MovieChat Forums > The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) Discussion > Annoying Doris and her geographical igno...

Annoying Doris and her geographical ignorance

posted 11 years ago by hobnob53
80 replies | jump to latest

I've always found Doris Day (and her characterization of Jo) to be very annoying in this film, with her stubborn insistence on doing things her own way, superior attitude about other people and parts of the world, and her incessant nagging, and one incident right at the start sums it up.

While riding the bus in the opening scene, their kid says something about his first impression of Africa. Jo (Doris) admonishes him, "Well, this isn't really Africa. It's the French Morocco," at which husband Dr. McKenna (Jimmy Stewart) mildly interjects, "Well, it's northern Africa." Next time you see this movie, look at the extremely nasty glare Jo/Doris abruptly shoots him after he corrects her patently stupid and inaccurate remark -- an unsmiling, "how-dare-you-contradict-me!" jab right at her husband. If looks could kill....

I don't know why the character of Jo was written as someone so ignorant that she didn't know where Morocco is, but her brief but rather nasty reaction seems out of place, particularly since she's wrong. A normal person would have agreeably if sheepishly conceded Stewart's unassailably accurate point. But from other times in her life (in interviews that touched on subjects Doris didn't care for, or in some film roles) the glare is pure Doris, in that slightly self-righteous way she occasionally revealed and is at odds with her ostensibly sunny disposition. It's not all just an act.

NOTE: I earlier changed a small part of the content of this post to correct my error (still seen in the subject title) of laying the blame for the geographic error I cite to Doris Day personally, rather than to her character Jo. Several people have criticized this and they were right. I did acknowledge this problem and clarified it in a later post, but this OP remained a focal point of criticism. However, in making the change to more accurately state my point I should probably have left the original language intact and simply added an addendum with my correction/clarification. I didn't, and a poster somewhere below has made a proper criticism of this. Since I can't restore the precise language of the original post, I can only do the next best thing, to acknowledge the change made. It pertains only to clarifying that it was of course the character of Jo Conway, not Doris Day, who made the geographical mistake. But my criticism of Doris's/Jo's nasty glare at her husband stands, as well as my view that that glare is characteristic of Doris's own character rather than simply something she affected for this part.

[–] yusef-ghanima 11 years ago

you know this is a movie not a live reality tv show, don't you?

[–] hobnob53 11 years ago

You know your reference to "a live reality tv show" makes no sense whatsoever, don't you? Maybe you meant a quiz show.

Anyway, what's your problem? I'm pointing out a blatantly stupid and inaccurate remark and her inappropriate reaction to being challenged and corrected. If you're fine with ignorance and poor behavior, good for you. I'm not.

[–] yusef-ghanima 11 years ago

i mean doris has nothing to do with it, the writers made her like this. she wasn't made as a role model. it's a part of life that stupid people exist, so why not in a movie. do you need your movie to be perfectly logically correct to see it.

[–] hobnob53 11 years ago

Yes, the script writers undoubtedly wrote that line, so if so, they're at fault. But it was Doris who gave that holier-than-thou look at Stewart. Now, maybe she was directed to do that, but her glance is so brief, and has absolutely no impact on the plot (Stewart doesn't even appear to notice it, and makes no comment about it), that, given her usual personality traits, I'm sure this was the "real Doris Day", revealing the reaction she'd actually have if the situation were real. She's always had a very definite self-righteous streak about her.

Movies are seldom logical or correct in everything but when they make a readily recognizable mistake someone should catch it. In this case, I can accept that Doris's character (Jo McKenna) was supposed to be geographically dumb, but it's not only pointless in terms of the plot (since it has no effect on anything), her attitude at being corrected is very off-putting and seems much more Doris Day than Mrs. McKenna.

[–] yusef-ghanima 11 years ago

you've got that wrong i think, you are probably not married yet, this is how women confirm their power over men, it's survival to the fittest, that's why females, unfortunately, rule earth. you don't think it's Barack, it's Michelle who rule the planet, a common misunderstanding.

[–] hobnob53 11 years ago

I am married, and while I'll agree that Doris/Jo was overbearing and bossy, I'm not so sure women rule Earth. If they did, things might be better. Men haven't done so well at it. (I just read that that guy in Cleveland who kept three women imprisoned in his basement for a decade has hanged himself in his cell. I guess those women just exercised their control over the long term.)

I also wasn't aware that Michelle Obama ruled the planet. The U.S. itself isn't quite that powerful, but the millions of racist and lunatic Tea Partiers and birthers who think Barack is a Communist Muslim from Kenya might be relieved to have the undeniably 100% American (albeit Commie, radical "Christian" and, of course, black) Michelle really running things.

Better her than Ann Romney, anyway.

But thank you for your musings on marital relationships. Made my day.

[–] OswaldshotKennedy 11 years ago

hob, DD got such a raw deal from all her husbands in real life, no wonder she turned lesbo in "Calamity Jane" and gave screen husband James Stewart that icy look!

"The internet is for lonely people. People should live." Charlton Heston

[–] hobnob53 11 years ago

You're right about her ongoing lousy choices in men. Imagine such a wholesome girl-next-door having to suffer through three marriages and stalking younger guys in her 50s, when she looked better than ever.

She "turned" lesbian in Calamity Jane?! Wow. I didn't realize Howard Keel was a lesbian! No wonder she rejected the part of Mrs. Robinson in The Graduate (true). Now, if she'd had to seduce Katharine Ross, maybe she'd have grabbed it in a heartbeat. Lesbianism and incest, all in one.

[–] BrianRaess_Is_FinallyGone 10 years ago

but her glance is so brief...I'm sure this was the "real Doris Day", revealing the reaction she'd actually have if the situation were real.

For this to be true, this moment on film would have to have been the very first time she ever heard the line, forgetting that she read the script, heard the line multiple times during read-throughs and rehearsals. Her reaction is clearly character nuance. It shows that they are not a perfect couple and are prone to disagreements just like everyone else without spending an entire scene with whole bits of dialogue to spell it out.

[–] hobnob53 10 years ago

For this to be true, this moment on film would have to have been the very first time she ever heard the line, forgetting that she read the script, heard the line multiple times during read-throughs and rehearsals. Her reaction is clearly character nuance.

Not at all. She could have reacted the same way in rehearsals, or perhaps this reaction happened to be the one she evinced when the scene was shot. Point is, Doris often showed this kind of glaring, self-righteous, don't-contradict-me attitude in interviews and sometimes in her films. It's part of her character, and all actors reveal parts of themselves in the characters they play.

Of course the scene shows a normal married couple prone to occasional disagreements. No one ever said otherwise. The (minor) issue is that, for her character to get so uppity when corrected about a demonstrably false geographical statement she made (that Morocco isn't "really" in Africa, when it really is), and shoot that how-dare-you-correct-me glare at her husband (which is more Doris Day than Jo Conway), is to me annoying in its smug presumption. Some others feel differently, which is their right. It's only those desperate DD defenders who try to exonerate her character's idiotic assertion by insisting that Morocco isn't in Africa -- a statement accomplished by arbitrarily redefining "Africa" -- whose dishonesty discredits their case.

[–] BrianRaess_Is_FinallyGone 10 years ago

all actors reveal parts of themselves in the characters they play.

That's a generalization.

You've written a lot to defend/justify your position/opinion, but let's not forget your original claim was

And all because Doris was so ignorant and unschooled that she hadn't a clue on which continent Morocco is.

Doris wasn't ignorant or unschooled about the geography. Her character was.

[–] hobnob53 10 years ago

That's a generalization.

Not really. Actors inevitably bring their life experiences, knowledge, mannerisms, attitudes, techniques into any role they play. These are all parts of themselves, and moreover it really isn't avoidable -- on the contrary, it's an essential part of the reason one actor gets a role over another, because of what they bring to the role from their own life experiences and character. It's not the only factor but it's an important component. I think any actor would acknowledge this.

Now, you're absolutely correct about what I originally wrote. Which is why at some point, after being criticized for my sloppy language, I corrected that statement to say that it was Day's character Jo, not Day herself, who uttered the line. It's around here someplace in one of these posts, but I should probably correct the OP.

Of course, while the line in the script is attributable to the character Jo Conway (and to screenwriter John Michael Hayes), your statement that

Doris wasn't ignorant or unschooled about the geography.

is an assumption on your part. Maybe she was, maybe she wasn't; who knows? Not that it has any direct bearing on the topic...unless Doris really didn't know where Morocco was, which might have added force to her performance in the scene, based on her life experience.

[–] BrianRaess_Is_FinallyGone 10 years ago

it's an essential part of the reason one actor gets a role over another, because of what they bring to the role from their own life experiences and character.

This is false too. Brad Pitt, for instance, gets roles because he's an A-list actor whose name draws fans into the theaters. Other actors get roles because they were the 3rd or 4th choice and the 1st choice wasn't available. Your reasoning is sound, just too generalized.

is an assumption on your part.

So is your subject title. And your first post. And your entire point.

[–] hobnob53 10 years ago

In the first of my quotes you posted above, you selectively cited only a portion of my complete quote to make a misleading point. As you well know, after that line, I also added,

It's not the only factor but it's an important component. I think any actor would acknowledge this.

(Emphasis added here.)

Obviously, Brad Pitt or most major stars are cast because of their box-office clout, as well as their acting ability, suitability for the part and perhaps other reasons -- as I plainly alluded to in the sentence you chose to omit.

But Pitt brings his own life experiences, attitudes, etc., to any role he performs, just as all actors bring something of themselves to any role. Actors (contrary to what Max Biyalystock says in the original The Producers) are human beings, and it's simply not possible for a human being to completely eviscerate every aspect of him- or herself when playing a role, even if what's there are only minor or incidental parts of their life or character or background. A performer's own being inevitably has some effect on any characterization he or she undertakes, whether physical, emotional or intellectual. Only outwardly is this a generalization -- because no one can possibly erase all traces of their own being even when inhabiting a film or movie role. Besides, "lesser" or supporting actors aren't cast for their (non-existent) box-office draw, but for their ability and suitability for a role -- to which they also bring some of their own persona.

As to your final comment, about "assumptions" on my part:

So is your subject title. And your first post. And your entire point.

The following:

1. The subject title isn't an assumption. The "annoying" part is an opinion. The "geographical ignorance" part is a fact, that is as it pertains to Doris's character Jo.

2. Ditto my first post. It's opinion, backed by some observations and facts, with which anyone is free to agree or not. (Except the undeniable fact that Morocco is in Africa.)

3. And so with my entire point. Part of it is opinion. Part of it is observation. Part of it is undeniable fact. But none of it is an "assumption", with the possible exception of the matter of whether an actor does or does not inevitably and unavoidably bring something of his own being, mannerisms, character, beliefs, knowledge, dispositions, and so on and so on, to a role. You seem to agree that this happens sometimes but that to say this happens always is an assumption. Okay, but if my view is indeed an assumption on my part, then yours is equally just an assumption on your part.

[–] BrianRaess_Is_FinallyGone 10 years ago

I didn't need to provide the complete quote - it can be found right above my post. It also doesn't matter since it doesn't change that your original statement was (and still is, despite all your smoke-screening) a generalization. You can argue it all you want, you can't speak on behalf of every actor in the world and make your statement be accurately attributable to every actor that ever lived and not have that be a generalization. That's the very definition of a generalization.

"The subject title isn't an assumption."

Yes it is. Your title attributes "geographical ignorance" to "Doris." You have no proof that Doris Day herself was geographically ignorant regarding Morocco and Africa - therefore, it is your assumption.

"The "geographical ignorance" part is a fact, that is as it pertains to Doris's character Jo."

