Jump to content

Talk:American Beauty (1999 film)/Archive 2

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

Expansion

Today, I incorporated details of the film's release mostly from the trade paper Variety, whose archives I can access through LexisNexis Academic. There is now a solid "Theatrical run" section that details the growth from limited release to wide release. Also in Variety's archives are piecemeal references about the film being released in various territories outside the United States and Canada, some of which are not covered by Box Office Mojo on its foreign box office page, such as Israel. Anyone willing to work on the article, let me know if you are interested in the references.

In addition, I added a couple of details to the "Critical reception" and "Production" section. The "'Beauty' design character driven" reference has much more information about the filming locations in the thematic sense, so if anyone wants the information, let me know as well. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice work on the expansion; as soon as I'm able to spend more than two minutes at a time in front of the laptop, I'll be pitching in. I've already started work on a sandboxed "Themes" section, but that's more of a long-term thing. The nuts and bolts of the article ("Development", "Filming", etc.) is what I'll likely look at when I'm up and able. Do you think American Beauty (soundtrack) and American Beauty: Original Motion Picture Score should be merged back in, sans track listings (at least in the case of the latter)? Steve T • C 20:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I had the same thought about the music sub-articles. :) Not sure about whether or not to include either cover, though... don't think we ever hashed out a consensus on including them or not. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

← For what it's worth, I read somewhere that Alan Ball's script was influenced by the headline-making affair of Joey Buttafuoco and Amy Fisher. May be worth plugging these keywords in Google with the film title and see if there's any coverage. I'll try to find the origin of this influence. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

There are quite a few cites to this effect; none free, unfortunately, but if one of these can't be retrieved gratis via your University account, I don't mind paying for the access. Steve T • C 18:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
This is what I saw before: "Annette Bening is absolutely astonished to learn that scribe Alan Ball modeled his American Beauty screenplay after the Joey Buttafuoco-Amy Fisher scandal. A quote from Ball in the New York Post read, 'I was as fascinated, repulsed and entertained by the Amy Fisher scandal as any one else. ... But underneath it all were human lives that had gone horribly astray.'" From: Hofler, Robert (March 8, 2000). "Having a ball: 'Beauty' for Bening is in the craft". Variety. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) I can look for additional information through these other results... just milking Variety archives for all it's worth at the moment. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Resources to use

Books that cover American Beauty:

  • My First Movie: Take Two (chapter where Sam Mendes talks about filming American Beauty)
  • Considering Alan Ball: Essays on Sexuality, Death and America in the Television and Film Writings
  • Movies and the Moral Adventure of Life (chapter on redemption and American Beauty)
  • Catching Light: Looking for God in the Movies (American Beauty one of 15 films analyzed)
  • Movies and the Meaning of Life (chapter: "American Beauty: Look Closer")

Wanted to mention the books here since the keywords "american beauty" are a bit common. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, all these books are available to me here at my university. I am moving out this weekend, though. I will try to see if I can pull the books and Xerox the respective pages to retain for expansion on a later date. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Critical reception

