of speech is allowed on their website, I will not click on a YouTube video. Helping wealthy people who despise you and denigrate your beliefs become even wealthier is the road to ruin.

    • Agree: Trinity
  24. Trinity says:

    WHY in the hell are people still watching or reviewing Jewish REEL fairy tales which are the exact OPPOSITE OF REAL life?? Jews are often portrayed as morally and intellectually superior to everyone around them, Blacks are often portrayed as smart, law abiding, and victimized by Whites, who are always portrayed as stupid, racist, criminal, and inferior to superhuman Blacks and God-like Jews.


    • Agree: gotmituns
  25. “Populist classic” that was 100% (((them)))-produced.

    It was also boring; I rented it last year, and was reminded just how phony it was/is.

    Also, “Fight Club” and “Idiocracy”–“White Classics”– are boring frauds created by (((them))).

    Just sayin’; Dr. Johnson, this is NOT one of your better efforts.

  26. a world devoted solely to creature comforts and lacking identity, patriotism, and principles is a world without passion, nobility, and soul-expanding sentiments.

    You describe the world of jewish naturalism which obviates the true requirement of metaphysical truths so you really have no cause to mourn..

    You are a rebellious critic without a metaphysical cause.

  27. Well within my personal top 20 of the greatest American movies of the 20th century. As to the Jew angle, well, I find it a little hard to believe that a screenwriter as intelligent as Chayefsky (or a director like Lumet for that matter) was so lacking in self-awareness that he was unable to perceive the way it REALLY was in Big Media then (and, if anything even more so now). Two of what was then known as “The Big Three” networks were founded by Jews and the third, ABC, was purchased by a Jew, Leonard Goldenson, who built it into the third of the Big Three. Note the surnames of the major players in the film. All from from north of the Alps, including Holden’s Max Schumacher character, who could have just as easily passed as a common ethnic German name not unlike “Schmidt”, or “Klein”, or “Schwartz.” Among the cast of characters only the “Ruddy” and “Hackett” characters (both Irish names) were non-Germanic. How many people with Celtic or Germanic surnames were movers and shakers in the business of Big Media. Try zilch!

    One wonders if Chayefsky wasn’t being just a tad wink-wink/nudge-nudge with the surnames. After all, if he and Lumet decided to tell it like it really is, neither of ’em would ever work in Hollywood again. And miss out on all those bar mitzvahs? Uh uh.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor

    Yes, under-rated indeed. Oddly enough, the drama society at my nowhere college put on a production of Feiffer’s original play a couple years after the movie, which I saw before the movie re-appeared on TV, so I had a bunch of no-names in the back of my mind while watching Arkin, Sutherland (the minister is a killer part, as it were; “And that’s perfectly all right”), etc. Same thing happened with Marat/Sade.

    • Replies:
  29. An interesting analysis of Lumet as a director and why the acting is so good:

    At one point, narrator suggests a comparison with American Psycho, where no one pays attention to Batetman or each other, allowing the dialog and actions to be over the top. For example, the guard who pays no attention to Finch, soaking wet in his pajamas: “Sure thing, Mr. Beale;” or the way Hackett tells an aide to explain something in a meeting and then just shouts over him.

    That’s Part One; Part Two goes into minor roles, like Lorraine Hobbes, the Great Ahmet Khan, and Mr. Jensen, each of whom has an interesting backstory. (Khan, for instance, was an ex-con who figured he’d never get hired again so he played the black revolutionary stereotype to the hilt. He was a vegetarian, so he would spit out the fried chicken and wash out his mouth between takes. He too very small bites and stuffed his cheeks with toilet paper to look like he was gorging himself).

  30. @the_old_one

    Let me guess: you only watch a handful of early Goddard films, before he started to use sound and went all commercial, no better than Cats?

    • Replies: @Ray P
  31. I enjoy HBO’s “Succession” greatly, and they portray a Scotch-Canadian family that owns a “fox news” type network (in addition to other holdings like amusement parks and cruise lines). The family’s patriarch is in his early 80s and is not *quite* ready to turn his empire over to his offspring, who have various flaws displayed in their quest to succeed him. The family’s travails are obviously influenced by the in real life Trump and Murdoch families.

    The plot line w/ the Saudis mirrors “Succession”, where after they are threatened w/ a takeover, run to a Mid-asian dictatorship’s sovereign wealth fund to rescue them.

    The corporate-government back scratching in “Succession” is common and omnipresent.

    This was an excellent piece of writing. I have not yet seen the movie, but very much look forward to it.

  32. Z-man says:

    It’s Jew deflection. It’s Paddy Chayefsky’s picture you know.

    • Replies: @syonredux
  33. @EliteCommInc.

    Actually, it’s fairly well suggested throughout. Chayevsky insisted that every word of his script be uttered, and nothing improvised (Finch got away with saying “As mad as hell” instead of “Mad as hell,” which you can hear everyone shouting out the windows; he was too weak to do another take), so it’s clearly intended to be heard. Assassinations are mentioned 6 times, three times before Diana suggests having Beale assassinated (and twice in the news reports afterward).

    After Beale’s first suicide threat, he and Max are drinking together:

    Max: I love it. Suicides, assassinations, mad bombers, Mafia hit men, automobile smash-ups… “The Death Hour.” Great Sunday-night show for the whole family.We’ll wipe that fuckin’ Disney right off the air..

    Next night, we see a monitor where Finch’s replacement is talking about the attempt on Ford: “Mr Ford says he will not become a prisoner of the Oval Office, a hostage of would-be assassins.”

    Then, Diana pitches her Ecumenical Hour: “Maybe they’ll take movies of themselves kidnapping heiresses, hijackings, bombing bridges, assassinating ambassadors.”

    And then, when discussing what to do with Beale when his ratings decline, Diana ties it together: “Well, what would you fellas say to an assassination? I think I can get the Mao Tse-tung people to kill Beale for us as one of their shows.”

  34. Ray P says:
    @Trevor Lynch

    It beats Grindr paranoia.

  35. @AnonStarter

    Yes, thanx for ‘noticing’ this critical fact about Arabs (but not Jews). I certainly noticed this insinuation back in 1976 when this film first appeared. For me, it ruined the movie. (((Aaron ‘Paddy’ Chayefsky))), who wrote the script, was surely aware of this implied falsehood.

    Chayefsky was an ‘anti-war’ pro-Zionist Jew who did pro bono work for the ADL. He never met an Israeli military victory he didn’t like. Even though Chayefsky boasted of being ‘anti-(Joe)McCarthy’, he was personally involved in keeping both Jane Fonda and Vanessa Redgrave from getting roles in ‘Network’ because of their “anti-Israel leanings”.

    Though prominent left wing Jews like Chayefsky routinely denounce ‘McCarthyism’, they typically never hesitate to blacklist individuals with whom they have political differences.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @AnonStarter
  36. padre says:

    Well, aren’t you, if not,you are breaking the stay-at-home rule, and any law abiding citizen should report you!

  37. Ray P says:

    I first saw Lou Jacobi (the Judge) in Everything you wanted to know about sex but were afraid to ask where he cross-dressed as a transvestite so it made seeing him in Little Murders quite interesting.

    • Replies:
  38. Ray P says:
    @Peter D. Bredon

    I never realised that the American rocketry pioneer (Robert Goddard) also made movies. Such talent.

    • Replies: @James O'Meara
  39. jsigur says:

    “The World Is a Corporation” speech should have been the speech that was most remembered. But for naming the Jew at the top it pretty much hit the nail on the head

  40. “Left-wing terrorism was a big thing in the states in the early 1970s. It wasn’t unrealistic.”

    But the turn here is too abrupt. I don’t challenge the concept. I think thy could very have pulled it off more effectively had they provided some subtle cues that of the perceived sane people to jump off the rails is decency – everything up to that point I could accept as part of the game, but a murder plot initiated by the execs, needed to slide into.

    And in this film, this act was not that of left wingers, but mercantilists, concerned about their bank. In truth, left wingers would want the Beal Show on air in either fashion because it fed their narrative for extreme action against the system.

    This was violence purely for profit. But it needed a more subtle lead in for the “decent” white elites — to engage in something this drastic in country.

    I do understand your position.

  41. “Then, Diana pitches her Ecumenical Hour: “Maybe they’ll take movies of themselves kidnapping heiresses, hijackings, bombing bridges, assassinating ambassadors.”

    it’s one thing for the media to be complicit observers and recorders. It is quite another to be active participants. And that is the turn, that is what even for executive needed some lead in prior.

    And then, when discussing what to do with Beale when his ratings decline, Diana ties it together: “Well, what would you fellas say to an assassination? I think I can get the Mao Tse-tung people to kill Beale for us as one of their shows.”

    In fact, they could have hung the matter in the air and have one of the other producers make the suggestion — all the while the intent of Diana. There’s a movie that does a very fine job of his, Michael Clayton with Tilda Swinton. Save in the case of Diana Christiensen, her desperation would not have overcome her self preservation instincts — she would have been out of any such gambit that would implicate her involvement.

  42. @Gast

    Are you speaking of WN Greg Johnson? You were remiss in not clarifying whom you were speaking of.

    • Replies: @Lurker
  43. says:
    @Ray P

    Yes, I remember him in that Woody Allen iconic classic too.

    Hello Daisy. I’m Dr. Ross. Doug Ross.

    The sheep scene made me laugh harder than I’ve ever laughed in my life. I thought I was going to have a heart attack. I literally could not catch my breath I laughed so hard for so long.

  44. says:
    @Peter D. Bredon

    Yes, so many great scenes from this largely unnoticed and unappreciated classic. Like this one.

  45. I have mixed feelings about this movie (I’ve seen it long ago).

    True, it has quite a few memorable moments (Mr. Lynch has enumerated them). Just- it is basically a cartoon, an ideological movie where chief villains spout pseudo-Machiavellian platitudes no real person of power would say, or even think. In that respect, it reminds me of another unconvincing villain, Spacey’s Frank Underwood:

    Chayefsky & Lumet thought that they had deciphered the world of ultimate power, corruption, deceit & greed. In reality, they were just boy-scouts in that area. True high functioning psychopaths like Lenin, Stalin, Hitler or Mao thought about themselves they were the good guys & that truth and justice were on their side. In the deepest sense, they were not cynics.

    So, this movie is basically a fantasy, a cartoon, not having much to do with real life. And the author has shrewdly noticed how Lumet & Chayefsky had conspicuously avoided mentioning the Jewish angle.

    • Replies: @Dumbo
  46. utu says:
    @mark green

    “…his critical fact about Arabs..” – Arabs and their money were in the news in 1970s after the 1973 oil crisis. In 1980s it was the Japanese money that was threatening.

    he was personally involved in keeping both Jane Fonda and Vanessa Redgrave from getting roles in ‘Network’ because of their “anti-Israel leanings”. – I think you are making it up. Network was made two years before Vanessa Redgrave Oscar speech.

    • Replies: @mark green
  47. Ray P says:

    Right now, I think the earlier Chayefsky black comedy, Tbe Hospital, from nineteen seventy-one, starring George C. Scott as another middle-aged man undergoing an existential crisis while working as a senior doctor at a municipal hospital plagued by a string of murders which no-one notices because patients die there all the time, would be very relevant to where we are. Scott says at one point of anguish:

    It is all rubbish isn’t it? I mean… transplants, antibodies. We manufacture genes. We can produce birth ectogenetically. We can practically clone people like carrots, and half the kids in this ghetto haven’t even been inoculated for polio. We have established the most enormous medical… entity ever conceived, and people are sicker than ever. We cure nothing! We heal nothing! The whole goddamn wretched world, strangulating in front of our eyes.

  48. I just saw the movie, “Network” a few weeks ago on Turner Classic Movies. I had seen it when it first came out but had forgotten much of it. The window yelling scene had stuck with me though. Thank you for the excellent review of this movie. You filled in things that I had missed and made connections that I hadn’t.

  49. utu says:
    @Trevor Lynch

    The film does not condone the elite and their shenanigans but it shows them the way. They don’t need to fear communism, terrorism or even the worst of them all the populism because capitalism with private profit driven media will be able to incorporate them, defang them and turn them around, , corrupt them and compromise them, take away their meaning, change them into just another form of performance and entertainment that is a part of the profit making machine that is protected by the American Constitution.

    The film has some sympathy for the common people, for their frustrations and disenfranchisement but it does not offer any hope. The common people are the sheep that can be manipulated and controlled.

    • Replies: @Franz
  50. @utu

    Hi utu. I’ve done my homework on Chayefsky. He is quoted in Wikipedia for making these remarks about Fonda and Redgrave. Dito regarding his work for the ADL.

    The part of ‘Network’ that I found intolerable (besides its rather superficial depiction of what motivated inchoate rage in America circa 1976) was Chayefsky’s devious insinuation that Arab money was threatening to take over American mass media when–unbeknownst to most Americans–US mass media had already been captured by a hostile elite who, by this time, had managed to subvert US governance to the extent that the America had become Israel’s unconditional sponsor, protector, and military stooge.

    • Agree: Alden, follyofwar, Trinity
    • Replies: @utu
  51. Dumbo says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Yeah… It’s a caricature. I saw the film many years ago, so I don’t recall much except the “mad as Hell” monologue, but it didn’t particularly impress me at the time. I guess Trevor Lynch (Greg Johnson?) and I do not really share a similar taste in films…

    House of Cards is similar, only probably worse. I actually (don’t ask me why) ended up watching the whole series, and especially the last season without Costner is simply appalling. (Of course, this also being a Netflix series, there were also lots of gay and lesbian sex scenes, inter-racial couples, etc.)

    It’s also true that many or perhaps even most psycho leaders are not “machiavellians”, in the sense that they firmly believe that they are on the side of the Good and the Truth. Even though even they must know, at a certain level, that their “Good” is not the real Good.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  52. @mark green

    Yes, thanx for ‘noticing’ this critical fact about Arabs (but not Jews).

    Mark, I think you need to re-read the statement. Lynch says the movie’s greatest flaw is that it “names the wrong tribe of Semites.”

    • Replies: @mark green
  53. utu says:
    @mark green

    “The part of ‘Network’ that I found intolerable…” – What other omissions did you found intolerable? Chayefsky did not say that the Holocaust was a hoax, that the blood libel was real, that the Protocols are authentic and accurate, that Jews hate and always hated everybody. And when you find something intolerable in a film what are your symptoms? Incontinence, loose stool? You are an insincere poseur.

  54. “Machiavellian platitudes no real person of power would say, or even think. In that respect, it reminds me of another unconvincing villain, Spacey’s Frank Underwood:”

    See Swimming With Sharks

    Pushback against the Diana Christensens of the world. I agree and my agreement is rare — all in all a sound review.

  55. R2b says:
    @Trevor Lynch

    Strangely disappointing film.
    So hyped, and then this…hollowness.
    Well, thats just my personal feeling, I have to say.
    Maybe it is revelation of the method, dressed up in fashion of the era, smeared in your face?
    Actors great though, Howard Beale by Peter F, and the other CEO or what, whom you recognize from ”Deliverance”, was it?, directed by… who was it now?
    Sorry for all the ????


    Hicks died at age 32. Tragic!

  57. @Dumbo

    I wanted Frank Underwood to be a true villain, but…. Not only did they force upon viewers interracial & gay stuff, but they virtually emasculated Frank through his slutting & power-hungry wife (Glen Close). Here, Lady Macbeth has overthrown & eliminated Macbeth. Among other misfires & preachy nonsense, this one was crucial: you got the true villain. Feed him, make him dominate everything, let him become the ever-growing & the all-devouring core of darkness of the show.

    Instead- Frank becomes a doormat.

    This is certainly ideologically motivated, because, you know, women are superior to men, they should break glass ceiling in villainy, too…

    • Replies: @follyofwar
    , @Dumbo
  58. Alden says:

    Better Arab Muslims than Russian Bolshevik Jews own the network.

    I didn’t like Network at all because by then I’d realized both Print and tv news were the enemy of Whites. I remember the endless nauseating TV coverage of MLK and his march on Washington . The newspapers extolled school bussing decisions, affirmative action and defended black on White crime, especially black men raping White women.

    Anyone who thinks the feminazis are extreme about rape should have tried to prosecute a black on White rape when all the defense had to do was use what I called The To Kill A Mockingbird Defense. In fact, there was about 15, 20 years approximately 1960 to 1980 when Alameda County Ca prosecutors refused to prosecute black on White rape because

    1 They would lose because they had to include at least one OFE Orc on the jury.
    2 Prosecutor and detectives might be assassinated
    3 Victim might be assassinated.
    4 Victim would be dragged through a horrible ordeal before and during the trial and might withdraw charges and or just disappear.
    5 Communist black Oakland Congress critter Ron Dellums, murderer Huey Newton , hideously ugly Jew Bolshevik Faye Stender , and CPUSA AJC liaison with the Black panthers David Horowitz * would foment a riot and burn Oakland down.

