Film Review: Network - 50th Anniversary

  "Network"

   *** 1\2 (out of ****)

Sidney Lumet's "Network" (1976) - which is celebrating its 50th anniversary - has not only remained relevant all of these decades later, it actually seems prescient, putting it in a class with other films such as "A Face in the Crowd" (1957) and the more modern "Game Change" (2012).

With a script by Paddy Chayefsky - a three time Academy Award winning writer and a noted playwright - the film is a deeply cynical look at American media and the ways in which it manipulates the American public - "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to to take it anymore!" It is almost too perfect a coincidence that Oxford University's 2025 Word of the Year was rage bait - content deliberately meant to provoke anger or outrage.

Consider a Pew Research Center survey conducted in October 2025 that found that 42% of  Americans that frequently watch the news feel angry. An additional 39% feel sad or scared and only 14% feel hopeful. In a separate poll done by Gallop in 2025, 70% of respondents reported having "not very much" or no confidence at all in the media. The Partnership for Public Service found 47% of  Americans do not trust the government, in 2025.

This is the exact opposite of what  Americans were feeling back in 1976, when 72% of  Americans trusted the media. It has been said that the "most trusted man in America" during this time was evening news anchor  Walter Cronkite. However a new trend was also taking place at this time. It became commonly known as "supermarket journalism". This era saw the rise of publications such as The National Enquirer, Star, and Globe. Their concentration on Hollywood gossip and crime began to influence the mainstream media. The decade also saw the rise of corporate interest taking control of news divisions.

Nineteen seventy-six was the year of the Bicentennial. After the events of Vietnam, Watergate, and President Ford's decision to pardon his predecessor, Americans were losing faith in their government. In an effort to "heal the nation" - as Ford put it - the Bicentennial would provide an opportunity for Americans to come together and celebrate. Chayefsky and "Network" capture this anger and sense of hopelessness by channeling it through the film's most famous line - "I'm as mad as hell". But what is interesting about that line and the structure of "Network" is that we get the rebuttal first before hearing what it is reacting to. 

But that's exactly how today's social media and rage baiting works. Keep your audience "engaged" and "mad as hell" without exactly explaining to them why they are mad, who they should be mad at, and the ways in which systems work. The important thing is to feed and maintain the anger. What exactly aren't they taking anymore? And from whom aren't they taking it from? All that "mad as hell" line really is, is what it appears to be. People screaming out into the void. They have some fuzzy understanding about what they are mad at. In 1976 it was Vietnam, Nixon, and Watergate but what exactly could they do about it? Yes, you were against war but who do you blame for it? The President? Presidents changed but the war continued, so clearly that wasn't the answer. There was some other, more complex mechanism at work that expanded beyond an individual.

Therefore while some might assume "mad as hell" is centerpiece of "Network". I would disagree. The most important speech given in the film is delivered by Arthur Jensen (Ned Beatty), a corporate chairman, who preaches the word of globalization - "There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars." To me, "mad as hell" is a reaction to that philosophy only we hear it in reverse order. Jensen's speech verbalizes and gives specific articulation about what these people are "mad as hell" about. It is this mindset that "Network" is arguing against and what feels so relevant today. Is it the "greed is good" speech of the 1970s. The argument for the very thing in which Americans believe is wrong but is defended with such conviction, making the viewer believe they are hearing the Gospel truth on how the other side views the situation. The speech exemplifies what Chayefsky and Lumet were taking aim at.

Oddly, "Network" ends with a punchline that the film is about the first man to be killed for having lousy ratings. It was a concept critics of the day latched onto. In Pauline Kael's negative review of the film in the New Yorker, she writes this punchline is the "central gag" of the film and that it sounds like a good premise for a farce. I wouldn't call that last line a "central" gag of the film nor do I believe it is a proper summary of the film's critical insights and satire. It actually minimizes what the film is really about, which would have been equally as ironic and cynically humorous. It is the story of a newsman who gets fired for speaking the truth! 

That journalist is Howard Beale (Peter Finch), a respected veteran anchorman who has a breakdown at the end of an evening telecast and casually announces to viewers that he is going to blow his brains out on live television the following week. It creates a PR nightmare for the station and makes a joke out of Howard, as each competing news station leads their telecast with the Howard incident. Simultaneously we are introduced to a young female programmer, Diana Christensen (Faye Dunaway), who says the quiet part out loud during a meeting. The American public has turned sullen, she notes, due to the events of the day and "they want someone to articulate their rage for them." She urges her staff to find "angry shows". No more conventional programming, she asserts. Only counterculture and anti-establishment. This is the modern day equivalent of networks and news anchors defending themselves by saying they are simply giving the public what they want. Strangely, I have no missed calls from them asking for my input (I hate to spoil a perfectly good joke by explaining it but since some say sarcasm doesn't translate on the page, I am questioning, who represents "the public").

"Network" takes a turn when it implies Howard has been touched by divine providence and becomes a messenger of God's word. Howard informs us, he was chosen because he is on TV. That remark is within itself a biting commentary on the manipulation and power of television and its ability to create "manufactured prophets". Not all saw it that way back in 1976. Going back to Kael's review in the New Yorker, she faults Chayefsky for this by writing, "I'm not sure if he ever decided whether Howard Beale's epiphanies were the result of a nervous breakdown or were actually inspired by God." That kind of thinking is far too literal minded and misses the broader media critique. Kael, I believe, misinterprets Chayefsky's intention - musing if Beale was supposed to represent an idealize version of a "crusading mandarin journalist" - and goes on to write - within the same paragraph - that Finch was miscast. Regardless, it is after one of Howard's outburst on television that a light bulb goes off in Diana's head when she sees the show's rating the following day.

