Jump to content

Talk:American Beauty (1999 film)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Breast augmentation?

There is a puzzling subplot in which Thora Birch's character is shown researching breast surgery. As a key point in her relationship with Wes Bentley's character, she shows him her large, rounded breasts through her bedroom window, presumably to signify her trust in him. It is unclear why she feels she needs surgery. It has been claimed that her breasts are visibly asymmetrical but it is hard to know if this is the point of the scene. If so, does anyone know if this is an effect or represents the actress's real breasts? Science needs to know!

Maybe it was just a mistake? The script called for someone with smaller breasts ... ??? -- Gaurav 17:08, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I think it's just part of the film's criticism of various aspects of modern american life and culture. Whether she wants them augmented or just evened out (hehe) I don't know, but either way, the fact that she at 16 (? I dunno, she's young, anyway) is seriously contemplating using her life's saving for plastic surgery remains as a point strongly critical of attitudes towards appearance among certain groups of people. --Teeks 19:18, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Honest to goodness there was a plastic paper bag floating around outside my window as I'm editing this page. It really was beautiful to watch, I couldn't look away.

:) -- Gaurav 17:08, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, I never figured out this part... —Frecklefoot 20:45, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The idea was that Jane Burnham felt she was ugly at the beginning of the movie, from some combination of low self-esteem and hanging out with Angela. When she met Ricky Fitts and saw the Most Beautiful Thing, Jane realized that having larger breast would not make her any more beautiful. When she shows her breasts to Ricky, it was because she trusts him, and because she is no longer ashamed of body. Brendan62442 01:03, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I believe it is implied that she started saving money before puberty and now no longer needs enhancement, as her breasts have grown into a natural bust and she was just too insecure to recognize this until he taped her... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 06:26, February 14, 2007 (talk • contribs) 65.255.79.219
What this fellow said. She was insecure. She hated herself. When she reveals herself to Fitts, I see it as her not only testing the waters of her own possible beauty, but also putting her trust in him. You know, sort of how every shallow teenage girl you see does, except with more emotional gravitas. --Studio Ghibli 03:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
she wants a breast reduction. i'm watching the movie right now. she wants the small boobs her friend has. why do some people hear "boob job" and automatically assume it's to go bigger? Phoenix frou 17:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
The term "breast augmentation," which is what she looks up on the computer, refers to breast implants, not reduction. I'm sick of having to revert this so often. --Jitterro 19:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm doing a film study on this movie right now actually. She definitly wants breast augmentation. In the beginning of the movie she wears a lot of make up. This shows that she has insecurities. Throughout the movie she wears less make up because she is losing her insecurities, her small breasts being one of them. She hangs out with Angela all the time, someone who is obsessed with looks. She sees Angela and wants to be "pretty" like her. However as the movie progresses she sees that Angela is truely ugly, so she doesn't want to be like her. She realizes that she's fine the way she looks. That is why she feels comfortable showing Ricky her boobs. This is also why when her and Ricky are going to run off to New York, she is willing to give up her money that she was saving for the boob job. As for if they are her breasts. I read on imdb.com that they are indeed her breasts and her parents and like child agency type people had to be on set during the shot because she was 16.-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 19:38, June 7, 2007 (talk • contribs) 24.189.75.41

Whodunnit

The text says that Col. Fitts killed Lester, but I thought Carolyn (his wife) did it to avoid being "a victim" (of divorce, I suppose). I only saw the movie once, but I was sure the wife did it. Did I miss something? —Frecklefoot 20:45, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

