Question: Judging by Maximus' appearance and the fact "Tangled" is set in Germany, is Maximus a Hanoverian or a different German breed?
Rob Halliday
11th Oct 2016
Tangled (2010)
Answer: The Hanoverian breed of horse was first bred at the State Stud at Celle in Lower Saxony. This was established in 1735 by George II, who was both the King Of Great Britain and the "Elector" (or ruler) of the state of Hanover. But, while Tangled is set in a land that might have some resemblance to pre-modern Germany, it also appears take place much earlier than 1735. Therefore Maximus cannot truly be a Hanoverian. However, staff at the Celle State Stud used native German horses when breeding the first Hanoverians, so there might be a distant "family resemblance" between Maximus and the Hanoverian breed. Most (but not all) Hanoverians are dark coloured. Another thread in an earlier question about Tangled says the artists originally coloured Maximus black. However, Tangled is a fantasy film. Maximus can communicate with people in a much more meaningful way than any Hanoverian (or any other breed of horse). So maybe Tangled should not be regarded as wholly accurate in equine matters.
28th Jul 2022
The Hound of the Baskervilles (1978)
Question: This 1978 comedy take on the Hound Of The Baskervilles featured a stellar cast of British comedy icons: Peter Cook, Dudley Moore, Spike Milligan, Kenneth Williams and Terry Thomas. Yet it was not remotely funny and was a box office bomb. Biographies of cast members say the film was a low point of their careers, their acting lacks conviction, as if they know it isn't funny. So, why did they keep making this film, since, even when it was half completed, everybody knew it would be a total flop?
Answer: The actors would have no control over whether a film should continue production, particularly just because they didn't like how it was progressing. They were under contract and paid to act in a movie, regardless of the quality and would be sued if they quit. Movies are financed by studios and investors who expect a monetary return on their investment. Even if the film's quality was considered poor, producers would base their decisions on making a profit or at least recouping the costs. Halting production would be an extreme last resort.
Thank you for your informative and interesting points. I read a biography of Peter Cook which said that when the film studio executives saw the finished film they realised it just was not funny or entertaining. There was reluctance to give it a cinema release, as it was thought it would not even recoup distribution costs. It was eventually given a limited release and it bombed. I saw the film once on television, even though I am a fan of many members of the cast, I was wholly unimpressed. I think most of the cast, too, were embarrassed by the film.
28th Jun 2009
Planet of the Apes (1968)
Question: What caused the original nuclear devastation depicted in the movie?
Answer: I think that this is meant to be a mystery. Taylor/Charlton Heston, an astronaut, leaves a world set somewhat in the future after 1968 (when the movie was made) but still recognisable to cinema-goers at the time, to travel through a "time vortex" to arrive in a world in a distant future, which has changed beyond recognition. Taylor meets the orangutan Zaius/Maurice Evans, and Zaius hints that he has some idea of what had happened, but Zaius' knowledge is either limited, or else Zaius is not going to tell Taylor (or his fellow apes) the full story. At the end of the movie Taylor discovers that, at some point between his leaving his own time and arriving in the "Planet Of The Apes", the world had been devastated by a nuclear war, but I think that the exact time, causes of, and course of this nuclear war are deliberately left as a mystery. Sometimes I think a bit of unresolved mystery actually improves a story, and I think this is the case here.
Chosen answer: World War III.
10th Oct 2019
Matilda (1996)
Question: Since Trunchbull hates kids so much why is she an elementary school principal?
Answer: The answer is: "Power." Miss Trunchbull is a sadistic bully, as a school headteacher she can terrorise, frighten and dominate children and teachers. Also the job pays a good salary. She has probably arranged things so the other teachers do all the real work and the difficult jobs. She lives in a house attached to the school, so she gets free accommodation. She can run scams: for example the pupils must be fed, so she gives the catering contract to a company who pay her a "backhander." Thus she has a lucrative job where she does very little work. Plus, you cannot have a story without a villain to be defeated, so Miss Trunchbull is a brilliant opponent for Matilda.
Answer: It's a common enough trope to the point where it has become cliche. Stories set in a school will almost always have a teacher or principal (or both) openly dislike their students. Stories aimed at a younger audience will often exaggerate this to an extreme, where the teacher/administrator has a hatred of children in general that borders on insanity.
