Question: Something that puzzles me about the thee Omen films taken together. In the first film of the series the very young Damien is taken into a church. As the son of the Devil he has a great aversion to all things Christian, so he has a huge tantrum, and screams, struggles and resists going into the building. So how is it, that, as the series progresses, he can enter Christian buildings without any ill effects? (The denouement of the third and final Omen film is set in Fountains Abbey, a venerated Christian church in Yorkshire).
Rob Halliday
26th Aug 2018
The Omen (1976)
Answer: There's no clear-cut answer. The first film was intended as a stand-alone movie. When the later sequels were made, the plot details were changed or otherwise adapted to fit a new story line.
A quick addendum to this correction: There was indeed a general idea from the start that the Omen could spawn a trilogy of movies, though there weren't detailed plans, and the first film was written so that it could function fine as a stand-alone movie if they never got around to sequels.
26th Aug 2018
The Stranger (1946)
Question: At the end, Orson Welles is wounded and flees up a ladder out onto the face of the church clock. The clock contains an automata of statues that move in front of the clock face. One statue holds a sword which impales Orson Welles. We have a distance shot in which the sword is sticking out of Orson Welles' back. Orson Welles presses against the statue to withdraw the sword and falls to his death. Is such an end feasible? Surely, for a sword to fully pierce a human body it would have to be very sharp and be driven with incredible force and speed. Would the statue be moving with anything remotely approaching such force and speed? And surely a statue on a clock would not carry a real sword, but a facsimile, meant to look like a weapon from a distance? And, if somebody was pierced completely through with a sword, could they press their body forward to fully withdraw the weapon? (01:34:45)
26th Aug 2018
The Phantom of the Opera (1962)
Question: In this version the Phantom was a highly gifted composer, who, as a grown adult, was horribly disfigured in an accident. Much of the Hammer version centres on the performance of the Phantom's masterpiece, an opera about Joan Of Arc, segments of which are shown during the film. I am not an expert on opera, but it seemed to me that the Phantom's musical take on the Joan Of Arc legend was one of the dullest musical performances I have ever seen, consisting of perfectly ordinary (and uninspiring) dialogue, sung on a single (and rather monotonous) octave. (Imagine some people who can't sing very well singing the text of a second rate historical novel.) Did anybody else who saw this little known film of the classic horror story have any opinion on the Joan Of Arc opera?
9th Aug 2018
Lord of the Flies (1963)
Question: One of the boys, called Piggy, wears glasses. Piggy's glasses become an important, prized object, because the boys can use the lenses to refract the sun's rays, and thus start fires. It is fairly well established, that, on a hot day, in bright sunshine, one can focus the sun's rays through a magnifying glass to set light to combustible material. (I've done it myself, although it took me rather longer than the book or film suggested, and it only made a very small flame.) But could you use spectacles, that people wear to correct defective vision, to start a fire in this way? Surely, if this was possible, wouldn't it mean that when people who wear glasses went out in hot sunny weather, then they would burn their eyes?
Answer: The key factor there is the focus of the light over distance. The light coming through the glass is refracted and focused on a single point. But it's bent like a ribbon. There is a "sweet spot" so to say where you have to hold the magnifying glass or lens at just the right distance and angle from the object to focus the center point of the light on it. Typically, this means holding the glass out a good several inches or even a foot or so away from what you wish to ignite to get the focal point of the light on it. Someone wearing glasses has them pretty much right up to their face. And so the light can't reach a focal point. Also keep in mind that for focusing the light through a lens, it needs to be angled just right for the light to go through it at the optimal angle and focus. Usually this means facing the sun directly. Typically people don't look up directly at the sun, at least not for more than a second. Especially with glasses on.
Answer: Only convex magnifying lenses can be used to focus the sun's rays in such a way as to start a fire. A convex magnifying lens is bowed outwards on both sides. Such lenses are found in magnifying glasses, binoculars and cameras, for examples. Conventional spectacles to correct vision are convex on one side and concave (bowed inward) on the other side, and so cannot be used to start fires. If Piggy's glasses are used to start fires, then he is wearing convex magnifying lenses (which would only be useful for up-close reading purposes, and they would be utterly useless for any other vision correction) ; and, if indeed he is wearing truly convex magnifying lenses for some reason, then his retinas could certainly be damaged by even glancing at the sun.
