Talk:Once Upon a Time in America/Archive 1

Archive 1

Section "DVD releases" needs a rewrite

...and some people need to learn to use the discussion area. - Stormwatch 05:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Why don't we just remove most of that? - Zepheus 16:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

New DVD rumors

Could someone please fix that quote, as the convoluted nature of it annoys me.--User:mondocanerules 10:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Offensive to women

I was not comfortable with the following statement:

"Though some female audience members were offended by the rape scenes and depiction of women"

Was it only female members who were offended, or is that a guess? I know that many males find the treatment of rape in this film to be very offensive. Was this not the case during the first screenings. Should we replace the avbove with "Though some audience members" etc, or is that inaccurate.

This and other claims in the section needs citation (as of May). I would suggest that if nothing can be found to justify the claim that certain people were offended by certain things, then the section be rewritten to take the claims out. 158.42.10.44 15:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Baseless claim

I've removed the following:

"The uncut version of the film, however, was by far Leone's most critically acclaimed film, and today it has a large cult following."

There is no way anyone can say that Once Upon a Time in America is "by far" Leone's most critically acclaimed work. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly and Once Upon a Time in the West both have higher ratings on rottentomatoes.com, 100 percent and 97 percent, respectively.

Once Upon a Time in America has a 93 percent. The statement is also contradicted later on in the article, where it says that it's not Leone's most well-liked film and is often compared unfavorably to The Godfather. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is probably Leone's most acclaimed work, but I'd hestitate asserting that in an article because it's harder to judge critical consensus on older movies.--YellowTapedR 08:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

agreed. If it means critically agreed ON RELEASE, then this should be stated. 158.42.10.44 15:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sections 4.1 - 4.3

Why are they under "Opium Dream theory"? While that section is speculative in nature, the three sections within it are relevant to the making of the film. I'd like to get a consensus from any editor working on the film. --MwNNrules (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Was Little Dominic Jewish?

Was the Little Dominic character a Jewish kid or an Italian? --75.10.241.137 (talk) 06:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Plot summary needed

"NOTE: A more in-depth plot-summary needs to be written."

Empty section "Alternate Versions" also removed. 80.203.115.12 15:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Plot summary added, plus a brief annotation on the Dream Theory and the film's critical reception.

agree. i'll see what i can do. Kilnburn (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Reception Section Flawed Fatally

Someone with more expertise about this movie should please fix the "Reception" section of this article, it doesn't say squat about how critics or the public received the film, it's only filled with specific information about the various cuts of the film, which might be relevant if you, whoever wrote it, would explain why... i.e., what critics, film experts, or random public people have said about the cuts--which cut is best and more significantly, why it's important in terms of how the world received this film. That is after all what the reception section is for. Thanks. Chicopac (talk) 04:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

"Opium Theory" - spoiler alert for anyone not familiar with the plot

Er I just want to say that as this article stands, it needs a lot of work. There are very little references but a lot of supposition; and the aforementioned section is POV, opinion and original research (OR). Leone created a very complex piece of cinema. But as he is no longer alive, which is a pity, no one can ask him what he really meant. Using expressions such as 'hinted at' means nothing, it either is or isn't?

Furthermore my basic gripe is that the Opium theory section is just too literal of what is seen on the screen. I mean my OR is that the film was edited to tell a long and episodic story that intertwines through past and present events due to the commonality of the story - friendship, love and betrayal. Another example of my OR, is the character of Deborah Gelly who does not age a great deal in the 1960s sequences. I believe that this is Leone's way to show that Noodles feelings have not changed after all the years away. He looks at her the same way he always had. But these are all my theories so why should the article contain the opium one?

Likewise I just thought Leone wanted the film to end on a positive note showing Noodles in the opium den, high and happy at a time in his life when things were good (no problems) and he was at the top of his game (the 1930s). As opposed to a broken old man who had lived in hiding for 35 years from a friend who ripped him off, tried to have him killed and then cohabited with his only true love (1960s). It should be noted that the end scene in the opium den could be chronologically in the middle of the film. Max asks Noodles where he had been for the past few days and Cockeye intimates that he'd been smoking heroin.

