Jump to content

Talk:Gosford Park

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

Character relationships and plot elements

[edit]

I'm a fan of this film, but having seen it a number of times I still find the large number of characters and plot details confusing. So the last time I watched it I took some notes and have written up some information I think is useful or interesting.

However, I am still uncertain as to my accuracy, so please read what I've put into "Relationships between the characters" and "Some plot elements (spoilers)", and check for accuracy, or put any other comments you think are relevant here or into the article. Robertbyrne 17:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gave it a go! Quill 03:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added some info about my favorite movie! --Brad 7/22/06

Why is it called Gosford Park? Anubis1975 12:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Talker 21:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC) I believe the name of the estate is Gosford Park but the name of the estate is never mentioned in the script.[reply]

¿How can an article about this movie go without mentioning Jean Renoir's "The Rules of the Game"? It's practically an homage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.143.54.80 (talk) 03:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I lack experience or skill in wiki editing so I am going to just put my suggestion here, I don't want to botch up a nice article. I notice that despite Derek Jacobi being listed as one of the stars of the film up top and in the little side box, there is no mention at all of his role in the film, and only side mention of the trivia that there were two Knights and two Dames involved including him. I had to consult the filmography on the Derek Jacobi article to find that he played a character named "Probert," and an offsite page that suggested his role in the household was that of a valet. http://www.pitt.edu/~kloman/gosford.html I haven't seen the film but had it recommended to me, and feel that if he is listed as a major acting talent at the top of the article, that at least brief mention in the synopsis should be made of his role, however small. I leave it to more pro Wikiteers to decide if this should be done or how to do it. Thanks! GretchenRPH (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 19:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bertha and Sir William

[edit]

I thought Elsie was pretty clear that Sir William was with her and not with Bertha, so I'm taking him out of the description of her. 220.253.13.209 07:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She made it clear that Sir William could not have been with Bertha despite coming from the direction of the ironing room otherwise if he was with Elsie then it would have been peculiar that after washing Constance's proposed blouse for the hunt that Mary return to a room where Elsie was not to be found. Well, unless, Elsie was able to take care of Sir William in the amount of time in which it took Mary to wash and iron the blouse? Sir Williams sexual propensities were never made out in the film so that is all for speculation unless someone can come up with a convincible narrative through his character habits and actions by which to speculate. Elsie did say that she enjoyed listening to him which could indicate that if they did have sexual activity (which we do not know) followed by a chat then a washing and ironing may not be time enough in order not to be found out by a visiting servant and thus provide a bit of scandal to discuss with Constance and through her others in their social circle although it could possibly be a way to get Sir William to guarantee her allowance for life?76.170.88.72 (talk) 12:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the plot reduction

[edit]

I don't think the plot synopsis necessarily needs to be reduced, but it does need to be edited. In just one paragraph, I found numerous grammatical errors. Also, superfluous details are included in the synopsis, while more important actions or conversations are left out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.108.83 (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why the plot summary seems too long...but here are just too many insights and accurate observations fitted within a well writted article, just to be mutilated by a layman. "Gosford Park" is a very very complex film, about people from a very very complex time. Could we call on the author to reconsider his/hers dispositions? Sadagar 02:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree with the recommendation to reduce the plot description. I just watched it for the second time, and both my wife and I were still confused about several points. The summary is quite well written and concise for the complexity of the topic, and helped us resolve several questions. I challenge the complainer to understand more than half of these relationships on a first viewing of the film. Kevin (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, disagree with the recommendation to reduce the plot description. Sadagar and Kevin are right. Also, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, being an article with rich content itself does not automatically warrant content removal, unless there are irrelevant and poorly written info, which other editors and I believe it may not the case here. Hence I removed the tag. Da Vynci (talk) 06:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What became of the cast list? It was very helpful, especially because it seperated the 'upstairs' characters from the 'downstairs' ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingmikeking (talk • contribs) 09:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand the desire to reduce the size of the plot summary, I find the current summary to be incredibly subjective, biased, and classist. Every last "upstairs" person -- aristocrat and guest -- is listed, but the downstairs cast is only partially listed and given short shrift. Why? Because they are servants and don't count? Why not summarize both the upstairs and downstairs cast to the same (greater or lesser) degree? Did the person editing this plot summary not see the film nor understand its themes? Contributor tom (talk) 07:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The plot in present form is a story line since it lists every step of the film. You might as well not see it.LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 04:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

General comments on tweek editing.
There is no mention of an abortion in the movie just implication that there is information that SW would give a job for that information to be withheld from the public.
There is no indication that Lady Sylia makes a practice of encouraging male guest to proposition her just because she has the balls to do so.
The bird shot hits SW not SW hunting out the stray birdshot. We really do not know just how inured if at all is SW with the birdshot. He certainly was irritated by the stray birdshot but did it draw blood? We do not know.
There is no need for a detailed listing of the comings and goings from the drawing room.
The police do not know what has happened and the guest certainly do not if all they know is the SW is slumped in a chair. All they know is that he is dead. They do not even know that he was stabbed until his valet uprights SW's body.
I do not know if a full list of the guests and help are necessary in the plot.2605:E000:9152:8F00:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 06:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Titles and Styles in the Movie

