So what does it prove that he can recognize quotes from books? Even a monkey can memorize or recite or identify linguistic entities.
It would have been much more substantive if they had had a debate on literature.
Literature is about ideas not words. Words are just linguistic cues but they signify something more important.
That scene degraded any meaningfulness the movie may have earned up to that point.
Linguistic entities?? That phrase doesn't even make sense. You are trying too hard to sound smart and it just isn't working for you.
Hey FearNotMan, I would suggest that you read this link in order to educate yourself.
Oh, and remember, just because something doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
http://chs75.harvard.edu/first1kyears/linguisticentities.html
Thanks for the link on a method to study ancient Greek. Did you actually read the article? No where does it say its a synonym for a phrase or quote.
shareYou're welcome! Yes, I did read that article. I didn't understand everything that was laid out. I'm not a professional linguist. I did, however, take from the article exactly what I needed to (that which was within my capacity to comprehend). Clearly you gained nothing from it. Which is fine. I just have one question for you: is it true that ignorance is bliss?
share[deleted]
you are making yourself sound kind of stupid OP.... you are trying to make yourself sound smart...
the scene made perfect sense. The man assumed that Jamal knew nothing about literature. He was playing him at his own game. Maybe it doesn't make you smart or an artist, but that Professor had the attitude that it does, which is why Jamal was showing him up. He was showing that he had an answer to his questions
<i>Yeh world hai na world isme do tarah ke log hotey hai... </i>
His recognition of the quotes was just a quick way to show that Jamal was well-read and not just some knucklehead from the 'hood. I think fearnotman is correct. Get over yourself, rhino.
share"That scene degraded any meaningfulness the movie may have earned up to that point."
That's kind of harsh, isn't it?
Crawford is 'running the racist BS' like Forrester does earlier with Jamal. He isn't giving any kind of thought that Jamal is more than a basketball player with a 'free ride'. The fact that Jamal can even recongize the quotes hasn't crossed Crawford's mind. It implies he knows the authors and has read the books. What would be the reason for Jamal to just memorize the quotes without knowing the books? To impress the classmates at his old school?
It served the purpose.
You just have to be resigned-
You're crashing by design
I think the whole point was to show that he has an exceptional memory and is very well-read. I'm a graduate student in English, so I understand your complaint--studying great works of literature isn't about memorizing quotes--but I think the scene does do what it was intended to.
shareI agree with the OP. It reminded me of Good Will Hunting, where we just see equations being written by Matt Damon's character, and professors talking about how much of a genius he is.
There was no technical discussion of mathematics between any of the characters.
Nothing to make you wonder if a particular actor reads science journals in their spare time.
[deleted]
uh... ok. Um, I really don't know what to say, except I'm glad I could provide you with a laugh.
It's good that you can forgive the writers. Usually, I can too when I'm watching a movie like "Gunmen" or "Ballistic: Ecks vs. Severs." But in this case, I can't. I expected more from this movie. And this scene ruined the movie for me because of its superficiality and triviality. By that, I mean it essentially reduced the significance of their conflict to a literary pissing contest to see who could outdo who in identifying obscure quotes from books. The scene lowers the movie (in my opinion) at a pivotal point in the film.
It reminded me of a great scene from a great movie, "Quiz Show"- where the Van Dorens are sitting around proudly showing off their erudition by playing a game where one recites Shakespearean quotes and the other cites the work. This particular scene, though, was not intended to flatter but to expose.
[deleted]
Yours is still an incomprehensible piece of meaningless garbage.
shareYou're all missing the point of the scene. The professor is throwing out quotes from famous books to make his argument because he can't make his own. Jamal is naming the authors to show that he's onto him. It's the same scene as Good Will Hunting in the bar where he basically keeps saying "ya, I read that book too. Do you have any thoughts of your own in this matter?"
"are we gonna die?"
"yup"
Technically they aren't "out-duelling" each other at all. Keep in mind that Crawford is chosing ALL the quotes and Jamal is responding to each correctly.
The scene (as it's been mentioned) was based on assumption from Crawfords point of view. He had no idea how versed Jamal was in literature to be able to identify the author of every line he spoke. It just shows that Jamal read those books and many many more (to Crawfords surprise).
The real argument here should be how does a sixteen year old athlete find the time to read novels like "Bleak House"?
I'm an English major and I've been reading literature since I read "To Kill a Mockingbird" during Freshman English in high school.
But I also played sports in high school and hardly had time to read leisurely. I still did, but I wasn't reading a novel a day and I was lucky if I read a novel a week.
Even during the summers when I spent most of my time reading, I can admit that I hardly understood anything I was reading back then. Most of the books I read in high school I have reread and grasped much more than I ever could have while in high school.
this movie is terrible.
The scene was not meaningless, though. You're right that quoting doesn't prove anything, yet Crawford does so to impress his students and makes himself look big. By beating him at his own game, Jamal simply put him in place and humiliated him, which set the course for what Crawford would do to him later.
shareQuestion for Xman if he/(she?) is still around. Where you a child prodigy/genius? I had a friend in high school who had extra activities like choir and theatre but she was a voracious reader, also. She read faster than anyone I had ever met and had been reading books of this caliber for years. I've no doubt that the books I had trouble understanding in high school she had no problem with. She got a scholarship to Stanford, but chose to go to Oberlin to study music? Anyways, my point here is that Jamal's intelligence level was well above average, therefore I don't think it should be a stretch for the viewer to believe that he has been reading (and comprehending) for years.
shareRe: Recognizing Quotes From Books. WTF??!!!
by - macgirl66 on Fri Dec 18 2009 08:48:23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question for Xman if he/(she?) is still around. Where you a child prodigy/genius? I had a friend in high school who had extra activities like choir and theatre but she was a voracious reader, also. She read faster than anyone I had ever met and had been reading books of this caliber for years. I've no doubt that the books I had trouble understanding in high school she had no problem with. She got a scholarship to Stanford, but chose to go to Oberlin to study music? Anyways, my point here is that Jamal's intelligence level was well above average, therefore I don't think it should be a stretch for the viewer to believe that he has been reading (and comprehending) for years.