What kind of approach are other editors interested in taking with the "Critical reception" section? I do not think it will be too difficult to cite the overall contemporary consensus, which is very favorable based on my research so far. It may also be worth exploring to see if that consensus has changed over the years. I recall seeing a couple of references from the past few years or so challenging the greatness of American Beauty, but I don't know if these were minority views or not. In addition, in selecting critical opinions, we should try for a mix of reviews from newspapers and magazines and film journals (Sight & Sound comes to mind). Thoughts? —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I know what you mean; I recall occasionally seeing more recent comments that call it less than great, but I agree that these would be difficult to cite in any meaningful way to reflect modern consensus; even if one of them flat-out said, "American Beauty is no longer held in such high esteem," I think they'd have to "show their working", so to speak, to prove they weren't trying to slip minority opinion into the popular conciousness. On the second point, with the weight of material available, I think we can really go to town on the "Critical reception" section; we have a large pool of reviews from all types of sources and several territories. Steve T • C 19:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
We'll see what we find in our research about the evolution of consensus. Do you want to take the Changeling approach for this section with interwoven reviews? I am thinking that we could vie for more in-depth reviews (these may be in magazines and film journals) for interweaving, since reviews in newspapers tend to be shorter (and mostly filled with plot detail). We could probably do around four of these, and if we can find one negative review of the same depth, we could follow the consensus paragraph with exploration mostly of what was liked and a touch of what was not liked. Would this setup or a similar setup work? —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Two of the longer reviews I found for this kind of setup are the Film Quarterly review (5 pages, positive) and the Cineaste review (2 pages, negative). Think these are viable candidates for an interwoven-type section? —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed; it would be nice to use reviews not from the usual suspects (Todd McCarthy of Variety should pay me a commission for all the publicity). I know not everyone is a fan of the interwoven critical reception section (you've expressed misgivings in the past), so if you reckon there's a better way we can approach it, I'd be fine with that. But if we do go ahead with the interwoven type, I'd hesitate to use just one negative review; it seems kind of limiting. For example, when I wrote Changeling's reception section, apart from the early reviews, where possible I tried to select critics and comments that were representative of the types of comment the film received. Selecting from just one review limits our options on this score. I'm sure we can present a section that's sourced from more than one negative review without putting any undue weight on the aspect. Alternatively, sticking to your suggestion might mean we can put less emphasis on the critics' section, and focus more on the consensus statements; in the end, that might be the best approach. Steve T • C 14:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Re: McCarthy, I feel the same way about Ebert. :) I think I am on the fence on how to present critical reception sections these days. My traditional approach (one critic after another) seems to lack flow, and your interwoven approach is complex to execute. There are not really resources that say, "From our assessment of contemporary reviews, some critics felt this way, other critics felt that way." We're left to our own devices here. In regard to reviews for American Beauty, I have not taken a look at any reviews, but the negative one is fairly substantial in being two pages long. It may be worth listing other negative reviews and seeing if the Cineaste review covers these points. We should probably try to list here all the detailed and authoritative reviews, positive and negative, to see if there is any kind of trend. We can then use editorial discretion to provide an ideal presentation. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Theatrical run

I was looking at this today, and I think that the fluctuation in the number of theaters in the United States and Canada is interesting enough for a graph. I was thinking a line graph of the United States and Canada theatrical run from beginning to end, showing the number of theaters every weekend (sectioned by month). I think this would be more interesting than most films (which usually start high and plummet). It would be a new element to include in such a section, too! It would be a free kind of visual aid as long as I use the right software to graph the data, I think. Any thoughts on this proposal? —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea. I considered graphing something over at Changeling (film)#Release, but couldn't think of anything suitable, but the unusual way in which the cinema expansion occurred for American Beauty seems like an ideal candidate (if it's any help, The Numbers has a more in-depth breakdown in its second chart). Steve T • C 19:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Nice image to go with the "Theatrical run" section! I was wondering if it could be tweaked, though. Could the years and the theater numbers (perhaps just the thousand milestone) be larger? One has to click through to see any kind of wording in the graph. Or maybe the image could be resized in the article body? Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 01:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Either seems like a good idea. I don't have it on this computer, but I'll try a couple of different presentations on Monday or Tuesday. Steve T • C 19:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed passages

I'm moving a couple of passages here from the article body. The first paragraph is cited, but I'm unconvinced that the sources didn't just get their information from the film's IMDb trivia page, as I haven't seen the claims repeated elsewhere:

The role of Lester Burnham was originally offered to Chevy Chase, but he turned it down. Jared Leto campaigned for the role of Ricky Fitts, and Jake Gyllenhaal had an audition. Terry Gilliam was offered the job as director.[1][2]

The second lacks citations, and I haven't (yet) been able to locate anything to back up the claims:

Mendes designed the two girls' appearances to change over the course of the film, with Thora Birch gradually using less makeup and Suvari gradually using more, to emphasize their shifting perceptions of themselves. During the movie's second dinner scene, Spacey was only supposed to throw the plate of asparagus onto the floor. However, while shooting, Spacey improvised and pitched it at the wall, bringing about genuine reactions of shock to Bening and Birch's faces.

