Er denne film taktik realistisk?

Er denne film taktik realistisk?

I filmen "Children of Glory" er der tankscenen, (Jeg ville ikke spørge om gyldigheden af ​​krigsfilm i normale tilfælde, men dette er ikke fra Hollywood) som udspiller sig på følgende måde:

  • Nogen råber, at tanken kommer, på dette tidspunkt er barrikaden klar.
  • Alle trækker sig tilbage i de nærliggende huse.
  • Tanken kommer sammen med det understøttende infanteri.
  • Oprørerne åbner ild fra vinduerne og sliber støtten hurtigt ned.
  • Derefter lokkes tanken i en fælde, hvor den er oversvømmet med molotovcocktails, kastet fra vinduerne.
  • Besætningen undslipper gennem mavelugen.
  • Et gadebarn skynder sig foran tanken og forsøger at tage besætningen ud med en (muligvis stjålet) pistol.
  • Barnet får sig selv slået ihjel med det samme.
  • Oprørerne angriber fra to sider og fjerner besætningen med succes fra deres dæksler.

Her er klippet: https: //youtu.be/hBgqXO70t6k? T = 129

Er dette en realistisk taktik, eller ville det have fået oprørerne dræbt i virkeligheden?

Det siges, at de har lagt en betydelig mængde forskning i filmen, jeg er interesseret i, om det er sandt eller ej.


Jeg kan ikke se hvorfor ikke,

- Nogen råber, at tanken kommer, på dette tidspunkt er barrikaden klar.

  • Alle trækker sig tilbage i de nærliggende huse.
  • Tanken kommer sammen med det understøttende infanteri.
  • Oprørerne åbner ild fra vinduerne og sliber hurtigt støtten ned.
  • Derefter lokkes tanken i en fælde, hvor den er oversvømmet med molotovcocktails, kastet fra vinduerne.
  • Dette er det eneste afsnit, der kan diskuteres og virkelig afhænger af tankmodellen, men det er muligt som bevist af denne video Grundlæggende hvordan det ville fungere er som følger: Du taber cocktailen på motorens grill bagpå, den brændende gas og olie ville kvæle motoren og kunne sætte ild til nogle petroleumsdele/rester inde i motoren sammen med skadelige kabler og andre eksterne instrumenter. Hvis der mangler ilt inde i tanken, skal besætningen muligvis flygte gennem maven, i så fald kan du skyde på dem.

    • Besætningen undslipper gennem mavelugen. Et gadebarn skynder sig foran tanken og forsøger at tage besætningen ud med en (muligvis stjålet) pistol.
      • Barnet får sig selv slået ihjel med det samme.
      • Oprørerne angriber fra to sider og fjerner besætningen med succes fra deres dæksler


    Darkest Hour (2017)

    Churchill havde støttet kong Edward VIII under Abdication Crisis, en beslutning der faktisk skadede hans ry i regeringen. Imidlertid er Mørkeste time den sande historie afslører, at han ikke ønskede at se kongen abdicere. I stedet pressede han på for mere tid, så parlamentet og folket kunne høres, og antydede endda, at hvis han fik mere tid, kunne kongen blive forelsket i den to gange fraskilte amerikanske socialite Wallis Simpson. Churchill mente, at ministeriet lagde et forfatningsmæssigt pres på kongen for at træffe en hastende beslutning og frygtede, at det ville resultere i, at han unødigt opgav tronen. På trods af arbejderklassen og veteraner, der viste overvældende støtte til kongen, efterlod Churchills position hans omdømme beskadiget. Abdikationen og dens kongelige og politiske efterspil behandles nærmere i Netflix -serien Kronen, som vi også har undersøgt.

    Hvorfor præcist sagde Neville Chamberlain af som britisk premierminister?

    Neville Chamberlain, Winston Churchills forgænger, trådte tilbage på grund af tab af tillid til hans udenrigspolitik, efter at de allierede blev tvunget til at trække sig tilbage fra Norge, hvilket resulterede i besættelsen af ​​Norge af Tyskland. Chamberlain havde ført Storbritannien i det, der var blevet kendt som Phoney -krigen. På trods af at Storbritannien og Frankrig underskrev militærbistandstraktater med Polen, havde ingen af ​​landene iværksat betydelige offensive operationer, efter at Tyskland invaderede Polen 1. september 1939. Winston Churchill ønskede at tage krigen ind i en mere aktiv fase, i modsætning til Chamberlain, som var bedre egnet til at være en leder i fredstid. Han havde forladt landet dårligt forberedt på krig. Desuden nægtede Labour og Liberale partier at slutte sig til regeringen, mens Chamberlain havde ansvaret.

    Mens du forsøger at besvare spørgsmålet, "Hvor præcis er Mørkeste time? "lærte vi, at Neville Chamberlain havde kræft (tyktarmskræft), og han døde af det senere samme år. Han havde haft næsten konstant smerte i sommeren 1940, så scenen, hvor han tager morfin, giver mening. Winston Churchill leverede lovtale ved sin begravelse.

    Var tilliden til Churchill i foråret 1940 virkelig så lav, som den fremstilles for at være i filmen?

    Ja. Med hans succes i 2. verdenskrig er det let at antage, at Winston Churchill altid havde universel støtte. Imidlertid er Mørkeste time den sande historie bekræfter, at tilliden til Churchill faktisk var ekstremt rystende, da han først tiltrådte. Han havde været Lord of the Admiralty under Chamberlain og blev betragtet som værende stort set ansvarlig for de strategiske fiaskoer i Norge. Derudover havde mange ikke glemt hans rolle i den katastrofale Gallipoli -kampagne under første verdenskrig, hvilket resulterede i, at han blev degraderet, inden han i en kort periode trak sig fra regeringen. Mange af hans kolleger i det konservative parti troede, at han var en opportunist, og ligesom i filmen foretrak de i stedet Lord Halifax. Churchill stod også over for hård modstand fra sine rivaler i kabinettet og i oppositionspartierne generelt. Lyt til hans første tale som premierminister i Underhuset, hvor han lover, at han ikke har andet at tilbyde end "blod, slid, tårer og sved."

    Var Churchill ofte ond mod sine medarbejdere?

    Ja. I Mørkeste time film, skælder Winston Churchill (Gary Oldman) sin personlige sekretær Elizabeth Layton (Lily James) ud for at have hørt ham forkert og dikteret det forkerte ord. Det er hendes første dag at arbejde for ham, og hans hårdhed skræmmer hende. Det var virkelig svært at forstå Churchill, før man blev vant til, hvordan han talte, og endnu hårdere over lyden af ​​skrivemaskinen. Som i filmen kunne han ikke lide ændringer i personalet, og han kunne heller ikke lide støjende skrivemaskiner. Den ægte Elizabeth Layton havde ved et uheld skrivemaskinen indstillet til en enkelt afstand, for hvilken han kaldte hende "et fjols, et krus, en idiot" og fortalte hende at forlade sit nærvær. I virkeligheden forsøgte hun ikke igen i et par dage. Hans opførsel med sit personale er præcist afbildet, og hans kone Clementine kom efter ham for det og skrev endda et brev til ham om at behandle dem bedre.

    Den ægte Elizabeth Layton bekræftede Churchills grove måder i sin erindring fra 1958 Hr. Churchills sekretær, skriver, "[T] hat stor mand - som til enhver tid kunne være utålmodig, venlig, irritabel, knusende, generøs, inspirerende, vanskelig, alarmerende, morsom, uforudsigelig, hensynsfuld, tilsyneladende umulig at behage, charmerende, krævende, hensynsløs, hurtig til vrede og hurtig til at tilgive - var uforglemmelig. Man elskede ham med en dyb hengivenhed. Svært at arbejde for - ja, mest elskelig - altid sjov - uden fejl. "

    Var Churchills personlige sekretær, Elizabeth Layton, ved hans side under de begivenheder, der blev afbildet i filmen?

