Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2007 July 6

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 6

Primal Fear

Is anyone out there familiar with the plot line of the film Primal Fear? I had seen the film many years ago, and just watched it again recently. Something about the plotline (a plot hole?) is bugging me, unless I totally missed something. Any takers? Any one think they might be able to help? Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 01:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC))

Have you checked Primal Fear? Or are you too afraid... Clarityfiend 02:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course I had checked it ... it was no help to my specific question. (JosephASpadaro 07:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC))

Anything here ring any bells? Lanfear's Bane

Well, what's your question? Why not ask up front? I've seen the movie, even owned a copy on VHS, probably still have it. What is it that you want to know? Dismas|^(talk) 14:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The suspense builds... Clarityfiend 17:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Here is the question. I did not want to bother typing all of this (below) if no one out here was going to be able to answer it. At the end of the film, we find out that the Aaron personality never existed this whole time, and that the Roy personality existed this whole time. (Aaron was the meek and mild personality with the stutter. Roy was the violent and mean personality without the stutter.) So, in other words, the true nature of the Edward Norton character was the Roy-nature, not the Aaron-nature. The entire Aaron-nature was completely made up and fictitious -– it was a ploy -- in order to escape culpability for the priest’s murder. So far, so good. I think. So, that means that the Edward Norton character (it doesn't matter if we call him Aaron or Roy) had always lived his life with the Roy-personality, not the Aaron-personality (since the Aaron personality was completely "made up" for the murder trial). Now, in the days / weeks / years prior to the priest's murder, clearly Edward Norton interacted with other people in the world. At the very, very least, he would have interacted with other teenagers in the homeless shelter / church residence. And, presumably, the homeless shelter / church residence had some adults in charge who oversaw the whole operation –- and Edward Norton presumably interacted with them. (The dead priest was not the only one who ran the whole show, he must have had assistants and helpers.) Richard Gere was the greatest defense lawyer in the state. Richard Gere was faced with a death penalty case. And Richard Gere actually honestly believed that his client was innocent. So, considering those three factors, Gere would have done an extensive and thorough investigation of the client – to save him from a guilty plea and to save him from the death penalty. In other words, he would leave no stone unturned -- particularly since he thought that his client was innocent and heightened by the fact that he was a celebrated lawyer with a (winning) reputation to protect. So, wouldn’t Richard Gere's "thorough" investigation include talking to those people who interacted with Edward Norton in the days / weeks / years before the murder? (At the very least, talking with the other homeless teenagers that were part of that church homeless shelter, as well as the adults of the church who oversaw the homeless shelter.) All of the people who Edward Norton interacted with (in his daily life) would only know Edward Norton as having the Roy-personality, not the Aaron personality. And wouldn't at least ONE of these people being interviewed say something to the effect of "Ya, Edward Norton is a sick and twisted and violent guy who does not stutter" … as opposed to "Ya, Edward Norton is a meek and mild guy who stutters and would not hurt a fly" … ? (In effect, saying, "Yes, Edward Norton's personality is such that he certainly has the capability to commit the priest's violent and brutal murder" versus "No, Edward Norton's personality is such that there is no way that he could have committed the priest's violent and brutal murder".) If Edward Norton "made up" the Aaron personality simply for the purposes of the legal system / murder trial, then Edward Norton was living his everyday life with the Roy personality – and he was interacting with others in the world while "using" the Roy personality, not the fake Aaron personality (which did not even exist until after the murder). Obviously, after these interviews and thorough investigation of people who interacted with Edward Norton, Richard Gere would check into these (personality) discrepancies. And, on some level or another, Richard Gere would figure out that the Aaron personality was a charade invented by Edward Norton in order to escape the murder conviction. So, is this a wide, gaping plot hole? Or did I completely miss something in this film? Thanks a lot. This has been bugging me. (JosephASpadaro 21:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC))

• It's based on a book I remember reading by William Diehl so maybe the book will help.hotclaws 00:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. But, I don't have the time for the book right now. Plus, books and film adaptations of them seem to have wide variances, disparities, and discrepancies. (JosephASpadaro 05:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC))

I think you missed something. Aaron was the one who was performing in the videos that the priest made Therefore, the personality that Roy would have put forth the rest of the time would have been Aaron and not his true Roy personality. The priest would never have confided in anyone as sure of himself as Roy. He wanted kids to prey on for his sexual fantasies and Aaron would be a perfect candidate. So, Roy must never have let his true persona come out. He must have been in the Aaron character whenever with anyone else. Dismas|^(talk) 21:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the key here is that (if my memory serves me correctly), "Aaron" was not a personality created simply for the purpose of the trial, but a longstanding fabrication of "Roy". The crux of the story is that, while everone had assumed that "Roy" was an alternate personality of "Aaron" - presumably as the result of a dissociative disorder - the truth was that "Aaron" was in fact a careful construct. I don't recall (from the book, at least) any indication that "Aaron" was a personality created solely for the purpose of the trial. Instead, "Roy" and created the "Aaron" persona some time in the past, as a long-term cover for his violent nature. Carom 21:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Dismas and Carom - thanks, that is helpful. Now, I knew that Aaron was in the sex videos and what you are saying about the priest makes sense (that he would prey on an Aaron, but not on a Roy). (That was going to be one of my next questions to sort out later.) But, you are both saying that the Aaron personality was there all along, even before the murder trial (i.e., not simply fabricated for the murder trial) ... and that the Aaron-personality is what was used on a day-to-day basis? So, the "real" personality was Roy, the fabricated personality was Aaron, and the Edward Norton character used the Aaron personality on a day-to-day basis and "hid" the true Roy personality in his day-to-day living? And then, at the murder trial, this whole fabrication from the past was a nice convenient fit to wiggle out of the murder culpability? Also, then, Edward Norton did not really have multiple personality disorder ... he simply fabricated all of this? Well, I guess that makes sense. But ... wouldn't it seem extremely unlikely that a violent, psychotic brute such as Roy could actually go around day-after-day, year-after-year living his every day life as a wimpy Aaron? (Not to mention, "allowing" himself to be sexually abused?) Wouldn't keeping up that charade simply drive him mad -- since it was the exact opposite of his true personality and self? Also, why create the Aaron personality in the first place and why try to "fool" everybody in the first place? What was his reasoning or motivation? What did he have to gain? It couldn't have been that Edward Norton "knew" that Roy was anti-social and sociopathic ... and that Edward Norton "knew" that this was a bad thing ... and that Edward Norton wanted to fit in with the accepted norms of society? In other words, true sociopaths never see themselves as sociopaths and then try to "fit in" with society's expected behavior. They simply say "to hell" with society ... "I could care less what everyone thinks!" -- the very definition of being a sociopath. And, also ... the fabrication could not have been simply for the free room and board from the priest? Not at the expense of having to endure sexual abuse. A Roy would never stand for that. A Roy would resort to crime, stealing, etc. to satisfy his financial needs before succumbing to the priest's perversions merely for free room and board. So that can't be Roy's motivation, either. I guess I am still somewhat confused. Any other thoughts or input to these points that I have raised? Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 00:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC))

I never saw Roy's performance in the sex videos as sex abuse. The priest, from what I remember of the movie (it's been a few years at least since I saw it.) never touched Roy/Aaron. So basically Roy was just provided with an easy way to have sex with a good looking girl. From what I recall, she was at least 6 or 7 for looks in my opinion so it wasn't hard for me to believe that Roy would have found her sexually attractive as well. And what did Roy care if she was humiliated by the priest/sex/videos/etc.? He's an evil person, so why would he care if she felt bad about it? He gets to have sex and gets free room & board. It's pretty much a win-win situation for him. And what does he care if he's video taped? It's not like he's worried about the videos showing up on the net when he's running for public office in 20 years. As for acting as Aaron 24/7, yes, it would be difficult but possible. I kind of equate it with the old phrase "Don't shit where you eat". Meaning, Roy was evil. He knew this and was alright with it. A sociopath? I don't know but it's clear that he was pretty much just looking out for himself. At the very base of Roy is a lack of caring for his fellow man/woman. So he set up Aaron, got into the shelter and had a safe haven where he could retreat to. If he wanted to go out and drink, get in fights, commit crimes, etc., he need only get on a bus or the el (Chicago's elevated trains are called the "el" for elevated) to go to another part of the city (it's large afterall) and do what he wants with out anyone linking him to the shy and meek Aaron. Living like an Aaron and being a Roy isn't hard for me to imagine. For instance, I learned at an early age that I could get away with stuff in school, etc. because nobody would suspect me. I was a good kid, in Boy Scouts, active in my church, etc. but I found one day that when I threw a paper airplane in class, the teacher didn't believe that I threw it. Jim, another kid in my class, got blamed since he sat near me and he was always getting into trouble for various things. He paid me back later, if you catch my drift, but I saw that I could get away with stuff. So Roy's "Aaron" ringed true for me. Luckily my own moral compass kept me in line and I'm a pretty nice guy today, if I do say so myself, but it would be easy for someone like Roy, who might not have had the right upbringing, to stray and construct Aaron to cover for Roy's actions. Dismas|^(talk) 22:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Dismas has adequately covered everything here. People often lead secret lives (often as distinct as Aaron and Roy, although perhaps along different axes), and it does not seem particularly implausible in this case. Carom 18:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Bat Masterson TV Series

Can you tell me who sang the theme song "Bat Masterson"?

Thank you==== Kay

Hmm... our article Bat Masterson (TV series) doesn't list it, but it appears to have been Havens Wray. 152.16.59.190 08:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It is truely frightening to find all the miscellaneous crap stored in memory, but I recall that on the "Sing Along With Mitch" show (1961-1966), host Mitch Miller once pointed to one of the men and mentioned that he was the guy who managed to make "young" rhyme with "son" in the Bat Masterson (shown 1958-1961) theme song. That would argue against "Havens Wray" being a pseudonym of David Rose as some sites suggest, if Havens Wray was the singer. I find no Google hits for Havens Wray and Sing along with Mitch, for what that's worth. [1] cites BMI as "Composer: music by Havens Wray (BMI) [possible pseudonym of David D. Rose], and words by Bart Corwin (BMI), which leaves open the question of who actually sang it. Yahoo Answers [2] says the singer was "On "Sing Along with Mitch" the featured singer was "Bill Lee IV a/k/a William Lee The Mellomen." Interestingly in The Mellomen Thurl Ravenscroft ("Tony the Tiger", "You're a Mean one, Mr. Grinch") sang bass, while Bill Lee sang baritone. Lee died in 1980. The group worked a lot in Hollywood and recorded a number of TV theme songs [3]. The featured tenor soloist on "Sing along with Mitch" was Bob McGrath, who has played "Bob" on Sesame Street for 38 years [4]. He could probably answer the Bat Masterson question. The actual singer of the Bat Masterson Theme was really a Professional Studio Singer named Mr Mike Stewart. He also recorded three songs in the popular children's album, Walt Kelly's, the Songs of the Pogo. Mike Stewart had a very distinctive voice that was richer in tone than Bill Lee. Pick up a CD and do the comparison. In those days, Studio Singers were often anonymous. Mike Stewart received credit billing in the Pogo album. Edison Bill Lee's voice can be heard in Sound of Music and it is totally different from that of Mike Stewart. 04:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Bat Masterson TV Series singer correction

The theme song was written by Havens Wray and Bart Corwin. However it was sung by Bill Lee (singer) IV a/k/a William Lee The Mellomen

gta

heys am i recently got grand theft auto but i cant here some guys talking like the lawyer.are there scenes u cant here or did i install the game badly

Which Grand Theft Auto? I presume you don't mean the original GTA but rather one of the later versions, but which one? GTA 3, GTA:Vice City or GTA:San Andreas? Seeing as you said "the lawyer" I'm guessing that you have Vice City but no one here can help unless you give us some basic information to work with. - X201 13:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

copyright

is there a software of playing heavily copyrighted material.i got a song from the net.i used vlc it played it but no sound comes out

I think you may be getting copyright and copy protection mixed up. There are a myriad of reasons why an audio track may not play, could you provide some more details? Lanfear's Bane

Back issues

What would be the best way to find back issues of either Cinefantastique or Creative Screenwriting besides directly buying them from their online stores? I only need access to a few articles, and I have subscription access for some databases. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Library? Dismas|^(talk) 20:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

If there's a university with a film school nearby, you could call their library. --TotoBaggins 20:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You could look on ebay. Corvus cornix 19:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)