In conclusion my point is that these are just my theories of what the movie signifies to me. Just one of dozens ideas.

COURSE THIS IS HARDLY A SPOILER BECAUSE WHOEVER WROTE THE MAIN PAGE FOR THE MOVIE INCLUDED THE ENTIRE PLOT OF THE MOVIE! WHAT WERE YOU THINKING!? CHANGE IT. THAT IS MESSED UP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.242.211 (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

So either more references are added or the Opium Theory section should be deleted because it lacks any citations and is also vague, opinionated and highly debatable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.69.94 (talk) 12:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Plot summary not too long

In my opinion, the "Plot" (such at it is currently) is NOT AT ALL "too long or excessively detailed". On the contrary, it is as accurate and clear as possible since it summarizes an abridged version of the Director's cut Gauthier2Chatillon (talk) 11:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Gauthier2Chatillon You are responding to a post from almost nine years ago. The plot section that the OP was reading has gone through a massive overhaul. Thus, your post has no relevance to the original message. BTW there is no need to shout at the OP. MarnetteD | Talk 15:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

MarnetteD Sorry for putting my message at the wrong place, but it was in fact addressed to the comment (still included at the beginning of the "Plot" paragraph) that says : "This article's plot summary may be too long or excessively detailed. Please help improve it by removing unnecessary details and making it more concise. (May 2012)". And sorry too for unintentionally shouting. Gauthier2Chatillon (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

No problem and thanks for your followup explanation. When you want to open a new thread just start it at the bottom of the talk page. As to the tag it is appropriate per WP:FILMPLOT we try to keep these between 400 and 700 words. Yes I know that a film of this length will push the 700 word limit. This has been discussed a few times over the years and the consensus remains that, even with a lengthy film like this one, we should still try to meet that limit. OTOH as you note the tag was placed there over 2 years ago so it looks like the plot won't be getting trimmed anytime soon. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 23:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Brooklyn?

The plot summary says "The ... 1921 sequence shows young Noodles' (Scott Tiler) struggles as a poor street punk in the Jewish ghetto of Brooklyn."

I always thought that the film depicted Manhattan's Lower East Side rather than Brooklyn. Does anybody know for sure?

The back of my copy says it's the L.E.S. and it certainly looks the L.E.S side of the Williamsburg bridge. --76.214.224.107 00:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

In the DVD release, when Noodles returns to the old nabe, you can clearly see the buildings of the "modern" (c. 1969) Manhattan skyline on the other side of the river. To me, this is conclusive that the neighborhood is Brooklyn. I am making revisions to the article accordingly (there is already a photo caption stating the nabe is in DUMBO. Ellsworth 19:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't let modern filming locations mess with historical fact. All of the Orthodox Jews in the 1920's lived on the Lower East Side. They filmed it in Brooklyn because there wasn't anything at 8th Street and Bedford in 1984 and they could get what's called in the business "full vista" without losing the period. So they built a set in Brooklyn to act as the Lower East Side. They did this with Gangs of New York, Ragtime (although the LES in that film was E. 11th btwn Ave A/B), etc. etc. -Shawn Chittle LES historian (chittle@gmail.com)

Close but no.

Ellsworth, you can have whatever head canon you like, but Shawn is right that necessities of filming and minor background mistakes don't trump the narrative.

Shawn, the historical fact doesn't really trump the film's own narrative. If they were to say it was in Brooklyn or have the wrong streets named, that would be something regardless of the historical reality. You're right that Leone was probably trying to recreate the LES, though. (This article says the book more explicitly places it in the Lower East Side.) — LlywelynII 12:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

"***** Theory"

I strongly object on grounds of spoilage, to the headline of this section. It surely needs a spoiler warning. Even this entry in the table of contents is spoilerish and should be reconsidered. I propose "opium theory" as an alternative name.

