Talk:Revolver (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	France Portal Revolver (film) is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France and Monaco on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Article upgrading needed: You can help.

WP:IA

Stub to Start-Class Upgrading Instructions To contribute in upgrading this stub article to start class, the following requirements must be met: Significant intro (list the title, alternate titles, year released, director, actors starring in the film, summary of headings, etc.) Film infobox ({{infobox film}}) Picture: Consult WikiProject Free Images for freely released images from a film shoot, opening, or other relevant free image; non-free and unlicensed images are to be avoided if at all possible Plot summary Cast section At least two other developed sections of information (production, reception (including box office figures), awards and honors, references in popular culture, differences from novel or TV show, soundtrack, sequels, DVD release, etc.) Categories (by year, country, language, and genre(s))  Helpful links: WP:BETTER, WP:LEAD, WP:REF Once this article has fulfilled these requirements, the film can be reassessed to start class and this template will be removed automatically.

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-Importance on the importance scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.

[edit] Plot

What happens in the last third of the film? What's the relationship between Dorothy Macha and Jake Green, and Jake Green and Sam Gold?

It has been suggested that Sam Gold is the Devil, not a real character, he is played in Jake's mind and he eventually defeats him by going against his instincts and doing "good", i.e. donating money or apologising to Macha. The con and chess man are angels, Jakes guardian angels; they are definitely real in the movie, and perform miracles i.e. warning him several times to avoid getting killed, and possibly curing his blood problem. They help Jake face Sam Gold but that is nothing more than the devil inside him, and turn him towards the right path. I'm still trying to piece the parts together but I enjoy the rhythm and style so much that I'm willing to do the effort.Cgonzalezdelhoyo 06:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe your idea is plausible, however, I propose that Sam Gold is in fact somewhat symbolic of a collective consciousness, not unlike Richard Dawkins' idea of 'Memes', bits of information passed from one individual to another, except in this case Sam Gold would be symbolic of an established bartering system, a system humans have created which has evolved into money, which we equate with power, which leads to lust and greed for power, hence the poetic piece about greed being an angel. More evidence to show my proposal holds water is when Jake's brother phones him and tells him to "Get out of there", you're shown how the information is passed from one place to another. Both of our ideas can work, I believe Richie may have purposefully made the movie as flexible and dynamic to different peoples tastes and beliefs as possible. For instance, the blood disease idea came from two doctors. But, doctors would need to send off his blood to a lab for testing. All Avi and Zak need do is get in between the flow of information from the lab to whichever doctor. Avi and Zak later on in the movie say that giving the money to pay peoples debts hurts Gold, because there are no longer debts, which means Sam Gold no longer controls them. At the beginning of the movie when he gets rid of the three Eddys simply by "giving them enough rope to hang themselves", he is doing something similar, letting the three Eddys' greed destroy themselves. Just my two cents. I'd like to help clean this article up and I believe this is an awesome movie. Pity nobody else seems to think so. --Ultravio 14:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Horrible.

This article has no NPOV, failures in spelling and grammar. I'll start editing, however, a complete rewrite may be in order. FerventDove 09:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"There are a few nice touches – when Avi takes Jakes money in the beginning it’s a 12 Dollar bill he holds up, that’s 12 not 10 or 20. The bag is labelled with the number 72 and the chips are 23. No need to point to the significance and games Richie is playing there."

...providing you happen to be into numerology, Kabbalah, or whatever Hollywood-ised fads Madonna is currently lending her name to. Very unencyclopedic. --81.158.222.67 20:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. The section on "Meanings and complex themes within the film" seems especially egregious. First person usage, horrible grammar, and clearly original research. It saddened me to see something this bad on Wikipedia. While I've only seen the film once and don't entirely understand it, I'm going to start working on cleanup and remove the obviously flawed segments in the article.Thepatriots 08:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I just deleted the whole section - truly awful, it's still there in the history for anyone who wants to try and do anything with it.