Answer: Lenses for nearsightedness would not work, but they could be corrected for the purpose by filling their concave areas with clear water, which would make the whole object correctly refract sunlight.
That's a reported "survival" trick (placing a drop of clear water in the center of a concave lens so as to focus the sun's rays) ; but I've never had any success with it.
9th Aug 2018
Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979)
Question: When Brian is about to be crucified, soldiers arrive with news of his release. The soldiers ask for Brian, and everybody shouts "I'm Brian." Is this a parody of the "I'm Spartacus" episode in the Kirk Douglas/Stanley Kubrick film of "Spartacus"? If so, would this support my feeling that Life Of Brian is primarily a parody of classical/biblical 'epic' films?
Answer: Actually, no, the primary goal of "Life of Brian" was not to parody biblical films. Terry Gilliam has stated that the "important" objective of the movie was "to offend a lot of people," particularly "Jews and Christians, because they're easy to push around." Gilliam further said that, at the same time, they were "very cautious not to offend Muslims, because they're the dangerous ones." Both Gilliam and John Cleese have also said that, while the Pythons took care to avoid blasphemy (not directly mocking Jesus of Nazareth, with whom the Pythons had no quarrel), they fully intended that the film be heretical (in defiance of Catholic Church doctrine and dogma). Make no mistake, "Life of Brian" is not supposed to be a lighthearted parody of biblical films; it's supposed to be a sharp stick in the eye to the Roman Catholic Church.
Answer: The scene is a parody of the scene in "Spartacus" (although they are saying "I am Brian" for completely different reasons.) However, the film is meant to be a satire on religion itself and not a parody of epic films. The Pythons did a lot of research to try and accurately portray 1st century Judea, which is why it may look like a biblical epic, but I can't recall any biblical epics they parodied. At the time it was considered blasphemous, and not a parody, and banned in several areas in the UK and some countries. Although the Pythons argued it's not blasphemy but heresy.
Answer: You are indeed correct. It is a parody of the "Spartacus" scene but mostly of religion.
Perhaps not so much a parody of "Spartacus" as a tribute to Stanley Kubrick. Monty Python writer Terry Gilliam was very much a fan of Kubrick films and became friends with Kubrick in the 1980s. Gilliam claimed that Kubrick had even spoken with him about making a sequel to Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove" (with Gilliam as director). Chances are, the "Spartacus" allusion was part of Gilliam's contribution to the "Life of Brian" screenplay, a tip-o-the-hat to Stanley Kubrick.
6th Aug 2018
Rocky III (1982)
Question: At the start of Rocky III he is the undisputed world heavyweight champion, who has successfully defended his title 10 times. I thought the point of the first Rocky film was that he was a 'no hoper' who gets a shot at the title. At the start of the first Rocky film he is an 'over-the-hill', outsider, still strong and hard hitting, but past his peak fitness, beginning to age and lose his speed. Rocky is a fictional character, but he still has a wikipedia entry, which says that he was 30 at the time of his fight with Apollo Creed, by which time his record is 44 wins and 20 losses. What is the possibility of a boxing outsider aged over 30 having a turnaround in his career and becoming a successful world champion?
Answer: I think the point was that Apollo Creed didn't take him seriously, that he wasn't a serious competitor for him, didn't train hard enough for the fight whilst Rocky fought every chance he got. His way of fighting, not giving up, good chin and deadly punches gives him the ability to got toe to toe and later beat Apollo Creed in Rocky II where Apollo trains way better but wastes time with a smear campaign and still can't beat Rocky's spirit and chin, next to that Rocky trains way better too and has a good mental focus in time for the fight. The later fights when he is champion, as Rocky's trainer Mickey explains, are not real competitors, just show fights to keep the money coming in and keep Rocky healthy. Clubber Lang is the first real competitor after Creed, and he nearly kills him.
29th Jul 2018
Mission: Impossible (1966)
Question: At the start of each episode of Mission Impossible Briggs or Phelps received details of the mission from a tape recording that was 'hidden in plain sight', say a telephone booth displaying a poster saying 'Telephone Out Of Order. Do Not Use'. So, what would happen if somebody went into the kiosk before Briggs or Phelps, picked up the telephone and got the secret message ahead of the Mission Impossible team?
