Talk:Once Upon a Time in America: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Tom.Reding (talk | contribs) m →top: blpo=yes + blp=no/null → blp=other; cleanup |
||
(45 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=other|class=C| |
||
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=Low|organizedcrime=yes|organizedcrime-imp=Low}} |
|||
|class=C |
|||
{{WikiProject Film|Italian-task-force=yes|core=yes|American-task-force=yes}} |
|||
| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = |
|||
{{WikiProject Italy|importance=Low}} |
|||
| b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = |
|||
{{WikiProject New York City|importance=Low}} |
|||
| b3 <!--Structure --> = yes |
|||
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low|USfilm=yes|USfilm-importance=low}} |
|||
| b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = |
|||
}} |
|||
| b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = yes |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
|Italian-task-force=yes |
|||
|archive = Talk:Once Upon a Time in America/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
|core=yes |
|||
|algo = old(90d) |
|||
|American-task-force=yes}} |
|||
|counter = 1 |
|||
{{WikiProject Organized crime}} |
|||
|maxarchivesize = 90K |
|||
|archiveheader = {{Talk archive navigation}} |
|||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|||
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|||
}} |
|||
{{Archives|auto=long|search=yes}} |
|||
== Deborah's Rape and her reaction == |
|||
==Brooklyn?== |
|||
The plot summary says "The ... 1921 sequence shows young Noodles' (Scott Tiler) struggles as a poor street punk in the Jewish ghetto of Brooklyn." |
|||
How do we feel about the wording of this passage: "Seeking to form a genuine intimacy with Deborah, Noodles takes her on a lavish date, where she reveals her plans to pursue a career in Hollywood. On their drive back, a frustrated Noodles rapes her in the limousine. He is later met with Deborah's aloofness when he watches her board the train to California." |
|||
I always thought that the film depicted Manhattan's Lower East Side rather than Brooklyn. Does anybody know for sure? |
|||
:The back of my copy says it's the L.E.S. and it certainly looks the L.E.S side of the Williamsburg bridge. --[[User:76.214.224.107|76.214.224.107]] 00:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::In the DVD release, when Noodles returns to the old nabe, you can clearly see the buildings of the "modern" (c. 1969) Manhattan skyline on the <u>other</u> side of the river. To me, this is conclusive that the neighborhood is Brooklyn. I am making revisions to the article accordingly (there is already a photo caption stating the nabe is in DUMBO. [[User:Ellsworth|Ellsworth]] 19:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Don't let modern filming locations mess with historical fact. All of the Orthodox Jews in the 1920's lived on the Lower East Side. They filmed it in Brooklyn because there wasn't anything at 8th Street and Bedford in 1984 and they could get what's called in the business "full vista" without losing the period. So they built a set in Brooklyn to act as the Lower East Side. They did this with Gangs of New York, Ragtime (although the LES in that film was E. 11th btwn Ave A/B), etc. etc. -Shawn Chittle LES historian (chittle@gmail.com) |
|||
::::Close but no.<br><br>Ellsworth, you can have whatever head canon you like, but Shawn is right that necessities of filming and minor background mistakes don't trump the narrative.<br><br>Shawn, the historical fact doesn't really trump the ''film's own narrative''. If they were to say it was in Brooklyn or have the wrong streets named, that would be something regardless of the historical reality. You're right that Leone was probably trying to recreate the LES, though. ([[David "Noodles" Aaronson|This article]] says the book more explicitly places it in the Lower East Side.) — [[User talk:LlywelynII|<span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Llywelyn<font color="Gold">II</font></span>]] 12:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC) |
|||
Feels quite problematic, perhaps? |
|||
==Plot summary needed== |
|||
"NOTE: A more in-depth plot-summary needs to be written." |
|||
First, the word 'frustration' might be his personal motivation, but its use here feels a bit off... and secondly Surely not wanting to make eye contact with someone who raped you just hours before seems like a justified reaction, and not anything to do with being "aloof?" |
|||
Empty section "Alternate Versions" also removed. [[User:80.203.115.12|80.203.115.12]] 15:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::Plot summary added, plus a brief annotation on the Dream Theory and the film's critical reception. |
|||
:agree. i'll see what i can do. [[User:Kilnburn|Kilnburn]] ([[User talk:Kilnburn|talk]]) 18:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== |
== James woods commentary == |
||
In my opinion, the "Plot" (such at it is currently) is NOT AT ALL "too long or excessively detailed". On the contrary, it is as accurate and clear as possible since it summarizes an abridged version of the Director's cut [[User:Gauthier2Chatillon|Gauthier2Chatillon]] ([[User talk:Gauthier2Chatillon|talk]]) 11:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:{{u|Gauthier2Chatillon}} You are responding to a post from almost nine years ago. The plot section that the OP was reading has gone through a massive overhaul. Thus, your post has no relevance to the original message. BTW there is no need to shout at the OP. [[User:MarnetteD|MarnetteD]] | [[User talk:MarnetteD|Talk]] 15:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::{{u|MarnetteD}} Sorry for putting my message at the wrong place, but it was in fact addressed to the comment (still included at the beginning of the "Plot" paragraph) that says : "This article's plot summary may be too long or excessively detailed. Please help improve it by removing unnecessary details and making it more concise. ('''May 2012''')". And sorry too for unintentionally shouting. [[User:Gauthier2Chatillon|Gauthier2Chatillon]] ([[User talk:Gauthier2Chatillon|talk]]) 23:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::No problem and thanks for your followup explanation. When you want to open a new thread just start it at the bottom of the talk page. As to the tag it is appropriate per [[WP:FILMPLOT]] we try to keep these between 400 and 700 words. Yes I know that a film of this length will push the 700 word limit. This has been discussed a few times over the years and the consensus remains that, even with a lengthy film like this one, we should still try to meet that limit. OTOH as you note the tag was placed there over 2 years ago so it looks like the plot won't be getting trimmed anytime soon. Cheers. [[User:MarnetteD|MarnetteD]] | [[User talk:MarnetteD|Talk]] 23:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC) |
|||
the article mentions above that Gene Siskel called the American edit the worst movie of 1984 and the original edit the best. |
|||
=="***** Theory"== |
|||
I strongly object on grounds of spoilage, to the headline of this section. It surely needs a spoiler warning. Even this entry in the table of contents is spoilerish and should be reconsidered. I propose "opium theory" as an alternative name. |
|||
Then later it references James Woods telling of a critic who said the same thing. I think this is a little redundant, given it's highly likely Woods is referring to Siskel in the first place [[User:CornflakeCancer|CornflakeCancer]] ([[User talk:CornflakeCancer|talk]]) 18:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Also, I added a tidbit to the "***** Theory" section that I think shines some interesting light on this controversy. [[User:Hazel Rah|Hazel Rah]] 06:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Anyone coming to the Wikipedia article ''before'' seeing the movie <u>cannot</u> complain about anything being "spoiled". That said, I'm not sure it ever deserved a separate section. — [[User talk:LlywelynII|<span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Llywelyn<font color="Gold">II</font></span>]] 12:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== |
== Fine tune the plot? == |
||
...and some people need to learn to use the discussion area. - [[User:Stormwatch|Stormwatch]] 05:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree. Why don't we just remove most of that? - [[User:Zepheus|Zepheus]] 16:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
I appreciate much work has already been spent on doing the plot and it is already beyond the suggested 700 words. However, I do feel we should fine tune it to a) expand on the love story between Noodles and Deborah as this unfulfilled love is one of the key theme of the movie, next to the friendship with Max , b) correct smallish inaccuracies (e.g. at the time Noodles sees Deborah's photograph when meeting Carol, Deborah is not "still an actress" but has "become a famous actress" and c) (but to be discussed) add a few words on the scene of exchanging the newborns as it is a key scene). I had done such edits but they were reverted on the basis of the final word count being too high. Happy to discuss the actual wording of course, but I would appreciate consensus on a) and b) and potentially c). If actual word count is the issue, we could also strip the present text for a few words so that overall word count it not increased, however, this would lead to some deletions that I would not want to do without consensus. Thanks [[User:Jaeljojo|Jaeljojo]] ([[User talk:Jaeljojo|talk]]) 07:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Carol's Rape Scene == |
|||
