Talk:Albert Nobbs

first screening

This just screened in Telluride (see here.) As far as I know, that makes this and not Toronto the first screening. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 02:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Which pronouns?

I noticed that male pronouns seem to be constantly used through the article. Isn't that incorrect, as Albert is a transvestite rather than a transgender man? --80.167.83.171 (talk) 20:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.0.43 (talk) 06:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Disagreed, though I'll admit the question is valid and up for debate. Albert lives 100% of his life passing as a male, including hiding breasts and other female sexual characteristics, which is different than simply transvestitism, which only involves taking on the clothing characteristics of the opposite gender and not necessarily trying to "pass" as a different sex. The reason I grant that the question is up for debate is that Albert isn't necessarily shown as someone who is inherently a male in a female's body, but ****SPOILER**** a woman who takes on the identity of a male for protection after a traumatic incident as a female. However, I would say this raises the question as to whether we would consider Albert transexual or transgender, not a question of whether he is a transvestite. Albert is enigmatic (possibly with Asperger's), and we are not given enough information to suss out what's in his mind. Possible extra insight could be given depending on whether a pronoun choice was made in the script, or the original short story, though I'm unsure if this creeps into original research. 75.111.28.66 (talk) 06:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

But the other character is definitely a transman. He has a wife and lives his life as a man for his own personal fulfillment as part of his gender identity. And as for Albert: when gay men (drag queens) dress and try to COMPLETELY PASS (this is the important part) as a woman, it is polite to use their female name and refer to them as she while in drag. It isn't a matter of how Albert feels, but to other people he is male, he presents as male, and the identity he assumes is a male. So yes, male pronouns. It makes for a better flow of the article and I think the creators of the film would agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.69.235 (talk) 07:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

When Hubert asks Albert what "her" name is he responds "Albert"- surely this tells the audience that he IS Albert; the girl he was previously is not who he is any more. The majority of the film shows Albert passing as a man, and the single scene in which he dresses in womens' clothing shows him as being entirely awkward in a dress (the scene is clearly, to the viewer, two men in dresses, not two women finally allowed to put on their proper clothes; After the experience Albert puts back on his own clothes and shows no signs of wanting to transition back; he is still continuing with his plan to get married and purchase the shop) it is correct, in this instance, to use masculine pronouns, since both Albert and Hubert identify as male. Himynameishelen (talk) 04:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

This is an interesting conversation, and one without a clearly 'correct' answer, as Albert's gender can be perceived and interpreted in different ways. Having watched the film a few hours ago (and having only a passing knowledge of best practice with gender and language), might it be an option to reword this with neutral gender pronouns? This may appear initially awkward, but, with care, could be done. With this in mind, the first line of the 'Plot' section may read as: "Albert Nobbs (Glenn Close) is a hotel butler in 19th-century Ireland. Albert was considered female at birth, but has since been living as a man." My hope is that my carefully avoiding "his" or "her" we can convey the information without having to resolve the ambiguity that is a string feature of the film. Thoughts? ClivePIA (talk) 09:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Anyone object if I have a go at an edit? ClivePIA (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Isn't it simple enough to leave pronouns to what role is being portrayed at the time. I seriously doubt that gender association or assignment was of the portrayed time a topic that had yet to be thought of as we would today. And if you attempt to identify a gender with he or she depending on whether you are speaking about the public Nobbs or the private one and whether that is based on part by what Nobbs is wearing can then get you into a discussion just what to call a Scotsman when he is carefree under his kilt or whaling at the bagpipes. That way, Albert to age 14 is as she and thereafter he and if you are speaking about pre-14 Nobbs then Nobbs is a she and after Nobbs is a he.2605:E000:9152:8F00:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 08:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

who is Hubert?

The first mention of Hubert is in the sentence "Albert visits Hubert at her home and meets Cathleen." Who is this Hubert? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.113.42 (talk) 06:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Albert is a Woman (spoilers)

I strongly disagree with the first paragraph of the Plot section and all the talk above about transvestism. Albert is 100% woman. A woman with problems, admittedly, largely deriving from her having suppressed her sexual identity for such a long time.

When she recounts her life story to Page, she doesn't say anything vaguely like, "I always felt like a man." Indeed, she was raised as a girl. Presumably her female sex was clear to the gang who chose her to rape. I doubt they would have chosen another boy and just felt that they had hit the jackpot when "he" turned out to be a girl. After Mrs. Hobbs died, she needed some way to earn money and she just fell into a job as a waiter.

For me, the telling point occurs in the scene when she and Page dress in two of Cathleen's dresses and walk on the beach. Hobbs' expression of relief and joy in being able to temporarily rid herself of the charade of her life is heartbreaking.