Your subject title doesn't say anything about Doris' character. It specifically says "Doris." Furthermore, you refer to Doris as being "annoying," not her character Jo. Your entire first post is about Doris Day being annoying, not her character. Not sure why you would even try to argue that. An intelligent person would suck that up and admit it.

"Ditto my first post. It's opinion, backed by some observations and facts, with which anyone is free to agree or not."

Other than the scene you describe, there isn't a single fact anywhere to be found. You're right, it is all your opinion. But it also contains assumptions on your part so, again, not sure why you're trying to argue that.

"And so with my entire point. Part of it is opinion. Part of it is observation. Part of it is undeniable fact."

Not one thing you have said is "undeniable" much less a "fact."

"But none of it is an 'assumption'"

Quite a bit of it is. To say "none" of it is just reveals your pompous attitude.

"Okay, but if my view is indeed an assumption on my part, then yours is equally just an assumption on your part."

Which I acknowledged when I said, "So is..."

[–] hobnob53 10 years ago

I didn't need to provide the complete quote - it can be found right above my post.

Actually, since you criticized me on the grounds that I allegedly said that an actor's background is what determines whether he gets a role -- that is, to make it appear that I claim this is the sole criterion, which is how your line reads -- it was incumbent upon you to provide the whole statement and thereby put it in context -- that I cited this consideration as only one of several factors.

In any event, since as you say the quote can be found right above your post, then why bother to copy-and-paste any of it? The only explanation is that you wanted a selective portion reprinted to give a misleading impression in order to make your point.

It also doesn't matter since it doesn't change that your original statement was (and still is, despite all your smoke-screening) a generalization.

It matters when you deliberately give a misleading or inaccurate impression. None of this is "smoke-screening" just because you disagree with it or dislike having your own foibles pointed out.

In fact, I did say that this was a generalization -- but only superficially one. I believe it's true for all actors because, as I've said, given human nature it's not credible that any human being can eradicate all traces of themselves in a performance. I don't claim anything as stupid as you allege, that I'm speaking for every actor who ever lived. (Are you, with your view?) So, okay, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there are some performers who eviscerate all traces of their being, don't use any mannerisms or expressions or things they've learned or observed, in any performance, ever. I think that's unrealistic and inaccurate as it pertains to human nature, but that's my opinion, not an assumption. You disagree, fine. Yours is a fair point, so make it fairly. I think this subject is now exhausted.

Yes it is. Your title attributes "geographical ignorance" to "Doris." You have no proof that Doris Day herself was geographically ignorant regarding Morocco and Africa - therefore, it is your assumption. Your subject title doesn't say anything about Doris' character. It specifically says "Doris."

No, it was my mistake. I've spent a lot of time correcting what I intended by my admittedly sloppily-written subject line -- to you and others -- stating I should have said Jo and not Doris. That was a poorly-put error on my part, repeatedly acknowledge and corrected, as you well know...though I haven't changed the subject line itself as by this time it seems pretty late to do so. My point, as most people readily understood (whether they agreed or not), is that Doris's character Jo was geographically ignorant, which she undeniably is. I have no idea whether DD herself knew or knows where Morocco is, and don't care.

Furthermore, you refer to Doris as being "annoying," not her character Jo. Your entire first post is about Doris Day being annoying, not her character. Not sure why you would even try to argue that. An intelligent person would suck that up and admit it.

No, you're wrong. It is Doris -- not Jo -- whom I find annoying.

I raised two issues: one was Jo's insisting that Morocco isn't in Africa; I didn't find this "annoying", just ignorant, and while I was loose in referring to Doris rather than Jo in this respect, it's very clearly entirely separate from my second issue, which is the nasty glance Doris/Jo shoots James Stewart when he corrects her. That, plus some of her other personality traits, are what I find "annoying", and I attribute this to Doris Day's own character, not something she affected for her portrayal of Jo. This is rather obvious from what I've written, so I have nothing to add. Of course, you or anyone are free to disagree with my viewpoint.

Other than the scene you describe, there isn't a single fact anywhere to be found. You're right, it is all your opinion. But it also contains assumptions on your part so, again, not sure why you're trying to argue that.

Please cite what you call my assumptions. If there are any, I'll acknowledge them as such.

Not one thing you have said is "undeniable" much less a "fact."

Oh -- so Jo doesn't say they're not really in Africa, it's the French Morocco? Stewart doesn't correct her? She doesn't shoot him a look in response? (I won't characterize the nature of the look because that is opinion.) And Morocco isn't in Africa?

Quite a bit of it is. To say "none" of it is just reveals your pompous attitude.

Again, I'd like specifics about my "assumptions" -- as opposed to my opinions. (Exclusive of our debate about whether actors do or do not bring something of themselves into their characterizations, about which we've already had this "assumption/opinion" discussion.)

You know, just because we disagree about things doesn't make me "pompous". If you want to lower this exchange to a level of name-calling I'd be happy to oblige. But I'd much rather not. I've called you out on some things that undermine some of your statements, which you've never admitted or corrected, and one could easily ascribe that to your being "pompous". I may not like some of your attitudes but it wouldn't occur to me to say something like that. I don't believe I've ever said anything personally insulting to you, and if I have I apologize for it. Your comment is a stupid remark, I don't think it's worthy of you, and whatever my faults, pomposity isn't one of them. If I were really pompous I'd never admit any error or be willing to say I'd acknowledge an example of something you accuse me of (making assumptions, for instance).

Which I acknowledged when I said, "So is..."

Oh, was that last line supposed to be an acknowledgment that everything you've written -- including all your posts and your entire point -- is also an assumption on your part -- which was what your entire sentence said? Or does the complete line,

So is your subject title. And your first post. And your entire point.

refer only to our discussion about whether actors bring anything of themselves to a performance...which is the precise context in which I wrote the last part of my previous reply?

Frankly I think this conversation is getting repetitive and rather nit-picking all around, so maybe it'd be better to leave it at our respective statements and go on to other things. But that's just my opinion...not an assumption.

With respect.

[–] BrianRaess_Is_FinallyGone 10 years ago

In any event, since as you say the quote can be found right above your post, then why bother to copy-and-paste any of it?

So that you know to which specific part of your post I'm replying to...and for nothing more.

In fact, I did say that this was a generalization -- but only superficially one.

Really? Then you must have gone back and edited your posts. Hold on...nope, just checked. In response to me saying, "That's a generalization," you wrote

Not really.

And if you DID say it WAS a generalization, then why are you debating it? If I say your comment is a generalization, and you "did say that" it was...That means you agree with me that you were generalizing. Why are you still going on about it as though you disagree with me?

I've spent a lot of time correcting what I intended by my admittedly sloppily-written subject line -- to you and others -- stating I should have said Jo and not Doris.

But it wasn't just in your subject line. Your entire first post was devoted to how it was Doris Day's ignorance. You've since edited that first post in order to backpeddle.

No, you're wrong. It is Doris -- not Jo -- whom I find annoying.

Then how am I wrong?? That's EXACTLY what I said! I said that you find DORIS annoying for HER "geographical ignorance." Sheesh. Based on your pattern, you just have to argue about EVERYTHING even when you agree.

Please cite what you call my assumptions.

Here ya go...can't wait to hear you disagree with yourself...

"I've always found Doris Day to be very annoying in this film, with her stubborn insistence on doing things her own way" - you're assuming she's doing things her own way. You have no proof that Hitchcock didn't direct every single action she made.

"look at the extremely nasty glare Jo/Doris abruptly shoots him after he corrects her" - assumption! You have no proof Hitchcock didn't direct her to do this.

"I'm sure this was the "real Doris Day", revealing the reaction she'd actually have if the situation were real." - assumption. You have no proof of what reaction she'd actually have if the situation were real.

"Movies are seldom logical or correct in everything but when they make a readily recognizable mistake someone should catch it." - assumption. You have no proof that it was a mistake and not a deliberately written line of dialogue and deliberately directed bit of action.

"And all because Doris was so ignorant and unschooled that she hadn't a clue on which continent Morocco is." - assumption. You have no proof whether or not *Doris* had any clue on which continent Morocco is on.

"on the contrary, it's an essential part of the reason one actor gets a role over another" - assumption. You have no proof as to why every actor, from every movie or TV show or stage play got a role over another.

Now please argue each one of those so that everyone who reads this thread can see that you don't know what an assumption is.

Oh -- so Jo doesn't say they're not really in Africa, it's the French Morocco? Stewart doesn't correct her? She doesn't shoot him a look in response? (I won't characterize the nature of the look because that is opinion.) And Morocco isn't in Africa?

Oh -- so you missed the part where I said, "Other than the scene you describe"?

You know, just because we disagree about things doesn't make me "pompous".

"It's opinion, backed by some observations and facts, with which anyone is free to agree or not." Sound familiar? You can in return call me whatever you'd like. I'd have to be a hypocrite to call one out as pompous and not be able to take whatever attributes one would want to bestow upon me. I mean, that would be like creating an entire thread about calling someone "ignorant" and "annoying" and "stubborn" and "nagging" and "slightly self-rightous" and then getting upset because someone called me "pompous." But only a hypocrite would react that way, so I won't.

Oh, was that last line supposed to be an acknowledgment that everything you've written -- including all your posts and your entire point -- is also an assumption on your part -- which was what your entire sentence said? Or does the complete line, 'So is your subject title. And your first post. And your entire point.' refer only to our discussion about whether actors bring anything of themselves to a performance...which is the precise context in which I wrote the last part of my previous reply?

Actually, it was in response to only one thing but it seems that you're having some comprehension issues tonight. Here is the exact context:

You: And all because Doris was so ignorant and unschooled that she hadn't a clue on which continent Morocco is.
Me: Doris wasn't ignorant or unschooled about the geography. Her character was.
You: [That] is an assumption on your part.
Me: So is your subject title. And your first post. And your entire point.

So yes, I was acknowledging that what I said was an assumption and pointing out that what you said was as well. I was actually trying to let you save face - because we both know that me saying "Doris wasn't ignorant or unschooled about the geography. Her character was" wasn't an assumption on my part at all. We both know that I was referring to the context of that very specific scene that your entire thread is based upon and not the actress herself. Well, there I go assuming again. I'll rephrase - I know that. It's still unclear what you know.

[–] ppllkk 10 years ago

BrianRaess_Is_FinallyGone wrote:

So that you know to which specific part of your post I'm replying to...and for nothing more.

I agree that quoting specifically what is being replied to greatly increases the coherence of a discussion, assuming that any coherence is possible in the first place.

It has the additional advantage that if the person that I replying to removes or changes their post, there is still a record of what they said. I always identify the person that I am quoting so that there will be a record of who wrote the crap.

I don't have good statistical evidence, but I believe that people less frequently remove their posts if doing so does not cover their tracks.

Good luck with hobnob. I tried to be reasonable with him and I did not get very far. It is possible that he is simply a troll who enjoys taking ridiculous positions, but my guess is that he's not very bright and will never admit that he is wrong. That is a bad combination.

[–] BrianRaess_Is_FinallyGone 10 years ago

Very good tips, ppllkk! Especially since we've already seen him scrambling to make edits to his posts here.

I don't know if he's not very bright. But based on the back and forth he and I have had, I believe he is not as bright as he thinks he is.

Take care!

[–] OswaldshotKennedy 10 years ago

ppllkk wrote
"Good luck with hobnob. I tried to be reasonable with him and I did not get very far. It is possible that he is simply a troll who enjoys taking ridiculous positions, but my guess is that he's not very bright and will never admit that he is wrong. That is a bad combination."

