Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2013 October 27

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 27

My dog has fleas

I feel like I've witnessed this phenomenon dozens of times, but my exposure to ukuleles is virtually non-existent, so I'm not sure what's going on with my memory cells. Never mind that.

People regularly tune their ukes using the mini-ditty "My dog has fleas". Each word corresponds to a different note, G-C-E-A. I've always assumed there was some popular song called "My Dog Has Fleas" that starts off this way. I woke up the other day thinking about this, and I went on a search to find this song that millions of people refer to but nobody in my experience has ever sung in its entirety. Ever. It's always just the first four notes and words.

I found this, which sort of half explains what it’s about. This discussion seems to confirm it. This song was written only in 2001. This video gives no information about the song the guy's singing. They're different songs, anyway.

This contains a quote from somewhere: "Dallin, the only way to correctly tune your ukelele is to remember my dog has fleas." But that seems to be circular, as it supposes there's an existing song/tune of that name that is used spark the tuner's memory. Whereas, the evidence I'm seeing is that it's just a mnemonic device, which some people have only very latterly used as the basis of a song. Not the other way around.

If I were sitting down to devise a mnemonic for tuning an instrument, I would surely use the letters of the notes (in this case G-C-E-A) as my starting point (Girls can eat apples?), and not some set of words that have no relationship whatsoever to the notes, sung to a tune that is not connected to any known composition.

Does anyone have any good info as to where these words came from? Who dreamt them up and when? How and why did it catch on (because, really, it just shouldn't work, imo)? What is the mental link between ukulele tuning and dogs having fleas? Is there any other mnemonic as weird as this one in its indirectness and opaqueness and apparent lack of utility? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

* You have just been awarded the QUESTION OF THE MONTH award for the best question this month. I have always wondered what song that was from myself. μηδείς (talk) 02:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• AHHHH. Let me take a look at this. I may have some info on it.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Free styling: May 25, 1944 My dog has fleas; by David Rose Copyright entry.[1] 1947 publication (republication?) of song by David Rose [2][3] May not be related, but 1906 "Nero, my dog, sneeze, fleas, Nero has fleas." [4] 1931 reference to Nero my dog has fleas.[5] 1926: "Another parodied "Nearer, My God, to Thee," thus: Nero, my dog, has fleas, Nero has fleas; Although I wash him clean, Nero, my dog, has fleas. And thus, to the tune of "Hallelujah, Thine the Glory: Hellilujah, I'm a hobo, Hellilujah, I'm a bum"[6]. 1908: "-been in an hour fer th' first s-spring s-swim'S-s good fer us k-kids—an' m-my dog had fl-fleas!"[7] -- Jreferee (talk) 05:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

"in music about 1912, ragtime overturned the waltz and two-step. Traditional songs were "ragged," and irreverence stalked the land. The lovely "Mother Machree" slipped to "Mother Machree looked like a chicken to me," and the sacred hymn, "Nearer My God to Thee" became "Nero, my dog, has fleas.""[8] In the 1920's or 30's, Alfalfa used the banjo to sing to his sweetheart Darla, "My Dog Has Fleas" in one of the Our Gang episodes.[9] Bernstein's Emmy Award-winning series of 1958 until 1971 children's concerts had one where he showed how Strauss' and Shostakovich transformed a common four-note sequence (A--D--F-sharp--B, or "My Dog Has Fleas") into grand musical statements.[10] Abblasen's last four notes for the trumpet, heard on CBS News Sunday Morning, are close to "My Dog Has Fleas."[11] -- Jreferee (talk) 05:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

In sum of the above, the phrase could have origins from 1908, became a parody in 1912, had some popularity in the 1920s or 1903s, became the title of a song in 1944, referenced to a four-note sequence in somewhere in 1958 to 1971. I'm not sure how it got connected to the Ukulele. -- Jreferee (talk) 05:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all that research, Jreferee. The Tommy Dorsey/David Rose track does not seem to contain the 4-note motif, unfortunately. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 17:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

"My dog has fleas" tuning.