:Frankly, it is a waste of time. Any decent summary is going to be deleted because of this absurd and arbitrary "700 words"-rule. [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] ([[User talk:Dimadick|talk]]) 10:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I don't think it's clear that Carol is being raped during that scene as stated in the article. There are a lot of indications that she wanted it to happen that way. The way Joe explains how he found out about the secret diamonds, sounds like he had a similar experience with Carol. Carol also requests to be hit to "make it more real". She also makes sounds of pleasure versus opposition. Lastly, there is the scene where they are at Peggy's brothel and she's reintroduced to the guys and makes a happy guess that it was Max she had "known personally" at the robbery. Of course this is all speculation so this can be discussed before any changes are made. --[[User:76.214.224.107|76.214.224.107]] 00:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Thank you. The rule actually says "should not exceed 400 - 700" unless (now paraphrasing) "the film warrants a longer one". So I cannot see how it should brutally apply to a 4h epic movie. And by the way the current plot summary is already more than 700 words. Anyway, I will suggest changes so that the total amount of words is not (or minimally) increased. [[User:Jaeljojo|Jaeljojo]] ([[User talk:Jaeljojo|talk]]) 15:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:She wanted it is the general consensus but the fact is without like explicit consent you know that is rape. The fact that they were robbing the place at the time adds to the fact that it was a violent assault. It is rape but there are many things that suggest she is a little weird. [[User:Alexbonaro|Alexbonaro]] 11:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Please see proposal for fine-tuned plot below. In total it has a few fewer words than the current version, so I guess that should not cause a problem. It would be good to get feedback whether this new plot is acceptable. It still would need improvement at a few places, but I did not want to change too much and more than was in my view absolutely necessary. |
|||
::My own take on the scene was that it was the assailant's intent to rape her due to his arousal over Joe's story about having had sex with the same woman earlier. The sexual contact begins as violent rape, in the midst of brutal attacks on the men present. Her submission to the rape, even her cooperation or possible enjoyment, don't change the fact that the initial contact is by force and non-consensual and therefore rape. "She wanted it" may have become true as the rape progressed, but it wasn't true when the rape was initiated. I think it's okay to characterize it as rape in the article. — [[User:Lisasmall|LisaSmall]] [[User_Talk:Lisasmall|<sup><small>'''T'''</small></sup>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lisasmall|<small>'''C'''</small>]] 07:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::"The movie covers events spreading over 40 years starting in the 1920ies and is told in an [[Nonlinear narrative]]. In the prologue that is set in the 1930ies, three thugs search for a man named "Noodles". It turns out Noodles is drugging himself in an [[opium den]] with a newspaper next to him, featuring the death of [[Rum-running|bootleggers]] Patrick Goldberg, Philip Stein and Maximilian Bercovicz. He recalls the police removing their corpses, burnt beyond recognition. Noodles evades capture and leaves the city. |
|||
:::Personally, it's part of my disgust with the adult sections of the movie but, no, she was patently turned on from before the rape. That she ''did'' want it doesn't make it less rape, since Noodles wouldn't've cared either way... but then part of his treatment of her throughout the movie is his disgust for the things that turn her on. I'm not saying it's inauthentic to some people's lives, but it's wretched all the way around. — [[User talk:LlywelynII|<span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Llywelyn<font color="Gold">II</font></span>]] 12:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::: |
|||
:::The plot turns to the 1920ies as [[David "Noodles" Aaronson]] leads a boy gang of him and his three friends "Patsy" Goldberg, "Cockeye" Stein and Dominic, committing jobs for local boss Bugsy. They meet Max as he foils one of their robberies but has the booty stolen from him by corrupt police officer Whitey. Max and Noodles later manage to blackmail Whitey as he has sex with underage prostitute Peggy and get the same police protection as Bugsy. |
|||
== Offensive to women == |
|||
::: |
|||
I was not comfortable with the following statement: |
|||
:::The group successfully get involved in liquor smuggling. They deposit their earnings in a railway station locker, giving the key to "Fat Moe", a friend not directly involved in their activities. Noodles is in love with Moe's sister, Deborah, who dreams of becoming a dancer and actress. Deborah clearly feels for Noodles too, but makes it clear that due to his socialization as a gangster, they can never be together. Bugsy, now a rival, eventually ambushes the gang and fatally shoots Dominic. In a fit of rage, Noodles stabs and kills Bugsy and is sentenced to prison. |
|||
:"Though some female audience members were offended by the rape scenes and depiction of women" |
|||
::: |
|||
Was it only female members who were offended, or is that a guess? I know that many males find the treatment of rape in this film to be very offensive. Was this not the case during the first screenings. Should we replace the avbove with "Though some audience members" etc, or is that inaccurate. |
|||
:::Upon his release from prison Noodles rejoins his friends who have continued their criminal activities and treated Noodles as a partner despite his absence. Their next job is a diamond heist using jewellery employee Carol as their informant. During the robbery, she goads Noodles into hitting her, after which he rapes her, evidently her enjoying the sadistic treatment; she later goes on to become Max's girlfriend. Noodles realises after the heist that their job had been commissioned by a [[National Crime Syndicate|Syndicate]] figure to eliminate competition. This sits badly with Noodles who seeks independence and leads to tensions between Noodles and Max. The gang gets further involved in the struggle around the labour movement and provides protection for [[International Brotherhood of Teamsters|Teamsters' union]] boss Jimmy O'Donnell, during the course of which they "play god" by exchanging newborns at a clinic in order to hurt the head of the police whose wife has just given birth to a boy. This eventually succeeds in the police withdrawing their actions against striking workers. When further political actions are discussed, further tensions between Noodles and Max emerge. |
|||
:This and other claims in the section needs citation (as of May). I would suggest that if nothing can be found to justify the claim that certain people were offended by certain things, then the section be rewritten to take the claims out. [[User:158.42.10.44|158.42.10.44]] 15:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::: |
|||
:::Noodles reconnects with Deborah and takes her on a lavish date. The feelings between the two are clear and they exchange intimacies, and he admits to having loved her all his life. When she reveals her plans to pursue a career in Hollywood and to leave the city, he snaps and rapes her. When she departs by train the next day, he attempts to catch a glance of her sitting in the train, but she avoids eye-contact. |
|||
==Baseless claim== |
|||
::: |
|||
I've removed the following: |
|||
:::The repeal of the Prohibition forces to gang to look for alternative activities. Max suggests a [[New York Federal Reserve Bank]] heist, which Noodles and Carol deem a suicide mission. She convinces Noodles to inform the police about a lesser offense, hoping brief incarceration will cool off Max's ambition. After Noodles calls the police, Max knocks him out during a seemingly impromptu argument. This leads to the events shown in the prologue as upon regaining consciousness and learning that Max, Patsy, and Cockeye have been killed by the police during the heist, a guilt-ridden Noodles hides in the opium den. During his subsequent escape, he realises the railway locker money has disappeared. |
|||
:"The uncut version of the film, however, was by far Leone's most critically acclaimed film, and today it has a large [[cult following]]." |
|||
::: |
|||
There is no way anyone can say that Once Upon a Time in America is "by far" Leone's most critically acclaimed work. [[The Good, the Bad and the Ugly]] and [[Once Upon a Time in the West]] both have higher ratings on rottentomatoes.com, 100 percent and 97 percent, respectively. |
|||
:::The plot turns to the 1960ies and Noodles who has not visited the city since the events in the 1930ies arrives in Manhattan as he had been informed that a cemetery is being redeveloped and he is being asked to rebury any loved ones. Noodles understands the letter as a sign that he has been uncovered and he seeks to find out who is behind this. He learns that the bodies of his three friends have been relocated to [[Riverdale, Bronx|Riverdale]]. He visits their mausoleum in Riverdale and finds a key to a railway locker. The caption on the [[commemorative plaque]] falsely states that the mausoleum was erected by Noodles himself. |
|||
::: |
|||
Once Upon a Time in America has a 93 percent. The statement is also contradicted later on in the article, where it says that it's not Leone's most well-liked film and is often compared unfavorably to [[The Godfather]]. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is probably Leone's most acclaimed work, but I'd hestitate asserting that in an article because it's harder to judge critical consensus on older movies.--[[User:YellowTapedR|YellowTapedR]] 08:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::The locker reveals a suitcase full of money and a note stating this is a down-payment on his next job. Staying with Moe, Noodles learns of the scandals around Senator Christopher Bailey. Noodles finds Carol in a retirement home run by the Bailey Foundation. She tells him that Max manipulated them into tipping him off to the police and that Max [[Suicide by cop|opened fire first]], wishing to die young. During the visit, Noodles spots on a memorial photograph Deborah, who has by now become a major actress. He starts to suspect a connection between Deborah and Senator Bailey. As she is performing in the city at that time, he visits her in her artist room after a performance {{efn| To emphasize the beauty of Deborah to Noodles, Deborah is depicted without signs of aging in the 1960ies scenes, unlike all other characters. "Age cannot wither her{{nbsp}}... ({{Folger inline|Ant|2|2|276–277|bare=true}}) It's like the play was written for you", Noodles tells her after reading the theater poster of ''[[Antony and Cleopatra]]'', which Deborah had just acted in.<ref>{{cite magazine |first=Tony |last=Sokol |date=September 7, 2021 |title=''Once Upon a Time in America'' Is Every Bit as Great a Gangster Movie as ''The Godfather''|url=https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/once-upon-a-time-in-america-every-bit-as-great-the-godfather/amp |magazine=[[Den of Geek]] |access-date=October 2, 2021 |archive-date=October 3, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211003010731/https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/once-upon-a-time-in-america-every-bit-as-great-the-godfather/?amp |url-status=live }}</ref>}} He tells her about his invitation to a party at Bailey's mansion and challenges her to tell her about the mysterious job and down-payment as well as the identity of Senator Bailey. After initially denying any connection to him, Deborah admits to being Bailey's lover and begs Noodles to leave the city before facing hurtful revelations. Ignoring her advice, Noodles sees upon leaving Bailey's son, who looks like the young Max. |