I have to stop you there, mate; hobnob and I have had disagreements in the past but to call him a troll is ridiculous!
He is an intelligent and responsible imdb poster who gives forthright opinions on a number of subjects. Just because you and hob fell out doesn't mean that he is all those childish names you have called him.

"The internet is for lonely people. People should live." Charlton Heston

[–] ppllkk 10 years ago

OswaldshotKennedy wrote:

but to call him a troll is ridiculous!
He is an intelligent and responsible imdb poster who gives forthright opinions on a number of subjects.

He does not respond to convincing, rational arguments the way that one expects a normally intelligent, sane adult to.

He is the equivalent of someone who insists that the earth is flat and persists in arguing for his position. He is either a troll or he is an idiot.

If you are arguing that all opinions are equally valid, and that his opinions should be respected because they are his opinions, I think that is crap.

He certainly has no sense of intellectual honesty, and he has no shame at using transparently ridiculous arguments. That is what marks a troll.

I suggest that you try reading through my interaction with him above. And then tell me that he is "an intelligent and responsible IMDb poster."

[–] OswaldshotKennedy 10 years ago

ppllkk
You are coming across as a bit of a nutter, mate. I HAVE read the whole thread and I have to side with hobnob - you are way OTT even for a nuttiest imdb troll. Calm down and just keep taking the tablets.

"The internet is for lonely people. People should live." Charlton Heston

[–] ppllkk 10 years ago

OswaldshotKennedy rote:

You are coming across as a bit of a nutter, mate.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

But can you please tell me, when hobnob53 wrote:

I've seen some of your exchanges with OSK, ppllkk,

is he telling the truth or is he lying? When he says that he is read some of our exchanges, he is saying that we have had a number of exchanges, and although he has not read all of them, he has read some of them. Do you know of any exchange that we have ever had other than the one before this that would support his opinion that I have a troll?

Could you be so kind as to use Permalink to tell me where they are?

[–] hobnob53 10 years ago

So that you know to which specific part of your post I'm replying to...and for nothing more.

Bull. It would have been just as easy to have included the entire quote to get the context right.

In fact, I did say that this was a generalization -- but only superficially one.

Really? Then you must have gone back and edited your posts. Hold on...nope, just checked. In response to me saying, "That's a generalization," you wrote

Not really.

And if you DID say it WAS a generalization, then why are you debating it? If I say your comment is a generalization, and you "did say that" it was...That means you agree with me that you were generalizing. Why are you still going on about it as though you disagree with me?

Speaking about having comprehension problems tonight -- you cited the wrong post. In my post dated 1/12/14 at 14:45:00, in the long paragraph not far from the top (beginning, "But Pitt...."), I wrote

Only outwardly is this a generalization.

and then explained my reasoning. We may be debating semantics, but to me there is a different value at work than simply making a generalization.

Your entire first post was devoted to how it was Doris Day's ignorance. You've since edited that first post in order to backpeddle.

This isn't a "backpeddle" [sic] from anything. It's clarifying my sloppy diction in saying Doris in a context when I should have said Jo. Much as I just clarified your misspelling of "back-pedal". It's riding, not selling.

Then how am I wrong?? That's EXACTLY what I said! I said that you find DORIS annoying for HER "geographical ignorance." Sheesh. Based on your pattern, you just have to argue about EVERYTHING even when you agree.

No, you're still misreading or confusing things I wrote. I specifically stated (correcting my OP, wherein I conflated Doris with Jo) that I don't find Doris annoying for her geographical ignorance. I find her annoying for some of the personal traits she exhibits that I believe to be more Doris Day than Jo Conway.

As to what you term my "assumptions", sorry to disappoint you in your expected show of me disagreeing with myself:

"I've always found Doris Day to be very annoying in this film, with her stubborn insistence on doing things her own way" - you're assuming she's doing things her own way. You have no proof that Hitchcock didn't direct every single action she made.

No, I'm not assuming anything. This is my opinion of her real-life character based on things I've observed about her over the years. Whether or not Hitchcock directed "every single action she made" is irrelevant. Even if so, I believe the nastier or more self-righteous aspects belong as much to Day herself as the character she's playing.

"look at the extremely nasty glare Jo/Doris abruptly shoots him after he corrects her" - assumption! You have no proof Hitchcock didn't direct her to do this.

Huh? Regardless of whether Hitchcock directed her to do this, she does shoot Stewart a glare -- I call it a nasty one; some others may see it differently. But either way, this isn't an "assumption" -- she does shoot him a glare. The concept of "assumption" doesn't even have any relevance here. Now, if what you're trying to say is that I'm assuming that the glare is a nasty one, that's also incorrect -- it's how I see it: an opinion, not an assumption. And if this is what you're talking about, you should learn to write your sentences with greater clarity and grammatical precision. Or maybe it's just another instance of your having comprehension issues tonight, even with what you write.

"I'm sure this was the "real Doris Day", revealing the reaction she'd actually have if the situation were real." - assumption. You have no proof of what reaction she'd actually have if the situation were real.

No, I don't have any proof, which is why, once again, this is my opinion -- not an assumption. This isn't just a matter of semantics; the two concepts are very different and distinct.

"Movies are seldom logical or correct in everything but when they make a readily recognizable mistake someone should catch it." - assumption. You have no proof that it was a mistake and not a deliberately written line of dialogue and deliberately directed bit of action.

This refers to Jo's line about Morocco not being in Africa. First, it is not an assumption -- not even an opinion -- that Morocco is in Africa. It's an unarguable fact. Second, it doesn't make any difference whether it was a written line of dialogue; in fact, one assumption I do make is that it was indeed in the script. So what? It's still a readily recognizable mistake, period. Here again, the concept of assumption is inapplicable.

"And all because Doris was so ignorant and unschooled that she hadn't a clue on which continent Morocco is." - assumption. You have no proof whether or not *Doris* had any clue on which continent Morocco is on.

First, I have long since acknowledged that I should have said Jo instead of Doris.

As to what Doris herself actually knows, in your post of 1/11/14 21:36:49 you wrote that "Doris wasn't ignorant or unschooled about geography. Her character was." To which I replied on 1/12/14 10:38:18 (slight paraphrase here) that Day may or may not have been ignorant about geography, who knew, so your statement that she wasn't ignorant was an assumption on your part. In view of your preoccupation with the notion of making "assumptions" I was having some fun concerning your flat assertion that Day herself wasn't geographically ignorant. How do you know that? You don't. (For the record, it's my opinion that she certainly does know where Morocco is.)

"on the contrary, it's an essential part of the reason one actor gets a role over another" - assumption. You have no proof as to why every actor, from every movie or TV show or stage play got a role over another.

Same answer as three replies above: No, I don't have any proof, which is why, once again, this is my opinion -- not an assumption. This isn't just a matter of semantics; the two concepts are very different and distinct.

Now please argue each one of those so that everyone who reads this thread can see that you don't know what an assumption is.

Apparently I clearly know far better than you what an assumption is. You should look at a dictionary sometime. You're using the term here because it suits your arguments to assume that my statements are assumptions and not opinions...an assumption for which, as you like to say, you have no proof.

Oh -- so you missed the part where I said, "Other than the scene you describe"?

I saw it, but as you're aware the statement I was referring to was one you made following that line, where you wrote: "Not one thing you have said is 'undeniable' much less 'fact'." Of course I noticed the inconsistency, but since you made a blanket statement that contradicted your earlier one, it was fair game to respond. In any case, the only facts I noted are indeed the ones in "the scene I describe". The rest is opinion, or what you insist is "assumption", and I never claimed otherwise.

About your paragraph listing all my supposed sins of name-calling, okay, fair enough...he said modestly. As to

You can in return call me whatever you'd like.

I'll reserve my rights. You've given me plenty to work with.

Actually, it was in response to only one thing but it seems that you're having some comprehension issues tonight. Here is the exact context:

You: And all because Doris was so ignorant and unschooled that she hadn't a clue on which continent Morocco is.
Me: Doris wasn't ignorant or unschooled about the geography. Her character was.
You: [That] is an assumption on your part.
Me: So is your subject title. And your first post. And your entire point.

The problem is that, notwithstanding your pompous assertion that I'm the one having comprehension issues, some of your statements are out-of-context, contradictory or make inaccurate or confused references, and my reply was made in one of those instances.

However, you have above once again selectively manipulated portions of some posts, in this instance to give the appearance of a single exchange, when in fact what you've lumped together is culled from three separate posts that are not all on the same narrow topic. Not only is this presentation itself false; not only do these disparate quotes encompass more than the single subject you're trying to present them as pertaining solely to; your failure to point out that you have transcribed these posts in such a way as to create a false, misleading and non-existent "conversation" is yet another example of your dishonesty.

To discuss them accurately and in their proper contexts:

The first two lines are from your post dated 1/11/14 at 12:36:49. The first one is a quote of mine from a previous post, pasted onto your reply; the second is your reply. We have already dealt with the substance of this exchange above.

The third line is from my post of 1/12/14 at 10:38:18 and refers to your assumption that Doris herself (not Jo) isn't ignorant of geography. This too we have already dealt with above.

The fourth line is from your post dated 1/12/14 at 11:02:19, which to re-state reads in full: "So is your subject line. So is your first post. And your entire point."

Your explicit point in this last line is that everything I've written is an assumption -- my subject line, my first post, and my entire point. Yet by your own admission -- quote, "Other than the scene you describe" -- my first post is not an assumption (or by your lights at least not in full), since apparently you agree that the exchange between Day and Stewart is rendered accurately, that Morocco is in Africa, and so on. I can't be both entirely making assumptions (your first statement) and yet be accurate in describing the scene (your other statement) in the same post. So here you're being sloppy, contradictory and inaccurate.

As for revisiting the two other already-discussed particulars:

There is nothing "assumed" in any part of my subject line. The one error is my long-admitted and -withdrawn inapt use of the name Doris instead of the name I should have used, Jo. Jo's geographical ignorance is a fact, as shown in the movie, not an assumption. That I find Doris (not Jo; Doris) annoying is an opinion, not an assumption; here again, the concept of "assumption" doesn't even enter into this aspect.

As to my "entire point", essentially that's just a restatement of the aspects already discussed -- the geographical error (which is not debatable) and the fact that I find Doris Day annoying -- which is a matter of opinion, not an "assumption" of anything, and I never said otherwise.

You can legitimately criticize me for being imprecise in loosely saying "Doris" when I should have said "Jo", which I've long since acknowledged. Otherwise, I don't see why you're going to great lengths to dispute everything I write -- engaging in a pursuit you accused me of, that is, arguing every point. I've made things about as plain and basic as I can. I've "atoned" for my sin of using the actress's name instead of her character's and been up front about it. I can't help it if you persist in inaccurately labeling as "assumptions" what are clearly opinions. I'm no longer concerned with what you think or with re-arguing the same issues over and over again without result. I think everything of any use that could be said has been said. Anything further would be just more of the same.

You can call me pompous and all the rest but you've repeatedly shown yourself to be arrogant, condescending, dishonest and contradictory in many of your statements and how you present them, and in not acknowledging your own mistakes and inaccurate and misleading renderings of certain quotations. You said somewhere earlier that an intelligent person would suck it up and admit their mistakes. Proceed. Just kidding. I forgot, you haven't made any mistakes.

However, I am pulling the plug on this long-since-pointless and boring exchange. If as I expect (or shall I say, assume) you choose to post an insulting reply of some sort, making assumptions about why I'm no longer going to read or reply to your posts, have at it. I'm sure it'll be creative and show how tough and right you are, and since they'll go unread and unanswered by me, you'll have "won" in your own mind. So everyone will be happy. Have fun, and welcome. I've said all I have to say.

[–] BrianRaess_Is_FinallyGone 10 years ago

Much as I just clarified your misspelling of "back-pedal".