From our article Ukulele:

Ukuleles are commonly associated with music from Hawaii where the name roughly translates as "jumping flea,"[4] perhaps because of the movement of the player's fingers. Legend attributes it to the nickname of the Englishman Edward William Purvis, one of King Kalākaua's officers, because of his small size, fidgety manner, and playing expertise. According to Queen Liliʻuokalani, the last Hawaiian monarch, the name means “the gift that came here,” from the Hawaiian words uku (gift or reward) and lele (to come).

From a little research I have been doing on Hawaiian words lately- the origin of the instrument is based on another similar instrument from another country, the origin is not that distant. The name does literally translate in Hawaiian as "Jumping Flea". There is no song. The simple fact is that the notes mimic the arrangement intervals (transposed up a 4th) of the first four strings of a regular guitar when tuned. It is just a simple melody and the wording appears to have come from the Hawaiian word and simply expanded on with players who would mumble as they tuned. I am unable to locate the first known use of the wording, but it is not a song, just a melody that is easy to remember.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

But not a melody that has an independent existence outside of the context of ukelele tuning. That's the connection that my brain is looking for, but it seems it's destined to be frustrated. Thanks for your contribution, Mark. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 17:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Question about Jeopardy! TV Game Show

I have never understood this about the Jeopardy! TV game show. I am not a regular watcher; I just happen to catch the show on TV, here and there. So, I am not all that familiar with the game. But, at the very end, they have the final question (I think it's called "Final Jeopardy"). Each player bets a certain part of the amount of money that they currently have in their pot. Now, let's say that a contestant has $10,000. Sometimes, a contestant absolutely knows that he has the wrong answer to the "Final Jeopardy" question; in fact, sometimes a contestant will even leave the answer slate completely empty or marked with a series of question marks. Yet, still they bet a lot of money; let's say $9,000 or so, in the example that I gave where a player has $10,000 in the bank. So, what on earth would possess a person to bet any money at all, much less the great majority of their winnings, if they are absolutely certain that they have the incorrect answer? I have never understood this. Perhaps there is a game rule that says you must bet something? In which case, why not just bet $1 or such? Any explanations? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

You have to specify the amount before you see the final answer (you provide the question). Clarityfiend (talk) 03:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh? Before the "question" (really, the "answer") is even revealed, the person sets his wager? So, he is really going in blind, knowing only the overall "topic" / category of the Final Jeopardy? Is that it? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

That's it exactly. Just after the topic reveal and before the commercial break, the host asks the contestants to place their wagers. They do so, and upon return from the break, only then do they see the clue. Mingmingla (talk) 03:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

And the logic of how much to bet can also be quite complex, involving not only whether you are confidant of the category, but also how much money you and the other two contestants have. Then it gets into game theory, as you need to figure out what the other contestants are likely to bet, in order to determine your optimal bet, but, of course, they are doing the same based on your probable bet. StuRat (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Twice recently the leader at the end of regular play has bet more than they needed to to beat the runner up. Getting the answer wrong, they found they lost to the third place contestant who did get the answer right, but who could not have beat the leader if they had bet more conservatively. μηδείς (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The key for the leader going into the final round is to determine whether he/she has at least 1.5 times as much money as the second-place contestant. In that situation, the leader can bet so as to only lose if he/she is wrong and the second-place player is right. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and last I knew, betting 0 dollars is permitted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I am pretty sure I have seen that more than once.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Likewise, I just haven't seen Jeopardy recently. They do a good job with it, but I still miss the late Art Fleming ("the star of Jeopardy", as Don Pardo called him) and the cramped little TV studio with the game board made of cardboard and with guys standing behind it to pull up the numbers by hand and reveal the "answers". Anyway, if you've got more than double the points of the second-place player, you'd have to have a monstrous ego to bet anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I also have great memories of that version. One of the joys of summer vacation was getting to watch the show every day. The money they played for then was so meager. A person can win more money clearing one category of Double Jeopardy today then they could win in a full episode (or two or three) then. When Ken Jennings was on his record breaking run he would amass 20 or 30 thousand dollars during the first two rounds and then would only wager a couple thousand on FJ. He probably could have won half again as much as he did. MarnetteD | Talk 23:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that the method I had seen used over the years was - if you had more than twice as much as the next closest competitor you bet just enough so, if you got the question wrong, you would still have one dollar more then they did if they wagered all their money. For example A has $10.000, B has $3000 so A wagers $3999 so the final result would be A $6001 and B $6000. Of course the competitors who did this validate Bugs "monstrous ego" statement. MarnetteD | Talk 00:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I think I've seen that happen more than once too. That's still playing it safe. If they bet in such a way that they risked their guaranteed win, that's when egos come into it. Especially if they forget to phrase it as a question. Many years ago I saw a guy lose a huge daily double that way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I misread your earlier post. Taking yourself from a guaranteed win to a loss fits the description much better. In that case they should be made to walk through their various schools wearing a placard that says "I made a fool of myself on Jeopardy" or "My math skills are nonexistent" or some such. MarnetteD | Talk 01:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Somewhat related: Al Yankovic's song and video, "I Lost on Jeopardy". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Question about Beauty Pageants