That's what I thought too, when I first saw the movie. But on watching it again, you can clearly see blood on Col. Fitts when he walks out of the door. Also, Carolyn is standing on the lawn, crying, when the shot goes off. Then again, I think this bit is left intentionally confusing by the director. Gaurav 10:42, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The screenwriter tries to produce a moment of suspense where you're not quite sure what happened, but once we see Fitts wandering about covered in blood, I found it pretty darn clear. I know a lot of people didn't catch it, but this seems to be a problem in the execution (no pun intended) rather than intent. It's been a while since I saw the film, but I've got a draft script and I think it drops some heavier hints than made it into the final cut. (But it also throws much more misdirection at you from the beginning.) --Brion 11:19, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
It is mentioned in the audio commentary, if I am not mistaken, that the opening sequence (where Jane asks Ricky to kill her father) was filmed when they were actually planning to have them kill Lester, but they later changed their minds. This (of course, along with Carol's actions prior to Lester's death) made for some fitting ambiguity, but I think consensus clearly is still that Fitts killed him. In my view, Carol was never planning to actually kill him, but rather to threaten/scare (although I'm not entirely sure), and was horrified by his bloody death when she returns, partly because it seems there is some connection between her thoughts and intents with regards to Lester: she intends to go home and teach him a lesson, and he ends up dead in the kitchen. --Teeks 19:05, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It looks like it's intentionally left somewhat ambiguous, but the blood on Lester's clothing and his behaviour is kind of a giveaway. Ambi 01:07, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Colonel Fitts's clothing ;) But yes, you're right. --Spug 13:12, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Colonel Fitt kills Lester because he cannot accept the fact that he is gay. He goes to Lester and kissed him right after his son (Ricky) is forced out of the house. He does that out of shame. The irony is that he is always the one who publicly denounces homosexuality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 14:15, July 13, 2005 (talk • contribs) 202.40.222.177
Maybe Colonel Fitt's kiss to Lester was along the lines of a kiss of death?? I RULE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 05:08, December 27, 2005 (talk • contribs) 210.84.14.221
It seemed very clear to me it was Fitt, but it IS significant that Carolyn was at least mentally preparing to use her pistol... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18:00, January 15, 2006 (talk • contribs) 128.230.121.224
I saw the movie just once, which was sufficient, and it was clear that the repressed neighbor did it. The wife may have had it on her mind, but didn't or couldn't do it. The only ambiguity was whether she had actually found his corpse yet, or was just shedding her narcissistic tears over her inability to shoot him. The neighbor may have been repressed, but being an old military guy, he was at least able to see a mission to its end. The best line in the movie was when the neighbor kissed Lester, and Lester said, "I'm sorry, you have the wrong impression." That line could have been a subtle shot at certain members of the media who were trying to label Spacey himself as gay. Wahkeenah 18:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I always thought her actions with the gun were intended to show her intent on killing herself, not anyone else. Although the ambiguity is intriguing. -- Ubergenius 17:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
As Carolyn walks towards the house you can hear a gun being fired; I think it is not even meant to be ambiguous but is made fairly obvious that Fitts is the killer. Lfh 21:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I came here to check whether I had misunderstood this movie as I have seen it several times and never paid full attention to it. I should have. Anyway my impression was that Col. Fitt shot him because he (Col. Fitt) was a repressed homosexual and couldn't handle the rejection he felt. The whole movie is about people feeling "weird" and rejected and yet each character has someone who "loves" them in their way except Col. Fitt who is alienated from everyone hence he kills his nieghbor as it wrongly appears to him that his neighbor has the best of everything. Well that's how I saw it, anyway. Fantastic film. NH 79.121.143.143 (talk) 01:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Divorce?

So far as I can remember, it is just Buddy Kane who mentions a possible divorce, it is never shown, am I correct? Editing now. --Teeks 19:24, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

From memory, Buddy Kane mentions that he's divorcing his wife. That's the only mention in the film. Ambi 01:07, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Lester and Caroline talk about Divorce in the scence where Lester is caught jerking off in bed... where he obtains his first victory over her by proving that he'd come off best in any possible divorce... Zerophyte 19:58, 07 Aug 2005 (GMT)

  • It would have been better if he had done it on the couch, since he didn't care about it. My guess is he figured he would lose it in the divorce settlement, hence the real reason he didn't care if he spilled drinks (or anything else) on it. Wahkeenah 09:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I was pretty sure that he didn't care if he spilled his beer on the couch because the couch is just a material posession, and didn't really mean anything. Mind you the same could be said about the Thunderbird he bought a little while earlier in the movie.84.64.154.53 16:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's why he didn't care about having sex on the couch. --Studio Ghibli 04:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The Thunderbird is actually quite different from the couch because, as revealed in the speech Lester gives when he is dead, he has a strong personal connection to the Thunderbird. --Wildwill2002 1:01 AM June 19

Normal vs. weird

"The social satire depicts a not-so-typical family with a sarcastic wife, an angry, rebellious husband, a teenage daughter, along with a number of other strange characters."

I feel part of the point of the film is that the family indeed is rather typical. On the exterior, they are a teenage daughter who responds sourly to her parents' attempts and communication (entirely symptomatic of young-to-middle teenagers), a career woman in real estate and a father working for a magazine, leaving the family in the upper middle class (I dunno, I'm not good with american "class" terms). Can the outward normality of the family, the facade be what is referred to in the title, American Beauty?

