Talk:The Royal Tenenbaums: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 95: | Line 95: | ||
:: I think this is a case of over classification. It's just a comedy, plain and simple. By your definition, pretty much every comedy based in reality is black, the only pure comedy would be a few screwball comedies that deal with nothing close to real life. The truth of the matter is that it's not just about subject matter, it is how you deal with it, Naked Gun deals with terrorism, Philadelphia Story deals with divorce, Hot Shots part duex deals with prisoners of war, Young Frankenstein deals with almost the exact plot from the original Frankenstein movies, and Clerks deals with drug dealers. Everything in Anderson’s Film have a light, upbeat, touch to them. They are light-hearted, if you view his subject matter as dark, it takes place in a light-hearted world, with no bad intent from anyone, characters are just confused, but mean well, and are never beyond redemption. It lacks the cynicism and grit of a black comedy like Fargo. It's all about the presentation of the subject matter, whether it has repercussions, whether the characters are negatively affected, whether these themes have the implications of real life or worse. ---[[User:Uselesswarrior|Uselesswarrior]] 04:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC) |
:: I think this is a case of over classification. It's just a comedy, plain and simple. By your definition, pretty much every comedy based in reality is black, the only pure comedy would be a few screwball comedies that deal with nothing close to real life. The truth of the matter is that it's not just about subject matter, it is how you deal with it, Naked Gun deals with terrorism, Philadelphia Story deals with divorce, Hot Shots part duex deals with prisoners of war, Young Frankenstein deals with almost the exact plot from the original Frankenstein movies, and Clerks deals with drug dealers. Everything in Anderson’s Film have a light, upbeat, touch to them. They are light-hearted, if you view his subject matter as dark, it takes place in a light-hearted world, with no bad intent from anyone, characters are just confused, but mean well, and are never beyond redemption. It lacks the cynicism and grit of a black comedy like Fargo. It's all about the presentation of the subject matter, whether it has repercussions, whether the characters are negatively affected, whether these themes have the implications of real life or worse. ---[[User:Uselesswarrior|Uselesswarrior]] 04:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC) |
||
=Changes= |
|||
I added a small tidbit about Ritchie Tenenbaum. --[[User:Rickabbo|RicKAbbo]] 06:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:56, 11 August 2006
Film Start‑class | |||||||
|
Random?
"* In some of Margot's scenes, "Christmas Time is Here" from the cartoon version of Charlie Brown's Christmas special plays occasionally in the background. The popular comic strip also influenced the comedy series Arrested Development."
Removed the sentence "The popular comic strip also influenced the comedy series Arrested Development." Peanuts influenced alot of things, this is completely out of place.
Copyvio?
Are you sure that Tenenbaums poster isn't a copyvio? -- Lypheklub 21:37, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- No, I'm not sure. Remove it please if you feel like it. --KF 21:39, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with U.S. coyright laws. Common sense, however, tells me that having this poster here will, if anything, serve as a free advertisement. Just imagine someone who has never heard of the movie -- I mean, Wikipedia is read all over the world -- , sees the poster, registers it subconsciously, and next time he is at the HMV shop or wherever goes and buys the DVD without really being aware of why he has decided to do so. Now who could object to having this poster here, and why? (As always, these are not rhetorical questions). But again, remove it immediately if we would infringe some law. KF 22:31, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Based on my understanding of US fair use law (which is explained quite well in the fair use article), I'm pretty sure the use of the poster image is acceptable. The image is not being used for profit, the article in which it is used is educational in nature, and the usage of the image could not possibly have any negative effect on the market value of the movie. Additionally, since the poster was designed to be seen by as many people as possible for the purposes of marketing the movie, using it in an article about the movie seems to be perfectly in line with the copyright owner's intentions. That said, I'm not a lawyer and this is merely my own opinion, not legal advice. -- wonko 22:55, Aug 27, 2003 (UTC)
- Exactly. If I were able to express myself like that, that's what I would have said. --KF 23:00, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Filmography
Do we really need a list of Wes Anderson films on here? Isn't the Wes Anderson link enough? -- teucer 00:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
The Glass Family
The screenplay of Royal Tenenbaums does borrow from J.D. Salinger. Both the film--and the Glass family stories--are about child prodigies who find it difficult to adjust to adult life. A more-specific parallel: in Salinger's Franny and Zooey, a character lies in the bathtub, smoking, for an extended period. However, this is Zooey, who is male.
In the Glass family, the ever-looming scandal is not incest, but suicide. The oldest sibling, Seymour, takes his own life: "A Perfect Day for Bananafish" (included in Nine Stories) describes the event, albeit ambiguously.
The Royal Tenenbaums article claims Salinger published five books. There are only four: The Catcher in the Rye, Nine Stories, Franny and Zooey, and (yes, the following is a single book) Raise High the Roof Beam, Carpenters/Seymour: An Introduction.
(Each of the latter two books is a collection of two stories and/or novellas. "Franny" and "Zooey" together form a coherent narrative in chronological order, whereas "Raise High..." and "Seymour..." are related to each other only by their common focus on Seymour and Buddy Glass.)
Perhaps the writer of the Royal Tenenbaums article was anticipating the rumored publication in book form of Salinger's not-so-short story "Hapworth 16, 1924", which appeared in the New Yorker magazine in 1965; it is his final published work to date. ("Hapworth" is indeed a Glass family story: a letter home from camp--of extraordinary erudition--from Seymour Glass at age seven.)
However, a book of "Hapworth" was never published. It seems the rumors alone generated enough publicity to frighten obsessively-private Salinger into aborting the project.
