Talk:Laurence Olivier

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Laurence Olivier article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
A Wikipedian removed Laurence Olivier from the good article list. There are suggestions below for improving areas to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, renominate the article as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.
Removal date: 20-August-2006
To-do list for Laurence Olivier: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
  • General Expansion of all Sections
  • Discussion of Work
    • Successes
    • Failures
  • LO's view of own work
  • Critical Commentary
  • Legacy
Priority 2
Peer review Laurence Olivier has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Peer review Laurence Olivier has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage.
More information about this article...
 This article is a candidate to be the Biography WikiProject Collaboration of the Fortnight. Please comment on the nomination.
This article has had a peer review by the Biography WikiProject, which has now been archived.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Arts article has been rated GA-Class on the assessment scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class.
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Clarification

Esmond named Leigh as co-respondent in her divorce on grounds of adultery. Leigh named Plowright as co-respondent in her divorce, also on grounds of adultery. Plowright said "I have always resented the comments that it was I who was the homewrecker of Larry's marriage to Vivien Leigh. Danny Kaye was attached to Larry far earlier than I," referring to biography Donald Spoto's claim that Kaye and Olivier were lovers. He was reportedly also intimate with playwright Noel Coward.

I'm assuming that the "He" of the last line is supposed to be Laurence? Given Laurence is referenced once in the paragraph and not particularly recent to that last sence, we may wish to clarify. That said, I wanted to ask first, as it may be that Sir Laurence is not being referenced. *wry grin* I'm still not all that great with this "be bold with editting" bit. -Fuzzy 19:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Knighthood

Is it correct to cite Olivier at the very beginning as "Sir ... KBE"? Doesn't the inclusion of the KBE negate the need for the "Sir" (which he wouldn't have used once elevated to the peerage)?

Whouk 10:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

No, and the "Sir" is never used in articles on peers, because it's not a style appropriate after elevation to the peerage. It's a bit like writing "Dr Sir John Smith", and I wish people would stop adding it everywhere. :( Proteus (Talk) 16:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, actually 'Dr Sir John Smith' would be the correct way of referring to someone who is both a doctor and a knight (just as Professor Dame Margaret Turner-Warwick was the correct way of referring to the former President of the Royal College of Physicians in London). If you were speaking to Dr Sir John Smith, you would call him 'Sir John'. However, it is quite correct to say that it if Sir John Smith is elevated to the peerage, it is not appropriate to refer to him as 'Sir John Smith' any more. Therefore, it is not appropriate to refer to 'Sir Laurence Olivier'. ChristopherW, 29 May 2006
This isn't true. Titles from the Sovereign override titles from other sources. "Professor Dame Jane Smith" and "Dr Sir John Smith" are wrong. Read Debrett's Correct Form if you believe otherwise. Proteus (Talk) 10:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bisexual Category

Should Olivier really be in the Bisexual category? I mean, there is no real proof....... 22:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Remove him until someone provides a source. Otherwise, it is POV pushing.Michael Dorosh 23:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bottom box

Would anyone be kind enough to explain the purpose of the bottom box in this article, the one that says "Laurence Olivier" and then has "Shakespeare Films" and "Other Films" in it? - IstvanWolf 12:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It's his films as director, as well as books he wrote, and links to his production company, filmography, and his productions. It's a sort of a mish-mash of a director and an author template, giving you access to all of his works. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 03:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Laurence Olivier Awards

This has been moved into the Honours section. Obviously it was an honour for Olivier to have an award named after him, but the awards are presented to other actors, making it first and foremost an honour for them. I'm not sure this belongs where it is at the moment. JackofOz 15:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. I think the problem is that the biographical content of the article is very inadequate. There should be somewhere to put this, but there is not. Many bio articles have a "Legacy" or similar section which discusses the overall impact or lasting influence of the person - this would be the ideal heading under which to not only mention the awards, but to briefly discuss them. (Plus there is much more that could be said about his lasting impact on acting) It's a huge honour, no doubt, and worth more than a sentence, but it's not the correct context to place it under "Honours". Rossrs 15:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Succession box

Is there any point to a succession box for a life peerage? It was created for him and died with him. SteveCrook 05:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Eh, it looks impressive ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 06:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing

A lot of notes cite a single website, described as a biography. A quick look at this suggests that it's a curious ragbag of things taken -- properly or improperly, I didn't check -- from elsewhere. Better to check the named sources (e.g. James Agee) directly, and cite them.

