A conservative judge is appointed by the President to spearhead America's escalating war against drugs, only to discover that his teenage daughter is a crack addict. Two DEA agents protect an informant. A jailed drug baron's wife attempts to carry on the family business.
Benicio Del Toro,
An idealistic young lawyer working for a Congressional subcommittee in the late 1950s discovers that TV quiz shows are being fixed. His investigation focuses on two contestants on the show "Twenty-One": Herbert Stempel, a brash working-class Jew from Queens, and Charles Van Doren, the patrician scion of one of America's leading literary families. Based on a true story.Written by
Tim Horrigan <firstname.lastname@example.org>
No part of the game show cover up was against any law, and no one went to prison. Individuals were prosecuted for obstruction of justice and perjury for their part in covering it up. It led to massive changes in laws regarding contests. Most quiz shows were canceled, and the genre nearly died. One of the few to survive was a bowling show; the sport is difficult to fix on television. In the 1970s, a new generation of game shows used puzzles and word play rather than trivial knowledge. Limits restricted the length of a championship run and amount that could be won. See more »
Mark Van Doren mentions that he feels "like Leopold of Belgium, usurped by his son before his time." While true that Leopold abdicated the throne to his son, it was not because of any conspiracy or plotting from within his family, but because Leopold had become a very controversial figure after World War II and his decision to surrender to Nazi Germany in 1940. He spent six years in exile before requesting the Belgian Government to approve a law delegating royal powers to his son, Baudouin, then formally abdicated in 1951. See more »
NBC and Geritol were never implicated in the quiz show scandals. See more »
The network version of "Quiz Show" uses replacement footage in two places. They are:
In the scene where Dan is telling Herb that he has to take a dive, the line "Look, don't start believing your own bullshit, all right? You wouldn't know the name of Paul Revere's horse if he took a shit on your lawn!" is changed to "Look, don't start believing your own bull, all right? You wouldn't know the name of Paul Revere's horse if he took a nap on your lawn!"
When Herb is talking to Dan about getting a panel show, Herb's line "You get me that panel show, or I'm gonna bring you down with me, you lousy lyin' prick! You and Charles Van Fucking Doren!" is changed to "You get me that panel show, or I'm gonna bring you down with me, you lousy lyin' pig! You and Charles Van Friggin Doren!"
Although `Quiz Show' is entirely concerned with morality and the nature of moral choices, I can't think of a single moment when it isn't obvious whether or not a character is doing the right thing. There are no moral dilemmas whatever. And a good thing too - thorny ethical issues would only turn it into an episode of `Star Trek'. If you think a film needs to be confused about right and wrong in order to be interesting, watch `Quiz Show' and realise your error.
Here's most of the ethics in a nutshell: the star contestants of a popular quiz show are cheating, with the connivance of the producers, the sponsor, and the network. That they shouldn't be cheating is never in dispute. The interesting questions are: Why are they cheating? and, What is it like for them, and how do they maintain dignity, when they're found out? Of course, in an intelligent character study like this there are plenty of other questions. I won't ruin your pleasure by giving away any of the answers. The best scenes, probably, are the ones in which a character must admit to someone or some group of people that he has cheated. All these scenes are very good and each is handled in a different way. But they're just cherries in a rich fruitcake. `Quiz Show' is one of my personal favourites. It was nominated for Best Picture of 1994 - an unusually fertile year - although the award went instead to some big dumb propaganda piece.
49 of 65 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this