You always know you've lost the debate when you start pointing out misspellings or typos. It means you've got nothing else.

[–] ppllkk 10 years ago

hobnob53 wrote:

Now, you're absolutely correct about what I originally wrote. . . It's around here someplace in one of these posts, but I should probably correct the OP.

It is hard to say what you originally wrote at this point because you edited your original post today, five months after it was posted, so that you do not appear to be such a complete imbecile.

At some point you did recognize that you had no case and tried to back off it several post later, but what you originally meant was absolutely clear in your first post however much you may have tried to waffle later on. It was not a matter of "sloppy language," and you continued to talk about Doris Day's geographical ignorance for which you have no evidence for quite a while.

Do you consider that intellectually honest since the responses were to what you wrote originally, not to what you changed it to now?

[–] hobnob53 10 years ago

Speaking of being "intellectually honest", I see you're up to your usual standards of discourse, ppllkk, calling me "a complete imbecile" and so forth. Very intellectual, to say nothing of non-imbecilic.

Anyway, you actually have a point. Editing the first post to be more accurate to my point may seem dishonest, though in fact it was simply just not handled properly. Either way, it might have been better had I just made a separate amendment to the original clarifying my intent without changing part of the content -- which, just to be clear, pertains solely to saying Doris when I should have said Jo.

Of course, the thread has taken lots of twists and turns since the first post, not to mention that I did clarify my point in a subsequent post, so I don't think this is a crippling issue. But beneath your customary nastiness you do have a valid point, and though I can't restore the OP to its original language (even though little was changed), I'll go back and acknowledge the change I made.

In any case, I do have a point about Doris's character Jo's ignorance, and I also have a point about the nasty glare Doris/Jo shoots at James Stewart after he corrects her. Everything else on that latter subject is, as indicated, my opinion. Despite your lies and mischaracterizations, I have nowhere backed off my point or waffled (other than clearing up my saying "Doris" instead of "Jo"), and I stick by my opinions.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ppllkk 10 years ago

hobnob53 wrote:

not to mention that I did clarify my point in a subsequent post,

You did not "clarify" your point in a subsequent post; you backed off a demonstrably imbecilic position, sort of backed off it that is since it is clear that you still believe it yourself.

Your position was clearly that the line that Doris Day spoke reflected her "geographical ignorance," not what was in the script. You persisted in claiming that the glance that Jo shot at her husband was the reaction of the person Doris Day to being corrected.

[–] hobnob53 10 years ago

I've seen some of your exchanges with OSK, ppllkk, and if anyone fits the description of a troll it's you, both with your predilection for mindless insults and your abject refusal or inability to read things fully and correctly. To your statements above:

You did not "clarify" your point in a subsequent post; you backed off a demonstrably imbecilic position, sort of backed off it that is since it is clear that you still believe it yourself....Your position was clearly that the line that Doris Day spoke reflected her "geographical ignorance," not what was in the script.

Ungrammatically expressed, but whether you call it backing off, clarifying or correcting, I did forthrightly state that I erred in using the name "Doris" when I should have said "Jo" -- in terms of the issue of geographic ignorance, i.e., in insisting that Morocco wasn't in Africa. I never believed Doris Day herself didn't know where Morocco was (I have no idea what she knows) but I did not express my point clearly or accurately. I since have -- although evidently you're not smart enough to understand or acknowledge it.

It's interesting that you've insisted that I mindlessly stand by everything I say, refuse to acknowledge facts and all that sort of crap, yet you refuse to acknowledge an admission of error on my part and persist in a lie that fits your dishonest and idiotic narrative. Clearly, you're more interested in calling me names than in being truthful and honest, let alone consistent or intelligent.

You persisted in claiming that the glance that Jo shot at her husband was the reaction of the person Doris Day to being corrected.

Actually, this is almost accurate. While obviously it's DD's character Jo who shoots the glance, in my opinion the nastiness I perceive in it is part of Day's character, what I believe to be her smug, self-righteous side that I've noticed over the years, in interviews, appearances, and so on. This is my opinion, not a fact, so if others disagree, fine. But I do indeed believe the annoyed look on "Jo's" face isn't just Jo Conway, but part of the real character of Doris Day.

[–] ppllkk 10 years ago

hobnob53 wrote:

I've seen some of your exchanges with OSK, ppllkk, and if anyone fits the description of a troll it's you, both with your predilection for mindless insults and your abject refusal or inability to read things fully and correctly.

You are lying when you say that you have seen some of my exchanges with him. I believe that my only exchange with him was a couple of posts up today. If you want to show me that you are not lying, use Permalink to show where I had any other interaction with him that could be regarded as an exchange and fits your description.

in terms of the issue of geographic ignorance, i.e., in insisting that Morocco wasn't in Africa.

Now there you are definitely lying, and that gets the core of why I have nothing but contempt for you. Neither the writers nor Joe nor Doris ever "insisted that Morocco wasn't in Africa."

What she said was close to this: "Well, this isn't really Africa." She does not say that the land that she is looking at is not part of the continent of Africa, or insist that Morocco is not in Africa. She shows her geographical sophistication of knowing that North Africa is not really Africa.

North Africa has been part of the Mediterranean world, the Phoenician world, the Greek world, the Roman world and after the coming of Islam, the Near East world. Sub-Saharan Africa which is what most people mean by "Africa" is completely different. She is talking to a child not a pedantic geographer, and she was more right than the lines on the map are.

[–] ppllkk 10 years ago

Let me point out the really obvious. Jo is talking to a child. What is a child's conception of Africa? Black natives, elephants, African lions, jungles, plains with herds of wild animals, etc.

North Africa has never had a large black population. Morocco is 99% Arab Berber. Algeria is 99% Arab Berber. Tunisia is 97% Arab Berber. Even many adults do not understand this. Every so often I run across someone claiming that St. Augustine was black because he was from Africa. St. Augustine was from North Africa, part of the Roman world. I'm sure that there were some black slaves or freed men, but they were a tiny minority.

There are no herds of elephants in North Africa. There are probably mountain lions in the Atlas Mountains, but there are no African lions in North Africa outside of zoos. There are no jungles in North Africa. There are no plains with herds of zebras and wildebeests in North Africa.

Of course North Africa is not "really Africa" to a child, and indeed, for probably a large majority of adults.

North Africa does not have any of the things that a child would expect to see in Africa.

[–] Scarlett_Butler 11 years ago

Are you retarded? What is your obsession with the stupid Africa remark? The Africa remark was a throwaway line and the couple was a loving one.

If you've paid attention to the movie, the really ignorant one turns out to be the husband. One of the themes of the movie is masculine "knowledge" vs. feminine "intuition". Jimmy Stewart's character literally KNOWS too much, in the sense that he's all by-the-book, academic knowledge. Doris Day's character is pure intuition - it's she who first suspects Bernard (while her husband is all "no no, all of Bernard's questions were totally fiiiiine and not fishy at all") and she who ultimately knows how to save her son.

Adding to your retardation, ever consider what the Africa comment meant? In an American's mind at the time, Africa was basically an uncivilized jungle. The fact that Morocco was under French control automatically in her mind meant that it was "civilized" to some extent and therefore not a part of Africa.

But go on whining about how mean Doris Day was and how much smarter her husband was. Retard.

[–] thepalestfire 11 years ago

I thought you she did a fantastic job. Especially in the scene where she finds out her son has been kidnapped.

[–] thepalestfire 11 years ago

I thought you she did a fantastic job. Especially in the scene where she finds out her son has been kidnapped.

[–] ZolotoyRetriever 11 years ago

I thought you she did a fantastic job.

I think you need to edit and correct your (duplicate) posts. And then maybe even delete one of them?

[–] hobnob53 11 years ago

A very mature post. You have quite an obsession yourself, with your witty use of the deftly-chosen word "retard", which is understandable given the intellectual content of your remarks.

Of course, you're so bent on moronic insults that you fail to note that I said nothing on the relative merits of the wife's intelligence vis-a-vis her husband's, so your arguments there are off-point and irrelevant...though the husband is in most ways just a dense American tourist typical of the era. But in your pathetic effort to divine some non-existent "theme" in this film to fit your prejudices, there is no underlying idea of "masculine knowledge" vs. "feminine intuition". Both characters have their pluses and minuses; neither is the other's superior.

Apart from which, if you'd paid attention to the movie, it was the father's, not mother's, idea on "how to save her son." It's the doctor who sets up the idea of their going to the embassy that evening in the expectation that the ambassador would ask her to sing (in urging her to ask the ambassador over the phone if they could come by, and as he explains his plan to her in detail in the taxi on the way).

As to your attempted lesson about Africa, not only is Doris wrong -- no ifs, ands or buts -- when she says Morocco is not in Africa, but if your notion that because Morocco was still French meant that she'd automatically imbue it with some level of "civilization", then by that logic she would feel the same about every other colony the French held at that time, constituting almost half the continent. Not to mention the "civilized" British colonies. Stupid remark.

[–] ppllkk 11 years ago

Scarlett_Butler wrote:

Jimmy Stewart's character literally KNOWS too much

Just to emphasize the point because it has gotten buried in the thread, the title of the movie is The Man Who Knew Too Much.

It is not The Woman Who Knew Too Little.
Or
The Woman Who Didn't Know Her Geography.
Or
The Woman Who Was Ignorant and Unschooled.

That should be a clue as to how to take this scene.

[–] Big G-2 11 years ago

From Hobnob

Funny you mention eyewitness accounts in court cases, because I almost made that precise point in my last post -- the inherent unreliability of such witnesses. I never thought about the Rashomon analogy you raise but it's a good one, and fairly apt here.

I own that film as I do almost all of Kurosawa's works from 1943-1965 (plus a couple of his later films), but surprisingly it's one of my least favorite of his movies -- I appreciate its qualities, but it just doesn't grab me, for some reason. Hmmm...I wonder...have we seen the same film...?

Well, Criterion did release a dubbed version of RASHOMON. Hobnob, maybe you've seen that one only?

Viewed some of this movie when TCM recently showed it and I was going to put my thoughts on this when I saw this thread. Unfortunately, I missed the beginning (the now infamous bus scene). I will have to check it out for myself (and I may get the blu-ray, though THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH has never been one of my favorite Hitchcock films. I was only intrigued when I finally saw what Bernard Hermann looked like!).

And pplkk, you are free to have your discussions and disagreements, but the use and repeated use of the word “retarded” is really not good.

[–] ppllkk 11 years ago

Big G-2 wrote:

And pplkk, you are free to have your discussions and disagreements, but the use and repeated use of the word "retarded" is really not good.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. I do not share it.

I was echoing a comment that used the word in an earlier post, and as I saw more and more posts from hobnob53, I decided that "retarded" is the right word.

So let me get this straight. It is all right to call an actress "ignorant and unschooled" because of the lines that she is given to say in a movie but it is "not good" to call the person who did that "retarded"? Is that your attitude?

She did back off that claim in a half-assed way in a later post.

Yes, the script writers undoubtedly wrote that line, so if so, they're at fault.

It is absolutely clear that she was attributing what she regards as an "ignorant and unschooled" geographical error to the actress, Doris Day, in her first post. Even after she later acknowledged that "the script writers undoubtedly wrote that line," she still doesn't want to believe it, and writes "if so."

hobnob53 seems to be big on apologies. Perhaps I missed where she apologized to Doris Day. Can you tell me where it is?

She still wants to blame Doris Day for what she perceives in the scene, not the director. Yes, I think that's retarded. "Retarded" is not a word that I normally use. If you object to that, feel free to substitute ludicrously ridiculous, imbecilic, or idiotic.

