"does the defence's case hold water? No"
-
Heidi_Smiles — 10 years ago(January 12, 2016 06:40 PM)
It was also obviously for dramatic effect getting his own witness to declare "THE DEFENSE IS WRONG!" would certainly have grabbed the attention of everyone in the room. And for him to calmly respond, "Are you sure?" lets them know that he's got it all figured out.
Pobre de Dios que no sale en revistas, que no es modelo ni artista, o de familia real -
JosephASpadaro — 9 years ago(April 25, 2016 11:39 AM)
ASBQ, I seem to be the only person who gets the point you're making. I agree with you. The line should have been "Does the prosecution's case hold water? No."
If you think that the correct wording in that sentence should be "the prosecution's case" as opposed to "the defense's case" then you have completely misunderstood that dialogue, that scene, and the thrust of the entire film.
Scenario 1- Let's assume that the lawyer (Vinny) said: "Does the prosecution's case hold water? No."
That means that Vinny believes that the prosecution's theory is wrong. And it should not be believed by the jury.
Scenario 2 - Let's assume that the lawyer (Vinny) said: "Does the defense's case hold water? No."
That means that Vinny believes that the defense's theory is wrong. And it should not be believed by the jury.
Vinny was going for Scenario #2 above.
The defense had a theory (and it was incorrect). Let's call that Defense Theory "A". After having a "light bulb moment" go off over his head, Vinny realized that his (old) Defense Theory "A" was wrong.
So, after his light bulb moment, Vinny discarded his old Defense Theory "A" and came up with a new Defense Theory "B".
So, at this point, Vinny realized that he had made a mistake. Defense Theory "A" was wrong. His new theory, Defense Theory "B", was correct.
So in Scenario #2 above, Vinny says: "Does the defense's case hold water? No."
In this dialogue, he is referring to his old Theory "A". The one that he now realizes is incorrect and flawed.
So, he is basically saying to the jury through Mona Lisa (Marisa Tomei): "Please don't believe my (the defense's) old theory. That was a lot of bunk. And I now realize that I was wrong. I made a big mistake. Instead, please believe my new theory. Now that I think about it, my new theory is correct. That's the one you should believe. And here I will present some evidence to prove it."
Now, do you get what happened?
By the way: I forget the details. But I think Vinny's light bulb moment came to him when he was taking a closer look at some of the photos that Mona Lisa had snapped. The photo with the tire marks. That made something click in his head. And he realized that his old theory was wrong, and he then developed his new (correct) theory.
There was also a play on words with "water". The word "water" had two meanings. (1) I think it had something to do with the specifics of the car (the engine or the transmission or something). But also (2) that the theory (the "old" defense theory) did not "hold water". That is, the old theory was not valid. It could not be believed.
- Let's assume that the lawyer (Vinny) said: "Does the prosecution's case hold water? No."
-
JosephASpadaro — 9 years ago(April 25, 2016 11:58 AM)
By the way, this is a
very significant
scene in the film, and it contained some very significant dialogue. Critical to the entire film and its plot, really.
In legal terms
: Vinny was getting Mona Lisa to say that Vinny's old theory was incorrect. The jury should not believe it. But his new theory was correct. And the jury should believe that instead.
In terms of their romantic relationship
: This was Vinny's way of apologizing to Mona Lisa. Vinny basically had Mona Lisa testify on the stand that Vinny was wrong and Vinny was stupid (his theory was wrong). So, Vinny was very self-deprecating. He humbled himself and demonstrated humility. He was saying to Mona Lisa: "You're right. I was a jackass. I can be pig-headed and stubborn. And, sometimes, I am wrong."
Also, through the court testimony, it allowed Mona Lisa (
not Vinny
) to assert out loud in court what the correct theory was. This made it all look like the case was won by Mona Lisa (since she stated the theory out loud) and not really won by Vinny (who had mistakenly proffered an incorrect defense). On the stand in a very public forum Vinny empowered Mona Lisa, who had been feeling helpless throughout the case and the film. So, Vinny arranges the scene so that he comes off looking like an ass. And Mona Lisa comes off looking like the expert who cracked (and won) the case.
