MovieChat Forums > daveyh > Replies
daveyh's Replies
Few problems with this, all of which must be increasingly maddening for Marge:
(1) as far as Freddie's family are concerned (assuming they're still around), he was murdered by Dickie, who's since killed himself, so they may not want to reopen old wounds by hiring someone to start a new investigation. As far as they're concerned, the case is closed
(2) The way Mr Greenleaf and the private detective dismiss Marge as "hysterical" and her suspicions as "female intuition", the patronising way she was referred to as Dickie's "sweetheart", possibly summed up the attitude women faced at the time, especially among that set. It's unlikely Freddie's family, of the same background, would take her any more seriously. It would just be dismissed as her not wanting to believe/face "the truth" about her beloved Dickie.
(3) If Dickie's own father believes him to be the murderer, why would Freddie's family doubt this
(4) As revealed by the private detective, there's enough from Dickie's past to reasonably believe that Dickie was capable of it (and while Marge wouldn't be privvy to this, we the viewers see evidence of this on the boat. Although he lashes out at him with the oar, Tom is immediately apologetic and wants to help, but Dickie starts strangling him and Tom has to fight him off in self defence - you have to wonder if other people have witnessed similar behaviour from Dickie when he lost his temper)
All this is assuming Meredith even saw Marge again - the only time they met was when Tom "arranged" it, so there's no inevitability that their paths would cross again. They live in different parts of Italy, if both even stay on there. Plus, given the animosity or awkwardness between them (Marge believing Meredith tried to "steal" Dickie from her in Rome) it's unlikely they'd actively seek each other out.
actually, Meredith doesn't know he's with Peter either - she says her aunt thinks she saw him, and Tom/Dickie dismisses this, saying he hasn't seen Peter in months, and categorically states that he's travelling alone
"I think his eventual dismissal of Tom was more class-based and didn't have much to do with suspicions of homosexuality."
Agreed - although they're not shown hanging out together in the movie, Dickie's supposedly very good friends with Peter (Marj mentions this on the boat when Tom's feeling rejected, just before he does his peeping)
Tom looking bored and annoyed when Dickie and Freddie were listening to (presumably new) jazz records earlier may have been the first sign, but yeah, this would have clinched it!
I don't think he was getting sick of him at this point, maybe more that wherever Dickie and Freddie were going hadn't invited Tom or they felt it wouldn't be Tom's scene - Dickie's possibly one of those people whos personality and behaviour changes depending on who they're with. I've visited local friends when they've been away at university and they've been like different people when their fellow student pals are around, so it does happen. Freddie's presence brought out a side to Dickie that Tom maybe hadn't seen before.
Problem is, until a few seconds before Freddie arrives, Tom's under the impression that it'll just be the two of them in Rome for the day, shopping and sightseeing. This sudden announcement that they'll be with someone else all day, followed almost instantly by Freddie's arrival, immediate display of almost unmasked contempt for Tom (first thing he says is "think what her husband's saying"), and Dickie's instantly taking off with Freddie - the way they briskly walk off while Tom's still sat at the table a metaphor for him being abandoned.
This understandably causes Tom to be quite visibly p**sed off, but the bigger problem for Tom is that it's the first time he lets his emotions take over and loses the calculated facade he's been putting on so far - if he really was as into jazz as he'd made out, he'd have been in his element in the store and joining them in the listening booth, or be in one of his own. Instead he stands away from them looking annoyed. This may be the first indication to Dickie that Tom had been faking the jazz thing in order to get in with him.
After this (and sending him away to wander Rome by himself), Dickie then doesn't turn up for the train, causing Tom to make his own way back, so arguably abandons Tom at least twice that day. So Tom's got every right to be annoyed with Dickie over this but can't be because of the living arrangement they have, and Dickie knows this.
Amongst all this, you've also got to wonder what Dickie was doing with a Bing Crosby record? Unless it was Marj's, or Tom had just purchased it in Rome
the song was "May I" by Bing Crosby. It possibly still counts as "jazz", and would be in that section in the few music stores that are still left, however, it wouldn't be Dickie's kind of jazz. It's definitely more on the "easy listening" side - actually, in the 40s/50s it would possibly just be considered a pop song.
as a glasses wearer myself, I can attest that, even if he could see well enough to get away without wearing them at times, the little marks on both sides of the top of his nose would be a dead giveaway.
