Leaderboard

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

Two sequels from the same franchise covered in one year, that's rare! Plus, John Travolta is now officially king of HDTGM as he has now made 8 appearances on this show, surpassing Nicolas Cage and Sylvester Stallone.

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

https://soundcloud.com/user-478531506/its-important-to-write-these-things-down-by-lil-andy-fredberg Check him (me) out at www.lilandymusic.com

I think it's abundantly clear that I have a lump of pitch-black coal where my heart should be. It was required to get that necessary vote from the representative of West Virginia. I'm sure there are light-hearted fun movies I enjoy. I'm sure there are sentimental movies that get to me. I just don't know if they are any on this list though... I mean, besides Duck Soup. Fwiw, I do like The Hudsucker Proxy. There's a hoola-hoop around that lump coal, I guess. Like a ring of Saturn. On the latter part, does it though? The "certain corrupt actions can work toward the ultimate public good, like other achievements of Payne", I feel like that's presented more as a rationalization as a warning of the slippery slope of compromise. When talking about it, Payne's choice of words I think were, "you have to do grafts to get any of your legislation passed." Well, going back to the road to nowhere, I remember years after that whole fiasco, I remember reading an article where they interviewed people who lived in nowheresville, Alaska, and you know, for them, they could have really benefited from that road. It also would have brought money into the state for the people who had to work on the road and would have improved the lives of those people, who presumably lived there. Was this graft and probably a poor use of public funds even though it didn't necessarily enrich the personal life of the senator who wanted it (I can't remember if it did or didn't enrich their lives or had a Payne-like donor enrichment. But let's say it didn't) - the answer was probably still yes. Given the country's poorly maintained infrastructure system, the funds probably could have been better spent on that (not that not funding the road to nowhere meant those funds would go towards that); the money was just being appropriated to get a vote. Sometimes the graft is self-serving graft, sometimes the graft is constituency-serving graft (sometimes gratuitously bribing, sometimes just poor prioritization of funds), and sometimes it's just the compromise of funding someone else's also valid project (who might also be looking at your cause as also being graft or an ineffective use of funds). And I don't think the movie really conveyed the deal-making as anything other than a whittling away of one's morals to bleak corruption. I think there's something in the over-simplicity of the fable of the movie that really rubs me the wrong way. I find I don't like Spielberg movies, so I never watched Lincoln, but from what I heard, that movie did portray the deal-making as an actual instrument of getting good, necessary legislation passed. I do wonder if I were to re-watch Being There (it's been a decade), if I'd now see issues with it. But I think it's a lot more removed from the sausage making.

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.

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.

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.

I didn't want to get into this in the main episode but the earthquake scientist reminded me. I was kind of confused at everyone's reactions to Skyscraper I'm comparison to San Andreas and Den Of Thieves. Skyscraper is terrible but I thought it was so dumb that it was fun in parts. San Andreas I thought was super dull throughout even though it did make a slightly stronger family connection with Rock, Carla Gugino, and Alexandra Daddario. I really don't understand Jason's love for Den Of Thieves which is low quality Heat but isn't low quality enough to be fun. So, it's just a second rate action heist movie. Has anyone else seen these movies? Am I wrong? Should I revisit these movies?

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 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.

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?

Is this a Jacob's Ladder scenario ahead of it's time? Say, Jefferson gets bitten by a snake out on a hike with the boys and it's a all a fever dream and when he collapses on the Senate floor, he finally dies. Maybe?

Well I sort of think the whole thing is a fantasy montage haha

Did anyone else think the scene where Jefferson goes on a rage-punching rampage was a fantasy montage? And speaking of montages, I felt like they missed out by not including a makeover sequence with Jefferson and Saunders, where he's the one coming out of the dressing room in various tweeds and Saunders sitting in a chair, judging the outfits with a thumbs up/down.

I haven't listened yet, but I couldn't wait to see that Mel Gibson Simpsons clip.

(That one also has a little High Noon reference, with the badge toss at the end.)

Reading all of these is making me feel like the Grinch when his heart grows ! I love you guys so much and I'm so glad that this podcast has brought all of us weirdos together to bask in our complementary weirdness.

FYI: If you feel a sudden indescribable stabbing pain, that's probably just Shannon murdering you.

When you approach Jim Carrey and even he feels your movie is too stupid for him to make, it's time to let the project die.

An entire episode could be devoted to ill-advised Jim Carrey-less sequels/prequels to Jim Carrey films! "Son of the Mask"! "Dumb and Dumberer"! Whatever that fucking straight-to-video kid "Ace Ventura" thing was!