    Nej, hendes rolle i filmen er fiktiv. Ifølge hendes nekrolog blev hun først Winston Churchills personlige sekretær før den 5. maj 1941 på højden af ​​Blitz. Dette var et år efter begivenhederne i filmen. Det er dog ikke svært at se, hvorfor de inkluderede hende i filmen. Hun var hans personlige sekretær og en nær ledsager gennem det meste af krigen og tilbragte faktisk lange timer med ham i de underjordiske kabinets krigslokaler. Hun redegjorde meget for sin erfaring i sin erindringsbog fra 1958, Hr. Churchills sekretær, senere titlen igen Winston Churchill af hans personlige sekretær.

    Mens du kontrollerer fakta Mørkeste time, lærte vi, at ligesom i filmen tog den ægte Elizabeth Layton noter ved sengen og fulgte ham i sin officielle bil, da hun jonglerede med en pen, papir, tændstikker, hans cigarer og den ministerielle sorte kasse. Det tog ikke lang tid, før hun indså, at han havde "et kærligt hjerte", på trods af hvor svært han kunne være. Hun var virkelig fascineret af Churchills evne som forfatter og taler og kommenterede: "Nogle gange blev hans stemme tyk af følelser, og nogle gange løb en tåre ned ad kinden. Da inspiration kom til ham, gestikulerede han med hænderne, ligesom man vidste, at han ville gøre det, da han holdt sin tale, og sætningerne rullede ud med så meget følelse, at man døde med soldaterne, slidte med arbejderne, hadede fjenden, anstrengt for sejr. "

    Det er rigtigt, at Elizabeth Layton var ugift under krigen. Hun mødte sin mand, Frans Nel, under sejrsfejringerne i Whitehall i 1945. Hendes sidste krigstidsopgave var at tage diktat til Churchills historiske VE-Day-tale, som han holdt den 8. maj 1945.

    Hvorfor ønskede Viscount Halifax ikke at være premierminister?

    Ved forskning i Mørkeste time sand historie, vi bekræftede, at der faktisk var udbredt støtte til, at Halifax (portrætteret af Stephen Dillane) træder ind som premierminister ved Neville Chamberlains fratræden den 10. maj 1940, men Halifax afviste stillingen. Hans rolle i House of Lords blev givet som den officielle årsag. I virkeligheden manglede han nok støtte fra Arbejderpartiet og følte også, at Churchill ville være en mere passende leder i krigstid. Han troede, at han stort set ville miste sin stemme, hvis han selv skulle træde ind i rollen, især da Churchill stadig ville være Admiralitetens første herre og alligevel orkestrere krigsførelsen. I sine erindringer sagde Halifax:

    Var Churchills kone Clementine virkelig så central i en figur i hans liv?

    Ja. Deres kærlige forhold er præcist afbildet i filmen. Han kaldte hende kærligt "Kat", og hendes kæledyrsnavn for ham var "Gris" (eller lejlighedsvis "Mops"). Det er også rigtigt, at deres forhold og familie generelt tog en bagsæde til hans liv i politik. I filmen beskriver Clementine nøjagtigt den vejafgift, det tog på familien, da hun er hjemme og skåler hans udnævnelse som premierminister. -Telegrafen

    Churchills kone siger, at de er gået i stykker. Var det sandt?

    Ved besvarelsen af ​​spørgsmålet, "Hvor præcis er Mørkeste time? "opdagede vi, at Churchills dyre smag faktisk belastede familiens økonomi. I filmen fortæller Clementine (Kristin Scott Thomas) ham, at de er gået i stykker. Hans hang til cigarer og god spiritus kom ikke billigt. Han betalte også for at bevare deres hjem i Chartwell. Churchill havde tjent godt som journalist, men det var først ved udgivelsen af ​​hans erindringer om Anden Verdenskrig, at han fandt ægte økonomisk uafhængighed. Erindringerne var hovedårsagen til, at han vandt Nobelprisen for litteratur. -TID

    Mødte de virkelig i de underjordiske krigsrum?

    Ikke nøjagtigt. Den virkelige underjordiske bunker kendt som krigsrummet var placeret nær parlamentet og fungerede som en del kortrum og en del luftangreb. Men filmens brug af dem af Churchill i maj 1940 er fiktiv. "Der er en lille unøjagtighed, fordi krigsrummene, selvom de blev åbnet i slutningen af ​​august 1939, ikke blev brugt af Churchill, efter at han blev premierminister før i september 1940, fordi der ikke var nogen bombeangreb," siger Phil Reed, Mørkeste time's historiske rådgiver og direktør emeritus i Churchill War Rooms, som nu er et museum. "Det var meningen, at det var et sted, han kunne møde i sikkerhed under et bombeangreb og selvom de bestemt ikke var sikre." -TID

    Filmen gør et godt stykke arbejde med at få rettet nogle af de mindre detaljer. Under de heftige diskussioner i filmen kan Churchill ses trykke på sin signetring på armstolen. Hvis du besøger War Rooms i dag, er Churchills stol bag glas. En nærmere undersøgelse afslører, at der på rammen af ​​stolen er ridser, hvorfra han bankede på ringen, omend på et senere tidspunkt end det er afbildet i filmen. -Telegrafen

    Kom Churchill ind i ophedede diskussioner med Halifax under møderne i krigskabinettet?

    Ja, men filmen ser ud til at dramatisere følelserne lidt, som bryder ud i all-out råbkampe i filmen. Faktatjek Den mørkeste time bekræftede, at stemmer dukkede op i hjørner af krigskabinettet, der tyder på, at man kommer til enighed med Tyskland, og den største stemme for var faktisk Churchills udenrigsminister, Viscount Halifax. Han truede endda med at trække sig, hvis der ikke blev forsøgt at forhandle fredsvilkår med Tyskland. Ligesom i filmen ønskede Viscount Halifax og Neville Chamberlain, at Storbritannien skulle indlede fredsforhandlinger gennem Mussolinis mellemmænd.

    I forsøget på at stå på sit hold bar Churchill en enorm vægt på sine skuldre i løbet af maj 1940, og dette formidles ret effektivt i filmen. "Indtil det tidspunkt, hvor Lord Halifax og Chamberlain besluttede, at der ikke skulle være et parlay med italienerne, kan jeg bare ikke forestille mig, hvad han havde på skuldrene. Jeg kan ikke forestille mig det," siger Churchills barnebarn, Nicholas Soames . Kampene mellem premierminister Churchill og udenrigsminister Halifax omtales samlet som krigskabinettkrisen i maj 1940. -Telegrafen

    Blev Churchill virkelig stadig mere ubeslutsom om at stå på sinde mod at indgå fredsforhandlinger med Tyskland?

    Nej. Selvom Churchill indrømmede bevogtet og bag lukkede døre, at han ville overveje vilkår præsenteret af Tyskland, den Mørkeste time den sande historie afslører, at han ikke var på nippet til at søge dem. I stedet forsøgte han sandsynligvis at købe tid, indtil britiske styrker med succes blev evakueret fra Dunkerque. Der var ikke en neglebidende beslutning om at stå fast som i filmen, og han var langt mere afgørende, end han er afbildet. Churchill vidste på det tidspunkt, at Hitler ikke var til at stole på, og hvis Storbritannien skulle bekæmpe en modstandskampagne mod tysk besættelse, ville kapitulation både være en moralsk overgivelse og et knusende slag for ethvert forsøg på at forene landet.

    Den 28. maj 1940 instruerede Churchill sit krigskabinet "at hver en af ​​jer ville rejse sig og rive mig ned fra mit sted, hvis jeg et øjeblik skulle overveje parley eller overgive sig. Hvis denne lange øhistorie om vores skulle slutte kl. sidst, lad det kun ende, når vi hver især ligger og er kvalt i sit eget blod på jorden. " -National Review

    Ringede Churchill virkelig til et sent telefonopkald til præsident Roosevelt og bad om hjælp?