Anyway, I feel the fact that the family is "not so typical" is something only revealed when we go deeper (or "Look closer", which is the subtitle of the film), and that one theme of the film is that lives and situations such as those shown in the film are actually quite typical once one peels away the "American Beauty" by "Looking Closer"? I realize that this is a rather specified interpretation, perhaps even esoteric, I just felt the opening statement so bluntly concludes something I don't think is obvious. --Teeks 19:50, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're dead right - that sentence is missing the point entirely. Ambi 22:44, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I rewrote the entire first paragraph: I simply found it difficult to make some of the points made above come through without changing the nature of said paragraph entirely. Also, I don't agree the movie is ultimately about "finding your place". I mean, the film is very much about turbulence and revolution in people's lives, and harmony isn't at all achieved, it's simply Lester who emancipates himself, to the frustration of his family, who take refuge elsewhere. I'm thinking, if people can be arsed, we can work on a "Themes" subsection, since they are, when I consider it, rather diverse and complex (I don't want to go at it alone, since I feel it might be rather one-sided)? If anyone wants to start it off, I could comment on that. Anyway, comments on my edit will be most welcome. I also apologise for the horrible title of this talk section, I just couldn't think of anything. --Teeks 23:59, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Once again, you're right - "finding your place?". Bah. A themes section would be good, but this sort of topic isn't exactly my forte. I'll still help if I can though. Ambi 01:07, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
One very interesting characteristic of this film to me is the fact that the most TRULY normal (as in: happy, content, friendly, etc.) is the gay couple, which is far too often ostricized nowadays. -- Ubergenius 18:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

New additions

I have added a few sections. Most importantly, I added a section on theme. The theme was breifly discussed in the introduction and there is a section on films of similar themes, but there is no actual section on the themes. I think the page needed a better examination of the themes, since they are powerful and complex. I also seperated the section called "films on similar themes" into two sections. I did this because in this section there was only one movie mentioned, but two literary influences. I think this makes the section more clear. Also, the literary similarities were based on the way the works influenced the movie, not how they shared similar themes. I also added, quotes, trivia, and audience reaction. I think this is important because I think it is important for the audience to know how popular the movie was both in America and internationally. I only added two quotes, but I think they are the two most powerful quotes from the movie that sum up the themes of the movie very well. There is a lot of trivia that can be found from American Beauty. I think it is very interesting and that readers will enjoy reading this section. Finally, I added a link the amazon.com page for American Beauty, because it has interesting trivia and reviews. --Cblack795 01:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

More new additions

I added a theme about taking control of you own happiness under the theme section. I also added the other awards that the movie won besides the Academy Awards, including global awards. I think it is important to see the global awards so that the reader knows how popular this movie was across the world. --Cblack795 04:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

A lot of what you have added is good, but make sure that the page reads like an encylcopedia article and not a review or personal essay. Good luck. -Parallel or Together? 12:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

POV

This article seems to push the writer's POV in several parts. It needs to be better written to fit the NPOV policy. Sources should be given for the thematic claims/assumptions, too. And the plot summary needs to be completely rewritten; it isn't so much a plot summary as it is a collection of scenes that the writer liked. -- LGagnon 21:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Just rewrote it, or at least the summary part of it. Damn thing's so dense it was really hard to summarize. I leave it to others to decide whether it's better or not. Marblespire 23:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
The entire commentary section should be dumped as gross POV. I would do it myself if I cared enough about it. In case you didn't notice, the two gay guys (one of which was played by the guy from Quantum Leap) were actually the happiest and least conflicted characters in the movie, at least of the ones who were sober. Of course, they might have just been keeping up appearances also. Wahkeenah 18:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that "a wikipedia editor's speculation" is a credible source. 203.59.66.29 17:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Length

the 'Themes' section is really long, and needs breaks or subsections or something. Cornell Rockey 06:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Tone/cleanup

The themes section reads like a gushing review rather than an explanation of the themes. The tone is decidedly unencyclopedic. For instance:

  • One can say that Carolyn took Kissinger's saying "Power is a great aphrodisiac" too far!
  • The movie is marked by splendid performances from Annette Bening, Kevin Spacey, Chris Cooper, Thora Birch, Wes Bentley and Mena Suvari.

