MovieChat Forums > Used Cars (1980) Discussion > the really dumb part (SPOILERS I GUESS)

the really dumb part (SPOILERS I GUESS)

posted 16 years ago by youaresquishy
16 replies | jump to latest

I was sort of entertained by this film until I got taken out of it when the woman is apparently arrested for false advertising.

False advertising isn't a criminal matter, at least when it comes to merely lying about the number of products for sale, at least not yet, in any state as far as I know. It's a civil matter.

It makes me sad that either the people who made this movie don't know the difference between civil and criminal proceedings, or that they felt the audience didn't know the difference. Either way, it tells you a bit about why the U.S. suffers from overcriminalization--we have the highest incarceration rate in the world partially because people here for some reason have such trouble even imagining any solution to any social problem other than treating it like a criminal issue and locking people up.

And then, given that it is treated like a criminal matter in the film, it's just stupid to have a private attorney prosecuting a criminal defendant on behalf of a private citizen. I've seen this occur in a couple of films, and it's incredibly dumb. Each state has prosecutors that prosecute alleged criminals on behalf of the people of the state.

And you can save your breath if you're one of those nitwits that's going to say something like, "It's just a comedy, so stop taking it so seriously and let it go."

There's no need for this level of stupidity, and the fact that she is arrested and in handcuffs instead of sued doesn't add anything funny to the film--it just makes people who are not retarded and know the difference between criminal and civil law crinkle their brows and takes them out of the film. It's just stupid. The fact that it's a comedy is not an excuse for the inclusion of completely unfunny stupidity.

[–] Doom 16 years ago

Just my own $0.02, but it appears someone is taking a brilliant little gem of a comedy like Used Cars waaaayyyyy too seriously.

(EDIT: yes, did see your 'warning' but had to reply anyway - sorry - chill out)

------

Wait a minute... who am I here?

[–] fulgour 15 years ago

Ah, yes... but perhaps the film is from an alternate universe..?

[–] freudified_n_funkified 15 years ago

By design, the entire thing was pretty absurd - almost a Marx Bros. level of comedic insanity that someone would be criminally prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for false advertising, and if you're familiar with the Zemeckis/Gale mentality at the time it's not without a tinge of satire.

"It's just stupid to have a private attorney prosecuting a criminal defendent on behalf of a private citizen" - indeed, and as the entire political/judicial aspect of the film was about how utterly corrupt it was, an error like that might, just might, be more about social satire than shortcutting the writing. There were other ways to navigate the problem of her being held accountable for the doctored ad that would have moved the story right along with similar high stakes, but in this era when Zemeckis and Gale were an insanely strong writing combo I doubt the logistics of it were so daunting to them that they had to knowingly or unknowingly disregard realistic legal procedure for the sake of simply getting to Point B.

It is an absurd, hilarious scenario for an absurd and hilarious movie and I can't believe the offense taken at it. Clearly, if you're caught up in the inaccuracies of the representation of the legal system while watching this movie it hasn't really done it's job to grab you as a viewer and entertain you as a comedy. Otherwise, just like everyone else, you would have missed this trifle of a complaint. Seriously, what?

[–] youaresquishy 15 years ago

It might be a bit too dated to have grabbed me? I dunno. I just saw it for the first time this year.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] uruseiranma 15 years ago

Well, even on the commentary, they found it rather funny in 'film context' The ad airs the previous night, and in less than 24 hours, Barbara is taken to court over the commercial...as well, notice how packed that courtroom is for that case.

Bob Gale I think seemed to like making fun of law and all. In his film 'Interstate 60,' there's a town called Havlock which is comprised entirely of lawyers, who keep suing everyone else in town, and anyone who just happens to pass on through the town is slapped with a ridiculous lawsuit.

"HAAAAAAAMMMMMMMMMM!!!!"

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] econobiker 15 years ago

The best reply to your comment is with a quote from the movie:

[Roy L. and Slaton are discussing Barbara's trial]
Roy L. Fuchs: I can't believe you got Hangin' Judge Harrison. He's not on the take; he's legit.
Sam Slaton: Remember that colored kid that got caught stealing a case of beer?
Roy L. Fuchs: Billy Ray? Billy Ray Washington?
Sam Slaton: [nods] Hangin' Judge Harrison gave him thirty five years hard labor! You need somebody who'll throw the book at this broad. I've paid off all the experts, all the witnesses; I've even got her lawyer on my payroll.
[cut to her attorney, who's fast asleep]
Sam Slaton: I can win this case, Roy... Trust me!

