Mistakes in fiction that bug you

[RivkahChaya]

I have just seen a mistake on a TV show that I have seen more times than I can count, albeit, this time particularly disappoints me, because it is an episode of Law & Order: SVU, and I expect better things from L&O than from most TV police shows.

Anyway, it's about the law in the US called the "marital privilege." Under this law, spouses can't be forced to reveal confidences.

This law applies only to communication made during the marriage, but I can't tell you how many times there's been and episode of a TV show where two people have gotten married in order not to be forced to testify about prior communication.

It doesn't work like that. Married people can be forced to testify about communication that happened before the marriage took place. By the same token, the privilege remains after divorce. While communication after divorce is not privileged, communication during the marriage is still privileged after a divorce. I've seen that mistake too, although not as often-- people are called to testify against ex-spouses about communication during the marriage.

So what things bug the rest of you?

[Mayerling]

Twelve Angry Men and one cynical viewer

I suppose we have to accept such errors so that there is a semblance of drama and tension in the plot we are watching. We all know these errors are put in.

I love the film "Twelve Angry Men", possibly one of the finest examples of ensemble acting on celluloid. It also does discuss the fact that a jury has to carefully consider every point in the evidence (especially in a criminal case with a capital sentence of death) so there is no shadow of a doubt as to the correctness of the conclusion. However, there is a major dramatic point that always bothers me. Henry Fonda and the others are discussing the murder weapon that was used, a knife that was supposed to be recently purchased and had a one of a kind handle (a switchblade, by the way). He stands up and pulls out of his pocket a similar knife from his pocket and throws it down on the table. This is like the first dent in the argument against the defendant in his murder trial.

The problem is when he is asked about how he acquired it, Fonda matter-of-factly states he took a stroll at night during the period the trial was taking place, to the ghetto area the murder occurred in, and found a store selling the same kind of knife a block from where the murder took place. The picture audience is amazed at this piece of luck. In reality Lee J. Cobb, E.G. Marshall, Jack Warden, and Ed Begley Sr. (basically the four leaders of the anti-defendant group in the jury) should turn on Fonda and point out he wasn't to do that unless his little jaunt was one the court as a whole granted for all the jury, and representatives of the prosecution, defense and the judge! You see, we can't take Fonda's word about what he did as true!! He may personally know the defendant (a young boy on trial for killing his father), or sympathize with the kid (Fonda is a liberal minded type - as opposed to Begley or Cobb), and he may have made up the story having just searched around for a similar knife after seeing the murder weapon anywhere. The described general jaunt I suggest the court would have to give (a difficult thing for a court to usually do, unless there are questions about the murder site) is to make sure the knife is available or unavailable in that area. Fonda has given serious grounds for a mistrial, and once the jury reports this and an angry judge dismisses them and brings charges of contempt of court against Fonda, Cobb or one of the others might go to the prosecution team and mention this hole in their case that has to be patched up.

Of course, to allow for the pleasant flow of that film, one can't demand this detail to be added - it would make the movie far shorter (by over an hour of it's ninety minutes running time).

Jeff

[Pcdunn]

We were recently watching a TV-movie about a series of burglaries in a well-to-do neighborhood, and a cop who went undercover as a male nanny in one family. Trouble was, everyone (even the police) kept calling the crimes "robberies".
It drove my companion nuts, as she has worked for over thirty years as a police records technician, and knows a burglar breaks in when you're out, a robber confronts you personally, or while you're home.
Funny how the little details can make or break a story, isn't it?

[RivkahChaya]

We were recently watching a TV-movie about a series of burglaries in a well-to-do neighborhood, and a cop who went undercover as a male nanny in one family. Trouble was, everyone (even the police) kept calling the crimes "robberies".
It drove my companion nuts, as she has worked for over thirty years as a police records technician, and knows a burglar breaks in when you're out, a robber confronts you personally, or while you're home.
Funny how the little details can make or break a story, isn't it?

And most people IRL use the words interchangeably-- BUT THE POLICE WOULD GET IT RIGHT. Actually, the police would probably call it by whatever its number in the crime code book is. I bet burglary with break-in is probably different from a walk-in burglary (where people left their house unlocked), and the police would use the code numbers to make a distinction. But I'd settle for them just saying "burglary" on TV. That one bugs me too.

Actually, there's a Mary Tyler Moore Show episode where she is burglarized, and when she calls the police to report a "robbery," they arrive with guns at the ready, and then proceed to lecture her on the difference between a robbery and a burglary, and what she had was a burglary. It's pretty funny.

Something that drives me crazy, also on Law & Order, is that characters are constantly misusing the phrase "begs the question" to mean "suggests the question be asked." I know people do this all the time in real life, but I don't think lawyers, who have to study formal logic, would do this, and I think people who deal with lawyers a lot would get corrected a lot.

[RivkahChaya]

a switchblade, by the way

Which are and were illegal, so Fonda's character committed a crime just by buying one.

[sdreid]

Maybe it isn't a mistake but is it really possible to throw a knife hard enough to stike someone in the back which then causes them to immediately drop dead? I have seen that in movies many times and it doesn't seem possible to me. First it would have to fortuitously miss all the bones then penetrate deep enough and in exactly the right spot to hit and then puncture the heart. That would have to at least a 3" penetration from the back.

