Public Enemies

[John in Covina]

I found Depp's earring hole a distraction. [huh]

The prosthesis was going to be too cost prohibitive, they cut it from the budget. Polling showed only a small percentage would fixate on it, anyway.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Movie tickets (in Los Angeles, at least) are expensive. If I'm going to fork my dough over to some cineplex instead of Netflix, the flick had better be REALLY GOOD.


IMO this one could have been, but wasn't. You're darn right I'm disappointed.


.

 

[John in Covina]

I have seen it twice, paid the morning price the first time and full pop the second. Went the second time after reading all the buzz, tried to hate it but couldn't.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

For those few who were disappointed with the movie, here are two others that were excellent:


-- THE COTTON CLUB (1984) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6YB3W1HHw4

-- BILLY BATHGATE (1991) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVqyArqU56k


.

 

[texasgirl]

Well, we went and saw it again, and I thought it was even better the second time. Haven't seen a movie twice in the theater in years, well worth the $

 

[Atticus Finch]

Interesting. Would a white customer address a black shoe shine man in that way either back then? Probably not. Would he really care frankly how the shoe shine man was doing? One would think given the racial stereotypes of blacks and whites of that era, it wouldn't be said by either party. Perhaps it was a bit of modern politic correctness by having that line in the film?

Agreed, especially a white Texan lawman in the mid 1930s. Chances are high that he would have said something like, "Gimme a shine, boy."

To me, in the first quote above, the writer poses (and answers) a question as to whether the film's depiction of a white customer speaking politely to an African-American shoe shine man constitutes a historical inaccuracy in the film, given what the writer believes to be the likelihood of that actually happening in the 1930s and given the stereotypes of race relations in that era.

To me, in the second quote above, the writer agrees, adding that the likelihood of the customer being polite to the African-American shoe shine man is further reduced by the customer being a white, lawman from Texas.

What I'm about to write is not a condemnation, just an observation, but I believe that both of these quotes draw from negative regional and racial stereotypes. The author of the first quote almost states as much. I believe the quotes draw from stereotypes because factually, a white, Texas lawman could have said absolutely anything to a Chicago shoeshine in 1933. He could have said, "Gimme a shine, boy" or he could have said, "How 'bout them Sox!" I submit that both are very likely and I seriously doubt that anyone here can introduce definitive evidence to the contrary. Certainly, the film's depiction of a white, Texas lawman politely asking as to the well being of a shoeshine man is not so unlikely to have actually occurred as to constitute a historical flaw in the film.

Just my humble two cents.

AF

 

[John in Covina]

While certain regions did have a higher likelyhood of prejudicial lifestyles, how one treated others would be influenced by:

how your parents raised you,
religeous upbringing,
family and friends,
peer pressure,
and personal character.

As an aside, my parents were traveling to Florida in 1950 and on a stop somewhers down south my mom exiting a store held open a door for the black woman coming in and a white woman spit on her!

In 2000 on a trip to Copiague, NY I saw racism by a pizza shop counter guy that was ugly.

It happens but whether it happens is a choice of the person doing it not by the state or locale.

 

[kuwisdelu]

Considering we know the exact white, Texas lawman who said it.....the question can be reduced to what kind of thing would the historical Charles Winstead have said to a Chicago shoeshine man?

 

[Feraud]

Many of us might reconsider Public Enemies when the Hilary Duff Bonnie & Clyde is released..

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Okay, forget the likelihood of what the lawman would have said. I regret having introduced the idea.


What I really find incredible is that in the movie he says "How ya doin'?", which sounds like something out of Saturday Night Fever. It rings too modern, too 'Brooklynese' even, for the era and the character.

.

 

[Ghostsoldier]

"Howdy, Pardner! How about rustlin' up a shine?" would have been more historically in-character....
Rob
(Hate emails from Texans to follow....lol )

 

[J. M. Stovall]

I think this movie might rival the great Mac/PC debate.

 

[Tomasso]

What I really find incredulous is that in the movie he says "How ya doin'?"...... It rings too modern, too 'Brooklynese' even, for the era and the character.

.

The Golden Era gents in my family (NY/Chicago) used "How ya doin'" extensively, as a casual informal greeting. [huh]


And I do recall some old time Texans use "How y'all doin'."

 

[Atticus Finch]

Okay, forget the likelihood of what the lawman would have said. I regret having introduced the idea...
.

Because I am a white, Southern lawman, it is very likely that I am over sensitive to the way white, Southern lawmen are often depicted in Hollywood and elsewhere. And as an over-sensitive, white, Southern lawman, I have clearly nit-picked this non-issue much, much more than it deserved. Sorry.

AF

 

[Marc Chevalier]

The Golden Era gents in my family (NY/Chicago) used "How ya doin'" extensively, as a casual informal greeting. [huh]


And I do recall some old time Texans use "How y'all doin'?"

Time to split hairs. NY/Chicago isn't Texas, and never has been. "How y'all doin'?" isn't "How ya doin'?" ... and furthermore, "y'all" is addressed to a pair or a group, not a single person.


Incidentally, I liked the movie's Texan characters very much. They had more 'gravitas' than just about anyone else in the film; I wish they had been featured even more.


.

 

[DanielJones]

... and furthermore, "y'all" is addressed to a pair or a group, not a single person..

Just as a bit of useless trivia, "y'all" is the singular and "all y'all" is the plural.

Cheers!

Dan

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Just as a bit of useless trivia, "y'all" is the singular ...

"There is ... a long-standing disagreement about whether y'all can have primarily singular reference. While y'all is generally held in the Southern United States to be usable only as the plural form of 'you,' a scant but vocal minority (for example, Eric Hyman[5]) argue that the term can be used in the singular as well. Adding confusion to this issue is that observers attempting to judge usage may witness a single person addressed as y'all if the speaker implies in the reference other persons not present: 'Have y'all [you and others] had dinner yet?' (to which the answer would be, 'Yes, we have', by a single person acting as spokesman for the group.)"


"Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, to be sure, you-all indicates a plural, implicit if not explicit, and thus means, when addressed to a single person, 'you and your folks' or the like, but the hundredth time it is impossible to discover any such extension of meaning."

– H.L. Mencken, The American Language: An Inquiry into the Development of English in the United States, 1948, p.337


.

 

[Lenore]

Just as a bit of useless trivia, "y'all" is the singular and "all y'all" is the plural.

Cheers!

Dan

*giggles* I was waiting for someone to say it.

fftopic: As a matter of note: I'd like to point you to this blog. More than y'all wanted to know about y'all

 

[Marc Chevalier]

*giggles* I was waiting for someone to say it.

fftopic: As a matter of note: I'd like to point you to this blog. More than y'all wanted to know about y'all

Thanks, Lenore. From that blog:


"And through most of the South, [y'all] is plural. Unless someone is intentionally misusing it for effect, 'y'all' seldom refers to just one person.

Here's how Lewis Grizzard handled the situation: 'For some unknown reason, Northerners think Southerners use 'y'all' and 'you all' in the singular sense. Northerners will giggle and ask, 'So where are you all from?' I answer by saying, 'I all is from Atlanta.'"



.

 

[Lenore]

Thanks, Lenore. From that blog: "And through most of the South, [y'all] is plural. Unless someone is intentionally misusing it for effect, 'y'all' seldom refers to just one person."


.

No problem. Being from Texas, I hear it used incorrectly more often than not. In fact, it's one of my larger grammatical pet peeves.... right up there with "irregardless." :rage: