MovieChat Forums > Sullivan's Travels (1942) Discussion > 'JOHN L. SULLIVAN'???????

'JOHN L. SULLIVAN'???????

posted 12 years ago by aciolino
14 replies | jump to latest

I do not understand the choice of character name in this film. Why use one of the most famous names in popular culture if not American history? Perhaps today the name has lost it's power and position, as have so many names of pre-1964 vintage, but believe me, in 1941 the name, "John L. Sullivan" had a very specific meaning and association.

Why would Sturges choose such a famous name?

It would be like making the film today and naming the character Martin Luther King.

What goes on here????

[–] out-of-towner 12 years ago

Which John L. Sullivan are you speaking of?

[–] aciolino 12 years ago

Ah, the idiot that proves the rule.

THIS ONE:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_L._Sullivan

[–] out-of-towner 12 years ago

Thanks for the clarification, acio, but you don't need to be a SMART-ASS about it. All I did was ask you a question. And thanks for the wikipedia link, but Iv'e already been there. In fact, wikipedia mentions several John L. Sullivan's including a boxer, a naval officer, an Arizona attorney general and even an elephant. Maybe you like elephants, I don't know. Hence my question.

In your original post you said: "but believe me, in 1941 the name 'John L. Sullivan' had a very specific meaning and association."

Fine, I believe you. Your brain is no doubt a vast repository of knowledge. So for those of us who weren't around in 1941, this is your big chance to enlighten us. Please tell us all about the very specific meaning and association of John L. Sullivan in the year 1941.

[–] aciolino 12 years ago

Oh, Jesus.

He was a freakin' legend. Just like saying "Babe Ruth" now. Imagine going to the movies today and you see a character whose name is Babe Ruth. What would you think? Coincidence? The writing was not thinking of the ballplayer. Are you kidding.

SAME THING.

[–] mspatera 12 years ago

Hey, did you know there's a director today named Chris Columbus? I was so shocked to find out he didn't discover America.

Calm down. Sturges knew what he was doing. It was funny. Like Hedley Lamarr.

[–] jrobertsonisa 12 years ago

Hedley Lamarr was used in a Buster Keaton short 30 years before Blazing Saddles. Brooks was a huge fan of Keaton. The reference could have been drawn from either place.

[–] gribfritz2 12 years ago

The wikipedia entry doesn't do him justice. Back then, boxers were big celebrities, like movie stars today. He appeared in theaters, etc... Anything where they could put his name in lights to attract a crowd. I'm not sure how popular the name would have been by 1941 (Sullivan was pretty washed up by 1900), but the name would have probably still been recognizable. So you do have to wonder why Sturges would choose that particular name. Also, the real man and the character from the movie had different middle names as well. Just makes it even stranger. And I don't think there's any way, in 1941, it would be just a coincidence. He was the heavyweight champion up until 1892. So 50 years ago. It's 2012. 50 years ago, the heavyweight champ was Sonny Liston. I would guess there are plenty that are aware of the name Sonny Liston today, and he wasn't anywhere near the level of celebrity Sullivan was.

[–] vinidici 12 years ago

Think about it, Ace: Wouldn't Joel McCrea's character have been born around the turn of the (20th) century? Didn't John L. Sullivan the boxer flourish in those days? And haven't some people always named their children after famous persons? Sullivan (the film's protagonist) was already half way there, he happened to be born with the same surname.

Whatever you do, DO NOT read this sig--ACKKK!!! TOO LATE!!!

[–] aciolino 10 years ago

Logical, but what is the point from a writer's point of view? There MUST be a reason he chose that name.

[–] aciolino 9 years ago

That's fine and it makes sense but the question remains, "Why?" There were plenty of famous people back then. It could have been Roosevelt's travels, or Thomas Edison's Travel's or, Orville Wright's Travels. But it wasn't. It was John L. Sullivan, which means it was intentional but WHY?

[–] vinidici 9 years ago

I can only conjecture here, but maybe the surname and title was already dreamt up by the writers before they settled on giving the protagonist the same full name as the boxer's.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cyninbend-149-610489 8 years ago

Maybe he really liked the guy's life story and it was his way of paying homage. Like posters here take the names of old time movie stars. I don't think it's them posting 80 years after starring in those movies. I assume it's a fan. Was Sturgess a boxing fan?

But then, maybe it was a subconscious thing, they thought the name went together really well and did not realize that was why it sounded good. When someone caught it, it was too late, they'd have to refilm every scene with a news headline or a reference to him. It's not a big deal--no one working on the film would have been more than a teenager, and most sugnificantly younger or not born yet... He last fought in 1892, the film was probably filmed in 1940...48 years is a loooong time to remember someone when you cannot look him up with google, wikipedia, etc.

[–] aciolino 8 years ago

Your ideas are well thought, but flawed.

Yes, it could have been an "homage," BUT -- the name was too big even at that time to not have at least a fleeting reference of explanation in the film.

Secondly, you are quite wrong about young people at that time. They would most certainly have known the name. I have spoken to boxing historians about this. Films were being made about the boxer at the same time this film was made. No. The name John L. Sullivan was well-known at the time.

Imagine a film being made today where a character was named Bing Crosby. Same thing. Crosby died almost 40 years ago. Is there anyone who has not at least heard the name?