Wikipedia's page on J.D. Salinger lists the following title among Salinger's published works: Wonderful Town: New York Stories from the New Yorkers. Ed: David Remnick (2000)
Yes, the Wonderful Town anthology does contain Salinger's story "Slight Rebellion Off Madison", which features an early version of the Holden Caulfield character. But it's quite a stretch to call it the fifth book published by Salinger.
"Slight Rebellion" had been an uncollected story; until recently, it had been available only in magazine form (again, the New Yorker). Its presence in a book is indeed a significant literary event. None of this, however, alters the fact that Wonderful Town is not a book published by J.D. Salinger.
A somewhat-related fact: the film Royal Tenenbaums swipes an idea from another book. Margot and Richie running away from home to live secretly in a New York museum is nearly identical to a major plot element in E.L. Konigsburg's From The Mixed-Up Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler. The latter book, however, is a work of fiction for children, and its main characters' temporary and unconventional cohabitation has no taboo connotations.
Hmmm...no signature? Sorry folks, I'm new to this. drone5 20:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Soundtrack
It has been decided that no tracks from Il Giardino Armonico's rendition of Vivaldi's Concerto per Liuto e Mandolino are used during the wedding scene. If you can positively identify a specific track as the one being played, feel free to put it in the complete soundtrack listing between Rachel Evans Tenenbaum and Chas Chases Eli; otherwise, it can be assumed that the Vivaldi album was used simply as an inspiration for the track played in the movie.
On a somewhat related note, when Chas first gets back home, Etheline is in a room with some guests listening to classical music that also has yet to be identified.
---
Am I the only one who thinks it's amazing what Anderson was able to do compiling this soundtrack? The use of the Beatles and the "Happy Birthday" song are two of the most protected musical institutions in the world...
---
ALSO.... How does George Harrison fit in at ALL with getting the rights to Hey Jude which was a Lennon-McCartney song? Harrison AFAIK only controlled his own Harrisongs. Maybe someone could explain this better before I go and erase that whole "trivia factoid" --69.158.137.68 09:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
---
This is related to the question above... Isn't getting permission to use a particular RECORDING of a song different from getting rights to use the song itself? Maybe this had something to do with getting Harrison's approval, because the Beatles as a group had rights to the recording? I'm not really sure, but that's a possiblity. That would also explain why they could use a cover version but not the original recording itself.
---
It's a great soundtrack, but it's a little strange that the section on the soundtrack seems longer than all the other material about the film combined. If the soundtrack is that important, perhaps it should have its own article?
The distinction that needs to be drawn between a dramedy and a black comedy
I'd like to make a point of noting that this article incorrectly labels The Royal Tenenbaums as a dramedy.
If we are to go by Wikipedia's definition of dramedy (which describes it as a work of theatre or film that has an "equal balance of humor and serious content") then we are grossly misrepresenting (and, I suppose, misinterpreting) the Royal Tenenbaums.
The film, I contend, is not a "dramedy" but a black comedy. It does not mix equal parts humor and serious content, but rather treats the serious content of the film (or the tragic aspects of it, if you like) in a humorous way.
Let us not confuse the two.--Zpobric 01:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with that wholeheartedly. --Charles 05:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I definatly have to disagree, this film is mislabeled as black comedy. Black Comedy needs to play murder, mishap and violence for laughs. While their are moments of that in the film, like when the dog gets run over, the overall tone of the film is far too whimsical and sentimental to be called a black comedy. Wes Anderson himself described it as a "New York Fairy Tale".
"Black comedy, also known as black humor or dark comedy, is a sub-genre of comedy and satire where topics and events normally treated seriously – death, mass murder, sickness, madness, terror, drug abuse, rape, war etc. – are treated in a humorous or satirical manner. Synonyms created to avoid possible racial overtones include dark humor, morbid humor, gallows humor and off-color humor"
There is very little if any, gallows humor present in this film. Again, just looking at the wikipedia defination, this is horribly mislabeled. Storytelling is black comedy, I don't know how you could possibly classify this in the same genre. ---Uselesswarrior 04:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Have you even seen the movie?! There are a number of the elements mentioned in that quote in the movie: illness (both mental and physical), death, and drug abuse, not to mention theft, emotional abuse, and an unrequited incestuous obsession, all of which are played in the film for their comedic value. This film is not a straight comedy, nor as Zpobric points out above, is it a dramedy. This is a black comedy, the definition of which should not be drawn so narrowly as is your apparent wish. ---Charles 04:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, and by the way, sign your comments and use proper talk page formatting please. ---Charles 04:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think this is a case of over classification. It's just a comedy, plain and simple. By your definition, pretty much every comedy based in reality is black, the only pure comedy would be a few screwball comedies that deal with nothing close to real life. The truth of the matter is that it's not just about subject matter, it is how you deal with it, Naked Gun deals with terrorism, Philadelphia Story deals with divorce, Hot Shots part duex deals with prisoners of war, Young Frankenstein deals with almost the exact plot from the original Frankenstein movies, and Clerks deals with drug dealers. Everything in Anderson’s Film have a light, upbeat, touch to them. They are light-hearted, if you view his subject matter as dark, it takes place in a light-hearted world, with no bad intent from anyone, characters are just confused, but mean well, and are never beyond redemption. It lacks the cynicism and grit of a black comedy like Fargo. It's all about the presentation of the subject matter, whether it has repercussions, whether the characters are negatively affected, whether these themes have the implications of real life or worse. ---Uselesswarrior 04:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Changes
I added a small tidbit about Ritchie Tenenbaum. --RicKAbbo 06:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)