23rd Jan 2009
Tristan & Isolde (2006)
Question: Does anyone know if makeup/cosmetics or other beauty practices, such as women plucking eyebrows and facial hair, existed during this time period? I know that this is just a movie and the actresses are supposed to look attractive, but I'm curious if it would have really been around back then.
Answer: For Dark Age beauty hints look at the website of historical novelist Octavia Randolph, on https://octavia.net/ Your question is brilliantly answered in the section https://octavia.net/early-cosmetics/ The Pre-Christian Anglo-Saxons and Vikings were buried with grave goods, items they used in everyday life. Archaeologists often uncover burials of men and women who were buried with elaborately carved combs for hair care, tweezers for plucking out surplus hair, ear scoops and small wash basins. There is good evidence that people processed herbs and flowers as cosmetics and make-up.
Answer: The historical sources from the time in question are scant - it's not called "the dark age" for nothing. Having said that, beauty practices like plucking eyebrows and make-up have existed since ancient times. We can safely assume that there were certain ideals of beauty, and ladies of all times strove to meet them. These ideals have changed frequently over the times, so plucked eyebrows may or may not have been the fashion in early medieaval Britain.
23rd Dec 2007
Tristan & Isolde (2006)
Question: This is a strange question, but is it possible that Isolde could sleep with both the King and Tristan so many times and not get pregnant? Was there any kind of birth control at this time?
Answer: Without going into detail, two possible birth control options would be the withdrawal method or earlier versions of condoms. It's unlikely that Marke and Isolde were using these methods, because Marke, as a king, would probably want children to be his heirs. But Isolde might have at least been taking precautions with Tristan, especially during the time that she was betrothed to Morholt. There would be trouble if she became pregnant while her betrothed was away. Also, as Tailkinker wrote, maybe she simply did not conceive.
Answer: Yes, it's entirely possible. Even in this day and age, with our relatively detailed knowledge of the processes and timing involved, couples trying for children can sometimes try for months or even years before a successful conception.
Answer: Three answers. ONE: Manuscript medical texts survive from Anglo-Saxon England. These describe folk wisdom and empirical medical tradition handed down from generation to generation. Herbs and herbal products were used as cures and prophylactics. These say little about contraception (they were written by monks or nuns who lived celibate lives) but it could be inferred that women used herbs and herbal products for women's issues (including contraception), knowledge refined over generations and handed down orally that has been lost or forgotten. TWO In the middle ages diet, nutrition and health conditions were such that, in general, people were not as healthy as they are today, so women may have been less "fertile" and less likely to become pregnant after sex. THREE: The legend of Tristan and Isolde is not accurate history. It began to circulate in the twelfth century, but even then it was a story, told to entertain, and this cinema version is a fictional, fantasy re-imagining of medieval life (similar to Game Of Thrones or Lord of the Rings) so such logical details do not necessarily apply.
8th Jul 2020
Sahara (1943)
Question: Serious spoiler alert: these questions summarise the entire film. During the Second World War Sgt Joe Gunn (Humphrey Bogart) and nine allied soldiers (plus one German and one Italian captive) are crossing the North African Desert. They discover a well, but this has nearly dried up and only provides a small trickle of water, barely enough to keep them alive. They are besieged by over 100 Germans. Since the Germans have no water at all they surrender to Joe Gunn. At this point a stray shell lands in the well. The resulting explosion brings hundreds of gallons of water bubbling up, more than enough for Joe Gunn's company and all the Germans. Two questions. 1. Could a well in the Sahara dry up until it only gave a small trickle of water? 2. Could an explosion really open a water supply like this?
Answer: Thank you for that! I first saw Sahara on television when I was eleven, with my mother, father and younger brother. When we saw the shell explode in the well to re-open the water supply, we all dismissed this as Hollywood hokum. But sometimes it is amusing to be proved wrong. You put a smile on my face when you informed me, and quite convincingly too, that the well really could have dried up but then opened up again.
Answer: 1. Yes it could, as water flows into the well, it could easily bring sediment and other bits of small debris and eventually block the flow of water resulting in only a trickle. 2. Again, yes. If the explosion weakens the surrounding walls holding the water back, the pressure of the water could easily rupture through the walls and result in the flooding mentioned.
