The show: Scrubs
The episode: "My Fruit Cups," first aired November 14, 2002. This second season episode is available on DVD in the American Region, but it's still repeated on syndicated TV often enough that you can probably catch it almost without wanting to.
What happened: Dr. Reid feels pressured to become an obstetrician/gynecologist. Dr. Dorian, in voiceover, compares ob/gyn to a college sorority and has a fantasy in which the girls of Omicron Beta Gamma have a pillow fight. Dr. Reid does not want to choose ob/gyn as her medical specialty, but her father insists that she must. His first argument is that "Your highest income potential as a female physician is in obstetrics." Elliott is not swayed. So Dad's next argument is "I paid for your college, your medical school, your car, and now your apartment and all your living expenses." He cuts her off financially, and Elliott worries about moving her stuff out of the big apartment she currently lives in.
Why it doesn't seem right: It was J.D.'s fantasy that made me question the whole characterization of ob/gyn practitioners. However, a little research shows that this episode actually gets the facts right. It is true that a lot of ob/gyns practicing today are men. Old men. That makes Bush Jr.'s remarks "Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country" so hilarious. But to cut the moron-in-chief some slack, it should be acknowledged that it is a serious issue that "Too many good docs are getting out of business" (his previous remark in that speech, conveniently forgotten by the "liberal" media), and medical journals confirm this.
Medical journals also confirm that "Women are becoming obstetrician-gynecologists in increasing numbers," according to Drs. Erica Frank, John Rock and Daniella Sara ("Characteristics of Female Obstetrician-Gynecologists in the United States" from Obstetrics & Gynecology 94 (1999)). Dr. Frank et al predict that a greater proportion of ob/gyns will be women in the future. (Some of my girlfriends are happy enough with their current male ob/gyns that they wouldn't ditch him just to have a female ob/gyn, but I digress). Given that "53.0% of obstetrician-gynecologist residents in 1993 were female," it would seem that J.D.'s fantasy is not entirely off the mark as far as the facts are concerned. Furthermore, it goes to show that even today male doctors sometimes have trouble taking their female colleagues seriously.
As for Dad's dialogue, the first line quoted does mesh with statements in medical journals: female ob/gyns "reported higher personal and household incomes ... than other female physicians" (Frank et al). The second line quoted goes to the show's backstory, and given that this is the first appearance of Elliott's Dad, there is nothing to contradict his financial support of her in the previous episodes. I do wonder why, if the Reid family is so well off, is Dad so concerned with his daughter maximizing her earning potential? Would he be OK with his daughter forsaking a career to be the wife of the son of one of his colleagues? This line of questioning borders on speculation, so I'm afraid that after all this talking, I don't actually have any nits for this episode.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
Peter still needs a Jew
The show: Family Guy
The episode: "Road to Germany," first aired October 19, 2008, on FOX.
What happened: Transported to 1939 Europe, Mort Goldman has to pretend to be a Catholic priest and administer last rites to a dying Nazi soldier. His speech is full of problems, and Brian and Stewie attempt to subtly correct him with simultaneous coughs. One of the problem statements is: "We pray in the name of You, and Your son, who died in a freak accident that, um, You can't really blame on anyone..."
Why it makes no sense: This is not the place to nitpick the idea that 1st Century Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus (as if God didn't intend His son to be crucified in order to atone for the sins of mankind). Accepting it as true for the sake of argument, why should Mort Goldman feel guilty about it? The farthest back in time he has been is 1939 (assuming he's the same age as Peter and hasn't traveled back in time any other time). The white descendants of plantation owners feel no guilt over slavery, even if they pay reparations, because it is something their ancestors did, and not they themselves. Mort Goldman would not have been involved in any of the planning to crucify Jesus, and the same is probably true of almost everyone else in the Temple in 1939. Even if sin does attach to children, doesn't the sacrifice of Jesus absolve the children of the sins of their parents? (If I'm wrong on the theology, please, don't hesitate to correct me).
But why take it seriously? Family Guy producer Seth Macfarlane got a free pass from the offensive lyrics Peter sings in the pre-cancellation episode "When You Wish Upon a Weinstein," including "Even though they killed my Lord, I need a Jew." Macfarlane's justification was "Consider the source" (listen to the commentary to that episode). Peter is an idiot and more than one episode can be offered as proof, including episodes that show he doesn't even know much about the religion he was baptized in (Catholic). The free pass Macfarlane got for Peter doesn't also apply to Jewish characters in the show, such as Mort Goldman and of course the 1939 rabbi earlier in the episode. While Mort denies anyone was responsible for the death of Jesus, he does so in a decidedly suspicious way. Take, for example, the way that Stewie vouches for Mort as "an Aryan" priest: "He's molested me many times." Then a real Catholic priest shows up and says he was held up doing "innocent, non-molesty things," in almost the same tone of obvious denial that Mort used just seconds ago for the Jewish responsibility for the death of Jesus. Blanket accusations of deicide (against the Jews) and of child molestation (against Catholic priests) are very serious accusations indeed, and to try to give them validity as kernels of truth to jokes is very concerning indeed.