A lot of other notes cite a single biography by Terry Coleman. Clearly this is a book of several hundred pages. Page numbers should be specified.

Plowright is conspicuously quoted as commenting (rather ambiguously) on some claim by Spoto. The source for this is labeled "note-trashyspotobook". If Spoto's book is trashy, either ignore it or explain how it's trashy. Even if you take the latter option, it would be better not to use the word "trashy". If Plowright is worth quoting, say where she's quoted from. -- Hoary 11:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, removed trashy, it was an in-joke. As for the page numbers, that will take some time, and it can also be difficult, as different publications of a book will have different content on different pages. James Agee is now cited. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 00:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the effort, but oddities remain. First, it's not clear from the quotation that Plowright is referring to a claim as it was made by Spoto. Was she, or wasn't she? If she was, there seems no point quoting her: better to cite Spoto directly (and a page number would help). If she wasn't -- if she instead had knowledge that was independent of this book -- then it could be worthwhile. And you should say where the quotation is from. (Clearly it's not from the book, if she's referring to the book.) Secondly, the note reading "Laurence Olivier Biography by James Agee - Agee On Film" is odd. Do all these notes refer to this one web page? (I could check, but I'm fiendishly busy today.) If so, then they should be attributed more conspicuously to Agee: his name should come first, and the web reproduction should follow that. Incidentally, the book title is more normally written as Agee on Film (lowercase "o"). -- Hoary 02:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Agee reference fixed, as for the Spoto one, The citation is placed at the end of "Spoto's claim that Kaye and Olivier were lovers". When I find a citation for Plowright, however, I will place it directly at the end of her quote. Which I just did. Coleman bio is now split up into pages, barring citations that refer generally to the book, not to a specific page or Chapter. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 01:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Well done! -- Hoary 02:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notes and references

Rather oddly, the Wikimedia preprocessing markup for "dump notes here" is "<references />". But it does dump notes, and not bibliographic references in any normal sense of the word. Now consider this note: "Coleman, Terry (2005). Olivier. Henry Hilt and Co.. ISBN 0805075364. Page 133". It's arranged as an item in a list of references: by contrast, a note has no need for a reversal name order, and is customarily presented in continuous form rather than chopped up by periods. Correcting the spelling of the publisher, and guessing that Holt is based in NY (offhand, I forget), a more normal first note citing the book (expanded to include ISBN) would be: "Terry Coleman, Olivier (New York: Henry Holt, 2005; ISBN 0805075364), p. 133." and a later note: "Coleman, Olivier, p. 63." -- Hoary 07:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Within a <references> construct you can use the Template:Cite book or Template:Cite web -- SteveCrook 08:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
You certainly can -- and if you do, you end up with notes in (what is to my mind a bizarrely inappropriate) reference-list form. ¶ Look, lists of references are in order of author: in linguistics, they very often run from "Abney, Steve" to "Zwicky, Arnold". Notes (which is what Wikimedia cite.php "references" are) are not in alphabetical order, so why invert the order of westerners' names? Hoary 11:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Still, this is a technical error, not a fault of the aricle, no? ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 07:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't fully understand the question. If it's "This is an error of the template, not of the article that references it, no?" then I'd respond that if the template seems unsuitable it should not be used. ¶ Consider Ueno Hikoma. Oddly, this has "Notes", "References", and also "Further Reading"; it's not immediately clear how "References" are related to "Further Reading", or, if the reason for the distinction is that "References" are references for statements made in that article, why some of those references aren't expressly referred to in the notes. So Ueno Hikoma is a bit chaotic, and (as well as for other reasons) hasn't yet been put up for GA for a second time. Still, set that article's "References" and "Further Reading" sections aside for a moment and instead concentrate on its "Notes". Each elaborates on something or provides the source for an assertion, with minimal repetition of what was in an earlier note. That's how notes should work, I believe. They may be supplemented or replaced by a list of references of the kind that WP's template serves up. -- Hoary 07:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
So, uh, forgive my ignorance, but what am I to do? ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 09:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia's "<ref>....</ref>"-enclosed "references" are actually notes, so format them like notes. No template that I know of does this. You can therefore create your own template (if you're very energetic) and use that, or do what User:Pinkville has done at Ueno Hikoma and many editors have done elsewhere: avoid such templates within "<ref>....</ref>" and instead just write the stuff out. What's now your first footnote would read
Terry Coleman, Olivier (New York: Henry Holt; ISBN 0805075364), 21.
(assuming it was published in NY), and what's now the fourth would read:
Coleman, Olivier, 64–5.
Just like the notes in a printed book, no? (Except that printed books rarely if ever bother with ISBN numbers.) -- Hoary 10:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh! OK, I'll get right on it. Then GA perhaps? ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 06:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] So let's make this a good article, then