|||
:agreed. If it means critically agreed ON RELEASE, then this should be stated. [[User:158.42.10.44|158.42.10.44]] 15:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::: |
|||
:::At the party Noodles meets Bailey, who turns out to be Max. Max had faked his death with the help of the police and Syndicate, stole the gang's money and reinvented himself as a self-made, Teamsters-connected politician. He also made Deborah his mistress thus robbing Noodles of everything he had. Now, faced with ruin due to the corruption scandal, Max reveals that he was the one giving the mysterious job to Noodles and that the job is for Noodles to kill him. Obstinately referring to him by his Bailey identity throughout their discussion, Noodles refuses. In his eyes, Max died many years ago. As Noodles leaves the estate, a garbage truck starts up and a man, presumably Max, walks from the entrance toward Noodles until the truck passes between them. Noodles sees the truck's [[auger conveyor]] grinding garbage, but the man is nowhere to be seen. |
|||
==New DVD rumors== |
|||
::: |
|||
Could someone please fix that quote, as the convoluted nature of it annoys me.--[[User:mondocanerules]] 10:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::In the final scene of the movie, the plot goes back to the events preceding the prologue as Noodles enters the opium den, taking the drug and grinning broadly." |
|||
:::[[User:Jaeljojo|Jaeljojo]] ([[User talk:Jaeljojo|talk]]) 06:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC) [[User:Jaeljojo|Jaeljojo]] ([[User talk:Jaeljojo|talk]]) 06:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==Plot summary shortened== |
|||
::::Not sure I will get much response here, but here is one correction as I accidentally posted a wrong version. Here is the one I suggest (shortened compared to the one posted previously so that it truly is not longer than the one presently in the article). |
|||
I've reduced the size of the somewhat large plot summary (1100 words) to around 700 words by grafting parts of an older version onto the introduction. [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Once_Upon_a_Time_in_America&oldid=33208725#Plot_Summary]. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 00:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::"The movie covers events spreading over 40 years starting in the 1920ies and is told in an [[Nonlinear narrative]]. In the prologue that is set in the 1930ies, three thugs search for a man named "Noodles". It turns out Noodles is drugging himself in an [[opium den]] with a newspaper next to him, featuring the death of [[Rum-running|bootleggers]] Patrick Goldberg, Philip Stein and Maximilian Bercovicz. He recalls the police removing their corpses, burnt beyond recognition. Noodles evades capture and leaves the city. |
|||
:Don't do that. It's a long movie and the summary needs to be thorough as well as terse. — [[User talk:LlywelynII|<span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Llywelyn<font color="Gold">II</font></span>]] 12:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::: |
|||
::::The plot turns to the 1920ies as [[David "Noodles" Aaronson]] leads a boy gang of him and his three friends "Patsy" Goldberg, "Cockeye" Stein and Dominic, committing jobs for local gangster Bugsy. They meet Max as he foils one of their robberies but has the booty stolen from him by corrupt police officer Whitey. Max joins their gang and they later manage to blackmail Whitey and get the same police protection as Bugsy. |
|||
== Sections 4.1 - 4.3 == |
|||
:::: |
|||
Why are they under "Opium Dream theory"? While that section is speculative in nature, the three sections within it are relevant to the making of the film. I'd like to get a consensus from any editor working on the film. --[[User:MwNNrules|MwNNrules]] ([[User talk:MwNNrules|talk]]) 18:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::The gang becomes successful liquor smugglers. They deposit their earnings in locker, giving the key to common friend Moe. Noodles is in love with Moe's sister, Deborah, who dreams of becoming a dancer. Deborah feels for Noodles too, but due to his socialization as a gangster, she sees no future for their love. Bugsy, now a rival, ambushes the gang and fatally shoots Dominic upon which Noodles kills Bugsy and is sentenced to prison. |
|||
:::: |
|||
== Was Little Dominic Jewish? == |
|||
::::Upon his release about a decade later, Noodles rejoins his gang. On a diamond heist they use jewellery employee Carol as their informant. During the robbery, she goads Noodles into hitting her, after which he rapes her, evidently her enjoying the sadistic treatment; she later becomes Max's girlfriend. Noodles realises that the heist had been commissioned by a [[National Crime Syndicate|Syndicate]] figure to eliminate competition. This leads to tensions between Max and Noodles who seeks independence. The gang provides protection for [[International Brotherhood of Teamsters|Teamsters' union]] boss O'Donnell, during the course of which they exchange newborns at a clinic, punishing the head of the police whose wife has just given birth to a boy at that clinic. This succeeds in the police withdrawing their actions against striking workers. Further tensions between Noodles and Max emerge on their future activities. |
|||
Was the Little Dominic character a Jewish kid or an Italian? --[[Special:Contributions/75.10.241.137|75.10.241.137]] ([[User talk:75.10.241.137|talk]]) 06:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::: |
|||
::::Noodles takes Deborah on a lavish date. The feelings between them are evident and they exchange intimacies, and he admits to having loved her all his life. When she reveals her plans to pursue a career in Hollywood and to leave the city, he snaps and rapes her. As she departs the next day, he attempts to catch a glance of her sitting in the train, but she avoids eye-contact. |
|||
== "Opium Theory" - spoiler alert for anyone not familiar with the plot == |
|||
:::: |
|||
Er I just want to say that as this article stands, it needs a lot of work. There are very little references but a lot of supposition; and the aforementioned section is POV, opinion and original research (OR). Leone created a very complex piece of cinema. But as he is no longer alive, which is a pity, no one can ask him what he really meant. Using expressions such as 'hinted at' means nothing, it either is or isn't? |
|||
::::The repeal of the Prohibition forces to gang to look for alternative activities. Max suggests a [[New York Federal Reserve Bank]] heist, which Noodles and Carol deem too risky. She convinces Noodles to inform the police about a lesser offense, hoping brief incarceration will cool off Max's ambition. After Noodles calls the police, Max knocks him out. This leads to the events shown in the prologue as upon learning that Max, Patsy, and Cockeye have been killed by the police during the heist, a guilt-ridden Noodles hides in the opium den. During his subsequent escape, he realises the locker money has disappeared. |
|||
:::: |
|||
Furthermore my basic gripe is that the ''Opium theory'' section is just too literal of what is seen on the screen. I mean my OR is that the film was edited to tell a long and episodic story that intertwines through past and present events due to the commonality of the story - friendship, love and betrayal. Another example of my OR, is the character of Deborah Gelly who does not age a great deal in the 1960s sequences. I believe that this is Leone's way to show that Noodles feelings have not changed after all the years away. He looks at her the same way he always had. But these are all my theories so why should the article contain the opium one? |
|||
::::The plot turns to the 1960ies as Noodles arrives in Manhattan for the first time since the events in the 1930ies. He has been informed on the possibility to rebury loved ones from a cemetery that is being redeveloped. Noodles understands the letter as a sign that he has been uncovered and seeks to find out who is behind this. He learns that the bodies of his three friends have been relocated to [[Riverdale, Bronx|Riverdale]]. He visits their mausoleum in Riverdale and finds a key to a railway locker. |
|||
:::: |
|||
Likewise I just thought Leone wanted the film to end on a positive note showing Noodles in the opium den, high and happy at a time in his life when things were good (no problems) and he was at the top of his game (the 1930s). As opposed to a broken old man who had lived in hiding for 35 years from a friend who ripped him off, tried to have him killed and then cohabited with his only true love (1960s). It should be noted that the end scene in the opium den could be chronologically in the middle of the film. Max asks Noodles where he had been for the past few days and Cockeye intimates that he'd been smoking heroin. |
|||
::::The locker reveals a suitcase full of money, stated to be the advance on his next job. Noodles learns of the corruption scandals around Senator Christopher Bailey and visits Carol in a retirement home run by the Bailey Foundation. She tells him that Max manipulated them into tipping him off to the police and that Max [[Suicide by cop|opened fire first]], wishing to die young. Noodles spots on a memorial photograph Deborah, who has by now become a major actress and starts to suspect a connection between Deborah and Bailey. He tracks down Deborah and visits her. {{efn| To emphasize the beauty of Deborah to Noodles, Deborah is depicted without signs of aging in the 1960ies scenes, unlike all other characters. "Age cannot wither her{{nbsp}}... ({{Folger inline|Ant|2|2|276–277|bare=true}}) It's like the play was written for you", Noodles tells her after reading the theater poster of ''[[Antony and Cleopatra]]'', which Deborah had just acted in.<ref>{{cite magazine |first=Tony |last=Sokol |date=September 7, 2021 |title=''Once Upon a Time in America'' Is Every Bit as Great a Gangster Movie as ''The Godfather''|url=https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/once-upon-a-time-in-america-every-bit-as-great-the-godfather/amp |magazine=[[Den of Geek]] |access-date=October 2, 2021 |archive-date=October 3, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211003010731/https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/once-upon-a-time-in-america-every-bit-as-great-the-godfather/?amp |url-status=live }}</ref>}} He tells her about his invitation to a party at Bailey's mansion and challenges her to tell her about the mysterious job as well as the identity of Bailey. Deborah admits to being Bailey's lover and begs Noodles to leave the city before facing hurtful revelations. Ignoring her advice, upon leaving Noodles sees Bailey's son, who looks like the young Max. |
