# Greatest Legal Movies



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I know there are a lot of lawyers on these boards. Even if you're not, you might be interested in this listing from the ABA Journal of what their panel considers the top 25 legal movies:

https://www.abajournal.com/magazine/the_25_greatest_legal_movies/

I mostly agree, but I'm not too happy that Body Heat didn't even score an honorable mention. (Even though I'm convinced that they're wrong about the Rule Against Perpetuities problem that is the linch pin of the movie.)


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

My Cousin Vinny is the best, by far.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

What, no "Double Jeopardy"? Considering the source I'm honestly surprised.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

They have the top 2 correct, after that it seems a little fishy. I think A Few Good Men is more widely known and liked then most of the top 10.


----------



## Helvetia (Apr 8, 2008)

Not a lawyer but "To Kill a Mockingbird" is my choice.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Again, am I the only one who was still completely convinced that the kid was guilty at the end of 12 Angry Men?


----------



## Droog (Aug 29, 2006)

My fav, Witness for the Prosecution, came in at #6.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

I would need to see the kid to be sure. I can spot a guilty man instantly which is why I make an excellent juror.

A Man For All Seasons might just be my favorite, but it would be hard to pick one from this list of excellent movies.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

An interesting list--thanks for posting the link.

I was happy to see that _The Devil's Advocate_ got an honorable mention.

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## AMVanquish (May 24, 2005)

My personal favorite is Intolerable Cruelty, but I know that probably won't make anyone's list of great films.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Many good movies. I would add the following:

-Primal Fear
-The Caine Mutiny


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I also thought the _Caine Mutiny_ should be on there, although I think it's one of the 25 runners-up.

To make room I'd ditch _A Few Good Men_. Not just because I don't like Tom Cruise. It's mainly because it perpetuates the canard that being a good trial lawyer is some kind of magic, rather than mostly preparation and hard work.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Why not drop "Inherit the Wind" because it's a bigoted, absurd distortion of history?


----------



## Garfield (Jan 29, 2006)

What? Legal Eagles isn't mentioned?

Debra Winger looked good in that movie.


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> I also thought the _Caine Mutiny_ should be on there, although I think it's one of the 25 runners-up.
> 
> To make room I'd ditch _A Few Good Men_. Not just because I don't like Tom Cruise. It's mainly because it perpetuates the canard that being a good trial lawyer is some kind of magic, rather than mostly preparation and hard work.


While that is unquestionably true, one cannot overlook a good trial lawyer's ability to guage the witness and predict how the witness will react to being pushed.

Also, one cannot overlook a good trial lawyer's ability to think quickly on his feet. The scene with the rule book is a perfect example--the prosecution makes the point that the rules don't mention "Code Red," and the defense returns the salvo by noting that the rules also don't address where to find the mess hall.

Like all movies, A Few Good Men takes liberties with reality, but, on the whole, I think it's a pretty good movie.


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

Garfield said:


> What? Legal Eagles isn't mentioned?


Odd, that. Then again, they also overlooked such classics as Liar, Liar.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

smujd said:


> Like all movies, A Few Good Men takes liberties with reality, but, on the whole, I think it's a pretty good movie.


Jack Nicholson did his usual fantastic job, and even Cruise rose to the occasion for a scene or two.

All in all, a pretty good movie with a couple of great moments.

Now, Liar Liar had a quite a few moments of great hilarity in it. I liked it.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Why not drop "Inherit the Wind" because it's a bigoted, absurd distortion of history?


Because it was a terrific film nonetheless.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> Because it was a terrific film nonetheless.


Yes, liberals sure do love their distortions of history. Would you like the movie if it was retold the other way around, where the righteous defender of faith, equal rights, and democracy stands up to the sinister communists and eugenicists?

Wouldn't that make a better story, considering how much more harm the latter two have done since?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

BTW for more about the Scopes trial versus the movie: https://www.themonkeytrial.com/

I think this tidbit really captures just how preposterous "Inherit the Wind" really is and what Byran's rationale for opposing the teaching of human evolution was...



> Specifically-and this is very important to understanding both the Butler Act and the trial-Bryan opposed those applications of Darwinism to mankind that were rapidly gaining popularity and were contained in Prof. Hunter's _Civic_ _Biology. _These teachings included (1) that mankind can be described in terms of five "races" of _differing evolutionary status _with the Caucasian race being the most advanced, followed by the "yellow" race, etc.-p. 196, (2) that public houses for the poor and asylums for the sick or insane make no sense from an evolutionary perspective and should be at least reconsidered if not dramatically curtailed-p. 263, (3) that certain "parasitic" elements of the human population should not have children ("If such people were lower animals," Hunter writes, "we would probably kill them off") and, in some cases, such reproduction should be forcibly prevented ("Remedies of this sort have been tried successfully in Europe")-p. 263, (4) that society's business classes should be given generous economic latitude (known as "hands off" or "_laissez faire_" capitalism) to further advance the most successful members of the human species-p. 261ff, and (5) that the gap between the monkeys and the most evolved apes is akin tothe gap between those apes and the lowest human "savages"-p. 195.