[edit] Greatest actor

He was regarded by many critics as the greatest actor of the 20th century. This is a big claim. Please name three of these critics, and specify where they say this. -- Hoary 09:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This is really a difficult one. Critics, when talking about his, say that "many regard him to be", or "widely thought to be", or "touted as", but nobody has the gall to actually say it. What do you propose? ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 05:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing

Olivier became torn by guilt over having left his second wife Vivien Leigh, and so he immersed himself in his work (Or again He left Vivien Leigh for Plowright, a decision that apparently gave him a sense of guilt for the rest of his life.) Sez who? -- Hoary 09:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Done ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 05:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

he simply would not listen to anyone addressing him with honorifics such as "Lord", and "Sir". Source this. -- Hoary 09:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Done ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 05:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who did he play?

Olivier played over 120 stage roles, including: Macbeth, Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, Othello, Uncle Vanya, and The Entertainer

I'm surprised to infer that he played Juliet. I guess that means: "Olivier played over 120 stage roles, including: Macbeth, Romeo, Hamlet, Othello, Uncle Vanya, and the title role of Osborne's The Entertainer." But I don't know for sure. -- Hoary 12:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 05:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Specificity

Young Laurence took solace in his mother's care, and was grief-stricken when she died at a young age. I suppose that means when she was young; it might mean when he was young; either way, why not specify? ("was grief-stricken at eleven when she died at 33" or whatever)

Fixed and cited ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 05:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, and in time, he was playing roles such as Hamlet and Macbeth -- why not say when he was playing them?

Fixed ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 05:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

his career at the National ended, in his view, in betrayal, and tragedy. ... After being gradually forced out of his role as director of the Royal National Theatre, What does this "forcing out" or "betrayal" consist of?

Difficult. The National Theatre is the subject of Olivier on which I know the least (as you can see, it's the shortest paragraph I wrote). Could take time. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 06:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Lord Olivier is interred in Poets' Corner in Westminster Abbey, London, only the second actor to be accorded that honour. You might name the first. Hoary 09:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I have added David Garrick as the first actor to be buried in Westminster Abbey. My understanding is that nowadays (and for quite some time) only "ashes" are interred in the Abbey. Should this be recorded? Orbicle 10:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
How about "Lord Olivier's remains are interred in Poets' Corner in Westminster Abbey, London; he was only the second actor (after David Garrick) to be accorded that honour." This leaves open the rather macabre/trivial question of what those remains were/are, but I think doesn't misstate the facts. OtOH I'm not so conversant with undertakers' lingo and may have made a mistake. -- Hoary 12:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

In modern times, to express tremendous excellence in acting, one deems the person in praise as "The Laurence Olivier of horror movies...romantic comedies...etc." The punctuation is a bit off; I'd make that In modern times, to express tremendous excellence in acting, one deems the person in praise as "the Laurence Olivier of" horror movies, romantic comedies, or whatever". But can we have an example of a critic or interesting writer (rather than just Joe Bloggs) saying this? -- Hoary 09:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't add that, and whilst it's true, I can't find a tangible source. I'm getting rid of it. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 05:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Odd phrasing

Olivier congratulated Leigh on her performance, and a friendship grew between them. Olivier took her to lunch one day, and the friendship developed. Sorry, but this really is a bit horrible. I mean, what's the difference between "growing" and "developing"? -- Hoary 09:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

What about "began" at first? ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 05:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
It's certainly an improvement. Hoary 06:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Olivier disregarded the award as a "fob-off". Do you mean that he regarded it as a fob-off? Or that he ignored the award (e.g. he didn't turn up to get it), and when asked about it referred to it as a fob-off? -- Hoary 09:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

He regarded it as a fob-off. He accepted the award, but gave it away. And "fob-off" were his exact words. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 05:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
OK Hoary 06:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

He had played this role more often -- than what other roles, or than who other had played it? -- Hoary 09:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 05:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

As a result between 1973 and 1986 when his health gave out he did many films and TV specials on a "pay cheque" basis on the condition that he would not have to promote the film on release. Some of these later films even he despised, such as the notorious flop Inchon.