21st Jun 2020
Blazing Saddles (1974)
Question: Mel Brooks consciously and deliberately filled Blazing Saddles with anachronisms, this was part of the film's humour. But one thing has always niggled at my mind. Blazing Saddles is set in 1874. Quite early on in the film the whites ask Cleavon Little/Bart why African Americans are not singing work songs. The African Americans then begin acapella harmonised version of Cole Porters "I Get A Kick Out Of You" (written for the 1934 musical "Anything Goes"). But in October 1974, shortly after Blazing Saddles had its UK release, an otherwise unknown Australian singer called Gary Shearston had a top ten UK hit with a cover of "I Get A Kick Out Of You." Was there any connection? Did Blazing Saddles revive interest in the song?
Answer: Thank you for that. So there was no direct connection. Maybe the song was going around in "the collective consciousness" (whatever that might be) in late 1974. A small bit of extra trivia: Cleavon Little/Bart sings the line that mentions cocaine. When Cole Porter wrote "I get a kick out of you" for the 1934 stage musical "Anything Goes" he wrote the line "some get a kick from cocaine." When the musical was adapted for the 1936 movie the Production Code Administration objected to references to drug use in popular songs, so Cole Porter re-wrote the line as "some like the perfume in Spain." Cleavon Little/Bart has redressed the balance in "Blazing Saddles."
Answer: By the time "Blazing Saddles" used the song, Cole Porter's "I Get a Kick Out of You" had been covered literally dozens of times over the decades, so much so that it was a well-worn standard. In other words, it didn't really need reviving. There is no indication that Australian folk singer Gary Shearston was directly inspired by the song's use in "Blazing Saddles," or he probably would have admitted it for the sake of promotion. When asked about his eccentric cover of the Cole Porter song on the 1974 album "Dingo," Shearston simply replied that he "did it for fun," without elaborating. The acoustic guitar of Shearston's cover seemed more inspired by George Harrison's "My Sweet Lord," and Shearston's vocals were described as "laid-back," while his stage performance of the song (which was a huge hit in the UK) was notable for Shearston's "deadpan" delivery. Shearston also either bungled or deliberately altered the lyrics in places, and he ended the song muttering about his girlfriend, by name. So, Shearston very much made the song his own, and the timing of his cover following on the heels of "Blazing Saddles" would seem to be pure coincidence.
10th Jul 2009
The Prisoner (1967)
Question: Five questions: 1) WHO kidnapped Number Six? 2) WHY was Number Six kidnapped and placed in The Village? 3) What was Number Sixs' name? 4) Where was The Village located? 5) Who was in charge of The Village?
Chosen answer: 1) It's never made entirely clear, but it seems that the government, Six's employers, are involved. 2) Because they wanted to know why he resigned. 3) It's never revealed, although many fans assume that Six is really John Drake, McGoohan's character from the prior show Danger Man. McGoohan has, however, denied that this was the intent and there are some notable differences between the characters. 4) It's never revealed, although, as, in the final episode, Six and his companions are able to drive to London, it must logically be located within the British Isles. 5) No details are ever given as to who has ultimate authority over the Village.
Answer: Hope I am not going on too much, but I was watching bits of "The Prisoner" on YouTube, and have some information in response to question three "What was Number Six's name?" In the opening sequence of "The Prisoner" Patrick McGoohan/The Prisoner/Number Six walks into an office and throws a resignation letter on the table. He then drives to his house and hurriedly packs a suitcase. You can see him throw a UK passport into the suitcase. Seconds later, knockout gas is pumped into his house. He falls unconscious, then revives in "The Village." If he has a UK passport this must give his name, so it can be inferred that his name might be known to, or available to, anybody who really wants to know. After all, it seems plausible that the people or organisation who ordered his removal to "The Village" would have made at least a rudimentary search of his house and found the passport. Subsequently, in "Arrival" the first episode of the series, Patrick McGoohan/The Prisoner/Number Six meets "Number Two" who shows him a series of photographs illustrating his life from his schooldays up till his resignation. I find it inconceivable that Number Two could have acquired such a comprehensive amount of information about Patrick McGoohan/The Prisoner/Number Six, and not known his name. Yet Number Two never once mentions his name. Occasionally, in later episodes, characters mention that they knew Number Six in the time before they were transported to "The Village." But, during all seventeen episodes of the series, neither Patrick McGoohan/The Prisoner/Number Six, nor anybody else, ever mentions his name. From all this, it is clear that it was deliberately intended that viewers of "The Prisoner" would never know his real name.
