Jump to content

Talk:American Beauty (1999 film)/Archive 3

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

Splitting the analysis

Should we maybe split the analysis portion to it's own article? It seems like it's taking up a lot of space. Plus, we could have more images and information. Stiny114 (talk) 00:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

What, you don't think this article has enough information? :) I think we should keep the analysis section as-is because it is more important than the other sections. Not only is it how secondary sources interpret the film, they are interpreting the film in retrospect. This is in contrast to the production section, where it is about what filmmakers wanted to do (not necessarily as important as how their product is ultimately perceived), and in contrast to the reception section, which is contemporary. If anything, I would fork the production section into its own sub-article. We could provide a summary section of four paragraphs talking about production in general, and readers can go to the sub-article for more detail. I just think that the themes being upfront and in detail are critical to this particular topic. It's not a run-of-the-mill film but a meaningful one for studying. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it is a meaningful one for studying, hence why it should be split. Many movies like that, like Fight Club, have it split. And no, the production is never usually it's own article. Stiny114 (talk) 12:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Split. Please. Some analysis is appropriate but the length and somewhat pompous jargon makes it all but unreadable for the non-specialist. A summary is good. Spin it out elsewhere. doug123w (talk) 00:32, 6 Sept 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.160.66 (talk)

Lede too long?

To this reader the intro seems way too long compared to other film articles. I see it stuffed with details that are already in body text, like production info. I'm wondering how much has been added since it became a featured article. El duderino (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Not a great deal, as it happens. This is a quite long—and very comprehensive—article; per WP:LEAD#Introductory text, the section in question should be a summary of the article as a whole "in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article"; by definition, it should reflect (indeed, repeat some of) what the body text says (without introducing information that can't be found elsewhere). This, I think, it does, without stuffing the section with irrelevant or too-trivial points. However, if you have any suggestions on what passages might be too minor to include, that don't act as an overview for their respective sections, I'd be happy to hear them. All the best, Steve T • C 23:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Move request

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

– Primary topic. The Evil IP address (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you have some evidence in favor of your contention? Without it, I cannot support given the number of alternative uses. Powers T 01:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lester works in magazine SALES—he's not a writer.

It's pretty evident from the headset he wears at work for talking to clients. 66.26.95.207 (talk) 02:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, 66.26.95.207. I had the same impression after I first saw the film. The sales-style headset threw me off as well. But a close look at the text confirms that he's a writer; see the second scene when Lester is speaking with his boss (Boss: "It's just business." Lester: "I've been writing for this magazine for 14 years, Brad.") According to my media player, this moment is exactly six minutes in. NTox · talk 04:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually I just read the screenplay and was going to correct this myself—my apologies. 66.26.95.207 (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Themes in lede

The themes mentioned in the lede are all supported by sources in the body of the article, they are not merely random ideas added by editors. Do not alter or add to that list unless sources in the article support the term you are adding. Thank you. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 18:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Plot summary needs work.

The movie begins with the main character's death within a year being stated as a fact. This fore-knowledge shadows the entire film. It should be made clear.

The boy's father thinks his son is homosexual not because of the footage of the main character in the nude but because of his partial view of the boy selling marihuana to the man, who is topless and who reacts in a way that is interpreted as sexual pleasure, while the boy is out of sight but in a location near the man's crotch (where he is actually - presumably - doing something with the illegal substance such counting out the payment or rolling it.211.225.34.138 (talk) 04:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.225.34.138 (talk)

Mistake in filming

I don't know if mistakes are to be included in movie descriptions, so I haven't added it to the amin page. In a scene where the girl's mother is driving home, she turnes the steering wheel to the left, but then we see the car itself turning right onto her home steet. I watched this scene three times to check that it was a mistake. 211.225.34.138 (talk) 04:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

That could only be added if an independent source discussed it, but even then, most editors would regard it as trivial. Thanks for posting here, though, rather than adding it to the article. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Video clip