For people from Dickie's background, though, listening to jazz would still be rebelling because his parents, and maybe most of his peers too, would be part of the classical crowd, going to operas etc. This is evidenced when Tom's at the opera in Rome - not only is Meredith there with her parents, Peter and Marj are there too.
Actually, Dickie and Freddy (if the record store scene in Rome is anything to go by) seem to be the only rich Americans who are into jazz - Marj doesn't accompany him when he takes Tom to that jazz club and everyone else there seems to be local, even getting excited that another American is present.
It's also worth noting that Dickie would have been entering his teenage years in the late 1940s, before rock n roll was popular, so listening to jazz would have been his way of sticking it to his parents and everyone else. He is, after all, an overgrown teenager so is just carrying that on by still listening to jazz.
Lastly, it's quite possible that people were into both as a form of rebellion or being modern. Daniel Stern's character in Diner is a rock n roll buff, but also has a number of jazz records in his collection, his wife even asking "who's Charlie Parker" just to see his reaction! That's set at the very end of the 1950s
This is set a year earlier I think. If Dickie's been in Europe for a while, it's possible that he's been shielded from the rock n roll revolution in the USA - I'm not sure how quickly it would have caught on in mainland Europe. Maybe if he lived in Rome, but I imagine it was slower to spread to the fairly rural coastal areas. And if he's always been in to jazz he'd just carry on going to the same stores and buying jazz records.
Sorry, this has become an essay ha ha!
in reply to point 2, I actually expected the movie to be different because of the video for Teenage Dirtbag, which appears to be set at high school rather than college and Jason Biggs' character flat out bullied rather than just not fitting in.
I had no way of knowing this had all been filmed specifically for the music video. I just thought that, like almost all other videos for songs that are the soundtrack to a movie, they were showing clips of the movie itself.
I didn't actually see the movie until it aired on terrestrial TV in the UK years later, so was confused as to why it was in a different setting and kept waiting for the big jocks in lettermen jackets to turn up.
I wonder could it have been written a bit more realistically? Maybe Kevin's brother had a timeshare in it (he seemed to be doing well) but couldn't make it that summer so the gang used it instead, but only for the 2 weeks or whatever that Casey Affleck would have had it for.
One of the stand-out scenes - the one with the 2 girls - would have to be worked into it some other way - maybe they're in the next house along. Also not sure how realistic it is that they get jobs as house painters in an affluent area so easily - can't imagine any of them being all that at manual labour, and wouldn't that particular job require some training/qualifications? Even if not, I can't help but feel for any trade school/self employed painters and decorators being denied work so that these students can have summer jobs to fund their partying.
Also, is it ever explained why Vicky and her friend are at the shore too? Or are they not and they just drive up to visit occasionally?
I'd also be curious if they did the same thing in the summers of 2001 and 2002? Maybe not as Jim and Michelle got more serious and Heather probably wouldn't have been abroad again so Oz would have spent most his time with her.
the title alone is contradictory - sort of a double negative - so, with all the contradictions listed above, it's a pretty perfect title!
I'd say it's very nuanced, something you rarely see now, never mind in 1998.
The nearest thing to a protagonist - Preston - also has bad points and weaknesses, as does Aman-duh.
The OP has pointed out that Mike Dexter is the nearest thing the movie has to a villain, yet he's shown to have redeeming qualities too.
Most movies, Mike would have had his epiphany/lightbulb moment and been good from that point on. The way it's done here is, I think, more realistic.
explained above and in another thread. However, although not a plot hole, more a suspension-of-disbelief thing for me, is that, even with Banks now in the team (so at full strength), they needed a last second "one out of five" shot from Fulton to scrape a victory against the worst team playing in the league. Yet, in the next game, they're comfortably beating the top seed and then cruise to victory in the semi-finals too.