> _Darrow was caught in a very fundamental contradiction in court and it was he (rather than Bryan) who arguably took the soundest drubbing of the two in Dayton. This incident is almost never mentioned in trial accounts and the circumstances were as follows: After Darrow had repeatedly trumpeted the benefits and necessity of teaching Darwinian evolution to high schoolers in the Tennessee schools, Bryan quoted from the trial transcript of a first-degree murder case that had occurred one year earlier in Illinois, the famous case of Leopold and Loeb. In this earlier case, Darrow said that his client (Loeb) should not be given the death penalty because it was the teachersand the universities that had filled the young murderer's mind with Darwinian ideas-ideas that more evolved humans should be able to kill and destroy lesser humans with impunity. Darrow, in other words, had just defended a teen-aged murderer the year before who was a dedicated follower of Darwin and Nietzsche and who had become so enthralled with the "survival of the fittest" cult that he had killed another boy in cold blood just to demonstrate his superiority. Darrow, in Loeb's defense, blamed the teachers of the dangerous (not the ideas themselves) and so naturally, in the Scopes trial, he attempted to backtrack from the implication that what those teachers had taught Loeb was-literally!-deadly. But the attempt was futile and Darrow abandoned it with the empty assertion that his words in that earlier case spoke for themselves and needed no defense. (pp. 178ff of the trial transcript)_


_

_


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Yes, liberals sure do love their distortions of history. Would you like the movie if it was retold the other way around, where the righteous defender of faith, equal rights, and democracy stands up to the sinister communists and eugenicists?
> 
> Wouldn't that make a better story, considering how much more harm the latter two have done since?


Please read more carefully, PT. Note the word "nonetheless."
To answer your question, yes it would make a better story. And yes, I know all about the Scopes trial and the fact that the film, while certainly inspired by the event, was not a rendition of the event. Indeed, it never actually claimed to be, which is how it can technically withstand the accusation that it is a bald-faced distortion. All its inchoate deception aside, it was *nonetheless* a great film -- gripping, exceptionally well-acted, and entertaining. The fact that it has served the propaganda purpose of substituting a distorted, counterfactual and biased piece of fiction for actual history doesn't alter that.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> Please read more carefully, PT. Note the word "nonetheless."
> To answer your question, yes it would make a better story. And yes, I know all about the Scopes trial and the fact that the film, while certainly inspired by the event, was not a rendition of the event. Indeed, it never actually claimed to be, which is how it can technically withstand the accusation that it is a bald-faced distortion. All the inchoate deception aside, it was *nonetheless* a great film -- gripping, exceptionally well-acted, and entertaining. The fact that it has served the propaganda purpose of substituting a distorted, counterfactual and biased piece of fiction for actual history doesn't alter that.


That's a good point, and a lot of movies do that. For example, Mel Gibson's The Patriot was based upon Francis Marion, but was not historically accurate. I still thought it was an entertaining movie.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> That's a good point, and a lot of movies do that. For example, Mel Gibson's The Patriot was based upon Francis Marion, but was not historically accurate. I still thought it was an entertaining movie.


You are right, Laxplayer. That said, PT's concerns are understandable in that ITW has somehow entered our nation's consciousness as a substitute for real history in a way that The Patriot has not, and certainly it is fair to suppose that ITW was intended from its inception to be a propaganda piece to a greater degree than The Patriot (although the Brits did take understandable exception to Gibson's film). But as disturbing as all that might be, ITW still deserves to be acknowledged as a "great legal movie."

If PT wants to make the case that it should also make the list of "great popular movies as propaganda," I would agree with that too.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

And that's something else I take issue with--many of these "legal movies" do a very poor job of representing anything resembling the legal process (or when they do, often show breaking the rules in a positive light)--

To Kill a Mockingbird - yes, Atticus is a hero to a lot of lawyers, but what happens? His client is railroaded then killed by deputies in what's implied to be an extrajudicial execution.

12 Angry Men - a jury of buffoons acquits an obviously guilty man in the very definition of "idle speculation" (in a false dilemma of "execute or acquit" no less) after juror Henry Fonda does some investigating on his own.

My Cousin Vinny - an incompetent lawyer lies his way into a courtroom to represent a close relative and nearly gets the defendants convicted of capital murder.