[–] Big G-2 11 years ago

I understand that these discussions can sometimes become flame wars, but the use of the word "retarted" is never right for anything.

Anyway, in getting back to the topic, I brought out my old DVD and decided to take a look for myself. Frankly, it was something I never noticed, but yes indeed, if one looks fast, Jo does indeed give McKenna, not one but two unpleasant glares! The first time is when he corrects her about being in Northern Africa, and the second is when he mentions to his son that they are only 100 miles from the Sahara Desert. Those stares that Jo gives her husband are quick, but thanks to the power the pause button, one can view it as long as you want!

[–] ppllkk 11 years ago

Big G-2 wrote:

the use of the word "retarted" is never right for anything.

If your point is that the word insults people who are retarded, then I agree with you although I do not see it as a large issue, and you seem to. You are quite right that if the OP is retarded, it is a very unfair thing to call her.

If your point is that one should be unfailingly polite even to people who are devoid of even a shred of intellectual honesty, then I don't agree.

Have you read her posts to this thread? I am not saying that you should because I regard it as a "cruel and unusual" request. I'm just wondering if you have.

[–] ppllkk 11 years ago

Big G-2 wrote:

yes indeed, if one looks fast, Jo does indeed give McKenna, not one but two unpleasant glares!

Since you have established that Doris Day does give Jimmy Stewart a dirty look -- twice -- there is a glaringly obvious observation.

For Doris Day to have glared at Stewart on her own -- not from Hitchcock's direction – she has to have taken Stewart's correcting her personally. That could only be the case if the line about "not really Africa" was not in the script, and Doris improvised it. And that Stewart's correction was also improvised and not in the script.

I think that a person would have to be mentally challenged to believe that that has more than a miniscule chance of being what happened.

[–] ZolotoyRetriever 11 years ago

Next time you see this movie, look at the extremely nasty glare Doris abruptly shoots him after he corrects her patently stupid and inaccurate remark -- an unsmiling, "how-dare-you-contradict-me!" jab right at her husband. If looks could kill....

Okay, I did just that, as it was on TCM this afternoon. Looked at the scene in question, replayed it several times. I'm afraid I see nothing that indicates a nasty look from DD, let alone an "extremely nasty glare", as you put it. She merely pauses from copious amounts of pleasant smiling long enough to listen to hubby and ponder what he has to say, then goes back to smiling. Just seemed like normal give and take between two married squares. DD makes the same pause in her smiling to listen to Stewart's next line, "You just wait till we get to Marrakech". I found nothing unpleasant about her reaction to hubby. Did we watch the same movie??

[–] hobnob53 11 years ago

I watched the scene again today as well, and again I see her shoot him this very clear, nasty-looking glare. It's brief, but in that period she immediately loses her smile (she most definitely does not retain it in those moments), glares at him over the correction, and is clearly displeased at it.

It's not a big deal, and one can argue I'm making too much of it, but it's unquestionably there. However, she certainly gives no indication whatsoever of "pondering" what he says. Quite the contrary, she plainly looks annoyed, and in no mood to think about the content of her husband's mild statement -- only of being miffed at being corrected. In any case, she makes no effort to "ponder", concede or correct her statement. Her unsmiling glance gradually fades out as the conversation moves on, and her demeanor and expression change to reflect the subsequent chatter and events. But this all occurs over a matter of perhaps ten or fifteen seconds.

Had you just disagreed with my assessment of her glance, I'd say, okay, just a difference of interpretation, but this "pondering" business leaves me to also ask -- did we watch the same movie?(!)

[–] ZolotoyRetriever 11 years ago

Hey there Hobnob53, my young fireman friend! Nice to see you in fine form tonight!

When I used the word "ponder" I didn't mean to suggest that she was pondering her husband's utterance as in "What's the meaning of life?" pondering, I just meant to suggest that she was giving her husband's comment a little thought. Yes, that kind of pondering. Nothing profound, mind you, just a wife stopping to listen to what hubby had to say.... Brief, but noticeable, to me anyway. Then she went back to her cheerful smiling. No harm, no foul, and certainly no extremely nasty glare!

You say that "one can argue that I'm making too much of it" - well, three people so far on this thread DO seem to be saying exactly that, and probably for good reason. You say it's "unquestionably there" but again, "unquestionably"?? -- obviously there are those here who DO question it "being there". That little scene on the bus would have buzzed right past me as largely innocuous and forgettable had it not been for you "making too much of it" and starting this thread. The very idea of it really caused me to stop the film, watch and re-watch the scene several times, until I was satisfied that DD was NOT guilty of the high crimes and misdemeanors you have ascribed her.

Am I correct in assuming that you really don't like Doris Day? I myself am not a real big fan of DD, as some of her "goody two shoes" roles seem a bit corny. But in your case, I get the feeling that you really despised her ahead of seeing the movie, so it may be a case of you unconsciously ascribing attributes and attitudes to her looks and glances that other people simply do not see. It may be a form of what psychologists call "confirmation bias" - interpreting information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions. But even I, who admittedly am no big fan of DD, do NOT see anything approaching an "extremely nasty glare" as you call it, in that brief exchange between hubby and wife. And believe me, I looked for it, I really did. Several times!

I guess we did in fact see two different movies, because we both have different conceptions - or even PRE-conceptions - of the actress in question, Doris Day, who shot an otherwise innocuous glance at hubby. Am I right??

[–] OswaldshotKennedy 11 years ago

I actually fancy Doris Day in this movie.

"The internet is for lonely people. People should live." Charlton Heston

[–] howard-green-1 9 years ago

You're not alone!

[–] howard-green-1 9 years ago

OswaldshotKennedy ... You're not alone!

[–] hobnob53 11 years ago

Hi ZR, don't know if I was in "fine form" last night (or for that matter this morning), just trying to stir up some comment.

Obviously I never said that the subject of this thread was that big a deal, but of course by making a point of it I'm elevating it to a level of discourse beyond what it really merits. The glance -- nasty or otherwise -- is actually just one part of it. What originally annoyed me when I first saw this movie decades ago was the stupidity of her statement about Morocco not being in Africa. Sure, this is her character's line, not Doris's own, and I don't blame her for the brainlessness of the remark...though I wonder whether she or anyone questioned it, or what the purpose was of inserting a plainly inaccurate line in the dialogue. To show that Jo was an idiot? The whole exchange makes no sense and serves absolutely no purpose.

That said, it was only many years later that I picked up on what I see as Doris's/Jo's annoyed reaction at being corrected by Dr. McKenna. You can use different words to describe it, but to me it's plain she just doesn't like having been set straight -- maybe because he's doing it in front of their son, and she doesn't want the kid to think his mother's a dope, at least on geography. (Welcome to the shortcomings of American education, one result of which is that most Americans can't find anything on a map, often including the U.S. itself!) Whatever the reason, from the first time I took notice of her glare my feeling has only been reenforced every time I've seen the movie.

Now, the reason I conflate Doris Day with her character's reaction (as I perceive it) is that as time has gone by and I've gotten to see and read more of DD, the less I like her. Both in real life and in the occasional movie I've picked up on what seems to me to be this attitude of stubborn self-righteousness about herself and her opinions that I find unattractive, perhaps because it's in contrast with her avowed sunny demeanor. I don't think she's a bad person but there is this negative side to her that grates on me. (As an example in real life, on one of her appearances on Johnny Carson in the 70s she showed up wearing a skin-tight sweater, not long after she'd had a breast-augmentation procedure. With a new hairstyle and other adornments, and quite frankly her nipples prominently showing through her sweater -- she seemed to be braless -- she looked extremely sexy, the best I'd ever seen her, and she knew what she was doing. Carson got a little leering and was rather silly about the whole thing, which was wrong, but afterwards Doris was publicly furious that she had been seen as a sex object and was very bitter about Carson. I certainly don't defend him, but when she claimed there was no reason for anyone to look at her that way, when she had obviously made a very conscious effort to appear sexy, desirable and perhaps a bit younger, it was all too phony and self-regardant.)

However, to set the record straight, while I'm no fan of Doris on a personal level (her slightly holier-than-thou, too-cute attitude about herself, also her politics) for many years I actually did like her a lot, and only became somewhat disenchanted when I got to know more about her. Even so, I can still appreciate her talents and I like many of her pictures and even own several. I can also sympathize with the tragedies and hardships in her life (her only son's death at 61, her loutish husband Martin Melcher's cheating and robbing her). There's nothing personal about this, but I see what I see and felt like commenting on it. Nothing vital, never said there was, just something I found interesting.

The fact that others disagree doesn't mean they're right and I'm wrong. Maybe the three others you mention are just such zealous fans that they can admit no fault in their heroine. Many such people exist about many celebs on the IMDb boards -- among whom I do not include you, my friend. Your post was at least an honest disagreement and different interpretation, and you did make an effort to see what I was talking about. Obviously we see the same thing, just not in the same way -- which is fair. (Better than the giant intellect whose response consisted mainly of calling me a "retard", a brain-dead musing for which I have no regard.)

Anyway, Zolotoy, that about sums up my observations. As Stan Laurel said in Sons of the Desert, "That's our story and we're stuck with it."

Love the photo of your Golden!

[–] ZolotoyRetriever 11 years ago

I see where you’re coming from, to borrow a phrase that was popular back in the seventies. I guess we all bring different mental and emotional backgrounds to the movies we watch, and this background is like the prism through which we ultimately view the film. It’s that unseen filter that resides somewhere between our eyeballs and the movie screen. And so it follows that if your prism is different than mine, well, it just stands to reason that your view of a movie will be different than mine (or anybody else’s), even though we saw the “same film”. Somebody here on IMDb (can’t remember who) has an apt signature that reads: no two people ever watch the same movie. How true that is!

BTW this topic reminds me of the famous Japanese movie “Rashomon”, where various people witnessed a crime, but end up giving widely differing accounts of the same incident. Only difference is, unlike Rashomon, here we don’t just have various peoples’ descriptions of the incident in question, we have actual footage of said incident – that is, the scene on the bus can be replayed any number of times for other people to weigh in on. So I certainly encourage other viewers to watch the scene in question, and weigh in with their take on that scene on the bus. Maybe nobody will see it the way you do, hobnob53, but that doesn’t make you “wrong” and them “right”, or vice versa. It just means your prism through which you viewed that scene is markedly different than that of the others.

Interesting topic for discussion, to be sure. Just consider all the court cases where, much like in “Rashomon”, eyewitness accounts of a crime can vary widely (and wildly) from one another, and juries are forced to make their best interpretation of conflicting accounts. Lives can even hang in the balance. Makes me glad I’ve somehow avoided jury duty all these years.

Glad you like the dog. I must confess that he's actually not *my* dog, he's Cody, an award-winning Golden Retriever.... but he's a dog I've much admired - so much so that I decided to make him my avatar. Here's more of him:

http://profdaly.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/retriever_golden_930.jpeg

[–] hobnob53 11 years ago

Funny you mention eyewitness accounts in court cases, because I almost made that precise point in my last post -- the inherent unreliability of such witnesses. I never thought about the Rashomon analogy you raise but it's a good one, and fairly apt here.

I own that film as I do almost all of Kurosawa's works from 1943-1965 (plus a couple of his later films), but surprisingly it's one of my least favorite of his movies -- I appreciate its qualities, but it just doesn't grab me, for some reason. Hmmm...I wonder...have we seen the same film...?

I agree that each person sees any film -- The Man Who Knew Too Much or any other -- through the prism of his own experiences and associations, as you say, so that even two people who appear to agree on some point in fact probably have a modest difference in how they see it. That's in the nature of human beings. What's interesting (and you see this all over the place on IMDb) is not the differences of opinion as such, but the form they take, ranging from discursive, informed and respectful to insulting, inaccurate and quasi-illiterate. But I suppose that even there, subjectivity will lead a poster to regard his or her contribution as the height of rationality and informed thinking.

