Talk:Out of the Past

What films borrowed the plot of Out of the Past?

Please see my query at the reference desk: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2007 February 2#What films borrow from Out of the Past?. --Mathew5000 19:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Lake Tahoe

Was it filmed at Lake Tahoe? Did Kirk Douglas' house there exist? Does it still exist? abelson (talk) 09:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting question. I just noticed this today: http://www.sfgate.com/realestate/article/Lake-Tahoe-estate-Godfather-II-Al-Pacino-Michael-12554849.php and if I'm not mistaken (and I may be) this house appeared in this picture and also was in Godfather II. Anyway that article brought me here to ask if it was the same .... 162.89.0.47 (talk) Eric —Preceding undated comment added 17:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Plot Summary

WP:FILMPLOT recommends 400-700 words. Your version of Out of the Past is nearly double the maximum. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, how about this version of 838 words or so? Gunbirddriver (talk) 06:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought Stephanos found Jeff by chance. Also, was Jeff in Acapulco first? The grammar is a bit off (e.g. "Preparing the next morning") and the phrasing is awkward in places. We're also supposed to avoid slangy expressions ("give Fisher the slip", "lays low") and contractions. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Prior to the films start Stephanous had found Jeff by chance driving through Bridgeport. He had reported the find to Whit, who had ordered Stephanos to return to tell Jeff he was wanted for another job. That was where the movie began, with Stephanous driving into Bridgeport to speak with Jeff. As to the meet with Kathie, Jeff had guessed that Kathie was headed to Acupulco, and was waiting for her there when she first walks through the door of the cantina. "Preparing the next morning" was "Preparing to leave the next morning", which I cut down, but perhaps it was better the way it was. As to the expressions and contractions, we can take those out. Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so now we have a lot of changes that do not improve the explanation of the plot narrative. Hiding rather than withholding?! One suggests actively covering up that which otherwise would be seen, the other suggestions being less than forthcoming. Less than forthcoming is the better description, but I don't own the page.Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

He was "actively covering up". Withholding sounds too passive. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

In what way did he actively "hide" that he was working for Whit? However it sounds, omitting information is different from hiding information. Taking the $40,000 and telling Jeff she didn't take it is lying. Keeping her bank book away from Jeff is hiding. Joe not telling Jeff that Kathie is already with Whit is withholding. Besides, she already suspected it. As an aside, being passive to the fate that was going to befall him is what he was, but that is a different question.Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Aware that his connection to Whit would be something that Kathie would really want to know, Jeff consciously decided and made no little effort to give her a false impression about him. I consider that pretty active.

Why did you take out the fact that Jeff was found by accident? A major theme of the story is the bad luck that dogs him. As it is phrased now, the reader is given the impression that Stephanos was actively searching for him and somehow knew to look in Bridgeport. Also, "foreboding looking" is WP:POV, while saying she suspects is, as far as I can recall, WP:OR.

Since this discussion shows no sign of ending, maybe it would be better to transfer this to the film's talk page, where others can contribute their two cents. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay. In answer, the interaction between Jeff and Kathy is somewhat subtle, but the idea is that Jeff becomes ensnared by Kathie. That was suggested when Jeff first went to report to Whit and found himself glad the telegraph office was closed. The same is suggested most visually when Jeff first kissed Kathie at the beach. The fishing nets surrounding the two were not placed there out of whimsy. Thus Kathie, the femme fatale, ensnared the man that Whit sent to get her. For this narrative to work there has to be the subtext that Jeff is after Kathie and Kathie defends herself by trapping her pursuer. She senses Jeff doesn't fit in the Acapulco cantina from word go. You must allow she is aware that she shot Whit and stole $40,000 (that is overtly in the plot). She also knows that Whit is going to come after her, and that he will never forget what happened between them (from the exchange at Kathie's room later). For her to be consistent as a character she had to be aware that a private investigator was going to come looking for her, and that she met that challenge by turning him. This is hardly original research. These are conclusions the film expects us to draw. Thus the description in the plotline should allude to the fact that Kathie is manipulative, deceitful, irresistible and deadly. Kathie was not in the least bit surprised when Jeff told her Whit had survived and just wanted her back. There was no outrage, no "What, you mean you work for Whit?!" It was already known by both characters, or if not known, so strongly suspected that it was really a little game they were playing where they refused to acknowledge a little lie. Thus the word "hidden" doesn't work well. "Withheld" is better. I have no problem with someone changing how I wrote the plot, but the change should improve the narrative.Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

