Speaking of My Cousin Vinny, there’s something I’ve always wondered about: At the end, Mona gives this long technical explanation about the tire tracks that couldn’t have been made without positraction, that there were only two cars produced in some year that had similar body styles and the mint green paint, only one of which had positraction, etc.
Is all of that factually true, or was it just made up for the movie?
I don’t know about the tire tracks, but the imdb has this to say:
A related question. Is it reasonable to expect that she (even though she was a trained mechanic) would know this trivia about twenty-year old cars? And in fact, the way he set up the situation he apparently knew this also. That seems really far-fetched.
It’s a fun film otherwise. I particularly enjoyed how he used the information about how to cook grits. That was reasonable, unlike the fact that he knew this obscure automotive trivia.
You have to remember that earlier in the movie, Mona Lisa was shown to be very adept at sounding knowledgeable about anything. Remember the bit about whether she turned off the dripping faucet in the motel room? She made up a whole bunch of obviously bogus “facts” to “prove” that she had turned the thing off.
The prosecution expert didn’t want to look ignorant, since he couldn’t remember any specific contradictory information on such short notice.
Fun movie.
Sure look pretty similar to me when viewed from the side.
Your interpretation is that she lied on the stand?
I’m not arguing. It’s just that possibility never occurred to me. I assumed she was being honest, although it did require really obscure automotive knowledge, which is what bothered me.
Just one possibility. She was a b-s’er, after all. Vinnie certainly lied to get permission to take on the case.
What I’d like to know, though, is whether what she says about the tire tracks and the positraction and the rest is correct. If it is, then I’d say maybe she just happened to have that particular bit of obscure information in that retentive brain of hers. I bet you could think of some equally improbable bit of trivia that you know.
And, I have to agree with Jeff that the two could certainly be mistaken for each other, especially when viewed through all those bushes, and the bugs on the screen, etc.
It’s well established earlier in the film that she comes from a family of mechanics and that her family owns a garage in Brooklyn where all of her brothers work as mechanics, and though not a professional mechanic herself, she is involved in the family business. I took the speech as intended to display her encyclopedic knowlege of vintage automobiles, much the way some people can quote baseball statistics from the 20’s or entire filmographies of prominent directors. The final clue is that the sheriff puts out an APB and finds out that the exact car she described had been caught with the real killers inside.
I always thought that line - my brothers knew all about cars because they worked on them, so therefore I know all about cars even though I never touched one - was totally bogus. Being brought up in that family, she’d probably hate cars and learn nothing about them.
But that’s not at all what she says. Though she is not a professional mechanic, she had done lots of mechanizing, including re-building transmissions and whatnot, in her family’s garage.
I like this movie, and it’s fun hearing people talk about it, especially admiration for the Mona Lisa character. For all the crap Marisa Tomei has gotten over the years about her Oscar, I don’t think it can be argued that she didn’t give a great performance. Her Mona Lisa Vito was funny, quick, intelligent, trashy in a classy sort of way, and oh-so-New Yawk.
Regarding the Oscars, I still think the other nominees (Joan Plowright, Miranda Richardson, Vanessa Redgrave and Judy Davis)cancelled each other out (really, how could you choose one over the other?), and Marisa had a slight (almost certainly not overwhelming) majority of votes, just enough to give her the win. They all deserved the Oscar. I was happy to see it go to her.
Fred Gwynne also deserves praise for his Judge Chamberlain Haller (“what’s a yout?”).
My favorite quote:
Mona Lisa: “Imagine you’re a deer. You’re prancing around. You get thirsty. You spot a little brook. You put your little deer lips down to the clear water. BAM!! A fuckin’ bullet rips off part of your head! Your brains are lying on the ground in little bloody pieces. Now I axe ya, do you give a fuck what kind of pants the son-of-a-bitch who shot ya was wearing?!”
They better not talk trash about my future wife…
That sort of knowledge about which cars had positraction would not be obscure to a true gearhead, especially if you came from somewhere where 60s and 70s ‘muscle cars’ were popular. And remember, she already knows one of the cars involved, it’s pretty easy to then know what the similar style car would be.
Dosen’t she state that, like the Corvette, the Pontiac had independent rear suspension instead of a solid rear axle?
Is that true?
Enola, a bit of research via Google says the independent suspension thing is true. Other Pontiacs did have positraction (aka Safe-T-Track) that year but only the Tempest had the required components: powerful engine, positraction, and the independent rear suspension.
The Tempest also had the transmission in the same housing as the differential, a transaxle. The driveshaft was enclosed in a tube that ran from the engine to the transaxle.
Just sayin’.
I hadn’t really read my earlier cite, turned out all it had to say about the suspension was that Pontiac was developing it. Here’s a specific site concerning the suspension and the '63 Tempest: http://www.pontiacserver.com/pmtempest1.html.
I liked this customer quote: “I think it was beautifully designed by geniuses, but assembled by idiots.”
So is someone here gonna correct the IMDB?
Personally I have always been a little bit dubious about the fact that you can tell for a fact that the car had independent suspension from that picture. The curb didn’t look all that tall, so it didn’t appear to create all that much of an angle. And it’s not like the tire is hard enough to ride up on its very outside corner. It’s going to deform and likely contact the ground all the way across it’s width.
The other possibility is that she was saying without Independant suspension the other side tire would have jumped when the first tire hit the curb, and the track was constant so that couldn’t have happened. But from the fact they appeared to be spinning out pretty near their take-off they might not have been going fast enough to make it jump.
I’m not saying she was wrong, but personally If I was the prosecuter I would want some kind of proof that a fixed rear suspension could never make a track like that, cause it doesn’t seem an obvious truth to me.