Whereas, of course, we know we fit into that elevated mode!

Thanks for the link to Cody. He seems a good dog. Doris would appreciate him!

[–] ppllkk 11 years ago

hobnob53 wrote:

And all because Doris was so ignorant and unschooled that she hadn't a clue on which continent Morocco is.

You are perhaps unaware that usually, and even more so at the time of this movie, when someone says "Africa," they are in fact referring to Sub-Saharan Africa. That is the image that "Africa" evokes for most people, not, say the pyramids of Egypt.

"Well, this isn't really Africa. It's the French Morocco," is technically geographically incorrect, but it is completely in line with normal usage. Of course she knows which continent Morocco is on, but she also knows how the word "Africa" is most commonly used. She is thinking of "the real Africa" -- Sub-Saharan black Africa -- as different from North Africa as indeed it is.

Yes, she should of said, "This isn't Black Africa. It's the French Morocco," but really.

[–] hobnob53 11 years ago

ppllkk:

Thanks, I realize that when a lot of people think of "Africa" they conjure an image of the sub-Saharan area and its peoples. However, that's merely a mental association. It is not "normal usage" in the sense that they would go so far as to say that Morocco (or Algeria, Libya, Egypt, etc.) isn't in Africa. This isn't simply "technically geographically incorrect". It's unarguably false, nothing "technical" about it. It's like saying that because most people, when they hear the name "Asia", make a mental association with China or Japan or India that it's therefore all right to say that Israel or Syria aren't part of the same continent.

Besides, maybe she doesn't know Morocco is in Africa, or have a conscious awareness of how the name is supposedly (and debatably) "commonly used". That's an assumption on your part, not a known fact. Most Americans are geographically ignorant to an astonishing degree. I agree that she doubtless has the vague mental association that "Africa = jungles and black tribes" many people have, and this was probably where her hazy thinking led her. But her statement was still a flat one, and flatly wrong.

And she certainly should not have said instead, "This isn't Black Africa," which is pretty condescending, and anyway it's a term I doubt would ever occur to her. (No one in 1956 would have thought to phrase it that way. They might still have said something like "Darkest Africa", bad enough.) Given her evident lack of knowledge she shouldn't have said anything inferring Morocco wasn't in Africa, but if she had to say something she might simply have said that Morocco was a lot different from what we normally think of as Africa. That would have been fair comment. She's unhappy enough when her husband corrects her to say that it's northern Africa.

[–] ppllkk 11 years ago

hobnob53 wrote:

However, that's merely a mental association

That is the point, and it is a strong mental association.

It is not "normal usage" in the sense that they would go so far as to say that Morocco (or Algeria, Libya, Egypt, etc.) isn't in Africa.

Not if they thought about what is in Africa and what isn't. Have you ever heard anyone say, "We're going to Africa to see the pyramids."?

It's unarguably false, nothing "technical" about it.

We completely agree that the statement is incorrect, but it does reflect common usage in casual conversation.

It's like saying that because most people, when they hear the name "Asia", make a mental association with China or Japan or India that it's therefore all right to say that Israel or Syria aren't part of the same continent.

If someone said, "Israel isn't really Asia," I am sure some picky people would object. Maybe the Cary Grant character would object. No one else would because they would understand the point.

Besides, maybe she doesn't know Morocco is in Africa, or have a conscious awareness of how the name is supposedly (and debatably) "commonly used".

This is an exceptionally stupid discussion even for IMDb because, of course, it was the writers who put the words in the mouth of the actress. In so far as they are saying anything about geographical ignorance, they are saying about the character. I think they are actually saying something about the Cary Grant [I meant Jimmy Stewart] character who corrects her.

Attributing the words to the actress, rather than to the writers, represents a prime example of "stubborn ignorance."

(No one in 1956 would have thought to phrase it that way. They might still have said something like "Darkest Africa", bad enough.)

The Sub-Saharan region is often referred to as Black Africa,[7] in reference to its numerous black populations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-Saharan_Africa

My memory is that "Black Africa" was much more common in the 50s than it is now. At that time, "Black Africa" was definitely a polite term. (Now, it is difficult to know what is polite and what isn't as it seems to keep changing.) "Darkest Africa" is used in describing a geographical location in a work of fiction.

if she had to say something she might simply have said that Morocco was a lot different from what we normally think of as Africa.

That is what she was trying to say in a casual conversation with a child when she said "not really Africa." I don't think it should be as hard to understand what the character was trying to say as you are making it.

On amusing note, the reverse of this is the people who claim that St. Augustine was black because he was from Africa.

[–] hobnob53 11 years ago

We agree this may in part be a mental association of what constitutes the "real" Africa, but she goes beyond that and seems to deny that Morocco is even in Africa. Maybe it all comes down to the point that her character should have phrased the thought [sic] in a better, more accurate way. But as written by screenwriter John Michael Hayes and uttered by Doris Day, it's a stupid remark. And then there's Doris's/Jo's nasty glance at her husband once he corrects her.

In fact, the fact that her husband does correct her by saying that it's northern Africa would bolster the idea that his wife has no idea they're actually already in Africa.

Other points....

Not if they thought about what is in Africa and what isn't. Have you ever heard anyone say, "We're going to Africa to see the pyramids."?

We completely agree that the statement is incorrect, but it does reflect common usage in casual conversation.

Sure, people would say "We're going to Egypt to see the pyramids." But saying "Africa" would not be an incorrect statement. They might also say they're going to "Africa" to see the Kalahari desert, rather than saying "We're going to Namibia"...although, today, most people are in fact usually quite specific about their destination on that continent, rather than simply saying "Africa". Still, that, too, would not be incorrect. This kind of thing is not the same as flatly stating that Egypt or Namibia or anyplace else on the continent is not in Africa. Don't confuse "common usage" with outright denial.

This is an exceptionally stupid discussion even for IMDb because, of course, it was the writers who put the words in the mouth of the actress. In so far as they are saying anything about geographical ignorance, they are saying about the character....Attributing the words to the actress, rather than to the writers, represents a prime example of "stubborn ignorance."

Excuse me, you should read more of what I wrote. In most posts I specifically state it's Doris's character (Jo) uttering the lines, and assign the blame for this not on Doris Day but on the writer, both as to the line and what it says about the character who states it. Okay, perhaps I should have said "Jo's geographical ignorance" in the thread title. [I'm changing it with this post.] However, the "Annoying Doris" portion of that stems, not from anything in the dialogue, but from the nasty stare Doris/Jo shoots her "husband" after he corrects her. Some people disagree about what I see or how I interpret it, which is fair comment. However, I believe this reflex reflects Doris Day more than Jo McKenna, hence my complaint on that score. I'm dealing with two separate but linked issues: the geographical error, and her reaction to being corrected.

As to this converstaion being "exceptionally stupid even for IMDb", well, all I can say is, you dove into it -- at length and with evident gusto. As have many others. Of course the issue is unimportant and silly, I never claimed otherwise (just the opposite, in fact), and I originated it simply for fun. Yet already it's drawn three pages of responses ranging from the intelligent (yours, for one) to the childish (the person who repeatedly called me variations of the third-grade epithet "retard"). Good, bad and indifferent, this is IMDb.

My memory is that "Black Africa" was much more common in the 50s than it is now. At that time, "Black Africa" was definitely a polite term. (Now, it is difficult to know what is polite and what isn't as it seems to keep changing.) "Darkest Africa" is used in describing a geographical location in a work of fiction....That is what she was trying to say in a casual conversation with a child when she said "not really Africa." I don't think it should be as hard to understand what the character was trying to say as you are making it.

Again, it's two separate items tied in in a key way. First, there's the geography. Yes, we both know it's wrong, and we can both agree on what "Jo" might have been trying to say. (I doubt she'd have said it differently to an adult than to her child, but that's not important.)

But then, second, there's her annoyed glance at hubby once he corrects her, as well as his correction itself. As I said, the very fact that he finds it necessary to correct her means he doesn't take her comment to be "common usage" of any sort, that he realizes she's made a dumb remark. That in itself calls into the question whether what she was saying was readily understood "common usage". This, followed by her losing her smile and glaring at her husband immediately after he corrects her not only shows (to me) a haughty attitude about being corrected, but indicates she doesn't believe she was wrong in the first place. Granted this aspect is largely personal interpretation, with which others may disagree, but that's my take on the scene.

As to "Black" vs. "Darkest" Africa, I don't offhand ever recall hearing "Black" in the 50s or 60s, at least not as a geographical or ethnic designation, but I don't dispute your recollection. "Darkest" is indeed something largely used in fiction -- scores of movies as well as books -- and bespeaks a 19th-century colonial mindset. I just doubt "Jo McKenna" was informed or sophisticated enough to have used such a term as "Black Africa". But she should have used a more apt and accurate distinction instead of denying outright that Morocco is in Africa.

If someone said, "Israel isn't really Asia," I am sure some picky people would object....No one else would because they would understand the point.

I don't think it's in the least "picky" to object to an outright misstatement of truth. And what would be "the point" of someone making such a stupid remark? None. Why not correct it? Clarity of language is usually crucial -- though we all fall prey to imprecision, don't we? As to which....

Maybe the Cary Grant character would object....I think they are actually saying something about the Cary Grant character who corrects her.

You had me puzzled by your first reference to "Cary Grant". At the second I realized what was going on. Check the cast list or the movie again -- it was James Stewart, not Cary Grant.

As I said, we all make mistakes. Should I have left this one of yours uncorrected simply because I "understood the point"?

[–] ppllkk 11 years ago

hobnob53 wrote:

but she goes beyond that and seems to deny that Morocco is even in Africa.

No she doesn't. She says that it is not "really Africa," which is correct for the usual meaning of Africa in casual conversation.

Excuse me, you should read more of what I wrote.

Well I read:

Annoying Doris and her geographical ignorance

and I read

And all because Doris was so ignorant and unschooled that she hadn't a clue on which continent Morocco is.

I understand that you backed off of that later so perhaps I should've said that your original formulation was simply an example of "ignorance" and your insistence on the significance of the error an example of "stubborn ignorance."

I don't think it's in the least "picky" to object to an outright misstatement of truth.

Are you an elementary school teacher? That would explain a lot.

[–] hobnob53 11 years ago

I understand that you backed off of that later so perhaps I should've said that your original formulation was simply an example of "ignorance" and your insistence on the significance of the error an example of "stubborn ignorance."

I "backed off" conflating Doris Day with her character in saying the Morocco wasn't really part of Africa, a subject I addressed in my last post.

However, your references to "ignorance" and "stubborn ignorance" make absolutely no sense. My original formulation (loosely saying Doris instead of Jo) may have been lazy but was not ignorant. My insistence on the significance of the error may be overstated in your view but whatever else it is it is not a matter of ignorance, "stubborn" or not. On the contrary, the ignorance lies in the minds and mouths of those who wrote the inane and inaccurate line, or those who find no fault with a glaringly stupid mistake. Even you agree that she was wrong to state that Morocco is not in Africa -- "really" or otherwise. The stubbornness and blithe attitude toward ignorance and errors seem more in your line.

Are you an elementary school teacher? That would explain a lot.

I take back a small portion of my earlier remark that your posts are intelligent. This last statement is a perfectly asinine comment and a mindless attempt at some sort of idiotic insult. For the record, no. But I was trained as a journalist and, unlike you, have a respect for facts.