The film article's video clip (under the "Temporality and music" section) has been posted for deletion as seen here: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 December 21#File:American Beauty gymnasium.ogv. Apparently, the file was tagged with the {{Non-free reduce}} template in October 2012. Today, it was tagged with the {{di-fails NFCC}} template due to inaction, despite no indication of the video clip being tagged, either in the article body or on the talk page. Basically, there was no notification about the video clip being questioned, and now it is being rushed to deletion. This video clip was in the article when it passed the FAC process as seen here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/American Beauty (film)/archive1. You are invited to comment on the FFD page about what to do with this clip. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Nostalgia Critic

Some content was recently added to the criticism section quoting a review by Doug Walker, as part of his Nostalgia Critic series. The review is actually pretty insightful and thoughtful, but Walker is primarily a comedian and the series is partly a pastiche of movie reviewing i.e. it is not meant to be taken completely seriously. I am not sure whether his comments are appropriate for a featured article, since I don't know how much we should seriously invest in what he says. Even though I find his comments illuminating (and he comes across quite seriously in this review) I am not sure we can justify their inclusion. Betty Logan (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the critic is acceptable to reference as a standard critic, but I think he is too much treated as the final authority here on how the film should be perceived retrospectively. I notice that a similar edit was made to Signs (film) here and am a little concerned about soliciting one particular critic's opinion. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm actually slightly sympathetic to the idea of finding something more for the criticism section on how the film is perceived today vs. contemporaneous reviews. There seems to be a level of disdain for the film in discourse today that isn't really represented by the one paragraph we have on the subject. However, I've never come across anything suitably encompassing to really do the subject justice, and the Nostalgia Critic reviews aren't exactly what I have in mind (nor are they particularly enlightening in of themselves). In summary then, I agree with Erik's removal of the relevant passage. Steve T • C 15:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Steve, I saw this this morning, which led to this. Is this the long-awaited retrospective piece you've been yearning for? :) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 20 August 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


– Film is the clear primary topic by miles - why this hasn't already been moved baffles me. Unreal7 (talk) 21:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Genre

There have been several attempts by CHCHque verchis to add "comedy-drama" to the list of genres in the lead. The first attempt was in August when this editor added in "satirical black comedy", but was reverted by Liance. The editor attempted to add the same phrase a second time but was reverted by Erik on the basis that "consensus is to exclude genre from the lead section". Another attempt was reverted by Y2kcrazyjoker4. CHCHque verchis has made two more attempts in the last 24 hours to install similar changes to the genre, both of which I have reverted.

Now, this editor's actions are clearly disruptive (he has genre-warred on several other articles) but I can't help but feel he has a point here. There are several points I would like to clarify:

  1. Erik's point that there is a consensus to "exclude genre". Is the consensus specfically to exclude "comedy drama", or genres in general? I appreciate edit summaries limit the capacity for a fuller explanation, but I would appreciate some further explanation in this regard.
  2. Currently the genre is identified as "romantic drama" but there is no source corroborating this. What exactly is the basis for proclaiming the film a romantic drama? Even the American Film Institute regard the film as a "comedy drama" so it is not like there is a universal consensus that it is a romantic drama. The New York Times likewise identifies it as a comedy drama, and while I don't much care for Allmovie classifications itis consistent with the view it is a comedy drama.

WP:FILMLEAD states we should identify the primary genre, but at the moment I am seeing a stronger case for "comedy drama" rather than "romantic drama". I agree we should avoid listing three genres, so the options seem to be to retain the status quo (romantic drama), change the genre to "comedy drama" or perhaps just cut it back to "drama" if there is discord between sources over what type of drama it actually is. I also strongly urge CHCHque verchis to participate in this discussion rather than repeatedly changing the genre in the face of opposition. Betty Logan (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