I've seen the movie about 8 times, tried to figure it out. Please read what I said under plot, if you don't mind. It is an opinion, but, I think that memetics play a role in the movie. --Ultravio 17:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Another thing, sorry to harp on the subject, is the name 'Sam Gold', the character? While looking at wikipedia I somehow came across the name Samuel Goldwyn. Which I think is quite an interesting coincidence. Like I said, take a look at the idea I mentioned about the establishment. Just a thought. Please criticise me if this is very unencyclopedic. --196.25.255.250 12:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb - we cannot suggest our own theories of what the film is about or what hidden meanings are there. All we can do is reference well-placed sources that do so. --Fredrick day 13:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That sounds tricky in this case, the movie is quite new. The ideas are quite out of whack. Could you elaborate on what would be acceptable as a well placed source? --196.25.255.250 13:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources --Fredrick day 13:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

So I couldn't point out how information moves in the movie by mentioning Memetics because no "reliable source" wrote a philosophical piece about the movie as yet? This isn't a disagreement with the policies which clearly need to be in place, I'm just verifying if I understand them correctly, request for information. --Ultravio 13:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, I give up. If anyone has any ideas on how we can move forward with 'the plot', let me know. There are no reliable sources, we could simply give a story run down (I'm assuming, hopefully correctly, hopefully, that the film is a reliable enough source), First scene Jake is being released from prison discussing what he has learnt in the last seven years about cons, opponents and victims. Second scene is Dorothy and Paul, Macha asking Paul "How deep did you bury that shareholder?", answer: "Deep". I still haven't figured out if the car in the background is the same car used by Zak later on when mr Green comes under fire from Sorder. Then we have a minor showdown across a table (poker?) where Jake green gets Mache to flip a chip for money. Jake wins and offers to make it double or quits. Some money exchanges hands. On the way to the lift Zak gives Jake Green a card (Take the elevator), after which he walks to the stairs and falls down the stairs (anybody have any ideas why he falls down?). Mache tells Paul to have Jake Green killed by Sorder. He emphasises doing it quickly and quietly. The next scene in the female doctor's rooms where Jake is told it is a miracle he didn't sustain injuries. After which Jake and his brother part ways and Jake comes under heavy fire shortly after arriving at his house. Sorder misses him three times while he is picking up a note which reads "Pick this up", the same type given to Jake by Zak. Zak saves Jake and they drive to what appears to be a chess club. Meanwhile Sorder is commenting on missing three times. Jake meets Avi, who informs him he has a rare blood disease and will die in three days. Jake's inner voice is heard discussing how he is being "grafted" by Zak and Avi. He goes for a second opinion with the female doctor and then a third, he threatens to shoot the male doctor for not telling him who paid him. The doctor doesn't appear to know what he is talking about. Sorder is confronted by Macha about missing three times. Sorder lies and says he had a bad feeling. Jake returns to Zak and Avi, only to be told the rules. They will protect him from Mache's "legions" on a few conditions. That he answers any questions that are asked and that he does as he is told. Zak tells hime that he will bleed him dry, meaning give away all Jake's money. Then Jake is told that his work starts immediately and that he will be driving. Avi informs Jake while in the car using a "monicker" that Zak and himself are "Loan sharks" and that people "Fear and Hate" loan sharks just like Jake will learn to fear them. Etc, Etc. Can we go this route or should I give up on Revolver's wikipedia page? --Ultravio 14:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a perfectly legitimate and the logical way to do a plot summary especially in a case like this where the movie could be interpreted so many ways. Summarizing what literally happens in the film seems like a good idea. We can always tackle the interpretation issue later.Thepatriots 09:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The Guy Ritchie commentary on the DVD is very informative, and it's the ultimate "reliable source" on the film. His concepts on left, right and center column energies are identical to those of Kabbalic mysticism. There's literally no variation from the actual traditions of Jewish mysticism. The idea that beauty and greed are painted as a "Destructive Angel" is a term that is literally lifted out of Kabbalic scripture. In fact, the reason that the studio almost didn't endorse the movie was because of all the Kabbalic references. He also explains precisely who/what Sam Gold is. Max314 22:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cult Status

Why should we put user reviews from IMDB on here? Unless the reviewer is a proffessional critic or such, shouldn't we not allow it? For this reason, I'm deleting the relivant part... --Jazzwick 18:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)