Talk:Topsy-Turvy

"Lozenge plot"

As I mentioned in my edit summary, the phrase "lozenge plot" is an odd one, and assumes that the reader has seen the movie (or read about it) and already understands what it means. I've rephrased the sentence a bit, keeping both "lozenge" and "plot" but not as a phrase. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 21:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I've tweaked it a little more. I would rather have the reference to Knightsbridge, because the exhibition there was a very famous one and gives the reader an idea that the exhibition was right in London, but if you don't think it's necessary, ok. The article certainly looks better than before, but it's a little thin on background of the movie, and it could quote some reviews. Also, should the plot summary be expanded a little? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was disappointed that my usual trusty sources didn't have much production info -- I agree it needs to be expanded, as does the plot, which peters out pretty abruptly. Problem with that is that I don't think it's worthwhile having our summary mirror the structure of the film, with its drop-in flash-forewards of song fragments which comment (?) on the story in rather subtle ways. Still, there's more to be made of the "many glipmses" of rehearsal & prep -- we could expand on the costume fittings, the blocking rehearsal, the stuff with the Japanese, Gilber's cutting of the Mikado's song; all of which would serve to give more of the flavor and the film. (It is, incidentally, one of the best depictions I've found of what working in the theatre is like, albeit in a different period with different attitudes and social relationsships.)

About Knightsbridge - if you feel strongly about it, go ahead and restore it - I wasn't sure how much information it would carry to people not familiar with London or the G&S story, and thought the sentence was cleaner without it. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 01:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

[left] Actually, according to the dialogue in the scene the lozenge appeared in an earlier production. "In this instance, it is a magic potion," says Gilbert. BTLizard (talk) 08:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure the movie got it backwards? Please check the film script again. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm quoting from the UK DVD; I watched it again last night. Is there a published script that says something different? BTLizard (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The DVD is fine; I just want to make sure that we are clear on exactly what is being said in the film. Historically, Dulcamara involved a magic face cream. The Sorcerer involved a magic potion. Gilbert's proposed plot right before The Mikado was about a magic lozenge. Are you saying that the film got this backwards, and in the film Gilbert is clearly referring to a lozenge in an earlier production, but his new proposed plot refers to a potion? Just clarifying. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I hadn't considered that the actual history might be different. I'm pretty certain about this, but in view of what you say I shall certainly check it again. 81.86.101.192 (talk) 11:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Gilbert marriage

The article currently states: However, the depiction of the Gilberts' marriage as cold and loveless is at odds with the available historical evidence. Having watched the film recently, I'm at a loss to understand this comment. Gilbert is certainly portrayed as pessimistic and socially inept, but Lesley Manville plays his wife Kitty as warm, supportive and affectionate, with no suggestion that the relationship is 'cold and loveless'. This seems to me to be broadly historically accurate. --Ef80 (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

In the film, Gilbert is portrayed as distant in his marriage. He and Kitty have no scenes where they kiss or are physically affectionate with each other. This is contrasted, dramatically, with the scenes of Sullivan's obvious libido. I disagree that the film portrays even Kitty as warm. She is polite; perhaps supportive, but they are portrayed as having no sexual connection. Plus, Kitty and Gilbert are rarely seen together in public in the film. However, in real life, the Gilberts were the life of the party, often entertaining friends and dignitaries in their home. Gilbert destroyed his personal correspondence (keeping only business correspondence), but the little of it that survives includes some tender and affectionate letters to his wife. From all we know, he was a man of considerable appetites and revelled in physical activity, and it is reasonable to believe that he and Kitty had an active sex life. Many in the G&S community feel that Leigh buys in to stories about Gilbert's personality told by those he clashed with in the theatre world, and the writings of certain Gilbert critics, such as David Eden. Read the discussion of Gilbert's personality at W. S. Gilbert for several stories about Gilbert's warmth and charm. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ef80. You are applying modern conventions to a Victorian marriage when you say the lack of scenes of physical affection indicate a cold marriage. I have the film on right now and am watching the scenes right before and when the Gilberts visit the Japanese exhibition; Gilbert's brusque refusal to attend and the immediate juxtaposition of the scene with him AT the exhibition show that he capitulates to his wife not matter how much he protests, especially when you remember the earlier scene when he visited the dentist at her insistence. Your remarks about their sexual relationship are purely conjectural and therefore irrelevant.--Pergish1 (talk) 01:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)