This is odd, as the first half suggests that he despised all this crap, bnut then the handful of exceptions (described as despised) seem to disprove the rule. By "even he despised" do you perhaps mean "he even despised"? But I think there are more problems here. -- Hoary 09:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

"he even despised". It's fixed ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 05:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Olivier and Plowright's son, Richard, described his father as being more interested in his work than in his children, and would become depressed when he didn't have a job. Sad if true; but if true, rather normal. -- Hoary 09:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you think that should go? ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 05:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
If it were elaborated -- imaginary example "and would even forget their birthdays" -- then it might be interesting. As it is, it's really a bit silly: it raises the question of how anybody (let alone a son) would be able to judge whether a father was more interested in his work than his children. -- Hoary 06:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I see. That was something that survived my major cleansing and re-structuring of the article a few weeks back, so I didn't write it. It can go for now. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 08:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

When presenting the Oscars, in 1985, he infamously presented the Best Picture winner of the year, by simply stepping up to the microphone and saying "Amadeus". We've read of amnesia -- did he forget his lines? Or was he expressing his disgust with that film, or with his job as MC? I think you have to say some (well sourced) thing about this incident, to give it significance. -- Hoary 09:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 05:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Recommended for improving an article: click on the option for a version suitable for printing, print it out, and go through it with a red pen. (There's something mind-numbing about staring at a screen.) -- Hoary 09:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA passed

Good article, informative and reads well, good pics to inform and well referenced. Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 17:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Things that could be improved

I notice there is a peer review and a failed FA at the top, but aside from the suggestions there, here is what I'd improve:

  • Intro - first paragraph seems like a summary of the whole article, but then with the second you seem to be starting the article itself - "clergyman's son"., etc. Last paragraph of opening probably doesn't nee to be there - move it down somewhere else in the article - under Personal Life somewhere. The opening should essentially summarize the article in chronological order - i.e. see my (if I may) Mandy Moore - start summarizing the first pargarph and summarize the rest in order until the end.
Sort of done... the lead does summarise his career.
  • Formatting - Maybe a good idea to use the === headers for most of the sections, and == for two or three head sections - i.e. early life, career, personal life.
Done a bit...but the thing with a === header is that it denotes a subsection of the == header. Vivien Leigh is not really a subsection of Early Career now, is she?
  • Maybe more details in early life - nothing in particular - just anything you can find and source. Also breathless statements like "and one thing in particular interested him about it: Vivien Leigh" need to be re-written from this literary tone to something more restrained.
Yeah, I intend on expanding the early life section, (I'm reading his Autobio). And I wasn't to happy with that VL wording, I'll fix it soon.
  • A bit too much sectioning i.e. "Three Sisters" and "Othello" - not enough content in each to warrant its own header. You could always expand, though :)
I intend on expanding that very soon.
  • Citations - stuff like "It was, in Olivier's opinion, his best work as director" and "The film was another resounding critical and commercial success both in Britain and abroad" obviously need a direct source right there. In fact, just go ahead and source essentially anything in the article that is not clearly and immediately obvious, and in fact, source some of the clearly and immediately obvious too
Those are cited. As I say, this is on the road to FA, I'm not saying that it's anywhere near that point now.
  • And on that point, eveyr one of these major performances/plays you mention could use some reviews - preferrably from important critics - regarding Olivier's performance
I'll get on to it
  • Cats need to be alpha-betized
Done
  • It could just be me but there seem to be way too many charts. Internal links like the one to "Laurence Olivier chronology of stage and film performances" may be preferrable for some of the bigger ones especially "Other Awards"
What should the seperate article be called? It can't be Laurence Olivier Awards, so what?
  • Maybe a few more pictures - well one or two
When I do the major expansion, maybe in a few days, I'll do that. There's a great picture of him in Wuthering Heights I intend to use, and a picture of him as Othello, as well as one in his old age. Possibly even a picture of the young Laurence.
  • Probably a few more things - expansions here and there - clarification of the bisexuality section - i.e. don't start with the quote because it is confusing.
Done

Mad Jack 05:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 23:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Well you could try something along the lines of Johnny Depp:List of awards & nominations. If people don't like it we can always delete and restore it here, I just personally think it takes up a lot of space. Mad Jack 16:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delisted

Article needs quite a bit of work. The "to do" list on this talk page is quite lengthy and the items listed are also quite substantial. It fails Wikipedia:What is a good article? because:

1a. The prose is not compelling. Some of the writing is awkward, and is more conversational than encyclopedic throughout the article. The lead paragraph is not good. Both paragraphs list examples of his work in stage and film and yet the two lists are different. It doesn't summarise the article as a lead paragraph should, but the article itself is not complete so an effective summary is not possible.

