Talk:My Own Private Idaho

Sources

I'm a little unclear on the protocol for this but nearly everything on this page that was supposedly sourced from Harvey Greenberg's review in Film Quarterly (Reference #6) is blatantly not actually from the article. I believe most of the information is true but there is no way it is from Greenberg's review. Just thought I'd share. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.159.68.36 (talk) 07:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The following doesn't make sense. Are you blaming the role for River Phoenix's behavior? Dangerous "given the role"--not sure what that means. Is there a source for RP's behavior being a result of the role?

What appeared at the outset to be a bright career prospect soon turned dark as River Phoenix was overly committed to becoming his character, drug-addicted street hustler Mike Waters. Almost immediately rumors started swirling back to L.A. that Phoenix and his castmates were using heroin and other drugs and partying hard throughout the nights. This approach proved dangerous given the role of Mike Waters.

--Avocats (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Title Origin

so far i have no clear answer to where the term comes from. there's a "B-52s" song of the same title that pre-dates the film. my real question is where did it originate though?

Amy Taubin in a review reckons "“My Own Private Idaho” is an imaginary place where one is locked in the arms of love—that is, both protected and free. It is the promise of America, chronically out of joint with reality, especially for its most vulnerable inhabitants." criterion collection review page 5. I can't find or think of any other refs except the B-52s either. Alf ^melmac 10:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

"and a few short years later modern takes on Shakespeare's works were all the rage (with the remake of Romeo + Juliet and Shakespeare in Love, in particular" Is there anything to back this up with? Romeo + Juliet didn't appear until 5 years later, and Shakespeare in Love (which isn't a remake of anything Shakespeare did) didn't appear until 9 years later. Until a reference is shown, I'm going to remove it.Dominic 03:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I forgot the title of the film and just searched Idaho, one of the ambiguation links linked me to IDAHO - the International Day Against Homophobia. Could this be the intended allusion?Tony2Times 01:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

B-52's?

Does anyone know if there is any documentation connecting the title of this film, to the B-52's song, 'Private Idaho'? Perhaps an iterview with Gus Van Sant? -Alex.rosenheim 11:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In the film's end credits it says "Thanks to the B52s".Goblinman (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

References in popular culture

I moved this section out of the article and placed it here because it is unsourced and in list form. --J.D. (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The movie was referenced in the movie Mystery Science Theatre 3000: The Movie with the line, "Keanu Reeves in My Own Private Airfield."

The movie was also referenced in the film Shortbus, John Cameron Mitchell. It is recalled by the character James, who is describing his first homosexual encounter/personal "coming out."

In the debut episode of The Critic, when a boy comes to Jay Sherman's penthouse with a copy of a movie he is to watch, Jay is wearing a shirt that reads My Own Private Idaho.

Ángela's room in the movie Tesis is decorated with a poster from My Own Private Idaho with the Spanish translation of the title (Mi Idaho Privado) on it.

The film was referenced in the movie Tarnation, by the main character Jonathan Caouette.

The film was referenced in the season 2 episode of Lost by a hallucination.

The film was referenced in the British television series "The Smoking Room", by Robin who took his first girlfriend to see it three times on their only dates.

Themes

This section has a lot of original research and needs to be sourced better with more citations. I'm putting it here until this happens.--J.D. (talk) 18:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The hustling aspect of the film presents male intimacy that "flirts with the possibility that its protagonists are gay" Aside from this, hustling sets up an environment centered on the road already. Mike and Scott's situations differ because of Mike's particular restriction of means of support. Scott on the other hand maintains an heir position which he plans to embrace after his twenty-first birthday. Therefore motivation to go on the road is unique to each character. The emptiness that Mike feels leads him to take on the road to find his mother, while Scott's temporary rebellion against his father influences him. While on the road, each of the characters is faced with life changing situations and people. For Mike, the journey seems to continue endlessly, time repeats itself because he is again abandoned. The first time he was abandoned by his mother, this time his best friend Scott does so. Conversely Scott's plan to change into a good son is enabled by the finding of a wife on the road and return to his family. Both of these journeys trace recurring road movie character motives and endings that transform character identity.

References

The novel is at the origin of the script, or not?

"The origins of My Own Private Idaho came from John Rechy's 1963 novel, City of Night, which featured characters who were street hustlers who did not admit to being gay.[1] Van Sant's original screenplay was written in the 1970s, when he was living in Hollywood.[2] After reading Rechy's book, Van Sant realized that it was considerably better than what he was writing, so he shelved the script for years" The whole sentence is both ambiguous and paradoxical...if reading the novel triggered an initial hold-up of the script writing, it is not the "origin" of it! What do you think? --MarmotteiNoZ 08:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You're right, the two statements directly contradict each other. It simply is not possible that the novel was simultaneously the origin of and the reason for shelving the script. But you know what, Wikipedia doesn't care. It doesn't matter whether the statements are true, ambiguous, paradoxical or downright contradictory, what matters is that the editor has a source; and he does. Both statements are sourced, therefore they can both go in the article and Wikipedia is not interested in common sense, and even prevents you from being able to choose, calling editorial insight "original research". Which explains why it is in fact a lie to call Wikipedia an encyclopedia when it is no such thing but just a collection of quotes; if someone else said it first, get it in. The amusing thing is both those statements are referenced to the same source, Graham Fuller's 1993 book about Gus Van Sant. If my previous experience of Wikipedia is anything to go by, when I eventually track down a copy of the book it will not actually say either of them. Cottonshirt τ 23:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with everything said here and I am surprised no corrections have been made, despite much of the comments on this tslk page have highlighted these errors and for many years. I am perplexed to understand how this film is (as the article states) "loosely based on Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part 1, Henry IV, Part 2, and Henry V. Anyone who knows these works know this just is not true. If anything, the film has more in common with a modernised version of Oliver Twist. But alas, maybe it is true as one editor has pointed out above and that Wikipedia does not care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.154.32.144 (talk) 08:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)