Talk:Falling Down

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics 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.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.

What in the world in the "BBFC certification" and why is it before the all important introduction/definition paragraph. It can't be more important than that. --mav

BBFC certification is the age rating given to a film by the British Board of Film Classification - U, PG, 12, 15, 18, etc. Perhaps I should've integrated it a little better into the body of the article. -Drew

Might be a good idea, since us yanks and probably many others would be as clueless as I was. We have the MPAA rating system - G, PG, PG-13, PG-17, R, RC-17, X, XX and XXX. --mav
Actually it's just G,PG, PG-13, R and NC nowadays.

Yes, Wikipedia contains spoilers. But why do people feel they must include spoilers? This puzzles me. Better to leave them out whenever possible.

Spoilers must be included if and only if they are informative and relevant to understanding the work of fiction better. Encyclopedias exist to try to provide information and insight about subjects, not promotional outlines that you might find on the back of a DVD box. So I think it's quite relevant - necessary, even - for some spoilers to be in Wikipedia articles. Of course, that decision is ultimately subjectively based and so debates can arise, but I'm more inclined to go along with people inserting spoilers than I do with people who remove them when I don't see the need to do either. Bryan 08:44, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The paragraph I just added back, giving the end of the movie, is a case in point. I came to this article by following a link from suicide by cop, which mentioned this film as an example of one that portrayed this act. This makes the description of the film's ending particularly relevant. The article isn't here for people who are trying to decide whether to watch this movie, IMO, it's here for people who are trying to understand the movie. Bryan 08:51, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I agree spoilers are necessary. They are useful in contexts beyond literary analyses already named. I had two occasions this year where I preferred to 'look up' the plot-outcome rather than waste my time or money digesting the entire storyline. (Not to mention handing over hard earned money to authors that I find irritating). Milligan 20:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Dilbert

My Wikipedia:Original research is that D-FENS is Dilbert.--Error 01:36, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


[edit] um, what?

"The movie was made during the recession...." through "...last man standing in a post-human Venice." .....do these things strike anyone as a little un-Wiki like?

Now that you mention it, yes... I haven't got the time to check were it comes from, but Google + history should solve this anomaly. Not that I especially dislike the para, but it roams a bit on the not really-that-objective side, no? Shinobu 11:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Racism

The only scene from which racist implications could be derived involves William being instructed by a local child, who is black, on how to operate a rocket launcher. When he incredulously asks how he knows such things, the kid responds, "I saw it in a movie." Most simply see this as either light humour or cultural commentary.

I don't see how that could ever be considered by anyone as racist. Are they implying that all black children must be skilled in rocket launcher operations!!! It was obviously a social comment on how much television kids watch and what they can learn from it, it's not always a good thing.

The movie wasn't so much considered racist as it was considered using stereotypes unfairly. People were angry that Hispanics were made to be gangsters and Asians were greedy con artists. They of course ignored the Asian detective and the Hispanic detective that showed that both minorities could be honest hard working people as well.--Skeev 21:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Just goes to show you, the human race loves to whine. Now, where's my duffelbag?--Agent Aquamarine 00:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Title

Do we have any confirmation on the origin of the title? Saying it's a reference to London Bridge seems farfetched to me.--Agent Aquamarine 00:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The Lake Havasu references are quite clear, and there's also a scene wehre Douglas buys a musical Snow globe for his daughter. When wound up, it plays London Bridge is Falling Down. I'll add the reference to the article. BryanEkers 12:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Rodney King Riots