There are many beauty pageants that are international in scope: Miss Universe, Miss World, Miss Earth, etc. I assume there are dozens of contestants from dozens of nations; thus, there must be dozens of different languages represented. How exactly do these pageants handle this (i.e., the fact that there are so many contestants, many of whom speak/understand a different language)? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe, in English-speaking nations, the contestants are required to speak some English. They often have to give a short speech, in English, after all. StuRat (talk) 05:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the rest, but the winner of Miss Universe is always from Earth. -- Jreferee (talk) 05:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Why has no-one protested about this outrageous planetism? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.213.83.178 (talk) 12:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I seem to recall a cartoon (The Simpson's or South Park ?) where the Miss Universe contest had a surprise entry of a gelatinous blob from another planet. StuRat (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

According to: "The Most Beautiful Girl in the World: Beauty Pageants and National Identity By Sarah Banet-Weiser (page 191)" English is the dominant language and other languages are only used when the contestant does not know English. At such times a translator is provided.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Rosebud...

This came up in a Facebook discussion lately. You all know the beginning of the film Citizen Kane, right? As Wikipedia puts it:

Charles Foster Kane, an enormously wealthy newspaper publisher, has been living alone in Florida in his vast palatial estate Xanadu for the last years of his life, with a "No trespassing" sign on the gate. He dies in a bed while holding a snow globe and utters "Rosebud ..."; the globe slips from his dying hand and smashes. Kane's death becomes sensational news around the world. Newsreel reporter Jerry Thompson tries to find out about Kane's private life and, in particular, to discover the meaning behind his last word.

Now the question that came up was, how in the heck did people (such as Jerry Thompson) know what Kane's last word was? The film clearly shows him dying all alone. Is this an error that went unnoticed in the film or can this somehow be explained? JIP | Talk 17:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

First, one would need to explain a lot of stuff in the Bible, such as Jesus being tempted by the Devil out in the wilderness where he spent 40 days, and how he prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane to "have this chalice taken from Me" and sweated blood. In the first case, there was nobody else around at all. In the second case, there were three apostles there but they were fast asleep. No witnesses to either event. But it's all there for us to read about if we wish. How can this be? Did Jesus relate the details to his followers? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Fantsatic question. I will say this, the nurse could well have been within earshot...but, according to "Lessons for Dylan: On Life, Love, the Movies, and Me By Joel Siegel (page 283)" He states that Charlton Heston told him a story about him and Wells being stopped by a fan at a bar one night asking the same question and pointing out that the nurse does not enter the room until after Kane utters the words. According to Heston, Wells grabbed the man and told him "Never tell anyone what you told me here today". So, it would seem even Orson Wells himself couldn't answer that question. It would seem that, the opening scene was filmed in a style that Wells felt gave a certain feeling. He just may not have thought everything all the way through.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