|||
:::: |
|||
In conclusion my point is that these are just my theories of what the movie signifies to me. Just one of dozens ideas. |
|||
::::At the party, Noodles meets Bailey, who turns out to be Max who had faked his death, stole the gang's money and reinvented himself as a self-made business man. He also made Deborah his mistress thus robbing Noodles of everything he had. Now, faced with ruin due to the corruption scandal, Max reveals that he ordered the mysterious job and that the job is for Noodles to kill him. Obstinately referring to Max by his Bailey identity, Noodles refuses. In his eyes, Max died many years ago. As Noodles leaves the estate, a garbage truck passes and a man, presumably Max, walks toward Noodles until the truck passes between them. Noodles sees the truck's [[auger conveyor]] grinding garbage, but the man is nowhere to be seen. |
|||
:<small>COURSE THIS IS HARDLY A SPOILER BECAUSE WHOEVER WROTE THE MAIN PAGE FOR THE MOVIE INCLUDED THE ENTIRE PLOT OF THE MOVIE! WHAT WERE YOU THINKING!? CHANGE IT. THAT IS MESSED UP.</small> <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.236.242.211|71.236.242.211]] ([[User talk:71.236.242.211|talk]]) 17:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:::: |
|||
::So either more references are added or the ''Opium Theory'' section should be deleted because it lacks any citations and is also vague, opinionated and highly debatable. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.166.69.94|86.166.69.94]] ([[User talk:86.166.69.94|talk]]) 12:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
::::In the final scene of the movie, the plot goes back to the events preceding the prologue as Noodles enters the opium den." |
|||
::::[[User:Jaeljojo|Jaeljojo]] ([[User talk:Jaeljojo|talk]]) 05:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC) [[User:Jaeljojo|Jaeljojo]] ([[User talk:Jaeljojo|talk]]) 05:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Reception Section Flawed Fatally == |
|||
:::::There were multiple issues with this, including unneeded breaking of the fourth wall and grammar problems. I also removed the footnote, as it has nothing to do with the plot summary per se (it would be more appropriate to mention elsewhere in the article). I've made an effort to clean it up while respecting that the film is long and that, as such, we can take a little latitude with the word-count recommendation. [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 13:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Thanks for taking the time to look at this. However, I do not understand your editing as you took out crucial bits (e.g. on the love between Noodles and Deborah) apparently with the aim to force it down as close as possible to 700 words. And as this is a plot and not a summary, certain details (like the ones mentioned in the footnote for example) are relevant for this plot I think. And we may have different views on what grammar problems are ... :-). But this should not be between you and me, so I leave to others to take forward. [[User:Jaeljojo|Jaeljojo]] ([[User talk:Jaeljojo|talk]]) 16:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==Full cut== |
|||
Has a full cut of the film ever been released, or is the Brazilian version the closest thing available-ie is their a cut which features all the scenes with Eve; who only appears for a brief moment rather than her being a promonent character? I just find it a shame that such a story has been truncated so much by producers, Leone supposadly covered a large portion of the novel, which is to say a lot of scenes, but only three hours of those scenes have to my knowledge been released. So does anyone know if such a DvD or the like exist, or does the original full length film even exist anymore, or are we to be stuck with the multilated, but masterful nonetheless, version forever?-Wyrmalla <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/109.153.209.252|109.153.209.252]] ([[User talk:109.153.209.252|talk]]) 22:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:You mean the 6-hour version? No. — [[User talk:LlywelynII|<span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Llywelyn<font color="Gold">II</font></span>]] 12:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC) |
|||
==Summary== |
|||
Obviously, it needs to be terse without omitting important points. The current version is pretty good and should not be shortened by the removal of any scenes. Some problems, though: |
|||
* It needs to state upfront which version we're talking about; we should use the full theatrical release (i.e., the European or restored version) |
|||
* This one seems to be missing several scenes; we should cover them |
|||
* There are several opinions included in the current summary, all of which shouldn't be there, most of which are wrong, and one of which—''Noodles attends the party at Secretary Bailey's house and hides his shock in discovering that Bailey is Max''—is an utter howler. We should stick with the facts—''Noodles attends the party at Secretary Bailey's house and shows no surprise finding that Bailey is Max''—but, if we're doing unsourced opinions, the far more informed one is that he's already worked out what has happened from at least seeing Jennifer Connelly's son. It's ridiculous on its face he wouldn't've been able to find a photo of an administration secretary off camera and he plays along with the "Mr Bailey" persona placidly. |
|||
* I prefer to give the scenes in order, since that's what the movie is. I'm ok with telling most of the story chronologically but—for obvious reasons—it's essential to begin and end the narrative with the opium den scenes. |
|||
* Oh, and Noodles doesn't find the roughed up Fat Moe and missing money before the opium den scene; they follow it. |
|||
I'll make a note of the version and include the scenes that I see are missing; kindly restore any other scenes as well. (Not for the 6-hour version, though; if someone still has that, its omitted scenes should go in a separate section.) — [[User talk:LlywelynII|<span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Llywelyn<font color="Gold">II</font></span>]] 12:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC) |
|||
==Minutes don't add up?== |
|||
The article specifies: |
|||
* "original European release version (1984, 229 minutes)" |
|||
* A 251-minute version being shown at the 2012 Cannes Film Festival |
|||
* A 251-minute Extended Director's Cut |
|||
* "Leone's originally intended 269-minute version". |
|||
Hence there's 22 extra minutes in the Cannes/Extended version but still 18 minutes missing as compared to Leone's intended version. |
|||
However reference 22 specifies 25 extra minutes (no mention of new length), reference 24 references 25 extra minutes (and a new length of 245 not 251) and reference 28 specifies 22 extra minutes (and a new length of 251). |
|||
And the article mentions "gain[ing] the rights to the final 24 minutes of deleted scenes for a complete version of Leone's original 269 minute version" (no reference). |
|||
Are references 22 and 24 wrong in saying that 25 minutes are missing (rather than 22)? |
|||
Is reference 24 wrong in saying that the new length is 245 minutes (rather than 249)? |
|||
Should the article be corrected to say that the rights need to be gained to the final 18 minutes (rather than 25)? |
|||
BTW, reference 23 is dead. |
|||
Thanks [[User:Zin92|Zin92]] ([[User talk:Zin92|talk]]) 05:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
I have a 2 disc Warner Bros DVD with a run time of approx 220 mins is this a new length Johnpjambler |
|||
== Sergio Leone == |
|||
was an [[Italian]] film maker, not a US only one. [[User:Hatchmight|Hatchmight]] ([[User talk:Hatchmight|talk]]) 23:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:That is not the determining factor in how the field is used. Try reading the documentation. BTW under that reasoning all of Charlie Chaplin's films are British which they aren't. [[User:MarnetteD|MarnetteD]]|[[User talk:MarnetteD|Talk]] 23:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::There is a heavier Italianate theme on both sides of the camera to this film than anything Charlie Chaplin had regarding British, even then Chaplain was not a director. [[User:Hatchmight|Hatchmight]] ([[User talk:Hatchmight|talk]]) 23:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::That is [[WP:OR]] on your part. Wikipedia relies on [[WP:RS]] for info added to both articles and infoboxes. [[User:MarnetteD|MarnetteD]]|[[User talk:MarnetteD|Talk]] 23:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::"Chaplin was not a director" - since when!?!? [[User:MarnetteD|MarnetteD]]|[[User talk:MarnetteD|Talk]] 23:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment''' The current ref is total crap, but both the [http://www.afi.com/members/catalog/DetailView.aspx?s=&Movie=57162 American Film Institute] and [http://www.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/4ce2b6e31e32e British Film Institute] concur it is an Italian-American film. Hatchmight is correct more by accident than a coherent argument though, since as editors we don't evaluate the thematic content of a film to determine its national origin. Oh, and while Sergio Leone directed classics Charlie Chaplin directed masterpieces, so I think he earned the right to be called a "director". [[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]] ([[User talk:Betty Logan|talk]]) 00:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::Thanks for the input BL. Since you did the work to find the refs {{u|Betty Logan}} would you please do the honors and add them to the article. Thanks for your efforts. [[User:MarnetteD|MarnetteD]]|[[User talk:MarnetteD|Talk]] 00:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::: Well, I'm not Betty, but I added a citation to the Lumiere database at the [[European Audiovisual Observatory]], which is a good source for classic films. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 02:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Thank you {{u|NinjaRobotPirate}}. I guess we can have the other two as backup should any question arise. [[User:MarnetteD|MarnetteD]]|[[User talk:MarnetteD|Talk]] 03:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Thanks NRP; I had just come along to do this after getting a ping from Marnette but you saved me the hassle! [[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]] ([[User talk:Betty Logan|talk]]) 18:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
