Talk:Election (1999 film)

Untitled

This article is extremely poorly written. For example - in the plot it states that he professes his love for Linda, after a bee sting. First of all, he was stung by the bee the night before. Secondly, why would you even phrase it that way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.213.238 (talk) 19:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

This film has nothing to do with race, but someone tries to insinuate that it does.

Hello, Wikipedia. I do not know enough about the movie 'Election' to edit its page, but its literacy is not up-to-standard for the site (grammatically) so I am hoping the good person who wrote and shared such a detailed review of the film edits their page further. Also, I don't think words like 'sluttiness' are appropriate for an encyclopedia. I am sorry to complain; anyone who contributes to this site is excellent, in my opinion :)

I've tidied this up some, but the discussion of the themes feels like someone's term paper, rather than an encyclopedia article. I'm not at all clear that it's appropriate to include. Boojum 20:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• I've never seen the movie, so I don't know how accurate the themes are. But I think with some cleaning up they could be useful...if you chose to remove them I wouldn't argue though. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 19:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• I've seen the movie several times, and while the 'themes' make sense in regards to the movie, I'm also not sure how encyclopedic they are. They feel out of place with the rest of the article, IMHO. Christy747 23:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Mind, this entire article is rather out of place with itself...=P [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 06:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Yea, the plot summary here is poorly written and just plain incorrect in several places. One of these days when I have time, I will rewrite. Eric Cable  |  Talk  20:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Compromising situation?

There is absolutely no indication that Tracy is using her sexuality to curry favor with the congressman at the end of the movie. Indeed, this politician is played by a real-life congressman (at the moment, his name escapes me). The notion that a sitting United States Congressman would allow himself to portrayed as a philanderer in any way in any media is absurd to the point that it renders absudity obsolete. I don't know where the author gets this, aside from his/her own assumption. This point needs to be deleted.Swatson1978 00:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Tammy's Speech

Tammy's campaign speech to the student body is one of the most memorable scenes ever filmed.--FrickFrack 21:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I think this article needs a serious cleanup. There's currently 11 paragraphs detailing the plot (in a non-encylcopedic tone, in my opinion). The article also has 27 Trivia points. I'm not opposed to lengthy wikipedia articles; but it seems to me this article could be written in more concise terms with less emphasis on plot spoilers and pop culture trivia. 66.17.118.195 17:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The entry does seem full of WP:OR and/or a lack of the use of WP:RS to back up claims. There also seems to be a lot of trivia masquerading as other kinds of information. I have flagged some concerns but there is a lot of work that needs doing, I am unsure if this might be best acoomplished by removing quite a few sections. (Emperor 22:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC))

Fair use rationale for Image:Election poster.jpg

Image:Election poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Direction

I've added a note on the film's narrative style, which I think is a distinctive feature of this particular film and should get a mention in an encyclopedic article. It's an obvious point that stands as it is, I think, but I'll go looking for some published criticism about this aspect of the film to see if I can link out to a reference. Adam C Fletcher (talk) 12:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Done :) Adam C Fletcher (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The claim that the novel "Election" was inspired by the incident in Eau Claire, Wisconsin where a pregnant girl was denied the homecoming queen title sounds dubious. I haven't found any source that makes that claim independent from Wikipedia. ~~Moebius —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.166.31.21 (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Certification

I've also added in information on the UK certification of the film. The line 'some moderate sex and references' sounds terribly clunky but is word for word the advice on the BBFC site. Adam C Fletcher (talk) 08:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This movie sucks

The article does not accurately represent how crappy this movie is. Particularly the creepiness of Mathew Broderick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.116.78 (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I would have phrased it better, but some mention of critical reception would be nice. The lack of it makes me think "universally panned". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.170.48 (talk) 11:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Statutory Rape