As and when I run across reliable sources, these will be added back in. Steve T • C 09:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

films with a pedophile theme category

I think this category should be removed because:

the girl is 17 not a prepubescent as a "pedophile" is defined

and he doesn't actually do anything with/to her. ——Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.70.195 (talk • contribs)

There's some analysis I might add at a later date that could warrant its reinstatement, but I've removed it for now, per the above. Steve T • C 22:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Video

Inspired by recent examples elsewhere, I've been toying with the idea of adding a fair-use video clip. One that I think has a strong rationale is the scene in the gym that's described and analysed in the second paragraph of Music & temporality. It would help to illustrate the unusual use of music and visuals in a way that is perhaps not quite possible with text alone. To strengthen the rationale, I think there are a couple more sources that discuss the film's use of "repetitive motion" sequences, which this scene is just one example of, and perhaps a little of the description of "vertical time" could be reintroduced from American Beauty (film)#cite note-97. I might be able to throw something about roses in there too. I've done some preliminary video editing, and to show the beginning and end of the scene (the interruption and return of "normal" time), the clip lasts about a minute. This is twice as long as the one used at Star Trek: First Contact#Effects (a featured article), so I've been a little hesitant about uploading it so far. So I thought I'd open it up to the floor. :-) Oh, and for those not 100% familiar with the scene, it may be possible to see it at a certain popular video sharing website by searching for "American Beauty Lust at First Sight". Cheers, Steve T • C 23:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The clip is a good choice, particularly because I think it's a fairly famous sequence that now has a lot of context behind it. I can't see the clip being any shorter than the minute that you're envisioning. Do you think you could forego additional fair use content in the article just for this clip? It may help to make this the only fair use item in the article body. Damn the torpedoes, I say... Erik (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, that's the thing; I think the clip can be used to illustrate several aspects, so that other fair-use content may ultimately be unnecessary: the aforementioned "non-diagetic" music and visuals, the repetitive motion sequences, Lester's projecting adult sexual behaviour onto the "child" Angela, the visual framing of Lester as being in a cell, suddenly released by the encounter (I think there are sources that explicitly cite this scene as one of those—I'll take a look), and the use of roses exploding from Angela's chest to symbolize his lust (among other things). I've asked David to weigh in too, as he's got the non-free content policy experience. I've still got a little more to learn about the actual editing and re-encoding process, as the tests I've done aren't perfect, so there's no real rush to add anything yet. Cheers, Steve T • C 08:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not exactly what I wrote to give you that impression, but I actually haven't seen American Beauty (I haven't seen Fight Club either. And I just watched Citizen Kane two days ago. But hey, I've seen Casablanca, which counts for something :P ) Anyhow, on the use of a video... the length is exceptionally long compared to established precedent, but a minute would still only be 0.8% of the entire film, so it's not a major issue in terms of the portion being used under fair use (as far as I know the First Contact clip is the only vetted non-free video on the Wiki). Keeping the bit rate to around 1000KBps firmly entrenches it as low quality, web-optimized media (it wouldn't be supplanting a bootleg digital copy made off the DVD, et al.) Really, it just depends how much critical commentary and significant illustrative aspects you cram into the clip that can't be adequately explained with something less than a video. Picking up on a thread by Erik above, there's no (policy-based) limit whatsoever to how much non-free content is in an article. What matters is that each is defensible via WP:NFCC; you don't have to "balance" some non-free content against others unless some are weaker or can be replaced by a superior non-free (or "good enough" free) resource. Admittedly, having too many images, etc., you might get added scrutiny upon review, and that might start wearing on the overall non-free small portion clause of NFCC, but that's highly unlikely. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
When I mentioned foregoing other fair use content, I had in mind editors who may complain of the video clip and multiple other screenshots, even if all the content is justified in contextual significance. The word "significance" can be interpreted very strongly to either end of the spectrum; one end insisting we don't need fair use content for illustration (Fasach Nua, anyone?) and the other end insisting that humans are visual creatures and that of course the fair use content will be significantly illustrative, weakness of context be damned (I actually heard this argument a couple of years ago). Basically, in the real world, a one-minute video clip is a big push... it would be easier for others to swallow if there was not much other fair use content, policy or no policy. I do like the 0.8% argument, though, reminds me of Steve's plot:article ratio retort to DreamGuy not too long ago. :) Erik (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that Steve follow a similar rationale that I put in File:S03-the search for spock enterprise destructs.ogv and File:S08-first contact borg queen assembled.ogv. Yes, it's a much bigger chunk than an image (which is why its rationale needs to be correspondingly stronger), but it's still a very minimal portion of a complete work. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Screw it, you're right (both of you); a minute is minimal and I reckon a strong rationale can be crafted. And what's the worst that can happen? It gets rejected by the community and deleted at some point. Woo. :-) No-one's going to hold it against me, I'm sure. Thanks for the pointers; be assured I'll come knocking if I can't get it working. :-) (Oh, and I assumed you held the film in low esteem because of your "Ach, Beauty? Well, at least it's not a David Lynch film" comment, but I totally read that wrong, I see.) Cheers, Steve T • C 22:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I was just referring to the amount of thematic and over-analysis some people throw at these films... maybe Beauty actually merits it, I dunno. :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Interpretations and Production

