In the episode of "Guy's Family" "The Non -Family History of Griffin" (14.05.2006), the Griffin reveals that the burglar broke into their basement. In a panic, they flee to the previously unprecedented panic room in their home, a room that Peter (Seth McFarlane) built in secret. After locking inside, Griffini believes there is no phone, no real way of escape. Peter, trying to keep the mood, decides to say the history of his family, to return to the beginning of time. Most of the episode consists of Okeoki, aside and retrospective, because it is a "family guy".

Almost the end of the episode, Peter, finally tired of trapped, shoots a flame gun in the air opening of the panic room. This activates the automated spray system in the room, and the airtight closet begins to fill with water. For a long time, the griffins have been drifting, facing a potential water accident. Because they will drown, Peter wants to make a last confession: he didn't care about the "godfather". Although they are drowning, Lois (Alex Borstein) expresses anger to his taste.

Classic of Francis Ford Coppola in 1972To the rest of the griffins, is wireless. Brian (McFarlin) asks why, and Peter says he couldn't get into it. "It insists on himself," he offers, completely not successful. Chris (Seth Green) says there is a point to do, so it's good to be "persistent". Peter then admits that he never finished, not knowing how it ends. Griffins are certainly drowning, but they spend what their last moments may be to have an awkward, pusilic talk about the "godfather".

It turns out that the moment actually has the origin dating from the time of Seth McFarlane to college.

It seems that the line "she insists on herself" was a criticism that McFarlan has ever heard from one of his college professors. As he revealed in A recent post on Twitter/xA film teacher used the phrase to describe the "sound of music". McFarlan himself admitted that he is not sure what that means. McFarlin Posted:

"Since this was a trend, here's a fun fact:" Insisting on himself "was a criticism that the college history professor explained why he didn't think the" sound of music "was a great movie. First order teacher, but I never followed him. "

The joke on stage - above there is a frivolous discussion at a time of death - is that Peter is clearly trying to sound stunning and erudite, knowing that his confession to the "godfather" will rise from his family. However, he remains trafficking, saying that the film "insists on yourself", feeling that the phrase is a new intellectual axiom that will inspire others to brainwash their beard deliberately and quietly agree.

Someone may consider what McFarlane professor could get. Some films seem to present their stories rhythms and their characters with a certain degree of port, using slower editing, close or script high -phalatin to ensure that the audience knows they are important for the film. Certain viewers can be crucial when the director announces something or someone who is important, but then rejects the post, especially when the viewer may not be associated with the film.

Maybe we'll see a more artificial version of this phenomenon In nostalgia pieces like "Spider-Man: There is no way at home". That film contains long breaks after the introduction of certain hereditary characters, clearly included to allow (probably amazed) audience to applaud or fuel in a dramatic way. If you do not worry about those hereditary characters, then the intention of being amazed at what seems to be supposed to be assumed by the part of the directors. It's persistent.

To extrapolate, then, if the film is huge and dramatic and weak, like "Godfather", the viewer as Peter can see every moment as dripping with "importance". But because Peter was not associated with the "godfather" (for whatever reason), the whole film read, with his eyes, as a fake. It is not organic to beat him, but instead he insists that he accepted his understandings. Insists on yourself.

Of course, someone will feel that the movie "Insists Yourself" if they do not enjoy it. Something else may have taken Peter from "Godfather" - a character he didn't like, a play he hated, the central sense of which he had to oppose it - leading him to reject everything else about the story of the film. He signed up early, and the continuous virtuosity of the film about character and storytelling felt like pathetic ways to conquer it.

Some answers to Twitter/x (Overwhelmed by Yahoo!) Also theorized what McFarlin professor would mean with his criticism of "sound of music". One reader revealed that "the Lord of the Rings: The Ring Scholarship" presented himself as "important" (read: artificially dramatic), and they found it alienated as a result.

Another reader thought that certain directors appeared to be self -conscious, in a negative way, when they were huge plays. They are, according to the assessment of this critic, do what is intended Being a classic for centuries. Thus, its efforts to appear conventionally "excellent" begin to smell like cliché. "There are many ways you can try to be good without trying to be good," they are clarified, "namely the trends of fastening. Insisting on himself means that he has hit all the "good" film notes.

Know that no one has to want a popular movie. It is good to hate the "godfather" if you hate the "godfather". Dito "The Sound of Music" and her awakening of the apostles. But to be an effective critic, we must be more honest in their judgment. Cannot rely on meaningless aphorism like, "insists on yourself."