Talk:Gilda (film)

Gambling films categorization

I don't think this qualifies as a "gambling film." Yes, it's set in a casino, but the setting is pretty much irrelevant to the story. The casino was just a front for the illegal cartel; gambling and gamblers play little or no role in the film itself. I'd like to see some justification for including it please. Otto4711 22:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

While this isn't as obvious as Casablanca, the IMDb for instance refers to the lead as a "professional gambler" and the third lead is a casino owner and much of the action takes place there. I don't think it is a slam dunk, but the signifcant plot point that throws the players together is gambling. The movie would not exist without the McGuffin of Johnny being a gambler hired by Ballin. 2005 22:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Otto, you are such a troublemaker! You argued Casablanca was a gambling film, over my and Henry Flower's objections. I even made the same point there that you use here, that the gambling aspect was peripheral to the story. Now, you say that Gilda isn't? Come on. Gilda is much more a gambling film than Casablanca; it's interwoven into the plot to a greater extent. Clarityfiend 21:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I watched it again two nights ago. The first scene is the male lead shooting craps. Gambling is used to launder money. I don't think it's as obvious as casablanca, but it's pretty clearly a gambling film. 2005 22:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Believe me, I recognize the irony of my question. If you'll notice, though, rather than reverting and reverting and reverting I asked for input and opinions (unlike a certain flowery admin I could name). I didn't have particularly strong feelings about Casablanca being included or not, nor did I have particularly strong felings about Gilda being included or not. 2005 made the point, I was fine with it, made no further comment, left the categorization alone. Having watched the film again last night I realize my recollection of the extent that gambling figures into the film is much greater than I recalled. I have no objection to its inclusion in the category, but then, I never really had that strong of an objection to begin with. Otto4711 17:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Shawshank Redemption

I'm surprised that my note that this is the film being watched in a scene in Shawshank has been deleted. I would've thought that the fact of one highly iconic film featuring within the screenplay of another would've been a significant enough fact for it to remain in?.... Martyn Smith (talk) 15:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I may have been the one who deleted it. Not having seen Shawshank Redemption, I have to ask, does it play any significant part in the film? If not, it's just trivia. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Clarityfiend, yes it is significant, I won't say too much for fear of spoiling the film for you (you haven't seen Shawshank?! Get thee to a film channel! :->) but Andy Dufresne, the lead character, in response to watching Gilda, orders a poster of Rita Hayworth which plays a vital role in the film. Thanks Martyn Smith (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

this film has been used in Michael Jacksons This Is It? During smooth criminal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.250.212.248 (talk) 11:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, parts of this film was used for the Smooth Criminal vignette. :) Michael Jackson used digital imagery to add himself to the movie. -Cyrus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.242.185.92 (talk) 22:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Allmovie

• Gilda at AllMovie ... plot synopsis, review, cast, production credits, awards

Reference available for citing in the article body. Erik (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Mundson's Faked Death

I note that the sentence, "However, Mundson has parachuted to safety, thus faking his death," was removed from the synopsis a while back. I don't think that's appropriate. The viewer learns that Mundson faked his death immediately after it happens. There's a scene of him being picked up out of the water. This is important to the plot, since it means his return is not a surprise to the viewer. 12.45.255.66 (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

s.a. (stupid abbreviation)

I brought up the "s.a." in the Variety review quote on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language ("Variety-speak"). My guess (and the consensus agreed) was that it probably meant "sex appeal", and several responders cited sources, including the Oxford English Dictionary ("S.A. n. (also s.a.) sex appeal", first citation from the American Mercury, 1926), which confirmed that this is likely correct. Likely, but not certain. Therein lies the dilemma: how best to convey that to the otherwise mystified reader? I added [sex appeal?] after the abbreviation in the quote, only to have it soon reverted as WP:OR. I can't think of a better way to deal with it, but something should be done. Any suggestions? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Drop a footnote with the OED dictionary definition of S.A. and let the reader draw his own conclusions. Interpolating an editorial comment within the text is, however helpful, benign, and most likely correct, technically OR.μηδείς (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikilinked "s.a." to Sex appeal per the above. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but that article doesn't mention S.A. - although you can certainly add it and the link would then be entirely unobjectionable. But until there is a cited source it amounts to OR.μηδείς (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I will add it soon, if Clarityfiend doesn't get to it first. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, would have done so myself but don't have access to the cite.μηδείς (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Here are the citations given in OED:-

S.A. n. (also s.a.) sex appeal.

1926 Amer. Mercury Dec. 465 The girl is a looker with an armful of *S.A. (sex appeal). 1932 P. MacDonald Maze 216 A Gallic young woman with apparently some looks and, let us say, 98 per cent. vigorous S.A. 1961 John o' London's 6 July 57/2 Surely one of Hollywood's finest character actresses—all this and blonde S.A. too. 1974 ‘E. McGirr’ Murderous Journey 96, I saw you and the dame go into her apartment.‥ I expected you to take longer. Losing the old s.a., Piron?

and here's a Chicago-style citation from the OED online edition

"S, n.1". OED Online. November 2010. Oxford University Press. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/169277?rskey=7S396t&result=1 (accessed December 13, 2010).