    Det er rigtigt, at på det tidspunkt i foråret 1940 ønskede de fleste amerikanere ingen del af Europas krig. Imidlertid er det usandsynligt, at opkaldet om aftenen nogensinde er sket, især fordi den direkte krypterede telefonlinje ikke eksisterede før i 1943 (Slate.com). I Mørkeste time film, spørger Churchill Roosevelt om de skibe, Storbritannien købte, "Vi betalte for dem ... med de penge, vi lånte fra dig." Roosevelt minder ham om, at USA ved lov ikke kan komme Storbritanniens redning. Scenen ender med, at Churchill smækker telefonen ned i frustration. Det fanger bestemt desperationen, Storbritannien følte, da Hitlers greb strammede om halsen. -National Review

    Telefonopkaldet udtrykker grundlæggende det virkelige brev fra 15. maj 1940, som premierminister Churchill skrev til præsident Roosevelt, hvor han beder om "lån af fyrre eller halvtreds af dine ældre destroyere", "flere hundrede af de nyeste flytyper", "luftværnsudstyr og ammunition" og "stål". I brevet understreger han den skrækkelige situation i Europa og behovet for, at USA hjælper. "Men jeg stoler på, at du indser, hr. Præsident, at USA's stemme og kraft måske ikke tæller for noget, hvis de tilbageholdes for længe." Læs hele teksten i Churchills 15. maj -brev til Roosevelt. Churchill havde skrevet Roosevelt lige siden han blev Admiralitetets første herre den 3. september 1939.

    Fire dage efter at have skrevet brevet til Roosevelt, understregede Churchill også behovet for flere fly, kampvogne og kanoner i sin "Be Ye Men of Valor" -radioadresse, som høres i filmen.

    Døde Elizabeth Laytons bror virkelig, mens han kæmpede i Frankrig?

    Medførte et møde sent om aftenen, at Churchill og kong George VI blev venner?

    Nej. Faktisk kontrol Den mørkeste time, opdagede vi, at selvom det var rigtigt, at kong George VI ikke altid var fan af Churchill, tog deres venskab meget længere tid at udvikle sig i det virkelige liv. Processen er fremskyndet til filmen. Kongens trøstende besøg giver mening kunstnerisk, men da det tog lang tid for krigen at udvikle en gensidig respekt og kærlighed til hinanden i det virkelige liv, giver scenen ingen mening kronologisk.

    Det er rigtigt, at de to havde meget til fælles. Når Churchill f.eks. Fortæller kongen om sine forældre, er det troværdigt, at dette kunne være opstået i deres mandagsmøder. De blev begge opdraget af glamourøse mødre og dårligt tempererede fædre. Begge udviste tapperhed, da de tjente i den store krig. I slutningen af ​​2. verdenskrig skrev kong George Churchill et rørende brev, der fortalte ham, at han var forbudt at slutte sig til tropperne på D-dag, da risikoen for hans liv var for stor. -Telegrafen

    Kørte Winston Churchill London Underground for at få en fornemmelse af almindelige briteres stemning i forhold til krigen?

    Nej. I filmen, efter at King George (Ben Mendelsohn) aflægger Winston Churchill (Gary Oldman) et besøg sent om natten og foreslår, at han går til folket, beslutter Churchill at tage en tur på London Underground for at opdage, hvordan almindelige briter har det om potentielt at indgå fredsforhandlinger med Tyskland. På trods af at dette er et af de mere bevægende øjeblikke i filmen, er det også et af de mere fjerntliggende, da der ikke er meget belæg for, at noget lignende skete. -Telegrafen

    Direktør Joe Wright kaldte scenen for en "fiktionalisering af en følelsesmæssig sandhed", idet han begrundede, at Churchill til tider var kendt for at være AWOL. "De vidste ikke, hvor han gik hen," sagde Wright. "Og han var også kendt for at besøge Londons folk og søge deres råd og nogle gange have et lille gråd med dem." Ved at indrømme, at scenen er fiktion, siger Wright, at han sørgede for at være mest faktuel, når det gjaldt personerne selv, som ikke kunne forsvare sig mod historiske unøjagtigheder. I virkeligheden var den eneste gang, Churchill angiveligt nogensinde havde kørt på metroen, under generalstrejken i 1926. -CinemaBlend.com

    At antyde, at londonerne Churchill mødte, gav ham de ord, han ville bruge i sin mest definerende tale, forkert gengiver ham som leder. Han var ikke folkets dukke. Han følte, at Gud havde placeret ham på Jorden for at lede det britiske folk. Han ville senere skrive: "Endelig havde jeg myndighed til at give anvisninger over hele scenen. Jeg følte, at jeg gik med skæbnen, og hele mit tidligere liv havde kun været en forberedelse til denne time og til denne retssag ... . Jeg var sikker på, at jeg ikke skulle fejle. " -National Review

    Fik Gary Oldman vægt for at ligne mere Winston Churchill?

    Nej. I stedet rekrutterede Gary Oldman den legendariske makeupartist Kazuhiro Tsuji, der var gået på pension fra at lave makeup til film. Tsuji havde tidligere arbejdet med kendte film som Den nysgerrige sag om Benjamin Button (2008), Abernes planet (2001) og Hvordan Grinch stjal julen (2000). Oldman, der er næsten 60, sagde, at han i sin alder vidste, at det ville være særligt usundt at tage 50 eller 60 pund på for rollen. I 48 dages sammenhængende skydning tog den fede dragt, tøj og makeup knap fire timer at tage på og næsten en time at tage af.

    Oldman fortalte Graham Norton, at han fik nikotinforgiftning på sættet ved at ryge cirka tolv cigarer om dagen for at skildre Winston Churchill. "Jeg gennemgik $ 30.000 cigarer på sættet," sagde Oldman. "Jeg havde dybest set en dårlig mave i de tre måneder, jeg var på [sættet]." Til jul havde hans maveproblemer vedvaret så længe, ​​at han fandt ud af at få foretaget en koloskopi. Oldman siger, at det er en pris at betale, men det var det værd.

    Udvid din forståelse af Mørkeste time sand historie ved at lytte til Winston Churchills rigtige taler herunder, som Gary Oldman genskabte i filmen.


    15 Attentatet på Jesse James af den feige Robert Ford

    I guldalderen for Hollywood Western -filmene var nøjagtighed ikke ligefrem en prioritet. Publikum var meget mere interesseret i at købe sig ind i tidens formodede enkelhed og var hurtige til at trænge ind i enhver film, der viste en smuk ung cowboy, der kæmpede med en vanvittig fredløs. Hvis en af ​​disse karakterer tilfældigvis var en berømt legende om det vilde vesten, så meget bedre. Sådan befandt Jesse James sig i så mange tidlige film, og hvordan hans egentlige historie blev lidt snoet som følge heraf.

    Attentatet på Jesse James af den feige Robert Ford retter alt det. Andrew Dominiks film lider muligvis af en mundfuld af en titel og noget utroligt langsomt tempo, men den er sjældent blevet beskyldt for at være unøjagtig i hverken den periode, den skildrer eller karakteren af ​​Jessie James. En stor del af grunden til dette er, at det fokuserer mere på karakteren af ​​Robert Ford, hvis stjernelyst for James gør det meget lettere at værdsætte legenden i sin egen tid, såvel som den uafvisende karakter af hans betydelige fejl og personlige ønsker.


    Er rutinen "God politimand, dårlig politimand" en rigtig ting?

    I det nye buddy-cop komediehit Varmen, Sandra Bullock og Melissa McCarthy spiller Ashburn og Mullins, en uoverensstemmende duo, der har til opgave at nedlægge en narkobaron. På et tidspunkt forsøger Ashburn, en by-the-books FBI-agent, roligt at forhøre en mistænkt, kun for at blive abrasivt afbrudt af den høje Bostonian Mullins, der kommer ind i lokalet og straks kaster en telefonbog i ansigtet. Det er et sjovt riff på en meget velkendt rutine.