These are just two examples. It needs a thorough review from someone who knows the movie well.—thames 21:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

This may be an unpopular suggestion, but I'm going to take an original research hammer to the "themes" section. Everything which is speculative will be removed. That which is of minimal yet questionable merit will be flagged with {{fact}}. Get a blog, people, and stop posting crap here. savidan(talk) (e@) 20:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I took out a lot of the trash including most of the dimestore philosophy and the meaningless praise of the movie. I kept everything that could be remotely described as a theme but the tags should still remain until someone else can make the section NPOV and remove anything which is unsalvagable that I might have missed. savidan(talk) (e@) 20:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I have to disagree with some of the {{fact}} tags. For example, it is pretty obvious that Lester's request for a job with low responsibility is part of his desire to escape the shackles of his daily life. A similar "it's obvious" claim could be made about Carolyn's warning on spilling items on teh sofa, or the presence of roses throughout the film. The causes for Carolyn's affair are made evident in teh film, although I will agree to the other tag in the Adultery section. The other tags in the Themes section probably require quotes from the film, I assume, to give examples? Mnbf9rca 23:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Although I do agree that if citations can't be found, these bits of interpretation don't belong here, this should be easy to get around by citing examples of critics who have pretty much all interpreted the more obvious elements, like the roses and the almost-spilled beer, in the same way. A lot has been written about this film, so quotes should be easy to come by. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 17:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Reception

Hi. Just popped in because I noticed the cleanup tag, and am fond of this film. I've added a "reception" section, which I should be able to expand upon eventually, for critical and box office performance. I've got a few unsourced statements in there, but should be about to add citations by later tonight. Right now I'm not in love with the wording of the section prose-wise, so feel free to improve. This is an important film -- I'd love to see it up to featured eventually. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 17:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I realise it's important to include balanced reactions to the film (poor reviews as well as good ones), but for the former, can we do no better than the Village Voice piece? Quite frankly it's a poor piece of criticism, which shows no understanding of the movie or it's stylistic quirks (describing Les Bentley as "wooden", for example), and leaves me with the feeling that the reviewer was hoping for a piece of arty soft porn and was disappointed when the movie turned out to be nothing of the kind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 23:49, July 16, 2006 (talk • contribs) 210.54.64.84

Summary

Does anyone else agree that the summary is way too long? I'm thinking of re-writing it. Nqnpipnr 00:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I do. It's much longer than, for example, the summaries for existing articles on films which are in either good or featured status. I'd applaud a re-write. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 00:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I just tried to slim it down; not sure if I succeeded. As mentioned after my previous rewrite, this is an extremely dense movie—it does better for six characters than most movies do for two. I leave it to others to decide if the cleanup tag is still necessary. ~Marblespire 05:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Freud

How can this entire page not contain one mention of Sigmund Freud? This film is a (quite overt) warmed-over 60's counter-cultural interpretation of Freud's theory of repression (society's and the individual's repression of aggressive and homosexual tendencies). Has this been removed from the page, or was it never added (sorry, I'm really new to wikipedia)? -mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12:40, July 1, 2006 (talk • contribs) 70.118.235.125

Spacey's life as "messy"

I found this line in the second paragraph of the summary. Where does this even come from? His life is clean and orderly to the point of being sterile... that is his character's very simplistic problem, to which he has a very simplistic reaction. -mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12:45, July 1, 2006 (talk • contribs) 70.118.235.125

deleted nonsense

I removed a passage from the "passive agression" section that appeared to be instructions for a scavanger hunt. (and forgot to leave an edit summary, Whoops!)DevoutHeretic 07:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Film vs 1999 film

Why isn't the article at American Beauty (film)? It just redirects to this article, and unless there are any other films titled AB, having 1999 in the title is redundant. --DrBat 20:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I can't find any other films with the same title. I've listed this at WP:RFD. ----HughL [talk?]/[contribs] •  23:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
On IMDb, there is a 1927 film called American Beauty, as well. I don't think that one is popular enough to warrant changing the title of this article, though.--C.Logan 12:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thora Birch photo

If you think it's suitable, you can use Image:Tb-ab.jpg which is currently orphaned. (unless someone uses it it will be deleted in 7 days as being orphaned). --fs 18:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It seemed more useful to put it on her page, as it didn't have an image. Thanks for the tip! :-) --HughL [talk?]/[contribs] •  22:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
someone - in the image page - wrote that it would be 'fair use' only for the american beauty film and removed it from her page yesterday. (I'm not sure yet why) --fs 22:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
it seems it was just removed again. --fs 22:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
ok, I think the image page has now a proper explanation (it could still be used for this article though). --fs 22:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler

Spoiler warnings are nonstandard. Please review emerging concensus on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/RfC. If you feel that the spoiler warning is required, please reinsert it with a direct justification to the value of this article. There is no policy that requires such warnings, nor a guideline. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is the spoiler tag being moved around the article without discussion? Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Could someone please justify the placement of the spoiler tag at the top of the section? Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Having seen this on the Wikipedia:Third Opinion page, and read through the article, this article as it stands gives an extremely detailed, I would venture so far as to say unusually and perhaps even unnecesarily detailed, summation of the plot, almost going scene by scene to do so! I don't think that the only spoilers are at the end of the summary, and while I havn't read the entire Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/RfC, I have scanned through it and don't see how the placement of the tag at the beginning of the section violates the "emerging concensus" there. The spoilers definately begin at the beginning of the section.