Hey Xman, I totally relate to what you say, especially about reading lit then vs. reading lit years later. I read in high school, but reading now (13 years later) adds so much depth and meaning to the experience. It's like night and day. I truly believe that literature's meaning is found in experience, life experience.
But to all else, I was just thinking that the scene is meaningless because we don't know if Jamal really understands what he's read. Any computer can spit out lines or syntactical arrangements of letters, but the meaning and understanding thereof... that's where he can show superiority to the professor. Through insight, understanding, and application of what he's read.
Just my thoughts.
An acomplished author thought enough of Jamal's intellect to mentor him. So I'd say it's implied that he's not just some student that memorizes text from a book. If anything the scene shows a weakness in the professor.
And I think others have more than provided reasons for the scene.
"The fact that Jamal can even recongize the quotes hasn't crossed Crawford's mind. It implies he knows the authors and has read the books. What would be the reason for Jamal to just memorize the quotes without knowing the books? To impress the classmates at his old school? "
The scene is there to show how little the Professor thought of Jamal. And How he was thought of as just another jock. The Professor uses the quotes to demean his students, so Jamal decided to play the Professors game. You said: "
that's where he can show superiority to the professor. Through insight, understanding, and application of what he's read." Sure he *could* have done that, but he just wanted to beat the Professor at his own game. And he showed "Through insight, understanding, and application of what he's read." through his own writing (the theme of the movie).
"the scene made perfect sense. The man assumed that Jamal knew nothing about literature. He was playing him at his own game. Maybe it doesn't make you smart or an artist, but that Professor had the attitude that it does, which is why Jamal was showing him up. He was showing that he had an answer to his questions"
The Professor is the one that thought memorizing quotes from books made you a smarter more intellectual person. Jamal read those same books because he was interested in the material, and desired to read them, it's not as if at his previous school he was assigned to read the books he was quoting. Also by showing Jamal as an aspiring writer, shows that his comprehension of those books goes beyond simple memorization.
"The professor is throwing out quotes from famous books to make his argument because he can't make his own. Jamal is naming the authors to show that he's onto him. It's the same scene as Good Will Hunting in the bar where he basically keeps saying "ya, I read that book too. Do you have any thoughts of your own in this matter?" "
"The scene was not meaningless, though. You're right that quoting doesn't prove anything, yet Crawford does so to impress his students and makes himself look big. By beating him at his own game, Jamal simply put him in place and humiliated him, which set the course for what Crawford would do to him later."
Back to what you said: "So what does it prove that he can recognize quotes from books?" Once again, the scene is there because the Professor didn't think Jamal was versed in anything but basketball. By even acknowleding he had not only read said books, but took enough away to remember their content shows he's not a simple dumb jock. How many others in that class of supposed gifted students were able to even recall the text the Professor was using.
It is trying to say something about and diminish the hot pretense of the professor and by someone knowing what he's saying and thus showing he's not that smart; but you can't really say anything using "quotes" as, while this happens a lot in art, it's stupid, the concept of using quotes. It's just a memory lark of a game.
If they wanted to have some fun with the professor's pretense, and negate the conceit that knowing the author of a quote or phrase from a book imbues one or something with astute meaning, have the student, say something really banal as a retort like: "As Dick Cheney once said 'the sky is blue!'"
Precisely! I had several friends, beginning at the JUNIOR High School level who were reading books like what Jamal was reading, and also read authors like Vonnegut (sp?). I read Vonnegut a couple of years ago in a writing course I was taking. This is in college. I am pretty smart, but I STILL had trouble with the book (and just downright HATED it), but my friends who were reading Slaughterhouse 5 back in Junior High and High School, for FUN, DID understand that book. So I have no doubt that there are those who are in grade school and CAN not only read, but comprehend what they are reading. Just because YOU don't understand it, doesn't mean someone else can't.
So in relation to this movie, it doesn't surprise me that Jamal was able to beat Crawford at his own game. And as others have said, while this pissing contest doesn't prove anything to anyone else, Jamal's point was merely to show Crawford up and show the man that he's not just a "black kid who only knows how to play basketball." Also, the point should have been made right off the bat when Jamal one-ups Crawford by correcting the man's grammar with "further," rather than "farther."
Edited to add that I didn't realize I'd already commented on this scene, lol.
I think you missed the entire meaning of that scene.
The point of recognizing the quotes wasn't that he was able to memorize them.
In Jamal's room, they emphasized the fact that he had a large amount of books.
He loved to read, was very intellectual, and the professor was trying to categorize Jamal as "just another black basketball player" when his love of literature and writing ability was even HIGHER than the professors.
The professor was trying to say "I know for a fact that you've never read any books. You can't write. You aren't studious. You aren't smart enough."
"Dwight, you ignorant slut!"
For a kid his age, it's pretty damn impressive, and that comes from a pretty big bookworm.
I don't mean to impose, but I am the Ocean.