You know what would forever solve this problem across wikipedia as a whole? If we stopped pretending that nationality is an important aspect of every single film. Yeah, it can be seen to matter in, say, ''Birth of a Nation'' or ''Roma, città aperta'', but there should be a demonstrable reason to ''include'', rather than omit, a nationality by default. [[User:Grapple X|'''G<small>RAPPLE</small>''']] [[User talk:Grapple X|'''<small><sup>X</sup></small>''']] 09:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:I fully agree with you on that point: the country debate causes problems on articles where it is irrelevant; although that said I can sort of see an argument for including it here because the film itself is about national identity. [[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]] ([[User talk:Betty Logan|talk]]) 15:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
==Plot changes== |
|||
The current changes are bloating the plot unnecessarily per [[WP:FILMPLOT]]. :They also have [[WP:SYNTH]] problems. Any item that contains the phrase "It is implied" means the rest is [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:POV]]. Other viewers will see other implications - especially in a film, where the story telling structure is non-linear, like this one. [[User:MarnetteD|MarnetteD]]|[[User talk:MarnetteD|Talk]] 21:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:Agreed. The editor needs to come here and explain his edits, as we both asked him to do more than once. ---<font face="Georgia">'''[[User:TheOldJacobite|<span style="color:#009900">The Old Jacobite</span>]]'''</font><font face="Courier New"><sub>''[[User talk:TheOldJacobite|<span style="color:#006600">The '45</span>]]''</sub></font> 23:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
This movie is too long and non linear. The rules according to the [[WP:FILMPLOT]] cannot be applied here and my words "It is implied" is another expression of telling what is obvious, but cannot be noticed on the spot. 06:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[[User:Arderich|Arderich]] ([[User talk:Arderich|talk]]) |
|||
:[[WP:FILMPLOT]] is applied here per [[WP:CONSENSUS]]. BTW "implied" is not the same as "obvious" in any sense of either word. [[User:MarnetteD|MarnetteD]]|[[User talk:MarnetteD|Talk]] 14:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
In that case I will put "obvious".[[User:Arderich|Arderich]] ([[User talk:Arderich|talk]]) 14:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree with [[User:MarnetteD|MarnetteD]]. You have no consensus for your changes, and the changes you are suggesting are inappropriate. Also, please us talk page formatting so that the conversation can be followed. ---<font face="Georgia">'''[[User:TheOldJacobite|<span style="color:#009900">The Old Jacobite</span>]]'''</font><font face="Courier New"><sub>''[[User talk:TheOldJacobite|<span style="color:#006600">The '45</span>]]''</sub></font> 14:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::Whatever word you use it is [[WP:OR]] and does not belong in the article. [[User:MarnetteD|MarnetteD]]|[[User talk:MarnetteD|Talk]] 14:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
And what about Deborah´s betrayal, crime and shame. Should it not be included?[[User:Arderich|Arderich]] ([[User talk:Arderich|talk]]) 20:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
And what about the fact, that David is an adolescent version of Max with the exception of the hair, which helped understand Noodles on the spot who Bailey is and what Deborah did? Should it not be included either?[[User:Arderich|Arderich]] ([[User talk:Arderich|talk]]) 20:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
And what about the ending when the credits roll? Should it not be included, that at this moment Noodle´s past flows through him as a catharsis now that he has put the past behind him? Or the fact that you can sense how he moves on with his life after it happened, when the scree goes black? What about this?20:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[[User:Arderich|Arderich]] ([[User talk:Arderich|talk]]) |
|||
And what about the fact, that Max indeed killed himself after the meeting with Noodles? Should it not be included either?[[User:Arderich|Arderich]] ([[User talk:Arderich|talk]]) 20:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:All of that is just [[WP:PLOTBLOAT]]. I understand that it is important to you but I do not see it improving the plot section of this article. BTW there are plenty of places on the net (like facebook or a blog) where you can write your interpretation of the plot of this film. Feel free to avail yourself of them. [[User:MarnetteD|MarnetteD]]|[[User talk:MarnetteD|Talk]] 22:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
Deborah´s relationship with Noodles from the beginning to the end is a very important part of the movie. It has to be included.[[User:Arderich|Arderich]] ([[User talk:Arderich|talk]]) 01:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
The fact that David is an adolescent version of Max is extremely important, because it helped Noodles deal with Max and Deborah. It also has to be included.[[User:Arderich|Arderich]] ([[User talk:Arderich|talk]]) 01:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
Don´t try to tell, that Max´s suicide is not an important part of the movie. It closes David´s past.[[User:Arderich|Arderich]] ([[User talk:Arderich|talk]]) 01:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
And the fact, that he closes it internally is also important for the movie´s closure.[[User:Arderich|Arderich]] ([[User talk:Arderich|talk]]) 01:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::Perhaps you should read [[WP:CONSENSUS]] because there is none for your changes to the plot section. [[User:MarnetteD|MarnetteD]]|[[User talk:MarnetteD|Talk]] 14:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
Are you trying to tell me, that these parts of the movie are not important?[[User:Arderich|Arderich]] ([[User talk:Arderich|talk]]) 16:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
Or the fact, that the puppet theatre is not Indonesian, but Chinese? 17:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[[User:Arderich|Arderich]] ([[User talk:Arderich|talk]]) |
|||
:All of this is still [[WP:PLOTBLOAT]]. Try reading the policy for once. BTW this article [[Wayang]] shows the error in your last statement. There is no reason to go on with this since you have presented nothing to change the current [[WP:CONSENSUS]]. Feel free to start a RFC or take up my suggestion of availing yourself of other places on the net to post your version. [[User:MarnetteD|MarnetteD]]|[[User talk:MarnetteD|Talk]] 17:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
Max clearly told to Noodles, he had been with the chinks, when he was full with Opium after having lost Deborah. That means he was in a chinese puppet theatre, when he inhaled Opium again after having lost his friends. What do you have to say about this?[[User:Arderich|Arderich]] ([[User talk:Arderich|talk]]) 18:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== Once Upon a Time in America is a 1984 Italian-American, no it's not!! == |
|||
OUATIA is NOT Italian-American, it's JEWISH-AMERICAN! <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/101.167.39.149|101.167.39.149]] ([[User talk:101.167.39.149#top|talk]]) 10:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:It's a production by Italian and American film companies. The characters are Jewish. [[User:Samurai Kung fu Cowboy|Samurai Kung fu Cowboy]] ([[User talk:Samurai Kung fu Cowboy|talk]]) 16:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== External links modified == |
|||
Hello fellow Wikipedians, |
|||
I have just modified one external link on [[Once Upon a Time in America]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/814886409|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes: |
|||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140716203520/http://www.tcm.com/this-month/article/191909%7c191910/Sergio-Leone-Profile.html to http://www.tcm.com/this-month/article=191909%7c191910/Sergio-Leone-Profile.html |
|||
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. |
|||
{{sourcecheck|checked=true}} |
|||
Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 14:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== Plot summary == |
|||
Since being cut, it appears as though it has been added to. Also, it clearly has excessive detail. For example, it says a character is the son of a Kosher butcher. That is completely unnecessary. I'm tagging other editors who have edited this page and worked on film pages for input. {{u|Unknownsoldier}} {{u|AnyDosMilVint}} {{u|FloorMadeOuttaFloor}} {{u|TDFan1000}} {{u|Some Dude From North Carolina}} {{u|Rusted AutoParts}} [[User:Samurai Kung fu Cowboy|Samurai Kung fu Cowboy]] ([[User talk:Samurai Kung fu Cowboy|talk]]) 15:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC) |
|||
: "Since being cut" may refer to an important hallmark in your own personal history, but most wiki users are either ignorant or indifferent of how important earlier versions were to you. The character being the son of a Kosher butcher may be unnecessary. The need to trim this further is definitely a common ground. What is not good fertilizer for a common ground is undoing entire edits without using the talk page first, then accusing others for not using the talk page first. [[User:AnyDosMilVint|AnyDosMilVint]] ([[User talk:AnyDosMilVint|talk]]) 15:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::{{u|AnyDosMilVint}} I am sorry if I upset you. But cutting excess without first discussing it is common on plot synopses. My point was before removing a tag right away without addressing the concern it should at least be discussed. You do agree that there is excessive detail though? [[User:Samurai Kung fu Cowboy|Samurai Kung fu Cowboy]] ([[User talk:Samurai Kung fu Cowboy|talk]]) 15:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::: Sorry if I was a bit edgy in my earlier response. Thanks for clarifying the "tag" issue on my talk page, I was not aware of that. Let's get down to business: |
|||
:::* Fat Moe is relevant as a character and because of his ties to Deborah, but I agree his father's occupation has no importance. |
|||
:::* My contention is that given the nonlinear narrative of the film, it's best to write the bookend scenes into the plot precisely as they are --in bookend format-- with or without italics, and explain the rest of the film in linear fashion. Earlier history shows people tried to follow the precise chronology of the film. This rendered the plot chaotic. Whatever is done, be that as it may, should be consistent. |