I would go so far as to say that the section should be dramatically shortened, as such a detailed plot synopsis is not really necessary in an encyclopedia. Reading that I felt like I was watching the movie all over again. ONUnicorn 14:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that the themes section needs mention how Lester develops from living an average (and slightly boring) typical american live

"might as well be dead"

to being a happy chappy and living life how he wanted to; like the bit where angela explains that his daughter thinks shes in love and he says "good for her"

and when his wife shags "his majesty" and when he gets tired of doing what people say and when he buys the car hes always wanted to and when he starts smoking pot and stuff

... the phrase "whats the point in living if you dont feel alive" explains it to a tee.

i dont like the fact the way this article is written to make Lester a bad guy; he only wants to be happy and i think this is whats the film is about.

I don't like the fact that the themes part doesn't mention that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 16:54, August 2, 2006 (talk • contribs) 81.154.161.102

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

I think that the link between Martha from "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" and the character of Carol is pretty tenuous, sounds rather POV and has no citation to back it up. With corroboration, I would like to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 11:43, August 9, 2006 (talk • contribs) 81.151.255.9

Col. Fitts

Why did Col. Fitts kill Kevin Spacey? Jamesino 00:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Col. Fitts' motive was embarrassment about revealing his homosexuality to Lester. Sort of a "you know my secret, now you must die" type thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 03:00, April 7, 2007 (talk • contribs) 71.57.95.144

Plot shortened

Okay, guys. I've condensed the plot into a shorter and less verbose version. Let me know if anything displeases you. --Jitterro 00:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Good job! ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 14:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Lester's death

Doesn't Carolyn kill Lester? Someone listed that Colonel Fitts did. He just walks away after he is revealed to be gay.

There is a short scene at the end where the Colonel's chin and/or shirt are covered in blood and he is washing it off over the sink; it suggests that the Colonel killed Lester after Lester refused his kiss. Jay Gatsby(talk) 00:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
No, Carolyn didn't do it. It showed that she was walking home from the driveway when she heard the shot. It's clear that it's the Colonel, although I don't agree that it's because he refused the kiss. I think it's the Colonel's own self-loathing for being gay that made him do that.J.J. Bustamante 14:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Urine sample

"Frank Fitts is a staunch Marine Colonel whose militant attitude and insistance upon discipline and order in his house even includes having his son's urine tested. He has been repressing his homosexuality for many years, denying what he deems to be unnatural about himself, and, after Lester spurns him, he kills the man who rekindled those feelings."
-That probably would have been done due to court order... BlueRaja 08:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Too much trivia

While Lester and Carolyn are driving to the basketball game, Lester complains that he is missing the James Bond marathon on T.N.T. (Turner Network Television). T.N.T. has recently begun airing American Beauty as one of its 'New Classics'

Why is this of any importance? I say remove it completely cause the article has a trivia section anyway. TommyStardust 06:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it.--Supernumerary 03:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Prose and OR

The Production and Themes sections need to be converted from lists to prose. I know I am responsible for creating the list in production, but it's a quick fix for moving things from the trivia section to the appropriate section. A much larger problem is that the whole themes section has not a single cite and would get killed in a GA or FA nomination. These two things would immensely improve this article.--Supernumerary 03:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

Does anyone besides me think this article needs a "criticism" section. The film has not aged well. Making the marine character a Nazi and a closet homosexual was unfair to that character. And the floating bag schtick, at least in my opinion, was ridiculous. Other films that came out that year, especially "Being John Malokovich," remain very popular, but hardly anyone discusses this film anymore and it isn't rented often. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 00:00, January 8, 2007 (talk • contribs) 71.139.33.169

I agree. I might get around to it sometime, but I'm busy with other things now. You can do it yourself if you want as long as you cite your sources. (Just use [url titleofurl] and I'll take care of the formatting.)--Supernumerary 06:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
When I took a screenwriting class in college we did a big project discussing why American Beauty is a great movie, and why it's a not-so-great movie. I've been meaning to dig up some of the criticism from we used in that class and add some of it to this article, but haven't gotten around to it yet. BTW; if you do add criticism and want to source it from non-web sources (Magazines, books, etc.) take a look at Wikipedia:Citation templates for some useful if somewhat confusing fill-in-the-blank type stuff. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
How can character traits be unfair to a character? I think the film is still relevant today, for pretentious teengers or those who live the American Dream or those who repress multiple things. –Pomte 19:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there anything in the movie that actually states he is a Nazi? He has a plate from the Third Reich, but I don't think that's enough to definitively call him a Nazi. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.146.212.54 (talk) 21:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC).
I agree with the above. Just because someone collects paraphenilia from an era doesn't nessecarily mean they support it. He might have been a neo-nazi, but by no means is it stated as prominently in the movie when compared to his repressed homosexuality. Satiravelvet 01:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The movie actually makes the point that he is not a collector, he just has the one plate. ThatGuamGuy 17:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)sean

Colonel's gay?

