Mamet/Ebert: "Everyone needs money; that's why they call it money" HUH?
Milhouse Van Houten
Please help.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/answ-man/sho-sunday-ebert30.html
Q. In your review of ''Heist,'' you say that the line, ''Everyone needs money. That's why
they call it money!'' is one of the funniest lines that David Mamet has ever written. Why
is it funny and how do you interpret it? I saw the film this weekend and heard the same
line, yet I feel it just doesn't work.
Rory L. Aronsky,
Pembroke Pines, Fla.
A. Ali Hirji of Edmonton agrees with you: ''I personally do not understand what is so
clever about this line, since it seems to have no meaning beyond its literal meaning.''
Why is it funny? As Louis Armstrong once said, ''There are some folks that, if they don't
know, you can't tell 'em.''
Phil7101
>No one I know can figure this out. It's either incredibly obvious or
>incredibly stupid.
>Please help.
It just is what it is...don't overthink it. It sounds cool, and that's all
there is to it.
John Harkness
What's funny is that it's a total non sequitur -- you're expecting
some big pronouncement, and you get this weird nonsense sentence.
John Harkness
Milhouse Van Houten
context of the scene (or the delivery, the character, the timing, etc) that helps it
along. OK, since by itself it's worthless.
"John Harkness" <j...@attcanada.ca> wrote in message
news:3c30c088....@nntp.attcanada.ca...
John Harkness
<rse...@usa.com> wrote:
>I haven't seen it yet, so it's not a stand-alone line then, there's something about the
>context of the scene (or the delivery, the character, the timing, etc) that helps it
>along. OK, since by itself it's worthless.
>
No, it's part of a scene -- and DeVito's delivery is great.
And most lines are only funny in context. "Nobody's perfect", often
cited as the funniest last line in the histoyr of American movies, for
example, is only funny in context.
John Harkness
"And it's not a fit night for man nor beast"
Kevin FilmNutBoy
>On Mon, 31 Dec 2001 15:38:20 -0800, "Milhouse Van Houten"
><rse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>>I haven't seen it yet, so it's not a stand-alone line then, there's
>something about the
>>context of the scene (or the delivery, the character, the timing, etc) that
>helps it
>>along. OK, since by itself it's worthless.
>>
>
>No, it's part of a scene -- and DeVito's delivery is great.
>
>And most lines are only funny in context. "Nobody's perfect", often
>cited as the funniest last line in the histoyr of American movies, for
>example, is only funny in context.
Indeed. My vote for funniest Mamet line of all time:
"Well, that happened."
Context is everything.
--Kevin
***
"They'll never catch me ... because I'm fucking innocent."
Milhouse Van Houten
and at least one of the people mentioned in the Ebert article had seen it too, and they
were all clueless about it. So comedy being utterly subjective might be the truest maxim
here.
"Kevin FilmNutBoy" <filmn...@aol.comatose> wrote in message
news:20011231193015...@mb-mj.aol.com...
John Harkness
<rse...@usa.com> wrote:
>It just occurred to me though, that the person I asked about this *had* seen the movie,
>and at least one of the people mentioned in the Ebert article had seen it too, and they
>were all clueless about it. So comedy being utterly subjective might be the truest maxim
>here.
>
Or, of course, they could just be not very bright.
John Harkness
Jack
worst Mamet has ever written, a lot of illogical statements and stale
phrases.
There three good lines in the whole damn flick, and they all come at
the end of the movie, and one of them was used in the trailer.
Line 1: Devito: "I would hate to be dramatic and count to three, but
one, two,..." (trailer)
Line 2: "Well my name is Rumpelstiltskin so give me the gold."
(something kind of like that I forgot how it went)
Line 3: Devito: "Don't I get any last words." Hackman: "Those were
it."
-Jack L.
"Milhouse Van Houten" <rse...@usa.com> wrote in message news:<a0qrdo$mmo9q$1...@ID-113474.news.dfncis.de>...
Jack
yourself with logic you might walk out of the theater with the belief
that Mamet can't write and direct.
