In the “Family Guy” episode “Untitled Griffin Family History” (May 14, 2006), the Griffins find that burglars have broken into their basement. In panic, they flee into the secret panic room of their house, a room that Peter (Seth MacFarlane) had built in secret. After the grips have locked themselves in, you will not find a telephone or a real way to escape. Peter, who tries to keep the mood happily, decides to tell the history of his family and return to the beginning of the time. The majority of the episode consists of Schey -Aides and flashbacks because it is “Family Guy”.
Towards the end of the episode, Peter, who was finally tired of being trapped, shoots a flare gun into the air leveling of the panic space. This triggers the automated sprinkler system of the room, and the airtight cabinet begins to fill with water. It does not take long for the grips to all be floating and are exposed to potential aqueous downfall. When they are about to drown, Peter wants to make a final confession: he did not take care of “the sponsor”. Although she drowns, Lois (Alex Borstein) expresses outrage over his taste.
Francis Ford Coppolas 1972 classicTo the rest of the griffin is incomparable. Brian (MacFarlane) asks why and Peter says he couldn’t get involved. “It insists on itself,” he offers completely indefinitely. Chris (Seth Green) says that it has a point, so it’s okay to be “persistent”. Peter then admits that he has never ended it before Not to know how it ends. The Griffins certainly drown, but they spend their last moments with a snippy, pusillan conversation about “the sponsors”.
It turns out that the moment actually has origins to go back to Seth Macfarlane’s College.
The expression “it exists
It seems that the line “It insists on itself” is a criticism that MacFarlane once heard of one of his college professors. How he revealed A new contribution to Twitter/XA film teacher used the sentence to describe “The Sound of Music”. MacFarlane himself admitted that he was not quite sure what it meant. MacFarlane released:
“Since this was trendy, there has been a fun fact: ‘It has been a criticism that my college-film history professor explained earlier, why he didn’t think’ The Sound of Music ‘was a great film. First-class teacher, but I never followed it.”
The joke of the scene – apart from a frivolous discussion in a moment of mortal danger – is that Peter clearly tries to sound sharp and taught and to know that his confession about “the godfather” would get an ascent from his family. However, it remains complacent and says that the film “insists on itself” and the feeling that the expression is a new intellectual axiom, the other will inspire to disturb its chin’s thought and quietly.
Somehow you can stand up to what MacFarlanes could have been professor. Some films present their history and characters with a certain degree of characters and use slower processing, close -ups or high -falutin scripting to ensure that the audience knows that they are important for the film. Certain viewers may enter if a filmmaker announces something or someone as important, but then reject the announcement, especially if a viewer may not be connected to the film in question.
We could see an artier version of this phenomenon In nostal gas pieces such as “Spider-Man: No Way Home”. This film contains long breaks according to the introductions of certain older characters that are clearly included so that the (presumably astonished) audience can grab applause or air. However, if you do not take care of these old characters, the intended astonishment that you seem to shine in the filmmakers may feel presumptuous. It was insisted.
What the hell does it mean that it insists on yourself?
In order to extrapolate when a film is strong and dramatic and downbeat, such as “the godfather”, a viewer like Peter can drop every single moment as “importance”. But because Peter was not associated with “The Pate” (for some reason), the whole film read as wrong with his eyes. It is not organic to convince him, but it insists that he accepts his concepts. It insists on yourself.
Of course you will have the feeling that a film “on yourself” exists if you don’t enjoy it. Something else could have led from “the godfather” – a character that he did not like, a performance he hated, a central imagination against which he was morally criticized – caused him to reject everything else about the history of the film. He checked out early, and the continued virtuosity of the film of character and storytelling felt like pitiful paths to win back.
Some answers to Twitter/X (Transcribed by Yahoo!) Also theorize what MacFarlanes professor might have meant with his criticism of “The Sound of Music”. A reader found that Peter Jackson’s “The Lord of the Rings: The Community of the Ring” was “important” (reading: artificially dramatic), and they found it alienating as a result.
Another reader believed that certain filmmakers seem to be confident in a negative way when they guide high dramas. By assessing this critic, they do what is intended be a classic for eternity. This is how his efforts to appear “great” to seem to smell like a conventionally “great”. “There are many ways to try to be good without trying to be good,” you explain, “namely Bucking trends. The existence of yourself means that he should” “good” film “.
Know that nobody has to love you in a popular film. It is okay to hate “the godfather” when you hate “the godfather”. The same applies “the sound of the music” and his trained flops. In order to be an effective critic, you have to be more concise in your argument. You can’t rely on an meaningless aphorism like: “It insists on himself.”