I can't really remember Anatomy of a Murder, but then next is Inherit the Wind, which portrays the Scopes trial as an even bigger mockery of courtroom procedure than it actually was, and actually distorts history to portray the court as corrupt and the defendant as having been railroaded, imprisoned during trial and threatened with lynching...for a misdemeanor.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

smujd said:


> Odd, that. Then again, they also overlooked such classics as Liar, Liar.


As bizarre as it seems, _Liar, Liar_ actually made the list of 25 runners-up.

I can't stand Jim Carrey, but the more offensive aspect of the movie (which I admit I didn't see) is the idea that the practice of law somehow involves lying. In fact, lying in the practice of law is specifically prohibited. In almost thirty years of practice I can think of almost no cases in which I head a lawyer lie. An honest lawyer is far from the rarity that the premise of the movie would have you believe.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> Please read more carefully, PT. Note the word "nonetheless."
> To answer your question, yes it would make a better story. And yes, I know all about the Scopes trial and the fact that the film, while certainly inspired by the event, was not a rendition of the event. Indeed, it never actually claimed to be, which is how it can technically withstand the accusation that it is a bald-faced distortion. All its inchoate deception aside, it was *nonetheless* a great film -- gripping, exceptionally well-acted, and entertaining. The fact that it has served the propaganda purpose of substituting a distorted, counterfactual and biased piece of fiction for actual history doesn't alter that.


Presenting a bigoted, false, 1-dimensional depiction of Southerners and Christians is okay... if it makes for a "good story."

Like Birth of a Nation with black people! Right?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Presenting a bigoted, false, 1-dimensional depiction of Southerners and Christians is okay... if it makes for a "good story."
> 
> Like Birth of a Nation with black people! Right?


Birth of a Nation is generally regarded to be a superb film with horrible racist elements. The two are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> Birth of a Nation is generally regarded to be a superb film with horrible racist elements. The two are not mutually exclusive.


So why isn't this prominent, incredibly influential movie about law & order and civil rights on the ABA's list?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> So why isn't this prominent, incredibly influential movie about law & order and civil rights on the ABA's list?


Your allusion to law & order and civil rights notwithstanding, few would consider BOAN a "legal movie." I don't recall a single courtroom scene, for example. If your point is that the ABA is a biased and sometimes dishonest organization, I agree without reservation. But it is highly unlikely that the inclusion of ITW rather than BOAN on the list has anything to do with that. Both are great movies. Both are propaganda. But only ITW can be easily regarded as a "legal movie."


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Presenting a bigoted, false, *1-dimensional* depiction of Southerners and Christians is okay... if it makes for a "good story."
> 
> Like Birth of a Nation with black people! Right?


The only thing that is one dimensional is an infinitely small point and, thus, invisible. Time to study up on your basic geometry, Turkey! Or, did you not attend school long enough to study geometry?

Buzz


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Yes, liberals sure do love their distortions of history. Would you like the movie if it was retold the other way around, where the righteous defender of faith, equal rights, and democracy stands up to the sinister communists and eugenicists?
> 
> Wouldn't that make a better story, considering how much more harm the latter two have done since?


*Say what*? Oh, my dear, dear Turkey, you are so much fun!

Well, I suppose one might prefer such un-distorted and un-biased views of history as the _Rambo_ films. Or, perhaps our very own Turkey prefers his history straight up, vis a vis _The Manchurian Candidate_.

Buzz


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

M6Classic said:


> *Say what*? Oh, my dear, dear Turkey, you are so much fun!
> 
> Well, I suppose one might prefer such un-distorted and un-biased views of history as the _Rambo_ films. Or, perhaps our very own Turkey prefers his history straight up, vis a vis _The Manchurian Candidate_.
> 
> Buzz


Well, wait a minute here. To be fair, TMC was based on a novel, a piece of fiction, and no one confuses it with historical fact. ITW was inspired by a real event, and we are kidding ourselves if we think that many Americans don't derive their (very false) understanding of the Scope trial from that film. And the assertion that the film (and the play on which it was based) unfairly portrayed southerners and fundamentalist Christians as mean and ignorant has considerable merit. It nonetheless was a great "legal movie" in my view. And TMC was a classic as well.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> Well, wait a minute here. To be fair, TMC was based on a novel, a piece of fiction, and no one confuses it with historical fact. ITW was inspired by a real event, and we are kidding ourselves if we think that many Americans don't derive their (very false) understanding of the Scope trial from that film. And the assertion that the film (and the play on which it was based) unfairly portrayed southerners and fundamentalist Christians as mean and ignorant has considerable merit. It nonetheless was a great "legal movie" in my view. And TMC was a classic as well.