-Jack L.
phil...@aol.comatose (Phil7101) wrote in message news:<20011231181843...@mb-da.aol.com>...
LØrd§nØw
FilmNutBoy) grabbed a felt marker and wrote in a cool hand, the following:
Anyone besides me remember the parody of "Nobody's perfect" in that stop-motion
animated film "Mad Monster Party" ?
--
-=Dana=-
"You don't think I'd be stupid enough to bring the money with me?"
w w w . d f w m e t r o . o r g / d a n a
[To reply via email, please remove my pants.]
Jeremy Heilman
wrote:
I'd say the big thing is that in Heist a lot of the tension hangs on
who does or does not have the goods to deliver on the promises that
the tone and wit of the dialogue that they say promises.
For example, someone makes a crack about Gene Hackman's character's
mom. Hackman smacks him, asks if he wants to play the dozens, and then
comes after him with a wrench. A lot of the swagger in the film
doesn't get backed up... Devito's character can't even get the
dialogue right.
Jeremy
---
http://www.geocities.com/nyfilmfest
Luis Carruthers
I hate that fucking line. It's not clever at all. Perhaps because it's such a desperate
attempt at cleverness, it appears clever. Sort of like how something can be so horribly
corny and unfunny that it's funny.
Rod Ramsey
I think the line is in tune with Mamet's deeply cynical worldview- What's
the one thing everyone in the world needs? In the world of the characters
of Heist, it's money. They need money more than they need love or sex.
Notice how Hackman doesnt seem to mind too much that he lost the girl? Cause
he's got the gold (money). They need money more than they need life.
They're willing to expose themselves to gunfire to get the money.
So money is the one thing everybody needs. The word "money" is the one word
all the characters understand (even the guy who wants to buy the boat). So
given that the one word for what everyone needs is "money"...
They don't have another word for what everyone needs, that's why it's called
"money" and not "love" or "life". I suppose this is all really a deeply
abstract semantic arugment that may not make a lot of sense to some people,
but it was my instinctive reaction to that line, which, by the way, I
thought was very funny.
Rod
SDM
> worst Mamet has ever written, a lot of illogical statements and stale
> phrases.
>
> There three good lines in the whole damn flick, and they all come at
> the end of the movie, and one of them was used in the trailer.
>
> Line 1: Devito: "I would hate to be dramatic and count to three, but
> one, two,..." (trailer)
>
> Line 2: "Well my name is Rumpelstiltskin so give me the gold."
> (something kind of like that I forgot how it went)
>
> Line 3: Devito: "Don't I get any last words." Hackman: "Those were
> it."
What did you think of the "What made YOU a criminal!?" / "Nothing made me
a criminal -I am a criminal!" exchange?
SDM
incredibly stupid.
> Please help.
Literally, it's simply nonsense - which could have been the point. In the
context of the moment in the movie (which, granted, I haven't seen yet)
where De Vito offers up this little gem, it could work for some people just
because it's such a hair-brained thing to proclaim. And if Mamet had wanted
to telegraph that point, he could've had one of the other characters react
bewildered or something. But if it's taken for granted by whoever he's
saying this line to, like it's one of the oldest cliches in the book, I
can't imagine what the payoff was.
Dalton
<rse...@usa.com> wrote:
>No one I know can figure this out. It's either incredibly obvious or incredibly stupid.
>Please help.
There are 2 things I find amusing about the line (though I think Ebert
made too big a deal over it)
The line is a circular arguement. He is using the word 'Money' to help
define 'Money'. Something like a dictionary that defines money as cash
and when you look up cash it says 'see money'.
It also illustrates a comical singlemindednes in the character saying
it. He is incapable of comprehending why someone would not have money
as the pre-eminant need in their life and this is his attempt at
sarcasm. BUT sarcasm from his perspective comes off as being comicaly
skewed.
It's a chuckle worthy line, but hardly brilliant or hysterical.
