MovieChat Forums > Etherdave > Replies
Etherdave's Replies
It is less kindred than vaguely genre-related. 'Animal House' is a Screwball Comedy in which protagonists are pitted against a plethora of killjoys and antagonists who wield disproportionately greater power over the protagonists; despite this the protagonists prevail, often defying logic and common sense to assure a happy ending for all (duly documented in the film's final moments); in this respect it is Classic Comedy, whose roots actually go back to Roman times, unlike toga parties. '1941' is a Screwball Comedy in which traditional characters have been replaced by more realistic, ordinary, everyman-types, whose flaws and difficulties preclude any such 'happy ending', although their respective fates are left relatively ambiguous in the face of war and the need for communities to pull together and join into a coordinated effort. As for the other films cited, they all came out after '1941', thus it is safe to say the earlier film may have influenced them in some relatively small way.
I suggest you view 'Jaws' and 'Sugarland Express' and remember that John Landis only directed one film starring both Belushi and Ackroyd; the assertion 'who are usually in John Landis movies' is incorrect, and not much of an argument. While 'Blues Brothers' does contain a chase sequence and a general degree of chaos similar to the second half of '1941', it is because both use elements of Screwball Comedy to provide entertainment and a rapidly-evolving narrative. That said, one is more of a Buddy Movie, and the other has been frequently cited as not being funny enough to be an effective Comedy. You may be the judge on that score, since this film was far more successful with its audiences than with its critics. '1941' is vintage Spielberg- for those who understand this director's style. Several of Spielberg's signature elements occur here: like the protagonist of 'Jaws' and those of 'Sugarland Express' the film contains several 'Everymen'- ordinary, fallible people who find themselves in extraordinary circumstances, usually beyond their seeming ability to cope or find solutions to their problems; absolutely EXTRAORDINARY circumstances, like oh, maybe a war ('1941', 'Schindler's List', 'Saving Private Ryan', 'Lincoln'), an extraterrestrial invasion ('Close Encounters Of The Third Kind', 'ET: The Extraterrestrial', 'War Of The Worlds'), or an encounter with some kind of monster ('Duel', 'Jaws', and to a lesser extent 'Munich', since the protagonists set out to kill a monster, only to find other men exactly like themselves), creating either a fight to the death, an epic survival journey, or some kind of soul-changing odyssey within the minds of the protagonists themselves. In the case of '1941' I would say this particular theme is developed lightheartedly at best, but given Spielberg's primary inspirations (psychological effects of Pearl Harbour bombing, several 'war scares', and the Zoot Suit Riots of 1941) it is safe to say it is no less important.
It isn't. It's about 100 miles inland from the City, which appears to sit almost directly over Bethany Beach, in Delaware.
Still sailing as of 2012. You'll probably find her somewhere between the St. Lawrence and the Erie Canal.
Gallagher is conspicuously older than Carter; I could cite numerous reasons why she's attracted to older, powerful men, but let's just say it's a good career move, as long as she doesn't end up as shark-food. I'm pretty sure Gallagher wasn't trying to be convincing for your sake, just for hers. She is portrayed as inexperienced, though she certainly gets kudos for enthusiasm.
Might have been, though it's likely it's some relative of Newman's, or the production crew.
Check out Balaban's performance as Lt. Orr in 'Catch-22' (the original 1970 version, not the shi##y Hulu remake)
Could have happened that way. Myself, I got the impression Quinn was so confused by what had happened he was probably still sitting in his office counting on his fingers, trying to figure out where he had come out.
The 'District Attorney' depicted here is the State Attorney for the District of Southern Florida, which is a federal jurisdiction, and the D.A. is a Presidential appointee. It is established at the beginning of the film that these are federal investigators, not local investigators.
My personal hypothesis is Picard is a giant hypocrite, a 'Do as I say not as I do'-type, insufferably content within his little bubble of followers all-too-anxious to 'Make it so' for him, while he calls out even the slightest aberrations like a petulant schoolmaster. He learned nothing from being assimilated, though it still gives him night-terrors. He learned nothing matching wits with the Q, except a sense of priggish superiority. He learned nothing from a lifetime spent as a humble iron-weaver on a distant, dying world, except how to play a flute. Bastard. He gets his comeuppance, though, trying to rescue the Romulans from their own star system, while his precious Starfleet abandons them, and him. Which made the bigger noise, I wonder, the shattering of a world, or his own ego?