The plot mentions that the teacher who seduced Tracey was not charged with statutory rape. The age of consent in Nebraska is 17. Tracey is depicted as being at the end of her junior year (running for student body president for the following school year). Most poeple are 17 by the end of their junior year. It is possible, therefore, that there could not be a charge of statutory rape if Tracey was of age. Of course still wrong for a married teacher to seduce a student. Eric Cable  |  Talk  20:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Production controversy

okay, this has become subject to some edit warring, without any discussion at all, and we have one user sniping at another in the main article itself. I've rolled back [1] this because Wordpress is 100% not a WP:RS and the xojane article is basically a blog/lifestyle article, not a news one. I agree with TheOldJacobite (talk · contribs) that is it is not really germane to the article and is more suited to the associated actor's pages. Calitrav (talk · contribs), please make your case here as to why you think it should belong, keeping in mind WP:NPA WP:BLP WP:RS. Thanks. hbdragon88 (talk) 10:00, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your post, hbdragon88, you are right when you say that there should have been discussion before this. Calitrav (talk · contribs), can you make a case for your addition? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I never responded to your question "The Old Jacobite" because I thought that I'd made it clear I believed an accusation (allegation) of sexual assault from a former industry professional against her ex-boss Alexander Payne was worth mentioning in light of the Harvey Weinstein allegations. As you will no doubt recall Harvey was merely "alleged" to have committed crimes for a considerable period of time before he was actually prosecuted and convicted for any of them.

It seemed clear that some other Wikipedia Editor took it upon themselves to decide which allegations can or cannot be made here based on...I'm not sure what. Failure for well-known newspapers to pick up on the story?

In any event I just recalled that in 2020 Rose McGowan claimed Alexander Payne had sex with her when she was only 15. There are many major newspapers that picked up that accusation / allegation of statutory rape. I googled that and sure enough Rose McGowan had indeed heard of Payne's previous accuser whose story I linked to in the xo jane blog. I see The Sun (UK) picked up the story about the previous accuser in August of 2020 -- see link:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12458103/former-assistant-claims-alexander-payne-belittled-her/

So now that's TWO women who've accused Payne of sexual harassment / permitting sexual assault, or committing statutory rape. Apparently that was enough for Rose MacGowan's accusation to get assigned to Payne's personal wikipedia page.

I live and work in Hollywood but I have never had any professional ties to Payne or MacGowan or his previous accuser. However, it seemed to me there was the "ring of truth" to the previous allegation and I felt it was worth mentioning. With a stronger accusation and much more press backing up the initial accuser, I should think the above link from The Sun should probably be put on Payne's wiki page.

FWIW, TOJ hasn't edited since 2018, so I wouldn't anticipate a response. DonIago (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced material

"Tracy announces to Jim, who is in charge of organizing the school's student government, that she is running for student body president, telling him they "will be spending a lot of time together." In Jim's mind, this is a sign of unbridled ambition and sexual manipulation, and finds it repugnant. With Tracy appearing to have no opposition, Jim decides to humiliate Tracy by encouraging Paul Metzler to enter the race."

Emphasis is mine. This material is unsourced (or just speculation). It seems to me Jim isn't trying to humiliate Tracy, just find a candidate who can beat her. The first bit is speculative as well. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, the article's not protected, WP:SOFIXIT? I mean, I appreciate your caution, but why not just make appropriate edits? Something I'm missing? DonIago (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Junior or Senior?

The article currently describes Tracy as "an overachieving senior". I assume it would be normal for elections for student government president to take place towards the end of the junior year of high school. There are a few hints in the narration that this is still the junior year. Tracy's relationship with Dave Novotny is described as taking place in Tracy's junior year, "a few months" before the events of the film. Paul Metzler broke his leg "at Shadow Ridge over Christmas break" and his leg is still in a brace. The narration towards the end of the film describes the events of senior year. I'm not very familiar with the American high school system, but shouldn't Tracy be described as "an overachieving junior"? Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Was it "grooming"?

The revision as of 00:48, 5 September 2023 changed it to say Novotny was grooming Tracy. That's not how I remembered the movie, so I looked up its script. And the argument seems a little weak. Mr. Novotny did not have intent to "groom" her, nor was there any suggestions that his actions fall under the current wikipedia definition of child grooming, in particular "to lower the child's inhibitions with the objective of sexual abuse".

The whole thing seems like colleagues having an affair and then falling in love, even though he knows it was wrong. Her perception of it is questionable. On the one hand she is smart enough to debunk the thought that she was being taken advantage of, or that she was seeking a father figure. But on the other hand, she admits she felt safe and protected with him. Near the end, she even hopes that he finished the great novel he was supposed to write.

