- You know a male character is unemployed when he is shown ironing shirts in the middle of the day.
Next?
Next?
Is recognizing cliches in cinema what the college professors mean by “visual literacy”?
(Snarky reply)
But what if he’s a butler?
(/Snarky reply)
Not always true. See Kevin Costner in Bull Durham.
You know a movie probably sucks when they refuse to hold a press screening before it’s released.
The mulit-person project is going all night and -will- be a success if all involved order chinese food.
A man wearing an undershirt these days (assuming it’s visible) is either Italian and in the mob, or unemployed. Sometimes both.
Any reasonably attractive and intelligent female wearing nice glasses is repressed and single, hiding herself in her work (often scientific) and waiting for a man to make her feel like a real woman after she spends a while trading barbs with him.
Any man (or woman) drinking a beer is dumb and/or low class
Any working man (construction, bus driver, etc) drinks beer and, if not dumb, is at least very poorly educated
Any rabid sports fan will be basically dumb (and usually a beer drinker), and have tremendous problems dealing with women
The more medals and fancier uniform of a soldier indicates a more rigid and unflexible personality
A cop who argues with his superior is a rebel and a really good cop
An attractive woman alone in a bar is either a whore or a slut, or about to make a tremendous mistake
An unattractive woman alone in a bar is an old whore or slut, or has made a tremendous mistake
A handsome man playing the role of a priest will be troubled, either by his lack of faith or by celibacy
An unattractive man playing the role of a priest will be somehow dishonest, drunk or a pervert
The younger and more attractive the doctor, the less likely they are to have made a mistake
The more successful a businessman is, the more likely he is to be a crook
This one, at least, is based on real life.
If a single and attractive woman comes into the story at some point – and if she is the only attractive woman in it who is roughly age-appropriate for the male lead – then she will either sleep with him at some point, or build up some unstated and unresolved sexual tension. Either way, they’ll get friendly, regardless of any initial hostility or suspicion.
:rolleyes:
Ah, there you are, Rik! I’m still waiting for you to explain why Boondocks is in “bad taste”! (In this thread – “Pinky, are you rolling back the prices I am?” – http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=305584 – you made a drive-by and left us hanging.)
This goes for TV, as well:
With rare exceptions (Uncle Buck, for example) if a character is fat, you know that they are cowardly. (You are generally also know that they are slovenly and stupid, but I’ll go with cowardly for now.) John Candy’s character in Uncle Buck can be called cowardly because he is afraid of commitment, but I don’t necessarily think of that as “fat-related cowardice.”
Hey, but we can’t blame that on TV or Hollywood! That cliche goes back at least to Falstaff!
Hmmmm. I’m not saying that they ORIGINATED the stereotype. But they are not mandated by law to carry it out, are they?
Unless she has previously been seen drinking heavily, if a female character vomits, then you know that she is pregnant.
If a female character in a period film (pre-20th century, anyway) is coughing at the beginning of the movie, she will die of consumption by the end.
What, aren’t you familiar with the Predictability of Popular Entertainment Act of 1958?
That’s what I came in here to say.
Actually, I think that might be an attempt to convey a very similar message, if not literally true – A middle aged man playing minor league baseball – makes almost no money and spends all day playing a child’s game with a bunch of (near-) children.
That’s pretty close to being unemployed.