As to Stephano, it is expected that the viewer will realize that he doesn't fit in the little town where he pulls up. He is a rather large man, wearing all dark clothing, and his interaction with the Kid is hostile and threatening. You see Stephano and you know he's bad news. The word that would describe this would be "foreboding".Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to copy this to the film talk page and respond there.Clarityfiend (talk) 03:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Are we not already on the talk page for the film "Out of the Past"? Is there some other talk page that would suite better?Gunbirddriver (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Multi-tasking too much. Anyway, these are things we're not supposed to inject into the synopsis. Interpretations are supposed to be left to the reader or a critic to infer. Inasmuch as possible, the plot summary should be as objective as possible. (I've added the first part of the discussion, as to avoid confusing someone coming in in the middle.) Clarityfiend (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm back. I still don't like "forboding looking". That's your impression. Nobody else anywhere describes him that way (if they bother to characterize him at all). Why is he being singled out when none of the major characters get adjectives? Also, you haven't responded to my query about the accidental nature of Jeff's discovery. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yes. Bridgeport is meant to appear like rural America, with a certain innocence to it. Joe is meant to appear as a person that really doesn't fit in there. He is a large man, wearing all black, but it was the tossing of the spent matches on the back of the Kid and his dismissive attitude toward him that are meant to give us a sense of danger or violence associated with this man. And why is he here? He is here to pull Jeff back into the world Jeff was trying to escape from. That is the tragic component, that our hero is fated to be drawn back into his destruction. Perhaps we could find a better word than foreboding. Clearly though Joe Stephanos gives off a different feel than love interest Sheriff Jim. The film noir critic on the version I have speaks of this at length, and I could supply his name as a source tomorrow once I get back and look at it again. I don't know why no one else would mention it, but Joe's suggestion to Jeff that he has to go talk with Whit was not really just an invitation that he could refuse, don't you think? What does it mean if saying no is not an option? Stephanos actually laughs about it.

Now as to the accident of Joe discovering Jeff, Stephanos was driving through Bridgeport some time prior to the start of the film, and while he drove through he saw Jeff Markham pumping gas at the station. Joe did not stop, he would not risk acting on his own, but he brought this information back to Whit. Whit thought of it and came up with an idea of how he could tie all his little troubles together and get rid of them all. Jeff Markham was to play a central role. I'm not sure on this, but it may be that Kathie helped come up with the plan. That all occurred before the start of the show. Thus when the show starts we see Joe Stephanos carrying out his orders from Whit, "Go talk to Jeff Markham and tell him I want to see him." So you are right, it was an accidental discovery, but the accident occurred off camera before the start of the show. Stephanos was definitely coming for Jeff at the opening of the film, and he was doing so under Whit's orders.

I think it is important to let people know that Joe Stephanos was not just some guy driving through, an old acquaintance or buddy. He was bad news from the word go, and all of us watching could sense he was trouble. But what word could we use to convey that?Gunbirddriver (talk) 05:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The film critic that did the commentary for the dvd version of the film I have was James Ursini. Gunbirddriver (talk) 23:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Crafton reference

Note 3, citing Donald Crafton's volume in the History of the American Cinema series, is suspect. That volume deals with the early sound era, whereas this movie is more likely to be treated in Thomas Schatz's later volume on the 1940s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rozsaphile1 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

the 'see also' section...

... contains Scarface (1983 film), and 1920 in film. Why???Robbmonster (talk) 11:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Conservation official

This is what the plot section says Jim is, but I don't know what the term "conservation official" means in the context of the era the film takes place in (I can only find a modern meaning relative to nature conservation). Could somebody with knowledge on the topic maybe link the expression to a page that clarifies its meaning? --Kumagoro-42 (talk) 03:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)