[Mayerling]

Another point of confusion (not as bad as the robbery/burglary one) is "slander"/"libel". Occasionally these two are interchanged on programs. For our own edification, "slander" refers to a SPOKEN statement that defames some party, while "libel" refers to a WRITTEN statement that defames some party. A newspaper can be sued by a person for publishing negative comments (possibly erroneous ones) in a libel suit. If the defamation victim traces the comments to some loudmouth neighbor or fellow employee, the latter can be sued in a slander suit. This gets more complicated when trying to prove either case. A public figure (in the U.S. anyway) can't sue for libel at the drop of a hat, because the actions he or she does (especially if they are actions that effect the public) are fair game in a democracy where the public has to have the right to hear the criticism and make it's own mind. This was the crux of the U.S. Supreme Court case involving General William Westmoreland against the New York Times in the 1970s. Also, in both libel or slander, if the individual or published source can show the truth of the statement, the case collapses. However if the victim of the remarks or publication can prove that malice against him or her was at the cause of the release of this statement, then the victim's case can still triumph.

Law and Order has done one thing well I've noticed. Over the years it cites cases that are on parts of the arcane criminal laws of our country and my state of New York (where the shows are set). A good example is repeated reference to the problem of "Molyneux". This particular 1901 decision has never been really altered in New York State, and is also followed or cited in other states. It was caused by an 1898 series of poisonings that got traced to one Roland P. Molyneux. The first caused the death of a rival for Molyneux's fiancé's affections. BUT AT THE TIME OF THE DEATH OF THE RIVAL IT WAS CONSIDERED NATURAL CAUSES THAT KILLED HIM. The second death, that of one Katherine Adams (the aunt of a man who had angered Molyneux) was the one he was charged with because due to the circumstances Miss Adams' death had to be seen only as a poisoning. In his first trial in 1899 Molyneux was convicted because details surrounding the first death were admitted that closely resembled the second death of Miss Adams. Sentenced to death, Molyneux was in the Sing Sing death house for a year while his lawyers fought for an appeal. They won the appeal. It turns out that to demonstrate method in repeated murders, one has a set of seven points to meet, and one of them is that the deaths are considered murders. Molyneux's second trial just was based on his responsibility for the death of Miss Adams, and he won acquittal. We may in hindsight think he was guilty of both (he probably was) but the rationale of the Appeals Court was so on target that the rule remains good law.

Jeff

[Robert]

Jeff, I've a feeling that the line between slander and libel relates to permanence : books and newspapers are considered more permanent than speech. But I vaguely remember lawyers arguing over the case of a man who taught his parrot to repeat "Mr X is a crook." Was this quasi-permanence?

I'm interested in what one can say about a person's past. For instance, if Mr A murders someone at age 21, then it would seem OK to call him a murderer 40 years later. But what if Mr A stole a bar of chocolate at age 21? Calling him a thief 40 years later seems to imply that he's been stealing recently or is likely to do so.

[packers stem]

Not so much a mistake in fiction but in a movie...
I can't be the only one who hates seeing the 'single yellow line' in "murder by decree".... Really bugs me

[GUT]

Maybe it isn't a mistake but is it really possible to throw a knife hard enough to stike someone in the back which then causes them to immediately drop dead? I have seen that in movies many times and it doesn't seem possible to me. First it would have to fortuitously miss all the bones then penetrate deep enough and in exactly the right spot to hit and then puncture the heart. That would have to at least a 3" penetration from the back.

t is certainly possible to kill with a "nife" (this s a JtR ste) thrown from behind, but I doubt that the victim would drop on the spot.

[GUT]

A few that get me:

Cameras and printers that make the wrong sound, a rangefinder camera making an SLR sound nothing worse.

UK Court scenes with Barristers flouncing around with no Bar Jacket.

Idiots holding pistols in such a manner that when the slide flew back it would rip their thumb open, or even off (I carry the scars of this mistake).

Punching someone in the head, a pretty fast track to a broken hand.

[sdreid]

Idiots holding pistols in such a manner that when the slide flew back it would rip their thumb open, or even off (I carry the scars of this mistake).

How about "shooters" who hold a telescopic sight right up against their eye like they were looking through a spyglass. Pull the trigger and you get a huge black eye, if not a fractured orbit, from the recoil.

[sdreid]

Technical issues I hate are things like lens flare and strobe effect "counter" rotating wagon wheels because they jolt me back into the realism that I'm watching a movie. There are ways around these things and, in this digital age, ways to clean them out of the shot in post production but for some reason they are just left in.

[GUT]

Technical issues I hate are things like lens flare and strobe effect "counter" rotating wagon wheels because they jolt me back into the realism that I'm watching a movie. There are ways around these things and, in this digital age, ways to clean them out of the shot in post production but for some reason they are just left in.

Yes to flare
Yes to strobe
Yes to wheels

[GUT]

How about "shooters" who hold a telescopic sight right up against their eye like they were looking through a spyglass. Pull the trigger and you get a huge black eye, if not a fractured orbit, from the recoil.

Forgot that one.