    På dette tidspunkt føles en politiets proceduremæssige eller politi-og-røvere-flick næsten ufuldstændig uden en "god politimand, dårlig politimand" -scene, uanset om den er skildret seriøst eller for grin. Det er blevet så indgroet i populærkulturen, at teknikken - hvor to forhørsledere, den ene grov og aggressiv, den anden genial og rolig, forsøger at vilje en mistænkt til overholdelse - for længe siden blev en metafor, der blev anvendt i en lang række situationer.

    Men anvender virkelige lovhåndhævere faktisk taktikken?

    Ikke så ofte som film og tv -shows kan få dig til at tænke. Meningerne er forskellige om, hvor udbredt taktikken er. Joseph Pollini, en pensioneret løjtnantkommanderende, fortalte os, at det bestemt blev brugt lejlighedsvis. Den typiske opstilling, sagde han, vil have den skræmmende "dårlige" betjent først, efterfulgt af den mere nacn "gode" betjent, som forsikrer den mistænkte om, at alt vil være "fint". Maki Haberfeld, professor i politividenskab ved John Jay College of Criminal Justice, siger, at det bruges "hele tiden", hovedsageligt af detektiver. "Når en person konfronteres med to individer, en venlig og en fjendtlig, vil han eller hun i sidste ende skabe et meget bedre forhold eller en komfortzone med den venlige," forklarer Haberfeld. "Især hvis den fjendtlige virkelig truer."

    Men en veteran fra NYPD fortalte os, at han finder dikotomien "forældet" og foreslog, at den kan have været mere almindelig, da politifolk blev udsat for mindre kontrol for brutalitet mod kriminelle og mistænkte. Nogle fanger reagerer bedre på vrede, sagde han, mens andre måske reagerer godt på pænhed, som forhørere i hans trup prøver begge tilgange, men aldrig i takt. Joseph Giacalone, en pensioneret NYPD -detektivsergent, var enig: At trække i den klassiske version af rutinen - hvor to mennesker i det væsentlige skal foretage en handling, mens de skiftes til at afhøre en mistænkt - kan føre til fejl og ødelægge sagen, sagde han . "Det er altid bedst at få én person til at afhøre", efter hans opfattelse, en, der har opbygget en relation til den mistænkte. (De fleste eksperter er enige om, at den mest effektive metode til at afhøre nogen er at etablere respekt og tillid.) Giacalone mener, at rutinen "god politimand, dårlig politimand" mere er en tv -sammenkogning end noget andet.

    Men de tidligste popkultureksempler på rutinen før tv. I 1912 blev D.W. Griffith kort Indbrudstyvets dilemma, to detektiver spiller samtidigt "varmt og koldt" med en indbrudstyv til komisk effekt. Og det ældste navn, vi kunne finde for taktikken, stammer ikke fra politiforestillinger eller fra politihåndbøger, men fra en tegneserie: Før nogen af ​​de trykte anvendelser, vi gravede op af "god politimand, dårlig politimand", er der flere referencer til "Mutt og Jeff-rutinen", en hentydning til de humlende hovedpersoner i den eponymiske tegneserie, der først blev udgivet i 1907. (Den slanke Mutt er en skæv, men tåbelig hestevæddeløbs-spiller, mens Jeff er en modig, vanvittig asylfange, der også elsker racerne.) Inden for et par årtier efter stripens debut blev deres navne brugt til at beskrive, hvad vi nu tænker som "god politimand, dårlig betjent." En bog om politiafhør fra 1940 kalder det "et af de ældste apparater i politiarbejde", hvor den ene betjent tager rollen som "den venlige, snublende fyr, der altid tager den mistænktes side", mens den anden spillede " hård, ubarmhjertig ”forhør.

    Den tidligste trykte brug af sætningen "god politimand, dårlig politimand", som vi fandt, stammer fra 1956. Og sætningen bliver ikke voldsomt almindelig før de sidste 30 år eller deromkring, da rutinen var begyndt at overtage tv- og filmskærme. I hælene på de rogue cop blockbustere i 1970'erne gav 80'erne og 90'erne os en masse politidramaer og procedurer, der brugte troppen igen og igen. Mest bemærkelsesværdigt i denne henseende er måske Drab, hvor detektiverne Frank Pembleton (Andre Braugher) og Tim Bayliss (Kyle Secor) dannede en brutalt effektiv duo i "The Box", forhørslokalet, der var vært for talrige iterationer af god politimand, dårlig politimand. (Showet blev løst tilpasset fra faglitteraturbogen af ​​David Simon, der beskriver god politimand, dårlig politimand som lidt af politiets "melodrama", der er "slidt tyndt gennem årene.")

    Da taktikken blev butiksbåret i Hollywood, begyndte skildringerne at skifte. I dag er det sjældent fremstillet som en effektiv strategi. Tage Den sorte Ridder, hvor Heath Ledgers Joker håner Batman og kommissær Gordons forsøg på øvelsen. Endnu mere almindelig i disse dage er god betjent, dårlig betjent som farce: Steve Martin elektrokugter sine nederste regioner i Den lyserøde panter, Will Ferrell og Mark Wahlberg bungling en afhøring i De andre fyre, Finn og Jake forsøgte legende rutinen ind Eventyr tid. Eller for den sags skyld den førnævnte scene i Varmen. "Jeg skal til byen med ham," forklarer Mullins efter at have smidt den telefonbog. "Jeg laver 'god betjent, dårlig betjent'!"


    Ninja -taktik fra filmene - ægte eller ikke ægte

    Jeg har hørt såkaldte & quotexperts & quot i dokumentarfilm fra begge sider af dette spørgsmål. Nogle siger, at Ninja i filmene, i sorte pyjamas med et sværd og kastestjerne og peberspray til øjnene osv., At intet af det er sandt. De hævder, at ninjaer eksisterede, men var mere som sabotageagenter og spioner og kæmpede sjældent, om nogensinde, hånd i hånd og havde nomaltøj på og havde normale & quotcover & quot -job. Men jeg har hørt et par eksperter sige, at ninjaerne fra filmene er ægte.

    Så hvad er det? Inkluder alle kilder, jeg kan henvise til, hvis du vil.

    AlpinLuke

    Jeg starter med en let note.

    på dette billede kan du se mig, krøllet sammen og bare undre sig over, hvor er min schweiziske ninja -ven. Jeg kan ikke se ham!

    Nu på Historum havde jeg lejlighed til at diskutere dette spørgsmål. Da jeg har en vestlig [sig!] Viden om Ninjutsus vej, havde jeg et lidt forvrænget indtryk af den oprindelige kultur ud over et sådant fænomen. Så stol ikke for meget på & quotexperts & quot [samlet set hvis de er vestlige eksperter].

    Dette sagt, til ordet & quotninja & quot Jeg foretrækker udtrykket & quotshinobi, som er et mindre mytisk og generelt ord. Og faktisk er jeg sammen med dem, der fastholder, at Hollywood ninja -krigere er en senere litterær opfindelse. En shinobi var en spion, klar og i stand til at dræbe på mange måder, men som mange andre spioner.

    AlpinLuke

    Om taktikken kender den moderne ninjutu flere & quotjutsu & quot [shurikenjutsu, kenjutsu, bojutsu, taijutsu, kyujutsu. ], men det er teknikker ikke taktik.

    Ved at sammensætte alle disse teknikere med en god kontekst får du en fantastisk actionfilm. Men jeg vil understrege, at kampsport [de virkelige effektive] er essentielle og økonomiske [lille indsats for stort resultat]. Normalt er der ingen grund til at være akrobatisk og særligt imponerende, det er nok at være dødelig. Jeg husker, da jeg så & quotNinja Assassin & quot: Jeg spekulerede på & quotBUT WHY? & Quot.

    Når man kommer til kilderne, risikerer & quotNINJA & quot [med store bogstaver] at være en opfundet tradition. Jeg foreslår at læse dette værk: http://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1161&context=jgi

    Døve tuner

    Jeg starter med en let note.

    på dette billede kan du se mig, krøllet sammen og bare undre sig over, hvor er min schweiziske ninja -ven. Jeg kan ikke se ham!
    .