[–] romanoff-1 15 years ago

The problem with this line of thinking is that if Roy Fuchs had enough power and influence to buy off enough politicians and officials in order to have Barbara arrested and convicted for an entirely fictional crime he'd hardly be concerned with a rival used car franchise. For that matter, even if Barbara is in jail it's not as if she couldn't hire Rudy Russo or someone else to run the dealership, so the bogus trial doesn't accomplish anything for Fuchs regardless of the outcome.

What's also a mystery to me is why Barbara never goes across the street to talk to her uncle when she's trying to get in touch with her father. That would seem the most obvious thing to do.

[–] KDinCT 15 years ago

The central theme of the movie is the rampant corruption that exists when crooked politicians and crooked businessmen get together (the whole freeway thing, Rudy buying his way into politics, etc).

Since it's a movie, those points are intentionally oversimplified and exaggerated for comedic effect. The 'mile of cars' was just another exaggeration of the point.

[–] uruseiranma 14 years ago

The film is almost a celebration/pie-in-the-face to corruption.

Even by the end of the film, Barbara has become corrupted as well, when she lies to a woman looking at a vehicle that the yellow paint inside the door frame is yellow primer.

Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale sometimes like to go to extremes. These were the guys who had wanted to make 'Bordello of Blood' for many years. Plus, some of their 'cracked' wit and charm can be seen in '1941.'

"Thanks, guys." "So long, partner."

- Toy Story 3 (9/10)

[–] cookieman108 9 years ago

"I was sort of entertained by this film until I got taken out of it when the woman is apparently arrested for false advertising."

You're post seems confusing and full of anger. Are you saying people don't get arrested and/or imprisoned for false advertising?

Per 15 U.S. Code § 54 - False advertisements; penalties

(a) Imposition of penalties

Any person, partnership, or corporation who violates any provision of section 52(a) of this title shall, if the use of the commodity advertised may be injurious to health because of results from such use under the conditions prescribed in the advertisement thereof, or under such conditions as are customary or usual, or if such violation is with intent to defraud or mislead, be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine of not more than $5,000 or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment; except that if the conviction is for a violation committed after a first conviction of such person, partnership, or corporation, for any violation of such section, punishment shall be by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment:
Provided
, That for the purposes of this section meats and meat food products duly inspected, marked, and labeled in accordance with rules and regulations issued under the Meat Inspection Act [21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.] shall be conclusively presumed not injurious to health at the time the same leave official “establishments.”

See links below for people arrested for false advertising.

http://www.wowt.com/home/headlines/46842427.html

http://wtnh.com/2015/08/14/east-lyme-man-pleads-guilty-to-false-advertising/

http://www.creativedepartment.com/lexington-man-faces-big-trouble-for-false-advertising-claims/

[–] youaresquishy 9 years ago

The issue in the film is an advertisement of the number of products available. This is not a criminal matter in any portion of this country. My post is clear, and your question is silly.

But, to answer your question, false advertising of all kinds is generally exclusively a civil matter in every part of this country. Ask any lawyer and you'll get the same answer. Or, perhaps, try calling the police next time you spot a false advertisement, just to see what happens.

Although it is clearly possible to cite criminal statutes that use the words "false advertising" and proscribe certain types of false advertisement, and links to stories about commissions of fraud that involve false advertisements, as you've demonstrated. And that statute is certainly an interesting one, and I appreciate you pointing it out to me.

But, the point is that there is a 0.0% chance that criminal liability would ever attach, in any state, or under federal law, to the false advertisement at issue in the film.

[–] catdaddyd 9 years ago

Let's not forget that Grandpa Munster is not a real judge either. But I do agree with you, I was watching and said why is she in handcuffs, it's a civil case.

[–] liscarkat (18460) a year ago

This movie is intended to be a very silly comedy, at which it succeeds very well. It is not a documentary about the difference between civil and criminal cases.