So, I'm going to add a "citation needed" tag to that sentence, because I'm too chicken to remove it completely. Hopefully others come along and weigh in on this. Fshafique (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

"Colleagues"?! 2601:601:D00:3D50:9CBF:DB42:199A:53BA (talk) 04:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we should include a buzzword such as "grooming" unless reliable sources have utilized it. DonIago (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

"In 2011, Sue Gardner, then the executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, compiled examples from women about why they don’t edit Wikipedia, culled from message boards around the Internet. One woman pointed out that in pages for movies, rape scenes are often called “sex scenes” or sometimes even, “making love.” “When people try to change it, editors change it back and note that unlike ‘sex,’ the word ‘rape’ is not neutral, so it should be left out,” she wrote. “Discovering that feature was really jarring and made me feel unwelcome there.”

- The Atlantic, 2015.

The world moves on, but the culture of this site never changes. 2601:601:D00:3D50:2785:7857:8BB5:D249 (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

It's ironic that you'd pull a quote from 2011 to try to make an argument that things never change. The only argument I see being made here is that we shouldn't use the word "grooming" unless that's how reliable sources have described it. This is also in alignment with Wikipedia's policy regarding verifiability. Do you have an alternate proposal that would be in alignment with Wikipedia policy? DonIago (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

"Jim fills in the tawdry back story for the audience, detailing what most accounts of the movie characterize as an affair between a student and a teacher. Really, though, it’s a textbook case of predatory grooming. Dave undermines Tracy’s self-esteem and separates her from her peers by telling her how lonely she seems to him, and offering himself as a special friend, someone who understands her in a way nobody else can. He swears her to secrecy, takes her to his house, puts “Three Times a Lady” on the stereo and drags her into the bedroom. Right before that happens, she’s shown sitting on his sofa sipping root beer from a can, her posture and facial expressions decidedly childlike." A.O. Scott, New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/01/movies/tracy-flick-reese-witherspoon.html

"“In the years since I wrote that, the paradigm shifted completely,” he added. “There’s no way a girl of 15 could choose that.”... Along the way, Tracy, like her creator, realizes that her infamous “affair” was more a case of grooming and abuse than she had ever let herself believe."

Interview with Tom Perrotta, author of the novel

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/books/story/2022-06-05/column-tracy-flick-returns-to-the-scene-of-the-crime

"Notably, Election anticipates contemporary conversations about grooming and incel culture decades before social media mainstreamed them."

Annie Berke, Los Angeles Review of Books

https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/such-little-babies-on-tom-perrottas-tracy-flick-cant-win/ 2601:601:D00:3D50:2F6:7C25:851C:2633 (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Given the high quality sources you've provided, I'd support the use of the word "grooming", perhaps with those sources as citations to forestall any future argument over the use of the word. @Fshafique: Does this address your concerns? DonIago (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you anonymous user(s) for finding some good sources. Thank you @Doniago for really stepping in. Sorry, I haven't had much time to chime in, and it certainly hasn't been easy trying to find the non-paywall versions of some of these articles. I'm still piecing everything together, but some of the thoughts I had were:

(1) are some of the cited sources referring to the book or the movie, as the screenplay could've been sanitized to be less controversial.

(2) were the intents for those sources driven by a narrative that's different than what was widely understood and assumed. For example, one of the sources referred to her age as 15; the same LATimes article also calls her a "high-achieving 16-year-old"; other search results state 16; she's a junior (according to Wikipedia), which I guess, makes her 16 or 17; the school fired Mr. Novotny instead of reporting him for statutory rape. Is there a magical switch that makes it "grooming" if a person is below the age of consent?

(3) there's some useful thoughts in Reddit on A.O.Scott's take on Election (the NYTimes source).

(4) I do acknowledge that someone like Tracy could have been ambitious and book-smart, but not necessarily wise enough to understand if she was being groomed.

I want to comply with Wikipedia's No Original Research rule, so no personal interpretations of the movie, but as a hetero-cis-male, I acknowledge that my view of the matter could be different than others.

Anyways, please bear with me, while I think this through. Thanks! Fshafique (talk) 06:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, an IP just removed mention of "grooming" from the plot summary. It's been ten days since the last comment on this. I haven't reviewed the sources in depth myself and, as such, I don't have a strong opinion one way or another at this time, but if the feeling is that it's appropriate to describe it as grooming then that edit should probably be reverted. DonIago (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)