    I became a probation officer in 1968. TV and print news attacked police and Whites and White America praised school bussing and affirmative action and defended black crime. The defense of black crime and waving of To Kill A Mockingbird most concerned me.

    By the time Network came out I hated and distrusted all media as the enemy of me and every White person in America.

    I thought all the moralizing mawkish and pretentious. It was obviously a big serious do gooder moralizing Made to be an Oscar nominee film. It wasn’t populous at all.

    TV news was viciously anti White and pro black by then. In my mind, Network was an unsuccessful attempt to hide what TV news already was; anti White and pro black crime.

    * Yes, that David Horowitz 3rd generation Russian jew communist. Now an Israeli lobbyist.

    That’s just me. We all have our experiences that influence what we think of different movies.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  59. Alden says:

    Lynch is spreading covid hoax? Credulous naive ignoramous. Can’t he read the statistics?

    • Replies: @Gast
    , @Priss Factor
  60. @Bardon Kaldian

    Underwood’s wife was played by Robin Wright, not Glen Close.

  61. Alden says:
    @Trevor Lynch


    That was when Bernadine Dohrn planted a bomb in a back window of San Francisco Park Police Station and killed one and blinded another police officer, Black Panthers invaded San Francisco Ingleside Police station wounded officers killed a middleaged woman civilian employee and Black Muslim assassins were murdering random Whites as the Zebra killers.

    Black affirmative action police officers and PD civilian employee black Muslims cooperated with the Zebra killers of Whites and attempted to kill a black witness to the murders his wife and baby.

    Kidnapping of Patty Hearst by black parolees and White liberals

    Oakland and Berkeley right across the bridge was far far worse
    And in NYC Leonard Bernstein and other wealthy famous Jews had parties for black Muslims and panthers. of course their grandfathers began the Jewish black coalition against Whites in 1910.

    • Replies: @Trinity
    , @SunBakedSuburb
  62. @follyofwar

    Yeah, you’re right. Sometimes I mix names; they, not infrequently, are just like blacks- they all look the same to me; also- male names.

    • Replies: @James O'Meara
  63. Trinity says:

    Read the book Radical Chic & Mau-Mauing The Flak Catchers by Thomas Wolfe where he writes of parties being held by influential (((people))) in Manhattan back in the early 1970s, always with a few token angry black folk around as ornaments or decorations. Wolfe seems to really have been racially aware, I wonder how he was on the JQ? No doubt that the Jews benefited more than anyone from the Swindle Whites Movement, that was the plan from the get go, the Black man and woman was only there to be used and thrown under the bus.

    • Replies: @Alden
  64. @AnonStarter

    Paddy Chayefsky intimated falsely in ‘Network’ that America was under threat of an Arab takeover of our media when the real and ongoing threat to American independence came from that other tribe of Semites (Jews). This is what I am referring to. Chayefsky also depicted gentiles (not Jews) in top media positions. This was also false. To this viewer, these omissions and false depictions undermined the film’s credibility as well as its entertainment value.

    This film was, after all, an allegedly critical look a the networks and their influence. Instead, ‘Network’ came off as a shallow farce since it entirely missed the most explosive story about US mass media.

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
    , @Priss Factor
  65. “Yup.”

    nope. your attempt to pin the matter on some manner of black menace fails. Throughout the 1970’s there were about 1400 acts of terror.

    Those incidents as rare as they were have nothing to with why the corporate execs killed Howard Beal. That’s my point, the use of those motifs in the film was not about politics but advertising dollars. No one in that arena is discussing social justice issues related to their the programming.

    The abrupt turn to an inhouse assassination in my view was just too stark. And let’s be honest, the few incidents of left wing acts of terror resulting in 184 deaths. None of that had any bearing in preparing someone watching the film for the turn it made . . .

    at least not for me.

    i would make one more quibble, given that the audience was treated as clueless/submissive to events – the movie suggests that the film makers believed that even in the face of a live assassination, the public would mute and moot. In fact, TV became even more powerful a force after the film. Whatever warnings it portended had little impact on te actual public’s distrust of corporate media and entertainment.

    Hence such bizarre concepts as “same sex marriage” defended as a norm, including by the current executive.

  66. Alden says:

    I was a flak catcher in the San Francisco Court house. His book didn’t get a tenth of it. The blacks weren’t thrown under the bus, they’re on top, right under jews.

    • Replies: @Trinity
  67. Anonymous[156] • Disclaimer says:

    Another example of the alt-right psy-op.

  68. Alden says:

    The terrorist woman was based on Angela Davis.

    Daughter of Sally Davis one of the first black women in the CPUSA Lived with communist radical Quakers joined CPUSA high school club Advance at Radical Elizabeth Irwin high school all over the papers since she got her PiledHigherDeeper degree in BS studies.

    Lover of George Jackson who murdered 17 other prisoners while in San Quentin

    Bought the guns and planned and organized the raid on the Marin county courthouse that murdered 11 people, including a sitting judge, acquitted because she was a descendant of slaves made diversity Vice President of communist Radical created new campus University of California at Santa Cruz competed with hideously ugly Faye Stender to fuck Huey Newton in the visiting room at San Luis when he served his short sentence for some murders heroine of every radical young Jew carpetbagger who arrived in San Francisco to be a hippy, stayed to get federal grants and destroy my home town. .

    That’s the model for the terrorist woman

  69. Alden says:
    @Trevor Lynch

    A capital crime is a crime for which there is the death penalty, first degree murder etc

  70. gay troll says:

    And what do we think of The Matrix?

  71. @Ray P

    Good catch. Actually, Goddard’s movies are less interesting that Coleman Francis’s who focused more on light airplanes.

  72. @follyofwar

    Yeah, I was about to say, never having watched a minute of the series (natural born cheapskate)…. how the Hell does Glenn Close slut around?

  73. @Bardon Kaldian

    One of Coleman Francis’s autistic oddities: casting Kevin Casey as… Beth?

  74. @mark green

    Paddy Chayefsky intimated falsely in ‘Network’ that America was under threat of an Arab takeover of our media when the real and ongoing threat to American independence came from that other tribe of Semites (Jews). This is what I am referring to. Chayefsky also depicted gentiles (not Jews) in top media positions. This was also false.

    Yes, and Lynch suggests as much in the review, for which I thanked him.

    It appears you’re disagreeing with what I’ve written unnecessarily. We’re actually on the same page.

    • Thanks: mark green
  75. Trinity says:

    Well they are on top of Whitey that is for sure, but when it comes to the “Chosen” they still take a backseat. It is even debatable if the Black man or woman is above the new kid on the block, the LGBTQ crowd in 2020. The MAIN goal of the Swindle Whites Movement was empowering the Jew and taking away the civil rights of Whites, Black Privilege was a bonus for Blacks but Jews benefited more than anyone and Whitey, well, Whitey took the L on this one and every other JEW ORCHESTRATED agenda that has come down the pike in the last half century plus. Remember the Knockout Game, when Blacks were knocking out random Whites everything was hunky dory, but when a Jew was a victim, oh lawd, stop the presses. With all the other nonwhites that have come on the scene to harass Whitey, the Black foot soldier isn’t as valuable to the Chosenites as he was back in the day.

  76. syonredux says:

    It’s Jew deflection. It’s Paddy Chayefsky’s picture you know.

    Sure. I’m just curious about the decision to use Scando names as cover. WASP names are usually used for that kind of thing.

    • Replies: @Z-man
  77. Hi Trevor, please consider Bulworth as a future review candidate. In case you haven’t seen it, it’s a black comedy that follows a Senator (Warren Beatty) facing a midlife crisis that leads him to go off-script and do some mad-as-hell truth telling.

  78. Franz says:

    The film has some sympathy for the common people, for their frustrations and disenfranchisement but it does not offer any hope. The common people are the sheep that can be manipulated and controlled.

    I’ll hazard a guess here: Chayefsky originally made his rep in the 1950s during the “live drama” years, during which his teleplays were always about proles who had issues of some sort, usually overcoming them. The working class was Chayefsky’s beat. He wrote a very unlikely drama called Marty which became so popular it was remade as a movie — a movie that won Academy Awards no less. Ernest Borgnine got his statuette for that little fluke. Not bad for an era when most live broadcasts went out and were forgotten by next morning.

    The guess is Chayefsky’s grease monkey connections back in Brooklyn, or wherever, were still filling him in on the lot of the working stiff two decades after his prole teleplay days. They kept him abreast of what was actually happening, because the MSM sure wasn’t.

    It explains Beale’s very unusual speech, for one thing: When Beale mentions the “depression” — what? Yuppies remember the 70s as the beginning of the flush years. What depression? For workers it was when the oil shock let corporations shut massive factories down, offshore entire industries, and all that while the cost of living went up and the average earnings (if you were employed) flatlined.

    The Mad As Hell speech explains why American life expectancy stalled by the Reagan years. Because “mad as hell” or just befuddled, nothing changed, or was going to change, from then on.

    I give Chayefsky credit for noticing that and I think he noticed because his old connections wouldn’t let him miss it.

    • Thanks: utu
  79. Dumbo says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Glenn Close must be in her 70s now. Robin Wright. Awful actress and worse character. Couldn’t stand her. Yes, the point of the show seemed to be, “women can be as power-hungry and amoral as men”. I guess the inspiration was the Clintons, there too it’s Hillary the one who really commands.

    Only that Kevin Costner had charisma, but Robin Wright not so much. Well it’s hard to find villain women (outside of cartoons) who have charisma. “Powerful women” in film usually simply appear annoying to the audience.

    Except for some femme fatales from noir movies, which add the element of seduction and treachery. But otherwise, I can’t think of many. Sigourney Weaver might have pulled it off, she had that dominatrix vibe. But also too old now.

  80. Anonymous[202] • Disclaimer says:

    So, a couple of quintessentially Hollywood Jews make a movie about the unquestionably baleful influence mass media has, and the main factors behind this are either Arab money or capitalist ideology (good point, however, about this being fundamentally indistinguishable from socialist ideology)? Lynch seems to think this is a legitimately subversive (populist) movie that the filmmakers had to sanitize out of necessity (by deleting any references to Jewish power). A more likely explanation is that the movie (like the alt-right itself) is a limited hangout, and the filmmakers are ultimately looking out for the interests of Tribe while portraying themselves as edgy. (The farcical assassination subplot also undercuts the truth-telling element of the movie, again, probably by design.)


  81. “That’s the model for the terrorist woman.’

    Laugh . . . I have no doubts about the model. I think most people git it right away. However, the the film needed something . . . some subtle shift that would lend Diana Christensen to involve herself in a criminal act .

    it affects me because of how I respond to the end of the film. Laugh inside job would be all over this and Diana Christensen (deadly narcissistic performance by Miss Faye Dunaway – hard to buy er sweet innocent helpless, intriguing photographer in the Eyes of Laura Mars — laugh)

    But her narcissism in end was too blatantly reckless — for who she was.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  82. Z-man says:

    Symbolism (Christensen) and probably lack of imagination on his part.
    Maybe he had it against Swedes. He was probably rejected by some Swedish/Norwegian* girls growing up in Brooklyn. LOL!

    *Big Scandinavian population in Brooklyn, back when.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  83. @EliteCommInc.

    Just a note, Angela Davis was a radical — but probably not a terrorist. in their view, the behavior of the society in the name of government or vice versa remained a system that held blacks as captives in every way. The only to break those chains was by means of radical change . . .

    You know, like the founding fathers . . . tossing tea overboard dressed as native americans, rioting, sabotaging shipments of goods . . . “don’t tread on me” . . .

    • Replies: @Alden
  84. This film was not about capitalism . . . the closet descriptor in my view is mercantilism in spades.

  85. @seeuhay

    “In 1981 Reagan was elected. It was only after he was shot at, the plan finally suceeded [sic].”

    Reagan was supposed to die, or wounded to the point that he’d have to step down. But the Gipper, always a healthy lad, refused to succumb. The trigger-puller was the troubled son of a long-time friend of the Bush family who was promised a one-way ticket to a plush asylum. But the plan did finally succeed in that George H.W. Bush become a shadow president and his financier backers became the lords of the economy.

  86. @Alden

    “Kidnapping of Patty Hearst by black parolees and White liberals”

    Leonard Bernstein and his radical chic party and Bernadine Dohrn and the rest of the upper-middle class white kids of the Weather Underground were products of the New Left movement, which sought to disguise its embarrassing negrophilia with an anti-war facade. The Symbionese Liberation Army, the terror group that snatched Patty Hearst, was the creation of CIA psychiatrists at the California Medical Facility near Vacaville.

    • Replies: @Alden
  87. “Reagan was supposed to die, or wounded to the point that he’d have to step down. But the Gipper, always a healthy lad, refused to succumb. ”

    Oh brother,

    I voted for Pres Reagan. He was supposed to be conservative. He in fact, was the first major shift in economic policy that was geared to corporate structures. While the idea that profits flow out and down stream to the population is generally correct, your policies have to support that process. I have defended monetary policy of his day — but I also had to admit that the economy grew by mere 1% despite the growth in profit for corporate america.

    And his admin and advisors laughed at social conservatives and economic natonalists, such as myself as nuisances. Meanwhile TV became even more valuable to the political and corporate classes as the middle class and lower middle classes began to be gutted. I have no idea whether there was a conspiracy to kill the president. But if so, it is very unlikely that it was the corporate entities. And I suspect had the MIC got wind of it, there would have been some assassination attempts — but none of them involving removing president Reagan.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  88. @Gast

    “And therefore you are evil too.”

    Jews are tribal and have effective networks throughout the public and private sectors. So did the Wasps who created this country. Although there is cross-pollination, there is a difference between American Jews and Israeli Zionists; especially on the non-elite level. I can appreciate Sidney Lumet for what he was: a great Jewish-American filmmaker. Ideology clouds judgement and renders a sharp mind dull. And no, I’m not Jewish. Although sometimes I wish I was; it would help with the networking thing.

    • Replies: @lala
  89. @EliteCommInc.

    My 1% comes from a IMF assessment

  90. Alden says:

    Not quite, the New Left was the creation of the communist parents and grandparents of the New Left participants Why are you telling me this? I was there, right in the middle of it all. Vacaville’s just an ordinary state prison, nothing to do with the CIA. A fair number of respectable California attorneys participated. If I remember their names I’ll post them.

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
  91. Alden says:

    In his book, Jordan Belfort mentioned hundreds of times I’m a Jew my friends and fellow crooks are jews everybody but my second wife are jews.

    Read the book long before I saw the film.

  92. Alden says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    One way to preserve high culture is to donate money to your city’s or the nearest city’s opera, symphony and ballet companies. They’re really hurting and the only big donors left are about 85 years old.

  93. Alden says:

    When she was a part time instructor at UCLA Davis organized conspired in the murder of a black activist affirmative action student by other affirmative action black activist UCLA students.

    She purchased every gun used in the Marin County shoot out in which 11 people including a sitting judge were killed. She purchased the guns because her fellow conspirators had felony records. She was one of the 2 organizers of the shoot out. The other was her lover George Jackson murderer of 17 fellow San Quentin prisoners.

    Angela Davis drove the shooters and their guns to the courthouse. Plan was she would drive shooters and George Jackson away after they killed the judge bailiffs and Whites.

    That’s terrorism.

  94. lala says:

    You are a typical cognitive dissonance moron. Reagan was not a conservative – he was a nationalist libertarian his entire life, just like JFK. Listen to at least one of his speeches, instead of the main-sewer media frantic Katzenjammer.

    It was only after he “got the message”, and Nancy insisted that being alive was more important than being a savior to the perptually ungrateful free-shit army, that he abandoned his life-mission, and switched to telling jokes instead. JFK was not that lucky.

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
  95. “She purchased every gun used in the Marin County shoot out in which 11 people including a sitting judge were killed.”

    Hmmm, that is interesting. I think you will need o support that allegation. Here’s the background on the courthouse incident. I was unaware of the details here, excuse the delay. I am not a liberal nor inclined to support radical drastic measures for change — I even chagrin our revolution as largely unnecessary. My favorite Pres. labled her a terrorist. And it stands to reason that in our common knowledge — she would have known about the weapons and Young Mr. Jacksons access. But point of fact, people who own guns and hers were registered do not by definition effectively control the same. There is n evidence that she gave the weapons to the youngster who used them. Santa Clarita is not bastion of left wing radicals and that jury found that she not guilty.