Also, I added a tidbit to the "***** Theory" section that I think shines some interesting light on this controversy. Hazel Rah 06:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyone coming to the Wikipedia article before seeing the movie cannot complain about anything being "spoiled". That said, I'm not sure it ever deserved a separate section. — LlywelynII 12:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Carol's Rape Scene

I don't think it's clear that Carol is being raped during that scene as stated in the article. There are a lot of indications that she wanted it to happen that way. The way Joe explains how he found out about the secret diamonds, sounds like he had a similar experience with Carol. Carol also requests to be hit to "make it more real". She also makes sounds of pleasure versus opposition. Lastly, there is the scene where they are at Peggy's brothel and she's reintroduced to the guys and makes a happy guess that it was Max she had "known personally" at the robbery. Of course this is all speculation so this can be discussed before any changes are made. --76.214.224.107 00:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

She wanted it is the general consensus but the fact is without like explicit consent you know that is rape. The fact that they were robbing the place at the time adds to the fact that it was a violent assault. It is rape but there are many things that suggest she is a little weird. Alexbonaro 11:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

My own take on the scene was that it was the assailant's intent to rape her due to his arousal over Joe's story about having had sex with the same woman earlier. The sexual contact begins as violent rape, in the midst of brutal attacks on the men present. Her submission to the rape, even her cooperation or possible enjoyment, don't change the fact that the initial contact is by force and non-consensual and therefore rape. "She wanted it" may have become true as the rape progressed, but it wasn't true when the rape was initiated. I think it's okay to characterize it as rape in the article. — LisaSmall ^T/C 07:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, it's part of my disgust with the adult sections of the movie but, no, she was patently turned on from before the rape. That she did want it doesn't make it less rape, since Noodles wouldn't've cared either way... but then part of his treatment of her throughout the movie is his disgust for the things that turn her on. I'm not saying it's inauthentic to some people's lives, but it's wretched all the way around. — LlywelynII 12:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Plot summary shortened

I've reduced the size of the somewhat large plot summary (1100 words) to around 700 words by grafting parts of an older version onto the introduction. [4]. --Tony Sidaway 00:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't do that. It's a long movie and the summary needs to be thorough as well as terse. — LlywelynII 12:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Full cut

Has a full cut of the film ever been released, or is the Brazilian version the closest thing available-ie is their a cut which features all the scenes with Eve; who only appears for a brief moment rather than her being a promonent character? I just find it a shame that such a story has been truncated so much by producers, Leone supposadly covered a large portion of the novel, which is to say a lot of scenes, but only three hours of those scenes have to my knowledge been released. So does anyone know if such a DvD or the like exist, or does the original full length film even exist anymore, or are we to be stuck with the multilated, but masterful nonetheless, version forever?-Wyrmalla —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.209.252 (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You mean the 6-hour version? No. — LlywelynII 12:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Summary

Obviously, it needs to be terse without omitting important points. The current version is pretty good and should not be shortened by the removal of any scenes. Some problems, though:

• It needs to state upfront which version we're talking about; we should use the full theatrical release (i.e., the European or restored version)
• This one seems to be missing several scenes; we should cover them
• There are several opinions included in the current summary, all of which shouldn't be there, most of which are wrong, and one of which—Noodles attends the party at Secretary Bailey's house and hides his shock in discovering that Bailey is Max—is an utter howler. We should stick with the facts—Noodles attends the party at Secretary Bailey's house and shows no surprise finding that Bailey is Max—but, if we're doing unsourced opinions, the far more informed one is that he's already worked out what has happened from at least seeing Jennifer Connelly's son. It's ridiculous on its face he wouldn't've been able to find a photo of an administration secretary off camera and he plays along with the "Mr Bailey" persona placidly.
• I prefer to give the scenes in order, since that's what the movie is. I'm ok with telling most of the story chronologically but—for obvious reasons—it's essential to begin and end the narrative with the opium den scenes.
• Oh, and Noodles doesn't find the roughed up Fat Moe and missing money before the opium den scene; they follow it.

I'll make a note of the version and include the scenes that I see are missing; kindly restore any other scenes as well. (Not for the 6-hour version, though; if someone still has that, its omitted scenes should go in a separate section.) — LlywelynII 12:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Minutes don't add up?

The article specifies:

• "original European release version (1984, 229 minutes)"
• A 251-minute version being shown at the 2012 Cannes Film Festival
• A 251-minute Extended Director's Cut
• "Leone's originally intended 269-minute version".

