Leaderboard

States can definitely set up something like that, but if Congress wants to legislate in this area, the Supremacy Clause allows their legislation to have precedence and to be the minimum threshold for the States to follow. And a national boys program would be allowable under the Constitution which gives Congress power to legislate the "general welfare" of the country, which certainly this is. They may also have to claim the land as federal property first, which I can't remember if they were trying to do in the film? Probably. Generally the film was pretty accurate about the law, which, believe me, is rare.

For me, no, it wouldn't have worked if he was elected into office, because that would've meant he had some kind of political ambition to begin with to run a campaign and perhaps had to learn to compromise on his ideals to win endorsements. Jefferson's gee-golly earnestness seems authentic because he's the ultimate Washington outsider. I could see how it might be too much to swallow for some people, but this movie works for me precisely because it's a fairy tale about American politics, not because it's a realistic look at the power of democracy or due process. No, the kids' paper wasn't a national paper or anything like that. Before Jefferson went to Washington, he ran the Boys' Stuff paper - I guess it was more like a newsletter - about important boy stuff I think? Since the Boys' Stuff was independent of Taylor, they were able to get the truth out locally (before they were discovered by Taylor).

I think one of the main points of the movie was the Taylor/Payne corruption because it gets at how government (as seen with earmarks) can be used for good like idyllic parks for boys' enrichment, or for personal enrichment. And also whether certain corrupt actions can work toward the ultimate public good, like other achievements of Payne. As it is, the movie not only gets at the legislative sausage-making, but also the corruption and personal dealings that go one, and whether the ends can justify the means. On a completely different note on the wild circumstances of Jefferson Smith's appointment - I think that was necessary to find someone who goes in with zero idea about politics and legislation, zero political ambitions, zero policy preferences, and positive public regard. I think Capra was playing with the idea of dropping an absolute stranger or alien, one with the most honest civic-minded intentions and ideals, and just drop him straight into the middle of things for a fresh criticism of government.

I'm currently ruminating on whether this whole camp is feasible. To walk through some of this out loud: The land/fixtures - apparently the land was privately owned, so this would effectively be a taking and the government would have to reimburse the land owners. I assume the cost of purchase would be part of this "loan" to the kids. (Of course that's where the scandal for Mr. Smith comes in saying the purchase price ultimately comes from the coins of little boys). Then, the government would have to pay the contractors for the labor to put it in, and it would need continued funding for the people who will run it. That brings up a question - do the boys have to pay for this in perpetuity? The "loan" itself - what are the terms of this "loan?" How many boys are contributing? What if there isn't a critical mass of boys who CAN contribute? Are we binding these kids into a certain base-level contribution? Do you go after their scout leaders if there's not enough money? Do you require some kind of contribution based on income? Are these to be one-time contributions? Or are they recurring? And, for how long? Like above, this isn't just some monument that you can leave alone, we're talking about an ongoing public program. Will these boys, and all boys thereafter have to continue to pay for running the camp? And these are minors! I'm not up on contract law at the time, but I don't think minors can enter into contracts. But yes, this needs legislation because no federal money can be moved without a law providing for it, and because they're not just forking up cash, they will be responsible for oversight as well. (or will they? That's another problem with this bill). Also, as an aside, this whole movie deals with those dreaded earmarks that became such a public pariah after the "bridge to nowhere" that I think has played a role in the breakdown of bipartisanship. Legislators used to bargain with each other over money going to their home districts, i.e. "you vote for my bill and I'll support funding for your park/bridge/dam." Since the banishing of earmarks, there are fewer incentives to work across the aisle, and the cost-benefit calculation changes.

You guys I made an audible groan when more Look Who's Talking was announced. I hate that family!

I liked that Paul and Amy focused on how dark this movie is, and how much it offended real Senators at the time. The popular imagination of "Capra-corn" doesn't quite track when you actually sit down and watch some of these movies. He earns the happy fantasy ending by first depicting a dark, corrupt world. As I've often mentioned before, until that last sequence, It's a Wonderful Life is about why a decent man with a wife and young children would want to commit suicide. Personally, I think Lovett's comments are maybe missing the point a little bit, in that he's asking this movie to better resemble the real world. It's not trying to do that; it's trying to depict an ideal we as Americans ought to aspire to. That ideal comes into sharper focus because of the darker side of our politics that it does acknowledge. I think it belongs on the list because of its distillation of this idea, which seems quintessentially American.