    I will have to exercise some judgement over whether jump on the terrorist bandwagon. For all of her bluster and associations”

    The evidence does not support that she is a terrorist based on this incident. good grief, I never thought I would find myself even being neutral about Miss Davis.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  96. @EliteCommInc.

    Well, President Nixon is one of my favorites.

  97. Gast [AKA "Gast (noch immer)2"] says:

    Sure, he is spreading the hoax. “Trevor Lynch” is the pen name (only for movie reviews) of Greg Johnson, who not only endorses the Corona hoax on his website “Counter Currents”, but was involved in a discussion with Andrew Anglin from the “Daily Stormer”. This discussion was featured her at Unz:

    So hear it for yourself, if you can stomach it that Johnson acts like a spokesperson for Fauci, and trusts the MSM on every detail of this evil hoax.

    But this sordid shilling for the jews has nothing to do with him being “credulous”. He is an obvious agent. And shilling for the mega hoaxes is the obligation of those creatures. Perhaps later, when the damage of the lockdown is done, he will be allowed to shed some crocodile tears about the destruction of the White middle class (together with appeals to his poor readers to fund his homosexual lifestyle).

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  98. @Gast

    Nailed it. The alt-right is one big psy-op, and increasingly poses as a mouthpiece for the CCP, ensuring the continued marginalization of dissident thought. They’re doing the US empire’s dirty work for them.

  99. ricpic says:

    Chayefsky’s writing is electric. Gotta give him that. But is it change the world writing? Not really. And that’s why Network is brilliant but lacks gravitas. Does gravitas in a film or play change the world? Not really. But it’s an attempt. Take Arthur Miller. Death Of A Salesman is an attempt to change the world, “Attention must be paid!” It’s painfully didactic writing and has none of the brilliance of Chayefsky in high gear, but it’s what we call SERIOUS. Chayefsky, on the other hand, is an entertainer. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with being an entertainer. But one must never forget that his business, that which is most vital to him, Chayefsky, is that he never return to the world of Marty, a world he escaped by writing Marty, by writing something brilliant, something that grabbed the audience and held it. Chayefsky escaped Marty on his wits and he had no intention of ever returning to the world of Marty, to obscurity and a meager life. So what did he do? He kept writing brilliant stuff that would grab an audience. That would be BOX OFFICE. And in that he succeeded.

    What more do you goyim want?

    • Replies: @Gast
  100. Gast [AKA "Gast (noch immer)2"] says:

    “What more do you goyim want?”

    Perhaps real entertainment that does not try to deflect attention from the evil-doings of your tribe?

    But I know, I speak not for the majority. But still, I hate this evil lying (and Arthur Miller was an evil liar too, btw.).

  101. @Z-man

    Maybe he had it against Swedes.

    Maybe he got Sweded….

    • LOL: Z-man
  102. One of the best most movie reviews I’ve ever read, and a suburb essay in its own right. Almost every line of this deserves to be reread until its internalized. I take my hate off to you, Mr. Lynch.

    I was in my mid-20s when I first watched this. I was just coming into an awareness that “leftists” – I still wasn’t entirely sure what that meant – were much more prominent and widespread than the goofy fringe element I had until then imagined them to be. I was avidly reading Sowell at the time, and when I heard the executive’s “capitalism speech,” I regarded it as little more than an obvious statement about the way the world worked and should work. (Who in his right mind would want to stand in the way of economic development, right? And economic development meant one thing: unbridled capitalism.)

  103. FvS says:

    Perhaps the film is the Jews giving us the middle finger. Like, “Here is what we’re doing. And you won’t be able to stop us.” But according to his wiki, Paddy Chayefsky was a pro-Israel social democrat. So, if you imagine the film being written by a neocon Bernie Sanders, it all starts to make sense. As for Greg Johnson, I’ve never seen him shill for Jews. Quite the opposite actually. And if you think the entire world is in on a “Corona mega-hoax” directed by Jews, you’re going to need some solid proof for a claim like that. It’s not as if global pandemics just stopped being a potential threat in the last decade for some reason.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Gast
  104. Anonymous[178] • Disclaimer says:

    The claim isn’t that Covid-whatever is a hoax, the claim is that the threat it poses to the general population is being blown way out of proportion by the MSM and exploited by governments to clamp down on civil liberties and destroy the economy while bailing out the banks etc. The alt-right has shown itself to be indistinguishable from the MSM on the issue, and embarrasses itself by lapping up CCP propaganda. At a minimum, they’re frauds, and almost certainly some kind of controlled opposition.

    On this (long-winded and unreadable) review: Johnson takes the movie seriously as social commentary, and only mentions in passing at the end the misdirection of the Saudi plot line. So yeah, he’s shilling.


    • Replies: @silviosilver
  105. FvS says:

    And countries like poor little Ecuador are in on it too? I find that hard to believe. Just because certain actors may be exploiting the situation for their own gain, that doesn’t preclude the existence of a worldwide pandemic more deadly and contagious than the flu. At some point, you have to stop denying reality and actually look at the numbers.

    With regard to the film, 1+1=2 even if it’s a Jew saying it.

  106. @Anonymous

    Saudis may nothing on Jews in terms of cultural influence, but that’s not to say they’re not trying. They most certainly are trying, and are having an impact. To the conspiratard mindset, however, even making this simple point is an attempt at “misdirection” or “shilling for Jews.”

    Now, there was never any serious possibility that Jewish filmmakers were going to criticize Jewish media ownership. But imagine for a second they had. To the average normie, how well would that have gone down? Recall your Twain: “It is easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled.”

  107. Just a note:

    The most likely reason tat the film looks at the Arab oil industries ties to US or global markets is because, on an international scale, nothing was as volatile as oil , the Us and much of the Europe had just come through an oil embargo.


    Note: Miss Thurman is all woman — goodness.

  108. Gast [AKA "Gast (noch immer)2"] says:

    ” As for Greg Johnson, I’ve never seen him shill for Jews. Quite the opposite actually.”

    Well, I have seen him shilling for the jews whenever it counts – and only the big mega-hoaxes count (that an infiltrator agent who pretends to be a “White nationalist” will be critical towards jews here and there should be expected, and it would pathetic to see this as a proof for his legitimacy).

    So let’s see how Johnson deals with the mega-hoaxes and feel free to refute my assertions:

    Johnson pretends to believe that the “Holocaust” has a basic kernel of truth and endorses fake historian and infiltrator in the revisionist movement Mark Weber.

    Johnson pretends to believe the absurd official story of 9/11. Everybody,who suggests that this was a false flag terror event organized by domestic and foreign jews, will be called “paranoid conspiracy theorist” and then be banned from his site.

    Johnson shilled hard for lifelong jewish asset Donald Trump as some kind of pro-white maverick candidate in the presidential race 2016. I know many here are still in denial, but for every sober observer this should be a major reason to regard Johnson as an idiot or an evil agent. And Johnson characterized Trump only a few month ago as a “great man”. Baffling.

    Now he is shilling for this Corona virus hoax. This event has all the hallmarks a long planned hoax (the virus is real though, probably an artificially modified flue virus, which is not as deadly as advertised, the mortality rate of it is similar to a bad flue strain), which will be used to impoverish the middle class and implement a nightmarish techno-tyranny. But for Johnson this is an accidental virus, which our ruling class fights heroically. Johnson exhorts his readers to support the illogical and tyrannical measures our jewish rulers have forced on us “goyim”.

    For me Johnson is a despicable agent and his supporters must have very low standard for their “leaders”.

    Interesting additional fact: To give Johnson legitimacy, ZOG has perpetrated the same persecution hoax with Johnson, ZOG had already tested with agents David Duke and Richard Spencer. He was arrested by a jewish controlled government in Europe, but was released unharmed after one day. In Johnson’s case this happened in Norway. With Duke this persecution hoax was implemented in the Czech republic, with Spencer in Hungary.

  109. Gast [AKA "Gast (noch immer)2"] says:

    I watched half an hour of “Network” yesterday before I stopped my internet stream (never pay for Hollywood products!), because I was frankly bored (I had seen it as a teenager before on TV, so I knew it was a jewish spectacle beforehand).

    I want to point out that Johnson’s plot summary is wrong in one very fundamental aspect. The protagonist isn’t even a populist in any shape or form! When he got fired due to poor ratings, he ranted on air the first time and there declared that he would kill himself. In a second rant on air he complained about the quality of his personal life, mainly about the marriage with his decease wife. Then the Dunaway character had the idea to install the grumpy protagonist, who became popular due to his grumpiness, as a “prophet of doom” (I watched the German version, so the original phrase might be different) to tap into the pessimistic Zeitgeist. The Finch character accepted her cynical proposal to enhance the ratings with amusement while his colleagues were howling ironically. And then his rants started to become political.

    So his whole famous “I can’t take it anymore”-speech was all an act. Dissidents who cite this speech (this is idiotic anyway, because one should never endorse Hollywood products for dissident purposes), must have missed this essential fact.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
  110. @Gast

    who became popular due to his grumpiness, as a “prophet of doom” (I watched the German version, so the original phrase might be different) to tap into the pessimistic Zeitgeist.

    He was described as a “latter-day prophet denouncing the hypocrisies of our time.” That has more of a redemptive quality to it than a “prophet of doom.”

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  111. Anonymous[156] • Disclaimer says:

    Maybe; so what?

  112. Yusef says:

    Thanks for a great review. I loved the film and I love your take on it, Trevor. So you are a Johnson? I have a big one– a Johnson. Big as Texas. Glad you do too, and are willing to show.

    I’m trying to figure out how, Sidney Lumet, Paddy Chavesky, and all the other greats here, especially Faye Dunaway, are conspiring to put across the Jewish Conspiracy. I get that in the midst of it comes someone resembling Angela Davis, looking to find a “cream of the crop” debutante in academia– a big dollar number, equipped with tenure, you don’t get that in fashion shows. (I liked the fashion shows, though, those watermelon tops of “Afro.”)

    Did I miss some hate? Oh yeah, George Jackson. How did he come in? He was in a prison in SoCal. I was at USC at the time, a seismic reaction.

    No, me boys, you want to shout. I do too. What we have to do is scream louder. Sidney Lumet might be queer. You know Johnson queer. Not Massachusetts queer. Wait a minute. We need some market watch, I ask for the best.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  113. Anonymous[156] • Disclaimer says:

    Brilliant comment, far better than the review itself.

  114. @lala

    “You are a typical cognitive dissonance moron.”

    At times, yes. But the rest of your rebuttal indicates senility.

  115. @Alden

    Donald DeFreeze aka Cinque came to the attention of a psychologist, a black man, who had previously been in the employ of the CIA in their Phoenix Program during the war in Vietnam. As part of the agency’s CHAOS, a domestic program began in the mid-1960s to infiltrate and discredit the anti-war and New Left movements. The above black psychologist was posted to Vacaville to create the Black Cultural Association, which was used as a cover to create a domestic terror group that would eventually be known as the Symbionese Liberation Army.

    “Vacaville’s just an ordinary state prison”

    The California Medical Facility Vacaville has never been an ordinary correctional institution.

    “I was there, right in the middle of it all.”

    Illumination usually occurs years after the event.

    “Why are telling me this?”

    Currently unemployed.

    • LOL: RadicalCenter
  116. It speaks volumes that wiki tells the score far better than Johnson did:

    “ Lumet wanted to cast Vanessa Redgrave in the film, but Chayefsky didn’t want her. Lumet argued that he thought she was the greatest English-speaking actress in the world, while Chayefsky, a proud Jew and supporter of Israel, objected on the basis of her support of the PLO. Lumet, also a Jew, said “Paddy, that’s blacklisting!”, to which Chayefsky replied, “Not when a Jew does it to a Gentile.”[20]”

  117. Saw it long ago before I gave up the idiot box and the idiot big screen. Don’t consider it populist, given the usual suspects who made it (and the anti-Arab indoctrination therein, among other tripe), and certainly don’t consider it a classic. A classic of what? The culture created by the people perverting, confusing, and distracting our people in a now-dying country.

    How about we stop wasting time on the sick hollywood culture, past or present, and get on with our own lives.

    Boycott them and ignore them. Perhaps offer a bored, bemused, and mildly pitying response to people who want to discuss their “shows” or “the movies.”

    • Replies: @mark green
  118. @RadicalCenter

    [I] don’t consider [Network] populist, given the usual suspects who made it (and the anti-Arab indoctrination therein, among other tripe), and certainly don’t consider it a classic.

    You are entirely correct. ‘Network’ was a puffed-up, mediocre film. Nothing more. It was not populist in any meaningful way. ‘Network’ broke no new ground. It made no bold statements. It offered no memorable revelations about media networks or political networks. It was pretentious–amusing at times but in a frivolous way–and devoid of any great insight.

  119. “[I] don’t consider [Network] populist, given the usual suspects who made it (and the anti-Arab indoctrination therein, among other tripe), and certainly don’t consider it a classic”

    The reason it would not make the populist list is because in the film the populism is

    “snuffed out”

    the corporate interests of getting money (earning would be incorrect) win the day. It consumes even the most radical unlikables to the adorned centerpiece of it expression.

    Today’s film would not mega oil corporate entities, but the likes of Silicon Valley, consumed by tik tok and almost everyone can be rich famous and lived if they tweet, conform and sell enough advertising.

    It grossed 23 million even behind Dog Day Afternoon and that behind All the President’s Men.

    What made it work was the shock value and the great performances of some very old school actors.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  120. @Gast

    Yeah, “populist classic”… brought to you by your “populist” jewish producers in Hollywood, who warn you that Arabs are taking over “our” mass media.

    There are two ways to watch a movie. You can look AT it, or you can look THROUGH it. Children and childish mentalities take things at face value. People who know better try to see the real face behind the facade, the mask. Of course, on some level, unmasking art/entertainment is ultimately futile because the face behind the mask is just another mask, and another face behind that another mask is yet another mask. It’s like those movie-within-a-movie conundrums: When we realize the movie we are watching is actually a movie-being-made shot by a film crew, the fact remains that the movie crew shooting the movie is being shot by yet another movie crew behind the camera. So, no matter how many movie-within-a-movie tricks the movie pulls, there is always one camera that is outside the purview of the movie’s ‘reality’. I suppose that final camera can be exposed by making it stare right into the mirror, but that would hardly make for a movie.


    Our paradoxical relation to arts/entertainment suggests much about the nature of the mind. People seek out art/entertainment for escape, illusion, magic, myth, and/or the narrative. Reality is so complex, confusing, chaotic, and multi-faceted that we can’t process all of it. Indeed, even without art/entertainment, the human mind selects, edits, simplifies, and even fabricates to produce versions of memories, possibilities, and hopes that they desire or find self-justifying. Then, it’s no wonder so many people have been drawn to storytelling, theater, and of course movies. Not because what they offer is closer to reality but closer to how the mind works. Even the minds of non-creative people are always undergoing processes of selection, simplification, and fabrication. This would suggest that everyone is a liar in this sense, but maybe they just can’t help it as the human mind can never process or accept the full truth. So, everyone holds onto his ‘truth’. This would suggest the relativity of truth but not necessarily the equality of the relativity of truth, i.e. while every ‘truth’ may not be the whole truth, some people’s versions of the truth are closer to reality than those of others, especially as some people are ashamed of willfully speaking untruths while others are most fearful of exposing the truth about themselves.

