Jump to content

Talk:Y tu mamá también

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Two versions?

Does anyone know if there are two versions of this film? The ending described here is nothing like what I've seen here in the UK, which ends with the narrator telling us that the trio parted ways when Luisa stayed at the beach and never saw each other again. Certainly no meeting by chance a year later. I'd edited as such, with an edit summary rashly describing the previous as 'entirely false', because on checking up it seemed the user who added the description regularly blanks their talk page and makes strange additions to articles. Worldtraveller 00:52, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There's several different versions, apparently. See here. It does seem very strange of them to cut off the epilogue scene, because it's utterly unobjectionable, that's when Luisa's cancer is revealed (suppose they did that in a VO in the version you saw?), and it's well acted and directed: very poignant in a you-ain't-ever-going-to-be-17-again kind of way. "La cuenta. [Telón]" –Hajor 01:15, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the voice-over fills in all the post-boca del cielo detail in the version I've seen. You're left thinking neither Julio or Tenoch knows what happened to Luisa, or each other. A meeting in a cafe a year later seems really wrong to me! I'll try and find more info about what versions were released where, would be worth mentioning in the article. Worldtraveller 01:27, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I saw the movie lastnight and got it through Blockbuster's dvd in the mail service. The meeting in the cafe takes place after the voice-over descriptions. The meeting is actually set-up by the voice-over. At the end of the cafe scene Tenoch and Julio are saying stuff like "see ya later" and another voice-over says "it was the last time they ever saw each other" or something like that. Actually, there is a major plot hole without the cafe scene because earlier in the movie (in my version anyways), Luisa is on the phone with her estranged husband and is trying to calm him down about her leaving. She says she had been planning to leave for a while and that his sleeping around had nothing to do with the decision. He asks what caused her to leave and she said he would understand soon enough. There would be no further explanation as to why if the cafe scene is cut. Also, speaking of different versions, the plot summary says something about Tenoch and Julio kissing each other during the three-some with Luisa. In my version, they never had contact with each other (kinda disappointing actually). They only woke up lying naked next to each other, but there was no actual contact between them. Also, the article says the movie was rated NC-17 in America, and I think my version was only R. The Ungovernable Force 01:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's an R rated AND an unrated version in the U.S. You should find the unrated version; I'm sure a lot was removed for the R version (including very definite contact between the two male stars)BlackCoffee
The one I bought was a UK certificate 18 with a running time of 101 minutes. It contained the café scene and some rather passionate kissing between the two male stars (woo!). No one I've spoken with in the UK appears to have seen a version different to the one I have. 128.240.229.7 22:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Same goes for my UK version DVD...would be nice if there was a version which showed gay sex as explicitly as straight though... Saluton 03:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. If it's any help, my version is a (legal) Mexican DVD, which says approx 115 mins running time. But I recall seeing the final "one year later" scene on a rented VHS, too (can't remember if I even saw the film at the cinema). –Hajor 01:42, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't aware the film were censored outside Mexico. The original version does feature a french kiss between Gael García (Julio) and Diego Luna (Tenoch) in the threesome scene. Mexican gossip reporters rarely fail to mention this scene when they interview them, much to their dismay. The original uncut movie also includes a final conversation among them (the cafe scene) where they catch up on things that ocurred since they stopped seeing each other, such as a mutual friend coming out of the closet (a non appearing character mentioned earlier in the movie), and Luisa's demise because of her cancer. Without those two moments, the movie's grossly incomplete. Oh, and Saluton, you might want to check out Bad Education. Gael García Bernal plays a promiscuous gay character in that movie. Corrigiendo nomás - unsigned user (22/02/07)

Cult film?

Could someone explain why this film is categorized as a cult film? In America, it was a mainstream foreign film, and I observed no subsequent cult following. Jonathan F 19:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having read through the article, I don't see the advertisement thing... The synopsis certainly doesn't, and anything that hints at advertisement seem to all be clearly marked as coming from some other source. The only bit I could see being an issue is the "universally acclaimed as an extremely erotic film, filled with depth and unspoken meaning." Does this qualify as advertising though? Lliamm 22:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, how lucky. I wasn't even watching this page, but I somehow found myself back here. I think the line you quote certainly reads as an advertorial statement and should probably be removed. Jonathan F 23:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jonathan F, you added the {{advert}} tag a month ago, but with no hint as to why you thought it merited it. It would be really helpful if you could explain why you thought it sounded like advertising so that other editors know what you object to. If it's just the one line, you could simply remove the line or reword it. Worldtraveller 23:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the objectionable line. Jonathan F 01:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plot and categorization