Please, I was being thoroughly hyperbolic in my introduction of the _Manchurian Candidate_ into the discussion. If someone is obtuse enough to confuse _Inherit the Wind_ with an historical documentary, then they might be just dense enough to think that the _Manchurian Candidate_ could be fact based and that some dude named Rambo won the war in Viet Nam.

Buzz


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

M6Classic said:


> If someone is obtuse enough to confuse _Inherit the Wind_ with an historical documentary, then they might be just dense enough to think that the _Manchurian Candidate_ could be fact based and that some dude named Rambo won the war in Viet Nam.
> 
> Buzz


The more your statement represents hyperbole, the more your comparison is inapt. In any case, if you think that ITW has no more falsely altered public perception regarding the Scopes trial than MC or Rambo has regarding the Cold War or Viet Nam, then I think you are mistaken. The fact is that ITW is very artful propaganda, and it has very much altered public perception regarding the Scopes trial. One explanation is that much of the public is not especially well-educated (which is different from being dense or obtuse); another is that it is a very effective film -- one reason it deserves to be on a "Best Legal Movie" list.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> The more your statement represents hyperbole, the more your comparison is inapt. In any case, if you think that ITW has no more falsely altered public perception regarding the Scopes trial than MC or Rambo has regarding the Cold War or Viet Nam, then I think you are mistaken. The fact is that ITW is very artful propaganda, and it has very much altered public perception regarding the Scopes trial. One explanation is that much of the public is not especially well-educated (which is different from being dense or obtuse); another is that it is a very effective film -- one reason it deserves to be on a "Best Legal Movie" list.


I wish you wrote better because I might then be able to understand what you are attempting to say. If I follow you...and I probably do not...you are saying that _Inherit the Wind_ is propogandistic to an extent that exceeds either _Rambo_ or t_he Manchurian Candidate_. I would agree that it is more artful, but hardly more propagandistic than the other two.

Buzz


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

M6Classic said:


> I wish you wrote better because I might then be able to understand what you are attempting to say. If I follow you...and I probably do not...you are saying that _Inherit the Wind_ is propogandistic to an extent that exceeds either _Rambo_ or t_he Manchurian Candidate_. I would agree that it is more artful, but hardly more propagandistic than the other two.
> 
> Buzz


Sorry. I wish I wrote better too. I was not saying that ITW is more propagandistic than the other two films, though it probably is moreso than Rambo -- which was actually just over-the-top entertainment rather than genuine propaganda. And whether ITW is more artful than TMC is a matter of opinion, as both are classics. What I am saying is that neither Rambo nor TMC has had any lasting impact on the way Americans view Viet Nam or the Cold War, whereas ITW has successfully supplanted fiction for real history in the minds of many Americans, including "educated" ones.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> Well, wait a minute here. To be fair, TMC was based on a novel, a piece of fiction, and no one confuses it with historical fact. ITW was inspired by a real event, and we are kidding ourselves if we think that many Americans don't derive their (very false) understanding of the Scope trial from that film. And the assertion that the film (and the play on which it was based) unfairly portrayed southerners and fundamentalist Christians as mean and ignorant has considerable merit. It nonetheless was a great "legal movie" in my view. And TMC was a classic as well.


I worked at a video store in college, and I don't think I ever rented Inherit the Wind to anyone. To be honest, I'd never even heard of the movie until reading this thread...same goes for Birth of a Nation. I have seen The Manchurian Candidate, and unfortunately I have seen Rambo too.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> I worked at a video store in college, and I don't think I ever rented Inherit the Wind to anyone. To be honest, I'd never even heard of the movie until reading this thread...same goes for Birth of a Nation. I have seen The Manchurian Candidate, and unfortunately I have seen Rambo too.


Interesting. I stand by my prior statements though. Among the relatively few Americans who are even aware of the Scopes Monkey Trial, most have an understanding of the events that is more in line with ITW than genuine history, and that is not coincidence.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> Interesting. I stand by my prior statements though. *Among the relatively few Americans who are even aware of the Scopes Monkey Trial, most have an understanding of the events that is more in line with ITW than genuine history, and that is not coincidence*.


You are probably right. My point was that I don't think there are very many that know anything about the Scopes trial anymore.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> Interesting. I stand by my prior statements though. Among the relatively few Americans who are even aware of the Scopes Monkey Trial, most have an understanding of the events that is more in line with ITW than genuine history, and that is not coincidence.


That may be true of most of the people that you know. Most of the people that I know have a studied and nuanced understanding of the Scopes trial. I believe that is probably because of the crowds with which each of us run. Nonetheless, I agree that the overwhelming majority of Americans today have no knowledge of the Scopes trial whatsoever and really don't care about it. I wonder how many people know about Leopold and Loeb and confuse _Compulsion_ with history? Precious few in either case. There are probably vastly more people today who confuse intelligent design with science than confuse _Inherit the Wind_ with history.

