Talk:Charade (1963 film)

Copyright

This movie fell into the public domain, as soon as it was released, as absolutely no claim of copyright was put into the original prints.

You don't have to claim copyright, copyright is automatically given by law to the author. —Tokek 18:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

On movies, that was not the case in the US at the time - it had to be expressly claimed. US laws never make sense to me anyway.... --Kiand 18:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Works would have been automatically copyrighted upon release only after 1989. --Fallout boy 05:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

About that: what do you make of this? -Litefantastic 22:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Original prints may be in the public domain but the elements they were made from, (negatives, soundtracks and so on) may still be protected or at least highly disputable. One may need to prove that a given copy truly traces back to an original print which was released without a copyright claim in order to assert public domain on that copy. Moreover, the music is still likely under separate copyright, making it possible to impede distribution of a copy with an intact soundtrack. Oh and finally, Stone's original screenplay and novelisation are almost certainly still copyrighted, which could make it illegal to re-distribute the work without that copyright holder's permission. Gwen Gale 05:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that the film itself -- as a complete entity -- is public domain and has been released in various DVD and VHS forms in this spirit (including as a bonus on The Truth About Charlie DVD and Criterion's edition). However additional elements such as commentaries, documentaries, restorations, etc. would have their own copyright so as such one couldn't just make a dub of the Criterion edition and sell it. Agreed the story isn't public domain, and as such the book and original soundtrack LP would still be in copyright ... which could explain why they've both been out of print for nearly 45 years instead of being reissued left, right and centre. I think book copyright works differently anyway as I personally have yet to encounter a similar situation with a literary work, yet there are numerous movies (including MGM films such as Royal Wedding) which are no longer copyrighted under US law. 23skidoo 22:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Gwen Gale makes a very good point here about the screenplay and music of the film possibly being under copyright, which would mean that the film is not "in the public domain" even though there is no copyright attaching to the entire print of the film. But if that argument is valid for Charade, wouldn't it be valid for most of the films of the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s that are considered to be Category:Public domain films? Yet lots of these 1950s public-domain films do get put out on DVD collections by apparently reputable companies, and sold by apparently reputable retailers. I would be curious to get a definitive answer on this.

As for Charade specifically, I found the following by poking around on Google: a 2002 article in the Los Angeles Times [2] says that for a time it was "mistakenly" thought that Charade was in the public domain. There is a discussion thread at archive.org discussing the issue, inconclusively. In a discussion thread on topiclink.com, someone says he "knows someone who put Charade on the shelf and now he is being sued". --Mathew5000 19:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the general public domain issue, there's also the fact that whether or not the film is public domain, film prints and DVD transfers are still copyrighted. Meaning the screenshots used here and elsewhere on Wikipedia under the guise of PD may or may not be legit. Doctor Sunshine talk 21:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, while copyright notices were required, under later law (effected to meet treaty obligations) at least some copyrights lost for lack of notices can be recovered. The copyright for The Lord of the Rings was recovered in this manner. So why, then, hasn't the Charade copyright been likewise recovered? or has it? —SlamDiego_←T 07:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Was Cary Grant's character really working for the CIA? (spoilers)