On the main page, the writer states matter-of-factly that the Colonel is a repressed gay and evidence of this is in the kiss with Spacey's character. However, in my many times watching this movie (I'm saying this not as a point of authority, but rather as a sign of my never-ending confusion), I've always been left wondering (1) is he gay, (2) or is he simply so desperate to understand his son that he takes that particular course of action? It was never spelled out, so..

Not saying I'm right. Just would like to see another possibily mentioned. --Studio Ghibli 03:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that the Colonel was gay. His anti-gay slurs were just his way of repressing his own secret homosexuality. He hated himself for being gay so much to the point that he hated others who were gay. At the end of the movie, he was so distraught about his son leaving that his defenses were down and he let go of his homophobia. He killed the main character (I don't remember the name) because it was his way of smothering out his homosexuality again. I'm trying to figure out how his homosexuality contributed to his wife having what looked like a breakdown. J.J. Bustamante 14:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
See, you say that it's pretty clear--but, at the same time, after reading the entry here, I went out and talked to random coworkers about this, and all but one of them felt the same way I did. Granted, I only asked six, as I was busy that day--but, still, for something you feel is pretty clear, it's something that a number of people feel divided about. As for his wife, while it's never spelled out (nothing in this movie is, including his possibile homosexuality, which is why we're talking about it), I always assumed that she had some disconnect from reality (read: she has mental issues) because of abuse. Colonel obviously has no problem hitting people when they steer wrong. Mom never seems to know exactly what is happening, and her contributions (as far as dialogue are concerned) are always.. weird. --Studio Ghibli 17:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
As an addition, I also don't think Spacey's character declined having sex with the cheerleader because she was a virgin. Maybe this had something to do with it--but I think his -real- reason was because he realized that this seeming slut of a girl was, in fact, no different from his own daughter; immature, low self-esteem, and looking for something or someone to make her feel better about herself. Just pointing out how varying view-points make the main page questionable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Studio Ghibli (talk • contribs) 19:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
JesuXPIPassio/J.J. Bustamante, she had dementia. Altonbr (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree with the first guy. The col was just very distraught and my friends (college level) all thought too that the col was so distraught ("as distraught as just finding out your kid died for example") that he was trying to understand and grip what just happened. Its absurd to think that a gay man (I have 2 gay friends who agreed) that to believe the col was gay and would make a "pass" after just finding out his son is a gay-prostitute. A gay man wouldn't feel like making a move, on the worst day of his year. The fact is though that the writer said he is gay, so it's authoritative, but it is definitely not pretty clear, and the wording of the article makes it sound like "its pretty clear". 198.70.210.20 (talk) 09:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that your 2 gay friends can speak for every possibly gay person out there. Could a straight man definitively say what any other straight man would do in the circumstances? Anyway, Colonel Fitts wasn't a normal gay person either, he was a closet homosexual with an extreme case of repression. I guessed he was gay in the car scene after meeting the gay neighbours. When his son says "The make me want to puke my f***ing guts out", watch Colonel Fitts' expression before saying "Well, me too son." 211.31.167.52 (talk) 02:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The man is clearly a repressed homosexual, and Fitz was written that way by the original author who had fleshed out his character more. Originally Colonel Fitz had lost his gay lover in Vietnam. The son's final scene with the father is the moment when he comprehends the real source of his father's anger and abuse, and realises that his father never possessed any moral authority in their relationship. Further the expression in Fitz's face also shows that he knows that his son has figured it all out. Lastly the son's last lines to his mother show the compassion he feels for her in having to live in a loveless and abusive marriage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UpstairsMaid (talk • contribs) 14:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Colonel's wife