When interviewed by Thompson, Raymond the Butler claimed that he heard Kane says "Rosebud" when he died. This was the second time that Raymond claimed that he heard Kane say "Rosebud" (the first was when Susan left him) As interpreted in an article on Filmsite.org, "in reality, no one would have heard Kane's last utterance" and thus [Raymond the butler]'s statement "is not completely reliable", and in fact "It has been speculated that everything in the film was the dying man's dream".[12] Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course, following up with Mark Miller's comment, there is also the widely circulated anecdote that when Wells was confronted by friends about this discrepancy, he reportedly stared for a long time before replying, "Don't you ever tell anyone of this".[13] Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

What a great way to guarantee millions of $ of free advertising. Brilliant. But then, it was OW we're talking about. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the reporter was tipped off by someone in the audience. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed! a legend at 25 or so - question arising is what do you call something like this? An example is the novel Trinity which has the narrator narrating well after being blown up himself. Another is the clue to a TV drama is broken glass from spectacles which, in that time would have been plastic (of some kind) - but isn't the same as an out of place historic accident (like the red car in the background of a movie about Roman times) which the film editors decides to let stay. Anyone? Manytexts (talk) 08:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Star Wars Uncut

Is the film Star Wars Uncut available for download somewhere so I could watch it directly from my computer? JIP | Talk 19:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The official site has it up for full viewing but no editor should attempt to link the film to Wikipedia (and I have removed the links from the article) as violating Wikipedia's policy on linking copyright infringments. Same thig as linking something from Youtbe that is not the proper copyright holder. Sorry, but you can still just easily Google the name to find it.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

What would the copyright issue be, in this case? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I really don't know. It's not like the film is using any material from the official films. Everything has been done from scratch by unpaid volunteers. The claim that it violates copyright is similar to claiming I would have violated LucasFilm's copyright if I took a cellphone video of myself saying "May the force be with you" and made it available on the net. And anyway, my question wasn't even answered. I knew fully well I could view it on-line on the official site before I even wrote the question. I want to know how I can download it onto my own computer's hard drive so I can watch it directly from there without even needing an Internet connection. JIP | Talk 18:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

That's a question for the computer desk. μηδείς (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

It is on YouTube, so maybe your question is how to download movies from YouTube or rather then asking you could search the ref desk archives like this. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The Star Wars name, script and characters are the copyright of Lucas Films LTD. and Twentieth Century Fox. The film makers of Star Wars Uncut, did not get permission and the film is a re-enactment and public performance that violates US copyright. For that reason we cannot link to it.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

However...here is the deal, many of these fan made films are actually being "allowed' by the studios in an informal manner...however, not with formal written or official acknowledged permission (probably a CYA issue). I seen a fan film that was linked from the official site of the studio. If an official Lucas Film or TCF website has this linked, it is ok to provide that on Wikipedia.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

It gets tricky. Satire is protected free speech, and it could be argued that these fan-films are satires. (In fact, it sounds like this one definitely is.) Titles can't be copyrighted, although if the movie's authors were trying to pass it off as the "real" Star Wars, they could face fraud charges. Since they offer it for free (unlike "Hardware Wars", for example) then they can't be said to be profiting off it. My guess is that they are not violating any copyrights - but it would take a copyright-expert lawyer to give a more informed opinion. This kind of thing can come down to politeness. Al Yankovic has always sought permission from the artist he was satirizing. He doesn't legally have to - but he respects the wishes of the artist. If they approve, he records it. If not, he might sing it in a concert but won't record it or at least won't offer it for public sale. In olden times, as you probably well know, they got around any potential legal troubles by using fake names that would remind you of the original. That was also for comic effect, of course. One of the more obvious ones was the fictitious telegraph company Western Onion, a recurring joke in the classic WB cartoons. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes Bugs, that is correct...somewhat. That is, that satire is a part of "Fair Use" case law (you will find that there is no actual specific law in regards to "Fair Use", but a series of decisions) as are other factors. The name "Star Wars" may actually be trademarked and not a copyright, but the main issue is recreating Star Wars in the form of unauthorized, remakes and wehether they are a copyright infringement. In this reference [14], Creative Commons founding board member (and copyright expert), Lawrence Lessig weighed in on the fan made films and the tools Lucas films released, allowing fans to "easily enable remixing of Star Wars content". He basically states that these tools amount to "Sharecropping" (his words not mine) as Lucas films still owns the rights to everything created with these tools.

