The film: Elf (2003)
What happened: Santa's sleigh breaks down in Central Park. Apparently, its engine runs on Christmas spirit, which is somehow generated by singing Christmas carols. Buddy (Will Ferrell) does some kind of mechanical work on the engine, but that's still not enough to keep it running. What makes the difference is that Walter, Buddy's curmudgeonly father (James Caan) has suddenly gained Christmas spirit, and Santa is able to deliver all the Christmas gifts.
Why it makes no sense: If the sleigh is powered by an engine that uses Christmas spirit as a catalyst, why does Santa need reindeer to pull the sleigh? Worse, Santa still whips the reindeer! This is animal cruelty just a notch below killing an animal with no intention of eating the animal. No wonder this film doesn't have an American Humane Association certificate.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
The dog with puppy videos
The show: Family Guy
The episode: "The Man With Two Brians," first aired November 9, 2008, and rerun just this past Sunday.
What happened: After Peter gets a new dog (whom he calls "new Brian"), old Brian tries to regain the affection of the family by playing his puppy video. The video shows him coming out of a basket and doing other cute puppy stuff.
Why it doesn't quite make sense: According to "Road to Rhode Island," Brian was born in a puppy mill in Texas. He was separated from his mother early on. At some point between that time and the first season of Family Guy, Brian wound up homeless on the streets of Quahog. According to "Brian: Portrait of a Dog," Brian was an adult dog when he cleaned Peter's windshield and Peter decided to adopt him.
Now, this doesn't rule out that someone would have shot puppy videos of Brian. But how exactly would Brian manage to hold on to that footage throughout his tortuous path from Texas to Rhode Island? When he was homeless, would it have been a priority for him to protect a video tape? The only explanation is that the writers have forgotten the character's backstory and thus created a continuity breach.
In a comedy, a continuity breach is forgiven if it yields a very funny joke. The bigger the breach, the funnier the joke has to be. But this continuity breach is used exclusively for the purpose of creating schmaltz, and not for a joke. With Brian's puppy videos, Family Guy has jumped the shark.
The episode: "The Man With Two Brians," first aired November 9, 2008, and rerun just this past Sunday.
What happened: After Peter gets a new dog (whom he calls "new Brian"), old Brian tries to regain the affection of the family by playing his puppy video. The video shows him coming out of a basket and doing other cute puppy stuff.
Why it doesn't quite make sense: According to "Road to Rhode Island," Brian was born in a puppy mill in Texas. He was separated from his mother early on. At some point between that time and the first season of Family Guy, Brian wound up homeless on the streets of Quahog. According to "Brian: Portrait of a Dog," Brian was an adult dog when he cleaned Peter's windshield and Peter decided to adopt him.
Now, this doesn't rule out that someone would have shot puppy videos of Brian. But how exactly would Brian manage to hold on to that footage throughout his tortuous path from Texas to Rhode Island? When he was homeless, would it have been a priority for him to protect a video tape? The only explanation is that the writers have forgotten the character's backstory and thus created a continuity breach.
In a comedy, a continuity breach is forgiven if it yields a very funny joke. The bigger the breach, the funnier the joke has to be. But this continuity breach is used exclusively for the purpose of creating schmaltz, and not for a joke. With Brian's puppy videos, Family Guy has jumped the shark.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Let's play double jeopardy
The show: JAG
The episode: "The People v. Gunny"
What happened: Gunny Galindez (Randy Vasquez) and his old war buddy (identified for most of the episode only as "Manny," but also wearing Master Sergeant's stripes when in uniform, played by Jesse Corti) leave a noodle house next to a gay bar. A gay man, Edward Proxy (Jamison Jones), innocently bumps into Manny, who immediately assumes the gay man was making a pass at him and retaliates with force. Galindez restrains Manny with the intention of defusing the conflict, but instead Edward takes the opportunity to hit Manny some more. Galindez pushes Manny back and punches Edward back, breaking his nose and blackening both his eyes. Another man comes out of the gay bar to Edward's defense, and it turns out to be Petty Officer Tiner (Chuck Carrington). Tiner is about to punch Galindez but stops when they recognize each other.
After the opening credits, the Baltimore police comes to JAG Headquarters with the intention of arresting Galindez for the gay-bashing incident the previous night. Admiral Chegwidden (John M. Jackson) will not allow that to happen, and asserts that the military judicial system will fairly ascertain Galindez's guilt or innocence. The civilians are not surprised when the judge, Captain Sebring (Corbin Bernsen) finds Galindez innocent. Soon after Galindez leaves the military courtroom, he's arrested by the Baltimore Police Department and taken off-base to be tried in a civilian courtroom for the same gay-bashing incident.
Does it make sense legally? Anyone viewing this episode attentively will be wondering "Can they really do that? Isn't it double jeopardy?" The writers (Donald Bellisario and Larry Moskowitz) anticipated this, so they have Manny visit Galindez at the civilian courtroom and ask about double jeopardy. Galindez replies that he was told that the federal government and the state government are technically two separate sovereignties and that "it's all in the Constitution." Manny is unconvinced by this, and so am I. Neither Manny nor Galindez are lawyers, and neither am I. So I could be missing something.