Answer: This is not really a serious question. When I posted this question I was fully aware that Mission Impossible is only a television programme. Like many espionage thrillers (Man From Uncle, The Avengers, James Bond) it is meant to entertain, it is never meant to be taken literally seriously. It was essential to the story that Briggs or Phelps received a secret message, which would give them a mission to accomplish. If they did not receive the message you would not have had the story. When I used to watch Mission Impossible it just used to amuse me to wonder what might have happened had somebody picked up the phone containing the secret message ahead of Briggs or Phelps. I even considered writing to a comedian and suggesting that they devise a comedy sketch in which this happened. My question was only meant to be a joke, that I posted to amuse people.
The Lucy Show or Here's Lucy did an episode of exactly this scenario.
28th Jul 2018
The Man in the Iron Mask (1998)
Question: Not just this, but every cinema and television adaptation of the legend of The Man in the Iron Mask that I have seen, without exception, has always left me asking the same question. A man is locked up in a lonely prison where his face is hidden by an iron mask. The Three Musketeers or some similar swashbuckling heroes rescue him. He may have worn the iron mask for weeks, months, or even years. So why is it, that, when the iron mask is removed he always emerges clean shaven?
Answer: The mask would be periodically removed by the prisoner's attendants to shave his beard and cut his hair. Leaving it on permanently and letting his beard and hair grow endlessly would create physical and medical problems, possibly even suffocating him eventually. The goal was to keep him imprisoned for a long period of time, not to execute him.
But isn't he wearing the mask so that nobody will know who he is? If the prison staff keep removing the mask to shave him and cut his hair then they will all know exactly what he looks like, and they will be able to identify him. In many versions of the story he has to wear the mask so that nobody will recognise him as the king's twin brother. If the prison guards remove the mask won't they see how he resembles the king? Alternatively, if the prison guards already know that he is the king's twin brother, then why bother to mask his face?
Anyone who was guarding and/or attending to the prisoner would be loyal to the king, acting as his agents, and sworn to keep his secrets. Not doing so would be treason. They would likely have minimal knowledge of who this person was, nor would it matter to them. They may or may not notice any resemblance to the king. In the prisoner's disheveled and weakened conditioned, it would not be obvious that he is an identical twin. Also, few people in pre-mass media times, knew what royals looked like, probably only catching occasional glimpses of them from far away, if ever at all.
Answer: In the 1939 version of The Man in the Iron Mask starring Louis Hayword, when the mask is taken off, he does have a beard. Phillipe even asks Louis how long it will take for his (Louis') beard to grow once he is in the mask.
24th Jul 2018
Mary Poppins (1964)
Question: Was I the only person to be struck quite forcefully (metaphorically speaking) by the contrast between Julie Andrews' portrayal of Mary Poppins, as the ever-smiling, cheerful, friendly, vivacious character, who melts everybody with her charm, which seemed wholly at odds with PL Travers' portrayal of Mary Poppins as acerbic, dour, and cynical, who always seems to get her way by utter, overwhelming arrogance?
Answer: Travers, herself, was pretty much the model for the original Mary Poppins: an inflexible authoritarian who insisted on advising and reviewing nearly every aspect of the film's production. Which is why Disney had such a hell of a time securing the rights and molding Travers' story into a lighthearted romp.
Mary Poppins may somewhat resemble P.L. Travers, but her great-aunt, Helen Morehead, is largely considered to be the inspiration for the character. Travers' mother moved in with her aunts after P.L.'s father died when she was a young girl. The aunt would often say, "Spit spot, into bed."
Some aspects of Mary Poppins were based on Travers' great-aunt (the more positive aspects that Travers remembered from childhood) ; but the overall character was Travers herself.
Answer: No doubt many fans of the books and P.L. Travers agreed with your assessment. However, it was 1964 and Travers' book was heavily "Disneyfied," meaning they imprinted their particular syrupy, family-oriented wholesome stamp on the project, watering down Poppins' dour personality. Travers was appalled by it and would never allow another of her books to be made into a movie. There is a remake in the works, and, hopefully, the current Disney heads will give it a darker tone.