    Kazeuma

    Phil1904

    Mener du, at schweizere kan ses som geopolitiske ninjaer.


    Ninja figurerede fremtrædende i legende og folklore, hvor de blev forbundet med legendariske evner som usynlighed, vandring på vand og kontrol over de naturlige elementer.
    Som en konsekvens er deres opfattelse ofte baseret på en sådan legende og folklore end på spionerne.

    Naomasa298

    Robert 165

    Om taktikken kender den moderne ninjutu flere & quotjutsu & quot [shurikenjutsu, kenjutsu, bojutsu, taijutsu, kyujutsu. ], men det er teknikker ikke taktik.

    Ved at sammensætte alle disse teknologier med en god kontekst får du en fantastisk actionfilm. Men jeg vil understrege, at kampsport [de virkelige effektive] er essentielle og økonomiske [lille indsats for stort resultat]. Normalt er der ingen grund til at være akrobatisk og særligt imponerende, det er nok at være dødelig. Jeg husker, da jeg så & quotNinja Assassin & quot: Jeg spekulerede på & quotBUT WHY? & Quot.

    Når man kommer til kilderne, risikerer & quotNINJA & quot [med store bogstaver] at være en opfundet tradition. Jeg foreslår at læse dette værk: http://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1161&context=jgi

    undskyld at jeg glemte at komme tilbage og tjekke min egen tråd.

    De få gange, jeg har trænet i kampsport med nogen, der er uddannet i Ninjutsu, gør de alle slags imponerende og smertefulde ting, ting du ikke er vant til og ikke ville forvente.

    Excalibur

    AlpinLuke

    undskyld at jeg glemte at komme tilbage og tjekke min egen tråd.

    De få gange, jeg har trænet i kampsport med nogen, der er uddannet i Ninjutsu, gør de alle slags imponerende og smertefulde ting, ting du ikke er vant til og ikke ville forvente.

    Nok en af ​​de mest kendte [og for en imponerende] ting, ninja formodes at gøre, er at køre lodret på vægge.

    [En del af det faktum, at moderne ninjaer gør dette, betyder ikke, at shinobi gjorde det tidligere med en sammenlignelig effektivitet].

    Er det muligt. En almindelig person kan gøre det uden en så tung træning. You can see it on cable TV [or satellite TV] in those programs where guy and gals have to pass through "ninja courses". One of the step is a "ninja wall" 4mt high and it's beyond vertical . fitness lovers, climbers and common guys with a good athletic condition can run vertically on it [without being ninja!].

    To be fair, a person who learns ninjutsu can run vertically on a higher wall [5mt, 5.5mt]. But the dynamic is the same.

    It's about to use three tricks coming from physical laws.

    Now .

    DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME!

    1.
    Don't walk towards the vertical [or more than vertical] wall, run!

    2.
    Don't jump vertically towards the wall looking for the contact of the first step. Jump diagonally to transform the kinetic energy of your body into a vertical force thanks to attrition.

    3.
    Be sure that the wall and your shoes generate enough attrition [don't try this on a glass wall!].

    There would be a 4th trick, but it's not so impressive: like cats, ninjas actually don't "run" up to the edge of the wall . they grab it, extending the body after the last step [I suggest not to try to take more than two steps "running" on a vertical wall].


    How historically accurate is Braveheart?

    This article contains spoilers. Braveheart was a popular movie released in 1995 that won 5 Oscars and featured Mel Gibson as William Wallace. Wallace was a Scottish knight who became a hero in the Scottish rebellions against the English in the late 13th and early 14th centuries. The movie helped to inspire Scottish national pride while also, to some, represent an early, Medieval warrior who fought for freedom for himself and his people.

    While much of the story depicted did occur, including the English occupation of Scotland during the time of Edward I, king of England, the depiction of the revolt against the English and other events do not correspond well to historical accounts.

    Early Years of William Wallace

    In the movie, William Wallace is suggested to have traveled in Europe during Edward I's occupation of Scotland. However, little is known about Wallace's early years. First, it is assumed Wallace came from a noble family two villages are often claimed as his birthplaces (Elderslie and Ellerslie), both on the western part of Scotland. [1]

    We know that Wallace was an experienced swordsman and knight, indicating he may have fought in wars before his own rebellion and participation in the wars against the English. In fact, one possibility is he fought with King Edward I as a mercenary during that king's wars against the Welsh. That may have been the most feasible path for him to have gained fighting experience and possibly learn about English war tactics. [2]

    Revolt Against the English

    In the movie, William Wallace began fighting against the English after his wife's death in 1297, who, according to tot the movie, was killed by the English. In fact, no records exist of William Wallace having ever been married. However, a later poem mentioned he had a wife killed, which led him to seek revenge. More likely, Wallace was either ambitious to break English authority or resented his ancestral lands' English occupation. This may have been why he became one of the leading early Scottish rebels. Braveheart also suggests that Wallace's actions in response to his wife's death triggered a wider rebellion against the English.

    However, a rebellion across various Scotland parts had already started, with William Wallace joining William, Lord of Douglas, as an ally. One of the first major acts of rebellion was the assassination of the Sheriff of Lanark, William Heselrig. The account by Thomas Grey does indicate a woman or girl present with William Wallace. Some have suggested this was his wife. Like the movie, Wallace may have left the town initially then came back with some supporters to lead an attack where the Sheriff was killed. As the events occurred simultaneously with other rebellious acts across Scotland, the attack may have been a premeditated and coordinated event. [3]

    After the murder of the sheriff, Wallace took some time to organize his forces, as other parts of Scotland began to rebel and side with the spreading rebellion. While Wallace was portrayed as the leader in this revolt, several people and Wallace began to lead the early rebellion. The first major battle William Wallace fought in was the Battle of Sterling Bridge, which occurred on September 11, 1297. This battle was a turning point as it gave Wallace his fighting reputation. In the movie, the English are tricked into marching their heavy cavalry into a trap, with the resulting infantry slaughtered in a futile charge. [4]

    In reality, the battle was won by the Scottish because the English became trapped on Sterling Bridge, where they were not able to use their superior numbers. Many English soldiers fell in the river and likely died from drowning as the bridge may have collapsed during the battle. Wallace's victory may have largely occurred because the English assumed Wallace would let them cross the bridge, as that may have been considered more in line with the rules of war or assumed rules at the time. In effect, Wallace may have won because he didn't follow this rule, realizing the bridge's narrowing could be used to his advantage and launching the attack as the English tried to cross.

    It was after the battle that Wallace was likely named as guardian of the kingdom in March 1298. [5] In the movie, the noblemen are seen as less than trusting Wallace and more willing to give the English their loyalty. More likely, much of Scotland was in open revolt, although parts of it did stay under English control, and there were noblemen loyal to the English. Notably, Edinburgh and it is well-fortified castle remained in English hands. After the battle, the Scots began to raid parts of northern England. The movie, the main city in the north, suggests York was sacked, although this likely did not happen. The raids of northern England in 1297 by Wallace, nevertheless, may have been momentous and much destruction is suggested by contemporary chroniclers. [6] Such destruction was used by the English as part of their evidence against him when he was captured years later. Wallace's raids were designed to provoke the English and undermine their authority, leading to potential rebellion within England against the king. This forced Edward's hand into mounting a more serious invasion into Scotland.

    After a period where a large English army then gathered to invade Scotland, where the Scots were mostly content with raiding these forces, a pitched battle finally occurred at the Battle of Falkirk on July 22, 1298. Edward saw his chance there as the Scots willingly gave him battle rather than continue their English forces' raiding. This time, and similar to the movie, the Scots were decimated by English longbowmen. [7] However, it is implausible that Robert the Bruce, the future king of Scotland and the Scottish revolt leader, betrayed Wallace, as suggested in the movie. In fact, the movie suggests rather than Wallace's failure. It was a lack of Scottish support that cost him the battle. More likely, the battle's main failure may have been poor planning on the part of Wallace, who may have done better by simply harassing the English forces from a distance rather than face a far larger enemy in open combat. After the battle, he may have been so humiliated that he willingly resigned his role as guarding Scotland or was stripped of this title.