Hence there's 22 extra minutes in the Cannes/Extended version but still 18 minutes missing as compared to Leone's intended version.

However reference 22 specifies 25 extra minutes (no mention of new length), reference 24 references 25 extra minutes (and a new length of 245 not 251) and reference 28 specifies 22 extra minutes (and a new length of 251).

And the article mentions "gain[ing] the rights to the final 24 minutes of deleted scenes for a complete version of Leone's original 269 minute version" (no reference).

Are references 22 and 24 wrong in saying that 25 minutes are missing (rather than 22)?

Is reference 24 wrong in saying that the new length is 245 minutes (rather than 249)?

Should the article be corrected to say that the rights need to be gained to the final 18 minutes (rather than 25)?

BTW, reference 23 is dead.

Thanks Zin92 (talk) 05:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I have a 2 disc Warner Bros DVD with a run time of approx 220 mins is this a new length Johnpjambler

Sergio Leone

was an Italian film maker, not a US only one. Hatchmight (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

That is not the determining factor in how the field is used. Try reading the documentation. BTW under that reasoning all of Charlie Chaplin's films are British which they aren't. MarnetteD|Talk 23:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

There is a heavier Italianate theme on both sides of the camera to this film than anything Charlie Chaplin had regarding British, even then Chaplain was not a director. Hatchmight (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

That is WP:OR on your part. Wikipedia relies on WP:RS for info added to both articles and infoboxes. MarnetteD|Talk 23:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

"Chaplin was not a director" - since when!?!? MarnetteD|Talk 23:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The current ref is total crap, but both the American Film Institute and British Film Institute concur it is an Italian-American film. Hatchmight is correct more by accident than a coherent argument though, since as editors we don't evaluate the thematic content of a film to determine its national origin. Oh, and while Sergio Leone directed classics Charlie Chaplin directed masterpieces, so I think he earned the right to be called a "director". Betty Logan (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the input BL. Since you did the work to find the refs Betty Logan would you please do the honors and add them to the article. Thanks for your efforts. MarnetteD|Talk 00:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm not Betty, but I added a citation to the Lumiere database at the European Audiovisual Observatory, which is a good source for classic films. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you NinjaRobotPirate. I guess we can have the other two as backup should any question arise. MarnetteD|Talk 03:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks NRP; I had just come along to do this after getting a ping from Marnette but you saved me the hassle! Betty Logan (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

You know what would forever solve this problem across wikipedia as a whole? If we stopped pretending that nationality is an important aspect of every single film. Yeah, it can be seen to matter in, say, Birth of a Nation or Roma, città aperta, but there should be a demonstrable reason to include, rather than omit, a nationality by default. GRAPPLE ^X 09:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I fully agree with you on that point: the country debate causes problems on articles where it is irrelevant; although that said I can sort of see an argument for including it here because the film itself is about national identity. Betty Logan (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Plot changes

The current changes are bloating the plot unnecessarily per WP:FILMPLOT. :They also have WP:SYNTH problems. Any item that contains the phrase "It is implied" means the rest is WP:OR and WP:POV. Other viewers will see other implications - especially in a film, where the story telling structure is non-linear, like this one. MarnetteD|Talk 21:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. The editor needs to come here and explain his edits, as we both asked him to do more than once. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 23:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

This movie is too long and non linear. The rules according to the WP:FILMPLOT cannot be applied here and my words "It is implied" is another expression of telling what is obvious, but cannot be noticed on the spot. 06:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Arderich (talk)

WP:FILMPLOT is applied here per WP:CONSENSUS. BTW "implied" is not the same as "obvious" in any sense of either word. MarnetteD|Talk 14:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

In that case I will put "obvious".Arderich (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with MarnetteD. You have no consensus for your changes, and the changes you are suggesting are inappropriate. Also, please us talk page formatting so that the conversation can be followed. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Whatever word you use it is WP:OR and does not belong in the article. MarnetteD|Talk 14:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

And what about Deborah´s betrayal, crime and shame. Should it not be included?Arderich (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