What's the deal with the Colonel's wife? The movie didn't seem to specifically address this. My theory is that she had to go through so much stress because of her husband that she had a nervous breakdown. She displays many of the classic signs of depression -- dullness, mentally-slow, numb. But if that's the case, how come she married that nutcase in the first place?J.J. Bustamante 14:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps she discovered and became horrified by his sexuality. Another role in a dysfunctional family, and they had no need to develop yet another major character. –Pomte 19:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Victim of abuse, I thought. Then again, I don't think the Colonel's homosexual.--Studio Ghibli 19:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree at all with this analysis. The Colonel, who is clearly a repressed homosexual, is another variation of Benning's character. Fitz's wife lives in a sterile marriage, untouched, unloved and utterly dominated by a clean freak disciplinarian. Her response serves to contrast the actions pf Speacey's character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UpstairsMaid (talk • contribs) 14:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The fast-food place

If Lester got a full year's severance pay from the advertising agency, how come he still got that job at the fast-food place?J.J. Bustamante 14:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

He could do whatever he wanted, and there is less pressure and more freedom at a low-end job. He doesn't seem the type of man to live unemployed on money, especially when he is seeking meaning to his life. Smile! You're at Mr. Smiley's. –Pomte 19:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Lester Burnham: When I was your age, I flipped burgers all summer just to be able to buy an eight-track.
Ricky Fitts: That sucks.
Lester Burnham: No, actually it was great. All I did was party and get laid. I had my whole life ahead of me.
So perhaps he is regressing back to a happier time in his life? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.57.95.144 (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

Themes

didn't have anything about the recurring theme of people not being their true selves. It seems to come over and over again. Take that scene where Lester and Carolyn are on the sofa. They nearly become intimate, but it's thrown off by Carolyn's pretensions of materialism as she wanted to keep the couch clean. Also that blonde girl tried over and over again to mask her true self by acting like something she's not. The neighbour masked his sexuality, screwing up everything in his life and his family. Apparently only Lester's daughter and the neighbour's son are the only ones who didn't live masked lives. Lester had a life like that before until he rejected it. His lifestyle of sincerity didn't conform to the standards of pretense that are around him, so since he was incompatible with it, he was killed. J.J. Bustamante 02:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with Themes sections is that they involve a lot of original research, and Wikipedia has some issues with that sort of thing. --Jitterro 05:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Um, the neighbor's son pretending to be a homosexual directly leads to a man being murdered. His "masked life" is more justifiable because of his abusive father, but it is inaccurate to deny that he is living a masked life. ThatGuamGuy 17:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)sean

Odd reference

Hey all, the fourth reference on this page is this...

"A wikipedia editor speculates that this may be parody of the chilling moment when Marlon Brando threw crockery before two women in A Streetcar Named Desire."

I'm still perfecting my grasp on citing sources, but this can't be the correct place for this comment, can it? Either way, I've changed it, so feel free to yell at me if it was actually legit. Jodamn 00:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, absolutely inappropriate and unreliable. –Pomte 03:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler/end warning thing

Should there not be a banner before the plot details/ending details are given away that warns of that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 16:12, July 15, 2007 (talk • contribs) 70.69.111.46

I just added them. I couldn't find a great placement for end spoilers that was accurate in placement but visually appealing so if anyone has something better feel free to change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22:47, July 17, 2007 (talk • contribs) 66.212.199.222

Missing reference

The song 'Don't let it Bring You Down' was written by Neil Young. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UpstairsMaid (talk • contribs) 14:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Unenyclopedic sections removed

