SPOILERS ALERT
In order to have an open discussion, without a SPOILER on every other line, I thought I’d just start out by saying that I’d like to have a thread where we openly discuss movies and TV episodes without worrying about whether we’ve let something slip. Having been thus warned, if you are the sort of person who just HATES spoilers, participate in this thread at your own peril.
The thread about dated song lyrics, as well as the fact that I just watched Law & Order, s5e1, “Second Opinion,” got me thinking about the number of pivotal plot points that make some movies and TV episodes difficult to understand.
In “Second Opinion,” a woman seeks out a quack “healer” for her cancer, because her insurance won’t cover treatment, as her cancer is a pre-existing condition. She changed jobs not knowing that she already had a cancerous mass, and it was diagnosed shortly after she took her new job, so even though she had no lapse in coverage, her new carrier could deny coverage. I remember the collective sigh of relief in the country when the law was passed requiring insurers to cover pre-existing conditions of new clients if they switched carriers with no gap in coverage. I knew people who stayed in jobs they hated because they, or a spouse or child, had a condition that required ongoing treatment, which they would lose coverage for if they left their job, and had a new insurance carrier at their new job. The episode is only 20 years old, but that law really changed healthcare in the US. I wonder if people in their early 20s catching a rerun don’t understand what the problem is.
Another one: there’s a brilliant screwball comedy from 1937 called The Awful Truth, with Irene Dunne and Cary Grant. They are a divorcing couple, and the film takes place in the 90 day period between their filing for divorce, and the time the divorce is final. There are a couple of times when they are alone together, and they go to lengths to avoid being caught alone together. You will see a couple of people asking on places like IMDb why it’s such a big deal. Grant’s character comments that visiting days (court-ordered) with their dog will be easier when the divorce is final.
This is because back then, there was a law, or clause (I’m not sure of the terminology) in divorce law, at least in New York, where the film is set, that a couple can nullify a pending divorce by “re-consummating” the relationship, so to speak. They don’t want to be caught alone together, lest someone question what they are doing, and they have to refile.
At the end of the movie, they apparently do nullify in this manner, and there’s a coy way of showing it by cuts to a clock that shows the last 45 minutes of what would be the last day of their marriage, and implies that they are in bed together before the clock strikes midnight. It’s cute, and a little suspenseful, even though the light-heartedness of the movie makes you assume they’ll get back together.
No one in the movie spells out what the law is, so it must have been the case in most states, and the writer and director could assume the audience would know what was happening. I saw the movie when I was about 13, with my mother, who explained it to me as it was happening, so I “got” the ending, and it was fun.
That two very long examples. I can think of more, but I want to stop the post here.