Hope this helps. Personally, I recognised it as sex appeal the first time I saw it and am puzzled that so many should find it hard! DuncanHill (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

the poster in Shawshank

“ Gilda was featured in the 1994 film The Shawshank Redemption. When the movie is shown to the inmates, Andy Dufresne asks Red to get a poster of Hayworth for him. The poster, which is a still of Hayworth from the movie, plays an important role in the plot. ”

Isn't the poster in color? I think it's a poster for the film but not from the film; possibly (I saw Shawshank more than four years ago) the same shot as on the DVD box, which is definitely not a scene of the movie. —Tamfang (talk) 06:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It's been a few years since I've seen Shawshank, but I believe the Rita poster is a still from the movie. Perhaps you're thinking of one of the other two posters which took Rita's place during the years Andy was imprisoned? --Ella Plantagenet (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Singing

The reference to Hayworth allegedly singing in the acoustic guitar scene is not detailed. The Bonus Feature documentary on the Gilda DVD states that she didn't sing any of the songs in that movie, and the sound of the voice in that version of the song is the same as in the full-band version.

Thus I think that section of the article should be deleted. I did not delete it because I don't know how to cite the DVD.

The evidence suggests she did not sing any of her songs, consistent with other details in the Rita Hayworth article about her frustration about not being taught to sing by the studio. Drbeechwood (talk) 11:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The American Film Institute is cited as the source for the information. — WFinch (talk) 22:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm aware that there is a reference to an AFI page, but that page reads: "Modern sources add that although Anita Ellis dubbed most of Hayworth's singing in the film, Hayworth actually sang the acoustic guitar version of "Put the Blame on Mame.""

Thus, they don't actually say WHAT the source is. Thus, the AFI page is not a primary source. It vaguely alludes to another source which is not specified. The documentary on the DVD is entitled "Rita Hayworth: The Columbia Girl" in which they state she didn't sing the song. And if you listen to the song, the vocals sound identical to the other version in the movie. And according to this source (Kobal, John (1982). Rita Hayworth: The Time, the Place, and the Woman. New York: Berkley Books. ISBN 0-425-05634-1.), "Hayworth resented the fact that the studio had failed to train her to sing or even to encourage her to learn how to sing."

I do not think the AFI source is sufficient evidence that she sang that song, and I think it's misleading to leave it in the article given the uncertainties in the citations from the AFI source.Drbeechwood (talk) 02:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Gilda Radner connection

A new Popular Culture section created with THIS edit lasted for half a day, and then got deleted with no justification presented whatsoever. That info contains a quote from Gilda Radner's autobiography where she explains that her first name was taken from this movie. Or perhaps more specifically from Rita Hayworth's character from this movie.

I have now restored it.

Why am I taking this here to the Talk section at this stage? Because I am wanting a permanent record of this info, which would be difficult to find should the stable form of this article settle out with this connection to Gilda Radner never presented to readers who might be interested in this.

My ideal would have been that some other editor would have seen good info being clobbered, and that they would be the one who restored it. Well, half a month has gone by, and no one has done it. So that's why I did it myself just now.

One could readily anticipate that the editor who removed this info will persist along the toxic editing attitudes based on what was demonstrated in recent days over at Talk:Gilda_Radner#Gilda - The 4th nuclear bomb, where he laced comments with profanity, and expressed an attitude that he WP:Owned the article. His exact quote to me over there was: "There's no way you'll get this stuff into Wikipedia while I'm alive."

...and that is quite obviously counter to the Wikipedia standard that we all strive to work together to cooperatively help to create the best quality encyclopedia for all readers around the world, by way of consensus of all involved editors conforming to established policies as written. Not to the demands of any single one of us. And not by way of distortions of our policies.

And so I have reverted the revert.

I have no plan to return here any time soon. I hope that any editor can compare the info I had added, and see that it was a helpful edit. Should it get deleted yet again, it is my hope that someone else here will care enough to restore it.

As another key part of that edit, I would also see it as a loss if readers are prevented from seeing the photo of the atomic bomb with 'GILDA' painted on it. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Your violation of WP:SYNTH is evident in your editorial note saying "Radner's mother's mother's name was Golda. Radner was born on June 28, 1946, a few months after the movie was released. Also, the 4th nuclear bomb ever detonated, 'Crossroads-Able', happened on July 1, 1946, a few days after Radner was born." If you insist on connecting Radner to the nuclear bomb test – your own construction – your edits will continue to be removed. Binksternet (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Gilda (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)