Jump to content

Talk:About Schmidt

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BS

[edit]

i just removed the following from the trivia section:

  • There is a snip-it of a town theater that has a marquee of the movie, Sideways, which was also directed by Alexander Payne.

as the film sideways came out two years after about schmidt.

Why is it, that of all people the ones change and remove text from an article, that haven't seen the movie at all? This is true and a fact: You see Sideways on the marquee! See the movie for yourself, before you begin shove one's weight around! Movie productions begins years (sometimes decades) before they are released to the public. So that's no point at all, the only point is: Is it true, that is in the movie or not? And the answer ist: YES. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.4.84.84 (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Being "true" doesn't make it relevant. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

another overly-subjective analysis

[edit]

This essay is riddled with bias and assumption, the author who analysed this film obviously thinks he knows it all but fails to keep it neutral.

The author makes statements such as:

"The audience hopes Jeannie will not throw her life away as her father has."

How can the person who wrote this state an audience's hopes? That's like saying there was one unified reaction (or that there is only one 'right' interpretation or reaction to the material). This whole essay sounds a little too assertive and states opinions as objective facts.

Another gem from the author of this page:

"The coldness of the relationships he has had with his empty and boring wife and daughter, both greedy, petty and materialistic women, is clear."

Woah there, I'm guessing a girl didn't write this essay. I think the movie views the women in Schmidt's life through his eyes, but to call them "greedy, petty and materialistic" is a bit of a misnomer when you consider that Schmidt is just as guilty of possesing those qualities.

There is also a reference to an argument over "meaningless trivialities such as cheap funeral caskets"

I think this scene is there to show the audience that Warren himself has his negative qualities, that he was neglectful and cheap and that could account for the friction between him and his daughter. Jeannie (Warren's daughter) is angry because she feels her mother wasn't given a proper burial, I hardly think that is a meaningless triviality.

The author of this essay overuses the words "insincere" and "cliche" to a ridiculous degree.

His interpretation of the climax of the film, when Warren gives his wedding speech, is also questionable. Would Warren really be 'redeeming' himself by makign a scene? Would his daughter actually leave her new husband if he had really spoken his mind? One could argue that Warren circumvented the need to speak up at the actual wedding because shortly before it, he implores Jeannie not to marry and is rebuffed. Maybe Warren gives the speech he does at the wedding because he's realized that Jeannie has made up her mind and that he ought to do what he can to keep his relationship with her intact (which might not happen if he, say, insulted her and her in-laws at her wedding).

The author states that "at the wedding...instead of doing what he knows to be right - and therefore acting in an ethical and moral manner - he deliberately lies." I think that's getting a little loose with the language, I don't think that for Warren to make a hateful, bitter speech at the wedding could be considered 'moral' or 'ethical,' and I don't think that he is being immoral by lying. Would it be moral to say to someone "You're overweight and uglly" if I honestly thought it? Would it be immoral to say "you look fine" to that same person? Does Warren 'know it would be right' to say something at the wedding, or is that more of an instict within him? I don't think the author of this page took all the possibilities into consideration.

Anyway, this article could be more neutral, anyone want to change it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.2.242.169 (talk • contribs).

I changed a small comment of bias. It mentioned his retirement dinner being in a "cheap banquet hall," when I would say quite the contrary. It shows it outside as Johnny's Cafe, and anyone who has lived in Omaha, like myself, would know that it is a semi-famous and fairly expensive restaraunt, as is evident by the way people not at the party are dressed in the scene. While I will agree that it was a cookie-cutter retirement party, the point wasn't that it was cheap, just meaningless. -GamblinMonkey (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

just my two cents about interpretation: At the wedding Schmidt clearly doesn't say what he intended to say; he's always restricting himself to what is socially acceptable even if he deeply understands that this behavior is what made his life a failure. The weeping at the end of the movie means, as I understand it, that even his relation to Ndugu (while he thougt he could buy a listening ear for what he can't say to others) is void and hypocritical.--81.57.250.145 (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed

[edit]

Even if this were a review, it would (like Randall) be "just not up to snuff." Roger Ebert would never make assumptions that this author has made about what the audience concludes. If I could review this article the way this author reviewed the film, I think I would sum it up this way, "The audience is shocked to find out that it did not react the right way to many moments that it may or may not have originally thought were poignant." For starters, as a member of the audience, I do not share the author's breathtakingly cynical views about the allegedly breathtakingly cynical nature of the relationships between Scmidt and his daughter and his wife. I would venture to guess that there are thousands of others that do not as well (though, I cannot assume and would not include such a guess in an encyclopedia article); therefore, the integrity of the piece is shattered. If I can find some time, both to watch the movie again and write an article, I could see taking this on. But, the audience will see. Swatson1978 22:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of hard to read, long paragraphes, so I edited. But I agree, this review has a very biased view. Somebody should change that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.13.116.124 (talk • contribs).

Differences from the book

[edit]

There are many. They should be mentioned. (I haven't read it, though.) ProhibitOnions 22:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be worth mentioning that the decision to move the story from the Hamptons to Omaha was a deliberate decision so that the movie could mock the flyover people that Hollywood despises and not the east coast elites that Hollywood adores -- such a transparent bit of bigotry against middle America -- cynical, and classless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.14.151 (talk) 11:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree completely on the reason for setting it in Omaha. Alexander Payne is from Omaha and many of his movies are set in the city. He doesn't dislike his home city or state, quite the contrary, he loves them. He's involved with the local community and stays true to his roots, rather than moving to Hollywood and forgetting where he came from. -GamblinMonkey (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeannie....

[edit]

I wonder, from the fight between Warren and Ray(?), if Ray was Jeannie's biological father, since the affair was 25-30 years ago before the movie took place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.119.200 (talk) 06:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on About Schmidt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:About_Schmidt&oldid=1197864275"