At any rate the issue for us on Wikipedia is simply a matter of who we link to. If the official copyright holder Uploads this then we can link it on Wikipedia. A "Fair Use" video is non free content. Linking is a violation of our current copyright policies and guidelines.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

So the argument would be that either (1) the creators of the fan video own its copyright; or (2) Lucasfilm owns its copyright. But either way, I don't see how linking to that actual video constitutes a copyright violation. There's a lawyer here (or used to be here) named Wehwalt (talk · contribs). I don't recall what his specific area of the law is. But he might be able to explain this situation to us (or to me, as it appears I'm the one who doesn't understand.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I've asked Wehwalt to comment. He's still active here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not my area of expertise (assuming I have any, that is). Wish I could help.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

So the Johnny Cochran-esque principle applies: "If in doubt / Leave it out." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

What is this Japanese movie?

I am trying to find out the name of a movie I saw about two years ago. It is a Japanese film in which a girl (about 13 or 14) a poor country girl, commits suicide after being sexually harassed by her male classmates who are mostly from the city. The film centres on a grandmother of a boy who participated in the bullying. The boys involved and their male parents seem very callous about what happened to the girl, and try to arrange a payoff of the mother of the girl who committed suicide. Eventually the grandmother reveals the story to the police, after much soul searching, and he is arrested.--72.69.185.198 (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Is it perhaps the South Korean drama Poetry (film)?--Mark Miller (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Considering the whole of the plot summary and date on this, I am going to assume this is the film in question.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Film Ratings

In the US, the film ratings have no legal force whatsoever (I assume). So, what is the incentive for the theatre owner to abide by the restrictions? Wouldn't the theatre owner simply want to let anyone in to see any movie, so that his revenue and profits increase? What motivates them to adhere to the ratings and turn away paying customers? Is there some contractual agreement somewhere, between the theatre and some other party (the film distributor)? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The Motion Picture Association of America film rating system (our article is need of help if you would like to contribute) or MPAA does not have any legal force behind it. you are correct. What keeps the theatres inline with this is the management of the individual theatres and the local community. At one time, movie theatres were simply owned by the Studios. They would be under public pressure to conform to ever changing ideas of morality. According to "The Film Experience: An Introduction By Timothy Corrigan, and Patricia White (page 49)", only films released by the major studio are required to comply to the ratings system, but that advertising and the ratings are closely tied. In other words...sponsors will generally keep the studios on their toes and the studios themselves will have to deal with the theatres that do not comply (after all...they still own the film and can pull it from any theatre at any time). --Mark Miller (talk) 00:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

(Some OR here.) Most theaters in the U.S. today are owned by large chains, such as AMC, Loews or Cinemark, among others. Typically their corporate policy mandates that the theater operators and staff follow the MPAA guidelines to the letter. Small independent theaters (especially those that have just one location) occasionally deviate from MPAA standards. At a theater where I worked, from time to time the manager — after previewing a film — would decide that the MPAA rating was inaccurate. For example, she might determine that a film rated R was actually not so bad, and would allow younger people in. Or a PG-13 film might be too intense for certain ages. Also, in a small town where the theater staff knows most of the young people who attend, individual judgments based on the individual can be made.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 00:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with the above, just to add tho there is a strong motivation for the main companies and film studios to 'police themselves' so-to-speak, a combination of both market forces (avoidance of boycotts or loss of customers and key financial demographic of families) and local, state and even federal regulations and/or laws that would create massive amounts of costs and red tape for both the studios and theater companies short of out and out censorship (tho what has been accused of as censorship has been 'legalized' at certain points such as Film censorship in the United States, and in other 'art forms': Banned in Boston and Tipper Gore's campaign, headlines the studios/theaters don't wish for in the future). ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 10:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)