Talk:Mona Lisa Smile

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.
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.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

Contents 1 Location 2 Title 3 Box office performance 4 Diversity - self-contradictory? 5 Fair use rationale for Image:Monalisasmile.jpg 6 "Campus controversy" section is too long

[edit] Location

Mona Lisa Smile tells the story of a feminist teacher ("Katherine Watson"), who, after graduating from the fictional "Oakland State" University (thought to be a fictionalized University of California, Berkeley), leaves her boyfriend behind in Los Angeles, California in 1953, to teach at Wellesley College, a women's college in the Eastern coast of the United States. The movie portrays Wellesley in the 1950s as being conservative.

Didn't the loosely-based novelization afterwards actually name the school as Berkeley? Mike H. That's hot 22:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe so, but this article is about the movie. It's fine if you want to add in a section about the novelization, but if details of the novelization differ from the movie, then those are details about the novelization, not about the movie. Catamorphism 00:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this kinda thing should be/ is included in other such movie articles, but it was filmed in Glen Ridge, New Jersey ( where Tom Cruise started acting as a teen). Also i have a theory that most of the money made by the movie was from the girls at the highschool who got autographs and such, and the people whose blocks it was shot on.

[edit] Title

Isn't "Mona Lisa Smile" a chapter heading in the Motorcycle Diaries of Ernesto Guevara? Is it coincidental? Matthew Platts 16:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Box office performance

• Costs (approximate):
  • Production: $65,000,000
  • Marketing: $25,000,000
• Income:
  • United States: $63,860,942
  • Worldwide (excluding U.S.): $76,972,150
• Loss: $33,666,763 (approx.)

How exactly does the loss figure? If the reported loss is correct, then there must be unmentioned factors involved. If so, these figures should be presented differently because currently it looks wrong given the intuitive understanding that (loss/profit = income minus cost.)

Agreed. I know that they practice "creative accountancy" in Hollywood, but the figures shown indicate a profit of $50,833,092. B00P 09:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diversity - self-contradictory?

The current version of the article says that there were (about) 3 Asian students enrolled in 1953, and 12 African-American students, but later says that

[the movie did not] accurately reflect racial diversity of 1953.

I don't quite understand that. Is a college with 12 African-American students "racially diverse"? Or was that considered to be "racially diverse" in 1953? According to the 2003 press release, 99% of the student population in 1953 was "white/caucasian".

The article also says that "[the movie] significantly underrepresented African-Americans". According to the press release mentioned above, the African-American student population in 1953 was 12 out of 1685, or 0.7%. About 200 extras were Wellesley students (according to the press release); one of them (according to our article; I assume she was a student too) was African-American, that is about 0.5%. This is about as close as you can get to proportional representation; if 2 extras had been African-American, that would have been already 1%. --The very model of a minor general 22:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the article seems contradictory. 1 African-American extra out of 200 extras is a close enough proportion (the true proportion is 1.4243323442136498516320474777448). I think that the fourth sentence in the fourth paragraph of the "Campus Controversy" section should simply be stricken. It currently reads, "The film's casting was never altered to accurately reflect the racial diversity of 1953; producers now claim they were not interested in making a "documentary," and accuracy was not necessary." The first clause in the sentence is contradictory and the second is original unsupported research and should be stricken, so the whole sentence should just be removed. Banaticus (talk) 09:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Monalisasmile.jpg

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Campus controversy" section is too long

The current "Campus Controversy" section is way too long and absurdly detailed -- it's longer than the plot synopsis of the film itself. Given that the whole controversy could be easily summarized in one paragraph, which would be appropriate for its level of importance, I suggest that the section be drastically shortened. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 09:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)