    How did William Wallace die?

    After the defeat at Falkirk, Wallace may have left for France or even Rome for a period of time. It is possible he was seeking assistance from the French and Pope for the Scottish cause. This is likely since there were wars between the French and English at this time, and Wallace would have tried to appeal to a willing English enemy if he could. Sometime around 1304, Wallace likely returned to England and continued to raid parts of English occupied Scotland. [8]

    The movie depicts an aging Edward I as being tormented by William Wallace. The attacks were shown as successful skirmishes in most cases, but these attacks were likely negligible, failures, or insignificant. They did not have a meaningful impact on the English presence in Scotland. Edward I most likely did not consider Wallace a major threat at this point because Wallace was struggling to raise an army after the disaster at Falkirk.

    Additionally, he probably had a weakened position in Scotland. As suggested in the movie, Wallace was betrayed by a Scottish noble (John de Menteith) who was loyal to Edward in 1305. Wallace was captured and soon put on trial for treason at Westminster Palace. At the trial, he did seem to say that he was not guilty of treason because he never claimed loyalty to the English crown. This was depicted in the movie. However, he was also charged with other offenses, such as pillaging civilians. This charge was probably true because he did lead raids into northern England.

    By the end of August 1305, Wallace was found guilty and drawn and quartered, a death reserved for traitors. Wallace's body parts and head were displayed in different parts of England to make an example against those considering revolting against the English king. [9]

    Despite Wallace's death, he is shown as gaining revenge by impregnating the king of England's future consort, Edward II's wife, Isabella of France. In reality, Isabella would have been no older than 9 years of age at this time and not yet married to Edward II. [10] She was not even in England at this time. While Edward II is portrayed as effeminate, historical records do indicate he was possibly gay. But his role in English rule was not significant until after his father's reign. However, because Edward II was a relatively weak king, the Scots did successfully rebel against him.

    Robert the Bruce, in many ways, was far more successful than William Wallace. He successfully rebelled against England, and Scotland regained its independence under his reign. The Battle of Bannockburn, as suggested by the movie, was a major turning point. Bannockburn was the culmination of years fighting the Scots and English. Nevertheless, as the movie suggests, the Scots did gain their independence after Edward I's reign.

    Konklusion

    Much of William Wallace's life has now been steeped in myth, where in actuality very little is known about him. Most of what we know derives from primary accounts center around the battles from 1297-1298 and captured in August 1305. Nevertheless, William Wallace did, for various reasons, gain symbolic importance.

    Later stories, such as Exploits and Death of William Wallace , helped create a romantic and tragic character, perhaps more similar to later figures than William Wallace. Nevertheless, the significance of William Wallace is evident to Scotland's national character, where today, many statues and monuments are dedicated to him.


    5 The Pakistani Penetration

    In 2005, the Pakistani air dripped with distrust. Foreign military presence was at an all-time high, and multiple insurgency groups along the northwest border had Pakistan&rsquos government drawn thin. In the center of the conflict was the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), one of Pakistan&rsquos major intelligence groups. Along with the CIA, the ISI funded and organized Al-Qaeda during the Afghan Civil War, and there have been allegations that the ISI continued to support Al-Qaeda and the Taliban through the turn of the century.

    As a military attache to a foreign country, Brigadier Andrew Durcan was trained to spot potential intelligence breaches. But the young Pakistani girl was just another local. She didn&rsquot talk like a spy, didn&rsquot act like a spy. She was just friendly (and pretty), and Durcan saw no problem with letting her tag along when he got together with his buddies&mdashbuddies who happened to include high-ranking officers in the British army.

    But eventually, this pretty young Pakistani woman caught the attention of MI6, and they dug up what Brigadier Durcan never even bothered to look for. The woman was an operative with ISI who&rsquod been trained to pick up on the subtle nuances of after-hours officer talk. She&rsquod never been interested in Durcan. She just used him to get into the bars where the officers drank.

    Following the discovery, Andrew Durcan was dishonorably relieved of his position in Islamabad. And despite what most papers detailed about the extent of Durcan&rsquos relationship with the ISI spy, at least one source says there&rsquos no doubt that things got physical.


    'Trumbo' Is A True Story That Needs to Be Told

    Dalton Trumbo isn't a name that the average moviegoer would recognize. In fact, he wasn't that well known even when he was a successful Hollywood screenwriter — mainly because the screenplays he wrote were under pseudonyms. However, he var widely known as one of the most famous alleged communists during the '40s and '50s. He was part of the "Hollywood 10," a group of artists who were barred from working during that time because of their alleged involvement in the communist party — but that didn't stop them from doing it anyway. Trumbo and members of the "10" found ways to write movies and get away with it, through some pretty creative methods. A new film by Jay Roach attempts to tell this story, but exactly how accurate is Trumbo in retelling history? From the portrayal of Hollywood's communist witch hunt to how Trumbo's career affected his family life, the film succeeds in keeping the truth upfront — and that's largely thanks to Trumbo's real-life daughters, Nikola and Melissa.

    The two sisters, known as Niki and Mitzi, are the last living members of Trumbo's immediate family and were heavily involved in the creation of the movie's script, based on Bruce Cook's book, Dalton Trumbo. Roach urged screenwriter John McNamara to reach out to the women, telling Hollywood Reporter, "I encouraged him to get to know the people directly involved." With the help of Trumbo's daughters, the filmmakers were able to ensure that they made a well-balanced story that stayed close to the truth. The addition of the familial relationships had another effect, too: humanizing the legendary Hollywood icon.

    With Bryan Cranston in the title role, a solid story, and a stellar supporting cast, Trumbo is getting tons of early Oscar buzz. Its basis in reality adds to the fuel, as everyone appreciates a well-made movie that seamlessly incorporates facts into the narrative and sticks close to the truth. Here's how Trumbo succeeds in telling the real story (spoilers ahead!)

    Showing Trumbo's HUAC Testimony

    Yes, Trumbo was a communist. He even openly tells his daughter about it in the movie, but he believes that shouldn't determine whether he should work or not. In the actual footage above, you can see his 1947 testimony in front of the House Committee on Un-American Activities where he was held in contempt of Congress for not admitting to being a communist. In the film's press notes, Niki said that being a communist in the '40s was totally different than what it means now. It "meant that you were pro-labor and anti-Jim Crow, and you fought for civil rights for African Americans," she said. "It had nothing to do with Russia and everything to do with how an already great country could improve itself." Trumbo ended up going to prison for 11 months because of his beliefs. Cranston's re-enactment of the testimony is uncanny and one of the most memorable scenes in the film.

    Making A Smaller Version Of "The Hollywood 10"

    The Hollywood 10 was a real thing, and the film's portrayal of the 10 stays true to the facts — for the most part. This is a Hollywood movie, and adding nine more characters into a film makes it a little crowded. That's why Trumbo decided to create the character of Arlen Hird, played by Louis C.K. He's a composite of five real-life communist screenwriters who knew Trumbo between 1947-1970: Samuel Ornitz, Alvah Bessie, Albert Maltz, Lester Cole, and John Howard Lawson.

    Using Academy Award-Winning Pseudonyms

    The fact that Trumbo wrote two Academy Award-winning movies is 100 percent true. Because he was blacklisted, he gave his screenplay, Roman Holiday, to his friend and fellow screenwriter, Ian McClellan Hunter, so that he could take credit for it. It ended up winning the Academy Award in 1953. Trumbo also won an Oscar for his screenplay for The Brave One, under the name Robert Rich. The Academy eventually awarded him with an award in 1975 for The Brave One and then posthumously for Roman Holiday in 1993 for Roman Holiday.