And what about the fact, that David is an adolescent version of Max with the exception of the hair, which helped understand Noodles on the spot who Bailey is and what Deborah did? Should it not be included either?Arderich (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

And what about the ending when the credits roll? Should it not be included, that at this moment Noodle´s past flows through him as a catharsis now that he has put the past behind him? Or the fact that you can sense how he moves on with his life after it happened, when the scree goes black? What about this?20:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Arderich (talk)

And what about the fact, that Max indeed killed himself after the meeting with Noodles? Should it not be included either?Arderich (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

All of that is just WP:PLOTBLOAT. I understand that it is important to you but I do not see it improving the plot section of this article. BTW there are plenty of places on the net (like facebook or a blog) where you can write your interpretation of the plot of this film. Feel free to avail yourself of them. MarnetteD|Talk 22:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Deborah´s relationship with Noodles from the beginning to the end is a very important part of the movie. It has to be included.Arderich (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The fact that David is an adolescent version of Max is extremely important, because it helped Noodles deal with Max and Deborah. It also has to be included.Arderich (talk) 01:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Don´t try to tell, that Max´s suicide is not an important part of the movie. It closes David´s past.Arderich (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

And the fact, that he closes it internally is also important for the movie´s closure.Arderich (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read WP:CONSENSUS because there is none for your changes to the plot section. MarnetteD|Talk 14:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you trying to tell me, that these parts of the movie are not important?Arderich (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Or the fact, that the puppet theatre is not Indonesian, but Chinese? 17:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Arderich (talk)

All of this is still WP:PLOTBLOAT. Try reading the policy for once. BTW this article Wayang shows the error in your last statement. There is no reason to go on with this since you have presented nothing to change the current WP:CONSENSUS. Feel free to start a RFC or take up my suggestion of availing yourself of other places on the net to post your version. MarnetteD|Talk 17:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Max clearly told to Noodles, he had been with the chinks, when he was full with Opium after having lost Deborah. That means he was in a chinese puppet theatre, when he inhaled Opium again after having lost his friends. What do you have to say about this?Arderich (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Once Upon a Time in America. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140716203520/http://www.tcm.com/this-month/article/191909%7c191910/Sergio-Leone-Profile.html to http://www.tcm.com/this-month/article=191909%7c191910/Sergio-Leone-Profile.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 14:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Once Upon a Time in America is a 1984 Italian-American, no it's not!!

OUATIA is NOT Italian-American, it's JEWISH-AMERICAN! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.167.39.149 (talk) 10:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

It's a production by Italian and American film companies. The characters are Jewish. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Plot summary

Since being cut, it appears as though it has been added to. Also, it clearly has excessive detail. For example, it says a character is the son of a Kosher butcher. That is completely unnecessary. I'm tagging other editors who have edited this page and worked on film pages for input. Unknownsoldier AnyDosMilVint FloorMadeOuttaFloor TDFan1000 Some Dude From North Carolina Rusted AutoParts Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

"Since being cut" may refer to an important hallmark in your own personal history, but most wiki users are either ignorant or indifferent of how important earlier versions were to you. The character being the son of a Kosher butcher may be unnecessary. The need to trim this further is definitely a common ground. What is not good fertilizer for a common ground is undoing entire edits without using the talk page first, then accusing others for not using the talk page first. AnyDosMilVint (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

AnyDosMilVint I am sorry if I upset you. But cutting excess without first discussing it is common on plot synopses. My point was before removing a tag right away without addressing the concern it should at least be discussed. You do agree that there is excessive detail though? Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry if I was a bit edgy in my earlier response. Thanks for clarifying the "tag" issue on my talk page, I was not aware of that. Let's get down to business:

• Fat Moe is relevant as a character and because of his ties to Deborah, but I agree his father's occupation has no importance.
• My contention is that given the nonlinear narrative of the film, it's best to write the bookend scenes into the plot precisely as they are --in bookend format-- with or without italics, and explain the rest of the film in linear fashion. Earlier history shows people tried to follow the precise chronology of the film. This rendered the plot chaotic. Whatever is done, be that as it may, should be consistent.
• The Beth Israel cemetery segment is difficult because it warrants some space if properly explained, but in its earlier version, the text was misleading and imprecise.
• Minaldi's betrayal by Frankie would warrant some space too but only after trimming the rest of the text severely.
• I don't think we can avoid some redundancy in explaining that the three bootleggers mentioned in the prologue are his childhood friends, at least not if we follow the bookend+linear+bookend structure.
• I'm not sure Peggy becomes a madam sensu stricto. Perhaps we could remove her from the reference to Carol being a prostitute.
• I propose trimming also by way of removing unnecessary material, e.g. the exact circumstances of Max and Noodles' first acquaintance.
• I am pessimistic about the possibility of trimming this below 900 words or so. Is a tag really necessary for that length? AnyDosMilVint (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

AnyDosMilVintAs long as excessive detail is cut that is not necessary to explain the plot simply, it's good. I don't think we need to remove to remove any scenes. Just repetition and detail that is not important. Please see my recent edit as an example and see if you agree with that. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems good. I changed/trimmed a few things as well, please take a look at those. AnyDosMilVint (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Samurai Kung fu Cowboy Agreed on Carol and on removing the limo driver from the text, but:

• the fact that the salt bootlegging method is Noodles' idea may be of relevance given the implied asymmetry of their contribution to the gang (Noodles being the brains, Max being the PR sort of guy). I know it is an underdeveloped asymmetry but it's there.
• you cannot just summarize the car scene as "he rapes her". It is a complicated scene that affects part of the later plot and it is unclear whether he would have raped her had she not started showing mild signs of affection to him.
• Why would Bugsy take a shot at them? I understand his earlier beating of Noodles and Max might take too much space, but we have to mention at some point that he had pressured them not to pursue success on their own. AnyDosMilVint (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

AnyDosMilVint I did and I made some more. I'm good with it now personally and I also don't see why it would be added to. If you agree with me, I'd say we can remove a tag but should leave a note not to add to it. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Samurai Kung fu Cowboy I think we performed edits at the same time to this talk page. Please see the paragraph above this. AnyDosMilVint (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

AnyDosMilVint Add back what you think is necessary. Please do do with as little words as possible and if you see anything else that can be removed please do so. Please do not remove the tag yet. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 16:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Samurai Kung fu Cowboy Done. AnyDosMilVint (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Samurai Kung fu Cowboy I also restored the bit about David Bailey being a dead ringer for a young Max, hence Max being Bailey. I don't know who had erased that but it is essential to the plot. AnyDosMilVint (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

AnyDosMilVint I erased it because although I agree with you, it's considered editorializing and original research which Wikipedia does not do. The film does not actually say it so we can't either. If you find an outside source that says so, you could add it with a citation. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Samurai Kung fu Cowboy I understand this would have verged on original research if they'd chosen a different actor and if the dialogue leading to the scene had been different, but let's face it: Noodles' expression when he sees David, coupled with Deborah's attempts to prevent him from exiting through that door, and most importantly the fact that the actor is the same as the one who portrayed a younger Max, leaves little doubt that the only interpretation possible was the one written now. It also prepares the audience (and Noodles) for the showdown with "Bailey" and thus the surprise element is lost.

I'm going to trim a bit more text (stay tuned for that) and also who added the "who has not aged" to Deborah still being an actress? Do we really want this here, instead of in the interpretation section?AnyDosMilVint (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Samurai Kung fu Cowboy if you remove the reference to David being similar to young Max, then "named after Noodles" should also be removed (because Deborah says "His name is David, just like yours", not after you) as well as Deborah's insistence that he leaves through the back door. If you remove one thing (which I think is a mistake) you have to excise everything related to that fact and leave it at "she admits having been his lover" followed by "Noodles meets Bailey who turns out to be Max"). Which I think looks horrible btw. AnyDosMilVint (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

AnyDosMilVint I'd say it's good right now. It's not the synopsis' job to explain everything. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 17:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Samurai Kung fu Cowboy I disagree; if David's resemblance to Max becomes a contentious point and needs to be removed, then David Bailey (or the fact he's Noodles' namesake) has no relevance whatsoever to the plot and I thought the point (your point) was to make this plot as terse as possible. Either we add the resemblance (which everyone agrees on) and its implications, or the only ignored advice from Deborah worth mentioning in the plot is the advice to tear the invitation, and the next sentence should be the party and Secretary Bailey's true identity. AnyDosMilVint (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