23rd Jul 2018
Pancho Villa (1972)
Question: Francisco 'Pancho' Villa was photographed on many occasions, and always had a full head of hair (as well as a moustache). Yet the film cast Telly Savalas as Pancho Villa, who shaved his head, and was always very proud of and conscious of being a Greek-American. The year after Pancho Villa was released Telly Savalas began to play the titular character of the police drama series, 'Kojak', which transformed him into the world's most recognisable Greek. So, my question is, given a film about Pancho Villa was made in Spain, where the producer and director had an unlimited number of actors of Hispanic ancestry to call on, why cast one of the world's most famous bald, Greek actors (sporting an unconvincing moustache) to play the hirsute Mexican Pancho Villa?
Answer: Hollywood, especially in that era, frequently would cast white actors to play people of color The studio knew Savalas would bring in a lot of viewers, while an unknown from Spain might not.
6th Jul 2018
Little Big Man (1970)
Question: In all honesty I have little (if any) anthropological knowledge of what life was like for Native Americans in the USA in the nineteenth century. But it seemed to me that, for much of the time, the Native Americans in the movie did not resemble the members of a 'hunter gatherer' society whose way of life was under threat from the onset of the modern industrial world. Instead the Native Americans seemed to live, act and behave much more like the members of a 1960's hippie commune. How accurate is that?
Answer: Some members of tribes like the Cheyenne joined in the 'modern' world to some extent, using guns and even putting on Western clothes and eating Western food. While nowhere near the technological nous of the white settlers, the natives were far from being hunter gatherers at this point.
Answer: Well observed sir! What you say is correct. I admit I probably was wrong in calling Native North Americans 'hunter gatherers' as I think some tribes had agriculture and permanent settlements well before Columbus ever reached the American Continent. I also think that the Cherokee consciously tried to adapt to modern life by building houses and becoming farmers. My point was more that it seemed to me that the portrayal of many Native Americans in Little Big Man did not seem historically accurate, but showed them as being more like 1960's hippies. But I am fully aware that this may have been intentional, since the film was giving a 1960's 'spin' on the legends of the 'Wild West'. But please, do not take my posts on this website too seriously. I am fully aware that this was a film made to entertain people, it was not meant to be a historical documentary. And it was the fictional recollections of a 121 year old man. And the film poster said 'Little Big Man was either the most neglected hero in history OR A liar of insane proportion', so you are invited to have your doubts about anything that happens in the film.
Rob, you may want to look into reading the novel the film was based on written by Thomas Berger. He wrote some pretty twisted stuff.
3rd Jul 2018
The Long Ships (1964)
Question: The Vikings led by Rolfe and the Moors led by Aly Mansuh are both seeking a gigantic bell, 'The Mother Of All Voices', twenty feet high, made of solid gold. Eventually the Vikings find it, and transport it on their ships back to Aly Mansuh's capital. How can they do this? One of the world's most famous bells is 'Big Ben' in the Houses of Parliament: a mere seven and a half feet high, this weighs thirteen tons! Not only is 'The Mother Of All Voices' considerably larger than 'Big Ben', it is also made of gold. Now, gold is heavier than lead, so how much will a gold bell over twenty feet high weigh? How can the Vikings transport this over the sea on their 'long ships'? And what do either the Vikings or the Moors plan to do when they have the bell? If they keep it to admire for its beauty and craftsmanship, then it will just be a financial liability to whoever owns it. Or if they melt it down for the gold they will destroy all the craftsmanship and artistic endeavour that went into making the bell.
Answer: Perhaps, when I submitted my question, I may have been pondering the internal logic of a film that makes a good adventure story, but is historically rather doubtful to say the least (I can say this as I have a degree in medieval history, and have worked as an archaeologist on Viking settlements). In all probability, if historical Vikings were seeking treasure or plunder, and found a bell made of gold, they would melt it down for its precious metal content, with no regard for its artistic significance.
Answer: It's unlikely Viking ships could transport such a heavy object, but movies, which frequently ignore historical and scientific reality, often use plot devices like this to tell the story. As far as the Vikings and Moors admiring the gold bell's craftsmanship, that may be the case, but they might also be like the Spanish conquerors who plundered Mexico and South America with little regard for the culture, and shipped finely-crafted gold objects back to Spain where they were melted and remade into coins, jewelry, and other art objects.
Join the mailing list
Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.
Answer: It may be similar to myths around vampires. In many variations, their fear of crucifixes is purely psychological. As a child, Damian may have feared the symbolism of the church, but as he grew he realised it had no actual power over him.