Answer: Patrick McGoohan was often asked these, and many other questions about The Prisoner. He always refused to answer. He said the programme contained the answers. But you might want to try reading "I Am (Not) A Number, Decoding The Prisoner" written by Alex Cox and published in the UK in 2017. I regret that I, personally, was not wholly convinced by everything in this book. However, Alex Cox makes a dedicated and conscientious effort to deal with some questions asked about this very enigmatic television series. Alex Cox argues that Patrick McGoohan intended that the 17 episodes of The Prisoner should be watched in the order in which they were filmed, as these fill in details along the way. Even so, many questions about The Prisoner may always remain unanswered. One obvious paradox is that Patrick McGoohan/The Prisoner/Number 6 always says "I am not a number", and it is quite clear that much of his life before he arrived in "The Village" is well known to everybody, but he never, not even once, ever mentions his real name.
10th Jul 2009
The Prisoner (1967)
Question: Just who was Number 1?
Chosen answer: We were never told. In the series finale [Spoiler alert] Number 6 demands an answer to that question, only to be shown his own reflection.
Answer: It's even more obvious than you think, you know who number 1 is in the very first episode. When 2 replies to the question "who is #1?" Change the way he answers from you are number one (in the monotone or accented answer to, "You are, number 6. The comma gives you the answer. #6 is #1. It's the tone of the answer.
Answer: The Prisoner was first shown on British television in 1967. I did not watch it then, but the series was was repeated on UK television in 1977, at which point it became a massive cult. Certainly, I was hooked. Well, ten minutes after I started watching The Prisoner, I was 110% certain as to who Number 1 was. In my opinion, the identity of Number 1 was so utterly, glaringly obvious that I could not understand how anybody could even ask such a question. I thought there was only one candidate for the identity of Number 1, and it was so plainly visible that nobody could even vaguely consider it to be anybody else. So, who did I think Number 1 was? you all ask. My answer? Himself! Patrick McGoohan (or rather, the character Patrick McGoohan played in The Prisoner) was Number 1. I was proved right. In Fall Out, the seventeenth and final episode, "The Prisoner" gets to meet "Number 1." Now this is a real "blink and you'll miss it" moment, but Number 1 has his face covered. The Prisoner pulls off the covering to see a mask, he pulls off the mask, to see himself! The Patrick McGoohan in Number 1's costume laughs in The Prisoner's face and runs away. Unfortunately, I don't know why Patrick McGoohan should be both The Prisoner and Number 1. I don't think anybody does.
12th Jun 2020
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)
Answer: One reason is that Harry Potter's Uncle Vernon Dursley absorbed his hatred of wizards from his wife, Aunt Petunia Dursley. As the Harry Potter books progress, we find out that Vernon's wife, Petunia, was a "muggle" (not a wizard) but her sister, Lily, Harry's mother, had magical powers. Lily was invited to study at Hogwarts: here Lily refined her magical powers and wizarding abilities, and met James Potter, her future husband (and Harry's father). Petunia was jealous and resentful of Lily, and, because of this, Harry Potter and the whole wizarding world. For all his faults, Vernon loves Petunia, and so he shares her hatred of wizards. It appears that Vernon and Petunia know a lot more about the wizarding world than they would admit. They cannot tolerate the thought that Harry Potter is a wizard with powers and abilities greater than theirs, so they put Harry Potter (and the wizarding world) down at every opportunity.
18th Jan 2019
Waterloo (1970)
Question: When marshal Ney and his troops encounter Napoleon, he tells them if they want to kill their emperor, there he is, but instead of killing him, they defect to him despite being ordered to fire. Is this a work of fiction, or did it happen in real life?
Answer: This is decidedly fiction. The historical Ney already published a boastful proclamation (that Napoleon later said disgusted him), declaring the rule of the Bourbons to be over, before he met with Napoleon (March 15). The scene where Napoleon offered himself to be shot had happened several days earlier, with the 5th regiment of the line, before Napoleon even reached Grenoble. It's an entirely different event from Ney's defection.
Answer: I think the film's dramatisation of this particular incident, when the French army defected from the restored Bourbon royal family back to the Emperor Napoleon might owe something to the painting NAPOLEON RETURNED painted in 1818 by Charles Steuben (also called Charles De Steuben and Karl Steuben) a German who became a nationalised (and patriotic) Frenchman https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Napoleon_returned.jpg.