There is not a discussion on this talk page, but Steve, the primary contributor on this article, has removed the genre in the past, as seen here. I've been fine with excluding it as well. However, it's worth noting that at the time of FA promotion, it was "drama film". This film is kind of like Fight Club in which a obvious specific genre cannot be pinned down. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 02:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's come up a bunch of times, though I've never bothered hashing it out on the talk page (what can I say; I'm somewhat lazy in my semi-retirement, content to simply revert editors who've tried identifying it as this, that and the other). The problem is of course that it's been shoved into so many genre boxes as to make one label almost meaningless (and belated apologies for the pointy edit back there.[1]). However, if we have to make a decision on this here, at a push I think each of those is only ever used as a modifying genre to the overriding "drama" label ("comedy drama", "satirical drama", "romantic drama" etc). So if we have to choose anything, my vote's for calling it a straight drama and letting the 118K of material tell the rest. Er, not that this is a vote. Steve T • C 20:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC) [1] Who am I kidding? I don't apologise for a moment; I love that edit in all its passive-aggressive glory.
Well we all seem to be in agreement that the film is a drama, and the only disagreement is over the type of drama. Scaling back the genre to "drama" is an acceptable solution to me, if it is to Erik. It would be good to have an explict consensus and then future editors have something concrete to refer to should the issue come up again. Betty Logan (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
"Drama" works. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 04:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 9 January 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. I do not see a consensus for a move here plus the nominator does not address the issue of what to do with the disambiguation page at American Beauty. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


American Beauty (1999 film) → American Beauty – Primary topic. Many more page views than the other titles, averaging ~1900 a day. The closest is American Beauty (album), which gets ~231 views. — Film Fan 12:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

  • I recognized at the time that the film article was the most popular of the set. Reiterating my statement here: "I find the term too generic to assign the article title to one of several cultural works. The film may indeed be popular, but it is preceded and succeeded by other works that use the term, the later works in no apparent reference to the film itself. Not to mention that the 'American Beauty' rose has much longer-term significance than the other topics; Google Ngram Viewer reflects that. There's no need to change things around when disambiguation has sufficed all this time." Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose as malformed this RM would need a multimove template. Also oppose because no evidence in Google Books that this film is overwhelming the clearly primary meaning compared to all the other topics combined. Thirdly oppose because of WP:NCF. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are multiple films, books and albums with this title. The current status quo allows for easy identification of incorrect incoming links. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. None of the other topics have a patch of notablity on the film. Unreal7 (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose - while it might be a bit more notable than the others, there are so many other uses for this name, that it seems like the current setup is the best route. People are having no problem finding it currently. Weak, however, because this page does receive more hits than all other pages put together, and 10x the dab page. But if people are not having a hard time finding it, and there are so many other pages people could be looking for, it might be best to leave at the current place. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The evidence suggests this is the topic readers are looking for.--Cúchullain t/c 18:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose While the evidence suggests this page is probably more likely than others to be the one that readers are looking for, it's not by so massive a margin as to make the others meaningless. With so many past (and likely future) uses of this now-generic term, the disambiguation page is surely the best destination for it. Steve T • C 21:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American Beauty (1999 film). 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) 07:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Best Picture

An editor recently made this edit about American Beauty being the first Best Picture winner "in eight years which was primarily set in the present day". While uncited, it sounded like a worthwhile observation to consider. Through Google Books Search, I found this that says, "Dealing with the here and now, American Beauty also had the distinction of being contemporary. In the last twenty years, only five contemporary movies have won Best Picture, the other four being Ordinary People, Terms of Endearment, Rain Man, and The Silence of the Lambs." I would include the contemporary nature of American Beauty in some fashion, though I don't think that the eight-year timespan is worth noting. It should just focus on mentioning how occasional the contemporary Best Picture winner can be. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Belatedly revisiting this. :-) Must have missed it back when. Do you think a comment to this effect is still worth adding? I was about to before realising the feat's notability ignores the fact that five of the next six Best Picture winners after 2003 (when the book was written) are set in their respective present days (or close enough to make no difference). Steve T • C 18:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Way to follow up! ;) I suppose with the subsequent Best Picture winners being similar, it's not as much of a highlight anymore. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Minutiae