>http://www.suntimes.com/output/answ-man/sho-sunday-ebert30.html
>
>Q. In your review of ''Heist,'' you say that the line, ''Everyone needs money. That's why
>they call it money!'' is one of the funniest lines that David Mamet has ever written. Why
>is it funny and how do you interpret it? I saw the film this weekend and heard the same
>line, yet I feel it just doesn't work.
>
>Rory L. Aronsky,
>
>Pembroke Pines, Fla.
>
>A. Ali Hirji of Edmonton agrees with you: ''I personally do not understand what is so
>clever about this line, since it seems to have no meaning beyond its literal meaning.''
>Why is it funny? As Louis Armstrong once said, ''There are some folks that, if they don't
>know, you can't tell 'em.''
>
>
Fineous
news:a0qrdo$mmo9q$1...@ID-113474.news.dfncis.de...
>
> No one I know can figure this out. It's either incredibly obvious or
incredibly stupid.
> Please help.
I would vote for the latter. My first exposure to Mamet was watching an
obscure flick called Oleanna. The dialog was so absurd, I felt like I was
watching a bad high school stageplay... Didn't know who Mamet was, but
apparently this was supposed to be intellectual and sophisticated. It
wasn't.
Years later, someone asked me to watch The Spanish Prisoner. With no
knowledge of the show, whatsoever, I watched... I didn't get too far before
I began to recognize that unique blend of absurd and pointlessly repetitive
dialog that just jerks you out of the show and makes you wonder who the hell
wrote this shit and why am I watching it! It was Mamet, of course, and I
knew it. Since then, I've avoided him like the plague.
If he's your cup of tea, fine, but, especially based on some of the comments
in this thread... He strikes me as one of those hack artisans who will toss
out a dissected animal or a crucifix submerged in urine and call it art.
Most will properly realize he's just a sad loser, but the
pseudo-intellectual, wannabe-elitists, desperate to justify their parents'
funding of their "higher" education, will bend over backwards to try and
explain to the rest of us how this sort of nonsense represents some profound
insight as to the meaning of life...
I guess I just don't get it!
W. Orr
wrote:
>On Mon, 31 Dec 2001 15:12:55 -0800, "Milhouse Van Houten"
><rse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>>No one I know can figure this out. It's either incredibly obvious or incredibly stupid.
>>Please help.
>>
>>http://www.suntimes.com/output/answ-man/sho-sunday-ebert30.html
>>
>>Q. In your review of ''Heist,'' you say that the line, ''Everyone needs money. That's why
>>they call it money!'' is one of the funniest lines that David Mamet has ever written. Why
>>is it funny and how do you interpret it? I saw the film this weekend and heard the same
>>line, yet I feel it just doesn't work.
>>
>What's funny is that it's a total non sequitur -- you're expecting
>some big pronouncement, and you get this weird nonsense sentence.
>
>John Harkness
>
I haven't seen the film yet, but I just assumed from the line in the
trailer that it was going to be followed up by some comment along the
lines of:
"...Because people always have 'MO' NEEd' of it!"
I guess not...
Luis Carruthers
My initial reaction was internal laughter, followed by "Wait- that doesn't
make any fucking sense! He couldn't have just been BORN a criminal, so what
the fuck made him a criminal?"
SpaceRook
Well, I am reminded of what Mark Twain said about explaining jokes and dissecting frogs, but here it
goes...
The sentence is nonsensical. Specifically, it is recursive. It's like saying "My name is Jim.
They call me Jim."
Brian Trosko
> is it funny and how do you interpret it? I saw the film this weekend and heard the same
> line, yet I feel it just doesn't work.
Jesus, it's a fucking circular definition.
Everybody needs money. This is why they gave it a name signifying that
everyone needs it. The name they gave it is money.
Rod Ramsey
"Brian Trosko" <btr...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:a0runb$qiq$1...@news.panix.com...
> Jesus, it's a fucking circular definition.
>
> Everybody needs money. This is why they gave it a name signifying that
> everyone needs it. The name they gave it is money.
Much clearer than my way of saying the same thing.
My favorite bit along these lines is a poster you see for about 2 seconds in
Not Another Teen Movie- "Cheerleaders put the Cheerleading in Cheerleading!"