From that moment on "Network" kicks into high gear and exposes the ways in which a television network will attempt to profit by exploiting the genuine frustration of the American public by turning TV into a lively circus, as Howard Beale acts as something of a ringleader, now dubbed the "mad prophet of television", co-hosting a program featuring "truth tellers" and a psychic. His "mad as hell" grievance even becomes commercialized as the show's catchphrase, with the audience yelling it back at Howard, after he asks how do they feel. Almost like the well trained children in the peanut gallery on the Howdy Doody program, that would happily respond it's howdy doody time, when asked by Buffalo Bob what time is it?

The commercialize, profit driven mindset becomes a real seductress in "Network" with people willing to sell themselves out for the all mighty dollar. Howard Beale may be "mad as hell" but he'll happily take the network's paycheck. He could have refused the show but when informed of the concept, readily agrees. Or what about a left-wing activist, Laureen Hobbs (Marlene Warfield) who is courted by Diana to host her own show. Soon her Socialist group is arguing about production expenses and script approval. Everything is for sale. Even people's convictions. I'm reminded of the Groucho Marx quip, "these are my principles, if you don't like them, I have others."

Of all the characters in "Network", the two that are most representative of the profit mindset are Diana and Frank Hackett (Robert Duvall). It is the characterization of Diana that is most disappointing as it reinforces a stereotype that a successful woman must lose her femininity, as Diana explicitly states in one conversation with Max Schumacher (William  Holden) - who is supposed to represent the moral center, not the Beale character as Pauline Kael suggested. Diana reveals multiple men have referred to her as the worse lay they have ever had and that she has a masculine temperament when it comes to sex. All she is good at, she explains, is her job. By depicting the character this way, they are elevating Diana as one of the movie's villains. She is emotionally cold and demanding, which would give cause for some to unfortunately call her the "B" word.

Contrast that to the portrayal of Frank, who is a much more cut-throat character, firing people, such as Max, with such an intensity that it seems like an act of vengeance and not merely an issue of competency. Frank is the slimy character orchestrating behind the scenes to take over the network. Diana wants the financial reward of a hit television show, Frank wants company power and leadership. But when you add Arthur Jensen into the mix, you get three different motivations working together and sometimes against each other at the network. Jensen, to Frank and Diana's surprise, is less interested in ratings and more so in the manipulation and brainwashing Howard can deliver to his audience to explain Jensen's worldview. Having someone preach the gospel of corporatization, conditioning an audience to understand that messaging, is worth more than a number one rated program.  

One of the great visuals in "Network" is the conversation between Jensen and Howard Beale. Lumet and cinematographer Owen Roizman don't simply film the scene by use of interesting camera angles or spatial framing - though they do that - they visualize Jensen's "gospel of corporatization" by transforming the boardroom into a cathedral. The lights are dimmed as Jensen is positioned at the head of the conference table. It implies he is standing at an alter. Stained glass illuminates behind him. He delivers his speech with the same fiery passion as that of a pastor warning his congregation against the gates of hell. And pay attention to Howard's reaction to Jensen's words. It mirrors his earlier experience with divine providence. Howard is having a "religious conversion".

Chayefsky creates tension in "Network" by having the philosophies of Diana, Frank, and Jensen collide against Max. Max is an old-time news man. He worked with giants in the industry, like Edward R. Murrow. But that means practically nothing to the new faces moving in. That was yesterday, this is today. And today is about making money. Max wants the newsroom to have integrity but as Diana points out to him, the evening news covers sensational topics as well. All Max has now are his stories - we hear him tell the same story twice and both times it is told with equal conviction. There is also an element of longing for youth in Max and you can even make an argument that he represents masculine pride. Some critics have interpreted his romantic involvement with Diana as humanity versus the machine. But it can also represent youth versus age. Unfortunately, I find the scenes between these two to be the film's weakest. And that is primarily due to their dialogue. Their breakup scene was routinely criticized by critics in 1976. In his New York Times review, critic Vincent Canby described the scene as having a "dopey sentimentality that belongs in another movie." 

However, the film had its defenders as well. Chicago Sun-Times critic, Roger Ebert, awarded the film four stars and placed it among the best films of the year, as did his television co-host, Chicago Tribune movie critic, Gene Siskel. It won ten Academy Award nominations, eventually winning four of them, including for best supporting actor (Finch) and best screenplay (Chayefsky).

Interestingly, many critics and audiences - even those that admire the film - describe "Network" as a satire on media but Lumet and Chayefsky often stated the film was not a satire but rather "reportage". They believed "Network" was an honest depiction of what television and news media had become. In an interview from 2006, Lumet stated Chayefsky wanted him to direct his script because Chayefsky knew Lumet would understand "Network" wasn't a satire. Looking back on the film 50 years later, it feels like a natural progression to where we are today and hardly seems as outrageous as audiences in 1976 may have viewed it, to which Kael is a perfect example.

It is also not difficult to see the influence "Network" may have had on following films such as Martin  Scorsese's "The King of Comedy" (1982) or even David Cronenberg's "Videodrome" (1983), both of which were harsh critiques on the power of the television medium, celebrity, and viewers obsession. The difference is however those films and subsequent others, lean into the satire whereas "Network" has moments played straight. William Holden's performance is a perfect example. That is a real performance. A believable character.

Lumet, who never won a best director Oscar, would receive his second to last nomination in the category for "Network" but Lumet would continue to make films about lies and manipulation, ethics, and justice - "The Verdict" (1982), "Prince of the City" (1981), "Daniel" (1983) and "Deathtrap" (1982). "Network" easily ranks among Lumet's finest films.

Whether viewed as a satire or an honest exposè on the downward spirial of news media, "Network" remains a sharp and observant film. It has lost none of its edge these 50 years later, serving as a warning of what was to come. Packed with emotinally powerful performances, "Network" endures as one of the great films of the 1970s.