I think that the Interpretations section should be placed above the Production section. The move seems appropriate because this film is thematically driven, and the production value of the film is not as "high" in importance. Themes and interpretations seem to be the truer historical highlights of films, particularly this one. What do others think? Erik (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, why not? It can't hurt to see how it would look. I probably won't do it right away, as some minor rewording may be needed to place the material in context, but I'm intending a thorough copy-edit soon, which might be the ideal time. Steve T • C 20:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
No rush about the placement; the notion was in my head lately. For films like this and Fight Club, people are interested in the meaning behind the film more than how it was put together. (The Transformers films would definitely be more about production, uh, value.) Erik (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I made the move at Fight Club (film), and I think it is an improvement. I did the same with American Beauty (film) and only previewed it. I was wondering, do you recall why you chose "Interpretations" over "Themes"? The word "Themes" seems like a stronger section heading to have after the plot summary. Erik (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Broader scope. The sections seem to discuss more than just the film's themes, while "Interpretations" allows the inclusion of that material and more. On the possible section move, it looks good at Fight Club, and I'm previewing on Beauty now... I'm not sure how American Beauty (film)#Authorial intent would play coming before the production sections "Writing" and "Editing", which detail the deviations from Ball's script that "Authorial intent" interprets. Something extra is required to give it context, but I don't want duplicate too much or bog the section down with production details. I'll have to play with the wording a little. Steve T • C 20:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
The change looks good! I think it flows better now. Erik (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

State of play

Toolbox

OK, so I'll probably be giving this a featured push at some point in the next month or so, but I wanted to drop a brief list of where the article's at in terms of its deficiencies, just so I've got something to keep track of to strike off as-and-when. Anyone else should feel free to add to this list if they think of something I haven't:

  1. Images: despite the use of the video, I'd still like to add a fair-use screenshot, perhaps something in "Interpretations" to illustrate the depiction of Lester as being in a series of jail cells, if it can be justified. A shot of Lester's reflection behind columns of numbers on a computer monitor might be a good candidate.
  2. Ideally, I'd like to fully cite the "Plot" section, but it's not been a problem on previous film FAs, so this is more of a whim.
  3. Missing cites in "Music" and "Casting".
  4. Alt text needs adding to each image.
  5. Add which critics included the film in their "Top Ten" of 1999/1990s; add any other notable "Greatest Film" magazine polls and the like.
  6. Every entry in "Awards and honors" needs citing. It shouldn't be a problem, but it'll add sooooo many kB that I'm beginning to think it wouldn't be a bad idea to cite the IMDb page after all. :-D
  7. Break out the awards list into List of accolades received by American Beauty or similar; write a cited prose summary of the most notable for this article.
  8. The "Casting" section seems a little anaemic; I haven't seen much in the sources to remedy this.
  9. Still not happy with how "Interpretations" is structured; "Conformity & beauty" is oppressively long, and isn't a good title for the content. Re-ordering with one more subsection might resolve matters.
  10. COPYEDIT!
  11. ???
  12. Profit.

And that's all the weather! Steve T • C 00:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