Answer: Yes, that is pretty much what happened, so long as we allow for translation convention. (Napoleon and his armies spoke 19 century French, while the actors in the 1970 film speak 20 century English). After Napoleon's first abdication Marshall Ney submitted to the returning Bourbon monarch, Louis XVIII. When Napoleon returned to France, Marshall Ney was given command of an army to apprehend Napoleon The Emperor Napoleon with a small group of imperial guardsmen confronted Marshall Ney with a massively larger and better-equipped army. Many people expected a bloodbath. Instead, Napoleon waked out in front of his guard, confronted the French army and called out that if any soldier wished to shoot him, this would be the best chance they would ever have! The army simultaneously rushed to greet their emperor, Marshall Ney followed and submitted to Napoleon. This bit of the film is as historically accurate as can reasonably be expected and shows how Napoleon could electrify an army.
8th Oct 2019
Barbarella (1968)
Question: Serious spoiler alert, but this has always puzzled me. At the end of Barbarella the Black Queen unleashes "Matmos", an evil energy which destroys nearly everybody and everything in the film. Pygar (the blind angel) escapes, only rescuing two people from the cataclysm: Barbarella and the Black Queen. Barbarella asks Pygar why he saved the Black Queen after all the evil things she did (she even blinded Pygar). Pygar replies "an angel has no memory." I never got the point of that. What did Pygar mean? (In his previous conversation he recalled things that happened before he was blinded, so obviously he did have a memory.) And I could not see the point of or meaning to this ending at all. Did any of this make sense to anybody else?
Answer: You say that Barbarella was beyond lame-it was totally atrociously bad and ludicrous. It was released in autumn 1968, when I was 12, and too young to see it at the cinema. I finally got to see Barbarella when I was 18 and it was shown late one night on television. I wholly concur: I thought it was totally, atrociously bad and ludicrous, and my opinion has not changed since.
Answer: I concede your point. Perhaps I was being a bit too literal. When Pygar says he has no memory, he may not mean that all past events clear from his mind (in the way that, for example, you could delete a computer file from your laptop). Instead, he might mean he does not dwell on the past, or he does not retain bitterness or anger for past wrongs, or he does not return evil on those who were bad to him. I think the film was based on a comic that ended in pretty much the same way. All the same, I always thought the ending was rather lame. It was as if somebody told Roger Vadim (the director) "hey, this film is supposed to be 90 minutes long, but we've done 89 minutes filming, and we still haven't got an ending." So Roger Vadim got the Black Queen to unleash Matmos and destroy everything. (To be pedantic, Barbarella is 98 minutes long, but I hope you understand what I mean.) Personally I thought the ending of "Monty Python And The Holy Grail", where a police force stops the film, was a similar disappointment.
10th Oct 2019
Random Harvest (1942)
Question: I have several questions. In Random Harvest Ronald Colman is a First World War veteran. A war accident left him with amnesia and no memory of his previous life. He meets Greer Garson, they fall in love and marry. Several years later Ronald Colman crosses the road without looking, is hit by a car and knocked unconscious. Regaining consciousness he recalls that he is Charles Rainier, a wealthy landowner and industrialist, but he now has no memory of his life when he was an amnesiac and married to Greer Garson. Is such "double amnesia" possible? Ronald Colman meets Greer Garson again and employs her as his secretary, so he sees her and converses with her daily for several years, but his amnesia is such that he never recognises her as his wife. She could tell him about his missing years and their marriage, but she must never do this because the shock would be too great for him. Does this make any sense? Surely, if any woman met her long-lost husband, who said "I have amnesia and I can't remember who I am", wouldn't she instinctively reply "You're my husband"?
Answer: Amnesia the way it is often portrayed in movies, including this one, is impossible. People who do suffer from it, usually from some traumatic event, regain their memory relatively quickly. Double amnesia as portrayed in this movie could never, ever happen. This movie is total fiction, though people did, and still do, believe amnesia happens this way.