The film is not a coming-of-age story and it is not a road movie, it is a theme movie about live: With the revelation of Luisa's cancer situation suddenly everything falls into place, like the narrated side stories, her (narrated) remark when parting, the extraordinarily "talkative" backdrop, Luisa's remark regarding Mexico, and so on (also Luisa's crying, which appears a bit out of role without the cancer, and much more). The categorization in the article might belong to a crippled version without the ending (which probably was removed simply because it is sad). -- Tomdo08 (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please explain why this film is "LGBT-related"? thanks קולנואני (talk) 12:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's debatable – the meanings of works of art often are – but as some see it, the relationship between Julio and Tenoch – with their closeness despite socioeconomic differences, having sex with each others' girlfriends, and their eventual sexual encounter together – includes an unconscious mutual attraction, which they are unable to accept when it's finally brought to the surface. In other words, they're both bisexual, but can't admit it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a bisexual man and a Mexican, I don't really see the film directly as an LGBT one in the sense that it is an underlying theme of the film. These are two teenage boys exploring their sexual agency and are surrounded by and actively participate in the generally "machismo" culture of Mexico. So, the scene where Tenoch and Julio French kiss is more of a "heat of the passion" type thing, because the next morning after realizing it they throw up and are generally disgusted. In terms of the rest of the movie, their relationship is not once implied to be anything more than platonic, not even by the omniscient narrator. So, I think it could be considered LGBT, but kind of on a technicality because none of the characters are presented (or implied it be) anything other than cis straight people. SaintJudas11 (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I originally posted my own like thread but I had to create an account to reply. SaintJudas11 (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Self-contradictory sentence

One sentence reads: "It was released without a rating in the U.S. because a market-limiting NC-17 was unavoidable."

Absolutely, right, for sure. The NC-17 rating was unavoidable, yet it was avoided. That makes a lot of sense. (Just kidding. It makes no sense at all.) It would be much better for Wikipedia editors to think about whether what they have written makes sense before clicking on "Save page".

Since the sentence remains, it is obviously clear to everyone else. For the record: Had the movie been submitted to the MPAA for a rating, it would have earned an NC-17. To avoid that outcome, it was released without a rating. Perhaps a clearer phrasing would be "a market-limiting NC-17 would have been unavoidable". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.44.104.98 (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added Information

On Censorship Controversy

I added information on the film's censorship controversy in Mexico. This information was not available on the original Wikipedia article, and is important to add because it is related to the reception of the film in its home country. This shows how revolutionary the film was in Mexico because of its content, thus exposing how even though Mexico is a democratic country, it is still heavily influenced by politics in the sectors that should be free of government control. Lola polola (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lola polola (talk • contribs) 21:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On Casting

I added information on the film's casting process. It reveals the development process for the film, particularly how Cuarón wanted his actors to foster a candid performance so his film could develop with spontaneity. This was the director’s agenda throughout the production process. Lola polola (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On Development

This information was not available on the original Wikipedia article. I added this information because I found it was significant in clarifying that Y tu mamá también was not a Hollywood film made with Hollywood production techniques. The current article gives the impression that the film was created with Hollywood production techniques. Lola polola (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On Filming and Production

This information on filming and production reveals the director’s agenda to develop the film candidly, which was not available on the original Wikipedia article. His desire to create the film with spontaneity and minimal equipment stresses how much he did not want to over-plan and overwhelm the filmmaking process; which was his experience when he made movies in Hollywood. The filming and production uncovers Cuarón’s desire to reject Hollywood production techniques. Lola polola (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On Distribution and Finance

The article had little information on box-office success and film budget. I wanted to add more information on the domestic and transnational success of the film because it reveals how much support the film had from external distribution companies as well as domestic. It is also important to acknowledge that a Mexican production company funded the film, not an American one, showing how self-sufficient the Mexican film industry can be. This information also shows how the film gained success through impressive marketing campaigns in Mexico with the help of a Mexican production company. Lola polola (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On Road Film Genre