I came to this article shortly after seeing the movie in order to see how well it was received. When I came to the first sentence of the Plot section and read "Albert Nobbs ... is a man who was assigned female at birth", I was stunned. Not only is this completely wrong, in my opinion, but it has a hermaphroditic overtone, which is never even hinted at in the movie. I asked my wife to read it, unprompted, and she had the same reaction. SDCHS (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the view you have on this, and it's a tricky topic to discuss objectively, as views around gender and sex do vary, but I think it's worth highlighting that in most cases (including, I believe, Wikiperdia's preference), being a woman or man is determined not by an idea of biological form (sex) but by the person's own self-perception (gender). This doesn't resolve this discussion, as the viewer of the film is uncertain of how Albert views his/herself, but I think it would be fair to say that "Albert is 100% woman" is far from a certainty. See my comment on an other thread here for my proposal to reword the article with gender-neutral pronouns. ClivePIA (talk) 10:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

There is absolutely no explanation from where the name "Albert" comes; only that Noobs comes to be called that when the occasion calls. Of his family, all we know is of Mrs. Nobbs was hired to care for her. Speculation is all that it can ever be, even even to the point that it is suppose to be a male name. I member back in 4th grade when a visiting teacher from Hawaii of Chinese ancestry named Louie came to be our homeroom teacher. Story was in her family being "plagued" by only females being born that the last grandchild that was thought to be born to the family was named Louie so that the spirits could continue and she tasked with the everlasting need to recount the story to ever stranger that had not yet to know about her. The way things work today adapting names is not so unusual.

If some want to speculate then they can weave a story about at the time of the rape and the post traumatic development being the cause of forgetting about the pre-14 year old she and the post-14 year old Albert--but that is not in the movie. That may be in Albert Nobbs II.2605:E000:9152:8F00:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 08:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Plot

I reverted this edit as I did not feel, overall, it was improvment. I'm unsure as to the relevance of the original edit summary which said: what are you tormenting yourself over gender this and that or a story that Freud himself had yet to get involved? My revert was reversed a few minutes later here. Among other changes, this paragraph:

"Meanwhile, recently unemployed Joe Mackins (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) arrives at the hotel to repair the boiler. Flirtatious maid Helen Dawes (Mia Wasikowska) is attracted to him, and they become lovers. However, Joe soon shows himself to be an alcoholic bully."

has been changed to this:

"Joe Mackins (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) is clever when he turns a gig into rebuilding a hotel boiler into regular work at the hotel. Helen Dawes (Mia Wasikowska) is attracted to him, and his meaner side is revealed as she becomes pregnant and he a waster."

Do other editors feel this is an improvement? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

No. CalzGuy (talk) 09:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

If it were the purpose of every WP plot to include every detail then we would be reading the Sunday Circular for movie explanations.2605:E000:9152:8F00:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 09:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

In some cases your edits have added detail? In some cases your edits make no sense. I wonder could you explain that edit summary, that you gave, which I have highlighted above? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, please indent your talk page contributions. CalzGuy (talk) 09:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Epidemic and dying

Contacting an illness and dying from it are not what follows in every incidence therefor it is an "and" statement instead of a "but" statement. That really does nit need any explanation.2605:E000:9152:8F00:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 10:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

If there was such an urgency to his illness there would have been around the clock caring for him especially as there was a doctor in residence and evidently he could care for himself while recuperating. Again, that is not a "but" statement but and "and" statement--one following from the other; not despite of. Maybe that is what you are unable to recognize. Maybe, you should review the movie before reverting?2605:E000:9152:8F00:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 10:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. But I don't think this has anything to do with what's in the film. I think it's just normal grammar. Happy to hear the opinion of another editor. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Is it normal grammar to say, " I have eaten but only shitted." Sometimes grammar does not serve its purpose.2605:E000:9152:8F00:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 10:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

What a remarkably inappropriate analogy. I'm afraid I don't understand your argument, if that's what it is. In fact I meant a third editor. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Makeup

Here is a fascinating short trailer clip about Glenn Close's make-up: [1] I'd like to link it in the article, but I'm unsure if it's in breach of any copyright. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Transgenderism hints? Original research

The plot summary includes the phrase "assigned female at birth". While technically accurate, it's a phrase that is much more commonly used to indicate matters of transgenderism, because when you read it it implies that Albert has had that gender thrust upon them and it is not a reflection of their true gender. Of course, this confusion is the basis of the whole film anyway, but there would be no indication in the film that there is transgenderism involved; rather, Albert was forced into the male gender. Every article I can find about this film/story talks about cross-dressing, gender-bending and/or sexual confusion, with nary a whiff of actual transgenderism, which makes sense becase the character was forced into this circumstance for survival and then lost sight of whoever they might have been. See https://www.advocate.com/politics/commentary/2011/09/29/what-albert-nobbs-teaches-us-about-labels which has the telling sentence "The filmmakers have been adamant that the Nobbs character is not transgender." Later in that same article, the author says "He actually still identifies as a woman, yet somehow we find ourselves referring to him with masculine pronouns." Although not everyone may agree, this is an example of a published article, so it's not just a random opinion.

I would argue that insisting on using the phrase "assigned female at birth" is misleading and only correct in the sense that every cis female character in the film is also assigned female at birth, and every cis male character is also assigned male at birth, and in fact we could rewrite most of Wikipedia to say that a vast number of notables were assigned their gender at birth, which is a silly notion. I would further argue that to include it and maintain it implies that Original Research has been done to keep it in; original research which brings transgenderism into the equation. I would request that that sentence either be removed or be backed up with a link to a published article that shows that it is more accurate to say "Albert Nobbs was assigned female at birth" than it is to say "Albert Nobbs was born female". 2001:8A0:7C19:2801:98F:234D:3114:D351 (talk) 08:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)