    Portraying Hedda Hopper

    Helen Mirren does a spot-on portrayal of Hedda Hopper, who was essentially the Us Weekly, Perez Hilton og E! of the time. She was a powerful voice in Hollywood that wore flamboyant hats and was determined to bring down Trumbo and anyone like him. She's probably the main villain of the film, and in Trumbo's real life.

    Depicting B-Movie Writing

    Frank King (John Goodman) and his brother Herman (Stephen Root) were big-time B-movie producers in the '40s. They didn't care that Trumbo was a communist. They were all about high quantity, low quality films. They just wanted money from the films that they made, so they hired Trumbo to write movies under pseudonyms — which ended up paying the bills for Trumbo while he was blacklisted.

    Featuring The Great Cleo Trumbo

    Trumbo's wife, Cleo (Diane Lane) is probably the only person who could ever stand up to the headstrong Hollywood icon. She believed in Trumbo and all that he did, but was strong and independent herself. When she was younger, she was a carhop (that's how Trumbo met her in real life) who had a talent for juggling water glasses — a skill that is shown in the movie.

    Showing A Gift From Kirk Douglas

    Trumbo worked with Kirk Douglas when he wrote the script for Spartacus. It was the first movie after being blacklisted where he didn't use a pseudonym. The two became friends and Douglas gifted him a parrot which was often seen perched on Trumbo's shoulder — just like in the movie.

    Saying That Trumbo Liked A Good Bath

    The film shows Trumbo writing in the bathtub. In fact, the movie opens with him splish-splashing, smoking and typing away in his watery desk. This is all true, according to Douglas, who wrote about Trumbo's love for the bath in his autobiography. Trumbo spent hours working in the tub — but that wasn't his only writing habit. Trumbo was a workaholic, working 20 hours a day, smoking like a chimney, drinking booze, and popping stimulants to keep on going. Needless to say, it began to take a toll on his family — and you see all of this in the film.

    Communist or not, Trumbo is probably one of the most talented screenwriters ever — and it's great to finally have a movie about him that puts reality first.


    The Sixth Time's the Charm

    Jonathan Lynn greets me in a posh Los Angeles mansion that belongs to a friend, bedecked not in a tuxedo (as I had hoped), but slightly ripped Levis and an untucked dress shirt. At 70, with a bright white, close-cropped beard and black-frame glasses, Lynn is the sort of polite, witty, avuncular Englishman one would expect to be a little flummoxed wrangling his host's large, friendly dogs as he guides me to a well-appointed sitting room that I immediately decide is called "the study."

    With the dogs safely sent away, Lynn explains that he's in town to direct a stage adaptation of the British TV series Yes Prime Minister. That show was itself a spin-off of Lynn's first success in television, Yes Minister, a keenly observed political satire in the early 1980s that was said to be a favorite of Margaret Thatcher's. It is also the reason we're even having this conversation. By the end of 1983, Lynn — at the time, a former actor turned theater director and TV scribe — was hitting something of a career high after the show's three-season run. Still, he says he was surprised when his agent informed him that hotshot Hollywood producer Peter Guber (Midnight Express, An American Werewolf in London, Flashdance) was in London and wanted to have breakfast.

    Lynn barely had a chance to sit down at their meeting before Guber declared, "I've got just the project for you — Clue!"

    "He's the only person I've ever met who can talk without apparently breathing for minutes at a time," says Lynn. "He was immensely entertaining, and why he decided after about three minutes that I was the perfect person for this, I didn't know." Despite Lynn's protestations that the board game Clue, you know, "has no story," Guber plowed ahead with his spiel: In his capacity as an executive producer, he wanted to hire Lynn to adapt Clue into a screenplay for director John Landis (Animal House, The Blues Brothers) and producer Debra Hill (Halloween, The Dead Zone). Before Lynn realized it, he'd agreed to fly to Los Angeles at Guber's expense to meet with Landis and Hill and hear the full pitch. "Frankly, the reason I said yes was because I'd never flown first class," he says, "and I thought that would be really interesting to do that once in my life."

    "I didn't have an ambition to direct something like Clue," says Lynn, "but when somebody offers you a movie to direct, by and large, you say yes. If it's the first time you've had such an offer, it may be the last time."

    If Lynn was impressed with Guber's Hollywood panache, he was bowled over by Landis, who had already roughly worked out the major outline of Clue's whodunit plot — six strangers, all blackmail victims, are invited to a mysterious dinner party at a large mansion and assigned color-based pseudonyms their host and putative blackmailer, Mr. Boddy, is murdered, followed by the cook, and several other visitors and the guests, suspecting one another, work with the butler to figure out who the killer is — and acted it all out for Lynn. "He was careening around the office, jumping up and down on the furniture, standing on the table, shouting, screaming," says Lynn of their meeting in L.A. "It was a tremendous pitch. I've never seen anything like it in my life." When I ask Landis about this meeting, he just chuckles. "You know, Jonathan's so British, he probably thought, Holy shit, this guy's very enthusiastic."

    Landis' enthusiasm was doubly impressive considering that by that point, he'd been giving this pitch for a few years. When Hill, who had secured the movie rights, first approached Landis about directing the movie, he didn't flinch at the fact it was based on a board game. "It was the classic murder-mystery setup with a bunch of characters," says Landis. "I just loved the idea of playing it as farce." But after working out a treatment for the film's plot and central mystery, Landis also realized he'd hit a particularly troublesome wall. "I didn't have a solution," he says. "I went to the point when the butler said, 'I'm going to explain what happened,' like in the classic Charlie Chan/Hercule Poirot/Agatha Christie kind of way. And I couldn't figure it out. I set up a crime I couldn't solve. So I thought, Well, I gotta get a real writer."

    He first turned to playwright Tom Stoppard, whose 1968 play The Real Inspector Hound is a delightful deconstruction of the very notion of the murder mystery. Landis says Stoppard toiled on a script for Clue for a full year — and then he hit a wall too. "I'll never forget it," says Landis. "I got a letter from him, literally a year later, on this beautiful onion-skin paper, very elegant stationery, basically saying, 'I give up!' And he enclosed a check for the entire amount he was paid!" (The ordeal must have been quite painful for Stoppard when I reached out to him for comment, he said via email, "I remember John Landis of course, but I can't remember Clue. I don't think I worked on it. I've never heard of Clue. Sorry not to be able to help.")

    Undeterred, Landis next approached Stephen Sondheim — yes, the famed musical theater genius — and Anthony Perkins — yes, Norman Bates from Psycho — to write Clue. Landis had been a great admirer of a 1973 "Hollywood pastiche" murder mystery the two had written together called The Last of Sheila. "Oh, it's terrific!" he booms. "It's bitchery of a high level, as are Stephen Sondheim and Tony Perkins. Besides being great friends, they were also real mystery buffs. I had a couple of absolutely riotous lunches with them. They got very enthusiastic and they really wanted to do it, and then they asked for some outrageous amount of money, and Paramount said, 'Who do these people think they are?!' And I remember saying, 'Who do they think they are?! It's fucking Stephen Sondheim! He wrote GYPSY!' Anyway. They said no." (Perkins died in 1992 from complications due to AIDS a rep for Sondheim did not respond to a request for comment.)

    Eventually, five writers later, Landis remembered loving Yes Minister the last time he'd worked in London. "It's a very clever show," he says. "They were really little mini-masterpieces — textbook construction." But once the thrill of the meeting wore off, Lynn realized that there still was no story.

    "There were still a lot of unrelated actions that would have been interesting had there been an explanation, and a lot of characters who weren't characters, they were just colors," says Lynn. "And so I went back to my hotel room and phoned my agent and said, 'This is a total waste of time. Why don't I come home now?' And he said, 'Well, now you're there — why don't you just try and think of something?' I stayed up half the night and sort of had a few tentative ideas, and I went in to see John the next morning and mentioned them. He got very excited about it, and by the time we'd had the second conversation, he said, would I like to write it?"