Buzz


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

M6Classic said:


> That may be true of most of the people that you know. Most of the people that I know have a studied and nuanced understanding of the Scopes trial. I believe that is probably because of the crowds with which each of us run. Nonetheless, I agree that the overwhelming majority of Americans today have no knowledge of the Scopes trial whatsoever and really don't care about it. I wonder how many people know about Leopold and Loeb and confuse _Compulsion_ with history? Precious few in either case. There are probably vastly more people today who confuse intelligent design with science than confuse _Inherit the Wind_ with history.
> 
> Buzz


You are to be congratulated on the crowd you run with. That is quite an accomplishment in Cambridge.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> You are to be congratulated on the crowd you run with. That is quite an accomplishment in Cambridge.


I will be the first to acknowledge that Cambridge is in no way representative of the nation at large. However, I like it here...yes, the population tilts to the left...and I don't pretend that this region represents any political or social consensus for the nation at large.

Buzz


----------



## Apthorpe (Apr 8, 2008)

M6Classic said:


> *Say what*? Oh, my dear, dear Turkey, you are so much fun!
> 
> Well, I suppose one might prefer such un-distorted and un-biased views of history as the _Rambo_ films. Or, perhaps our very own Turkey prefers his history straight up, vis a vis _The Manchurian Candidate_.
> 
> Buzz


Dude, I'm pretty sure The Manchurian Candidate is based on fact. I'm just not sure whether the candidate that we should be concerned with was brain washed in Hanoi or south Chicago.

PT, you are aware that Mike Petrik is not a liberal? Right?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Apthorpe said:


> Dude, I'm pretty sure The Manchurian Candidate is based on fact. I'm just not sure whether the candidate that we should be concerned with was brain washed in Hanoi or south Chicago.
> 
> PT, you are aware that Mike Petrik is not a liberal? Right?


Yes, indeed. I'm no libby.

TMC, the film, was in fact based on a best-selling novel. It was complete fiction, never giving any remote pretense of being a docu-drama. That said, it was inspired by very real concerns grounded in the very real phenomenon known as brain-washing. According to Wiki:

"The term xǐ năo (洗腦, the Chinese term literally translated as "to wash the brain") originally referred to methodologies of coercive persuasion used in the "reconstruction" (改造 gǎi zào) of the so-called feudal (封建 fēng jiàn) thought-patterns of Chinese citizens raised under pre-revolutionary régimes; the term punned on the Taoist custom of "cleansing/washing the heart" (洗心 xǐ xīn) prior to conducting certain ceremonies or entering certain holy places, and in Chinese, the word "心" xīn also refers to the soul or the mind, contrasting with the brain. The term first came into use in the United States in the 1950s during the Korean War (1950-1953) to describe those same methods as applied by the Chinese communists to attempt deep and permanent behavioral changes in foreign prisoners, and especially during the Korean War to disrupt the ability of captured United Nations troops to effectively organize and resist their imprisonment."

Eventually, we came to know that the brain-washing efforts of Chinese and North Korean Communists achieved only very limited and temporary success. But during the 1950's the fears were genuine, and they inspired a best-selling novel and a classic film.


----------



## Apthorpe (Apr 8, 2008)

I was kidding about TMC being based on fact. Mostly.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

M6Classic said:


> The only thing that is one dimensional is an infinitely small point and, thus, invisible. Time to study up on your basic geometry, Turkey! Or, did you not attend school long enough to study geometry?
> 
> Buzz


LOL, you buffoon. It's been a while, but I do remember that a _line_ is one dimensional (remember how to describe a point on a line? 5 (as opposed to a point on a plane (5,0)); a point can't be said to have any dimensions at all. And, of course, points don't have any size either-so it would be silly to say that one point can be larger than any other, regardless of how many dimensions it's in.

I don't know if I should be more amused by your mistakes, or by your arrogance. I'm leaning toward the arrogance.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

That is just too funny.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> I worked at a video store in college, and I don't think I ever rented Inherit the Wind to anyone. To be honest, I'd never even heard of the movie until reading this thread...same goes for Birth of a Nation. I have seen The Manchurian Candidate, and unfortunately I have seen Rambo too.


Actually, Inherit the Wind has been playing on a movie channel in NY recently. I am by no means a liberal and I understand how terribly the movie portrayed the townspeople who were religious conservatives. But it was a damn good movie nonetheless. Well written and well acted by an all star cast.