It amused me anyway.
Emanuel Brown
It's funny because it states what is. I like it because it's
similar to a gag I tell my employees when they say they don't want to
do some task at work:
"Of course you don't want to do this; nobody wants to do this.
That's why we call it "work," instead of "sex" or "fun" or something."
Emanuel
"Everybody wants a normal life and a cool car;
most people settle for the car." Chris Titus
http://home.att.net/~epbrown01/1966-rolls.jpg
http://home.att.net/~epbrown01/1983-porsche.jpg
Nim
news:a0qrdo$mmo9q$1...@ID-113474.news.dfncis.de...
> Q. In your review of ''Heist,'' you say that the line, ''Everyone needs
money. That's why
> they call it money!'' is one of the funniest lines that David Mamet has
ever written. Why
> is it funny and how do you interpret it? I saw the film this weekend and
heard the same
> line, yet I feel it just doesn't work.
Kind of reminds me of this television commercial from 7 or 8 years ago, for
something like "Nature's Deadliest Animals." The commercial kept showing
things fighting and eating one another, with a very intense-sounding
narrator pitching the tape, and finally concludes with the line "FIND OUT
WHY THEY CALL THEM ANIMALS!" I wonder if anyone thought about that line
for more than 2 seconds before they put it in.
Jack
Though it is a bit absurd, a criminal attempting to psycho-analyze
another criminal. Seriously, why should a crook care about what made
someone a criminal, is he going to write a book, "What Made Bob a
Crook?: by Joe the ex-con?"
Devito's response appears witty, because the question is so silly.
"Everyone needs money; that's why they call it money" also sounds nice
it's just illogical.
"SDM" <smros...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Ruth
filmn...@aol.comatose (Kevin FilmNutBoy) wrote:
>
> Indeed. My vote for funniest Mamet line of all time:
>
> "Well, that happened."
>
> Context is everything.
absolutely.
The money line did crack me up though..
tc
> Jesus, it's a fucking circular definition.
> Everybody needs money. This is why they gave it a name signifying that
> everyone needs it. The name they gave it is money.
Yes. It assumes the premise (everyone needs money), hence the "proof"
(that's why they call it money) is circular by definition. Yes, it's a
stupid line, but not illogical either.
James Anatidae
> Hackman: "Those were it."
>
My favorite line in the film. (Although didn't Hackman say "You just
did."?)
James Anatidae
Hackman: "Money makes the world go 'round"
Lindo: "I thought it was love."
Hackman: "It is. Love of money."
Rod Ramsey <rra...@youknowwhattodo.mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:a0r731$41e$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
Rod Ramsey
"James Anatidae" <pars...@citcom.net> wrote in message
news:a10d03$eiuv$1...@news3.infoave.net...
"Don't you want to hear my last words?"
"I just did."
nub...@gmail.com
Ash Charlton
It puts it in the category of jokes where people are unaware of how very stupid they sound, which is especially funny when they think they've said something clever. My mother once said of Bianca Jagger 'Oh she's only famous because she's well-known!' which had us all in stitches in the same way.
Flasherly
<a...@acetrainingcourses.co.uk> wrote:
>
he's said nothing - that to regular people money is not the ultimate
thing in life
And regular films have nothing to do with a political rant running on
film for over an hour. Money, though, can be substituted, along with
much else. In a sense they do, if that's the best attempt at drama
people can come up with for regular people to pay money to a
film-maker with, probably, more of it than they, even if the
film-maker squanders it for the illusions of wealth someone else
regularly might not. Neither would it be as much dramatic, than
documented, to say there are among those whom are very much
media-centric in America, who would literally kill, whether or not
documented on film, to be seen and recognized by the rest of Americans
watching whatever the present flavor of prevailing media, in meaning
to an average household paying $150 for ISP streaming bundles.
(Average for accounting that housing projects or a subsidized class of
Americans under laws, that they legally only have to a third, say $50,
if they fall below a certain poverty income level;- Of course among a
poverty-stricken America who might actually care what the affluent
always do evince, without much else really to do, but to watch.)