    Over the next six months, Lynn worked on the script back home in England, sorting out how to craft a reasonably coherent story out of all the elements of the board game he was required to include: The color-based character names the murder the murder weapons (the lead pipe, the candlestick, the dagger, etc.) the multi-roomed mansion (the study, the ballroom, the kitchen, etc.) the secret passages. While Lynn says he actually enjoyed "the intellectual challenge" of his mandate for the script, he still found himself at a loss for how to properly explain what he was attempting to write to his friends. "They just looked at me as if I was mad," he says with a chuckle. "They just didn't quite know how to respond — and frankly, nor did I."

    Perhaps it was Landis' final mandate that kept all those other writers at bay: Create four separate endings, each of which posited a different killer (or killers), each of which had to make sense with the rest of the movie, and each of which would play in separate theaters, thereby giving audiences a different experience each time they'd seen the film. "Landis thought it would be really great box office," says Lynn, who ended up scotching the fourth ending during production because he didn't think it was strong enough. "He thought that what would happen was that people, having enjoyed the film so much, would then go back and pay again and see the other endings. In reality, what happened is that the audience decided they didn't know which ending to go to, so they didn't go at all."


    9 Films and Shows That Inspired Real Crimes

    The Aurora, Colo. shooting is the latest tragedy with ties to pop culture.

    July 24, 2012 — -- intro: While the motives of accused Colorado shooter James Holmes remain a mystery, the tragedy that happened at a midnight screening of "The Dark Knight Rises" in Aurora, Colo. will always bring to mind Batman.

    The 24-year-old said "I am the Joker" when arrested by police early Friday morning, and the massacre that went down inside the Century 16 theater has parallels to more than one scene from Frank Miller's 1986 Batman comic book series, "The Dark Knight Returns."

    In that comic-book series, the Joker murders a television studio audience by deploying "smile gas." Holmes began his massacre by setting off smoke bombs in the theater. The series also features Arnold Crimp, a disturbed man who just lost his job, pulling out a handgun in an adult film theater and killing three people.

    Holmes also booby-trapped his apartment, a favorite technique of the Joker.

    It's not the first time a real life crime has mimicked one featured in a fictional show or film. Click through for eight more examples:

    quicklist: 1title: The Towntext: Ben Affleck made robbing banks look easy in 2010's "The Town": Grab a nun's habit, a big bag, a couple of semi-automatics and you're golden.

    An Illinois couple found that formula didn't quite work in real life when they tried to pull off a heist modeled on the movie in 2011, charging a suburban Chicago bank wearing nuns' habits and ghoulish rubber masks. The suspects pointed guns at the bank employees, but no shots were fired and no one was injured. They allegedly walked away with $120,000 in a Nike duffel bag.

    Navahcia Edwards, who previously worked at the bank branch, was charged with robbery, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. Her longtime boyfriend allegedly cased the bank the day of the robbery. media: 16839214

    quicklist: 2title: Fight Clubtext: David Fincher's 1999 ode to the evils of corporate America inspired a New York City teenager to try his own revolt. Kyle Shaw, 17, set off a bomb made out of fireworks, a plastic bottle, and electrical tape outside an Upper East Side Starbucks in 2009.

    Police said Shaw planned to launch his own "Project Mayhem" and mimic the plan hatched by Brad Pitt's character in "Fight Club." The teenager's fondness for the movie and book by Chuck Palahniuk was well known -- a former classmate of his told the New York Times, "He wanted to watch the movie in our English class in the 11th grade. We were discussing existentialism in class, and he suggested we watch the movie as an example. We ended up watching 'I Heart Huckabees.'"

    In 2010, Shaw pled guilty to attempted arson and attempted criminal possession of a weapon, according to the New York Post. He was sentenced to three and a half years in prison and five years of probation. media: 16839434

    quicklist: 3title: Twilight text: The first film in the "Twilight" saga made teens go gaga for stars Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart. It was also blamed for driving one Iowa teen batty.

    After a 13-year-old girl was bitten by a male classmate, a vice principal at their school investigated and learned that the boy had bitten 10 others in one month. When contacted, the boy's father said that it was his son's love of the "Twilight" film that made him bite his fellow students, according to the Des Moines Register. The Register said the boy was referred to juvenile corrections. media: 16838120

    quicklist: 4title: Dextertext: Showtime's hit drama about a serial killer has been mentioned in at least one real life murder. In 2009, 17-year-old Andrew Conley strangled his 10-year-old brother Conner with his bare hands.

    "The fact is, he has said on numerous occasions he had fantasized about killing people," prosecutor Aaron Negangard told "20/20" in 2011. "He told us he was reading books about it—on serial killers. He was watching 'Dexter.'"

    In fact, an hour into his first interrogation by police, Conley said, "I don't know if you've heard of it, but it's called 'Dexter,' and it's on Showtime. And I feel like him because he's a serial killer of bad people . but I just feel like him."

    Even a life sentence in prison didn't stop Conley's fascination with "Dexter." In a prison video obtained by "20/20" that recorded the visit of a family friend, Conley asks about the show's most recent plot developments, peppering the friend with questions and comments such as "Whoa, and did Dexter kill Trinity?" and "So Dexter got arrested? Dang. That's cool."media: 16837906

    quicklist: 5title: Natural Born Killerstext: A real-life serial killing duo inspired the main characters in 1994's "Natural Born Killers," Mickey and Mallory Knox. In turn, the characters were accused of inspiring a number of horrific murders, including the 1999 Columbine high school shooting.

    A lawyer for the Columbine victims and their families attempted to sue the production company behind the Woody Harrelson movie, along with the companies responsible for "The Basketball Diaries" and the video games "Doom" and "Mortal Kombat," saying they encouraged shooter Dylan Klebold to kill. The case was dismissed in 2001. media: 16838947

    quicklist: 6title:The Matrixtext: The plot of the sci-fi hit "The Matrix" suggests that the world that we live in is merely an illusion controlled by a computer. Since the 1999 release of the first "Matrix" movie, there have been several cases involving violent crime in which attorneys have used "The Matrix defense" on behalf of their clients, saying that the accused believed they were in an alternate reality.

    The most famous case was that of Lee Boyd Malvo, who was convicted of murder for his involvement in the 2002 Washington, D.C.-area sniper attacks. Malvo was said to be obsessed with the world of blurred realities and mind control portrayed in "The Matrix." In jail, Malvo's fixation continued: he wrote, "Free yourself of The Matrix" in his cell.

    "The Matrix defense" worked for Vadim Mieseges, a San Francisco man who dismembered his landlady. He told police he acted after he had been "sucked into The Matrix." A judge accepted his plea of not guilty by reason of insanity.media: 16838484

    quicklist: 7title: Screamtext: Though the "Scream" films turned the horror genre on its head with campy, often hilarious killing scenes, the original 1996 film inspired at least one serious crime. A 24-year-old Belgian truck driver, Thierry Jaradin, donned the "Scream" killers' signature black robe and ghoulish mask when he stabbed his 15-year-old neighbor, Alisson Cambier, 30 times in 2001. According to the Guardian, he attacked her after she turned down his romantic advances. media: 16838751

    quicklist: 8title: Taxi Drivertext: The attempted assasination of then-President Ronald Regan is probably the most famous crime to have been inspired by a film. At the center of it all: John Hinckley, Jr., an aspiring songwriter with an unhealthy obsession for the female star of "Taxi Driver," Jodie Foster.

    In the 1976 film, Foster plays a 12-year-old prostitute whom cabbie Travis Bickle tries to save. Later in the film, Bickle also attempts to assassinate a senator running for president.

    In what he later said was an attempt to gain Foster's attention, Hinckley fired six shots at Reagan as he left a Washington, D.C. Hilton on March 30, 1981. Reagan was injured by one bullet, and his press secretary, James Brady, was hit in the head by another shot.

    Hinckley, who was later found not guilty by reason of insanity, said that the shooting was "the greatest love offering in the history of the world," and that "Everybody, but everybody, knows about John and Jodie." media: 16839447