  • In the section "Conformity and beauty" it's present the name of "Pleasantville": is it a reference to the city of Pleasantville (film)? If so, why don't we add a wikilink?
  • There is a specific order in the infobox in "Plot"? Why don't we follow the infobox film's order of actors? --Almicione (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Aggregate scores

Regarding the inclusion of Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic for American Beauty, MOS:FILM#Critical reception says, "...caution should be exercised when using aggregator scores that combine original reviews with reviews from later dates." Looking at Rotten Tomatoes, it looks like reviews have been added from 2000 up through 2015. I'm not sure if we've ever pinned down the ideal wording for making it clear that scores may not be directly based on the time of release. Is there something we can say? Even so, I am not sure if we need to include RT and MC here. The point of using them in general is to report an aggregate reaction since not all news sources will explicitly say, "This film performed well/badly." With older films, we get a mixed bag of reviews, and the lead paragraph of "Critical reception" seems sufficient, not to mention the last one about critical regard waning. RT and MC does not capture either and may reflect a blend of reactions before and after. Thoughts? Steve, TheOldJacobite. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with leaving it out. My thought was that some context could be added, but I agree with your reasoning. Thanks. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 23:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the thinking behind its removal was twofold. Firstly, it tells us nothing useful, even if we were to come up with the ideal contextual wording. The mix of old and new reviews, the legion it leaves out from the time of release, can't hope to paint an accurate picture of how the film was seen at the time of release, or how it's seen today. Secondly, the passage was solving a problem that didn't exist; if I squint a little, I can maybe see the merit of its inclusion where we don't have anything else, but I think the article already does a pretty decent job of charting the critical path (even if it could probably do with an update; Mendes' comments that end the section are from 2008). Steve T • C 21:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Reads like a film studies student essay

The whole article gives me the distinct impression that American Beauty is somehow a favourite of film studies class and that all the students have come here to contribute enthusiastically to the article. I applaud that enthusiasm, but it reads rather unencyclopedicly, for example, in the lead paragraphs:

“Mendes' dominant style was deliberate and composed; he made extensive use of static shots and slow pans and zooms to generate tension. Cinematographer Conrad Hall complemented Mendes' style with peaceful shot compositions to contrast with the turbulent on-screen events. During editing, Mendes made several changes that gave the film a less cynical tone.”

It sounds like Patrick_Bateman talking about the discography of Phil Collins in American Psycho. The rest of the article is similarly insider-phrased and TMI-ish. I wouldn't say pretentious, but less forgiving readers would say so. At any rate, while I enjoy reading the geeky filmic language and opinions (and these are opinions -- there are few citations here), probably the article could be trimmed substantially, and the Analysis section moved to another article.