|||
:::* The Beth Israel cemetery segment is difficult because it warrants some space if properly explained, but in its earlier version, the text was misleading and imprecise. |
|||
:::* Minaldi's betrayal by Frankie would warrant some space too but only after trimming the rest of the text severely. |
|||
:::* I don't think we can avoid some redundancy in explaining that the three bootleggers mentioned in the prologue are his childhood friends, at least not if we follow the bookend+linear+bookend structure. |
|||
:::* I'm not sure Peggy becomes a madam sensu stricto. Perhaps we could remove her from the reference to Carol being a prostitute. |
|||
:::* I propose trimming also by way of removing unnecessary material, e.g. the exact circumstances of Max and Noodles' first acquaintance. |
|||
:::* I am pessimistic about the possibility of trimming this below 900 words or so. Is a tag really necessary for that length? [[User:AnyDosMilVint|AnyDosMilVint]] ([[User talk:AnyDosMilVint|talk]]) 16:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{u|AnyDosMilVint}}As long as excessive detail is cut that is not necessary to explain the plot simply, it's good. I don't think we need to remove to remove any scenes. Just repetition and detail that is not important. Please see my recent edit as an example and see if you agree with that. [[User:Samurai Kung fu Cowboy|Samurai Kung fu Cowboy]] ([[User talk:Samurai Kung fu Cowboy|talk]]) 16:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::: Seems good. I changed/trimmed a few things as well, please take a look at those. [[User:AnyDosMilVint|AnyDosMilVint]] ([[User talk:AnyDosMilVint|talk]]) 16:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: {{u|Samurai Kung fu Cowboy}} Agreed on Carol and on removing the limo driver from the text, but: |
|||
::::::* the fact that the salt bootlegging method is Noodles' idea may be of relevance given the implied asymmetry of their contribution to the gang (Noodles being the brains, Max being the PR sort of guy). I know it is an underdeveloped asymmetry but it's there. |
|||
::::::* you cannot just summarize the car scene as "he rapes her". It is a complicated scene that affects part of the later plot and it is unclear whether he would have raped her had she not started showing mild signs of affection to him. |
|||
::::::* Why would Bugsy take a shot at them? I understand his earlier beating of Noodles and Max might take too much space, but we have to mention at some point that he had pressured them not to pursue success on their own. [[User:AnyDosMilVint|AnyDosMilVint]] ([[User talk:AnyDosMilVint|talk]]) 16:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::{{u|AnyDosMilVint}} I did and I made some more. I'm good with it now personally and I also don't see why it would be added to. If you agree with me, I'd say we can remove a tag but should leave a note not to add to it. [[User:Samurai Kung fu Cowboy|Samurai Kung fu Cowboy]] ([[User talk:Samurai Kung fu Cowboy|talk]]) 16:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::{{u|Samurai Kung fu Cowboy}} I think we performed edits at the same time to this talk page. Please see the paragraph above this. [[User:AnyDosMilVint|AnyDosMilVint]] ([[User talk:AnyDosMilVint|talk]]) 16:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::{{u|AnyDosMilVint}} Add back what you think is necessary. Please do do with as little words as possible and if you see anything else that can be removed please do so. Please do not remove the tag yet. [[User:Samurai Kung fu Cowboy|Samurai Kung fu Cowboy]] ([[User talk:Samurai Kung fu Cowboy|talk]]) 16:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::{{u|Samurai Kung fu Cowboy}} Done. [[User:AnyDosMilVint|AnyDosMilVint]] ([[User talk:AnyDosMilVint|talk]]) 17:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::{{u|Samurai Kung fu Cowboy}} I also restored the bit about David Bailey being a dead ringer for a young Max, hence Max being Bailey. I don't know who had erased that but it is ''essential'' to the plot. [[User:AnyDosMilVint|AnyDosMilVint]] ([[User talk:AnyDosMilVint|talk]]) 17:13, 2 October 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::{{u|AnyDosMilVint}} I erased it because although I agree with you, it's considered editorializing and original research which Wikipedia does not do. The film does not actually say it so we can't either. If you find an outside source that says so, you could add it with a citation. [[User:Samurai Kung fu Cowboy|Samurai Kung fu Cowboy]] ([[User talk:Samurai Kung fu Cowboy|talk]]) 17:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::{{u|Samurai Kung fu Cowboy}} I understand this would have verged on original research if they'd chosen a different actor and if the dialogue leading to the scene had been different, but let's face it: Noodles' expression when he sees David, coupled with Deborah's attempts to prevent him from exiting through that door, and most importantly the fact that the actor is the same as the one who portrayed a younger Max, leaves little doubt that the only interpretation possible was the one written now. It also prepares the audience (and Noodles) for the showdown with "Bailey" and thus the surprise element is lost. |
|||
:::::::::::: I'm going to trim a bit more text (stay tuned for that) and also who added the "who has not aged" to Deborah still being an actress? Do we really want this here, instead of in the interpretation section?[[User:AnyDosMilVint|AnyDosMilVint]] ([[User talk:AnyDosMilVint|talk]]) 17:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::{{u|Samurai Kung fu Cowboy}} if you remove the reference to David being similar to young Max, then "named after Noodles" should also be removed (because Deborah says "His name is David, '''just like yours'''", not '''after you''') as well as Deborah's insistence that he leaves through the back door. If you remove one thing (which I think is a mistake) you have to excise everything related to that fact and leave it at "she admits having been his lover" followed by "Noodles meets Bailey who turns out to be Max"). Which I think looks horrible btw. [[User:AnyDosMilVint|AnyDosMilVint]] ([[User talk:AnyDosMilVint|talk]]) 17:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{u|AnyDosMilVint}} I'd say it's good right now. It's not the synopsis' job to explain everything. [[User:Samurai Kung fu Cowboy|Samurai Kung fu Cowboy]] ([[User talk:Samurai Kung fu Cowboy|talk]]) 17:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:{{u|Samurai Kung fu Cowboy}} I disagree; if David's resemblance to Max becomes a contentious point and needs to be removed, then David Bailey (or the fact he's Noodles' namesake) has no relevance whatsoever to the plot and I thought the point (your point) was to make this plot as terse as possible. Either we add the resemblance (which everyone agrees on) and its implications, or the only ignored advice from Deborah worth mentioning in the plot is the advice to tear the invitation, and the next sentence should be the party and Secretary Bailey's true identity. [[User:AnyDosMilVint|AnyDosMilVint]] ([[User talk:AnyDosMilVint|talk]]) 17:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::{{u|AnyDosMilVint}} I'm fine with that. We'll see if any of the other editors I pinged voice their opinion. Thank you for working this out with me. [[User:Samurai Kung fu Cowboy|Samurai Kung fu Cowboy]] ([[User talk:Samurai Kung fu Cowboy|talk]]) 18:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{u|Samurai Kung fu Cowboy}} sure no problem. Check out the last edits I just made, I think this is as short and concise as it could be. [[User:AnyDosMilVint|AnyDosMilVint]] ([[User talk:AnyDosMilVint|talk]]) 18:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{u|Unknownsoldier}}, I agree that the fact Deborah doesn't seem to have aged as much the others (a mild case of crow's feet notwithstanding<ref>[https://twitter.com/Elizabethmcgov7/status/932470381692067841/photo/1]</ref><ref>[https://quoters.info/files/quote-pictures/28653-odnazhdy-v-amerike-once-upon-a-time-in-america_0.jpg]</ref>) is relevant to the possible interpretations. I also think that the dream interpretation is a possible one (albeit if so, shoddily implemented for a number of reasons), but there is no definite indication her relative youth is due to this. I understand your point, but you'll find users labelling this as original research if you place it in the plot section instead of the interpretations section. Also "age can't wither me, Noodles" needs to be replaced by "age '''can''' wither me, Noodles", as opposed to what the poster in her dressing room. [[User:AnyDosMilVint|AnyDosMilVint]] ([[User talk:AnyDosMilVint|talk]]) 20:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Speaking as someone unfamiliar with this film, I've made some trims to try to bring the word count down. I believe it's at about 1,050 words now. I think under 1K would be ideal, but I'm not sure what more to cut at this point...without having seen the film, it's a little unclear what else is really relevant. I did see the big note about Deborah, and I feel that would be better placed elsewhere in the article, as it's not directly pertinent to the plot but may merit some discussion where readers can see it, but I'll defer to other editors on that. I can try taking another pass at it later, but would prefer it if other editors reviewed it first. [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 14:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
{{reflist-talk}} |
||
== About the goading == |
|||
Just to clarify, I agree with one of the users that Carol goads or at least partially expects Noodles to have rough sex with her, but this is just my impression; what the film actually shows is that she goads him into ''hitting'' her, and then he ''appears'' to rape her. My earlier edit left me thinking about this but I didn't want to make the text longer, but perhaps think this should satisfy everyone now [[User:AnyDosMilVint|AnyDosMilVint]] ([[User talk:AnyDosMilVint|talk]]) 15:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 10:38, 11 November 2024
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Deborah's Rape and her reaction
[edit]How do we feel about the wording of this passage: "Seeking to form a genuine intimacy with Deborah, Noodles takes her on a lavish date, where she reveals her plans to pursue a career in Hollywood. On their drive back, a frustrated Noodles rapes her in the limousine. He is later met with Deborah's aloofness when he watches her board the train to California."