The Wikipedia article does not articulate the significance of the road film genre in Y tu mamá también and how it is used to depict the Mexican ethos through a lens of political exploration. It is important to state that Cuarón transformed the 20th century revolutionary Latin American cinema by not completely rejecting it, but by synthesizing it with the pleasure of Hollywood commercial cinema to investigate Mexican nationalism at the start of the 21st century. Lola polola (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On Image for Distribution and Finance section

Added image that depicted the original Mexican marketing campaign for the film. Different from American theatrical release poster. Lola polola (talk) 02:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 May 2020

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. BD2412 T 03:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Y Tu Mamá También → Y tu mamá también – Correct capitalization for titles in Spanish El Millo (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request. EdJohnston (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Y tu mamá también is this film's original Spanish-language title, thus it follows Spanish-language orthography. However, Y Tu Mamá También [with or without the accent mark] is this film's English-language title, thus following English-language orthography. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – For French works we do have an entry in the WP:MOS that would lead to a lower-case title. See the discussion at:
That move discussion relied on the MOS entry at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/France and French-related articles#Works of art. It recommends we use the French title with the French capitalization unless the work in question is better known by its English title, such as the Barber of Seville. The exact same rule does not appear for Spanish works, but there is a related comment in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Spain_&_Spanish-related_articles that would suggest lower case. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spain & Spanish-related articles#Capitalization. "Spanish uses capital letters significantly less than English." EdJohnston (talk) 00:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To find out how to write the title, the producer companies page should be used as the official source. However, as stated above, capital letters are not used in each word in Spanish. Bradford  Talk  02:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No one disputes that Y tu mamá también is this film's title in the Spanish-speaking world. However, this film was marketed, distributed and reviewed in the English-speaking world under its English orthography title, Y Tu Mamá También (with or without the accents) and that should be the main title header of its entry in English Wikipedia. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well in this case it would be more feasible to use the English title of the film. If we rely on the sources, in Spanish there are also sources that commercialized the film with capital letters in each word. There are articles from Mexican movies and in Spanish that use the titles in English such as "Todas las pecas del mundo" marketed in English by Netflix as "All the Freckles in the World". Bradford  Talk  04:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge, the film has never been marketed under an English title (which is more common with films that have been dubbed into English). That's why we have the awkward situation here: with the Spanish title being rendered in English-speaking markets using English Title Case. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Stylization in Spanish is irrelevant. A Google search for movie reviews in English shows 4/4 always capitalizing all the letters (and probably many more than the first 4 I checked), so Wikipedia should continue to honor this style (examples: Ebert, NYT). SnowFire (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME in English sources.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as nominator. Titles in Spanish are only capitalized in their first letter, unless a proper noun is in the middle, in which case it is capitalized as well. El Millo (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. MOS:FOREIGNTITLE states: Retain the style of the original for modern works. In this case, the original is Y tu mamá también. The guideline continues to specify to follow the dominant usage in modern, English-language, reliable sources only for historical works. @SnowFire: stylization in Spanish thus is relevant; @Zxcvbnm and JasonAQuest: COMMONNAME is not the first thing to apply here. El Millo (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Facu-el Millo: Thanks for the link. I'm not sure if I don't understand the scope of that guideline, or I just disagree with it. It seems like it would be in conflict with lots of other guidelines, MOS:TM most notably - where even if some Japanese J-pop song is written as LOVE♡SAVANT or something, this is thrown out and either English language sources (if there is a dominant capitalization) or Wikipedia-internal style rules (if there is no dominant capitalization format) are applied. Is MOS:FOREIGNTITLE saying Wikipedia should actually keep it as is, and we should move all our foreign language song / movie / etc. titles to the raw form used elsewhere? Why is there a split between historical and modern sources? How old does something have to be to be historical? What about localized titles that are half the original title, half invented / localized? (In your understanding of the guideline, at least.) SnowFire (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @SnowFire: to me, the guideline clearly refers to capitalization and general grammatical rules for other languages, not individual stylizations like all-caps or a heart in the middle of the title. El Millo (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • This sounds like a guideline whose subtext is "follow published RS, unless we decide they're wrong and want to correct them." I'm a little troubled by the presumptuousness of that. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure, but it seems very possible that by "modern" what the guideline really means is "so new that no English language usage exists." Or that should be what the guideline means, at least. As far as your distinction - wait, so are you saying that even if the Spanish title was "Y Tu Mamá También" (which, to be clear, it is not), you would be in favor of downcasing it due to "general grammatical rules" of Spanish? SnowFire (talk) 02:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • For the title in Spanish to oficially be all capitalized we would need some kind of explicit confirmation from someone involved in the production. I've never heard of an official capitalization of a title like that. Unless there were a reason for Tu, Mamá, and También to be capitalized, they shouldn't be. Titles conform to the manual of style, unless they're an exception. El Millo (talk) 02:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Even though this is the title the film was released under in English-speaking markets, the title is still Spanish, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)#Works and compositions says to follow that capitalization. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support encyclopaedic style, WP:ESMOS In ictu oculi (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to move it back whence it came, per MOS:FOREIGNTITLE. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The used accents and words show that the title is not English. So the capitalisation of the original should be followed. −Woodstone (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC) obviously[reply]
  • Support. Spanish-language titles should by stylized accordingly, per MOS:FOREIGNTITLE. The scope of the article is not limited to the English-market releases of the film.--Trystan (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Announcement of this discussion appears at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The case with respect to the series La Casa de las Flores, is totally different, since it is a proper noun in the Spanish language. And in addition to that, it is the name of a florist, therefore each initial letter must be capitalized. Bradford  Talk  06:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif: The title we use —whether the original of the one in English— does come from English-language sources. If the most used one is the original one, then the grammatical rules of that language apply. "note that MOS:FOREIGNTITLE does not come before whatever MOS rules over film article titles" MOS:FOREIGNTITLE is part of MOS:TITLES, which is part of the Manual of Style. MOS:FOREIGNTITLE isn't some essay someone made that some people happen to agree with, it is a guideline of Wikipedia. El Millo (talk) 06:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these comments are missing the point of my argument, which is: This is English Wikipedia, and where possible, an official English title is used. The official English title, per reviews and releases, is the Spanish-language title but with English-language capitalization. That is, Y Tu Mamá También, though using Spanish words, is an English title and not foreign-language. Kingsif (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't miss it, I just disagree with it. And the answer is the same, if the accepted one is the Spanish one, then Spanish capitalization applies, regardless of how most English-language sources capitalize it, in accordance with MOS:FOREIGNTITLE. El Millo (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The general rule is to avoid unnecessary capitalization. Scholarly sources prefer the original orthography and it is also used by the Criterion BD/DVD, the most prestigious home video release of the film in the English-speaking world. Prolog (talk) 08:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that Wikipedia's adherence to the title form used by the Criterion Collection can be selective. After a lengthy discussion (Talk:Bande à part (film)#Requested move), a consensus decided to use the French title (with a parenthetical qualifier), Bande à part (film), despite the fact that this film's release title in the English-speaking world, Band of Outsiders, was used by the Criterion Collection and offered a WP:NATURALDIS title, without the parenthetical qualifier. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 15:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Follow up to move