In order to get a free pass this time, Seth Macfarlane will have to paint Mort Goldman as very much an idiot, something that the writers of this episode have already begun to do (combined with the stereotype of Jews as hypochondriacs). An even more elaborate dance will be required to justify the rabbi's comments earlier in the episode.
The episode: "Road to Germany," first aired October 19, 2008, on FOX.
What happened: Transported to 1939 Europe, Mort Goldman has to pretend to be a Catholic priest and administer last rites to a dying Nazi soldier. His speech is full of problems, and Brian and Stewie attempt to subtly correct him with simultaneous coughs. One of the problem statements is: "We pray in the name of You, and Your son, who died in a freak accident that, um, You can't really blame on anyone..."
Why it makes no sense: This is not the place to nitpick the idea that 1st Century Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus (as if God didn't intend His son to be crucified in order to atone for the sins of mankind). Accepting it as true for the sake of argument, why should Mort Goldman feel guilty about it? The farthest back in time he has been is 1939 (assuming he's the same age as Peter and hasn't traveled back in time any other time). The white descendants of plantation owners feel no guilt over slavery, even if they pay reparations, because it is something their ancestors did, and not they themselves. Mort Goldman would not have been involved in any of the planning to crucify Jesus, and the same is probably true of almost everyone else in the Temple in 1939. Even if sin does attach to children, doesn't the sacrifice of Jesus absolve the children of the sins of their parents? (If I'm wrong on the theology, please, don't hesitate to correct me).
But why take it seriously? Family Guy producer Seth Macfarlane got a free pass from the offensive lyrics Peter sings in the pre-cancellation episode "When You Wish Upon a Weinstein," including "Even though they killed my Lord, I need a Jew." Macfarlane's justification was "Consider the source" (listen to the commentary to that episode). Peter is an idiot and more than one episode can be offered as proof, including episodes that show he doesn't even know much about the religion he was baptized in (Catholic). The free pass Macfarlane got for Peter doesn't also apply to Jewish characters in the show, such as Mort Goldman and of course the 1939 rabbi earlier in the episode. While Mort denies anyone was responsible for the death of Jesus, he does so in a decidedly suspicious way. Take, for example, the way that Stewie vouches for Mort as "an Aryan" priest: "He's molested me many times." Then a real Catholic priest shows up and says he was held up doing "innocent, non-molesty things," in almost the same tone of obvious denial that Mort used just seconds ago for the Jewish responsibility for the death of Jesus. Blanket accusations of deicide (against the Jews) and of child molestation (against Catholic priests) are very serious accusations indeed, and to try to give them validity as kernels of truth to jokes is very concerning indeed.
In order to get a free pass this time, Seth Macfarlane will have to paint Mort Goldman as very much an idiot, something that the writers of this episode have already begun to do (combined with the stereotype of Jews as hypochondriacs). An even more elaborate dance will be required to justify the rabbi's comments earlier in the episode.
The photographer's flash blinded me from miles away!
The show: JAG
The episode: "Ghosts of Christmas Past," first aired December 14, 1999 on CBS. Now available on DVD as Season 5, Disc 3, Title 3.
What happened: One night close to Christmas 1969, Lt. Garcia (Randy Vasquez, normally Gunny Galindez in the present) is piloting a plane back to the aircraft carrier with Lt. Harmon Rabb, Sr. (David James Elliott, normally Rabb Jr.) when a civilian photographer on the deck of the carrier (Paul Collins, normally the Clinton-era SecNav) tries to take a picture of the plane coming in for the landing. The photographer's flash blinds Lt. Garcia (Lt. Rabb is OK because he was looking down at his instruments) and he makes a very sloppy landing that almost kills him and his copilot. Once safe on the deck, Garcia is told that the captain threw the photographer's camera overboard.
Why it makes no sense: If you've ever tried to take a picture of someone at night with a film camera, then you know that photographic flash just doesn't carry that far. In high school, one night I tried to take a picture of my friends standing on one end of a football field while I was on the other end; I thought it was going to make a great picture. The lab didn't even bother printing that one and the negative is just plain blank. My friends did see the flash, but it didn't blind them one bit (if I had put the flash two feet from their faces they would have certainly blinked).
The professionals have better stuff than the dinky cube flash on my old film camera, but for the picture I had in mind, they wouldn't have relied on any kind of flash: they would have made an elaborate lighting rig, or if they were shooting in a major league team's stadium, they would have full-power stadium lighting available to them.
So how do you light a photograph of a plane about to land on an aircraft carrier at night? You do it in the daytime, with the sun being all the lighting rig you need, and then you do a day-for-night conversion in the darkroom (you'd use Adobe Photoshop for that now, but I'm sure back in 1969 it would still have been easy). The crew of JAG ought to know this, even if they used stock footage for the plane. They would also know that not even the best photographic flash can carry across a football field, much less the runway of an aircraft carrier (at least three football fields) plus whatever distance the plane is still away from the edge.
But let's say that in the world depicted in JAG that photographic flash really can carry that far. How long would it take for America's enemies to realize that they can use off-the-shelf photographic flash to blind American pilots? They don't even have to get that close!