I was surprised to see that, nowhere in the article, had there been a mention of the 1992 Los Angeles riots (Rodney King riots as they were also known). The riots took place while the movie was being filmed, and was from tensions of class, race and general economic frustration that were presented in the film. I vividly remember a press-junket type interview with Michael Douglas, at the time of the movie's release, where they brought up the coincidental but very relevant crossroad of these events. Thus, I have added it to the article. Any discussion of the social context of this film should most certainly note that. Happy editting ;-) --Bobak 19:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It has no relevance. The film was released almost a year after the riots, and nothing in the film even indirectly references the riots, nor was the movie specifically set during April 1992, nor (to my knowledge) did any of the analyses or reviews of the movie at the time it was released compare it to the riots. Douglas may have thought the timing was significant, but that doesn't make it so, especially since there's no indication that the riots prompted the director to alter the film's message in any way. I think the riot reference should be removed or placed in the trivia section. BryanEkers 18:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No relevance? That's a little strong. I think we can at least come to agreement on the trivia section --it's, at worst, similar to how the set of Waterworld was sunk in a storm during filming. As a studio movie, filming is done six months to a year before release. Thus the release date is not related to priniciple photography. IMDB's first trivia point (and no, I did not submit it): Filmed during the L.A. riots of 1992. The people involved with the film mentioned it at the release. Commercial reviewers are hardly the most esteemed group when it comes to making deep analysis of movies, but I digress...unfortunately this movie came out just before everyone started putting things on the internet and the amount of contemporaneous info on the movie, relative to others, is pretty poor --I ran a Google search and I got an MIT discussion where the director briefly touches on the relationship to the tension seen in the King riots. I'll move it. --Bobak 20:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Had Foster been a young black man who'd tried to study and work hard but couldn't get a break (rather like the "Not Economically Viable" guy at the bank), or had the real-life rioters been a bunch of angry white guys then there'd be issues of "racial, social and economic tensions portrayed in the film" brought to light. As it stands, the film has nothing in common with the riots except both are in the same city. BryanEkers 02:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with your statement that your interpretation of this artistic work is the only one possible. Compare this movie to Taste of Cherry to see how a movie can have a very strong element that surrounds the central character while not being from his/her perspective. Again, isn't that the magic of the medium? A good film can be openly interpreted --and saying the scenes with Latino youth, homeless, the rich (golfers and suburbanish family), the tension of Korean shop owners (see the notable situation with Latasha Harlins), and the working shmoes stuck trying to do their job (D-Fens and Duvall's cop), and you have a very arguable interpretation for that position. Thus your interpretation is just one interpretation, neither wrong nor right --but I can easily hold ground on my earlier statement. --Bobak 15:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I didn't make any such statement, so I don't know what you're talking about. It's possible to interpret this film as a metaphor on the exiling of the Huguenots and it's possible to interpret it as a statement on the future of blimp travel and it's possible to interpret it in any of a thousand ways, but the burden is on the interpreter to prove that his particular interpretation has any meaning or relevance. I'm unconvinced that Falling Down has any link to the riots beyond the fact that the filming and the riots were going on at the same time, meriting (at most) a note in the article's trivia section. Anything more than that, unless you have a statement from the film's writer or director that the riots somehow influenced how the film was shot or edited, is original research. Your particular "interpretation" (indeed, anyone's) has no place in an article trying to be neutral. A while back, I wrote the "Social Impact of the Film" section (I just spitballed the title - I'd be happy if someone came up with a better one) in order to cite the Newsweek cover article, which suggested the film had struck a chord with mainstream writers and journalists. The article wasn't about black rioters, but white males who felt that their prominence was being usurped with the end of the cold war and a growing social liberalism. Conflating this with black discontent unless you can prove this is what the filmmakers intended serves no purpose. BryanEkers 18:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
"Black discontent"? Are you saying the entire 1992 Riots are tied to mere black discontent? No wonder we seem to be talking past each other. --Bobak 20:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
If you can refute or counter my position, please do so. If you want to just nitpick, well... you're free to do that, too. BryanEkers 00:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I would have to agree that the riots ought to be mentioned to provide a context to the milieu in which the movies events unfold. A bright cold day in april (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

a commentary on most Americans' ignorance to other cultures and unpublicized rivalries in supposedly homogenous "Asian" culture

Added 'weasel words'.

24.239.129.219 08:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ass rape?

"...starts to force people out of his way – with violence or ass rape, if necessary." in the first section of the article. I don't know about using "ass rape" lol. Janechii 15:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Social impact of the film

This section needs citations for all of its claims. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 18:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison to Finnish PM?

"Prime Minister Of Finland, Matti Vanhanen bears a remarkable resemblance to Douglas's character." What is this crap? How is Matti Vanhanen similar to Douglas' character, apart from being white and male? How proper is it to compare real life figures to movie villains? Ileppane 00:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rammstien - Reise, Reise

I added a Cultural references section.. And just linked to the image I uploaded. Was not sure how to get a thumb that did not disrupt the page flow. So if anybody else wants to do that, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleighboy (talk • contribs) 20:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Rammstein reise reise poster.jpg

Image:Rammstein reise reise poster.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, 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) 21:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)