Talk:Little Children (film)

bisexual

I have removed the term bisexual from the description of the character Sarah. I just saw this film and I don't recall any evidence that Sarah had ever been bisexual. Please correct me if I am mistaken. 162.6.227.176 01:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC) user:jvsett[reply]

I believe the original editor may have been referring to the book's reference of Sarah's bisexuality; in the novel, her character had a relationship with a woman while in college. This was not mentioned in the film, so you were correct to remove it from the article. María: (habla ~ cosas) 17:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Say...where did everything go? Aurora sword

disambiguation

Shouldn't there be a page about the book? Zigzig20s 08:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is. --Soetermans (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis

The analysis section in this article will be classed as original research and may be removed unless references are added. Tony 23:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Tony[reply]

The dvd commentary talks about everything mentioned there, plus like, loads more JayKeaton 10:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's confusing, as the article asserts "The DVD was released on May 1, 2007. It was Todd Field's wish that there be no commentary or special features accompanying the film. Consequently, there will be no special edition of any kind in the future."

If there is a commentary, that stuff obviously needs deleting. Bustter (talk) 07:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also -- Note #3, described as " Nichols, Peter (May 1, 2007). "Field's DVD Without The Frills". The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-03-01." links to the NY Times film review published upon the theatrical release, with no mention of the DVD or "frills" Bustter (talk) 07:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

restore it if you can provide reference. Tony 22:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Tony[reply]

It was deleted after I posted the source, so whoever deleted it knew there was a source so I'll trust their deletions were in good faith. Although I could rip the audio commentary and upload it to wikipedia as an ogg file. Does anyone know if audio commentaries are subject to copyright? JayKeaton 05:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, all DVD commentaries are copyrighted. Also, every review of the DVD that I can find indicates that there is no commentary on the disk. Bustter (talk) 08:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should think they are and I've never heard one on wikipedia. Restore it and quote source (not just here on talk page) and write analysis as their analysis, probably as a quote? - it sounded like yours! Source could be hard copy or web reference.Tony 09:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Tony[reply]

no-frills DVD

As I pointed out above, 1. There is no commentary on the US DVD release; and 2. The reference in the article documenting this does not document it at all -- the supposed link to an alleged NY Times article by Peter Nichols about the DVD actually links to the review of the theatrical release.

It does, however, seem likely that the no-frills release is at the diector's insistence, as there is a Nichols-written NY Times article about the "no frills" release of his previous film "In The Bedroom" [1], in which Todd Field is quoted, "Once a film is made available to the public, the right of interpretation belongs to the viewer," Mr. Field said this week. "Unless it's something historical -- like 'Citizen Kane' or 'Raging Bull' -- it seems really silly to have that kind of thing." The Times further states that the director feels the absence of extras makes more space available on the DVD for picture quality.

It seems that someone was trying to make that Times article seem more cogent to Little Children than it actually is, and then some separate hand then revised it to a review link. While I'd say it's 90% likely that Little Children is "no frills" at Field's wish, 90% just doesn't do it without a proper reference. Bustter (talk) 08:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the "no-frills DVD" information. Like you said, the article in which Fields says this was published in 2002 and was referring to In the Bedroom. There is no source that says this is the case for Little Children. - Kollision (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

adaptation

This whole section seems to be OR. Needs citations or will be subject to deletions. Bustter (talk) 07:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct ending

I saw Little Children and, in my opinion, the climax is when Sarah realizes that Brad isn't going to show up; not that she shouldn't leave her husband. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.125.253 (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, you're right. She was completely ready to leave and realizes Brad is dumping her. The later scene of her sobbing on her bed at home, her fragile psyche almost destroyed, reinforces this. She's trapped and alone. Brad's epiphany, on the other hand, leaves him satisfied and grateful for what he has. He's used Sarah to get his mojo back, and now that he has, he's ok with returning to his comfortable life while she suffers.

Sarah wasn't sobbing at the end. She actually realised her daughter is what can make her life happy. Lazy610 (talk) 12:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither comes off particularly well. Sarah is as responsible for what happens (to her) as Brad is. Only Brad's wife, I think, seems like a "superior" moral person. Not perfect, but with the strength of her convictions and able to overcome the selfish desires that we all have when those desires would unduly hurt other people (Brad-his wife, sarah-her kid, the molester-his date, etc.).

That's odd about the perception of the ending. I thought that they both pulled back from the brink. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senegalparrot (talk • contribs) 01:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read one review that posited the child molester as the only moral or sympathetic figure in the film. The portrayal is indeed complex and not without some sympathy; but remember-- he gives in to his desires and severely traumatizes a recovering, mentally-ill young woman. It is strongly suggested that the woman's life and her recovery is going to be destroyed by the incident. Perhaps she'll kill herself. It's a horrible act and a moral failure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.253.4.21 (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Language

"Brad ups the ante and plants a kiss on her lips. While the other mothers freak out and take their children away from the playground..." I don't think that "ups the ante," "plants a kiss," or "freak out" are appropriate (WP:MOS). -LesPaul75 _talk 18:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Possible alternatives: "boldly kisses her on the lips" and "mothers react by taking their children away". Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 19:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Box office flop

Seems pretty important to include that this movie was a box office flop, grossing only 14 million bucks compared to its budget of 26 million! Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 14:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]