[edit]

This movie was absolutely excellent in their usage of titles. All the usages of titles were correct. For example, Lord Stockbridge is a baron, and thus always referred to as Lord Stockbridge. All peers below Dukes (Marquess, Earl, Viscount, and Baron) are referred to as Lord X, X being the title of peerage. Hence the father of three sisters, the Earl of Carton was referred to that on first reference and Lord Carton thereafter. The Countess of Trentham was referred to as Lady Threntham. The three sisters being daughters of an Earl, has the courtesy title of "Lady X Y". X being their first name and Y being their surname. They are always referred to as Lady X and not Lady Y. If a courtesy Lady marries a commoner (including knights), they are called Lady X Z, Z being the surname of their husband. IE. Lady Sylvia McCordle, Lady Lavinia Meredith. However, Louisa married a peer, Baron Stockbridge, hence why she became Lady Stockbridge. If a courtesy lady who was the daughter of an earl marries a commoner, she retains her rank. If she marries another peer, she takes the rank of the wife of that peer. The daughter of an earl outranks a baroness. Hence why in the scene of the servants dining, both Mary the countess's maid and Lady Lavinia's maid were asked to sit above Lady Stockbridge's maid. This is because both Sylvia and Lavinia married commoners and retained their original rank, but Louisa married a baron and dropped in rank. This was very subtle, and one has to understand the table of precedence to catch this. As well, Lord Rupert Standish was implied to be the younger son of a baron, thus in the movie he was never referred to as Lord Standish, which would imply a peer whose peerage title was Standish. In the movie, it was always Lord Rupert or Lord Rupert Standish. Hence why when Mr. Blond in the billiard scene stated "met my daughter, Lady Rupert Standish?" Isobel, whose father was a commoner (albeit a knight), has no courtesy title, would become Lady Rupert Standish if she married him. Similar to how a woman marries John Smith becomes Mrs. John Smith.

I'm writing all this because the synopsis in the article made mistakes where the movie did not. The synopsis on the page referred to Lady Louisa when it should have been Lady Stockbridge. It referred to Lord Standish when it should have been Lord Rupert.

Once again, the movie was great because all the titles were always correct. It even incorporated tiny and minute details such as dropping in the table of precedence. Eddo 01:59 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I'd say that all those titles and rankings, and accuracy thereof, had very little impact on the greatness of the film, so long as the viewers are aware of the upstairs/downstairs split. Everyone upstairs outranks everybody downstairs, and that's really all viewers need to know. Thankfully it's not necessary to memorize all that complicated peerage nonsense to enjoy the movie!Vonbontee (talk) 10:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only somebody with little or no interest in historic accuracy and, I'd wager, with a huge chip on his (or her) shoulder will deny that accurate titles in a film like this are important.94.218.14.123 (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you are wrong on at least one point Lord Rupert Standish would have to be the younger son of a Marquess or Duke not a Baron to have the courtesy title of Lord and Standish will have been his surname not his fathers title although they could be the same but that is unlikely. The younger sons of Earls and all sons of Barons and Viscounts use the style of Honourable before there names. Penrithguy (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right. I meant to type Marquess, but I typed Baron by accident, it was really late at night. Thanks though for catching my mistake. Eddo 23:48 08 February 2009 (UTC)

Position of body at stabbing

[edit]

The current plot is incorrect if it says that Sir William was slumped over his desk at the time of the stabbing. He is sitting in the chair high enough so that all the killer had to do was step forward behind Sir William enough in order to punch the knife into his chest.LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 09:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC) The stabber pushes the body over the desk when leaving it behind.LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 09:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gosford Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gosford Park. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gay subtext?

[edit]

Somebody wrote that there was an implied sexual relationship between philippe & balaban's characters. AFAIC Recall, this is nonsense. Are there RS that say this? Dingsuntil (talk) 12:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times review mentions it. Davemck (talk) 13:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is this good enough? It's just a blanket assertion. There's no indication of why they say this. Other sources describe the film as having a gay subtext, but only cite Northam's character. I doubt the NYT applies the same editorial scrutiny to film reviewers claims of homosexuality of characters that it does to other stories, so not obvious that overall reliability of NYT should be applied here. Dingsuntil (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Gosford Park. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 11:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Basis for William McCordle Story

[edit]

In the DVD commentary mention is made of a businessman in London who was the basis for the Sir William story. The name sounded like a William "Whitely" but with a "k" sound ("Whickely", "Wickly", or something like). In the real story, the businessman forces the women in his employ whom he has impregnated to leave his company. Anything on this anywhere?--Artaxerxes (talk) 14:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gosford Park. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 16:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plot section not detailed or clear enough

[edit]

Example: the maid sent to wash her mistress’ blouse disturbs a couple have sex in the scullery.

Things missing here folks! 46.126.111.250 (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gosford_Park&oldid=1255116932"