Talk:Amelia (film)

	Film portal This 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.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is supported by the Canadian cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

New rewrite

I have a number of resources available to add to this article. Any comments. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Please rewrite it altogether as you see fit. There are now over 100 published reviews. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I saw the film on its opening night and found a very small audience, mostly made up of seniors who I presume at least know the background to the story. Negative reviews have crippled the film and will likely result in its early demise at the boxoffice. Like most critical reviews of Amelia, reviewers have "dogpiled" on without a clear indication of why the film failed. Amelia is not an epic nor is it the complete failure that has been described in numerous publications. The standard format of a Hollywood biopic is what many reviewers have disdainfully denigrated. Recounting a life with factual rather than fanciful or unsubstantiated accounts, has doomed the film in many reviews. The mystique and mystery of her life is difficult to distill in a film, but judging by the historians and researchers that have chronicled the Earhart saga, Amelia provides an authentic and authoritative depiction of the last decade of her life. What was missing is the understanding by reputedly astute observers of the iconic status of a feminist, daring adventurer and one of the first of the international celebrities of Aviation's Golden Age. Amelia recreates the period faithfully and despite the slice-and-dice studio editing that left key sequences on the cutting room floor (Virginia Madsen's role as George P. Putnam's wife was entirely eliminated), provides the viewer with a glimpse into Amelia Earhart that most modern audiences would not wholly appreciate, yet would be evocative of the most famous aviatrix of all time. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The film is awash with historical inaccuracies.[1] Moreover it's the film's job to show in some way how the topic is meaningful and sway the audience, it is not the audience's task to like the movie because they like Earhart. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The review that was linked is certainly one of the most damming as it catalogs the many inconsistencies and historical errors in Amelia. Some are forgivable, others less so, as what was missing, was the allure that Amelia genuinely exuded. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

A New York Times reviewer says the film is more of an effective testament to the triumphs of American dentistry. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary had to replicate the unusual features that characterized Amelia's face including her freckles and a quite-evident gap-toothed smile, something that GP was at pains to conceal. None of her formal photographs show Earhart smiling, as her husband/agent was careful in manipulating her image. Most reviews that have commented on the odd appearance of Swank would be unaware that she was emulating Amelia's distinctive facial features to the extent that she wore a special overbite set of teeth. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The film is awash with historical inaccuracies", they say? Well, what do you expect from a Hollywood movie? (BTW, I've noticed that most of the inaccuracies listed on the TIGHAR site are minor details like the Electra's RDF antenna being in the wrong place.) What's more important is that it was an entertaining and reasonably accurate (for the most part -- with the MAJOR exception of the alleged affair with GV) biopic that generally portrays AE in a positive light, as a brave and audacious heroine and at the same time as a warm and affectionate person. Also, HS's acting is pretty outstanding in this movie, she looks and sounds and acts so genuine; and RG's acting is pretty good too. (Well, I only speak for my own opinion about the movie -- maybe I'm prejudiced in favor of it as a longtime fan of AE.) In any case, we should all be grateful that it wasn't an Oliver Stone picture -- if you just think about how that guy would've mangled the storyline, then all of a sudden antenna placement (or even the use of the wrong type of plane) could start to look like small matters indeed. FWIW 98.234.126.251 (talk) 10:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bisexual adulteress with a soaring heart

"The picture depicts Amelia Earhart as a bisexual adulteress with a soaring heart, easily susceptible to male control." How so? [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsinfandel (talk • contribs) 01:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was no bisexual connection other than the one scene where Gene Vidal comments that Amelia always notices other women. Her reply is ambiguous but she was always self-conscious about her appearance and was noticing that another woman had attractive legs. His observation was that she invariably wore pants, and her reply was that she didn't like the look of her own legs. The entire notion that there was even a adulteress relationship with Vidal is only corroborated by Gore Vidal based on a childhood memory that he saw Earhart's hairbrush in his father's house. No other source has ever validated the rumour of a relationship. As to her being controlled by men, that's another bit of hooey. Amelia exacted a promise that her marriage be an "open marriage" and wrote out a contract that G.P. agreed to prior to their marriage. She was as much a willing partner in the six years of her marriage, as Putnam crafted out a celebrity image. She realized that in order to fund her aerial exploits, she constantly needed to be in the public eye, and exploited a wide range of endorsements. She nearly always made sure that she had a say in the product, either directly designing or strongly contributing to the luggage line, clothing and other products that bore her name. The film review is one of the many that have recently appeared that have very little research or insight behind them. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

New Yorker review

Can be found here. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Amelia (film). 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) 16:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]