Birth of a Nation was the first major movie production ever. It's a great work by one of the greatest directors. Unfortunately D W Griffith (who was born in th South shortly after the Civil War) included his vision from a Southerner's point of view of how the former Confederacy suffered at the hands of freed slaves and Northern carpetbaggers. Misguided? Absolutely. But one can still see past it to the greatness of the movie itself.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

KenR said:


> Actually, Inherit the Wind has been playing on a movie channel in NY recently. I am by no means a liberal and I understand how terribly the movie portrayed the townspeople who were religious conservatives. But it was a damn good movie nonetheless. Well written and well acted by an all star cast.
> 
> Birth of a Nation was the first major movie production ever. It's a great work by one of the greatest directors. Unfortunately D W Griffith (who was born in th South shortly after the Civil War) included his vision from a Southerner's point of view of how the former Confederacy suffered at the hands of freed slaves and Northern carpetbaggers. Misguided? Absolutely. But one can still see past it to the greatness of the movie itself.


You nailed it on both counts.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Plus I think Lillian Gish was cute. :icon_smile:


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> LOL, you buffoon. It's been a while, but I do remember that a _line_ is one dimensional (remember how to describe a point on a line? 5 (as opposed to a point on a plane (5,0)); a point can't be said to have any dimensions at all. And, of course, points don't have any size either-so it would be silly to say that one point can be larger than any other, regardless of how many dimensions it's in.
> 
> I don't know if I should be more amused by your mistakes, or by your arrogance. I'm leaning toward the arrogance.


Oh, and I do laugh with you my dear Turkey! Even my fourteen year old son got a kick out of your message at his dad's expense! Sorry, Turkey, I wasn't ignorig you, I was away for several days.

Rest assured that most people I know consider my arrogance waaaay more amusing than my mistakes, so you are in better company than you deserve to be.

You are of course correct that a point has no dimension and I was in error to state otherwise. However, the fact remains that your reference to the depiction of...I think it was, but I could have forgotten...rural Christians as "one dimensional" remains silly because a one dimensional object still can't be seen. I believe you mean the depiction is flat, meaning without nuance. Flat would be two dimensional.

We photographers have an expression, _just keep pushing the button and the shutter will come unstuck_. Keep pushing that button, Turkey!

Buzz


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

M6Classic said:


> Oh, and I do laugh with you my dear Turkey! Even my fourteen year old son got a kick out of your message at his dad's expense! Sorry, Turkey, I wasn't ignorig you, I was away for several days.
> 
> Rest assured that most people I know consider my arrogance waaaay more amusing than my mistakes, so you are in better company than you deserve to be.
> 
> ...


Actually, the term "one-dimensional" when applied to a character in a work of fiction is perfectly sensible. It is what is known as an idiom.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> Actually, the term "one-dimensional" when applied to a character in a work of fiction is perfectly sensible. It is what is known as an idiom.


No it is not. It is what is known as _idiotic_. It makes absolutely no sense and is idiomatic only to those idiotic enough not to think about what they say or write.

Buzz


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> Actually, the term "one-dimensional" when applied to a character in a work of fiction is perfectly sensible. It is what is known as an idiom.


On second thought, I can think of exactly one literary character who can be described as _one dimensional_. Godot. However, one dimensional is still not an idiomatic term in any way whatsoever.

Buzz


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> Actually, the term "one-dimensional" when applied to a character in a work of fiction is perfectly sensible. It is what is known as an idiom.


Indeed it is. It is a widely used descriptive term in literary criticism and other disciplines involving the study of language. This is not to say that an idiot can't attempt to employ an idiom.

Cordially,
Adrian Quay


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Quay said:


> Indeed it is. It is a widely used descriptive term in literary criticism and other disciplines involving the study of language.
> 
> Cordially,
> Adrian Quay


People use it, but it is still wrong. It is still senseless. It is still stupid. That said, if you and the Turkey and Mike Petrik want to go around describing characters...literary or any other kind...as one dimensional, go ahead, at least the three of you are being consistent.

Buzz


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

M6Classic said:


> On second thought, I can think of exactly one literary character who can be described as _one dimensional_. Godot. However, one dimensional is still not an idiomatic term in any way whatsoever.
> 
> Buzz


An idiom is a term or phrase whose meaning cannot be deduced from the literal definitions and the arrangement of its parts, but refers instead to a figurative meaning that is known only through common use. See, e.g., Wiki. That exactly describes the common usage of the term one-dimensional, whose definition includes "lacking depth, superficial." See below.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/one-dimensional (including the specific example: "one-dimensional characters.")

https://www.answers.com/topic/one-dimensional

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/one-dimensional

You need to put down your camera and get out more, Buzz.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> An idiom is a term or phrase whose meaning cannot be deduced from the literal definitions and the arrangement of its parts, but refers instead to a figurative meaning that is known only through common use. See, e.g., Wiki. That exactly describes the common usage of the term one-dimensional, whose definition includes "lacking depth, superficial." See below.
> 
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/one-dimensional (including the specific example: "one-dimensional characters.")
> 
> ...