{{spoiler}} The previous version of the description stated that Cary Grant's character (let's call him Peter Joshua) is revealed to be working for the CIA at the end of the movie. While that is certainly one possible interpretation, another is that Joshua (who we may presume is a professional conman and criminal) assumes the identity of the CIA official in a final bid to get hold of the stamps. He seems to dictate a memo to his secretary in order to prove his authenticity, but this too could be an illusion. The movie allows both possibilities, so I have reworded the description to say that Audrey Hepburn's character finds Joshua behind the official's desk, without affirming that he is a genuine official. Grover cleveland 04:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere (that I can recall) is it indicated that he worked for the CIA. Dyle claimed he was an agent, but not Joshua. In any case, it isn't the duty of the CIA to recover ill-gotten gains (see CIA). Joshua was just a embassy official, though I must admit, he went to rather extreme lengths to do his job. Clarityfiend 03:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess my question is: was Joshua really an embassy official, or was he just pretending to be one? There are some interesting clues: he dictates a message to "his" secretary, but we never see or hear any acknowledgement from the secretary -- for all we know the dictation machine might not even be turned on. After Reggie accepts his proposal, we immediately see a montage of all Joshua's identities throughout the film -- suggesting that the embassy official is just another pose that Joshua will go through in order to get his hands on the money. And Joshua's behavior throughout the movie is hardly consistent with that of a US government employee (although much of the rest of the movie is also implausible). I'm suggesting that the movie deliberately leaves the answer to this question ambiguous. Grover cleveland 04:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Was it a dictation machine or an intercom? Clarityfiend 05:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't remember: however there was no response -- perhaps Grant's character didn't even turn it on. Grover cleveland 06:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Codswallop, the Marine clearly says Crookshank works for the treasury department and his secretary admits Reggie to his office. Gwen Gale 04:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Gwen Gale is correct; Cruikshank does not work for the CIA but for the Treasury Department. It's not all that believable that the U.S. government would have Treasury Department officials carrying guns while stationed in Paris, but that's the ultimate premise of the movie. As Grover Cleveland mentions above, at the end of the film we see Cary Grant buzz his secretary and tell her to take a memo on improving security, and this is the "evidence" on which Reggie believes he actually works there and is not a thief, even though we never hear the secretary reply. It's a little flimsy but it's pretty clear that the filmmakers' intention was for the Cary Grant character and the Audrey Hepburn character to end up together, married, and live happily ever after; they did not intend to leave open the possibility that Cary Grant was somebody different. --Mathew5000 00:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

"spans several genres"?

The present version of the article states in the introduction: "It spans several genres including suspense thriller, romance, and comedy." The use of the word "including" implies that the movie belongs to other genres, not only those three. So what are they? Moreover, "romantic comedy" is really one genre -- at least it has become one, maybe in the 1960s the romantic comedy genre didn't exist; it's hard to tell from the article romantic comedy film. In any event, the word "several" suggests more than three. --Mathew5000 00:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Charade movieposter.jpg

Image:Charade movieposter.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed this paragraph from the article's production section...

...because the ref didn't support the content (that I could find), but also because I literally couldn't understand what the paragraph is saying. If someone knows what it's supposed to say, please re-write it and restore.

The movie was said to be an attempt by the studio to unite the popular stars onscreen. Grant had previously been offered a role opposite Hepburn in Roman Holiday, but had turned it down because he felt he was too old to play her love interest. The role eventually went to Gregory Peck. Grant finally agreed to take the role, but in order to play down the 25-year age difference between them, he insisted that Hepburn's character be made the aggressor in the relationship. The chemistry between Grant and Hepburn, as well as Grant's continuing success as a sex symbol despite his advanced age, have made many critics state that having Grant pursue Hepburn in Roman Holiday not only would have been plausible, it would have been even more perfect than the talented Peck in the role.

Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 02:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

References

GLAMMAZON'S REPLY

No, the film is still AT the Internet Archive and has NOT been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glammazon (talk • contribs) 22:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Spoiler

I didn't read the synopsis and didn't know Hamilton Bartholomew was the real Carson Dyle until the cast section ruined the twist for me. Somebody should edit out the spoiler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.132.255 (talk) 07:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Who is Adam?

In the bottom half of the synopsis a character named Adam is referred to. No explanation regarding who he is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:200:4200:5A40:C5E4:F2F4:3FA2:DD7E (talk) 01:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes it is, read closer. You also need to learn how to sign your posts. Sweetpool50 (talk) 11:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Copyright outside of the US

The article says "The film remains fully protected by copyright outside the U.S." with no citation. Today (Sep. 4 2021) Swiss TV started a series using this movie but changing the soundtrack, with the argument it was free of copyright. I assume their lawyers know what they are doing. https://www.rts.ch/play/tv/redirect/detail/12467094?startTime=1613 Pkoppenb (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Charade (1963).webm

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)