Feels quite problematic, perhaps?
First, the word 'frustration' might be his personal motivation, but its use here feels a bit off... and secondly Surely not wanting to make eye contact with someone who raped you just hours before seems like a justified reaction, and not anything to do with being "aloof?"
James woods commentary
[edit]the article mentions above that Gene Siskel called the American edit the worst movie of 1984 and the original edit the best.
Then later it references James Woods telling of a critic who said the same thing. I think this is a little redundant, given it's highly likely Woods is referring to Siskel in the first place CornflakeCancer (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Fine tune the plot?
[edit]I appreciate much work has already been spent on doing the plot and it is already beyond the suggested 700 words. However, I do feel we should fine tune it to a) expand on the love story between Noodles and Deborah as this unfulfilled love is one of the key theme of the movie, next to the friendship with Max , b) correct smallish inaccuracies (e.g. at the time Noodles sees Deborah's photograph when meeting Carol, Deborah is not "still an actress" but has "become a famous actress" and c) (but to be discussed) add a few words on the scene of exchanging the newborns as it is a key scene). I had done such edits but they were reverted on the basis of the final word count being too high. Happy to discuss the actual wording of course, but I would appreciate consensus on a) and b) and potentially c). If actual word count is the issue, we could also strip the present text for a few words so that overall word count it not increased, however, this would lead to some deletions that I would not want to do without consensus. Thanks Jaeljojo (talk) 07:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Frankly, it is a waste of time. Any decent summary is going to be deleted because of this absurd and arbitrary "700 words"-rule. Dimadick (talk) 10:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. The rule actually says "should not exceed 400 - 700" unless (now paraphrasing) "the film warrants a longer one". So I cannot see how it should brutally apply to a 4h epic movie. And by the way the current plot summary is already more than 700 words. Anyway, I will suggest changes so that the total amount of words is not (or minimally) increased. Jaeljojo (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Please see proposal for fine-tuned plot below. In total it has a few fewer words than the current version, so I guess that should not cause a problem. It would be good to get feedback whether this new plot is acceptable. It still would need improvement at a few places, but I did not want to change too much and more than was in my view absolutely necessary.
- "The movie covers events spreading over 40 years starting in the 1920ies and is told in an Nonlinear narrative. In the prologue that is set in the 1930ies, three thugs search for a man named "Noodles". It turns out Noodles is drugging himself in an opium den with a newspaper next to him, featuring the death of bootleggers Patrick Goldberg, Philip Stein and Maximilian Bercovicz. He recalls the police removing their corpses, burnt beyond recognition. Noodles evades capture and leaves the city.
- The plot turns to the 1920ies as David "Noodles" Aaronson leads a boy gang of him and his three friends "Patsy" Goldberg, "Cockeye" Stein and Dominic, committing jobs for local boss Bugsy. They meet Max as he foils one of their robberies but has the booty stolen from him by corrupt police officer Whitey. Max and Noodles later manage to blackmail Whitey as he has sex with underage prostitute Peggy and get the same police protection as Bugsy.
- The group successfully get involved in liquor smuggling. They deposit their earnings in a railway station locker, giving the key to "Fat Moe", a friend not directly involved in their activities. Noodles is in love with Moe's sister, Deborah, who dreams of becoming a dancer and actress. Deborah clearly feels for Noodles too, but makes it clear that due to his socialization as a gangster, they can never be together. Bugsy, now a rival, eventually ambushes the gang and fatally shoots Dominic. In a fit of rage, Noodles stabs and kills Bugsy and is sentenced to prison.
- Upon his release from prison Noodles rejoins his friends who have continued their criminal activities and treated Noodles as a partner despite his absence. Their next job is a diamond heist using jewellery employee Carol as their informant. During the robbery, she goads Noodles into hitting her, after which he rapes her, evidently her enjoying the sadistic treatment; she later goes on to become Max's girlfriend. Noodles realises after the heist that their job had been commissioned by a Syndicate figure to eliminate competition. This sits badly with Noodles who seeks independence and leads to tensions between Noodles and Max. The gang gets further involved in the struggle around the labour movement and provides protection for Teamsters' union boss Jimmy O'Donnell, during the course of which they "play god" by exchanging newborns at a clinic in order to hurt the head of the police whose wife has just given birth to a boy. This eventually succeeds in the police withdrawing their actions against striking workers. When further political actions are discussed, further tensions between Noodles and Max emerge.
- Noodles reconnects with Deborah and takes her on a lavish date. The feelings between the two are clear and they exchange intimacies, and he admits to having loved her all his life. When she reveals her plans to pursue a career in Hollywood and to leave the city, he snaps and rapes her. When she departs by train the next day, he attempts to catch a glance of her sitting in the train, but she avoids eye-contact.
- The repeal of the Prohibition forces to gang to look for alternative activities. Max suggests a New York Federal Reserve Bank heist, which Noodles and Carol deem a suicide mission. She convinces Noodles to inform the police about a lesser offense, hoping brief incarceration will cool off Max's ambition. After Noodles calls the police, Max knocks him out during a seemingly impromptu argument. This leads to the events shown in the prologue as upon regaining consciousness and learning that Max, Patsy, and Cockeye have been killed by the police during the heist, a guilt-ridden Noodles hides in the opium den. During his subsequent escape, he realises the railway locker money has disappeared.
- The plot turns to the 1960ies and Noodles who has not visited the city since the events in the 1930ies arrives in Manhattan as he had been informed that a cemetery is being redeveloped and he is being asked to rebury any loved ones. Noodles understands the letter as a sign that he has been uncovered and he seeks to find out who is behind this. He learns that the bodies of his three friends have been relocated to Riverdale. He visits their mausoleum in Riverdale and finds a key to a railway locker. The caption on the commemorative plaque falsely states that the mausoleum was erected by Noodles himself.
- The locker reveals a suitcase full of money and a note stating this is a down-payment on his next job. Staying with Moe, Noodles learns of the scandals around Senator Christopher Bailey. Noodles finds Carol in a retirement home run by the Bailey Foundation. She tells him that Max manipulated them into tipping him off to the police and that Max opened fire first, wishing to die young. During the visit, Noodles spots on a memorial photograph Deborah, who has by now become a major actress. He starts to suspect a connection between Deborah and Senator Bailey. As she is performing in the city at that time, he visits her in her artist room after a performance [a] He tells her about his invitation to a party at Bailey's mansion and challenges her to tell her about the mysterious job and down-payment as well as the identity of Senator Bailey. After initially denying any connection to him, Deborah admits to being Bailey's lover and begs Noodles to leave the city before facing hurtful revelations. Ignoring her advice, Noodles sees upon leaving Bailey's son, who looks like the young Max.
