The Movie in a Little Historical Context

Rating: Null/10 (9 February 2015)

Wow, I sat glued to the screen for two hours without a break. That doesn't happen often, but the movie was that good, even with a one-note plot, and no action or romance. Yes, it did bring back 60-year old memories, sometimes fond, sometimes not. First a few words on historical context.
In the summer of 1955, Revlon cosmetics experimented with a big money quiz show, not sure how it would work in prime network time. It was called the $64,000 Question. Up to that point, quiz shows, whether radio or new-fangled TV, offered only small amounts of prize money. So this was an unimaginable amount to offer. Not surprisingly, the show was an immediate hit, earning a permanent place on the CBS network. Viewers were clearly enthralled, especially when a delicate little Dr. Joyce Brothers showed off her expert knowledge of Boxing, of all things. Thus, it was possible for contestants to win not only big money, but become minor celebrities in the process, that is, if they caught the public's fancy.
Of course, network programming being a commercial enterprise, imitators soon followed, the most successful (I think) being Twenty-One. Unlike $64,000, it had the distinction of two contestants competing against one another from inside the famous isolation booths. There viewers could watch them sweat as they pondered their answers. The format was also a come-on since most everyone had played the simple card game of being the first to reach 21 in point count. I think this format had the most built-in drama of any other TV quiz show, which by 1956, were at least several.
The movie, of course, exposes the biggest scandal in quiz show history, which occurred in 1956-57 on Twenty-One. I was in high school at the time and never missed these shows. I think it's fair to say that practically all viewers believed the shows were honest—I know my family did. And that's even when quiz-whiz Herb Stemple missed probably the easiest question asked him, namely, who won Best Picture Oscar from just 2-years earlier. We all shouted "Marty" at the screen while he appeared terminally stumped, and we felt suddenly superior to this know-it-all. Likely, more discerning viewers suspected something fishy from that point on. But remember, this was the 1950's when, coming off a triumphal big war, most everyone still believed unquestioningly in authority. My friends and family certainly did. So when the rigged nature of Twenty-One was exposed in 1959, the public was generally shocked, especially as fair-haired boy Charles Van Doren was implicated. In fact, the big money quiz format was so discredited, it didn't revive for many decades.
The movie itself amounts to a narrative triumph. Skillfully scripted, acted, and produced. The contrast between the nerdy-looking Stemple and the aristocratic Van Doren is striking. So, in retrospect, it's not surprising that producers Barry and Enright would see real ratings potential in a good-looking guy with a well-known family name. Fiennes's smirking Van Doren comes across as a rather slimy character once he's been compromised. Still, that scene of him amid the outdoor intellectual gathering is one a commoner like me can only imagine. As a result, I can understand how he could be seduced into establishing a reputation separate from his illustrious father (Scofield). Then there's the blue-collar Stemple harrumphing around his cold-water flat, having trusted the producers to come through for him after he took the humiliating dive. At times he's almost a comedic figure in his thrashing about.
I guess my only reservation is with Morrow's casting as the bulldog investigator Jim Goodwin. To me, he doesn't project the kind of force necessary for untangling the shenanigans or tangling with stone walling network bigshots. But then, maybe he's intended to be a Peter Falk type Columbo with his disheveled appearance and mild manner. Be that as it may, the network honcho's are well cast and appropriately slippery as they seduce Stemple and Van Doren with prize money and promises of network jobs. Viewers can almost see their numbers-crunching brains in action. Tellingly, no woman is featured in the two hour runtime; and as an odd moment of curiosity, there's no indication whether Van Doren's successor Vivian Nearing was fed her answers or not.
Anyway, the movie's fascinating in what it shows about the corruptive potency of TV ratings and commercial sponsors, a risky marriage that nevertheless endures. Thanks Robert Redford for reviving this sorry episode for generations later than mine.