Vinny did all of this on purpose, very deliberately. For two reasons: (1) to win the legal case; and (2) to repair the damage that he had done to his relationship with Mona Lisa. -
JosephASpadaro — 9 years ago(April 30, 2016 09:01 PM)
I just noticed that this film's FAQ Page (Frequently Asked Questions) addresses some of the points above.
The FAQ Page is here:
http://www.imdb.com/board/10104952/faq?ref_=ttfc_ql_op_2
.
Here are the two relevant questions and answers.
(1) Why would Vinny goad Lisa into admitting on the stand that his defense is wrong?
Other than the fact that Lisa is angry as a hornet and would love to get in a jab at him, Vinny is apparently using Lisa's natural tendency to argue in order to get her to reveal the evidence that he knows will win his case. All along, Vinny had been building his case on the possibility that there were two Buick Skylarks. Suddenly he realizes that isn't the case at all. However, he doesn't want to make it look like he is leading the witness, so he must get her to come up with the answer herself. He gets Lisa on the stand and allows her to tell the world that, in her expert opinion, Vincent LaGuardia Gambini is WRONG. There weren't two '64 Buick Skylarks as he had theorized. It was a totally different car, as shown by her own photographic evidence. For Vinny, it was the coup that allows him to win his case. For Lisa, it was the coup that allows her to win an argument with Vinny as well as to finally be of help to him. Case dismissed and love-argue relationship salvaged!
(2) How could Vinny be certain that Lisa would come up with the answer he wanted?
He tossed her a big hint. He wanted her to focus on the hydraulic system of the car. "Hydro" refers to water, so he asks her: "Does the defense's case hold WATER?" Get it? -
MyloMan30 — 9 years ago(October 15, 2016 04:04 PM)
Lisa isn't part of the defense team.
Also, you're splitting hairs.
It's not uncommon in a case for the prosecution to refer to themselves as "The prosecution" or "The State" and the defense to refer to themselves as "the defense." -
JosephASpadaro — 9 years ago(October 15, 2016 05:11 PM)
You missed the point of the original question.
The defense (i.e., Vinny) got up in front of the jury and elicited from Mona Lisa that the
defense's
own case does not hold water.
One would expect the defense to argue that the
prosecution's
case is the one that does not hold water.
The whole strategy of Vinny in this exchange is explained in more detail on the "FAQ" Page, which is located here:
http://www.imdb.com/board/10104952/faq?ref_=ttfc_ql_op_2#.2.1.18
.
It is the 17th (or so) question down. It is entitled "Why would Vinny goad Lisa into admitting on the stand that his defense is wrong?". -
erie-05478 — 9 years ago(January 07, 2017 03:19 AM)
My point is as far as legal terminology, it's not the defenses case. It's the prosecution's case that doesn't hold water, and that should have been the line. They claimed during the making of the film that they tried to be accurate with the legal procedures and terminology. They missed it by a wide margin, if members of the defense which include Vinny, and his girl friend on the stand, his line cannot be "Does the Defense's case hold water", simply because Vinny IS the defender in the case and the opposing team is the prosecution.
-
JosephASpadaro — 9 years ago(January 10, 2017 12:30 AM)
My point is as far as legal terminology, it's not the defenses case. It's the prosecution's case that doesn't hold water, and that should have been the line. They claimed during the making of the film that they tried to be accurate with the legal procedures and terminology. They missed it by a wide margin, if members of the defense which include Vinny, and his girl friend on the stand, his line cannot be "Does the Defense's case hold water", simply because Vinny IS the defender in the case and the opposing team is the prosecution.
You missed the entire point.
Vinny was specifically saying that yes the defense's case
his own case
was wrong.
One defense theory was wrong. The one that he put forth.
But, then, he came to a realization that he was wrong, and he figured out what really happened.
So, while the defense's "case" (first theory) was wrong, their second theory was not.
In any case, the defense would claim that the prosecution's case was wrong.
But, it would really make a juror's ears perk up to hear the defense say that the defense's own case was wrong.
So, it was Vinny's way to "alarm" the jury and to "wake them up". He wanted them to see that while the defense's original theory was wrong, their second theory was correct.