Jump to content

Talk:Once Upon a Time in America: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
American task force!
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Film|class=Start|Italian-task-force=yes|core=yes}}
{{Film
|class=Start
|Italian-task-force=yes
|core=yes
|American-task-force=yes
}}


==Brooklyn?==
==Brooklyn?==

Revision as of 12:18, 10 January 2009

WikiProject iconFilm: Italian / Core / American Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Italian cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is on the project's core list.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

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."

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. --76.214.224.107 00:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 other 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. Ellsworth 19:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from article

"NOTE: A more in-depth plot-summary needs to be written."

Empty section "Alternate Versions" also removed.

80.203.115.12 15:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary added, plus a brief annotation on the Dream Theory and the film's critical reception.


"***** 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.

Also, I added a tidbit to the "***** Theory" section that I think shines some interesting light on this controversy. Hazel Rah 06:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Section "DVD releases" needs a rewrite

...and some people need to learn to use the discussion area. - Stormwatch 05:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Why don't we just remove most of that? - Zepheus 16:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carol's Rape Scene

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. --76.214.224.107 00:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Alexbonaro 11:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. — LisaSmall T/C 07:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive to women

I was not comfortable with the following statement:

"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.

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. 158.42.10.44 15:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Once Upon A Time In America1.jpg

Image:Once Upon A Time In America1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baseless claim

I've removed the following:

"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.

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.

--YellowTapedR 08:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

agreed. If it means critically agreed ON RELEASE, then this should be stated. 158.42.10.44 15:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Plot summary

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. [1]. --Tony Sidaway 00:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. --MwNNrules (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was Little Dominic Jewish?

Was the Little Dominic character a Jewish kid or an Italian? --75.10.241.137 (talk) 06:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]