[–] ppllkk 11 years ago

And since I have just a couple of minutes.

hobnob53 wrote:

I originated it simply for fun.

Making a retarded post and then insisting on it is your idea of fun? Isn't that the definition of a troll? You certainly failed to communicate that you are not serious.

As I said, the very fact that he finds it necessary to correct her

As I and other people have said, the point is that he is the sort of person who does correct her. So, it seems, are you.

However, I believe this reflex reflects Doris Day more than Jo McKenna, hence my complaint on that score. Well

You are perhaps unaware the movie had a director, and one who got what he wanted.

Granted this aspect is largely personal interpretation, with which others may disagree, but that's my take on the scene.

That is your interpretation of what Alfred Hitchcock wanted and got the actress and actor to do.

[–] hobnob53 11 years ago

Making a retarded post and then insisting on it is your idea of fun? Isn't that the definition of a troll? You certainly failed to communicate that you are not serious.

Two things: First, I did not say the post was not serious. I said I did it for fun. There's a world of difference that evidently completely escapes you. A troll wouldn't bother getting involved with all this discussion but rather make a stupid statement and leave. However you or anyone may regard what I said, it was a perfectly legitimate and intelligent post about which I stand by every word. I "failed to communicate" I was not serious because I was serious.

Second, I now see you've decided to jettison intelligence as well as any semblance of civility or even accuracy and, plunging headlong into the realm of imbecility, resort to the use of the word "retarded" to describe something you don't agree with. This simply demonstrates your own immaturity and inability to carry on a thoughtful discussion.

I can't decide whether the appropriate response to that bit of rapier-like wisdom is "Oh, yeah?", "Your mother wears army boots" or a simple "Nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah."

As I and other people have said, the point is that he is the sort of person who does correct her. So, it seems, are you.

Right. So? Meaningless tripe.

You are perhaps unaware the movie had a director, and one who got what he wanted.

Oh, gee, you mean someone directed this movie? Pushing aside another smarmy remark typically lacking insight or wit, I doubt Hitchcock either noticed or cared about Doris's reaction. Or, maybe he did get what he wanted. Again -- so what?

That is your interpretation of what Alfred Hitchcock wanted and got the actress and actor to do.

Um, yeah, that's what I said -- it's my take (interpretation) on the scene. Another brilliant insight. Whether it was what Hitchcock wanted and got the actress to do is another issue -- and how do you know he "got the actress to do" what he wanted? In a brief, minor matter such as this, maybe he just took what she gave him on her own.

I'll close by expressing disappointment that you've abruptly chosen to debase yourself and your arguments by making such degrading and insulting remarks, all to no purpose; the last refuge of the feeble-minded. I had given you much more credit than resorting to what passes for sarcasm and wit in grade school.

I have to wonder whether any of this is tied in with the fact that I pointed out that you had confused the film's actual leading man, James Stewart, with Cary Grant. I notice you made no mention of that in either of your two replies to my post, only in your reply to Zolotoy Retriever below. I wasn't nasty about your error, but I did think it pointed out the need for precision in stating facts. But you not only decided to reply -- twice -- in a half-baked and nasty, troll-like manner, you even lacked the guts to acknowledge your modest error to the person who pointed it out, as if doing so might be admitting to some horrible personal flaw. You certainly had no difficulty citing other quotes of mine you thought you could make fun of...even in a way that's stupid and demeaning to you.

[–] ppllkk 11 years ago

hobnob53 wrote:

First, I did not say the post was not serious. I said I did it for fun.

Okay, so your idea of fun is to insult and attack an actress because of the lines that she is given in a movie? That's both retarded and nasty.

resort to the use of the word "retarded" to describe something you don't agree with.

What is retarded is insulting an actors intelligence because of lines that they are given to say.

However you or anyone may regard what I said, it was a perfectly legitimate and intelligent post about which I stand by every word.

So, you stand by insulting Doris Day's intelligence because of the lines that she is given to say? That is retarded.

I doubt Hitchcock either noticed or cared about Doris's reaction.

That is a retarded argument.

and how do you know he "got the actress to do" what he wanted? In a brief, minor matter such as this, maybe he just took what she gave him on her own.

You don't understand anything about how movies are made, and you are resorting to retarded arguments to continue your attack on Doris Day. You just can't believe that the person Doris Day wasn't responsible for what you perceive in the scene, and you have no shame about using ridiculous arguments. You are the sort of person who will never admit that they're wrong about anything.

I have to wonder whether any of this is tied in with the fact that I pointed out that you had confused the film's actual leading man, James Stewart, with Cary Grant.

That is quite retarded.

you even lacked the guts to acknowledge your modest error to the person who pointed it out, as if doing so might be admitting to some horrible personal flaw.

When you click on "Latest Posting," it takes you to the latest post and puts it at the top screen. No earlier posts are visible until you scroll up. I thanked the first person that I saw who pointed out my error. That was before I had seen your posts.

It's bizarre that you think that I should have acknowledged an obvious error to you as well, an error that doesn't make any difference in the discussion.

[–] hobnob53 11 years ago

ppllkk -- You are a jackass. Your post of 9/18/13 has laid all doubt to rest.

Undoubtedly you have the troll's need to have the last word, so enjoy yourself. It'll go unread by me. Good riddance.

[–] ppllkk 11 years ago

hobnob53 wrote:

You are a jackass.

As that may be, at least I understand that, with rare exceptions, movies are made from written scripts, the actors practice their lines with the director before shooting a scene starts, if the director does not get what he wants, he re-shoots the scene. I can imagine a funny line being improvised during shooting and the decision being made to keep that line, but actors don't just make up their lines on the spot.

The first reply to your post got it completely right:

you know this is a movie not a live reality tv show, don't you?

And you replied:

You know your reference to "a live reality tv show" makes no sense whatsoever, don't you? Maybe you meant a quiz show.

Anyway, what's your problem? I'm pointing out a blatantly stupid and inaccurate remark and her inappropriate reaction to being challenged and corrected. If you're fine with ignorance and poor behavior, good for you. I'm not.

You really don't get it all. The scene is not two people in real life talking. Writers give words to actors to convey something about their characters and about the situation, and you do not understand that. Talk about being "ignorant and unschooled." No one wrote your post for you.

Attacking Doris Day as "ignorant and unschooled" because of lines that someone else made up is disgusting behavior. Attacking the writers as "ignorant and unschooled," which you sort of seem to accept might be the case, for writing the lines is not as offensive, but it is ludicrous.

Insisting that Doris Day, the person, was so sensitive to criticism that she took it personally-- and reacted on a personal level on camera -- when a line that she had not written was corrected by a line that Stewart had not written is nut case.

It'll go unread by me.

Not much difference between your reading something and not understanding it at all, and your not reading it at all.

I can always hope that other people will read it. People like you should not be allowed to get away with posting complete and offensive nonsense without having it pointed out just how ridiculous you are.

If you're fine with ignorance and poor behavior, good for you. I'm not.

No, I'm not fine with ignorance and poor behavior, and I hope that I have made that clear.

[–] ZolotoyRetriever 11 years ago

Interesting points you make, but.... I believe you mean Jimmy Stewart, not Cary Grant? (It was Jimmy Stewart who played Doris' husband here)

[–] ppllkk 11 years ago

Thank you. i will correct it.

[–] bonsai-superstar 10 years ago

I just watched it and noticed that glare as well (just read your posting now). However, as it is unclear if the glare came from Doris Day or Jo Conway, it's difficult to draw any conclusions.

[–] ppllkk 10 years ago

bonsai-superstar wrote:

However, as it is unclear if the glare came from Doris Day or Jo Conway

Doris Day is an actress and she has practiced the scene until Hitchcock is satisfied. If he is not satisfied after they actually film it, they will do another take. Could Doris Day have improvised the glare and Hitchcock liked it? I suppose so.But the idea that the OP has, or at least did originally, that Doris Day, the person, was so offended by the script having her character contradicted that she glares at Jimmy Stewart, who is, of course, not responsible for the line, is just plain nuts.David-CG's very useful Scripts for Firefox: http://userscripts.org/users/67626

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 9 years ago

You sound like a sexist. And I see Jo's point: north Africa is really part of the Mediterranean, not "African" in the way that is normally understood. A Moroccan who moves to the U.S. will never be called an "African American" for instance. It is Mediterranean, Arab, Middle East, etc.

--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250

[–] hobnob53 9 years ago

I sound like a sexist because I criticize a woman? Brilliant. By that logic, criticizing a man in a similar context is also sexist.

Each continent contains a variety of cultures and ethnic groups. Morocco is actually more Arab or Berber than "Mediterranean", which in terms of culture and ethnic make-up is a meaningless term anyway. Calling it "Arab" is broadly correct but that's an ethnic, not geographical, term. Calling it a part of the Middle East is based on its predominantly Arab ethnicity, not on geography, since it clearly is not in the Middle East.

Morocco is in Africa. Period. To say it's not is factually inaccurate. Yes, it's got a different culture and ethnic makeup from most African countries, but it's an African nation and recognized as such. Some people may not think of Morocco as African "in the way that is normally understood" (at least by your definition), but that doesn't mean it isn't an African nation. Say "North Africa" like Dr. McKenna if you need to make a distinction.

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 9 years ago

I suppose you would say Lebanon is in Asia, then? 😜

And in the ancient world (which is where humans have spent the vast majority of their existence, and which still has a profound effect on their culture to this day), there was no knowledge of continents and "Mediterranean" certainly was a region. People from Spain, Morocco, Sicily, and Syria would have all had interactions with each other, while the people who lived in what is now modern-day Morocco would have known little if anything of the people and places of sub-Saharan Africa.

--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250

[–] pt100 9 years ago

I'm coming to this amazingly tired thread fairly late, but I have a few comments to make:

First, Morocco is on the continent of Africa. It is in a region of Africa commonly called North Africa--but it is still Africa. Unlike some here, I do not assume what "most people" think of when they think of Africa. To do so would be presumptuous (and probably wrong). But when I think of Africa, I think of an entire continent that has many countries (including Morocco and Egypt) and a mostly (though not entirely) dark-skinned population.

Second, of course Lebanon is in Asia: western Asia. So I'm not sure what your point was there, unless you were saying, sarcastically, that you thought Lebanon is not in Asia. In that case you were wrong.

Thirdly, I happen to agree with hobnob53's observation that her character's cold glance in that scene is not atypical of Day's performances in many films. It is also not atypical of how she reacts in real life. She sometimes gets snippy when miffed, even if she's wrong. So I think that she actually was, perhaps unconsciously, bringing something of her real personality to the scene.

Now I think you've all wasted way too much time on this thread. Why not put your energies to better use?

It is better to be kind than to be clever or good looking. -- Derek

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 9 years ago

People like you get hung up on archaic technicalities, and you can't let go of them. If Lebanon is in Asia, then someone from Lebanon is Asian. Right? Yet you will never, ever hear anyone from a Middle Eastern country be called "Asian". The very notion is risible.

Edited to add: What you and the uptight technicality patrol fail to realize about continents is that they don't really exist in any meaningful way. They are just what people say they are. Otherwise, Asia and Europe would not be separate "continents". If continents are designated based on tectonic plates, even, then Saudi Arabia would be part of Africa and India would be a separate continent (though admittedly they do sometimes call it a "subcontinent").

--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250

[–] pt100 9 years ago

People like you get hung up on archaic technicalities, and you can't let go of them. If Lebanon is in Asia, then someone from Lebanon is Asian. Right? Yet you will never, ever hear anyone from a Middle Eastern country be called "Asian". The very notion is risible.

This will be my final word on this nonsense. First, you seem to be very confused about the definition of a continent, which geographers and encyclopedias agree with me on. So I guess the rest of us are all hung up on archaic technicalities, and you are the expert we should believe (sarcasm, just in case you missed it).