    On the one hand, the myth-narrative-seeking part of our minds draw us to the fiction of art/entertainment. Fiction is especially appealing because the artist, conscious of what the audience wants, can bend the story and outcome to the desired end. (Also, just like Greek statues represented the ideal of how Greeks saw themselves, movie ‘stars’ serve as idols who add beauty and glamour even in ‘ordinary’ roles. Joan Crawford plays ‘every woman’ in MILDRED PIERCE, but she is JOAN CRAWFORD after all.) No wonder most stories have happy endings or at least meaningful endings — even tragedies are comforting in the sense that the world of fiction acknowledges the great sorrow of the characters when, in fact, actual reality is just part of a cold and uncaring universe. Children are content with this aspect of story-telling as their minds are mush and don’t know any better. But due to superstition, ignorance, and/or simpleminded ‘innocence’ in a provincial community OR stupidity, vulgarity, and/or infantilism in a decadent order(such as our globo-homo world), it’s often the case that adults are childlike in their ease of succumbing to the Narrative’s spell. Whether it’s all those adults who uncritically get their worldview from ‘woke’ Netflix TV shows or ‘mainstream news'(which really should be called JSM, or Jewish Supremacist Media), they are such willing suckers of the simpleminded narrative, be it hysteria about ‘white supremacy’ or Russia Collusion nonsense. But then, there are ‘white nationalist’ types who cling to the ‘Hitler did nothing wrong’ narrative or still admire Donald Trump as some kind of heroic ‘populist’ when he’s really a two-bit charlatan blowhard.
    There is much talk of ‘left’ vs ‘right’, but possibly an even more crucial dichotomy is the trusting/gullible and skeptical/critical. On both the so-called ‘left’ and ‘right’, there are the trusting suckers. Among the ‘right’, they swallowed the stuff about WMD and ‘Muh Israel’. Among the ‘left’, they swallowed the Russia Collusion Hoax and ‘Trump is literally Hitler’. Only a minority of those on the ‘right’ were skeptical of GOP claims, and only a minority of those on the ‘left’ questioned the veracity of Russia Collusion narrative. The skeptics on both ‘left’ and ‘right’ have deep underlying ideological differences, but what they have in common is the unwillingness to blindly trust authority or swallow the official narrative. George Orwell stood out because he was a skeptical leftist who, when push came to shove, sometimes preferred the factual truth over the Official Truth. But for every Orwell, there were surely a 100 or even a 1000 party hacks.

    It is the Orwellian mindset that constitutes the OTHER reason we are drawn to art/entertainment. This skeptical perspective allows us to play a kind of game of unlocking, decoding, and revealing. One might say this is a higher or more advanced form of response to art/entertainment. At the most elementary level, there is the suspension of disbelief and emotional/’ideological’ surrender to the work: Seeing is believing; or seeing is feeling, and feeling is believing. At the next level is interpretation. While interpretation can be critical, it need not be and often functions within the narrative agenda. Consider all those Christian scholars who interpret sacred texts to better serve the Faith without ever questioning the truth of God or the canon. Interpretation goes deeper than sensation, but it doesn’t break through to the other side. In contrast, there is a kind of mindset that puts on X-ray glasses and tries to look (all the way)THROUGH the narrative. Such an approach considers all works of art/entertainment to be expressions of power or an agenda. It is committed to showing how any piece of art or entertainment functions essentially as a tool or instrument, consciously or unconsciously on the part of the artist or entertainer(who too is a cultural-political product of the world around him). It could be a junky piece of entertainment or serious work of art, but it cannot exist independently of the ‘politics’ of power: Every idea is intrinsically political as its posits its favored view of how things should be, or every idea is molded or exploited by the Power, EVEN IF it runs counter to the nature of the Power — Christianity was the Big Idea among powerful men who hardly obeyed Jesus in their ruthless lust for power and greed.
    A pop culture rendition of this take on arts/culture was in THEY LIVE by John Carpenter, the movie where a special pair of glasses reveal the real truth behind the official truth. And of course, there is the meme of the ‘red pill’ in MATRIX. (Both works show that even truth-seeking is as often illusory or delusional as the Official Story. According to John Carpenter, modern capitalism wants people to lead traditional family-centered lifestyles, and the MATRIX was made by a pair of brothers whose ‘higher sense of reality’ eventually led them to becoming a pair of ‘sisters’.) This approach can be illuminating but also lead one down the path of madness. Jean-Luc Godard grew increasingly neurotic and nutty as he sought to deconstruct cinema from within. He became allergic to creativity because his radical critical sensibility came to regard poetics and narrative as some kind of comforting ‘bourgeois’ lie. Pier Paolo Pasolini’s later worthless films are the result of the creative mind being undermined by the critical one. It takes a truly gifted, subtle, and twisted mentality to pull it off, as with Luis Bunuel, Alain Resnais, David Mamet, David Lynch, and David Cronenberg. But generally, creativity and criticality neutralize one another as the former is about putting things together whereas the latter is about taking them apart. Bunuel got away with both modes because his surrealist sensibility approached art and life like dream and consciousness. He managed to slip and slither within the thin realm between one and the other. ‘Duochotomy’ was his thing.

    Though the skeptical mindset is ideally for boring through falsehood to get to the truth, it has itself been turned into a tool of power by (intellectual)Critical Theory and (popular)Sensual Hysterics. But then, who would have thought Franz Kafka’s critique of power as mystery cult would serve as a blueprint for Jewish Power as the ultimate form of oppression by obfuscation. Youtube and other Jewish-controlled social platforms seem willfully Kafkaesque in devising ever more vague and ambiguous ‘terms of service’ to purge and erase voices they don’t like. But then, maybe Orson Welles was onto something when he said Joseph K. in THE TRIAL isn’t merely a passive-victim figure but an assertive and aggressive one. Though Welles said this in sympathy with Jews(especially in light of what happened in the Shoah), it implies that Joseph K. would love to turn the tables and do everything the Power does(and then some) when the likes of him get the chance.

    So much of academic ‘deconstruction’ is about unraveling and dismantling one kind of ‘narrative’ — the ‘white-male Euro-centric patriarchal hetero-normative blah blah — as the WRONG kind of power, but it is totally invested in propping and protecting the myths of certain other groups, especially Jews, blacks, and homos. But an agenda that is committed to exposing only one kind of narrative while ’empowering’ other kinds cannot be for the higher truth. If anything, it too merely serves as a tool of the Agenda. If evil and injustice can be found only in People A while only good things must be said of People B, then the only permissible truth becomes as follows: Even the Truths of People A are ‘false’, whereas even the Lies of People B are ‘true’. The current West is under this kind of mindset, which is why white people are bad even when they do good — remove all those portraits of great white male scientists and doctors because such displays are ‘triggering’ even though those men made tremendous contributions to humanity — whereas blacks are good even when they are the main perpetrators of violent crime all across America, e.g. BLM nonsense that had so many PC idiots believing(or wanting so desperately to believe) that angelic and innocent blacks are being murdered wholesale by ‘racist’ white cops… or is there a kind of nihilism afoot among the Negrophiles as if to imply that blacks are so cool, badass, and awesome as athletes, rappers, and gangstas that they cannot be judged by lame ‘white’ rules, i.e. lions, as kings of the jungle, have license to treat other animals as they see fit? Of course, Jews get the same red carpet treatment. Jews want to sanction Russia, destroy Iran, wreak havoc on Syria, and crush Palestinians? Well, let them and cheer them on because they are ‘made men’ and above the rules that apply to rest of humanity. They are the god-men among the human species.

    The fact that so many academics, especially Jewish ones, are so obsessively ‘deconstructive’ of certain narratives while protective of others suggests there isn’t much in the way of integrity or consistency among intellectuals and scholars. Of course, the general pattern is ‘Jews lead and goyim follow’, i.e. if you want to know what most goyim are ‘thinking’, just go to the source that is the the Jewish mind… just like all of the Nile River can be traced back to its source up high in the mountains. Most goy thought is just lower-stream river water that ultimately flows from the Jewish Mind-Mountain-Valley. If Jews say ‘homophobia bad’, goyim say it too. If Jews say ‘tranny men are women’, goyim are soon nodding along… and even so-called ‘conservatives’ either agree or dare not oppose the New Normal Narrative because… it flows from the Holy Jewish Mind.
    In this sense, DUCK SOUP was more prophetic than satirical. We laugh at the movie as the goyim are led by the nose by the Jews, but the very same thing is happening all around in our world but no one seems to get the joke. What are Iraq War, Russia Collusion Hoax, and Sodomania but DUCK SOUP writ large and done straight(at least for the craven and/or dimwit goyim as surely the Jews are laughing behind closed doors). The Jewish Way is less concerned with truth or justice than power. It doesn’t ‘deconstruct’ or invalidate all official narratives for a clearer understanding of the truth but selectively targets certain narratives to better serve other official or favored narratives. Some Jews admit to this but justify it on grounds of justice, i.e. sure, they do indeed push certain narratives and myths but in order to lend aid to the oppressed, under-represented, and unheard. But for the most part, the real motive is power. After all, if Jews are opposed to all forms of racial discrimination, why did they focus on the American South and South Africa but not on the Zionist treatment of Palestinians?
    Both Afrikaners and Zionists understood one thing. The only way to maintain a successful form of identity-centered imperialist colonization is by apartheid if genocide is not an option. Genocide is the most effective tool of imperialism as the histories of the US and Australia show. Remove the native population wholesale and replace them with newcomers, the settlers and immigrants. The other way is by way of race-mixing, what the Spanish carried out in the New World, which is why the descendants still get to rule what is called Latin America. But Afrikaners and Jews didn’t want to race mix with the natives, respectively blacks and Palestinians/Arabs. Then, the ONLY way they could build stable colonies was by apartheid, especially true in West Bank where Jews have been a minority like whites in South Africa. But if Zionists understood this all too well, why didn’t they acknowledge the same need among white Afrikaners in South Africa, not least because South Africa and Israel were close allies? (Saudi Arabia seems to be the new ‘ally’ of Israel.) If Jews are serious about justice, they should have been just as strongly opposed to Zionist treatment of Palestinians. Israel should have been pressured to produce its own DeKlerk who’d offer peace by letting Arabs gain political control of Israel/Palestine. But the very Jews who made such shrill noises about South African apartheid did everything to pressure the US to support Zionism 100%. And why did Jews especially care about blacks or pretend to? Because they profited greatly from blacks in music and sports. Moreover, blacks, as the biggest and most vocal minority in the US, could be used to exploit ‘white guilt’, thereby robbing whites of pride, autonomy, and agency, thus rendering them ever apologetic and servile to Jews(and their allies such as blacks and homos). So, Jewish skepticism is ultimately really just for show. It’s like what Kevin MacDonald said of Noam Chomsky.

    Granted, all sides are hypocritical in selectively targeting falsehoods. Every side has myths to bust and myths to protect. Russia hasn’t been fully honest about WWII and still prefer many myths, just like US and Japan about the Pacific War albeit for different reasons. The CCP of China still justifies its rule on Maoist myths. Still, because Jews are the most powerful people in the world and the most vocal in self-righteous indignation, their hypocrisy rings louder. When Jews endlessly invoke the Shoah while acting like Judeo-Nazis, they’ve taken hypocrisy to a whole new level. And they are utterly shameless in this, just like Ron Jeremy sucking his own dic*. Adam Schiff is Portnoy-Politics.

    That said, everyone would do better if they learned to look THROUGH than merely look AT the movie… just like everyone needs to read between the lines. NETWORK merely as a movie that is looked-at is an utterly dishonest movie. Arabs indeed. Granted, the movie came out when the world was reeling from the Oil Shock when Arab Sheiks were riding high and when the Cold War was still on, with the Soviet Union backing several Arab nations against Israel. It was a time when OPEC really did shake the world, not least because Arabs were furious with US backing of Israel in the 1973 War. It was a time when the Arabs still felt the confidence to launch a war against Israel(though it was largely to regain territory stolen by Israel in the 1967 war). That said, the notion that US media are coming under the control of Arabs sounds like something from Alex Jones. (Sidney Lumet’s political drama POWER also has something about the Ay-rabs, though the most outrageous anti-Arab movie is surely William Friedkin’s RULES OF ENGAGEMENT that could properly be called genocidalist.) So, if we’re dealing with the movie that is only looked-at, NETWORK is a steaming pile of manure.

    However, as a movie that is looked-through, NETWORK is all the most ‘honest’ and revealing for its very dishonesty. After all, had NETWORK been candid about Jewish control of the media, it would have been just a mundane fact. It is precisely because it deflects our view from the truth that the movie isn’t just ABOUT but OF the Power. And this Power, though willing to support the production of a supposedly stinging satire, also used it as attire to dress up the truth. Indeed, NETWORK is more ‘shatire’ than satire. It is shtick-satire, one purporting to go out on a limb to tell it like it is, all the while turning our gaze away from the actual truth of who really controls the media and why. But for those who see THROUGH the movie, this very act of deception makes the work all the more revealing and ‘honest’ about the true nature of Jewish Power, i.e. we can’t rely on it to be straight with us. It’s like a psychologist can find a lot of truths in the lies of the patients. If anything, the lies may be more revealing than the truths told about their mentality.

    There needs to be a program, especially among the dissident right, to spread the art of looking-through something. Don’t just see what is on the screen but always ask yourself (1) who controls the media and entertainment (2) what is their worldview and self-perception (3) what is their agenda (4) how do they feel about most people and do they regard most people as their fellow brethren or members of the Other (5) what narratives and tropes have they developed over the years to mold the minds of the mostly childlike masses who only know how to look AT movies and TV (6) am I watching like a gullible child or a thinking adult?

    One reason why many in the dissident right are more astute about Hollywood movies and TV is they understand who controls those industries, and furthermore, they know the nature of the Power behind them. If so many ‘woke’ folks uncritically soak up the PC slop served by the entertainment industry(and educational institutions), those on the dissident right are more likely to have X-ray glasses that see through the programming.
    That said, people generally lose their sense of criticality when they see something confirms their biases. So, in Fascist Italy, Mussolini’s minions were likely mindless in their adulation and absorption of official propaganda whereas the dissident Marxists were some of the most penetrating critics of the use of propaganda. And the Frankfurt School reached its intellectual peak when the Left was very much still on the margins of the capitalist system. Some of the best criticism of arts and entertainment in the 20th century were produced by Jews and leftists who, at the time, felt alienated from the capitalist order for ideological or tribal reasons. (Back then, many Jews were on the Real Left, which is no longer the case as the current ‘left’ is all about celebration of globo-homo glitterati who serve Wall Street and Las Vegas. Also, if most Jews are affluent and privileged today, the class divide within the Jewish community was much wider back then, and many poor and less fortunate Jews felt betrayed by the Jewish Rich who seemed like a bunch of Wasp-wanna-be’s, a bunch of Uncle Shloms.) It suggests that if the ‘white nationalist’ right had control of media and entertainment, it might churn out its own brand of ‘woke’ myths that so many of its minions might slobber up mindlessly whereas the left(and Jews) might make the most interesting critics of culture.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Gast
    , @Gast
  121. @EliteCommInc.

    The problem is that the assassination is so far out of anything the film even comes close to broaching at any time — it’s almost too stark. It needed a more subtle rendering . It remains a 1970’s typical for shock value more than messaging.

    The problem is with the tonal inconsistency of the movie. The assassination would have worked in the vein of absurdism or black comedy, and there are moments in the movie that come close to political parody or hallucination. After all, the Howard Beale Show is, even in our decrepit times, too outlandish for TV. It belongs in something like REQUIEM FOR A DREAM by Darren Aronofsky that teeters between reality and fantasy throughout. In contrast, there is too much that seems real, believable, and plausible in NETWORK for the more outlandish moments to work(and vice versa). Schumacher(William Holden)’s middle age crisis is very much in keeping with 70s dramatic realism, and the movie establishes from the beginning that it’s about an industry of cold(and rational) calculation. So, the assassination plot at the end is hard to swallow. To pull off that level of sinister conspiratorial paranoia, the work has to be in the mode of THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE, PARALLAX VIEW, NIGHT MOVES, THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR, KILLER ELITE, BLOW OUT, or THE OSTERMAN WEEKEND. Those works map out alt-reality landscapes of such convoluted extremes that anything is possible. They fit right in with the paranoid fantasy genre. But there is too much of the human story and cold business angle in NETWORK to make the assassination plot even faintly credible. It’s self-defeating to present a somewhat believable world and then conclude with an ending that makes no real-world sense whatsoever. Of course, there were real killers then as there are now. But the idea of people in a corporate office just hatching a plot out of the blue to hire radicals to kill a TV personality? THE GODFATHER PART II just barely made the assassination of Hyman Roth believable, but the ending of NETWORK is unearned, especially in light of what came before. I understand Paddy Chayefsky wanted Beale to be ‘crucified’ on air, but he couldn’t have conceived of a more unconvincing scenario. The corporate murder in MICHAEL CLAYTON was believable because a woman of ambition with so much at stake felt compelled to go over the edge to save her company and her future. It was her thing. But would it have been believable if a bunch of corporate execs sat around and decided to hire assassins to take out the whistle-blower? Duvall’s Hackett is supposed to be as cold-blooded and calculating as they come, yet he hatches a hare-brained plot that is utterly reckless and stupid? And Dunaway’s Christensen is there in the office just nodding along? Can anyone imagine execs and managers at CNN, FOX, or NBC hanging around the office hatching a plot to hire killers to take out a TV show host?
    Now, it’s true that the kind of people who run US industry and institutions are as sick, demented, and vile as they come. Yes, they are cold-blooded sociopaths who are capable of anything if they could get away with it. US government is run by goons who go about sabotaging nations and killing countless people around the world. And US media are run by Zionists and their stooges who push the Judeo-Nazi Narrative. That’s all true, but can anyone imagine a bunch of members of the media industry in an office deciding to hire radical nutjobs to actually take out a TV personality? They are sick and vile, but they’re not crazy. Also, why would radicals agree to the assassination? They’ll just end up in jail or dead. Why would they serve corporate capitalists? Chayevsky wanted a big loud ending but hadn’t the skill, imagination, or energy left to come up with something halfway convincing. Thus, the assassination in NETWORK is an unsatisfying as the one in APOCALYPSE NOW. Coppola could not come up with a reason why Willard(Martin Sheen) did what he finally did.