- At the party Noodles meets Bailey, who turns out to be Max. Max had faked his death with the help of the police and Syndicate, stole the gang's money and reinvented himself as a self-made, Teamsters-connected politician. He also made Deborah his mistress thus robbing Noodles of everything he had. Now, faced with ruin due to the corruption scandal, Max reveals that he was the one giving the mysterious job to Noodles and that the job is for Noodles to kill him. Obstinately referring to him by his Bailey identity throughout their discussion, Noodles refuses. In his eyes, Max died many years ago. As Noodles leaves the estate, a garbage truck starts up and a man, presumably Max, walks from the entrance toward Noodles until the truck passes between them. Noodles sees the truck's auger conveyor grinding garbage, but the man is nowhere to be seen.
- In the final scene of the movie, the plot goes back to the events preceding the prologue as Noodles enters the opium den, taking the drug and grinning broadly."
- Jaeljojo (talk) 06:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC) Jaeljojo (talk) 06:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure I will get much response here, but here is one correction as I accidentally posted a wrong version. Here is the one I suggest (shortened compared to the one posted previously so that it truly is not longer than the one presently in the article).
- "The movie covers events spreading over 40 years starting in the 1920ies and is told in an Nonlinear narrative. In the prologue that is set in the 1930ies, three thugs search for a man named "Noodles". It turns out Noodles is drugging himself in an opium den with a newspaper next to him, featuring the death of bootleggers Patrick Goldberg, Philip Stein and Maximilian Bercovicz. He recalls the police removing their corpses, burnt beyond recognition. Noodles evades capture and leaves the city.
- The plot turns to the 1920ies as David "Noodles" Aaronson leads a boy gang of him and his three friends "Patsy" Goldberg, "Cockeye" Stein and Dominic, committing jobs for local gangster Bugsy. They meet Max as he foils one of their robberies but has the booty stolen from him by corrupt police officer Whitey. Max joins their gang and they later manage to blackmail Whitey and get the same police protection as Bugsy.
- The gang becomes successful liquor smugglers. They deposit their earnings in locker, giving the key to common friend Moe. Noodles is in love with Moe's sister, Deborah, who dreams of becoming a dancer. Deborah feels for Noodles too, but due to his socialization as a gangster, she sees no future for their love. Bugsy, now a rival, ambushes the gang and fatally shoots Dominic upon which Noodles kills Bugsy and is sentenced to prison.
- Upon his release about a decade later, Noodles rejoins his gang. On a diamond heist they use jewellery employee Carol as their informant. During the robbery, she goads Noodles into hitting her, after which he rapes her, evidently her enjoying the sadistic treatment; she later becomes Max's girlfriend. Noodles realises that the heist had been commissioned by a Syndicate figure to eliminate competition. This leads to tensions between Max and Noodles who seeks independence. The gang provides protection for Teamsters' union boss O'Donnell, during the course of which they exchange newborns at a clinic, punishing the head of the police whose wife has just given birth to a boy at that clinic. This succeeds in the police withdrawing their actions against striking workers. Further tensions between Noodles and Max emerge on their future activities.
- Noodles takes Deborah on a lavish date. The feelings between them are evident and they exchange intimacies, and he admits to having loved her all his life. When she reveals her plans to pursue a career in Hollywood and to leave the city, he snaps and rapes her. As she departs the next day, he attempts to catch a glance of her sitting in the train, but she avoids eye-contact.
- The repeal of the Prohibition forces to gang to look for alternative activities. Max suggests a New York Federal Reserve Bank heist, which Noodles and Carol deem too risky. She convinces Noodles to inform the police about a lesser offense, hoping brief incarceration will cool off Max's ambition. After Noodles calls the police, Max knocks him out. This leads to the events shown in the prologue as upon learning that Max, Patsy, and Cockeye have been killed by the police during the heist, a guilt-ridden Noodles hides in the opium den. During his subsequent escape, he realises the locker money has disappeared.
- The plot turns to the 1960ies as Noodles arrives in Manhattan for the first time since the events in the 1930ies. He has been informed on the possibility to rebury loved ones from a cemetery that is being redeveloped. Noodles understands the letter as a sign that he has been uncovered and seeks to find out who is behind this. He learns that the bodies of his three friends have been relocated to Riverdale. He visits their mausoleum in Riverdale and finds a key to a railway locker.
- The locker reveals a suitcase full of money, stated to be the advance on his next job. Noodles learns of the corruption scandals around Senator Christopher Bailey and visits Carol in a retirement home run by the Bailey Foundation. She tells him that Max manipulated them into tipping him off to the police and that Max opened fire first, wishing to die young. Noodles spots on a memorial photograph Deborah, who has by now become a major actress and starts to suspect a connection between Deborah and Bailey. He tracks down Deborah and visits her. [b] He tells her about his invitation to a party at Bailey's mansion and challenges her to tell her about the mysterious job as well as the identity of Bailey. Deborah admits to being Bailey's lover and begs Noodles to leave the city before facing hurtful revelations. Ignoring her advice, upon leaving Noodles sees Bailey's son, who looks like the young Max.
- At the party, Noodles meets Bailey, who turns out to be Max who had faked his death, stole the gang's money and reinvented himself as a self-made business man. He also made Deborah his mistress thus robbing Noodles of everything he had. Now, faced with ruin due to the corruption scandal, Max reveals that he ordered the mysterious job and that the job is for Noodles to kill him. Obstinately referring to Max by his Bailey identity, Noodles refuses. In his eyes, Max died many years ago. As Noodles leaves the estate, a garbage truck passes and a man, presumably Max, walks toward Noodles until the truck passes between them. Noodles sees the truck's auger conveyor grinding garbage, but the man is nowhere to be seen.
- In the final scene of the movie, the plot goes back to the events preceding the prologue as Noodles enters the opium den."
- Jaeljojo (talk) 05:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC) Jaeljojo (talk) 05:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- There were multiple issues with this, including unneeded breaking of the fourth wall and grammar problems. I also removed the footnote, as it has nothing to do with the plot summary per se (it would be more appropriate to mention elsewhere in the article). I've made an effort to clean it up while respecting that the film is long and that, as such, we can take a little latitude with the word-count recommendation. DonIago (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to look at this. However, I do not understand your editing as you took out crucial bits (e.g. on the love between Noodles and Deborah) apparently with the aim to force it down as close as possible to 700 words. And as this is a plot and not a summary, certain details (like the ones mentioned in the footnote for example) are relevant for this plot I think. And we may have different views on what grammar problems are ... :-). But this should not be between you and me, so I leave to others to take forward. Jaeljojo (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- There were multiple issues with this, including unneeded breaking of the fourth wall and grammar problems. I also removed the footnote, as it has nothing to do with the plot summary per se (it would be more appropriate to mention elsewhere in the article). I've made an effort to clean it up while respecting that the film is long and that, as such, we can take a little latitude with the word-count recommendation. DonIago (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. The rule actually says "should not exceed 400 - 700" unless (now paraphrasing) "the film warrants a longer one". So I cannot see how it should brutally apply to a 4h epic movie. And by the way the current plot summary is already more than 700 words. Anyway, I will suggest changes so that the total amount of words is not (or minimally) increased. Jaeljojo (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ Sokol, Tony (September 7, 2021). "Once Upon a Time in America Is Every Bit as Great a Gangster Movie as The Godfather". Den of Geek. Archived from the original on October 3, 2021. Retrieved October 2, 2021.
- ^ Sokol, Tony (September 7, 2021). "Once Upon a Time in America Is Every Bit as Great a Gangster Movie as The Godfather". Den of Geek. Archived from the original on October 3, 2021. Retrieved October 2, 2021.
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the help page).
- C-Class Crime-related articles
- Low-importance Crime-related articles
- C-Class Organized crime articles
- Low-importance Organized crime articles
- Organized crime task force articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- C-Class film articles
- C-Class Italian cinema articles
- Italian cinema task force articles
- Core film articles supported by the Italian cinema task force
- C-Class core film articles
- WikiProject Film core articles
- C-Class American cinema articles
- American cinema task force articles
- Core film articles supported by the American cinema task force
- WikiProject Film articles
- C-Class Italy articles
- Low-importance Italy articles
- All WikiProject Italy pages
- C-Class New York City articles
- Low-importance New York City articles
- WikiProject New York City articles
- C-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- Low-importance American cinema articles
- WikiProject United States articles