The Middle East is a region in western Asia. That's not my opinion; it's a geographic fact. You really should learn the difference between a continent, a (sub)region of a continent, and a country.

Edited to add: What you and the uptight technicality patrol fail to realize about continents is that they don't really exist in any meaningful way. They are just what people say they are. Otherwise, Asia and Europe would not be separate "continents". If continents are designated based on tectonic plates, even, then Saudi Arabia would be part of Africa and India would be a separate continent (though admittedly they do sometimes call it a "subcontinent").

When you're in a hole, why don't you just quit digging? Sheesh! Your mind is so confused and convoluted that it's almost laughable. Of course continents really exist. And the "people who say they are" are called geographers, encyclopedists, lexicographers, etc. I tend to trust them a lot more than I'd ever trust you to know what you're talking about.

Also, I never said that continents are based on tectonic plates, so I don't know why you even brought that up. Are you trying to insert red herrings or straw men into the discussion? Pathetic.

It is better to be kind than to be clever or good looking. -- Derek

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 9 years ago

This will be my final word on this nonsense.

Oh good: last word for me. You clearly can offer no evidence that the Lebanese are considered Asians (because they are obviously not), nor can you explain why, based on your logic, Bulgaria is on a different continent called Europe.

Then there's the World Atlas, which can't decide whether Armenia and Azerbaijan are part of Asia or Europe or what, and notes that "Opinions vary as to what countries make up the modern definition of Asia and the Middle East."

You're probably also one of those people that pulls out a dusty dictionary and declares that almost everyone uses a certain word "incorrectly", not realizing that when this happens, the definition of the word has changed, regardless of what the dictionary says.

--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250

[–] hobnob53 9 years ago

Well, maybe last word for me (doubtful).

"The Mediterranean" is a sea -- a body of water. Yes, there is also something called the "Mediterranean region", but that is not a continent. It's just a broadly-conceived geographical area. The only thing every country bordering on the Mediterranean have in common is precisely that: they border on the same body of water. Certainly, within that geographic concept there are individual countries that have things in common -- language, cultural aspects, etc. But they are not a unitary entity, they don't have such things in common with all other countries on the Mediterranean, and the fact that they border on that sea does not mean they don't lie on specific -- and various -- continents. The Mediterranean washes against the shores of three continents: Europe, Africa and Asia.

There are also seven continents -- North and South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia and Antarctica. Contrary to the rather bizarre notion you seem to promote, each of these seven continents is most definitely defined, rigidly, by specific boundaries. Every atlas and reference work will give the same information. And every geographical entity in the world -- country, colony, island, whatever -- is in or linked to one of those continents. You can, as the saying goes, look it up. Dragging in subcontinents, tectonic plates and the rest is irrelevant. This is not how the seven continents are defined or recognized -- by anyone.

Of course Lebanon is in Asia. There is not a single map, not a single geographer in the world who would claim otherwise. Yes, it's also in what we would call "the Middle East", and it can be construed as a "Mediterranean" country. Most if not all nations can be included in other regional or geographic groupings. But in terms of which continent it's on, it's in Asia, and only Asia.

As to your other point -- would we call a Lebanese an "Asian" -- there you get into a conflict over terminology that is more political than geographical. Speaking purely geographically, of course a Lebanese is an Asian -- he lives on the continent of Asia. In this sense, so are residents of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Kazakhstan and all the other countries in central and western Asia -- people in India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, etc. All are Asians.

The problem is you're using the term "Asian" the way many people use it today -- to refer to peoples of eastern Asia, the races once broadly termed "Orientals": Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese and so forth. I agree, no one who calls such persons "Asians" would use the word to apply to a Saudi or Lebanese. But the problem is that the term "Asian" has been corrupted by a politically-motivated use, which co-opts for certain residents of Asia a term that properly indicates all residents of Asia. "Oriental" became unfashionable, so "Asian" was substituted. But lots of people are Asian who are not what used to be called "Oriental". "Asian" is not a race, or even a "type": in its correct use, it's someone who lives in Asia. It's geographical, not ethnic.

A similar problem exists with the term "African-American". You asked yesterday whether anyone would call a Moroccan in the US an African-American. Probably not, because that term is used exclusively to refer to black Americans of sub-Saharan descent. However, here again the "African" portion of the term is itself geographic, not ethnic or even national: there is as much if not more diversity between Africans, in terms of languages, cultures, customs, religions, physical characteristics, and so on, than there is between the various nationalities of Europe. Yet no one uses the phrase "Euro-American". I've always found something offensive, even condescending, in the term, in that it indiscriminately lumps together all black Americans into one mass, as if they had no distinctive national or other backgrounds of their own. There are hundreds of peoples (races) in Africa, each with their own individual culture, some related, many not, and to toss them all together into one indistinct mass based on nothing more than skin color (and even that varies across the continent) seems disrespectful, the relic of a colonialist mindset, to say the least.

To wind up by quoting parts of your first paragraph (in italics):

You clearly can offer no evidence that the Lebanese are considered Asians

Yes, pt100 and I and pretty much anyone else in the world can offer evidence: look at a map of Asia. Lebanon is shown as part of Asia. Whether some people would call Lebanese "Asians" in the vernacular is completely irrelevant. Factually, regardless of the corruption of the word, anyone who lives in Asia is, by definition, an Asian. It's geographic, not ethnic or racial. Mexicans, Canadians, Americans, Guatemalans are all distinct nationalities, but we're all North Americans.

(because they are obviously not),

No, they obviously are. Not "Asian" in the sense that some people imprecisely use the word today, as an exclusive description of peoples of east Asia, which is a misuse of the term. But they are Asian in that they live in Asia.

nor can you explain why, based on your logic, Bulgaria is on a different continent called Europe.

So, you accept that there are boundaries for Europe and that Bulgaria is on that continent, but there are not similarly-defined boundaries for Asia and that therefore Lebanon (and God knows what else) are not in Asia? Or, I suppose, that somehow Morocco has been magically removed from Africa?

You make silly remarks about people using outdated references as though the world never changes, using a dictionary as a completely irrelevant analogy. But the continents haven't changed. The same places that were in Europe or Asia or Africa a hundred years ago are still. No one has redrawn the boundaries of the continents, nor are they in flux or a matter of opinion, as you claim. They're constant, and very definite -- not imprecise or variable as you state. If you claim otherwise, as if these entities are malleable, you're wrong...as any atlas will tell you. (Some people may debate whether Armenians or Azerbaijanis are "properly" in Europe or Asia, but their countries are most specifically shown in Europe.)

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 9 years ago

Hoo boy.

Of course Lebanon is in Asia. There is not a single map, not a single geographer in the world who would claim otherwise.

Every atlas and reference work will give the same information. And every geographical entity in the world -- country, colony, island, whatever -- is in or linked to one of those continents. You can, as the saying goes, look it up.

I did.

I Googled "atlas", and only two actual atlases come up on the first page of hits. One of them is this:

http://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/world.htm

Hey, whaddaya know: if you hover your mouse over this world map, you'll see that they do not include Lebanon or the rest of the "Middle East" in Asia. Hmmm.

The other link leads here:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001745.html

And they do agree with you that the Middle Eastern countries are in Asia; however, they place Cyprus in Asia, while the other atlas places it in Europe. So much for that claim that "every atlas and reference work will give the same information"! Oops.

Dragging in subcontinents, tectonic plates and the rest is irrelevant. This is not how the seven continents are defined or recognized -- by anyone.

First Wikipedia quote (and none of these were edited by me, which you can go verify if you like):

"In geology, continents are described by means of tectonic plates."

Geologists do count as "anyone", right?

But the problem is that the term "Asian" has been corrupted by a politically-motivated use

You professed not to understand why I referenced the dictionary, but this is exactly why. And I was dead right: you are one of those people who reacts to the ever-changing process of language evolution by declaring that words have been "corrupted" because they don't mean the same thing they did when you were in Mrs. Tisdale's English class. You fail, like all prescriptivists, to remember that it is because of just these kinds of "corruptions" that we don't speak Old English, or German, or Latin, or Indo-European. Language changes. And it has always changed for politically-motivated reasons--this is far from a new development.

Some more relevant quotes from Wikipedia:

"The boundaries between the continents of Earth are generally a matter of geographical convention. Several slightly different conventions are in use."

"They are generally identified by convention rather than any strict criteria, with up to seven regions commonly regarded as continents."

"The ideal criterion that each continent be a discrete landmass is commonly disregarded in favor of more arbitrary, historical conventions."

And since those conventions are arbitrary, what really matters is how the majority of people define these terms. I'd be willing to wager a lot of money that the vast majority of people around the world, and in fact the vast majority of Lebanese people themselves, do not consider that country "Asian".

More Wikipedia, since there are just so many quotes that show how remarkably wrong you are:

"However, for historical and cultural reasons, the view of Europe as a separate continent continues in several categorizations."

"North America and South America are treated as separate continents in the seven-continent model. However, they may also be viewed as a single continent known as America or the Americas. This viewpoint was common in the United States until World War II, and remains prevalent in some Asian six-continent models.[13] This remains the more common vision in Latin American countries, Spain, Portugal, France, Italy and Greece, where they are taught as a single continent."

"There are numerous ways of distinguishing the continents..."

Again, you can check for yourself: I didn't just edit in these sections.

You might also take a look at the book The Myth of Continents by Stanford professor Martin Lewis: http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Continents-Critique-Metageography/dp/05 20207432

--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250

[–] hobnob53 9 years ago

I read the entire Wikipedia article days ago, before my last reply. Sorry to disabuse your abusive remark, but I do not fall under your statement

And I was dead right: you are one of those people who reacts to the ever-changing process of language evolution by declaring that words have been "corrupted" because they don't mean the same thing they did when you were in Mrs. Tisdale's English class.

et cetera. Dead wrong. And it was learned, or I should say, affirmed, as part of my university degree.

Even the Wiki article shows Lebanon in Asia (or, alternatively, in Eurasia). Every major American atlas (National Geographic, Rand McNally, Hammond, etc.), as well as atlases I have from countries such as Germany, Russia, Finland, Britain and Spain, show the same continents.

Unfortunately for your viewpoint, while it may be true that some people differ on where continents begin (and obviously this is a human conception in the first place), you mistake this for "evolving". There is nothing new or revelatory in any of your opinions. There have always been differing notions of what constitutes a continent and where their boundaries are. One can best rely only on the general consensus. The general consensus today remains what it has been for decades, even centuries. And part of that consensus puts Lebanon in Asia, Morocco in Africa, and recognizes seven continents. There may be other ideas, but none of these is definitive, new or widely accepted.

Since this discussion is going nowhere, I'm leaving it at that. To each his own. I'd rather discuss the film.

[–] pt100 9 years ago

If you guys want to keep fighting, that's up to you. All I know is that my comments about Lebanon and Morocco are geographically correct: Lebanon is in western Asia, and Morocco is in Africa; and YourOneBeauty hasn't provided any evidence to the contrary. Also, tectonic plate boundaries are not the same as continental boundaries. Tectonic plates are much larger than continents, and they extend beyond continents so that they are also beneath nearby oceans/seas. So I guess I'm done.

It is better to be kind than to be clever or good looking. -- Derek

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 9 years ago

So I guess I'm done.

Again? So soon? 😉

--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250

[–] melnar1 9 years ago

So why blame the character, Jo? She didn't write the script. Moreover, she didn't direct either.

You want to append blame, then blame the script writer/s and the director. If the director, Hitch, had objected to Doris's "nasty glare" he would have done another take without it.