Trivia

  • The bartender at the restaurant where Ricky works is played by producer Bruce Cohen.
  • On the DVD, Sam Mendes says that he gave Steven Spielberg a private screening of the movie, which drove him to tears upon finishing it.
  • The film’s tagline found on the DVD cover, "Look Closer," can be seen on a card or bumper sticker on Lester's desk in the beginning of the movie. The production designer had stuck it there at random, and it was picked up for use as the tagline, according to director Sam Mendes.
  • While the hand that opens the door at the end of the movie - when Ricky and Jane first find Lester - is assumed to belong to the actor Wes Bentley, it is actually the hand of director Sam Mendes.
  • The self-help tapes that Carolyn listens to are made by a certain "Dr. Alan Ball" - Alan Ball wrote the screenplay.
    • The content of the motivational tape Carolyn recites at the end of the film derives from Keith Raniere's Executive Success group (and suspected cult/LGAT).[citation needed]
  • The hand and stomach on the film's poster, a reference to a scene featuring Mena Suvari, are actually those of actress/model Chloe Hunter.
  • The filmmakers' original choice for the lead role of Lester Burnham was actor Chevy Chase, but he turned it down because of the screenplay's strong sexual themes, fearing that it would tarnish his family-friendly image.
  • Throughout the beginning of the movie, Lester is seen in various forms of prisons - riding in the back of the car, the data on the computer terminal resembling prison cell bars, looking out of the window at his wife in the flower garden - as a way of personifying just how trapped he really is.
  • Although the film does not give the location of where it is supposed to take place, in many parts of the film the area code (847) can be seen on various signs. This is one of the area codes for the northern suburbs of Chicago.
  • From promotional images, I gather that the film's title refers to the American Beauty rose. What connection does this have to the film?219.78.111.66 (talk) 06:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Angela Hayes: Jane, he's a freak!
Jane Burnham: Then so am I! And we'll always be freaks and we'll never be like other people and you'll never be a freak because you're just too... perfect!
  • The film was a major inspiration for the TV show Desperate Housewives.[citation needed]
  • The film is parodied in an episode (The Kiss Seen Around the World) of the popular animated television series Family Guy. In the episode, the character Peter Griffin is recording footage of his son riding his first tricycle when he is distracted by a floating plastic bag and muses on its beauty; God then shouts at him that "It's just some trash blowing in the wind! Do you have any idea how complex your circulatory system is?"
  • An episode of MTV's comedy series Celebrity Deathmatch also parodies the cheerleading scene.
  • The song "The Messenger" by progressive metal band Deadsoul Tribe contains an audio sample of Lester's boss saying "You are one twisted fuck."
  • There are many appearances of the floating bag and Ricky Fitts in the film Not Another Teen Movie.
  • In the 2005 animated film Madagascar, the lion character Alex goes through a hallucination sequence in which various slabs of meat fly at him because he has not eaten for days. The sequence uses the exact same music that is used in American Beauty when Lester imagines rose petals flying from Angela's shirt. Madagascar is also a DreamWorks film.

The above sections are structured in trivia formats. The information can be integrated into another part of the article, provided that the content is relevant and that citation can be provided. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Beatles and publishing rights

I removed the reference to Michael Jackson and Beatles publishing rights. The removed part is: '(original Beatles recordings have been rare in motion pictures since 1985, when the publishing rights were purchased by Michael Jackson)'

Jackson buying the publishing rights from some old Beatles songs has nothing to do with the tendency not to use real Beatles recordings in movies and having cover versions instead. The rights for the original recordings are owned by the Record companies whereas the publishing rights can be owned by anybody. Thus to use the original recording of a (say Beatles) song one needs permission from the Record company and the artist/performer. But to make a cover of a song one just needs permission from the person owning the publishing rights (can be the songwriter or whoever owns them) and not by the performer. Example: Lennon/McCartney are credited to have written 'Yesterday'. If one wants to use the Beatles recording of 'Yesterday' one needs to secure the permission of the record company (EMI), the songwriters or their estates if not alive (Lennon/McCartney or here Ono and McCartney) and the performers (The Beatles as a band). If one wants to record a cover of 'Yesterday' then this person just needs to secure the permission of the publishing rights holder (Lennon/McCartney, Jackson, or whoever bought them). As evident the latter option is much simpler so that is why people prefer to use covers for movie soundtracks. Less fuss, much cheaper (and gives a chance to new artists as well). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.5.241.167 (talk) 03:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Plot summary

I've replaced the somewhat oversized plot summary [1] with a briefer one from an earlier revision of the article. [2]. The much smaller plot summary seems to be perfectly adequate. --Tony Sidaway 02:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The plot summary seems to have ballooned again to a huge size (even longer than your first link above), and much of it is now more interpretation than description. I'd love to trim it down some, but before I do, if anyone has any comments or guidelines on what should stay and what should go, fire away. Blandoon (talk) 23:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Spacey's supposed asparagus improv

I just read the screenplay and it clearly states that Spacey's character is to smash the plate of asparagu against the wall. Should the relevant part of the Production section be changed?118.208.174.202 (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Did Colonel Fitz's wife have dementia?

Dementia is a non-specific illness syndrome (set of symptoms) in which affected areas of cognition may be memory, attention, language, and problem solving. Higher mental functions are affected first in the process. Especially in the later stages of the condition, affected persons may be disoriented in time (not knowing what day of the week, day of the month, month, or even what year it is), in place (not knowing where they are), and in person (not knowing who they are or others around them).

To me, she clearly had dementia. Now, most of the responses I've seen on here state that she was in an abusive relationship, but we saw no indication that that had occurred. Can anyone find any sources on this? Altonbr (talk) 19:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Name of the film

Shouldn't it be made clear somewhere in the article that the film is named after the American Beauty rose, which Annette Bening's character is seen tending and cutting in the front garden? Seeings as the rose motif is so strong through the film, shouldn't this be made more explicit in the text? 86.155.202.152 (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Beauty_(1999_film)/Archive_1&oldid=1092056678"