I know what an idiom is. I also know nonsense. I am pleased to see that you have enough dexterity to surf the internet in lieu of actual research. As I said, if you feel comfortable describing a character as one dimensional, go ahead, unless you care about what literate people think of you. In that way, its a lot like spectator shoes.

Buzz


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Ho-ho, you sure hit the nail on the head, Mike.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Ho-ho, you sure *hit the nail on the head*, Mike.


Finally an idiom that makes sense! In this case it is wrong, but it does show that you are trying, Turkey! Keep up the good work and you may get a gold star for the day!

Buzz


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Buzz,
Your post is arrogant, nonresponsive, and nonsensical all at the same time, which is quite a feat. I hear that Obama is still searching for a compatable running mate. I encourage you to apply.

And by the way, it is you who are being pedantic. That is called "irony." You can look that up yourself.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> Buzz,
> Your post is arrogant, nonresponsive, and nonsensical all at the same time, which is quite a feat. I hear that Obama is still searching for a compatable running mate. I encourage you to apply.
> 
> And by the way, it is you who are being pedantic. That is called "irony." You can look that up yourself.


Arrogant? _Moi?_ *Absolutely!* To use an idiom _and_ quote the Turkey, you hit the nail on the head with that one, Mike! Nonresponsive and nonsensical? Your entitled to your opinion but you are wrong. I responded by saying that one dimensional is simply not an idiom...it is a malapropism...and that it makes no sense because something that is one dimensional cannot be seen. You can keep wanting it to make sense, but it doesn't. I think my position makes perfect sense and your continuing to simply say over and over that it doesn't is utterly baseless but is providing a nice breeze on this warm night, so please keep it up. Maybe you can fill me in on that to which I have not responded and that which I have said which makes no sense.

Did I ever say I was _not_ pedantic? Of course I am pedantic, I revel in pedantry, it is my art medium!

Oooooh, _irony_. He's using big words now, I am going to have to go find a dictionary!

Buzz


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I think the word I would use is "pretentious." But, regardless, "one dimensional character" certainly does make sense. You just have to realize that a "dimension" doesn't have to represent physical space.

To use a familiar example-- you might have a photograph, and any point at a given resolution might have three dimensions-- X,Y, and color. Get it now, Buzz?


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I think the word I would use is "pretentious." But, regardless, "one dimensional character" certainly does make sense. You just have to realize that a "dimension" doesn't have to represent physical space.
> 
> To use a familiar example-- you might have a photograph, and any point at a given resolution might have three dimensions-- X,Y, and color. Get it now, Buzz?


That's what makes you so special, Turkey, you have absolutely no inhibitions about your own limitations.

In the case you cited, the photographer would refer to color as a _gender_ not a _dimension_, which is beside the point (get it? _Point_? Wink-wink). You can think of any number of ways to describe a multi-dimensional photograph, but there can be no such thing as a one dimensional photograph. Get it _now_, Turkey? A one dimensional character still makes absolutely no sense, but you get an e for effort, so keep at it.

I rather think that I am more arrogant than pretentious, but I am willing to let you and Mike decide. Have fun.

Buzz


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

M6Classic said:


> Arrogant? _Moi?_ *Absolutely!* To use an idiom _and_ quote the Turkey, you hit the nail on the head with that one, Mike! Nonresponsive and nonsensical? Your entitled to your opinion but you are wrong. I responded by saying that one dimensional is simply not an idiom...it is a malapropism...and that it makes no sense because something that is one dimensional cannot be seen. You can keep wanting it to make sense, but it doesn't. I think my position makes perfect sense and your continuing to simply say over and over that it doesn't is utterly baseless but is providing a nice breeze on this warm night, so please keep it up. Maybe you can fill me in on that to which I have not responded and that which I have said which makes no sense.
> 
> Did I ever say I was _not_ pedantic? Of course I am pedantic, I revel in pedantry, it is my art medium!
> 
> ...


Buzz, I have to admit you are great fun. Let me ask you this: What about the dictionary definitions cited above, which explicitly endorse PT's usage?


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> Buzz, I have to admit you are great fun. Let me ask you this: What about the dictionary definitions cited above, which explicitly endorse PT's usage?


The only English language dictionary I accept as authoritative is the _Merriam-Webster New International Dictionary, Second Edition_ (1934-1961). This evening I checked three different vintages of Webster's Second, I own at least one example of every printing, and they each define "one dimensional" simply as, "having one dimension." Nothing about idiomatic expressions, nothing about character description, nothing else at all.