One can learn something about the law from TV and films, but sometimes one will run into false information. For example, in Bruce Beresford's film Double Jeopardy, a woman is tried and convicted of killing a man who is still alive. After serving some time, she is released on parole. Many people tell her that she can go ahead and kill the man she supposedly killed earlier in broad daylight and she wouldn't go to jail again. Real life lawyer Alan Dershowitz points out that in that scenario the facts of the case would be different: killing someone today is a very different crime from killing someone years ago. Furthermore, the parole board could just revoke her parole so that she serves the rest out the rest of the sentence she got in the first place (when she hadn't yet killed the man). Of course we can't use the film Double Jeopardy to nitpick JAG, but we can certainly use real life American laws.
Let's review what the Constitution actually says. The Fifth Amendment reads:
The Tenth Amendment reads in whole: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Does that mean that an individual State has the power to try someone for something a federal court has found that person innocent? Or if Galindez is found innocent in the Maryland court, could he be taken to a Virginia court, or a Washington, D. C. court, or any other state court to be tried again and again until one of those courts finds him guilty? Or is this Amendment irrelevant to this argument?
To compare an example from real life: If O. J. Simpson was found innocent by a California jury of murdering Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman, could they have taken him to a federal court in the hopes that the federal jury would come up with a verdict more to their liking? His lawyers would immediately scream double jeopardy. To put O. J. Simpson in jail, he'd have to commit a different crime. Oh, wait a minute, he has (the Las Vegas robbery) and now he's going away to prison for at least a few years.
Anyway, trying Galindez a second time for the same offense is double jeopardy, even if it's in a different court. For what it's worth, that's my non-binding ruling on this fictional case. If you're a lawyer reading this, feel free to let me know if there's some legal subtlety I have overlooked here.
The episode: "The People v. Gunny"
What happened: Gunny Galindez (Randy Vasquez) and his old war buddy (identified for most of the episode only as "Manny," but also wearing Master Sergeant's stripes when in uniform, played by Jesse Corti) leave a noodle house next to a gay bar. A gay man, Edward Proxy (Jamison Jones), innocently bumps into Manny, who immediately assumes the gay man was making a pass at him and retaliates with force. Galindez restrains Manny with the intention of defusing the conflict, but instead Edward takes the opportunity to hit Manny some more. Galindez pushes Manny back and punches Edward back, breaking his nose and blackening both his eyes. Another man comes out of the gay bar to Edward's defense, and it turns out to be Petty Officer Tiner (Chuck Carrington). Tiner is about to punch Galindez but stops when they recognize each other.
After the opening credits, the Baltimore police comes to JAG Headquarters with the intention of arresting Galindez for the gay-bashing incident the previous night. Admiral Chegwidden (John M. Jackson) will not allow that to happen, and asserts that the military judicial system will fairly ascertain Galindez's guilt or innocence. The civilians are not surprised when the judge, Captain Sebring (Corbin Bernsen) finds Galindez innocent. Soon after Galindez leaves the military courtroom, he's arrested by the Baltimore Police Department and taken off-base to be tried in a civilian courtroom for the same gay-bashing incident.
Does it make sense legally? Anyone viewing this episode attentively will be wondering "Can they really do that? Isn't it double jeopardy?" The writers (Donald Bellisario and Larry Moskowitz) anticipated this, so they have Manny visit Galindez at the civilian courtroom and ask about double jeopardy. Galindez replies that he was told that the federal government and the state government are technically two separate sovereignties and that "it's all in the Constitution." Manny is unconvinced by this, and so am I. Neither Manny nor Galindez are lawyers, and neither am I. So I could be missing something.
One can learn something about the law from TV and films, but sometimes one will run into false information. For example, in Bruce Beresford's film Double Jeopardy, a woman is tried and convicted of killing a man who is still alive. After serving some time, she is released on parole. Many people tell her that she can go ahead and kill the man she supposedly killed earlier in broad daylight and she wouldn't go to jail again. Real life lawyer Alan Dershowitz points out that in that scenario the facts of the case would be different: killing someone today is a very different crime from killing someone years ago. Furthermore, the parole board could just revoke her parole so that she serves the rest out the rest of the sentence she got in the first place (when she hadn't yet killed the man). Of course we can't use the film Double Jeopardy to nitpick JAG, but we can certainly use real life American laws.
Let's review what the Constitution actually says. The Fifth Amendment reads:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.The words "nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" seem pretty clear to me. I'm not quite so sure on whether or not the exception for "cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger" applies only to the need for a grand jury indictment, or if that exception applies to the rest of the clauses in the Amendment. Because if that's the case, then the writers are wrong to have Galindez arrested by the Baltimore police and Chegwidden not once complain about double jeopardy in open court.
The Tenth Amendment reads in whole: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Does that mean that an individual State has the power to try someone for something a federal court has found that person innocent? Or if Galindez is found innocent in the Maryland court, could he be taken to a Virginia court, or a Washington, D. C. court, or any other state court to be tried again and again until one of those courts finds him guilty? Or is this Amendment irrelevant to this argument?
To compare an example from real life: If O. J. Simpson was found innocent by a California jury of murdering Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman, could they have taken him to a federal court in the hopes that the federal jury would come up with a verdict more to their liking? His lawyers would immediately scream double jeopardy. To put O. J. Simpson in jail, he'd have to commit a different crime. Oh, wait a minute, he has (the Las Vegas robbery) and now he's going away to prison for at least a few years.
Anyway, trying Galindez a second time for the same offense is double jeopardy, even if it's in a different court. For what it's worth, that's my non-binding ruling on this fictional case. If you're a lawyer reading this, feel free to let me know if there's some legal subtlety I have overlooked here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)