Jump to content

Talk:A View from the Bridge

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rodolfo to Rodolpho?

[edit]

I'm not sure, but my edition (Penguin Classics, published in 2000) of 'A View From The Bridge', 'Rodolfo' (as spelt in the article) is spelt as 'Rodolpho', i don't know if other editions are spelt in the same way but it is something that caught my attention and am not sure if I should change it or not because of varying editions possibly having different spellings. (AraH 17:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I have replaced "Rodolpho" with "Rodolfo" in all cases for consistency as that is what was written in the version I read. GeorgeC 16:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having read the script provided for AS Drama and Theatre Studies under examining body Edexcel, I too have seen the spelling "Rodolpho". Perhaps it would be wiser to go with the most frequent spelling. - AnonymousNow
Reading the whole article, I noticed that both spellings were used in the article. I've changed them all to Rodolpho, as it seems to be the most frequently used spelling - jlao04 10:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way it is spelt is "Rodolpho". I am using an exact copy of Artur Miller's play for my english coursework. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.225.182 (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per IBDB.com it's Rodolpho. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The way it is spelt in my book is "Rodolfo". The copy I am using is from "Heinemann Plays" and I am using it for my english exam and coursework.

Already a movie

[edit]

Tha article mentions a film being made as of 2006. Please note that a 1961 film was made by Sidney Lumet under the main release title Vu du pont (imdb link).--Fuhghettaboutit 23:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Information - Liberetto

[edit]

The article incorrectly says that the opera libretto (cowritten by Miller) is in verse. It is in prose.

Initial Performance Difference

[edit]

A friend of mine said that Eddie had originally died in Catherine's arms. I'm not sure if this is true, so I'll post it here for the interested to look over. - AnonymousNow

According to this he dies at Catherine's feet in an older version, but that version is now rarely used and when referring to the play, it is assumed that one is referring to the newer version, so I think adding this to the article would merely confuse readers. John JD Doe (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relative sequencing vis-a-vis On the Waterfront

[edit]

The earlier version of this article implied that On the Waterfront represented Kazan's response to A View from the Bridge, but in fact Kazan's movie appeared before Miller's play, not the other way round. Nandt1 04:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

I am just sending you this script to let you know what i think of stool-pigeons.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.56.148.18 (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is Eddie bisexual?

[edit]

Another Wikpedia user described Eddie in the cast of characters as bisexual. I have deleted this description. The only basis for such a suggestion is that, when Eddie seeks to humiliate Rodolpho, he first wrestles him into a helpless position and then mockingly plants a kiss on Rodolpho's lips. This is, to be put it no more stongly, far from conclusive of bisexuality -- it can alternatively be read as merely an act of humiliation of the younger, physically weaker man. This question is already discussed elsewhere within the article; a simple assertion of Eddie's bisexuality simplifies excessively a more complex issue. Nandt1 (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morover if Eddie was bisexual, then it would be unclear as to why: Eddie was so opposed to Rodolpho having what Eddie thought as unmanly (homosexual) characteristics.--English cheese man (talk) 18:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OR in "Sources of suspicion"?

[edit]

What is the source of the analysis of the play in the "Sources of suspicion" section? It's all highly interpretive (comparing Eddie to an elephant seal, for example) and no source is cited. If it's the work of the Wikipedian who posted the commentary, it's original research and by Wikipedia's policies it has to go. If it's someone else's work, it should be properly referenced. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now that I look at it again, it's worse than I thought. Almost every section of this article is filled with interpretive comments about the play that don't seem to have any source other than the editor who made them. I looked into the history and most of this was done by an editor back in May of 1996 2006 who did a lot of work on the article in one or two days. If I actually were to take out everything that violates Wikipedia policies, we wouldn't have much more than a stub. I'll put some "unreferenced" tags in for now. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SJA, One can go overboard with requests for sources. You have, for example, put "unreferenced" tags on the plot summary and the list of characters! Rather obviously, the source for these is the text of the play itself. Nandt1 21:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look at this sentence from the plot summary:
"This could be seen symbolically as a projection of Eddie's self-destructive tendencies, as his sense of self-worth and his honourable character finally reach the bottom of their downward spiral."
My understanding of the WP:OR policy is that editors are free to summarize the plot of a play, novel, story or film, but discussions of possible symbolic interpretation are plainly not summary. They're commentary, and if the source of the commentary is the editor who posted it, it violates policy, rather egregiously in this case.
A few more examples:
From the cast of characters: "But underneath Eddie's average guy personality is a conflicted man, whose love for his niece may be deeper than just paternal, implying a possible incestuous desire."
From "Sources of suspicion": "It has been asserted by some commentators that there are homo-erotic tensions between Eddie and Rodolpho."
And this is far from exhaustive. Actually, to the contrary of going overboard, I thought I was being quite reserved. I didn't delete anything, although several statements go directly against policy, and I didn't litter the article with a lot of "citation needed" tags. I don't really know the history well enough to say for sure, but some of this may have been added before Wikipedia's citation policy was fully in place. Further, I placed the "sources" tags in the hope, not of trashing the article, but of inviting improvements to it.
Obviously the way to accomplish that is one little piece at a time, so, in the spirit of co-operation I'll begin by suggesting that the final paragraph of the plot summary and the last sentence of the previous paragraph be deleted, as they do not summarize the plot, but comment upon interpretation. Your thoughts? --Steven J. Anderson 02:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen A View from the Bridge recently (though not having read the text for some years), I would accept that the sentence on Eddie's possible self-destructive tendencies may represent a suggested interpretation that not every reader or viewer would necessarily accept. Perhaps it deserves a citation and/or moving from the plot summary into a more interpretive section. The sentence on Eddie's conflicted nature as regards his love for his niece, by contrast, expresses a central crux of the plot that it would be hard for anyone watching or reading the play to escape. To relate the plot without this would be "Hamlet without the Prince". Read the play and I think you'll agree.