If you want to engage in an argument over prescriptive and descriptive lexicography and the deterioration of American dictionaries since 1960, I suggest we hold that for the morning. :icon_smile_big:

Buzz


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

M6Classic said:


> The only English language dictionary I accept as authoritative is the _Merriam-Webster New International Dictionary, Second Edition_ (1934-1961). This evening I checked three different vintages of Webster's Second, I own at least one example of every printing, and they each define "one dimensional" simply as, "having one dimension." Nothing about idiomatic expressions, nothing about character description, nothing else at all.
> 
> If you want to engage in an argument over prescriptive and descriptive lexicography and the deterioration of American dictionaries since 1960, I suggest we hold that for the morning. :icon_smile_big:
> 
> Buzz


Lord, no, Buzz, my time is far too valuable. In any case, I'm traveling all weekend. But good luck when some "bean counter" understandably accuses you of being an "airhead" who was fed so much "microwaved" "junk food" by your "deadbeat dad" and "surrogate mother" that you think you must access your "voice mail" by researching the "Internet" for your "area code."

And by the way, why would I debate prescriptive versus descriptive usage with a man who doesn't know the difference between a "malapropism" and a "misnomer"?

Cheers!


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> Lord, no, Buzz, my time is far too valuable. In any case, I'm traveling all weekend. But good luck when some "bean counter" understandably accuses you of being an "airhead" who was fed so much "microwaved" "junk food" by your "deadbeat dad" and "surrogate mother" that you think you must access your "voice mail" by researching the "Internet" for your "area code."
> 
> And by the way, why would I debate prescriptive versus descriptive usage with a man who doesn't know the difference between a "malapropism" and a "misnomer"?
> 
> Cheers!


Gee, Mike, I am sorry to tell you that I really do know the difference, but let me go back to the source. According to the Merriam-Webster _New International Dictionary, Second Edition_ (1947). *Malapropism*, the grotesque misuse of a word; a word so misused. *Misnomer*. 1 The misnaming of a person in a legal document, use of the wrong name. 2 A wrong name; an incorrect designation of a term. Based on these definitions, I have to conclude that the use of _one-dimensional_ to describe a character or ethos is a _malapropism_. Now, if the question is, "Of which is the Turkey guilty, using a misnomer or a malapropism?" then there is room for argument.

Also, I appreciate your attempts to develop a facile theory on the origin of my arrogance and pretentiousness, but I came by them the old fashioned way. I worked hard studying with people of unquestioned brilliance and honed my skills under their guidance and with much practice in the world of word and thought.

By the way, what do you mean by, "...you think you must access your "voice mail" by researching the "Internet" for your area code." What makes you think I would ever use voice mail? I don't.

I hope you enjoyed your weekend, travel really does broaden the mind.

Buzz


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

M6Classic said:


> That's what makes you so special, Turkey, you have absolutely no inhibitions about your own limitations.


Oh, I don't think I'm nearly as special as you in that respect. Weren't you just lecturing me (who, I guess you don't know once, long ago, was awarded a bachelor's in math) on geometry?



> In the case you cited, the photographer would refer to color as a _gender_ not a _dimension_, which is beside the point (get it? _Point_? Wink-wink).


Charming, but irrelevant.



> You can think of any number of ways to describe a multi-dimensional photograph, but there can be no such thing as a one dimensional photograph.
> 
> Get it _now_, Turkey? A one dimensional character still makes absolutely no sense, but you get an e for effort, so keep at it.


No, there isn't. However, there is such a thing as a photograph that is _so dominated_ by one dimension as to be described as one dimensional. Like a picture of... blue. Get it now?


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Oh, I don't think I'm nearly as special as you in that respect. Weren't you just lecturing me (*who*, I guess you don't know once, long ago, was awarded a bachelor's in math) on geometry?


Not, _who_, Turkey, _whom_.



PedanticTurkey said:


> No, there isn't. However, there is such a thing as a photograph that is _so dominated_ by one dimension as to be described as one dimensional. Like a picture of... blue. Get it now?


Boy is that reasoning warped! Warped and so stupid as to defy any sense of reason. In short, it is what we expect from our dear, dear Turkey.

Read your Susan Sontag, Henri Cartier-Bresson, and Gene Smith and then come back and we'll chat. Otherwise, you would do better to keep your silly ideas under a basket.

Buzz


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Spare me the posturing. Put up or shut up.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Spare me the posturing. Put up or shut up.


Why should I spare you the posturing? Posturing is what I do best. Besides, you're the one who keeps spouting the grossly stupid and untenable ideas like one-dimensional photographs.

Put up what?

Buzz


----------

