Did anyone else see this recently aired episode? Were you also struck by the wonderful way in which it showed how two people can missunderstand one another in an argument, and take things the wrong way, then go too far? And it was all done in a way that kept us laughing. I had to rewatch this one! The retelling of the story to suit one's own convenience; the exaggerations, the leaving out of one's own words and deeds; it was superb. It happens mentally before it ever comes out of one's mouth. Even our favorite couple wasn't immune to the temptation. But in the end, they came back together and claimed blame and appologized. That's the key. That what keeps it alive.


Steve

BTW, if this one had a different sort of "feel" to it, it's because of the different creative team that created it: Writer, John Whedon, & Director, Hal Cooper

Yes, I saw it. The telling of an event from the perspective of 2 or more people is a classic storytelling technique. (I always felt the "talking fish" were kind of weird, though.) At its surface, it shows how perception, point-of-view and information (or lack thereof) affect one's interpretation of "the truth". On another level, it can shed insight on the innermost thoughts, motives and feelings of the storyteller.

This device was also used on All in the Family about a repairman's assistant who may/may not have had a knife. (I don't recall the episode title.)

It was also used in an episode of "Everybody Loves Raymond" called "The Can Opener".

Originally posted by SawgrassSteve
Did anyone else see this recently aired episode? Were you also struck by the wonderful way in which it showed how two people can missunderstand one another in an argument, and take things the wrong way, then go too far? And it was all done in a way that kept us laughing. I had to rewatch this one! The retelling of the story to suit one's own convenience; the exaggerations, the leaving out of one's own words and deeds; it was superb. It happens mentally before it ever comes out of one's mouth. Even our favorite couple wasn't immune to the temptation. But in the end, they came back together and claimed blame and appologized. That's the key. That what keeps it alive.


Steve


Steve, I agree. "The Night The Roof Fell in" is one of my favorites. I think at one time or another, we've all told a story to suit our own needs. That was one of the "little" things about human nature that the writers picked up on. Although I do have to agree that the "talking fish" thing was more than a little odd! :confused:

Kristen

I thought it was weird for the fish to be narrating also. I think that's the only time anything supernatural ever happened on the show, outside of the stuff that happened in the dream sequences. It seemed unusual for the correct perspective to appear first, as opposed to Rob and Laura's versions, since the correct version appeared last in the All in the Family ep (Everybody Tells the Truth, 3/3/73, w/ Ron Glass playing the black repairman) and in a Diff'rent Strokes ep where Mr. Drummond and Arnold tell different perspectives of what happened when a burglar confronted them in their penthouse.

Originally posted by jehobden
It seemed unusual for the correct perspective to appear first, as opposed to Rob and Laura's versions, since the correct version appeared last in the All in the Family ep (Everybody Tells the Truth, 3/3/73, w/ Ron Glass playing the black repairman) and in a Diff'rent Strokes ep where Mr. Drummond and Arnold tell different perspectives of what happened when a burglar confronted them in their penthouse.

Very astute of you to notice that, JE Hobden. I believe the writer chooses the sequence that, in their opinion, best serves the story (or, perhaps, the POINT of the story).

For "The Night the Roof Fell In", maybe the writer intended to show the audience that people may distort the facts:
(1) deliberately (in order to serve a selfish motive), or
(2) unconsciously (because how they FELT about the event was, to them, what mattered.)
Personally, I feel the latter explanation is why Rob and Laura's stories differed.

In the All in the Family episode, showing "what really happened" last allows viewers to focus on two critical elements:
(1) How Mike and Archie perceive each other, and
(2) Mike and Archie have different interpretations of the same people and events.
In this way, the revelation of the "truth" (shown last) becomes a secondary plotline. (I guess in that episode, Edith was "the fish"?)

Notice the writer decided that, regardless of order, the "true" story MUST be revealed to the audience.

I'd like to hear what other theories are buzzing around out there. Anyone else care to share their thoughts on this subject? If you're shy, send in your "spokesfish"!