AnyDosMilVint I'm fine with that. We'll see if any of the other editors I pinged voice their opinion. Thank you for working this out with me. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Samurai Kung fu Cowboy sure no problem. Check out the last edits I just made, I think this is as short and concise as it could be. AnyDosMilVint (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Unknownsoldier, I agree that the fact Deborah doesn't seem to have aged as much the others (a mild case of crow's feet notwithstanding) is relevant to the possible interpretations. I also think that the dream interpretation is a possible one (albeit if so, shoddily implemented for a number of reasons), but there is no definite indication her relative youth is due to this. I understand your point, but you'll find users labelling this as original research if you place it in the plot section instead of the interpretations section. Also "age can't wither me, Noodles" needs to be replaced by "age can wither me, Noodles", as opposed to what the poster in her dressing room. AnyDosMilVint (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Speaking as someone unfamiliar with this film, I've made some trims to try to bring the word count down. I believe it's at about 1,050 words now. I think under 1K would be ideal, but I'm not sure what more to cut at this point...without having seen the film, it's a little unclear what else is really relevant. I did see the big note about Deborah, and I feel that would be better placed elsewhere in the article, as it's not directly pertinent to the plot but may merit some discussion where readers can see it, but I'll defer to other editors on that. I can try taking another pass at it later, but would prefer it if other editors reviewed it first. DonIago (talk) 14:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

References

About the goading

Just to clarify, I agree with one of the users that Carol goads or at least partially expects Noodles to have rough sex with her, but this is just my impression; what the film actually shows is that she goads him into hitting her, and then he appears to rape her. My earlier edit left me thinking about this but I didn't want to make the text longer, but perhaps the version I wrote now should satisfy everyone AnyDosMilVint (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I haven't seen the film, but I have concerns about the link to sadomasochism. It doesn't seem needed on top of the plot summary as written, and implies that Carol is a sadomasochist in general, which I'm not sure is the intent.

Also, if there's any doubt as to whether Noodles rapes Carol, we should clarify that. DonIago (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The scene is here . Carol shows at least two instances of DSM-5 behavior: exhibitionism (using her husband as a voyeur) and masochism. Noodles even speculates at some point "I'm afraid if I give you a good crack in the mouth, you'd probably like it". This is long after the episode where she begs "hit me". I think the masochism bit is accurate. What I had trouble with is whether the rough sex was expected by her (and she pretended she didn't with some role play) or was an actual rape. I left it as rape because it involved prior violence anyway. AnyDosMilVint (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

References

For us to describe a character as sadomasochistic based on our own observations would be original research. I also don't see how the link is necessary in this context; it isn't as though the wording isn't clear, at least IMO.

The video segment is 12 minutes long; can you provide a timestamp? DonIago (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not just my observations, it's some of the characters' as well, only difference is they don't use scientific terminology. Carol makes an appearance after minute 5:00 but the conversation preceding it makes reference to other unusual sexual tastes (the whole film makes a point of her kinkiness, and the fact that Noodles was used to women like her or Peggy and thus didn't understand Deborah's resistance in what constitutes the film's true unambiguous, uncontroversial rape). AnyDosMilVint (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

It's still unclear to me how linking to sadomasochism adds anything to a reader's understanding that the current wording of the plot summary doesn't already explain in sufficient detail. Regarding whether or not there's a rape, I'll defer to other editors who've seen the film. DonIago (talk) 05:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

You are using WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to place your interpretation of the plot. As noted at WP:FILMPLOT "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source." Also the reader should not need specialist knowledge while reading the plot. The specifics that you are describing don't mesh with the guidelines. MarnetteD|Talk 06:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Just took the hyperlink off. There should be a consensus now. AnyDosMilVint (talk) 10:24, 18 November 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:

• Sergio Leone and Robert De Niro.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Wording