Answer: I have seen other films and read stories about people with amnesia. In 1965 and 1966 there was a "western" television series "A Man Called Shenandoah", wholly based on this premise. In the aftermath of the American Civil War Robert Horton is discovered unconscious on the prairie. When he revives he has no memory of who he is. He roams the west, unsuccessfully trying to discover his identity. I think he had some atrocious bad luck. Just as somebody was about to tell him who he really was they would get run over by a train, or shot in the back. The television company dropped the series after 34 episodes, so we never did find out who he really was.
26th Aug 2018
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966)
Question: At the end of the film Blondie, sitting on the horse, turns around, aims his rifle, fires, and severs the rope with a single shot. Lets face it, that rope would be a very small target, and difficult to hit with precision, even from ten or twenty feet, and Blondie is now so far from Tuco that he would no longer even be able to see the rope. Could anyone hit such a small target from such a distance with such incredible accuracy?
Answer: There's a show called "Hollywood Weapons: Fact or Fiction" which dealt with this exact question (s01e03). Blondie is roughly 200 yds away. In the show the host didn't hit the rope, but only missed by an inch on his first attempt. I definitely think an expert Sharps Rifle shooter could make the shot. The issue however, is the bullet would most likely not actually slice the rope apart as seen in the film (they fired the Sharps at point blank and the rope remained partially intact still). They also tested shooting a hat off someone and (as expected) the bullet just goes right through the hat without lifting the hat at all.
That was another thing that puzzled me. On several occasions in this film, Tuco is suspended from a rope, and Blondie cuts the rope by firing a bullet at it, (I think Clint Eastwood repeated the trick in "The Outlaw Josey Wales"). But if you fired a bullet at a rope holding a (rather large) person like Tuco (or a similarly heavy weight), even at close range, would it really sever the rope? I will have to look out for "Hollywood Weapons Fact Or Fiction." I hope they only used a dummy or a model to re-create the shooting feats. I don't think I would have liked to have been hanging on a rope while somebody fired bullets at me to see if this would sever the rope, or to stand there while they fired bullets into my hat to see if they could lift it off my head.
Answer: Probably not, but remember...this is a movie, a western at that and they typically have over the top action to excite audiences. Kinda like how it's impossible to shoot someone's hat off without harming them. It's all for show.
6th Jul 2018
Little Big Man (1970)
Question: In all honesty I have little (if any) anthropological knowledge of what life was like for Native Americans in the USA in the nineteenth century. But it seemed to me that, for much of the time, the Native Americans in the movie did not resemble the members of a 'hunter gatherer' society whose way of life was under threat from the onset of the modern industrial world. Instead the Native Americans seemed to live, act and behave much more like the members of a 1960's hippie commune. How accurate is that?
Answer: Some members of tribes like the Cheyenne joined in the 'modern' world to some extent, using guns and even putting on Western clothes and eating Western food. While nowhere near the technological nous of the white settlers, the natives were far from being hunter gatherers at this point.
Answer: Well observed sir! What you say is correct. I admit I probably was wrong in calling Native North Americans 'hunter gatherers' as I think some tribes had agriculture and permanent settlements well before Columbus ever reached the American Continent. I also think that the Cherokee consciously tried to adapt to modern life by building houses and becoming farmers. My point was more that it seemed to me that the portrayal of many Native Americans in Little Big Man did not seem historically accurate, but showed them as being more like 1960's hippies. But I am fully aware that this may have been intentional, since the film was giving a 1960's 'spin' on the legends of the 'Wild West'. But please, do not take my posts on this website too seriously. I am fully aware that this was a film made to entertain people, it was not meant to be a historical documentary. And it was the fictional recollections of a 121 year old man. And the film poster said 'Little Big Man was either the most neglected hero in history OR A liar of insane proportion', so you are invited to have your doubts about anything that happens in the film.
Rob, you may want to look into reading the novel the film was based on written by Thomas Berger. He wrote some pretty twisted stuff.
29th Jul 2018
Mission: Impossible (1966)
Question: At the start of each episode of Mission Impossible Briggs or Phelps received details of the mission from a tape recording that was 'hidden in plain sight', say a telephone booth displaying a poster saying 'Telephone Out Of Order. Do Not Use'. So, what would happen if somebody went into the kiosk before Briggs or Phelps, picked up the telephone and got the secret message ahead of the Mission Impossible team?
