The Hot Blog

Agreed. Network is one of a kind. Though its plot is moved forward by dialogue it's not stagy. There are too many characters in too many locations to logitically make it work.

If he does pull it off, he better damn sure have the Holden/Dunaway sex scene. It's a crucial sequence for the development of both characters.

I'm sure Faye Dunaway is available...

As live television, it'll be so ephemeral that, like FAIL SAFE, we'll have forgotten it within a week of its being broadcast. The media maelstrom leading up to its air date will likely be acrimonious (lots of free publicity from the Falafaler), but it'll be the proverbial heave of the mountains and out scurries a mouse.

Or maybe not. I'm surprised GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK hasn't generated more conservative teeth gnashing.

Still, I'm so in love with what Clooney's doing aesthetically that I'll probably be able to enjoy this production on its own limited merits. If it were a proper film production, I'd have a real problem with it.

^ That's true. An all-out remake would be far more offensive than a live TV experiment.

I dunno.....if doing this as a live TV show can bring the "message" to viewers too stupid to get the original film, I think it's worth it. I also thought Clooney was spot-on with his comparisons between what was predicted in the film and what has happened with ther world and with mass media.

ALOT of people still don't get it. Will a live TV version of the film help them get it? Who knows. I think Clooney's show will serve as a kind of side order to the original film.

To me, NETWORK is the greatest film of the 1970s, and, David, if almost anyone else were doing it, I would share your anxiety. But this is the guy who just went out a limb to make a black-and-white movie about a man and time almost no one remembers or cares about, so his sincerity is unquestioned. And since NETWORK is ABOUT live television, there's something sort of appropriate about doing it as a live broadcast. Don't forget: both Lumet and Chayefsky began in live TV drama, and NETWORK would undoubtedly have been a "Playhouse 90" or "Studio One" had it been 1956 and not 1976. So I'm afraid I'm going to disagree with you and say I look forward to it.

Did I just read David Poland blasting a piece of art before even seeing it?

Come on, you know better than that. Besides the film is only truly sacred to we hardcore cinema types. Clooney's not exactly stepping on a pop culture monument here and, if anything, could usher in a new audience for the classic.

This idea?

Terrible.

I'm really surprised that DP and others aren't seeing the difference between a theatrically released flat-out remake and a television film. It's clear that Clooney does not wish to disrespect Chayefsky or Lumet, supplant or stand side by side next to the original. But apparently he feels so strongly about the message and how terribly relevant is to the world of entertainment we live with now, this is the best way to share it.

I applaud him for doing another live television film in the first place (it's a lot harder to pull off than SNL, for example), and for taking his criticism right to the source--the networks. It would seem a bit condescending for Hollywood to point the finger at televsion, not to mention hypocritical. You also have to give props to Moonves for airing what will be partially self-indicting (granted after the Rather incident they are trying to look objective and responsible).

There are so many remakes done for the wrong reasons, and by the wrong people. I think taking a step back and considering all the factors will render the headline less shocking, and more appealing.

If anyone thinks Clooney isn't doing this as an attempt to skewer O'Reilly and Fox News, you're highly mistaken. He can talk all this shit about reality TV, but the truth of his motivation is in his line about the anchor being more important than the news.

Moonves and others have compared O'Reilly's angry populist approach to Network on several ocassions, so I don't think it's hard to see two uber-liberal guys viewing a live TV version of Network as cute form of mockery.

It's a good pairing, by the way. Moonves is a guy of limited imagination and Clooney is about as one-note of a talent that's ever existed. Together, they should make some really unecessary "content" for Viacom.

I'm thinking acting, writing and directing are worth a few notes. And your talent is what, Martin?

George Clooney has more talent and brain cells than Bill O'Reilly could ever dream of. Who cares if he skewers a thug like O'Reilly? He deserves it.

George Clooney has more talent than Stella's Boy can ever imagine having.

That's a weird compliment. I hear Quentin Tarantino is also more talented than DarthZorro@yahoo.com

I consider Clooney to be an extremely talented guy, so thank you joe. Nicest thing you've ever said to me. I appreciate it.

Clooney has four, maybe five parts to his name that are not Clooney-playing-Clooney roles. He's done a wonderful job of becoming the male version of Julia Roberts. Where's the period roles? Where's the attempts at non-American characters? For Syriana, he shaved a piece of his head, put on thirty pounds and press whores want to treat him like he's Lon Chaney.

This is not about his politics nor any kind of support for O'Reilly. I separate one's beliefs from their work quite easily. It's when they decide to blend the two that it has to be taken into consideration. Clooney has a mad-on for O'Reilly, pure and simple. Moonves and CBS have been clobbered left and right by FNC and Newscorp. What other logical motivation is there to remake one of the *best films ever made*. I think Poland's approach is much more creative, respectful and interesting than another remake.