  122. Anonymous[156] • Disclaimer says:
    @Priss Factor

    Or, you can recognize a limited hangout when you see it.

  123. “The problem is with the tonal inconsistency of the movie. The assassination would have worked in the vein of absurdism or black comedy, and there are moments in the movie that come close to political parody or hallucination . . .”

    Hmmmmmmm . . .

    you might want to read my review again. Though I don’t agree with several of your perspectives as to why, we appear to agree that the end was not effective in various ways.


    I am going to address whether it’s realistic to consider corporate execs engaged in a conspiracy to commit murder. I am a capitalist. And I cannot imagine anyone who is capitalist and comprehends and practices what that means engaging in murder. However, I m also unfortunately a very mild, mild student of history. An that history says strongly suggests that that our business classes could and have engaged in unlaw acts resulting in death – murder. I agree that the movie does not walk us up to that event in a manner that makes works, at least not for me.

    Now I don’t want to get into a debate whether corporate entities could or would or have. The relational dynamics between corporate interests and government just make the case. And unfortunately one instance stick out in mind

    Would they do that as related in t film . . . certainly not in a manner implicating them in that scenario. Laugh because one has to know that Head Corporate exec. is going to come looking for answers why his most valuable asset to placate the masses was murdered on a TV set with armed security.

    That would be the height of a cynical Network 2. Corporations demanding justice for the death of Howard Beale.

  124. @the_old_one

    “Populist classic” that was 100% (((them)))-produced.
    It was also boring; I rented it last year, and was reminded just how phony it was/is.

    I don’t like it either. The 70s were a legendary period in American Cinema, but there were a some titles I simply couldn’t make myself watch. CABARET and NETWORK were among them. I finally forced myself to watch CABARET after reading T. Lynch’s review, and yes, it is terrible. I tried watching NETWORK about 15 yrs ago but gave up because of the phoniness. As John Simon wrote in his review(available in REVERSE ANGLE), “Purporting to dispense wittily devastating inside information, this crude film really panders to whatever is smug and pseudosophisticated in an audience of self-appointed insiders; their smart-alecky laughter was not inspiring to hear.” Indeed, one wonders about a satire of TV media that was actually endorsed by media people. It’s like Robert Altman’s THE PLAYER was embraced by Hollywood as a love letter. Besides, I’m sure the media people loved being associated with radical chic, GODFATHER-like intrigue, glam girl Faye Dunaway, legendary movie star William Holden, and Hollywood in general. Because of this review by T. Lynch, I made myself watch the whole damn thing, and all in all, it seems a well-made lousy movie, and the blame really goes to Chayefsky than Lumet, a capable director who was only as good as the material. Lumet wasn’t a great director, but he made two great films: DOG DAY AFTERNOON and PRINCE OF THE CITY and some good ones, especially SERPICO and VERDICT. If bad directors can’t even serve good material and if very great directors can even save bad material into something of worth, Lumet had enough talent to make a good movie out of good material. NETWORK is akin to one of Lumet’s worst films: THE PAWNBROKER. Both are miserable imaginations of ambitious individuals who fancy themselves as important artists. As such, both received more plaudits than they really deserved. THE PAWNBROKER imitated European Art Cinema and grappled with the Holocaust in heavy-duty manner. It was so pregnant in significance and meaning. And the symbolism, like when a butterfly is caught in a net when the Nazis come to get the Jews! It was Bergman 101. Though NETWORK is different in tone, it too is the product of an over-ambitions and over-reaching Jewish personality that had BIG things to say. There’s more noise than nose for truth, but the generally middlebrow American cultural sensibility usually fell for such tripe. (BROADCAST NEWS was also much celebrated.)

    Is NETWORK populist? Actually, its thrust is closer to anti-populism as the public is presented as a bunch of dummies. In a way, it’s a darker version of MEET JOHN DOE, just like THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST is of IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE. If George Bailey opts for Bedford Falls after a tour of Pottersville, Jesus chooses to be crucified in Pottersville after an idyll in Bedford Falls. In a way, NETWORK turns MEET JOHN DOE on its head, though, to be sure, there is an anti-populist strain in Frank Capra’s movie as well. Even though Gary Cooper’s John Doe comes to connect with good ordinary folks of Americana, there is also the disturbing sense that all these people, though decent and well-meaning, are so naive, gullible, and easy to manipulate. Paradoxically, goodness makes people trusting, and that trust can be exploited by unscrupulous men. (The Trust Culture of Scandinavia certainly turned people there into putty in Jewish Hands.) Though the movie does end on a triumphant note with ‘John Doe’ even touching the heart of rich ‘crypto-fascist’ fatso, one of the most striking scenes is the big rally near the end when the very people who idolized John Doe want him destroyed. (It seems the Power was adept at pulling ‘Charlottesville’ back then too.) MEET JOHN DOE is about a hoax that turns real through the power of the heart. The woman who created the fiction of ‘John Doe’ really falls in love with him, and the hoodwinked public comes to see him as a savior. And ‘John Doe’, who agreed to the stunt for the money and comes to regret it undergoes a transformation where he really becomes John Doe, a kind of modern-day christ… just like the thief in KAGEMUSHA really comes to believe in the myth of the Takeda Clan. Even if the cult of Doe was a hoax, the Message remains true and may redeem a nation with love and trust. In that sense, MEET JOHN DOE is genuinely populist.

    One of the problems of NETWORK is the pomo-like confusion of tones and styles. Both Chayefsky and Lumet came of age before the 60s and yet were mindful of the profound changes and capitalized on them. Thus, NETWORK feels somewhat like a New Hollywood movie along those of Coppola, Scorsese, and Friedkin. But despite the F-words and sexual material, the basic formula(and it is a formula) owes to Old Hollywood flicks like HIS GIRL FRIDAY. Dunaway’s performance is essentially a throwback to Stanwyck and Rosalind Russell. She is aping others than creating her own character, but then, how could she with Chayevsky’s script laden with caricatures who endlessly speechify than converse? Holden’s Schumacher is a tad more realistic, but his farewell speech to her is a rehash of similar moments in so many other movies. At least George Peppard had a cat to entice Holly Golightly in BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY’S. Chayevsky turned the stuff of screwball comedy into nutjob satire. It’s too old-fashioned and formulaic for New Hollywood, and too brash & vulgar for old time’s sake. But perhaps, that accounted for the movie’s success. It had something for everyone, for the young and hip as for the old and in need of hip-replacement. Another movie of that same year, ROCKY, did a much better job of updating Hollywood formula into something fresh and vital. To be sure, both owed their success to the fairy-tale element of underdog-ism. The white palooka from Philadelphia fights the black champion and goes the distance. An aging newsman being forced into retirement gets a second wind and becomes a national sensation. ROCKY understood itself to be updated formula that fused THE CHAMP with ON THE WATERFRONT with some gritty 70s realism. In contrast, NETWORK goes for significance and meaning, but it actually has far less to say than something like ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST and TAXI DRIVER. One reason was Chayefsky’s unwillingness to go all in. There is too much of the ideologue, hack professional, entertainer, and charlatan to push the vision all the way through. Agree or disagree with Ken Kesey or Paul Schrader, they really dug deep to create Randle McMurphy and Travis Bickle. Even if one despaired of their views of humanity and their implications, one couldn’t help feeling they were true to themselves. With Chayefsky, there was always the sense that he was writing for effect. Instead of himself and pen/paper, he was always thinking of how the audience would react to this or that moment. As such, he was closer to talented hacks like Aaron Sorkin, David Simon, and Steve Zaillian. NETWORK feels like a work of a baseball pitcher than an artist. There’s too much strategizing about how a certain element will go over with the audience, critics, fellow tribesmen, and etc. In a way, Chayevsky was as manipulative with the audience as Jensen(Ned Beatty) is with Beale in the movie.


    NETWORK fans populism on the surface but is deeply hostile to the masses, or the goy masses. Unlike John Doe who was a mere fabrication of a lady reporter, Peter Finch’s transformation as Howard Beale(for whom TV becomes the Beaming Bush) is real enough. He heard a ‘voice’, and he breaks down and rises up from the ashes. He really means it, and he’s the author of his own madness. Unlike Barbara Stanwyck’s character in MEET JOHN DOE, Dunaway’s Christensen did not invent the New Howard Beale. Still, she has something in common with Stanwyck’s character in that she’s willing to capitalize on the Beale phenomenon as her ticket up the corporate ladder. Also, she’s hooked to the sensationalism of celebrity culture. The most crucial difference between the two is that Stanwyck’s character, despite all the cynicism and vanity, does have a heart and soul. She invests what she knew of her own father into John Doe and falls in love with ‘him’ and with all the lives he touches. She becomes a true believer. She is ‘saved’. In contrast, Christensen is truly a soulless creature. There is nothing outside the career. In a way, she’s more monstrous than Dominique Francon in THE FOUNTAINHEAD. At the very least, despite her elitism and snobbery, Francon did believe in something and was willing to die for it. For her, Howard Roark is the ideal man, the visionary and artist and a stud to boot. For him and what he stands for, she is willing to do anything. So, her monstrosity is not without mythic overtones. In contrast, Christensen believes in nothing but the business. Despite her drive and energy, she is truly a petty person, and in that sense, she isn’t even monstrous, which would be a recognizable quantity. She is a cold zero for whom nothing has value outside dog-eat-dog competition. Stanwyck’s character ultimately confirms populist sentimentalism. Dunaway’s character negates it.

    As for Beale, he is the opposite of Doe. Doe begins as a faker who agreed to the stunt for easy cash but transforms into a genuine hero of the people. Even when the people reject him as a fraud, he sticks with the mission with the pride of sincerity to keep the populist flame lit. It’s like the cast-out thief in KAGEMUSHA continues to root for the clan even after he’s exposed and expelled from it. Doe goes from a mildly corruptible nobody to a genuine man of the people with iron resolve, a man who cannot be bought. In contrast, the New Howard Beale begins as a genuine article who is ‘mad as hell’ and means every word to virtually a corporate mouthpiece that might as well be a sockpuppet of Ned Beatty’s Arthur Jensen.
    To be sure, the sudden transformation in Beale isn’t the product of corruption or coercion but manipulation and quasi-hypnosis. It could be that Jensen doesn’t really believe his own words. What really matters is he senses where Beale is coming from: A ‘spiritual’ space, and therefore, he knows he cannot win over Beale with reasoned argument, data & statistics, or a friendly plea. He knows that Beale is in the mode of John the Baptist, the one calling out from the wilderness. Or maybe Beale even feels like the christ. One cannot reason with such a person. One cannot change him with threats as he believes he’s on a ‘mission from god'(like the Blues Brothers). The ONLY way to reach him is by convincing him that an even higher ‘spiritual’ authority is speaking to him. And this is what Jensen pulls off so masterfully. He understands Beale is a ‘modern-day prophet’ who hears voices. Then, he must be the bigger Voice and lay out his agenda as a kind of worldwide jeremiad. And this is what wins Beale over. He isn’t consciously but subconsciously corrupted. Beale thinks he heard the voice of god when all Jensen did is pull off a televangelist shtick. (Perhaps, one of the problems of the movie is Too Many Characters as they undermine the sense of subjectivity that is so palpable and essential at times. REQUIEM FOR A DREAM works much better because it’s limited to a handful of characters in tailspins of their own fantasies. Same goes for TAXI DRIVER, which is mostly Travis Bickle and his madness. In contrast, the intensifying subjective weirdness of Beale is constantly undercut by more mundane matters of other characters. Indeed, the assassination plot at the end might have worked as a paranoid fantasy of Beale who’s overcome with persecution complex. But we are supposed to believe something that loony was decided by cold calculating operators inside a corporate office.

    Anyway, NETWORK seems less a work about populism than about prophetism. Other than people screaming out the windows, “I’m mad as hell, I can’t take it anymore”, there’s hardly anything about the people in the movie. If anything, the people themselves must be the problem because, like the hopeless fools glued to their tellies in TRUMAN SHOW, they can’t turn off the tube even after Beale urged them to. Indeed, even their anti-TV ‘liberation’ and ‘resistance’ must come by the way of TV. They can’t think of anything to say on their own and can only repeat the mantra heard on the TV, and it’s something so trite as “I’m mad as hell, I can’t take it anymore.” But what would people in NY be mad about in the 1970s? There was black crime. Despite problems of terrorism and radicalism, the the vast majority of daily horrors in NY came from street thugs and the like. There was also family breakdown, rampant drug use, city life coarsened by the spread of porn theaters and strip clubs. In other words, the hell that so many people seem to be angry about was created and patronized by none other than themselves. Also, no one forced Schumacher to leave his wife and hurt her in the worst way. So, the movie seems to be implying that, even though the elites may be up to no good, the problem is largely with people who themselves are petty, selfish, short-sighted, vain, irresponsible, and/or always eager to blame the Other.

    The problem for a Leftist Jew like Chayefksy was he was too smart to know the problem wasn’t only with the Big Fish, he was too ideological to admit the leftist bankruptcy in regards to People Power, he was too Jewish(an identity that is intrinsically tribal-supremacist) to feel a genuine connection with the masses(mostly dimwit goyim), and he was too stuck-up & devious to admit what was truly bothering him.
    One part of Jewishness is extremely elitist and disdains the goy masses, the angry mobs with pitchforks. After all, Jews have historically cooperated with European kings and noblemen in the ‘exploitation’ and ‘oppression’ of the masses. But the Jewish consciousness as outcast or outsider led to the rise of radical politics among many of the Tribesmen, and this side of Jewishness. Prior to NETWORK, Chayefksy’s main claim to fame was for MARTY, which won Best Picture Oscar and praise from French critics who appreciated it as a counterpoint to Hollywood as glamour-adventure-fantasy factory. But the film was quickly forgotten and regarded as a humdrum American take on neo-realism. It was an earnest story of little people, the lonely people, with small but genuine dignity. One might say it belonged to the leftist-humanist school, and yet something was a bit off. Overly simplistic and even condescending, as if such ‘little people’ needed a man like Chayefsky as their cultural spokesman and salesman. Ultimately, they came across less as real people than reheated leftover from Popular Front conceits. It was like Barton Fink’s very conscious but rather disingenuous commitment to the People, the Little Guys. Does he really want to hear their stories or tell them what their stories should be? Also, Jews and populism don’t really mix, at least in a goy majority society. After all, the history of populism in Europe hasn’t been good for Jews. Usually, it was about pitchfork-wielding peasants and commoners screaming “We are mad as hell, we aren’t gonna take it anymore.” They were angry with the kings, noblemen, and Jews, but when things got too hot, the goy elites conveniently used Jews as scapegoats for all the problems(just like Jews today scapegoat everyone but themselves for the problems of Globalism). Populism meant Jewish ghettos being attacked or Jews being hounded out of yet another kingdom or province. Therefore, one side of Jewishness has been eager to snuff out any sign of populism. This was evident in Jewish alarmism over Donald Trump and his America First crowd. Many Jews saw Hitler and Pogroms. But Jews are nothing if not clever, and they know it’s safer to hedge their bets. While one side of Jewishness attacks & denounces populism, mass politics, & cult of people power, another side of Jewishness tries to usurp & appropriate such for their own purposes. (Consider how both OCCUPY WALL STREET and the TEA PARTY were led astray.) The grandest manifestation of such tendency was Jewish involvement with communism. Historically, People Power meant the masses rising up and attacking the rich and/or members of the ‘alien’ community, notably the Jews. So, how about the Jews taking lead in a mass movement and gaining control of mass rage by directing popular fury at the rich? While communism was bound to hurt all rich folks, Jews and goyim, at the very least it would open paths for Jews to advance themselves as rulers, intellectuals, managers, and commissars. And even though communists could attack the rich, they could not attack people for being Jewish, and that was a huge advantage. This tension within the Jew that is both anti-populist and pro-populist is at the heart of Coen Brothers’ BARTON FINK. On the one hand, Fink is eager to befriend and persuade the big hulking goy played by John Houseman that they are on the same team. The big boy is one of The People, and he, Barton Fink, is for the People. But in a way, his desperation to win over the big hulking goy betrays fear and anxiety. It’s like a lion and a lion-tamer. Unless the lion-tamer can persuade the lion that they are on the same team, the lion may devour him. And a similar tension is felt throughout NETWORK. On one level, Chayefsky seems to be speaking for the People against the corporate elites, but on another level, he seems to be fuming with repressed contempt for the dumb, stupid, and childish masses who can so easily be manipulated and indeed demand to be fed an easy-to-digest Manichean diet of good guys and bad guys.

    In a way, the 60s undid the Jewish hope for populism. In the new order, Jews chose Pop-Culturalism instead. For populism to work, the masses need some dignity, which is what the characters in MARTY have. They aren’t refined or sophisticated folks, but they have a sense of norms, limits, and responsibilities. They have self-restraint and can find joy in the small things in life. But to have such a society, ultra-libertinism must be kept in check. Also, young ones must respect the elders. It must be a society of middle class values, one where blacks seek freedom on grounds that they want to be a credit to their race. Both MARTY and RAISIN IN THE SUN belong in this school. But the 60s happened, and Jews played a big role in it. It was about liberation from all restraints, and it was an exciting decade… but also a destructive, degrading, and demented one. Immature youth culture came to define the new American values, blacks got shameless in their craziness, drug use & sexual wantonness spread to the working class, and so on.
    Rich people can afford nice things and put on sophisticated airs; they have a sense of self-worth. In contrast, the ONLY advantage the have-nots and have-lesses possess is morality and dignity. It’s what the Joad Family has in THE GRAPES OF WRATH. Pa Joad doesn’t have an ass tattoo, and Ma Joad doesn’t have green hair and a nose ring. And the kids don’t emulate skanks. The 60s and early 70s were a time of great prosperity, more choice, and more possibilities for everyone; and those were good things. But all that sudden wealth and freedom led to so many bad choices among many people. Working class youths aspired to be like drug-addled rock stars. Hardcore pornography was legalized and even made their rounds in small towns. People were surely having more fun, and things were more ‘groovy’ and ‘far out’, but the Little People were robbed of the one advantage they used to have over the rich: Quiet dignity and moral commitment to family, church, and country. Fast forward to today, and we have the elites putting on airs and denouncing the masses as a ‘basket of deplorables’. A basket, like they’re pieces of bread gone bad or something. The rich got the credentials and connections, the sophistication(even if just the faux kind) and the right kind of education that bestows badge of ‘progressivism’ to the initiated — Chelsea Clinton is morally superior because she knows exactly what to pontificate about globo-homo. In the past, the have-nots and have-lesses at least stood firm on their morals and dignity, but after generations of Rock-Sex-Drug culture, Howard Stern & Jerry Springer, and Porn & Party mentality to define the New Populism, the lower orders don’t even have that. There was a time when even Smarties had a grudging respect for the Martys of the world, but Marty became Farty-Party. Without pride and dignity, it doesn’t matter that globalism has turned Farty-Party into an economic martyr because no one cares about ‘deplorables’ and ‘white trash’. Born in 1923, Chayevsky belonged to the so-called Greatest Generation, and so, the formative influences would have been marked by the Popular Front, Great Depression, and World War II. As a radical, he would have been excited by changes in the 60s but also alienated by the rampant hedonism and devil-may-care nihilism. One wonders if ALTERED STATES, his last major work, was a commentary on how 60s adventurism in sex, drugs, and meaning(the fusion of science and spirituality) crashed and burned, leaving an entire generation torched with the realization that breaking through the other side only led to chaos and neo-primitivism.

    What NETWORK and ALTERED STATES have in common is the theme of neo-prophetism, and it seems the core message of NETWORK has less to do with populism than prophetism. Even though the JEW is not mentioned — to be sure, certain individuals who fill the office space as extras seem a bit Jewish or ‘ethnic’ — , Chayevsky surely knew that Jewish Culture & History have been defined by obsession with prophets and profits, and NETWORK seems like a Leftist Jewish twist on Ayn Rand’s profit-prophet dynamics. Chayevsky, unlike Rand, was highly critical of the fusion yet also fascinated by it as the source of Jewish Power. Throughout history, materiality and spirituality were often at odds. The Old Testament is filled with Jewish Prophets denouncing Jewish profiteers who only care about greed and vanity. And history of Christianity is rife with examples of the Faithful denouncing the decadence and profligacy of sin and vice. Ideas centered on spirituality cannot see eye to eye with ideas centered on materialism. And yet, spiritual institutions aren’t independent of the Power, and most actual power in history was defined by gold and sword. The rich and powerful patronized and built the temples and churches. They made generous donations. And by connections and influence, they often decided who reached the top of the spiritual order. So, whether it was Herod & the Rabbis who made a pact with the Roman occupiers, Early Christians who forged an unholy alliance with the Roman Empire, the Catholic Church that grew cozy with the rich, the Russian Church that became an arm of Tsarist power, the Wahhabi sect that cut a deal with the sleazy Saudi Royal Family, or current spineless Christianity that serves globo-homo or Zionism, there have been so many examples of the spiritual sector succumbing to materialist power or being infiltrated by ‘satanic’ forces.
    One thing for sure, even as the power of religion ebbed away in the late modern era, one thing that Jews understood all too well was that even secular ideas have the most potency when presented in the prophetic manner. After all, Karl Marx wasn’t just another economic philosopher or moral critic but a far-seeing visionary prophet. Sigmund Freud played prophet of human nature, sexuality, and psychology. Like Joseph, he was an interpreter of dreams. Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman understood that capitalism had to be sold not merely as the most efficient and productive economic system but the very fulfillment of man’s freedom and emancipation. Make profit prophetic. As a Leftist Jew, Chayevsky stood against Jewish pro-capitalists, but ideology is often secondary to identity. Subconsciously or privately/covertly, there could very well have been a side of him that was tantalized and encouraged by the rise of Jewish Power via capitalism and enterprise.
    With NETWORK, he ideologically opposes it but seems almost spellbound by it on some level. Besides, Jensen’s vision of the new global order is essentially Trotskyism-as-capitalism. NETWORK came out just when Neocons, former leftist Jews obsessed with Zionism and Jewish identity, were emerging as a force. Since then, virtually all Jews have become Neocons. After all, so-called ‘liberal’ Democratic Jews are just as fanatical in their support of Zionism, Wars for Israel, erasure of remaining Palestine, ‘new cold war with Russia’, and Wall Street. Whether it’s hardcore Neocons or Liberal Zionists(who are Neocons by another name), they are now utterly invested in the Deep State, Censorship(or Censchwarzship), and the Tribe getting even richer & more powerful. ACLU used to be a free speech outfit, but now, it functions much like SPLC and ADL as the legal arm of Zionist Supremacism.

    On the surface, NETWORK is a social-political satire of capitalism and greed. But taken esoterically, it indicates a change of heart in Chayefsky, not unlike what happens with Beale. Could it be that Marx was ultimately wrong? That it is by globalist capitalism that Jews will gain the world and also change it? Marx was a Jewish prophet against capitalism, but maybe what Jews really need is a prophet for capitalism. Maybe Ayn Rand was right, though Chayefsk was loathe to openly admit it.
    But then, the refusal to admit it could better serve what one ostensibly opposes. After all, it is foolish to openly declare one’s ambitions of power and wealth. It’s smarter to speak of justice and accuse OTHERS of greed & avarice while working tirelessly under the table to ensure that most wealth and power accrue to your side. In this sense, the strain of Jewish Leftism in the US eventually came to serve as a moral cover for Jewish capitalism. If Jews had talked honestly of money, money, money and power/privilege, many goyim might have come to regard Jews as greedy and arrogant. It as smarter to use Jewish Leftism as a front to create the impression that Jews are all about equality, justice, and fairness — usually by depicting non-Jews, especially Wasps, as the face of wealth and privilege — while doing everything to increase Jewish accumulation of wealth, influence, and control. Indeed, the impression of Hollywood as a ‘leftist’ industry has given moral cover to its greed, hedonism, wantonism, and racial supremacism(as Hollywood has been one of the biggest funders of Zionist destruction of Palestine and the premier propaganda factory that made most Americans associate Arabs/Muslims with ‘muzzie terrorists’ who deserve to be blown away by gung ho Americans.) In this sense, NETWORK is a progenitor of SOCIAL NETWORK. Both are about the Tribal Network of Jews. On the surface, SOCIAL NETWORK seems a criticism of Mark Zuckerberg as a selfish and egotistical Jew, but Aaron Sorkin really meant it as kudos to the Jewish Way of Power: Zuck, like Michael Corleone, has brass balls to make it happen. In contrast, the Winklevoss twins are presented as over-privileged Wasps who spend most of their days rowing and socializing. And the Nice Jew played by Adam Garfield is presented as weak like Fredo.
    If we look beneath the surface of NETWORK, it could be Chayefsky was really exploring the possibility that Jews need to fuse profits and prophets to bring about Capitalist Trotskyism. Indeed, one reason why Leon Trotsky was for internationalism had to do with the Jewish Network, the other reason being he thought Russians were too lazy for communism and only Germany-gone-communist would ensure the victory of Marxism-Leninism. At any rate, unlike Stalin who lacked links to World Jewry, Trotsky had those links, and therefore, he needed the Soviet Union to be ‘internationalist’ so that Jewish communists in Russia could coordinate a global plot with Jewish capitalists. When he was exiled from Russia, he found support among Jews around the world, even capitalist ones.

    • Replies: @mark green
  125. @Priss Factor

    Many interesting observations and insights. Many suppositions. Whew! More paragraphic breaks, PLEASE.> Thank you, Priss. I always read your comments.

    • Agree: Lurker
  126. “In a way, it’s a darker version of MEET JOHN DOE, just like THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST is of IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE. If George Bailey opts for Bedford Falls after a tour of Pottersville, Jesus chooses to be crucified in Pottersville after an idyll in Bedford Falls. ”

    This makes absolutely no sense. And tried as I might, I couldn’t even come up with deconstruction Derrida position to support it or make sense of it. The juxtapositions here make no sense. In two of your choices the a simple glimpse of the ending would contradict the comparison.

    Network to Last Temptation — no redemptive end

    John Doe to Wonderful Life — redemptive end and that in and by the general public — populist triumphs

    You would need to do more work there – because what you lay down doesn’t make sense.


    “Dunaway’s performance is essentially a throwback to Stanwyck and Rosalind Russell. She is aping others than creating her own character, but then, how could she with Chayevsky’s script laden with caricatures who endlessly speechify than converse? ”

    What films are you talking about in which these women are are total narcissists, even when Miss Stanwyck is a femme fatale in Double Indemnity shes a woman of some human compassion an for whom one has some empathy. I can’t thin of a single film in Miss Russell is an adding machine with a couple askewed keys to give the appearance of being a human being.

    Once you start talking about Mr. Beale as something created and quasi hypnosis, I had to leave off. Mr. Beale has a had a psychotic break it frees him to engage his intelligence outside the norms of the day as prophet. There’s no creation. There s quid pro quo. We’ll let you preach as long as you make us money — no matter what you say.

    He is not a George Baily (also self created), and he is not John Doe. These comparisons don’t work and I guess your disconnecting them at the end makes sense.

    I was curious why you took issue with me when we essentially in agreement about the lack of populist import in Network at the end of the day, but I think I know why. By the time you get to Trotsky capitalism . . . I got it. Note: almost all forms of communication are based on formulas, to make them comprehensible enough for people to follow. Few films work as stream of conscientiousness endeavors. And anyone communicating or attempting to communicate with an audience — would be well advised to consider how what they present is perceived. There are a lot of peculiar rhetorical lines here and some interesting leaps in logic. But I agree,

    But I do agree that Prince of the City is a very fine film.

  127. Gast says:
    @Priss Factor

    I find it a bit rich, that you seem to call my stance against Hollywood “childish”. I may ask: What is more childish. Living in dream world, or living in the reality? And if the dream world is provided by your deadly enemies (I assume here that you are white man, correct me if I am wrong), who only provide the whole stuff to insert poisonous ideas into the minds of the audience, your hobby becomes not only childish, but stupid and harmful.

    By all accounts, Paddy Chayefsky (the driving force behind “Network”, it seems) was a nasty supremacist jew. So there is a fat chance, that all the stuff that seemed to be deflection and outright lying to conceal the fact, that the media (including Hollywood) are jewish owned and operated lying machines, was indeed deflection and lying, and not some kind of high-satire, only refined art connaisseurs like you can appreciate. Now that I have watched half of the movie (I find it very hard to sit through), there is other propaganda in it I forgot to mention. I noticed lying about the background of the Hearst abduction and the Black Panthers (jews heavily involved, of course). And I am sure people who have lived through that period might detect more misdirection.

    But I found “Network” even on the pure entertainment level (an abstract concept that might be an illusion) very lacking. I admit that satire ages terribly in general. But I can’t imagine that people were enjoying it at that time. There is a reason that most movies use music and beautiful people to sell their poisonous ideas. Here we have ugly (but able) actors who act in the most unfunny satire, which serves evil purposes. “What is not to like?” says the jew.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  128. @Gast

    Exactly. Even if we give Lumet a pass, there’s no way someone like Chayefsky (straight out of CoC) would make a secretly populist/subversive movie. The only question here is: how did Lynch/Johnson miss this? Or, maybe he didn’t and he’s playing some other game?

  129. Gast says:
    @Priss Factor

    I want to add that I really appreciate your long comments and found a lot of very intelligent thoughts in it. You could write much more intelligent movie reviews than Lynch/Johnson. So my last comment was perhaps a little unfair and mostly a repeat of my overall view of “Network” and not a reaction to your comments which are clearly enriching the comment section.

    Overall, I think you overthink matters a bit. Where you see complex artistic choices there are often rather simple propagandistic choices in my estimation. And I think that you have taken Hollywood much too serious in your life (I remember a comment about WW2 that made me think, that you should have taken more time studying the real world, rather than studying all those movies). But I really enjoyed your comments, and we are largely agreeing on the value of “Network” (and “Interstellar” in the past).

  130. @Prester John

    Note the surnames of the major players in the film. All from from north of the Alps… Among the cast of characters only the “Ruddy” and “Hackett” characters (both Irish names) were non-Germanic. How many people with Celtic or Germanic surnames were movers and shakers in the business of Big Media.

    There are three ways to take this.

    1. Chayefsky and Lumet, as Jews, simply lied and didn’t want to deal with the issue of Jewish Power in media.

    2. The characters were meant as crypto-Jews. After all, many Jews, especially of Germanic origin, had Anglo-ized their names. I believe Oliver Stone’s father changed his name from ‘Silverstein’. Truly assertive Jewish consciousness emerged from Jews from Russia and Eastern Europe who felt resentment toward Waspy Jews. Granted, there were plenty of angry nasty Jews of Germanic background, and plenty of Eastern European Jews who aspired to be accepted by the Anglo Establishment. But the attitude of German Jews in the US was molded when the Jewish population had been much smaller(and when whiteness and Christianity were far more confident). If German Jews had arrived in the US in trickles, Eastern European Jews washed up in waves along with other ethnics, and they formed their own tribal communities. They were poorer, more radical, more tribal, and more vulgar.

    3. The non-Jews in the movie are essentially shabbos goyim. After all, they are not the uppermost movers and shakers. Beale, like so newsmen and TV anchors, served as the look and voice of Middle America before losing his marbles. Holden’s Schumacher has a vision of what the news should be, but he can easily be fired, rehired, and fired again. He has powers but isn’t that powerful. Dunaway’s Christensen is a social climber, and there are plenty such goyesses across the news industry. (Schumacher’s affair with her might have been Chayefsky’s way of touching on the Jewish attraction to the blonde ‘Aryan’ in an oblique way.) Duvall’s Hackett is another climber. He’s eager to force changes precisely because only instant success will ensure his worth to the real Power that is never shown. Ruddy is old school and presented as the last of his kind. Besides, despite Jewish domination of Big Media, there were always a good number of non-Jews at upper-management. Jensen seems to be the biggest fish, but he too seems more a power-broker than the Power itself. So, just like the super-Jew who remains behind the scenes but whose omniscience is always felt in HAIL, CAESAR! , one could argue that, at least for those in the know, the very visible absence of Jewish Power makes it all the more felt in the movie. It’s like the black hole. It can’t be seen but its power is felt by all the nearby stars. In a way, all those goy characters are mostly cucks, shikses, and shabbos scrambling among themselves to come out on top… to ingratiate themselves to Jewish Power. But then, US politics is hardly different. Most politicians and staff are indeed goyim, and many are ruthless and devious, but they don’t have(or aspire to attain) real power. They are mostly vain asses who beat up on other goyim to win top dog spots at the feet of their Jewish Masters. Billy Boy Clinton, Dubya Bush, Obama, Hillary, Trump, Biden, and etc. All ambitious and vain goyim but not striving for real power but to be top dog to the real power that is Jewish.