We need to look for ways to trim the article. I think "Theatrical run" could be compressed to remove one or two paragraphs. "Critical reception" is an awfully big wall of text... I know you've stitched the reviews together for flow, but it is still an awful lot to say about a film that is pretty critically acclaimed. You could also move "Awards and honors" to List of awards and honors received by American Beauty and leave behind a summary paragraph. Hard to say if there is anything to be done about "Interpretations" or "Production". I would recommend an "Interpretations" sub-article because I think there is more material available. Movies and the Meaning of Life has an "American Beauty" chapter, and Considering Alan Ball has three chapters about American Beauty alone. Of course, a sub-article would displace the video clip... :\ Just my preliminary thoughts responding to your list. Erik (talk) 02:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I think you're right about both "Theatrical run" and "Critical reception", though I think there's an awful lot that can be removed through copyediting alone—I'll see how that pans out to begin with. As for "Interpretations", I think I'd prefer to keep it here for now if we can. I took a look at Considering... a while ago; I think most that could be taken from that book would be... fine detail... for if and when we come to do a sub-article. To my eye, we've covered the main beats, leaving the section a reasonable summary of the subjects that tended to be the focus of scholarly analysis. What do you think? Steve T • C 09:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
For "Interpretations", it depends on how much material you left out from the references used. The "main beats" are 3,712 words (or over 16 full paragraphs), which does not seem like a summary. We're kind of in terra incognita when it comes to academic coverage of a film -- how much should be covered in an encyclopedia? I probably avoided answering that question by creating Interpretations of Fight Club. :P My perceived "Interpretations" summary would be smaller than what exists... maybe a paragraph for each subsection? (That is, if an "Interpretations" sub-article is created.) If you think copy-editing will help, do that before doing anything major to "Interpretations". Erik (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't think I explained myself brilliantly. What I mean is that I think the section is a comprehensive detailing of the subjects that were the main focus of the academic coverage—the "main beats" as it were (with a couple of exceptions I thought were useful enough to include anyway). So it's not intended as a summary, but more a reflection of due weight. :-) The other subjects, IIRC including those in Considering..., are those that haven't gained much traction or that few scholars or reviewers covered. It's these that would be more suitable for a potential sub-article, if at all. Buy yes, you'd be surprised at how much can be trimmed; upon re-reading, I also think I've hewed a little too close to the source text in a couple of places, so paraphrasing those paragraphs adequately should help a lot too. On a point I ignored above, copy-editing or no, I think it's certain that a separate list article covering the awards and honors will be required—just looking at the IMDb page reveals a bunch of probably-notable ones we don't even mention here. Steve T • C 13:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
You may be interested in this discussion about awards sub-articles. "List of awards and honors" may not be the way to go, but not sure what the answer is yet. Erik (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, so I've made a start at List of accolades received by American Beauty, basing the format on List of awards and nominations received by WALL-E. The content has been removed from this article, so all I need to do is write the cited prose section here and at some point fill in the rest of the entries on the list page. Updated "to do" list accordingly. Steve T • C 12:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest shortening the Interpretations section. It currently reads as a paraphrase of two specific works of academic literature. It would be better to instead to simply list the themes of the film with citations pointing to the articles. This would also allow for greater expansion into other interpretations of the film not included in the existing lengthy section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gummyfrog (talk • contribs) 20:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
It's definitely in my mind to have another crack at the section to shorten it; not so much to allow room for additional content, just because the article is too long as it stands. To my mind, what the section needs to detail are the subjects that have received the most academic coverage. This, I think it does. Any other interpretations—the minority-view subjects—would I think be more suitable for a potential sub-article. With the amount of analysis this film has received, even trimming it down to more of a list wouldn't be enough of a space-saver to accommodate everything. In summary, then: dunno. Opinions invited. Steve T • C 20:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, tough choices time. I haven't given the section a copy-edit yet, but I'm thinking that the last three paragraphs in "Cinematography" might be too much for the scope of this article; rather than helping with the overview, they're detailed examinations of Hall's lighting choices in three scenes. I'm torn, so any opinions on way or the other would be appreciated. Steve T • C 12:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the paragraphs are too much for the article's scope. Maybe two points in these paragraphs that you could preserve for elsewhere are the misunderstanding between Hall and Mendes as well as Hall's use of rainwater in the last scenes. Just does not need to go into a lot of detail. Erik (talk) 12:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I've trimmed it quite a bit for now; I'm wondering if you think that's enough to justify their inclusion, or if it's still best that they're (mostly) removed? On a similar point, do you think the restructuring of "Interpretations" works? I think the additional subheadings at least help avoid the appearance of the old wall o' text, making it a bit more palatable for the reader. Still unsure over the section names, however, and it might be that the TOC is a bit long. Steve T • C 23:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it is best that they are mostly removed. The article is still really large, and specifics like the paragraphs in question are too narrow for the scope. I like the section headings, too -- they make "Interpretations" more digestible. Erik (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, with the recent copy-editing, removals of multiple interesting-but-useless quotes, and major trims to "Theatrical run" and "Cinematography", we're down to 125 kb from a high of 137. I'm struggling to identify what else could be removed, but I reckon that the length can be justified given the coverage the film has received. Plus, I haven't finished the copy-edit, so that 125 will come down a little more yet. If you see anything else that doesn't quite fit, just let me know; I'll whinge and try to copy-edit my way out of it for a while, but ultimately I'll end up following your advice. :-) Steve T • C 00:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Why not shorten the "Critical reception" section? It seems to me that a short section is easy to write because this film was so critically acclaimed, as opposed to films that divide critics or films where only 3/4th of them like it. Erik (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I thought you'd say that. :-) No worries; re-reading the section, I think it could use some trims. I was wondering, do you still have the pages from the Lowenstein book? Near the end, there might be something useful I can add about the retrospective critical reaction; the interviewer implies something of a backlash in recent years, with which Mendes partially agrees, admitting the film was probably overrated at the time of release. I was wondering if you think the implication is enough for me to cite a brief sentence about said backlash? (If you don't have the pages, I'll reproduce the interview portion here when I get the book in front of me later.) Steve T • C 08:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Haven't had the book since last May, unfortunately. The backlash actually would not surprise me; I've seen a bit of negativity from retrospective articles about the film (a quick Google search affirms the mood). A brief sentence sounds good. Erik (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Finding a suitable source is proving more difficult that I'd thought. The Lowenstein book is a good start. Mendes says, "What happens with movies ... that are as successful as American Beauty, is that there is the inevitable backlash". He then comments on the trend in general, ignoring American Beauty, before concluding, "I thought some of it was entirely justified—it was a little overpraised at the time." That it isn't clear-cut enough for me. Mendes implies, rather than states what I need outright. It'll do as a supporting comment at best. Looking through the above search results, and a search substituting "backlash", and there are thousands of results, many of them from bona fide reliable sources. But they're almost all individuals' opinions: critics who disliked the film, felt it was overrated etc. That won't cut it, either, without a flagrant disregard for WP:SYNTH. Thing is, this reappraisal definitely seems to exist, but I haven't managed to find a high-quality source that unequivocally comments on any backlash, saying something as simple as, "In the years since its release, American Beauty's popularity among critics has waned," or similar. Of those that do say it straight up, the best I've been able to find is one from Hitfix, which I think is probably not RS. Any ideas? (Oh, and this doesn't cover it either, as it simply mentions the pre-Oscars backlash and nothing else. Steve T • C 23:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Added a short paragraph about the backlash. It's not great, but it gets the point across. Steve T • C 14:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