That said, I have no clout on Wikipedia nor the time/inclination to argue and go back and forth with WP regulars about the pros and cons of cleaning up the article. It seems obvious to me, as an outsider to film studies. But I thought I'd add my 2 cents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisdone (talk • contribs) 00:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It is pretentious. It's absurd. That huge student essay section about the themes, right after the plot section, is unique to this page. Citizen Kane doesn't have it, doesn't have it. I can't believe is still there. Wikipedia is not a film magazine. Kumagoro-42 22:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
A Featured Article article is supposed to be a "thorough and representative" summary of all the relevant writing on its subject. That means we look at what the more academic writing has come up with too; if it ignores these sources, the article can't be said to have met that standard. So if our summary of the academic writing reads pretentiously, blame Hausmann et al. :-)
As for the other film articles you cite: in the case of Citizen Kane, the small 'Themes' section would hold it back from promotion to 'Featured' from its current 'Good' classification (though in that film's case, such a section almost certainly would be so big as to need to be spun out in its own article). Similarly, Rashomon is 'C' class and still manages a few paragraphs on style and symbolism. Imagine what a representative summary of the academic literature of either of those films would entail.
Neither is a good example for comparison then. Consider instead the Featured Articles Mulholland Drive (which also interweaves the academic analysis expertly through a couple of the more traditional 'production info' sections), Fight Club (which has a 'Themes' section right at the start—and admittedly an 'Interpretations' section deemed more appropriate as a spin-off), Tenebrae (a more marginal film work that still prompted significant analysis), or the more recently-promoted Conan the Barbarian, among many others.
A themes/analysis section is then standard practice for film articles that strive to meet the comprehensiveness criteria; you'd struggle to find many promoted to FA in the last five years that don't include one. And why not? Why should our best film articles not strive for the same coverage as that which is taken for granted in our best articles on works of literature? Because we're in danger of running out of space?
As far as the placement of the section in the article is concerned, there's no hard rule that says one way or the other. In some cases, it's just down to the personal preference of the article's main contributors. Some of those articles I cite above have it at the start, some later on. In the case of American Beauty, IIRC the reasoning was twofold: it felt more natural to place interpretation of the events of the film directly after our description of the events of the film; in addition, the production sections discuss choices and techniques that are given context by some of the established thematic intentions of the filmmakers.
Finally, to address a secondary point raised by Chrisdone: lead sections don't ordinarily contain citations (unless there are points of contention) as they're intended as a summary of the rest of the article, which of course should be fully-cited (and I hope we can all at least agree that this thing is definitely not lacking in citations—there shouldn't be even one claim here that doesn't have an appropriate reference). Steve T • C 22:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
You may applaud and pat yourself on the back for this "thorough and representative summary", but the use of the term "summary" is entirely misused, and this article is a piece of garbage because of whoever added all that nonsense in the middle. I came here specifically after reading the article because the article is appallingly long and has way too much conjecture about meaning and sub-themes. They do NOT belong there. It isn't a matter of "running out of room", it is a matter of presenting a product to the reader that makes sense, has plenty of info, while not being long winded. This article doesn't make a lot of sense because of all the conjecture, and as such it is entirely too long winded. The entire middle portion of the article, which makes up a good half the page, should be cut out and removed.68.13.136.247 (talk) 05:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I would agree there is too much exposition on the reasons, and arguments for the thematic conclusions of the authors cited. Section could be shortened significantly without losing much. Shortening the section would make room for other themes that other authors have mentioned. One theme that comes to mind that is missing from the article is the theme of empathy, and the lack/repression thereof. A simple example would be the scene where the boy empathically reflects the happiness on the dead man's face. All the characters reflect aspects of the themes of empathy, repression, narcissism, and projection. The representation of suburban bleakness presented in a cliched way as a familiar touchstone for the audience to recognize, and dismiss so as to see deeper. The repressed homosexual father who projects his own homosexuality, and brutal self loathing on others. His son, his gay neighbors, who should be as ashamed of themselves as he is, and Lester. The ambitious wife who when faced with real responsibility rejects it because she's deeply an irresponsible child. The "slutty cheerleader" who is in reality a virgin. The "good kids" who are so empathic they have to flee the pain around them. Lester finds his own empathy too late. That would be how the much longer articles on empathy, and the other themes could be summarized. Cut out the arguments for the thematic conclusions, and simply give brief illustrative examples from the movie to express the points of the cited articles. 98.164.74.140 (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Amount of Blackmail

The Summary says "Lester is told he is to be laid off, but instead blackmails his boss, Brad, for $60,000 and quits his job." However, I couldn't find anything about the exact dollar amount. Lester says "That's $50,000. That's someone's salary.", but that doesn't necessarily say how much he makes. In the blackmailing scene, he says he wants one year's salary plus benefits. I think changing the sentence to match that is more accurate. "Lester is told he is being laid off, but instead blackmails his boss, Brad, for one year's salary plus benefits." — Jncobbs (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you. If no specific number is mentioned, we can't offer one. Your wording makes sense. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 01:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Just saw the movie. Lester tells his wife he blackmailed his boss for $60,000. 98.164.74.140 (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Beauty_(1999_film)/Archive_3&oldid=1136513951"