I wouldn't call myself a detractor, I do enjoy the movie for sure, but I don't think it's near the quality of most of the other films we've done so far. It goes a little to what I said earlier about it being fanciful, there's just these little touches that I find ridiculous which hurt it for me. Like, why was Mr. Smith nominated in the stupidest way possible (the governor's bratty kids and a failed coin toss). Wouldn't this be more powerful if he was elected by the people, or nominated for some legit reason? And the kids ran some sort of national media presence? What is that? I thought Lovett made a good point though about confusing awe with being patriotic, or awe with being a good Senator, and how that's not a good thing. I'm trying to separate my pragmatic progressive political beliefs from viewing this movie but it's hard. I take the government and legislators seriously, and follow it pretty closely, and have worked in politics, and I feel like this waters the whole world down in a way I'm not particularly willing to stand behind. That said, I loved the acting (both Arthur and Stewart), and I loved his depiction of a man being disillusioned contrasting with Arthur becoming non-disillusioned. (Sorry it's late I can't think of a better word.) I liked that Paul & Amy focused on some of the darker aspects of the tale too, which are interesting and less a part of the cultural memory than the more feel-good basics.

Attention, Pure Guava: I know. And now you know that I know. Meet me at the truck stop at midnight. Bring the corn. And if I see anyone that even looks like a cop, the squirrel gets it.

Hot damn! I not only made the C&O for the first time, but i won the coveted Nothing! This is the best day ever...

Gotcha. I was just wondering because I only recently joined the forums but have been listening for a long time. Just didn't know if this was an unusual thing to happen.

I imagine they’re just bottling them for the future. They might have filming coming up or just taking some time off for themselves for whatever reason. This way new content will still be released.

I mean some of those holes, I assume, are because we weren't told every bit of the bill. But maybe it's because some rube with no experience wrote it. Haha

I got a nerdy glee out of the scene when Saunders goes on about Committees and Conferences.

Criterion channel is coming back spring 2019. https://www.criterion.com/current/posts/6044-new-independent-criterion-channel-to-launch-spring-2019 Probably not as good for the AFI list as the TCM/core-filmstruck part. Criterion had the rights to Spartacus at one point and has Dr Strangelove. And I think a good chunk of the silents. I think.

I screamed WHAT out loud and upset the cats. To be fair I was more upset than the cat.

Collapsing would definitely end it since you have to stay on your feet the whole time.

Yea I get the outsider angle. Maybe something happens where people just write him during an election in because he's a great guy, and he happens to win. It doesn't have to imply campaigning or ambition at all, it can just imply popularity, which would still make the same ultimate point. Why does it have to come from such a ridiculous set-up? I guess they wanted to show the governor as a dummy too. For me the fairy tale angle is a complicated balance. Like, they chose to make this story in Congress, with real Congress history and sets (like Daniel Webster), and took work to make it all realistic and to make a real point about America. So I still think those fanciful ideas that prop this story up feel slightly off for me. I like them, but feel like, maybe they slightly de-fang the story, as reminders to 'don't take this seriously' when maybe I think we should? I mean, if only our Senators were all so noble. Anyway I dunno, that's just how I'd make this story stronger and more meaningful. But maybe that wasn't the point.

With the announcement of Look Who's Talking Now, John Travolta is now the king of HDTGM with 8 appearances on the show each! 8 appearances: John Travolta - Old Dogs, Battlefield Earth, Staying Alive, Face/Off, Perfect, Look Who's Talking Too, Look Who's Talking Now, Swordfish 3 appearances: Kirstie Alley - Runaway, Look Who's Talking Too, Look Who's Talking Now 3 appearances: Danny DeVito - Deck the Halls, Junior, Look Who's Talking Now 2 appearances: Olympia Dukakis - Look Who's Talking Too, Look Who's Talking Now

I don't think Lovett's comparison to Trump works, because Smith doesn't campaign on a platform of shaking things up (like the "reformer" demanded by the populace, whom the governor chooses Smith instead of). Instead he's more like a Rex Tillerson, someone who never sought ought any kind of public office and only served because he was asked to (despite knowing virtually nothing about his job and not being particularly good at it). He even got undermined by the people who appointed him! I really liked how Senator Paine is depicted as being a mostly decent person who has made compromises for what he sees as the greater good. Smith's filibuster fails to achieve the aims it was intended for, so it all comes down to Paine having that shred of decency (foreshadowed earlier) which means he can't stomach the lowest depths of what he's signed on to.

I was glad that Jon Lovett pointed out how silly it was for the Liberty Bell to be included in the DC montage. And I think he nailed why this film ultimately works so well: Jean Arthur's Saunders acting as an audience avatar, acknowledging the corniness of it all, but getting swept away by it anyway. She does similar heavy lifting in You Can't Take It With You and she's great in Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, but this might be her best achievement, because she absolutely holds this together. At any rate, this is reasonably high on my list, but I look forward to hearing from detractors. Is this movie actually great, or are we all just won over by its charm?

This show is magical.....for reals. It's the best! A couple appearances by some of the earwolf standbys would have done the ratings wonders I'm sure. The Trevors were where it's at though!