I suppose the explanation is that they bonded with that trip to watch the North Stars, and Banks was now more accepted as part of the group, and so they gelled more as a team going into these play-off games?
If the Hawks had to forfeit their first 12 games, though, wouldn't all their opponents be awarded the wins for these games? Not sure how much that would change the final standings.
And the way I interpret it, the Hawks still played Banks in the penultimate game (against the Huskies?) as they figured they'd sort things out with the league. They didn't, so by playing him after they'd been explicitly told not to, that's when all their games to date (including the penultimate one) were forfeited....then again, that would mean their record would be 1-13 at best, so they wouldn't make the playoffs at all. Damn.
actually, of the two, Gordon seems to be the one who's still pissed about it. Understandably as he was a kid and, given the unfortunate timing, he also associates that game his father's death
Ironically, Gordon Bombay had quite the "win-at-all-costs" mentality himself. How much that was down to Reilly's influence during his childhood and how much was innate, I don't know.
It wasn't just the DUI that compelled Ducksworth to make Gordon take a leave of absence, you can see from his talk to him just before the night of his arrest that he's getting sick of Bombay's gloating and lack of humility. The spell of community service was supposed to curb this.
Instead Gordon's now going to war with him over a loophole/technicality in the district lines, and this after Ducksworth had put up over $10,000 to help the pee-wee team.
Don't get me wrong, I'd always cheered when Gordon reversed the question on him and said "are you prepared to fire me...". On my last viewing, though, I found myself wishing Ducksworth had replied "no, I'm prepared to fire you for antagonising one of our biggest clients and your bullish refusal to back down and grant a perfectly reasonable request"
In short, Gordon Bombay had become too much of a hot-dog for his law-firm and this was the final straw.
Don't forget that when Reilly and Gordon first meet as adults, Reilly's the one who actually approaches Gordon, shakes his hand, initiates the conversation etc
OK, the Hawks run up the score on the District 5 that day, but that's what they've been doing since Gordon's time (you even see Gordon mouthing along to the "win big" mantra). The Hawks don't exactly play nice, and Reilly's s**t-eating grin at Gordon as the defeat gets more humiliating isn't really called for, but Gordon would have been one of the kids dishing out the pummelling back in his pee-wee days and no doubt enjoying it.
You can argue that some of Reilly's compliments were back-handed -eg "he wants it more"- but he was still acknowledging that Gordon had more ability than the Hawk's current best player. His comment about how he wishes they'd taken the runners-up banner down also seems like a dig at Gordon, but maybe Reilly was just addressing the elephant in the room because they were both looking at the banner. He certainly doesn't seem to show any resentment towards Gordon over it anymore. If anything he seems to be the one trying to bury the hatchet.
It's only later in the movie when Gordon takes Adam Banks on a technicality and refuses to back down that Reilly really seems to turn on him.
From Reilly's point of view, he'd consider this "playing dirty" from Gordon, and the fact that he's willing to lose his job over it would, to Reilly, look like Gordon's hell-bent on sticking it to him. And to be fair, he kinda is.
all of which is sadly undone early on in the sequel when Larsen once again joins in with McGill in his attempts to sabotage the ducks. Such a pointless cameo appearance, especially since they both look about 16 at this point and you'd think they'd have better things to do!
Then again a lot of things about this movie's ending get ruined early in the sequel
Well that brings a whole new meaning to the bit when Gordon says "you're going down Riley"
I would have rolled the credits as Tony's leaving the dance contest in disgust and Staying Alive's playing - the whole story was building up to this, and on the surface it appears to be a "happy ending" - he won the competition he was working all movie towards, it's celebration time etc - yet it's anything but.
Would be a metaphor of the film's legacy as a whole - on the surface, most people think of it as a fun movie about disco dancing, yet it's so much deeper than that.
In addition to Bobby's death, we'd also be spared Tony's attempt to force himself on Stefanie - always uncomfortable viewing.
It would also bookend the film nicely - it starts with him strutting to Staying Alive, it can end with him walking away to that - the camera could even zoom in until all you see are his feet hastily walking.
Only problem is there'd be no place for How Deep Is Your Love, unless it's played during the extended credits after Staying Alive has ended.