Note: I made a section over at the talk page at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Titles#Revert,_or_clarify_at_least,_MOS:FOREIGNTITLE for the issues discussed above. Looking at the history, this baffling MOS:FOREIGNTITLE policy did not exist for the vast majority of the MOS's existence, and was tentatively added only in 2017, which is rather recent given the timeline of Wikipedia.

Also - Facu, for the future, please announce here that you were making a notification on other boards ([1]) per WP:CANVASS: "It is good practice to leave a note at the discussion itself about notifications which have been made". SnowFire (talk) 09:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Status as an LGBT film

As a bisexual man and a Mexican, I don't really see the film directly as an LGBT one in the sense that it is an underlying theme of the film. These are two teenage boys exploring their sexual agency and are surrounded by and actively participate in the generally "machismo" culture of Mexico. So, the scene where Tenoch and Julio French kiss is more of a "heat of the passion" type thing, because the next morning after realizing it they throw up and are generally disgusted. In terms of the rest of the movie, their relationship is not once implied to be anything more than platonic, not even by the omniscient narrator. So, I think it could be considered LGBT, but kind of on a technicality because none of the characters are presented (or implied it be) anything other than cis straight people. 2601:100:8300:9060:559E:58DC:AFD0:90F (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Y_tu_mamá_también&oldid=1209095062"