Maybe this incident in the story can be explained away as an allegory for how damaging the news media is on our troops by sticking their noses into what's none of their business. This is not the place to comment on whether or not JAG is right to scold the news media in this way (or in other ways in other episodes, especially the post-9/11 episodes) but at least they should pick allegories that don't strain credulity as much as this one does.
The episode: "Ghosts of Christmas Past," first aired December 14, 1999 on CBS. Now available on DVD as Season 5, Disc 3, Title 3.
What happened: One night close to Christmas 1969, Lt. Garcia (Randy Vasquez, normally Gunny Galindez in the present) is piloting a plane back to the aircraft carrier with Lt. Harmon Rabb, Sr. (David James Elliott, normally Rabb Jr.) when a civilian photographer on the deck of the carrier (Paul Collins, normally the Clinton-era SecNav) tries to take a picture of the plane coming in for the landing. The photographer's flash blinds Lt. Garcia (Lt. Rabb is OK because he was looking down at his instruments) and he makes a very sloppy landing that almost kills him and his copilot. Once safe on the deck, Garcia is told that the captain threw the photographer's camera overboard.
Why it makes no sense: If you've ever tried to take a picture of someone at night with a film camera, then you know that photographic flash just doesn't carry that far. In high school, one night I tried to take a picture of my friends standing on one end of a football field while I was on the other end; I thought it was going to make a great picture. The lab didn't even bother printing that one and the negative is just plain blank. My friends did see the flash, but it didn't blind them one bit (if I had put the flash two feet from their faces they would have certainly blinked).
The professionals have better stuff than the dinky cube flash on my old film camera, but for the picture I had in mind, they wouldn't have relied on any kind of flash: they would have made an elaborate lighting rig, or if they were shooting in a major league team's stadium, they would have full-power stadium lighting available to them.
So how do you light a photograph of a plane about to land on an aircraft carrier at night? You do it in the daytime, with the sun being all the lighting rig you need, and then you do a day-for-night conversion in the darkroom (you'd use Adobe Photoshop for that now, but I'm sure back in 1969 it would still have been easy). The crew of JAG ought to know this, even if they used stock footage for the plane. They would also know that not even the best photographic flash can carry across a football field, much less the runway of an aircraft carrier (at least three football fields) plus whatever distance the plane is still away from the edge.
But let's say that in the world depicted in JAG that photographic flash really can carry that far. How long would it take for America's enemies to realize that they can use off-the-shelf photographic flash to blind American pilots? They don't even have to get that close!
Maybe this incident in the story can be explained away as an allegory for how damaging the news media is on our troops by sticking their noses into what's none of their business. This is not the place to comment on whether or not JAG is right to scold the news media in this way (or in other ways in other episodes, especially the post-9/11 episodes) but at least they should pick allegories that don't strain credulity as much as this one does.
The start: What this blog is about
This blog is about nitpicking movies and TV shows of fictional (or fictionalized) events, originally produced in English with the exception of Star Trek and its spin-offs (those are well enough covered by Phil Farrand's NitCentral). Preferably, we should nitpick recently aired TV episodes or recently released films, but those which have been released on DVD are fair game, too. I have a very small team right now but I hope to expand it in the future.
The ground rules: For stand-alone movies, only what is shown in the film is valid for nitpicking. For movies with sequels and prequels, anything in a prior movie is valid for nitpicking the movie under consideration. For TV series, the pilot episode establishes what is valid for nitpicking that show, so for that reason TV pilots should be cut a lot of slack (this rule is due to Farrand's books). And of course TV shows that are spin-offs of other TV shows may be nitpicked with material from those shows. Shows and movies which fictionalize events from the headlines (I'm looking at you, Law & Order) open the door to being nitpicked on for real life details pertaining to common knowledge, such as basic science and non-recent history.
Lastly, this is all for fun: if a nit requires too much work, such as freeze-framing, zooming in real close and applying a sophisticated imaging algorithm, then it's not worth it. We should never call for someone to be fired over a mistake in the story, no matter how thoroughly it destroys suspension of disbelief; we simply ask them to pay more attention in the future, while being grateful for providing us fodder for this activity.
The ground rules: For stand-alone movies, only what is shown in the film is valid for nitpicking. For movies with sequels and prequels, anything in a prior movie is valid for nitpicking the movie under consideration. For TV series, the pilot episode establishes what is valid for nitpicking that show, so for that reason TV pilots should be cut a lot of slack (this rule is due to Farrand's books). And of course TV shows that are spin-offs of other TV shows may be nitpicked with material from those shows. Shows and movies which fictionalize events from the headlines (I'm looking at you, Law & Order) open the door to being nitpicked on for real life details pertaining to common knowledge, such as basic science and non-recent history.
Lastly, this is all for fun: if a nit requires too much work, such as freeze-framing, zooming in real close and applying a sophisticated imaging algorithm, then it's not worth it. We should never call for someone to be fired over a mistake in the story, no matter how thoroughly it destroys suspension of disbelief; we simply ask them to pay more attention in the future, while being grateful for providing us fodder for this activity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)