  131. @Alden

    Better Arab Muslims than Russian Bolshevik Jews own the network.

    I dunno. Aljareera is supposed to be run by Arab Muslims, but it pushes much the same globo-feminist crap as Jewish News in the US and UK.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Patagonia Man
  132. @Alden

    Lynch is spreading covid hoax? Credulous naive ignoramous. Can’t he read the statistics?

    It’s becoming more and more like the scene in CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND where the government stages mass deaths of sheep and birds to spread fears about toxic chemical leakage. Those scenes have been scrubbed off Youtube, by the way. I think ‘Lynch’ being pro-Covid hysteria has more to do his worldview than stats & data. The Politics of Fear of the Other is very much in tune with his us-vs-them view of things. Also, ‘Lynch’ is essentially anti-democratic — he has little use for populism except as a tool to push his side into power — and elitist/authoritarian. The National Socialism was in large measure a cult of health. Health, hygiene, and sanity vs germs, filth, and infestation by the Other. His contrarian review of CABARET suggests as much. He regards the Hitler Youth celebration with patriotic song as an expression of all that is good, normal, and healthy. He regards the world of the cabaret as filthy, degenerate, sick, and infectious. Though ‘Lynch’ and Richard Spencer don’t get along, they seem to be of the same mind on this. For Spencer, statism as war against Covid is a form of Carl-Schmittiism. As for myself, there’s too much of BAD NEWS BEARS and Mike Royko columns as formative influences to take this panic/hysteria too seriously.


    It’s interesting that CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND came out a year after NETWORK. What both have in common is the Jewish obsession with the power of Prophecy. Jews has a deep and rich heritage, but they were never just about tradition. What kept their identity alive and vital was the sense of the Future. From the ancient Jewish Prophets to Asimov/Kubrick/Spielberg, there is this obsession with the Power and Truth of the Future. Whether it’s FOUNDATION, 2001, or CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, the Jewish mind is defiantly far-seeking. The prophetic mindset is both defiant/rebellious and authoritarian/tyrannical — Ayn Rand’s hero Howard Roark is not only defiant but adamant that everything be done HIS way. Both Beale of NETWORK and Roy of CLOSE ENCOUNTERS have this quality. Beale heard a ‘voice’. He thinks it’s the voice of ‘god’. Roy was struck by the ‘light’, and he has to go find his own Sinai to receive the message. And nothing will stand in their way. So, while most people in CLOSE ENCOUNTERS trust the government and submit to being relocated en masse by buses and trains, Roy is defiant and scrambles for Devil’s Tower. Moses would have done no less. This defiant and ‘radical’ aspect of the Jewish character made them difficult, nasty, and hostile, but it also led to them to greatness as greatness often comes from the Man of Truth with the balls to say NO to the established order & official truisms and stake out his own Truth Turf as the first colony of the Empire of New Truth.
    But even the defiant cannot defy everything. He defies the world of men to better serve the word of God. So, even as Roy tells human power(that stands in his way) to take it and shove it, he offers himself to superior extraterrestrials with heavenly powers. Likewise, the ever-defiant Beale becomes putty in the hands of Jensen who knows how to deliver a message with divine overtones to the messianically inclined. (CLOSE ENCOUNTERS is about a Jewish Neo-Prophet saying YES to the ultimate power, whereas STAR WARS is about an ‘Aryan’ hero saying NO to the ultimate power. Jewish Mind conceives of the ultimate power to be on the side of Jews and says Yes. The ‘liberal-Aryan’ mind conceives of the ultimate power to be ‘nazi-like’ and says No.)

    It’s now close to 50 yrs since NETWORK and CLOSE ENCOUNTERS came out, and what is most striking is how Jews fear defiance in the Current Year. Not long ago, there was a movie called DEFIANCE but it was, predictably enough, about Jewish resistance fighters during World War II — it was actually made in deference to the Jewish Narrative. In the current discourse, the last thing Jews want is real defiance and controversy. They much prefer deference and consensus(as, of course, defined by themselves). Even when CLOSE ENCOUNTERS was made, there was a distinction between State and Science in the Jewish political consciousness. There’s a sense in the movie that the state is being heavy-handed in dealing with the situation. While it is serving a scientific project, it revels in authoritarianism and tyranny. The train scene is like an allusion to the Shoah. In contrast, the scientists are presented in a favorable light. They are shown as well-meaning seekers of truth filled with empathy(and even poetic sentimentality). The scientific crew is headed by character played by Francois Truffaut, the half-Jewish French film-director. This distinction between Wise Science and Bully State seems a reflection of Jewish Narrative on the Manhattan Project: Wise Jews come up with the science, but the Big State takes the technology and uses it for the military-industrial complex. Back then, the state was still ruled by Wasps, and the US military was seen as a hotbed of right-wing ideology. And because many Jews after WWII still regarded the USSR as an empire of Jews(along with Stalin), especially as the USSR was, for a time, an even more vocal supporter of Zionism than the US, the idea of Wasps and US military taking the Jewish-made Bomb to use against the Soviet Union was ghastly to the Jews.

    But that was then, this is now. Today, Jews control not only the media, academia, and other such institutions but Wall Street, the US state, the deep state, intelligence agencies, and the military. While goyim still manage most of those institutions, managers are appointed and take orders from men on top, and those big goy politicians are tools of Jewish Power. So, if in 1976 and 1977, there was still the Jewish cult of Defiance against the State and Military, there isn’t any more.
    After all, Jews, ‘liberal’ and ‘neocon’, were more than happy to let Obama and Hillary serve as shills of the Empire of Judea. And even ‘liberal’ Jews have been most shrill when Trump expressed a desire to draw down US imperialist presence in places like Syria, reduce hostilities with North Korea, or come to terms with Russia. The election of Trump made the Jews even more supportive and protective of the Deep State, the Military-Industrial Complex, the FBI-CIA-NSA matrix, and media as industrial-propaganda as counterbalance against White National Liberation from Jewish Supremacist Power. Trump, though a phony, won the election as the voice of defiance against the Establishment, and Jews across the board hate him for that.

    From the Jewish POV, the defiant power of prophecy should belong to Jews alone. So, Jews cheer on guys like Roy in CLOSE ENCOUNTERS who thumbs his nose at the Power and goes searching for his own Truth. When the Roys of the world decide to play prophet, Jews cheer them on. But what’s good for Roy isn’t good for Goy.
    To be sure, Jewish Power eventually comes to fear the Roys of the world as well. Why? Because the true Jewish Prophets have a vision beyond temporal Jewish Power. As such, they may challenge and threaten the world of power and privilege the Jews have carved out for themselves. Jesus was hated by the Jewish establishment because He threatened the compromise that Jews had achieved with the Romans: Judea would be part of the Roman Empire, but the Romans would allow the Jewish elites to grow richer as members of the empire. But Jesus had other ideas. Ironically, it was later the Early Christians(many of whom were heretical Jews) who forged a pact with the Roman Empire… though one wonders if the Romans conquered and tamed Christianity or if Christians conquered and tamed the Roman Empire in this unholy union.

    • Agree: Alden
  133. @mark green

    Paddy Chayefsky intimated falsely in ‘Network’ that America was under threat of an Arab takeover of our media when the real and ongoing threat to American independence came from that other tribe of Semites (Jews).

    In a way, what you say is true. That is the movie’s weakness either on empirical or moral grounds. Chayefsky was either wrong with the facts or just lying.

    But there’s another way to look at it. NETWORK isn’t intimating that the Arabs are TAKING OVER the media. Rather, it’s saying that the Arabs are willing to invest in the media. So, Jews keep the power but makes Arab money come their way. And this isn’t far from reality. A good deal of Japanese money went into Hollywood in the 80s, but Jews kept control. In the past decade, a good deal of Chinese money has come to Hollywood, but again, Jews dominate Hollywood. NYT was bailed out by Lebanese-Mexican Carlos Slim, but it’s still run by Jews.

    Such alliances are useful to Jews. Not only do they receive huge infusions of cash but get to spin the narrative of ‘foreign takeover’ to distract Americans from the fact that Jewish Power has the controlling stake in media. Of course, Jews don’t receive all such investments at no cost. It’s been duly noted that NYT used to be anti-illegal-immigration, that is until Slim provided billions. It’s also been said that Hollywood began to have fewer Chinese villains in movies when it got lots of investment from China(and come to regard the Chinese market as one of the biggest and lucrative).
    NETWORK was made when the world economy was still reeling from the Oil Shock. Prior to OPEC’s demands, the low cost of oil was a given, like air. Americans hardly worried about travel costs. But OPEC’s oil war happened immediately following US’s aid to Israel in the Yom Kippur War. Suddenly, the world economy was shaken to the core(and there were oil lines in the US for awhile). It got so bad that even Japan, a US puppet, made pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel noises to remain in good graces with Arab nations. And with price increases, the Arabs never had it so good. They were suddenly flush with cash and were wooed around the world. Back then, US was not the only superpower, and Israel wasn’t as dominant and invincible as it is today. Also, ‘Arabist’ wing of US foreign policy still exerted some influence and weighed against one-sided in favor of Israel. And European nations weren’t, as yet, total lackeys of the US empire.
    In a way, NETWORK is more than about the media, which is used a metaphor for American Power itself. It’s like the country music capital in Robert Altman’s NASHVILLE stands for Hollywood, Washington, indeed all of US. So, Jensen’s talk about courting the Arabs(richer than ever with oil price spikes) conveys the fear among Jews that the then still-ruling Wasp elites may pay less heed to Jews and lean more toward the Arabs. After all, US is all about money, and its Bill of Might is ‘money talks, bullshit walks’. Looking back, Jewish fear of Arab money was exaggerated and unfounded, but things did look different back then.

    Another thing. Jensen(Ned Beatty)’s speech isn’t about submitting to the Arabs. Rather, it’s about courting and using them. He says plenty of US money has gone to Arab nations in oil purchases, so the US must find ways to make that money COME BACK to the US. Make Arabs invest their profits back in the US. While Arab money is sure to exert some influence on the US, it won’t it over. US media industries that receive Arab money will go easier on the Arabs(especially the Saudis), but Arab investors will also have to play ball. In a way, making other nations invest in the US is to gain control over them. US buys lots of things from China, but China buys US bonds. US sends China money for goods, but China re-sends the money to the US for investment. In some ways, one might argue China is taking over the US, but in another way, US gains control over China as Chinese wealth is tied to US financial policy.
    Jensen’s proposal isn’t about surrendering to the Arabs. Rather, it’s about a New World Order(dominated by Jews and Anglos) that allows all the world to invest in the US(just like the US invests in all the world). Besides, one advantage is the US can freeze foreign assets anytime. Jensen’s spiel is a variation of the Invade/Invite strategy. In order for the US to intrude into the affairs of the Arab/Muslim world, it must open itself to Arabs and Arab money. That way, the US can invade and meddle as ‘friends’ and ‘partners’ than as aliens and enemies. Also, if Arabs are to have influence in the US, they must also play ball by the American Way.

    Now, it would have been closer to the truth if NETWORK had mentioned Jewish Power along with Arab money, but its business angle isn’t really about Arab takeover of US media but about how the Power is always willing to cut deals in pay-to-play schemes. Still, Arab money would have been more anxiety-inducing to Jews back then because even Saudi Arabia, a close US ally, was often vocal in its support of the Palestinians. So, Chayefsky’s fears about Arab influence weren’t totally unwarranted.
    But today, Jews don’t fear Arab money at all. For one thing, most Arab money is now from Saudis and the Emirates. Saudi Arabia today is virtually an out-and-out ally of Israel, and its money-influence in the US is to vilify Iran, Syria, and Russia, which is fine from the Jewish perspective. But when NETWORK was made, the Shah was still in power, and Saudis weren’t in abject fear of a Shia behemoth. And Egypt had yet to strike a deal with Israel and was still ostensibly closer to the USSR. Shah of Iran as US puppet was good for Israel, but it also meant that the Sunni Arabs would direct more of their hostilities against Israel than against Iran. Shah was irreligious whereas Revolutionary Shia Iran took on the role as the True Leader of the Muslim World.

  134. @EliteCommInc.

    It grossed 23 million even behind Dog Day Afternoon and that behind All the President’s Men.

    DOG DAY AFTERNOON and NETWORK are like day and night, truth and false. Not that DOG DAY AFTERNOON is 10o% factual in conveying what REALLY happened with the robbery and its complications. Far from it(though PRINCE OF THE CITY is remarkably faithful to the source material, but then, maybe that accounted for its failure at the box office — people want more dramatic spice). At any rate, even if DDA deviates from certain facts of the actual case, it feels true as to the workings of human psychology, media’s role as reporter & sensationalist, mob mentality & mass hysteria, bumbling ways of local authority, rise & fall of 15 min of fame, tragi-comedy of alternative lifestyles, folk heroes being made & unmade, cold power of the state when push comes to shove, and the spirit of the times. Along with Brian De Palma’s CARRIE and ROCKY, it is very much a Bicentennial Movie. ROCKY says the dream is still alive, CARRIE says it’s a nightmare, and DOG DAY AFTERNOON portrays the American Myth of rebellion and reinvention as a circus. It goes further than ACE IN THE HOLE and A FACE IN THE CROWD in how so much of American History has been Buffalo-Billed.

    DDA and NETWORK touch on many of the same themes. They both have zany-mad characters at the center. Al Pacino’s Wortzik isn’t just a bandit out for loot but a homo-hero who needs cash to finance freako surgery for his homo-tranny ‘wife’; it was for ‘love’. As the robbery goes badly, he goes in the flaming mode of the urban folk hero. The 60s are over, but bit of the ‘radical’ spirit is lingers in the air as hang-over. The dream is over, but the craving lingers, and different factions of the public project their own hopes and fears onto the robbers who are turned into kind of latter day Robin Hoods; at the very least, it makes for great TV.
    There was a strain of political thought in the 60s that said crime is really a form of social revolution. And long before that, outlaws had been romanticized one way or another. Many in the South regarded the Jesse James gang as deliverers of vengeful justice. Italians and Jews looked to mobsters as underworld heroes of their own tribes. Wortzik becomes not just the outlaw-as-hero but the posterboy of ‘gay liberation’.
    On the one hand, the media are shocked by the crime, but the networks also compete to fan the flames for ratings and possibly ideological sympathy with the homo bandit. We aren’t shown the machinations within corporate offices, but the on-location role of media in DDA says everything one needs to know(without all that speechifying in NETWORK) about exploiting violence and terror for ratings. Action speaks louder than words, and what the media actually DO speaks volumes about what kind of people run the industry. One thing for sure, the nonstop coverage of Russia Collusion Hysteria spilled the beans on Jewish control of media and its pathological hatred for Russia and White Populism.


    Like Beale, Wortzik is a false hero, and yet, they both hint at the kernel of truth in the idea that one must be not just mad(as in angry) but mad(as in crazy) to touch upon the truth. Madness is both disturbing but illuminating in Andrei Tarkovsky’s STALKER, NOSTALGHIA, and THE SACRIFICE. The eccentric guide in STALKER, the protester in NOSTALGHIA, and the patriarch in THE SACRIFICE are delusional yet possess a kind of purity and ‘faith’ in their total commitment to the ‘truth’. The pop version of this would be Roy in CLOSE ENCOUNTERS. Something similar, between horror genre and art film, would be THE LAST WAVE by Peter Weir.

    Sanity and normality are preferable to insanity and abnormality, but as Michel Foucault and Ken Kesey noted, it’s never that simple. While the world can’t be understood by relativity, what is deemed as ‘normal’ and ‘sane’ depends on the prevailing myths, narratives, habits, customs, prejudices, taboos, and norms of a time and place. And for this reason, what is often deemed as ‘sane’ and ‘normal’ may be so only in relative terms to the social order at hand. Take our own world where homo banners festoon churches. Where the official science says that a Man who says he’s a ‘woman’ is indeed a woman, and that his penis, the male organ, is actually a ‘female penis’. The insane has been made ‘sane’, and so many people believe this. 80% of Americans support ‘gay marriage’, an idea that would have been considered CRAZY not that long ago. It was ‘normal’ for the media to push the obviously bogus Russia Collusion Hoax. Blacks commit the most crime, but the Narrative has KKKops hunting down innocent black angels.