Looking at his record, his best talent seems to be picking good books to adapt and hooking up with solid directors. That's smart business, not creativity. Maybe Good Night, and Good Luck is the turnaround for this guy. I actually hope so.

And Lazarus - if you actually understood the writing process, you'd never have the audacity to list it as one of Clooney's talents. He wasn't slaving over a keyboard for GNGL...I thought Damon and Affleck would have cleared up any remaining misconceptions about giving credit where credit is due.

As an actor, I really can't stand Clooney. However, as a director and producer, I've been really impressed (moreso than I'd even like to admit). As a diehard fan of Confessions of a Dangerous Mind and someone who really enjoyed the live tv version of Failsafe, I applaud his choice in projects and his take on those projects.

By the time I saw Network, it felt incredibly dated, so I'm interested to see what a version updated for current media will look like. And as a tv PLAY, it'll exist as an event only, not something to exist as a historical document. So I plan to enjoy it quite a bit for what it is.

Now the real question - who is going to be in it?

If Network wa sdated they wouldn't be trying to redo it. It's a classic story.

GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK is indeed a period role, and Clooney's superb in a low-key, non-"star" performance. As for non-American roles, I prefer he not try to attempt something that wouldn't be his forte, as opposed to John Malkovich, who keeps taking period/European roles and destroying them with that flat Illinois accent of his. (And let's not forget John Wayne in THE CONQUEROR. Oy. Some folks should just not leave the country.)

Clooney will be William Holden. Matt Damon as Peter Finch and Julia Roberts in the Dunaway role.

Clooney's comments in this piece seem to tie-in nicely.

Here it is. Apoligies.

http://www.thisislondon.com/films/articles/20563131?source=Evening%20Standard

Clooney acts as himself. Have you ever seen him stretch? Even in the slightest?

Have to agree. I like what Wells had to say about it in his "Wired" section. If you're not going to up the thematic anty, why remake a classic for no sake other than to further showcase your love and devotion to journalism?

This project makes no sense.

The question really is what projects are sacred? Because theoretically they can remake Citizen Kane, The Godfather, etc. What can and can't be remade?

I don't like remakes. I don't mind reimagining. Don't keep it the same.

Anything that will make dough they'll remake. Sad to see. What happend to "art"?

"Clooney has four, maybe five parts to his name that are not Clooney-playing-Clooney roles. He's done a wonderful job of becoming the male version of Julia Roberts. Where's the period roles? Where's the attempts at non-American characters?"

Well, if that's how you judge an actor then you must be extremely picky. An actor doesn't need to do period films with an accent to be a good actor. And in case you forgot, Julia Roberts is a fine actress (Erin Brockovich, Closer, Pretty Woman, Steel Magnolias, Mystic Pizza, My Best Friends Wedding...).

To paraphrase what I said about the Weinsteens one thread over.

It's not their fault they know what they're good at and do it.

If Clooney rocked up in a story set in 1700s Britain or something I think I'd rupture something laughing so hard.

You don't need to have range to be a great actor/star. Bogart, Gary Cooper, and Jimmy Stewart never played a lot of artsy accented period roles. And then there's the most limited range/biggest star of all time: John Wayne. They found their niches and did what they did best.
People are blindered if they think that only Merchant-Ivory type movies count as serious acting.

"Well, if that's how you judge an actor then you must be extremely picky. An actor doesn't need to do period films with an accent to be a good actor".

The issue here is if you seem them as actors or movie stars. Actors take parts that are not themselves. Stars take parts that fit a persona and that's all Clooney has done - and it's not like he doesn't have the clout to have chosen otherwise. As of late, Clooney's making noise about taking parts out of the box and I hope he sticks with that plan.

Step away from my "non-American/period actor" comment and consider this - if Clooney's such an actor, where's the theater company he funds? When's the last time he was on stage? Has he ever even been on stage? I give Ashley Judd all the credit in the world for walking away from the easy thrllers to attempt theater. That shows an interest in her profession. In return, I give Clooney credit for getting behind the lens because it forces more of himself into the final product. In the end, he'll probably contribute more as a producer than he ever could as an actor, simply because the guy is limited and knows it.

As for the old timers, - studio deals forced them, for the long haul of their careers, into whatever project the bosses wanted. The antithesis of this is Clooney and Roberts, who are free to choose whatever material they like. No one put a gun to George's head about Batman & Robin, One Fine Day, Peacemaker, etc...

Even John Wayne who really broke the star mold was still reliant on his director. The perfect example is Connery. He had less career control at his Bond peak, than he did each succesive decade. With today's stars, it's the exact opposite.

To Clooney's credit, the bad movies you mention there are all 7-8 years old and seem to have broken him of the habit.
You seem to be talking about a very particular sense of actors as thespians, which I don't feel like arguing about. True, Clooney has yet to do his Hamlet. I don't think there's much demand, or need, for that. I'd rather see Clooney in an Ocean's movie than revisit Ethan Hawke's Hamlet any day.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: