*IF Michelle Pfeiffer was a bathroom fitter. Look, I just needed a title that married films and the idea of paying for things, and in particular paying for bathroom fitters, and I liked the title, so let’s all just imagine that Michelle Pfeiffer’s a bathroom fitter for the sake of a pun now, shall we?
This has been bothering me since last night, and, actually for a long time before that, every time I watch an action movie.
Action movies worry me. Not just because they are very shouty and I find shouty things quite worrying - though that is also true - but because they present an anti-social problem with no solution. Or no solution that I have worked out yet. Perhaps you will help.
So the point of action films (as far as I know) is that there are explosions and high speed chases and also fighting and things. But these all take place in - to use the technical word - ‘locations’.
Actually, now I think of it, that’s the normal word as well. How convenient.
Whatever. My point is this:
(I do have a point, honestly; it is this:)
So last night we were watching a particularly violent fight. I don’t know if you’ve seen Star Bournes III: Return of the DeadGuy”
(and return and return and return and return and return of the dead guy. Literally, Matt Damon is possibly made of rubber) - but if you have, you will know there is a particularly violent fight. Or several. Hundred.
During one of them, two men had come crashing through the window of someone’s house, and were busily beating each other to death in a bathroom. My Beloved turned to check that I was all right, what with me being a nervous type and that. He found me staring at the screen, slightly slackjawed and upset-looking.
“Are you ok?” he hissed, worritly.
“Yes, but but but, this is HORRIBLE. I mean…”
I whispered, weakly
“… that is someone’s BATHROOM. They’re RUINING it. Who will FIX it?”
I demanded, quietly.
Writing it down, I’m not sure if it says more about ‘my shameful house-pride’ or ‘The sad decline of Western Society represented in this: that we are thus desensitised to violence and conversely oversensitised to hard furnishings, like bathroom suites and the like’.
It troubled me deeply (the bathroom thing, not the decline of civilisation thing, obv) and it filled our conversation all the way home.
“So the whole thing was an evil plot of the CIA?”
“Yes” he said.
“Who were those guys with the beards, mainly?”
“Yes” He said, patiently. He is used to describing complex bits of film plot that I have missed when my concentration has waned and I have spent some time looking backwards at the rest of the audience for inspiration for later writings.
“And they were caught? The baddies?”
“Yes” he said. (Oh! Sorry if you have not seen it, but please remember it was him who spoiled it for you, not me.)
“So they will have to pay, will they?” I pressed.
“Who?”
“The people who were at fault for the whole thing. They will have to pay damages and reparation and costs to all the people who had their cars smashed up. And the people in Morocco. The ones who need a new bathroom. They will buy them a new bathroom?”
He stopped walking and thought about this hard. Or laughed, or something. I don’t know, he was quite quiet, which can mean either.
“I don’t think so, Anna, no”
“Well why not? Did you SEE the damage that was made to other people’s property in the course of that series of events playing itself out? Lots of people who were just driving to work and got crashed into by a freedom fighter and half a dozen bendy agents”
“Bent agents.”
“Whatever! Or people who had left their car in a car park and are going to come back to the car park to find that someone’s nicked their car and driven it off the roof and the person who DID that is just fine because they’re a good guy - but this poor sod’s car? It’s fucked! Who’s going to get them a new car? And what about the person in Tangiers, they’ve gone off to work one morning, come back that evening, wanting dinner and maybe a shower, but they’re denied that, aren’t they, because not only is there some dead guy in there, but worse still, the whole suite’s been knocked clear out of the wall, so not only will they have to get that replaced and plumbed back in, they have to deal with the fact that someone’s gone and died in there as well. And they smell, you know, dead people. They excavate their bowels, and in a hot country they can start to go off quite quickly. And half their bloody windows are broken too, and there are bullet holes everywhere. Who will pay for all this to be fixed, do you think? And what about all those cars. And we don’t even know yet about victims of stray bullets! There might have been several! Dozens! More! Who will PAY?!”
He didn’t know.
We batted around the idea that after a official indictment process there might be room for some kind of civil suit, brought by individuals in a precedent setting kind of way, or by the whole group in an Erin Brockovich kind of way.
We did consider that possibly some of it might be covered by insurance, but overall that seemed unlikely.
The owners of the cars that kept getting ‘used’ by the hero were unlikely to be covered by third party insurance for him no matter how many identities he had.
The unfortunate householders with no more bathroom (and no more bathroom with a dead guy in at that) were going to find it hard to argue Act of God in a violent suite-destruction of a film that no one vaguely God-like was in.
The whole thing troubles me. These people rush about, saving the world, their loved ones, their arses, whatever, with absolutely NO regard whatsoever for other people’s personal safety or property. Have you seen how fast people drive during those car chases when they have to stop some bomb going off or whatever? It is RECKLESS, I tell you.
So I would like to know, if there are any great legal minds out there, who would be the person to pay for the damages that have been caused to all these blameless bystanders without any cars, or bathrooms or windows, or some other random thing? How are these people supposed to rebuild their lives once the world has been saved, or whatever was going on this time around?
I feel very sorry for them.
The bystanders.
It is a real overlooking, I think. On the part of the people investigating the CIA and the people who make films.
So you think on that, will you, greater minds than I? Think on the blame problem.
And in the meantime, I will be over here, writing a script about some plucky and beautiful young lawyer who agrees to take up the case of a whole crowd of people victimised by some destructive dogooder who’s saved the planet and trashed their stuff in the doing.
And in my script, the beautiful and plucky young (ish) (about 30 probably) lawyer will take on their case pro bono, because she is a good person, and because she cares about the little people. And because she’s nice. And witty, and a bit clever, although not clever-clever, and it could be said she doesn’t have a very long concentration span. And she will also be really quite similar to me, obviously. Though in the film, she may look a little more like someone prettier, like Julia Stiles. Or Kate Winslet. Or Michelle Pfeiffer**.
And in the end, she will win the case for all the little people and the bystanders, and they will all get new (possibly electric or hybrid) cars, and they will get good medical treatment for the stray bullets and runnings overs they have suffered, and they will get new windows, their laundry returned to them, their doors replaced. And they will get new bathrooms. Oh yes, they will have new bathrooms, all.
**See? It all comes back to Michelle Pfeiffer. Like in the title.
You doubted me, I know it.
I doubted myself, even. But it all comes back to Michelle Pfeiffer in the end.
Motto to live by.
You know it’s true.
A title for your script:
“Where There’s a Blame There’s a Dame”
Comment by Mr Farty — 27 September, 2007 11:11 pm
I can’t wait for your film to be in the cinemas Anna! I too get all traumatised by who is going to sort out the bathroom or other facilities damage, and by how upset the innocent bystanders will be when they find their cars all squashed. There must be plenty of people like us who would pay good money to see a nice comforting film about getting it all fixed, don’t you think?
Comment by misspiggy — 27 September, 2007 11:11 pm
I think this is covered in The Bourne Indemnity.
Comment by Yeractual — 27 September, 2007 11:42 pm
If you make that film, I will bring a pizza to the cinema, obv.
Comment by xl — 28 September, 2007 3:55 am
Live in Brighton, this plucky heroine, perchance?
Comment by AndyB — 28 September, 2007 9:21 am
Thank you for making me the laughiest I have been all week! Maybe there’s a special policy for these people - a cover all save-the-world contents insurance perhaps? (Though I think the cars are prob covered under ‘theft’ unless the well meaning bystander agreed to lend the do-gooder their car? In which case, more fool them!)
Comment by KT — 28 September, 2007 9:23 am
[...] She who pays the pfeiffer…?* [...]
Pingback by London DailyVoices - Today’s Top Blog Posts from London - Powered by DailyVoices — 28 September, 2007 10:44 am
OMG!
Brilliant and hysterical in one package.
But whatever you do, do NOT go and see The Ronin!
:-)
Comment by Brennig — 28 September, 2007 11:01 am
Hear hear.
And as someone who is about to have his bathroom renovated - by tradespeople, not action heroes - it’s doubly poignant. I suppose that’s doubly hear hear, so here’s the second hear here.
Oh dear, that’s three here here.
Oh God, now it’s four.
Comment by Damian — 28 September, 2007 11:39 am
I completly agree. I have a similar problem with action films, where the ‘good’ guy is allowed to run around killing any number of ‘bad’ people (often whole swathes at one time) in order to save one ‘good’ person. Similarly, if one ‘good’ person dies it’s a horrible, traumatic epsiode but in the same film 30/40 ‘bad’ people can die without a passing mention. Bond films are particularly bad for this I find (although actual level of annoyance is subdued somewhat by the prescence of daneil craig. obv)
Comment by Cherrybim — 28 September, 2007 11:51 am
I always have this problem with action movies, too. I can’t think which movie it was, but I got really upset at one where the main character kept killing/injuring police officers on their quest. The police were members of a corrupt police force, but there was nothing to indicate that individual police officers were corrupt, and he just kept killing them off. I kept thinking, “His wife is expecting him home tonight! Who is going to support his family now? I hate you, Hero Man!”
It was probably James Bond, because James Bond usually annoys me with his collateral damage. Like that one where Timothy Dalton drives a tank through a tiny alley and destroys the buildings on either side for no reason.
Comment by srah — 28 September, 2007 11:55 am
I am so glad I’m not the only one who thinks like this! Except, of course, I run this kind of commentary while the movie is going on, which drives my friends and family crazy. kind of a wonder I have any left.
Luckily, I don’t like theaters (primarily because of the supposedly no-talking thing) so I generally watch movies at home. Which means we can replay the scene we missed while I was ranting about who exactly was going to clean up the kitchen/office/living room yet again.
(there is a similar problem in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, the TV series. Except they end up addressing it eventually, in maybe season 6 or 7?)
Comment by teri — 28 September, 2007 2:19 pm
If Michelle Pfeiffer was a bathroom fitter, I’d be destroying my own bathroom on a regular basis. At least once a week, probably.
Comment by wolf — 28 September, 2007 2:37 pm
This is why I can’t read/watch Name of the Rose. They burnt down the library. They BURNED the lovely, lovely BOOKS! Does no one care about the important stuff?
Comment by Megan — 28 September, 2007 2:51 pm
They have bathrooms in Morocco? Well, I never thought about it, I guess they have to poo too. (poo too?) But in the end I guess I’ll end up just thinking about Michele Pfeiffer in the end. Or something, whatever.
Comment by joeinvegas — 28 September, 2007 4:03 pm
Oh stars.
I’m NOT alone.
I’ve found repeatedly today that the little things I thought were strange about me are not so…well, probably still strange, but not so strange that I’m alone in them.
Yes.
Anyway.
I would assume that insurance would cover parts of such damages, as it was not someone they invited into their home/vehicle/planet. However, it’s rather unlikely that all the damages could be covered. Also, destruction of property tends to be a crime, and if you report crimes, people usually help you fix things.
If not, there’s always IKEA.
Comment by anna* *the american one — 28 September, 2007 6:15 pm
Oh, Megan, I agree totally! I cried when the library burned down!
Comment by Maria — 28 September, 2007 7:10 pm
Michelle Pfeiffer looked like she could have installed bathrooms when she wore those overalls in Grease 2. Personally, I think the “For The Good Of The People” Brockovitch-lawyer role is the perfect vehicle for young B. Spears to take up in order to win back some respect from the world. After all, who could forget her performance in Crossroads? Uh…
Comment by Miss Hacksaw — 28 September, 2007 8:23 pm
Well, given none of these people supposedly exist and all that, I wonder if the secret government agencies don’t have secret government expense accounts to buy everyone off? And tell me they wouldn’t upgrade your bathroom while they were at it. I mean, they better, just to cover “pain and suffering” and all that.
Comment by kat — 29 September, 2007 3:33 am
On a similar note, if anyone else has had the misfortune to watch “Speed 2″, without wanting to give away the ending, there is rather a lot of damage caused by the boat at the end… (and how much was the opening of that subway extension delayed in the original?)
I have a bit of a problem with the ethics of music videos too sometimes. In Michael Jackson’s “Earth Song” they show a dead elephant, which later comes back to life, regrowing its tusks and getting back onto its feet. Which means, and there’s no getting away from this, they chose to stick a camera on a dying elephant for a reasonable length of time. Unless they shot it with some sort of magic dart or something. Which seems unlikely. Or they used someone else’s footage (which still doesn’t make it right.)
Comment by William T — 29 September, 2007 1:09 pm
I asked my partner’s mother why she didn’t like “Casino Royale”.
“Because they should have spent the money doing something useful, like helping children in Africa”
I thought she hadn’t liked Daniel Craig.
Comment by nationwide — 1 October, 2007 11:45 am
So with you. Have always been upset with random death and injuries and so loved whichever comic film that was that every time a baddie got killed, showed their wife (or husband) and kids at home finding out that mummy (or daddy) was dead…
And have definitely thought in a scene where someone gets cross and breaks a mirror, “what will the next person who comes into that bathroom THINK? And how will they put their lippy on?”
Comment by the B — 1 October, 2007 2:59 pm
the B: I believe that you are thinking of Austin Powers. The line was “Smiddy won’t be coming tonight. His head was bitten off by a tank of ill-tempered mutated sea bass.”
Comment by Pete — 2 October, 2007 1:38 pm
absolutely hysterical! my boss now thinks I’m insane for laughing out loud at my “work”
Comment by Stacey — 3 October, 2007 3:54 am
William T, if I recall rightly the end of Speed 2 has the boat crashing through a pier market in Philipsburg, St Martin’s. It just so happens that just as the building at the start of Lethal Weapon 3 it was scheduled for demolition anyway so they tarted it up and rammed a boat into it then rebuilt with the money from the studio. The pier that is, not the building.
And crap movies deserve to be spoiled, don’t apologise.
Comment by D — 3 October, 2007 11:14 am
My mistake, it was Marigot, not Philipsburg; completely the other side of the island.
Comment by D — 3 October, 2007 11:23 am
There’s a scene in Dino Risi’s 1963 film I mostri* in which a well-dressed couple are watching a film set during the Nazi occupation of Italy**. Scene: a country lane with a wall along one side; it’s a blank, featureless wall, except for the top of it which is finished off with some rather nice tiles. Sound of engines. Enter Nazi on motorbike (with sidecar). Enter truckload of Nazis, who get out and set up machine-gun pointing at wall. Enter truck full of prisoners. Prisoners are ordered out of the truck and lined up against the wall. Small child breaks free and tries to run away. Nazi shoots child. At that moment, the well-dressed man in the cinema turns to his partner and says “That’s just the kind of tiles we should get for our house.”
In the case of Risi’s neo-realist classic*, this was clearly*** a stab at the way the occupation and the Resistance had been overworked in contemporary Italian culture. Not sure what it is in this case.
*The only scene in Dino Risi’s 1963 film I mostri I’ve actually seen, and that was as part of a seminar.
**1943-5, northern and central Italy only, complicated in parts, all friends now.
***It was a very persuasive seminar.
Comment by Phil — 7 October, 2007 10:44 am