See also

Should we give the "See also" section the shaft? I think we could link to 1999 in film at the beginning of "Critical reception". Cinema of the United States is not particularly useful, though List of American films of 1999 seems more usable. (I suggest this based on this discussion.) Erik (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea; it's always brought up at FAC anyway that the links, if useful at all, should be worked into the text. Steve T • C 22:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, it's gone. I struggled to find somewhere to dump List of American films of 1999, but a source fell into my lap that provided the opportunity to incorporate it. Let me know if that's not what you had in mind. Steve T • C 22:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


Consistency

How does one reconcile "film critics are similarly divided, not so much about the quality of the film as their interpretations of it" with "A few months after the film's release, reports of a backlash appeared in the American press, and the years since have seen its critical regard wane" ? jnestorius(talk) 00:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The first statement has more to do with at-the-time reception where the latter is more in retrospect. I don't know if there's a name for it, but I think there is a tendency to respond to overwhelmingly positivity with some negativity. Basically the claim at some point that the film is overrated. We kind of saw this with Avatar, which was more critically acclaimed out of the gate, but as time went on, there was a lot of criticism about its themes. Erik (talk) 03:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
In that wase, change "are" to "were" in the first sentence. jnestorius(talk) 08:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I see your point; yes, that would probably solve it. So done. Cheers, Steve T • C 08:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • For my part, I'm rather surprised that all mention of Thora Birch performing a nude scene while underage was excised from the article; that's a significant fact which didn't pass without controversy at the time.  Ravenswing  10:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
    • To be honest, I didn't see much, if anything, that discussed it. And I didn't actively look for information on it because ... well, in the UK she wouldn't have been, so it never occurred to me. :-) Thanks for the addition. Steve T • C 12:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Nondiegetic