    Now, there is indeed a Natural Normality and Real Sanity. While foot-binding was once the social norm in China, it was never a Natural Norm. Women’s feet do not NATURALLY deform themselves that way. To the extent possible, people should acknowledge and follow natural norms. Tattoos and piercings are not natural norms. Those are ‘social norms’ of a deranged and degenerate society. (We need a ‘regenerate’ society.) Now, natural norms need to be balanced. When there is no nature and/or tough lessons/forces to balance natural norms, they must be done artificially. (It’s like humans must intervene to reduce the population of deer and rabbits in a forest without natural predators.) In nature, in which humans evolved, food was relatively scarce and people were engaged in physical activities. So, people ate but they also remained slim and healthy. But in a mechanized social order with plenty of food(and lots of junk food), the natural norm of having a big appetite isn’t balanced by natural compulsion toward physical activity. Therefore, people must make time to exercise or eat less. Clothes also seem to be part of the natural norm. Animals have protective covering in the form of fur, shells, scales, feather, and etc. Humans as advanced apes that have lost their fur must make clothing as artificial fur/feather/scale/shell. Humans do have skin, but it’s pretty thin, unlike tough hides of pigs and elephants. Also, as it’s natural for animals to seek mates by physical display, it’s natural for humans to dress attractively. And yet, the norms of sexual attraction and pleasure must also be restrained artificially because humans live in a much safer environment. There used to be diseases and angry patriarchs(and family members) who kept people more sober about sexual choices. But now, with antibiotics, abortion, contraceptives, and permissive mores of a hedonistic society, people can act worse than animals sexually and live on to keep acting like gross pigs… like this ‘Mary Church’ creature. When there are no longer natural external forces to limit one’s natural internal drives, one must artificially construct those limits. Otherwise, society spirals into piggishness.

    Sanity, like normality, has its natural form and social form. After all, even in a culturally insane society like the US where 80% are loonily for ‘gay marriage’, the fact remains most people are naturally sane. So, how can so many naturally sane people fall for something so insane? This is where we stumble upon the paradox of how the naturally normal and sane can be blind to the lunacy around them whereas the naturally abnormal and insane may actually have, at least to a degree, a clearer grasp of the truth.
    What is natural for humans is to want to be part of a community, to belong, to be liked, to be approved by the power, to feel confirmed and accepted. This psychological and emotional need is so powerful that most people don’t ask, “Is it true, is it false?” Their main psychological urge is to feel, “Do I have the right thoughts, right attitudes, the right values to be considered and accepted by the prevailing norms of society?” They are less into “What I think” than “what others think of me”. While the West may be more individualist and independent-minded than the East, the independent mindset belongs to a small minority of white folks. Then, the real difference between West and East is less about qualities than percentages. It’s not a case of individualist/independent vs communal/collective but 5% individualist in the West vs 1% individualist in the East. So, the vast majority of people in the West are conformist and approval-conscious just like those in the East. Still, there is a slightly larger number of individualists in the West that sometimes made for a critical mass necessary for innovation and breakthroughs, and the achievements of this small minority created the impression that All of the West is about individuality and independence.

    Of course, the cult of individualism has so many people in the West fooled that they are ‘different’, ‘radical’,’rebellious’, and/or ‘subversive’. But for MOST PEOPLE, the terms of ‘defiance’ must be defined by others. Even as ‘rebels’, most people only ape the promoted mode of approved rebellion. So, most hippies were just imitating the Hippie image. So, most punks were just imitating punk fashion. Heavy Metal culture has all these metal-heads. Pussy March was about all these women wearing the same kind of hats and saying the same kind of things. ‘Resistance’ has been conformity. Mao Zedong said, ‘To Rebel Is Justified’, but all those Red Guard minions had to be told how to ‘rebel’ and what to ‘rebel’ against. If they were true rebels, they would have called out on Mao and his ridiculous cult, but instead, their every act of ‘rebellion’ was in obeisance to the Great Helmsman.

    But then, even defiant individuals feel a need to conform to and be confirmed ultimately by SOMETHING. E Michael Jones, Nick Fuentes, Kevin Michael Grace, Roosh, and Patrick Buchanan have been bolder than most in speaking truth to Power, but they are committed to Catholic Dogma and deny the obvious truth of evolution. Mind abhors absolute independence. Generally, even the defiant want to feel they are defying false gods in the name of the true god. A man who defies all gods as false gods ends up feeling too lonely as his universe would be an absurd and meaningless one.

    Anyway, if sanity and normality mean craving for social acceptance and approval, it makes sense why so many sane and normal people are such useless cucks to the dominant power. Whether it’s goons in the deep state, hacks in local government, or kids in a high school club, most want to be accepted and liked. As they don’t have the means to create their own norms and standards, they succumb and submit to Norms established by the Power. Also, the Power is pretty clever in devising and encouraging approved forms of ‘rebellion’ and ‘defiance’ so as to fool the minions and cucks into believing they are ‘free’. You got an ass tattoo? You’re truly an ‘individualist’. You got green hair? You go girl, that is ’empowerment’. Of course, such idiocy poses no threat to the oligarchy and deep state, which is the very reason why the Power markets and promotes all these false ‘rebellions’ as ’empowerment’ and ‘liberation’.

    In contrast, people who are naturally abnormal and/or insane are often less sensitive of what others think. Though their genuine insanity and/or abnormality cloud their perception and judgement(as with the eccentrics of Tarkovsky’s movies), their relative immunity to social pressure and communal limits(or terms of services) makes them push further and veer off course to think against the grain. Like mutations, most abnormal and/or insane modes of thoughts/perception have no value or are harmful, but there are exceptions.
    Most such people are a danger to society(and to themselves), but they have the ‘radical will’ to break through to the other side. Just like the great artist is usually someone who is psychologically perched between sanity and insanity, between dream consciousness and waking consciousness, it could be that the great prophets and world-shakers have minds somewhere between sanity and insanity. Insane enough to push beyond official norms without concern for what others think BUT sane enough to rationally strategize for power and be a leader of men. Alexander the Great, Jesus, Muhammad, Marx, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao fit this description. Hitler especially was such a bundle of madness and rational calculation. Stalin had the pathology of a megalomaniac and the patience of a workaholic bureaucrat. And the anti-hero of COOL HAND LUKE is called a ‘world-shaker’. He revels in his defiance even if for no discernible reason.

    Anyway, what especially distinguishes DOG DAY AFTERNOON from NETWORK is its palpable sense of reality going off in so many directions. The various characters of DDA have their own agendas, stories, and egos, but reality is bigger and ahead of any of them, all of them. Reality is bigger than any personal take on the world. There is no formula that can encompass and explain everything. The world is not a jigsaw puzzle where everything falls into place under the right gaze and fingers. The world is a chaos theory in practice. Thus, there is a sense of reality that is larger, louder, deeper, and richer than any possible formulation. It’s a world that doesn’t conform to script.

    In contrast, NETWORK, though cinema, is the product of someone who developed his skills in Theater. Everything feels scripted. Everyone is a type, even a cartoon. And everyone is part of a grand formula and spout off their lines like dummy-puppets. Just like Beale is reduced to being the mouthpiece of Jensen, everyone in the movie is little more Chayefsky’s sock-puppet in his grand scheme of things. As such, what might have worked on stage doesn’t work on the screen. The stage is better suited to the reduction of human affairs and conditions into theorems. The openness of movie space engulfs too much reality to reduce people into pat stereotypes or mice in a maze, especially if the movie claims to tell it like is about the crazy messy world. Take the black radicals. They are not characters but mere props to drive home a point.

  135. Anonymous[156] • Disclaimer says:
    @Priss Factor

    That’s because Al Jazeera is a CIA front operation.

  136. “DOG DAY AFTERNOON and NETWORK are like day and night, truth and false. Not that DOG DAY AFTERNOON is 10o% factual in conveying what REALLY happened with the robbery and its complications. Far from it(though PRINCE OF THE CITY is remarkably faithful to the source material, but then, maybe that accounted for its failure at the box office — people want more dramatic spice).”

    Excuse the delay. And while I am not looking for a battle on tastes in films, I have not the slightest clue what your explicative is intended to do. I just noted the box office grosses which by comparison to films of that period, including other films by both men in question was considerably lower. The reason that Network had value is that for most people TV was just coming out of its experimental phase. It was a brand new form of human communication for a good part of the seventies, programming was still live. It was television that most impacted the psyche of the US population regarding Vietnam — whether it was Bob Hope specials or footage of fire fights with Dan Rather.

    What network argued was that regardless of the seeming friendly usefulness of TV as a harbinger of fun, ill and information — at the end of the day — t was about money. In that sense the movie is a populist jolt — that was for its day. It did not resonate as a populist film in that it awakened or appealed to a popular shift in power — here you and agree, I think, that it’s role did wake u the masses – that ending is pretty dark territory — but during that period in which Watergate, Vietnam, CIA revelations were front page news — the dark sense of forces a foot was a popular theme for the industry of entertainment, just prior in one seen tear period three hopeful voices (so perceived) were killed in very public environments — conspiracies abounded — The film existed in that arena – hardly populist as the term is understood.

    It was an eye opening period because US citizens were waking up to a new reality, that they could control all events — reinforced by the oil embargo.

    I am not making comparisons of the films in question, just looking at box office receipts as a measure of — populist appeal. I think it was too dark.

    Now I could go down the list and respond in kind to a to the films you reference. But I prefer to stay closer to home on the matter and have wandered afield enough.


    I can’t stand Dog Day Afternoon — and chagrin its appeal at any level. A couple of psychologically messed up men, hold up a bank — a true lie story — the appeal here is the outlandish reality and the great performances — and unlike Network — it does nothing to squash the participation by the public expressing its cynicism for the the system


    It’s an appeal to the outlandish —- however true. And includes gender reassignment to boot — voyeurism.

    In my view, Network is far more insightful expose of the human Psyche’. Social value: everyone is impacted by the power of TV and practically no one is engaged in robbing banks for profit, muchless love and changing their bodies to from male to female.

    Laugh – I strayed.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  137. ‘Trevor Lynch’ seems quite fascinated with the theme of prophetism, though his ‘Aryan’ biases prefer the hero(the self-sacrificing man of action) over the prophet who, with god-complex, claims to have figured it all out.
    The hero is essentially physical, and that means he must be hale and healthy to fulfill his adventure and quest. The prophet is a man of the mind and can be old, ugly, wizened, and unkempt. Greeks loved heroes above all, Jews revered prophets. It’s telling that ‘Trevor Lynch’ likes WISE BLOOD and AD ASTRA. The former is about a would-be-prophet as lunatic, and in AD ASTRA, the son as hero goes to save his father, the false prophet. Hero > Prophet.

  138. @EliteCommInc.

    I have not the slightest clue what your explicative is intended to do.

    I just used it as an excuse to spout off on DOG DAY AFTERNOON.

    I can’t stand Dog Day Afternoon — and chagrin its appeal at any level. A couple of psychologically messed up men, hold up a bank

    I loathe just about everyone in DDA. I agree that it’s about losers, lunatics, and clowns. But it’s true to life and of the cross-section of urban America at the period. It’d make an interesting double bill with CRUISING(dir. William Friedkin), the other Al Pacino film that probes the world of alternative lifestyles. Though I’d rather watch movies about the kind of characters I prefer, it’s a testament to a movie’s excellence when it makes detestable characters interesting. Even if sympathy is out of the question, DDA is superb as a work of empathy. Even truer of PRINCE OF THE CITY that humanizes all those deeply flawed characters in law and crime.

    Network is far more insightful expose of the human Psyche’.

    I prefer the raw meat of DDA over the processed sausage of NETWORK where all the thinking is done for us. From start to finish, we know every scene of NETWORK is part of a larger message, a dissertation. In contrast, DDA makes us think for ourselves. As it lurches from crime story to comedy to cat-and-mouse game to drama to absurdity to tragedy to just plain reality, it’s like a bumper car ride with truth. The clashing emotions eventually make us question our earlier responses.

    I first watched it second-run in double bill with THE ENFORCER, which played first. More people showed up for DDA, and the range of audience responses was informative. It went from cheers for the outcast anti-heroes to sour acceptance of their fates and sad relief that the whole circus could only end that way. Throughout the movie, we realize why we root for rebels and outlaws. They got the balls to do what most of us don’t. It’s why we are drawn to gangster movies. They don’t take lame 9 to 5 jobs but do as they like, like in GOODFELLAS and stupid SOPRANOS. Their motto is, “We are ‘bad’ as hell and we do as we damn like.” This side of us views authority figures as The Man, the Tyranny, the Party Pooper that stands against the Animal House anarchist in each of us that cries out for liberation via the Golden Calf: “Go Away, Moses.” This was very much the appeal of the 60s Counterculture Narrative. But DDA also shows why we need The Man. As fun as the bank robber caper is in the early part of the movie, there’s no getting around the fact that these outlaws pose a threat to people like you and me. And despite all our folkloric thumbing at the nose at The Man, it is He who puts things back in order when things fall apart. In that sense, DDA is a counter-counterculture movie. It lures us with the bait of counterculture conceits but reels us in with the line of back-to-reality. In that senses, as different as it was from THE ENFORCER, it has something in common with law-and-order movies of the era. Indeed, the elder FBI agent who finally brings the farce to an end is like an old Henry Fonda character. Lumet’s first feature film was 12 ANGRY MEN with Henry Fonda as a liberal on a jury, and its message was the over-eagerness of the legal system to convict suspects. In contrast, the Fonda-like character of DDA is a stern(and even ruthless) man of order who acts as one of the few adults in the room. (Sadly, recent revelations have shown that the FBI is now run by clowns.)

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  139. “I just used it as an excuse to spout off on DOG DAY AFTERNOON.’

    laughing. Noted.


  140. Anonymous[156] • Disclaimer says:
    @Priss Factor

    Re. DDA: how is robbing a bank to finance a sex change operation for your tranny boyfriend relevant to any kind of bold, outlaw mythos or principled opposition to illegitimate authority? For that matter, how is it indicative of urban America at any time in recent memory? Sounds like another example of a Jewish artist projecting his problems onto the larger society.

  141. how is robbing a bank to finance a sex change operation for your tranny boyfriend relevant to any kind of bold, outlaw mythos or principled opposition to illegitimate authority?

    Don’t be a dammy. Different times and places idolize different figures. NY in the 70s was the center of alternative lifestyles and underground scenes. So, to THOSE people, the freako in DDA could seem ‘heroic’. There was a time in the South when many admired the KKK. Today, even most Southerners are afraid of any association with the Klan.

    Also, the movie shows how the character goes from folk ‘hero’ to a desperate rat trying to save his own skin. The initial excitement is soon deflated, and the very people who cheered him jeered him. Mob mentality.

  142. @Priss Factor

    al Jazeera was set up by the UK’s BBC back in the day. These days the BBC is known as the British Bullshitting Corporation after former PM David Cameron installed his college friend who parachuted all of his own people into the institution.

  143. I’ll be the first to say it . . . maybe Mr. Lynch is on to something. Said with a good deal of caution . . . It will be interesting to see if the system is early stages of a serious loss of credibility.

  144. Dube says:

    In the context of a TV network, a name like Max Schumacher sounds Jewish, but William Holden was not Jewish and neither is his portrayal of Schumacher.

    I think I recall that as the script and performance have it, Max Schumacher, while opening the illicit affair with Diana Christensen, lets slip aloud to himself: “Schlemiel, what are you getting into?”

    • Replies: @Trevor Lynch
  145. @Dube

    He says “Schumck, what are you getting into.”

    In America today, however, “schmuck” is a very widespread Yiddishism, so it doesn’t really prove Max is a Jew.

    Now “schlemiel” would be more likely, “schlimazel” even more so. After all, Max didn’t have Laverne and Shirley teaching them Yiddish words when they were little kids.

    • Replies: @Trevor Lynch
  146. Lurker says:

    Yes, he means Greg Johnson.

    Disclaimer: I’ve no idea if TL and GJ are one and the same.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Trevor Lynch Comments via RSS
Talk TV sensationalists and axe-grinding ideologues have fallen for a myth of immigrant lawlessness.
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
How America was neoconned into World War IV