3a. It's not broad in its coverage. This is one of the most successful and influential actors of all time and the article does nothing to convey the scope of his achievements. One of his most stunning attributes was his versatility - from this article I would assume he devoted his life to Shakespeare, with one or two exceptions. This is very misleading. There is no real attempt to place his work into any context. It's very incomplete. Why is there a section on The Prince and the Showgirl with zero content? Is it going to be expanded? Isn't this putting the cart before the horse?

3b. In some areas it veers off onto tangents. That would fine if the article was in more depth - tangents help place discussion into a broader context, but when the article itself is no more than a skeleton, these tangents seem all the more irrelevant.

I'd love to see this article become a good article, then a featured article, and I'd love to see a high quality version of this go onto Wikipedia:Version 0.5, but it is not currently at the required standard. Rossrs 02:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Later career section editing glitch?

While I was revising the "later career" section, the middle three or four paragraphs of the text inexplicably disappeared on the main page after I saved the changes. They appear in full in the edit box for the section, but not in the article itself. Refreshing the page doesn't seem to help. Any idea on what's going on here? Finduilas 09 08:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ancestry

Is he originally of French ancestry, given his last name? 206.135.142.245 23:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Larry gay? Of course he was | the Daily MailMICHAEL THORNTON"

The article has recently acquired a pile of exciting [to some people] snippets about LO's sexual tastes, etc, attributed to "Larry gay? Of course he was | the Daily MailMICHAEL THORNTON".

I don't understand why an article in something purporting to be an encyclopedia needs to witter away about an actor's porking practices or fantasies. Still, if it's going to do this surely it should have better authority for it than a single article in this dread tabloid. -- Hoary 06:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between being gay and bisexual. Which was Larry? And people forget that back in the dark ages, it was not only damaging to your career to be out, it was illegal and you could be thrown in prison. So it's no wonder that people kept such things secret. It think it should need a more reputable and definitive source than the tabloid gossip of something like the Daily Mail to have it included in the body of the article. -- SteveCrook 08:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
It's no wonder that people kept these things secret. To me, it is a wonder that some WP editors seem to think it's so important. (The Elvis Presley article has long shown less interest in Presley's crooning than in his "relationships".) But we agree that the Daily Wail is inferior stuff.
That much-cited article is a laugh. Here's the ostensible reason for the thing:
All this changed dramatically last weekend when Olivier's 76-year-old widow, Dame Joan Plowright, a woman of singular honesty and common sense, ended years of circumspection about the sexually ambiguous private life of her late husband in a remarkable interview with Sue Lawley on the radio programme Desert Island Discs. [...]
And what did she say? She's quoted as saying various things, notably that extramarital sex (or bisexuality or both) doesn't/don't matter. Thornton applauds her for her good sense, and ignores it by deriving a long article out of this.
We don't know when this stuff was published in the Wail, only that the web version was Last updated at 23:04pm on 1st September 2006. But I wonder what Private Eye had to say about it. -- Hoary 09:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All that, and plagiarism too!

Here's Thornton:

The night before Olivier's first marriage, in 1930, to the actress Jill Esmond - a strange coupling, for she was hardly marriage material and ended her life as a lesbian, living with another woman - Denys Blakelock, who was to be his best man, climbed into Olivier's bed, where Blakelock's hands "strayed". Olivier admitted this but insisted the full sex act did not take place.

And here's the WP article:

The night before Olivier's first marriage, in 1930, to the actress Jill Esmond - a strange coupling, for she was hardly marriage material and ended her life as a lesbian, living with another woman - Denys Blakelock, who was to be his best man, climbed into Olivier's bed, where Blakelock's hands "strayed". Olivier admitted this but insisted the full sex act did not take place.

I'm about to delete all of this stuff. -- Hoary 09:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The section on sexuality seems much more in balance with the other topics in the piece now that it's been cut back by User:Hoary. Now more like an encylopedia article!--Old Moonraker 09:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/a/u/Talk%7ELaurence_Olivier_09bd.html"