Not having the text in front of me, I assume that the statements made about the stage directions are accurate?? Nandt1 04:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit that I haven't a copy of the text to hand either, but I'm troubled not so much by the accuracy of the description of the stage directions as the interpretive comments made about them, for instance: ". . . Miller uses stage directions more often to convey the sense of crisis and drama." This has more to do with theme than plot, and is precisely the sort of commentary that I think violates WP:OR
I will also admit that I'm no authority on Wikipedia's OR policies. For instance, the statement that Miller wrote the play in a reaction to McCarthyism seems to be to be so obviously true that it hardly needs a source, but I'm not sure. I know if I write "Babe Ruth hit 714 home runs in his career as a Major League baseball player." I don't need to cite a source because it's a statement of fact that is not challenged or likely to be challenged. But if I write "Babe Ruth is widely regarded as the greatest player ever to play the game." that's a statement that describes a view, not a fact. Is it too obvious to require a citation? I just don't know.
I will also state that this sort of thing occurs all over Wikipedia, but if this were a description of a South Park episode, I'd shake my head, chuckle and go look at another article. This, though, is Arthur Miller we're discussing and I really think it's worth coming up with something better.
How would you feel (and I'm addressing Nandt, since we seem to be the only ones following this discussion) about the possibility of bringing an editor into this discussion who knows a little more about these issues? Perhaps we could solicit a thorough critique of the article, some guidance on where citations are needed, and maybe get the article up to good article status.
I'd also like to take a moment to express my gratitude for your interest and willingness to discuss these matters and look forward to your comments. --Steven J. Anderson 07:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steven, Thank you for your kind comment. The issue of what does and does not call for citation on Wikipedia is one that, like you, I frequently find hard to call. If you know a mechanism for "bringing an editor into this discussion who knows a little more about these issues" that indeed sounds like a positive step forward. Nandt1 01:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that sounds good. I'll look into it. Can't do much about it tonight, though as I've already spent too many late nights editing Wikipedia. If you don't hear from me within a day or two, prod my talk page. --Steven J. Anderson 07:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where's Alfieri?

[edit]

Why is there no mention of Alfieri? He plays a huge role in the play, acting as a Greek Chorus, a main character and a bridge between cultures. Surely there should be some mention of him, other than in the cast list, anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.70.105 (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hi there it's not clear how this play is LGBT related —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.248.142 (talk) 09:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Katie and Rodolpho in the bedroom.

[edit]

I notice in an earlier form of this page, it said that Katie an Rodolpho were 'making love'. I felt it best to change this because it seemed most likely wrong or just a modern take on an older play. There are also other reasons.

1. The timings on stage would be weird, because they were only there for 'a moment'.

2. Also the prior dialogue dosn't imply they would.

3. They were unmarried, which would mean they wouldn't do it.

4. It would have brought great dishonor to their family.

5. It would have significantly increased the family tensions. --English cheese man (talk) 22:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rumors about Rudolpho

[edit]

"Rodolpho gains a reputation with his colleagues for his effeminate nature, which includes singing and the fact he has blonde hair." I'm not sure about this. Eddie think's Rudolpho is gay (because of the singing and blonde hair) but no one else says it. When Eddie's friend talks about Rodolpho having a "sense of humor," it's clear that Eddie is interpreting this to mean that "everyone" thinks Rudolpho is gay. But I thought that everything was in Eddie's mind. 208.68.128.90 (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on A View from the Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on A View from the Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article has had critical information removed

[edit]

There have been a number of edits to this article that remove important information around act 2. 101.189.81.243 (talk) 12:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_View_from_the_Bridge&oldid=1197193981"