I don't want to waste too much time on this, but I initially reverted this edit by Peter Isotalo. WP:OBVIOUS doesn't apply here; indeed, that guideline section has nothing to do with this issue. Secondly, the word is linked; it's the most appropriate word for the concept and if anyone doesn't understand it they can look it up in a dictionary or follow the link. Thirdly, even if they don't, the preceding sentence gives it enough context, defines it even, so a reader should get the gist of it: "[The tune]—which provides a conventional underscore to the onscreen action—is replaced by discordant, percussive music that lacks melody or progression. This nondiegetic score ..." Lastly, it's not good form to put improvement templates on an article that's currently featured on the main page. It's makes us (Wikipedia) look stupid. Steve T • C 13:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I had added a brief description for the term, but even as I did so, I felt like the word was understandable from the context in both instances. I'd be fine with my description being removed. I was not seeing how WP:OBVIOUS applied here, either. There are a lot of jargon-heavy Featured Articles out there, and this is piecemeal compared to them. Erik (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I've never understood how one can be this adamant about not merely keeping jargon but actually insisting on not explaining it. It's certainly not in the democratic spirit of Wikipedia.
Peter Isotalo 19:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Democratic? What? We're not saying the word shouldn't be explained, we're saying it already is, through the link and the context of the surrounding text. HTH. Steve T • C 19:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Lead and plot sections

  • Not sure why there is a question of how American Beauty was measured to be the best-received film of the year; the article has a reliable source that verifies this information.
  • Plot sections in film articles do not require references; they are supposed to be basic descriptions of the primary source, the film, and clean of any statements that could be challenged. There is precedent for this with Featured Articles of fictional works.

Regards, Erik (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Publicity

Is there a reason why the passage about DreamWorks being recognized for publicity of American Beauty was removed? Erik (talk | contribs) 21:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Because I didn't stand by my guns? I moved it to the sub-article (or it might already have been there; I forget). Screw it, let's put it back in. Steve T • C 21:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I found it in the accolades sub-article. We can leave it there if you want; I just thought it was an interesting piece of information, congratulating a studio for marketing it so well, almost as if the quality of the film didn't matter. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 21:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I think it's a small enough bit of information that we can make room for it here. It's not the sort of thing you usually see in film articles, which makes it notable/interesting enough as an aside. Steve T • C 21:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Rose

So I was curious about the American Beauty Rose and looked it up. Both the wikipedia article and the external links show pink roses. The roses in the movie look deep red to me. Is it just me or does this fact seem to escape just about everyone? Were they really supposed to be American Beauty roses? Seems like more than just a coincidence, even though they aren't true to form. Lime in the Coconut 19:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Alternative text

The alternative text was shortened for the poster image in the infobox per WP:ALT. The lengthier description was because of an earlier draft of WP:ALT that encouraged excessive description of the image. This approach was ultimately proven to be incorrect, and the poster image's alternative text was left over from that era. The current approach is to say what the image is about, not to describe it in tedious detail. One of the basics of WP:ALT is "Alternative text should be short". Erik (talk | contribs) 11:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, if we're talking about words in the poster image, it's not important because we already identify the title and the cast members elsewhere in the infobox. I would even argue that few people actually try to make out the names in the poster image. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Your point about image description length is well taken, the original version was too long (whether your briefer version was better than my briefer version, however, is debatable). As for text, WP:ALT says alt text should contain words that appear in the image that are "important to the reader's understanding". Title placement, tag lines, and cast names and placement are all part of the artistic aspects of movie posters in general, and are important to the reader's understanding of the artistic statement being made by the poster, and how it relates to the movie they're reading about. This is a very common practice for infobox movie poster alt text(including every FA film article with infobox alt text i could find), which is not intended for everybody-it's for the blind and people who cannot have images on their browser. They should decide what they want to read on the image, not us. Shirtwaist (talk) 05:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ Tom O'Neil (February 24, 2009). "Quiz: Who turned down Kevin Spacey's Oscar-winning role in 'American Beauty'?". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved May 5, 2009.
  2. ^ "Chevy Chase". The New York Times. Retrieved May 5, 2009.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Beauty_(1999_film)/Archive_2&oldid=1065984227"