@User:Michael Bedarnek I don't understand your revert at all. The narrative - as it described in the article - entail an adult forcing a child to do sexual acts (which they ofc can't consent to). The boys use this to blackmail him. That's molestation. Please could u elaborate? Stephanie921 (talk) 13:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I restored the previous text with this edit summary: "no indication in the film or sources that Peggy was molested by Whitey/Fartface, or the others." To describe the policeman's (Whitey) treatment of the prostitute (Peggy) in 1918 as 'molestation' would need either a strong supporting primary source from the film (e.g. a quote) or better, a secondary source describing it as such. None of that was provided by your edit. The immediately following scene and the story of Peggy throughout the film doesn't lend itself to that description. Wikipedia allows some leeway in the requirement of sources for plot summaries, but any value statements have to be supported by reliable sources; without them, they are original research or MOS:OFCOURSE (editorializing). I agree that the word 'tryst' is questionable, too. Inspecting the article's history, I see that it used to be "having sex with", which seem more apposite. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't get how "have sex with" is appropriate, since it's not consensual and not presented as such @User:Michael Bednarek Stephanie921 (talk) 01:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree. Peggy's role as a working prostitute is shown throughout the film. Describing Whitey's treatment of Peggy, and the boys' after that, as 'molestation' seems to be a description through the lens of today's mores and laws, unsupported by the film or secondary sources. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Well it's always been immoral and illegal. This is even supported by the film. If it was legal back then, the kids wouldn't have any legal recourse to blackmail the copper with. They threaten to have him arrested and ruin his reputation, which clearly shows that they view it as wrong, society views it as wrong, and that he wouldn't be able to get away with it. If this wasn't the case he wouldn't have been scared of them Stephanie921 (talk) 01:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

You keep judging fiction describing events and characters in 1918 from your point of view today. What do you think would have happened if Patsy hadn't eaten that cupcake himself? Calling a sex worker's occupation immoral is a very strange argument to make in this context, and the legality of prostitution at that time is not a clear-cut situation, but it certainly would have looked very bad for a police officer. And that was the purpose of this scene: how the boys get a hold over Whitey. Peggy is a stereotypical character in the film: from village bike to madam, flawed like everyone else. If Leone wanted to depict 'molestation', I'm sure he would have had no hesitation, and the filmic vocabulary, to do that. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

You've misunderstood me. I don't think sex work is immoral. If women want to do sex work then we can. But we, we're often forced to do it because of systemic misogyny. But that doesn't mean we are doing something immoral, that means the men forcing us to do that is immoral. But in the case of the film that applies too (aside from the first bit, since girls can't consent in the same way women do). The film depicts the Cooper's actions as immoral, as I already said. Anyway, I suggest we get a 3rd opinion cos I think ur misunderstanding me Stephanie921 (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Bugsy (Siegel?)

Is the character "Bugsy" in this film based on Bugsy Siegel? I've come from Siegel's page, and here's what I've found out: Movie Bugsy is a Jewish gang boss who has young Jewish boys committing petty crimes for him on Manhattan’s Lower East Side; I’m not sure how old he’s supposed to be, but the actor was about 30 at the time. He dies in 1918 in the movie. The real man, who I’ll refer to as Siegel, was born in Brooklyn in 1906, and joined a gang on the Lower East Side in Manhattan as a boy. He committed petty crimes until he met Moe Segway and started an (extortion) protection racket for pushcart vendors. As a teenager, Siegel became instrumental in what became known as the Bugs and Meyer Mob; From there, the Mob expanded, grew in influence, and Siegel’s criminal career expanded outside of New York.

I think it’s pretty safe to say that, between misunderstandings and generalizations surrounding his early life, and alterations to fit the plot, our Movie Bugsy might be the same as Siegel - in a world where his gang is not so successful, and he’s killed by a young boy. But I admit, I haven't watched the movie, so perhaps somebody who has can weigh in on this before we put something in the article. If you want to know more about Siegel, I recommend his article as well as the one on his mob for relevant information.

Also, how does one cite a "correlation" like this that isn't explicitly stated on any credible sources (that I've seen)? Would appreciate input. 8"mrk"7 (talk) 16:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)