The fix is in and television are the fixers.Quiz Show is a thoroughly fascinating picture. Based on the true story of the rigging of the American hit game show "Twenty-One", and when America was captivated by the sharp and handsome intellectual faker Charles Van Doren over the schlubby savant Herb Stempel. Robert Redford meticulously brings back to life the art of the 1950's television game show. The glitz, the glamour, the product placements. Michael Ballhaus's cinematography takes your breath away, especially in the scene in which Stempel is forced to take the fall for Van Doren. Quite simply, one of the great scenes I've ever seen in film. Not to mention, John Turturro gives a performance for the ages.When the studio cameras are off and the congressional investigation begins, sadly, the film loses it's energy and edge and becomes a standard courtroom drama. But it must be stated, when this film gets you, you won't look away.

One of the most important parts of incorporating a book into a motion picture is holding a viewer's interest whilst providing enough detail to stay true to the book. "Quiz Show" does a very good job of doing so through smart casting, cinematographic techniques, and clever implementation of story writing techniques. While the slow pace and "filler" scenes stand as the marks against it, this classic movie is still worth a watch, especially if you are willing to appreciate the way the story is delivered.Beginning with the cast, Quiz Show stars John Turturro as Herbie Stempel and Ralph Fiennes as Charles Van Doren. I can say, without a doubt, Turturro's acting really shines when he plays inquisitive characters that are looking for some sort of truth. His role as agent Simmons in Transformers was his greatest role. Herbie Stempel's motivation to expose Charles in the movie even though his words hold little value is similar to agent Simmons, who was trying to prove the Decepticons were a threat to the Earth despite him being seen as nothing but a misguided investigator. Ralph Fiennes starred as Voldemort in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows as well as Amon Goeth in Schindler's List. Fiennes is known for charismatic characters that are malicious on the inside, and Charles Van Doren was definitely within his stronger characters. The way Van Doren hid his thirst for money through getting the public on his side and delivering a suspiciously well-worded speech in court when accused of taking dives for money shows that Fiennes was a great choice for portraying someone who looks clean but is internally plague by evil motivations.In terms of story writing, I believe this is where Quiz Show excels. The recreation of 1950's America through the obsession over class, materialism, and recognition really sets the stage for the quiz show era. One example is how Charles is driven to take dives for money even this practice is unethical. His thirst for money and fame corrupted him and made him rig the shows, showing how ethics stood below money and fame in importance. Social class also becomes a theme when Herbert's account of Charles actions in court was dismissed because he was a Brooklyn local and Jewish. The judge praised Charles' shady story because he was a Harvard professor while questioning Herbie's mental state simply because of who he was even though evidence clearly pointed to Charles being guilty. This shows how social class and reputation outweighed hard evidence back in the 50's as social acceptance basically governed the credibility of your word. The recurring themes of materialism, recognition, and social class paint a very clear picture of the situation the characters face, making the story all the more intriguing as you are introduced what life brings in this very special setting of the 1950's.When looking at the cinematography, I do believe that good use of angles and lighting often ignored as we are naturally drawn to things that are enhanced in such ways. Quiz Show's use of camera techniques and lighting is what really helps a viewer feel the emotion projected by a scene or situation. For example, the use of lighting and camera angles helped convey different feelings of tension when Charles was going to court, about to confess that Twenty One was rigged. The camera angled upwards at the judgmental jury as Charles delivers his confession is used to insert the viewer into his point of view. Having the impression that people are literally looking down upon you makes most people feel a sense of guilt and anticipation of judgment, which projects Charles' air of guilt and futility onto the viewer. The court's skylight was also pointed directly onto Charles as he delivered his confession. This method of lighting is used to divert focus to the subject of a situation, which creates a sense of tension as most people do not feel comfortable being in a spotlight; forced to speak knowing they will embarrass themselves. That lighting effect can really project tension and the viewer can easily empathize with Charles as most people have felt the feeling of being "in the spotlight" and forced to say something they do not wish to.The one let-down in the story writing is the use of scenes that did not serve any purpose in further developing the story. In short, there were some scenes that were just there to fill time. For example, there is a scene where Herbert just explains to his wife how he plans to expose Twenty-One after other scenes where he also explains that he wishes to expose Twenty-One. This example is one of a few where writer Paul Attanassio though it would make sense to continue hammering in already-established facts and events, when they are really just bloating the movie with extra scenes to compensate for a book that moves faster than a movie will allow. This movie did not have to be 2 hours long. I find this to be a recurring problem with lots of movies, as introducing "bloat" scenes seems to be a recurring practice in Hollywood films to write around a story too short to be deemed a motion picture on its own.Overall, Quiz Show is definitely worth a watch. There is such a great use of themes in the story's writing that is really aids your understanding of what situations the characters are put through. Cinematography and camera work are well-integrated and project feelings and emotions in very effective ways. The cast is also very interesting and knowing the actors really gives you a greater appreciation for the way it is directed. However, there are a few scenes that serve nothing to character or plot development and were evidently used to fill time. Overall, this movie definitely deserves the 8 stars I give it. It presents the dark reality of quiz shows in the 50's but in many intriguing ways.

The mere fact that the discovery of a TV quiz show as being "rigged" caused such a nationwide scandal in 1950s America is enough to speak volumes about the lost innocence of an era (a similar event today would barely raise an eyebrow). Robert Redford understands that, so he makes his points without hammering them across. "Quiz Show" is, above all, great entertainment: handsome production, terrific recreation of the period, attention to detail, pacey and unstuffy direction, and quite a bit of humor. Redford's handling of his subject is remarkably even-handed (with no clear-cut "good guys and bad guys"), and the acting is exceptional in every role, big or small (it's hard to choose a favorite performance). My biggest objection would have to be Ron Morrow's sometimes overdone accent - which is hardly a major complaint! *** out of 4.

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.