It's worth a second look.
Bother it did. Courtroom drama has a long and honourable history on television, featuring some of the most outstanding entertainment the media has ever produced... provided it's written well. This isn't. On the other hand, I found 'The Drumhead' a near-perfect example of the genre (and Jean Simmons perfectly cast as a lunatic Starfleet inquisitor), and as well I found favour with Q choosing to prosecute (no pun intended) his relationship with Picard as a courtroom drama... right up to the final episode. Who says they don't get it right once in a while?
Probably the two guys who were fed to the sharks.
It's just not that type of film. See 'Jagged Edge' with Jeff Bridges and Glenn Close.
The District Of South Florida is a federal jurisdiction. The State Attorney for the District is a Presidential appointee. His seat is in Miami.
Yeah, I guess Newman just coasted through his whole career. I guess that's why Strasberg's performances are so much better known than Newman's. Huh, go figure. I think you might be confusing Newman with Marlon Brando, who was at the Actor's Studio, certainly squandered a fair amount of his career, and was a REAL pretty-boy (just ask Christian Marquand) in his youth. Nor would I typify this film as a 'star-vehicle' (what does that even mean in a post Mel Gibson / Russell Crowe world?! Don't movie-goers love to see big stars in big roles, where they show us what shirts they wear, or what brand of cigarettes to smoke?), unless you mean to include Sally Field in the definition: Newman was definitely on the wane in 1981, while Field was still flying high as the star of 'Norma Rae'. Yet she plays an incredibly flawed journalist who earns a hard lesson about ethics and integrity. Sorry, but I don't know anyone who ever helped their friend get an abortion get called 'squeaky-clean' for it, and Newman's character is anything but on the surface, even though there's good evidence that he is, after all, a good guy. I'm pretty sure your opinions on the level of acting are shared by nearly nobody, as this is considered one of his better performances, eclipsed only by 'The Verdict', which came out the following year. If you didn't like the film, that's perfectly O.K., but looking for non-existent reasons within the film itself will only lead to frustration.
That's fine. If you didn't like it you didn't like it. Frankly, I don't think any of the film's principals are taking it off their resumes anytime soon. As for critique, well... if you couldn't find the time to watch it through (fifty-three minutes more; I don't suppose you might have combined it with a meal, or something like that?), you might see how your critique might be considered... worthless. Right? Perhaps your disappointment might have been dispelled in the second or third act. I seem to recall a story about this Jewish couple running around on Christmas Eve about to have a baby, but without any hotel reservations. Dumb. Got better as it went, though.
I suggest you read up on 'The Dreyfus Affair' (as in NOT Julia Louise) on the subject of how willing a Government is to tolerate corrupt or bigoted officials in the face of public ridicule and excoriation in the Press. One recalls the example of a certain Daniel Ortega: known for his support of the lower classes in his home country of Nicaragua, he was demonized and chased from the political forum by his opponents, who then instituted (with the help of the United States) a right-wing military dictatorship to keep him from power. So he organized a grass-roots populist opposition, dismantled his opponents' regime, and got himself democratically elected in their place. Today the opponents are the ones running around in the jungles trying to avoid the very people they were oppressing. The United States presently has its hands full fighting two devastating disease pandemics: COVID, and Trumpism. Ortega? He's still his country's President. How's that for revenge?
He wasn't squeezing Quinn, he simply wanted to hear Quinn's side of the story; the options always were: a) clam up and I'll subpoena you and further destroy your already nearly-destroyed reputation, or b) talk now and we can figure something out that doesn't involve impeachment or prison time. As for Wadell, I think Wells is smart enough to guess his role in all this, and is rightly disgusted by the malfeasance exhibited top-all-the-way-down in the State Attorney's office. As for the wiretaps themselves, I don't see how they could do anything other than further illustrate Quinn's foolishness; whether their obtaining constitutes fruit of a poisoned tree is another matter entirely. I suspect that, in a state as worldly and sophisticated as Florida, there are special dispensations in circumstances such as these.
Actually she's a hell of a reporter. She energetically follows leads and knows how to get information she needs; she shows great intuition and has a very tight grasp of what constitutes a good story. To quote Gallagher, she's one hell of a reporter. But for all the reasons you cite, she's a lousy journalist. And yes, her editor, whom she seems to see as a mentor, is a lousy mentor. I believe this is a point of the film.