Answer: This is not really a serious question. When I posted this question I was fully aware that Mission Impossible is only a television programme. Like many espionage thrillers (Man From Uncle, The Avengers, James Bond) it is meant to entertain, it is never meant to be taken literally seriously. It was essential to the story that Briggs or Phelps received a secret message, which would give them a mission to accomplish. If they did not receive the message you would not have had the story. When I used to watch Mission Impossible it just used to amuse me to wonder what might have happened had somebody picked up the phone containing the secret message ahead of Briggs or Phelps. I even considered writing to a comedian and suggesting that they devise a comedy sketch in which this happened. My question was only meant to be a joke, that I posted to amuse people.
The Lucy Show or Here's Lucy did an episode of exactly this scenario.
28th Jul 2018
The Man in the Iron Mask (1998)
Question: Not just this, but every cinema and television adaptation of the legend of The Man in the Iron Mask that I have seen, without exception, has always left me asking the same question. A man is locked up in a lonely prison where his face is hidden by an iron mask. The Three Musketeers or some similar swashbuckling heroes rescue him. He may have worn the iron mask for weeks, months, or even years. So why is it, that, when the iron mask is removed he always emerges clean shaven?
Answer: The mask would be periodically removed by the prisoner's attendants to shave his beard and cut his hair. Leaving it on permanently and letting his beard and hair grow endlessly would create physical and medical problems, possibly even suffocating him eventually. The goal was to keep him imprisoned for a long period of time, not to execute him.
But isn't he wearing the mask so that nobody will know who he is? If the prison staff keep removing the mask to shave him and cut his hair then they will all know exactly what he looks like, and they will be able to identify him. In many versions of the story he has to wear the mask so that nobody will recognise him as the king's twin brother. If the prison guards remove the mask won't they see how he resembles the king? Alternatively, if the prison guards already know that he is the king's twin brother, then why bother to mask his face?
Anyone who was guarding and/or attending to the prisoner would be loyal to the king, acting as his agents, and sworn to keep his secrets. Not doing so would be treason. They would likely have minimal knowledge of who this person was, nor would it matter to them. They may or may not notice any resemblance to the king. In the prisoner's disheveled and weakened conditioned, it would not be obvious that he is an identical twin. Also, few people in pre-mass media times, knew what royals looked like, probably only catching occasional glimpses of them from far away, if ever at all.
Answer: In the 1939 version of The Man in the Iron Mask starring Louis Hayword, when the mask is taken off, he does have a beard. Phillipe even asks Louis how long it will take for his (Louis') beard to grow once he is in the mask.
3rd Jul 2018
The Long Ships (1964)
Question: The Vikings led by Rolfe and the Moors led by Aly Mansuh are both seeking a gigantic bell, 'The Mother Of All Voices', twenty feet high, made of solid gold. Eventually the Vikings find it, and transport it on their ships back to Aly Mansuh's capital. How can they do this? One of the world's most famous bells is 'Big Ben' in the Houses of Parliament: a mere seven and a half feet high, this weighs thirteen tons! Not only is 'The Mother Of All Voices' considerably larger than 'Big Ben', it is also made of gold. Now, gold is heavier than lead, so how much will a gold bell over twenty feet high weigh? How can the Vikings transport this over the sea on their 'long ships'? And what do either the Vikings or the Moors plan to do when they have the bell? If they keep it to admire for its beauty and craftsmanship, then it will just be a financial liability to whoever owns it. Or if they melt it down for the gold they will destroy all the craftsmanship and artistic endeavour that went into making the bell.
Answer: Perhaps, when I submitted my question, I may have been pondering the internal logic of a film that makes a good adventure story, but is historically rather doubtful to say the least (I can say this as I have a degree in medieval history, and have worked as an archaeologist on Viking settlements). In all probability, if historical Vikings were seeking treasure or plunder, and found a bell made of gold, they would melt it down for its precious metal content, with no regard for its artistic significance.
Answer: It's unlikely Viking ships could transport such a heavy object, but movies, which frequently ignore historical and scientific reality, often use plot devices like this to tell the story. As far as the Vikings and Moors admiring the gold bell's craftsmanship, that may be the case, but they might also be like the Spanish conquerors who plundered Mexico and South America with little regard for the culture, and shipped finely-crafted gold objects back to Spain where they were melted and remade into coins, jewelry, and other art objects.
Join the mailing list
Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.
Chosen answer: His breed has never been confirmed, but he does have enough similarities to a Hanoverian that it's possible that's what he is.