Edtv - Not 'the T-word'

It seems an unwritten rule in Hollywood that every few years two films get released that are basically identical, then one reigns supreme and is critically lauded and the other sinks without a trace - 'Armageddon' vs 'Deep Impact,' 'The Illusionist' vs 'The Prestige,' 'Volcano' vs 'Dante's Peak' and so on.  'Edtv' came out in 1999, only a year later than - the classic - Jim Carrey vehicle, 'The Truman Show.' I know technically 'Edtv' was 'late to the party,' but I'd wager that the two films were in development at the same time and 'The Truman Show' simply pipped Ed to the post.  Anyway, everyone loved 'The Truman Show' and 'Edtv' kind of felt like a poor man's rip-off.  Which is a shame, because it's actually quite enjoyable (and different enough to deserve at least a little bit of love!).

I'll try not to mention 'The Truman Show' any more than I have to when comparing 'Edtv,' but I will say that the premises are actually different enough to warrant being enjoyed separately. 'The Truman Show' is almost a bit of an alternate reality set in a dark, dystopian world whereas 'Edtv' is definitely of its time (and actually could also be made today and not be that different!).  A TV network decides the next 'big thing' in TV would simple be to follow an American 'everyman' around twenty-four hours a day for a month and just see where it goes.

The 'average Joe' (or 'Ed' to be precise) in question just so happens to be Matthew McConaughey, who spends his days playing pool with his brother (a criminally-underused Woody Harrelson) and working in a video rental store (remember those?!).  It doesn't sound like much in terms of 9must see TV,' but - naturally - events start to spiral out of control in his life and he begins to see what 'the dark side' of fame really is - as do we, the audience.

I always see the year 2000 as the one that 'defined' what we refer to as 'reality TV' ('Big Brother' began here in the UK) and 'Edtv' certainly fits into what we'd still call 'reality TV' (even if it doesn't contain any prompts for viewers to 'phone in' and determine the show's next move).  Perhaps that's why the film never became bigger than it was?  Because just one year before Davina McCall took over our small screens here in the UK, the prospect of something like 'Edtv' was too preposterous to be real.

I've watched 'Edtv' a fair few times now and enjoyed it every time.  I do see it as the film-makers trying to warn the audience about the dangers of fame and how it might not be everything it's promoted to live up to, plus - retrospectively - it's also a warning against how low TV can sink.  However, a parable's only interesting and not very demanding of re-watching, yet 'Edtv' is - and this is mainly down to the cast.  Of course it's Matthew McConaughey's baby.  He plays a loveable everyman just perfectly and we can't help but root for him, even when he makes mistakes (that we all probably would if thrust into the limelight so unexpectedly and deliberately without proper media training as to how to deal with it.

Because it's all about Matthew McConaughey the secondary characters are quite as well fleshed-out as they could be.  I've already mentioned how Woody Harrelson probably could have been given a bigger role.  He seems to have natural chemistry with McConaughey and yet seems to basically disappear for the second half of the movie.  Rob Reiner is - basically - the bad-guy and could have been used more, whereas Dennis Hopper only pops up for a couple of scenes here and there, which is a bit of a waste for such a talented actor.  Same goes for Martin Landau.  Jenna Elfman is the obligatory 'love interest' for Ed and - again - she's kind of side-lined for much of the film in favour of having her character develop - much of what happens to her you'll see coming a mile off.

If there is a surprise performance, it comes from Ellen DeGeneres as a long-suffering TV executive.  She's probably the character who we root for the most after Ed.  We see her conflict in working for a company that makes her promote people by destroying their lives for the enjoyment of the masses versus not wanting to be part of something so low-brow and insidious.

If I was going to offer a criticism it's that the ending is a little rushed and certain things seem to just work themselves out in order to wrap the film up in its allocated run-time.  But, that's a minor gripe.  Don't let people tell you that 'Edtv' is just a 'Truman Show' knock-off.  It's more than that.  Even with the - seemingly never ending - reality TV on our screens today, I can't ever see a 'Truman Show' style situation ever really happening. 'Edtv' on the other hand... well that's probably coming to a network near you very soon!  Oh, and if the fact that Elizabeth Hurley is in it puts you off, don't worry - she's not in it much and isn't that bad at all.

7/10 if I woke up on Groundhog Day and had to watch this again, I could live with that