Talk:To Catch a Thief

proofread?

Would anyone out there would like to proofread this ?

I've replaced "before him dangles her jewels" with "dangles her jewels before him," as I had before. Pittsburgh Poet (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not a mistake. Can you specify how it could be misunderstood? Otherwise a figure of speech is perfectly fine. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Grace Kelly trivia

Is it true that Grace Kelly died in a car accident a couple years after in the same location where they filmed the "get away" scene? Source: http://hitchcock.tv/mov/to_catch_a_thief/thief.html --Joel M. 22:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know what kind of car Grace Kelly was driving in the car chase scene?68.97.213.42 Matt Davis

I believe it's an urban myth and her relatives are on record stating it was not a location that appeared in the film. Davepattern (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It's an urban myth. Prince Albert denied this himself in this interview with Larry King. As such, I have removed it. No need to perpetuate the myth. 24.72.176.211 (talk) 11:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The car is a Sunbeam Alpine.Lathamibird (talk) 11:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Catchthief.jpg

Image:Catchthief.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 05:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Kelly's wardrobe

Who designed Kelly's wardrobe? --Error 23:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It was Edith Head. You can see one of her sketches for the film here. Davepattern (talk) 14:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Trivia by any other name...

Interesting, but fail to see how this is "production" related:

The filming of To Catch a Thief on the French Riviera plays a pivotal role in Wu Ming's novel 54. The action takes place in the springtime of 1954, and nearly all the characters in the novel (including Cary Grant, an Italo-american mobster nicknamed "Steve Cement", and two Parisian gangsters from the Rififi movie) cross each other's path in Cannes and Nice.

The movie and its filming process are also heavily referred to in Nico Orengo's book "La Guerra del Basilico" (The Basil War).

1936 film

There was also a 1936 film by the same name:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0028387/

Should there be a disambiguation page made for To Catch a Thief? Now the the link to To Catch a Thief goes to the 1952 novel. David Straub (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

To Catch a Thief (film) → To Catch a Thief — Surely the film is considerably better known than the novel. PatGallacher (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• To Catch a Thief → To Catch a Thief (novel)

• Page views for the novel and page views for the film do not indicate that either topic, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, "is highly likely – much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader clicks the 'Go' button for that term". Of course, it is hard to tell how many readers come through the novel article to get to the film article. I also did some quick searching for information about the novel, but I am not finding very much information about it. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Page hits aren't everything. You will probably find that a high proportion of people who come to the novel's page are looking for the film. Looking at "what links here" on the novel a high proportion appear to be about the film. The film was directed by Hitchcock, it had stars of the calibre of Cary Grant and Grace Kelly, it also has the considerably longer article. PatGallacher (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I see 615 views for To Catch a Thief (A=615). I see 3952 for To Catch a Thief (film) (B=3952). Since the first category contains an unknown number who actually sought the film (somewhere from 0 to 615). Erik, perhaps you could clarify your reasoning on this. Even assuming all the A's were for the novel, there are six times the number of B's. That looks like a significant difference. Do you have different numbers? --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support requested move. It seems likely that readers come through the novel article through the film article. I researched for information about the book but could not find much that was not overwhelmingly Hitchcock-related. So do the flip. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It's really not your decision but thanks for your support. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you not participated in a move discussion before? See Talk:Roman Polanski#Requested move as a busier example. If you agree with making the "To Catch a Thief" moves, you can add a bold "support" statement to this discussion. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• How about transforming "To Catch a Thief" into a disambiguation page (as proposed in June 2009) ? It would have the added advantage of simplifying wikilink maintenance (by reducing it to checking what links to the disambiguation page, and by highlighting wikilinks to the disambiguation page thanks to the stub feature). - Ev (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• We do not have an article on that film, and my brief research sounds that it is likely not notable. I am not sure if the presence of a "To Catch a Thief" passage in a list article is enough to warrant a disambiguation page. Assuming that the Hitchcock film is at To Catch a Thief, would a hatnote not be sufficient to mention the related novel and the unrelated TV episode? As for linking, link-fixing should be a pretty automated process. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ev's proposal would effectively mean a fundamental rethink of the whole structure of disambiguation on Wikipedia, since you could never assign a primary meaning, we would have to turn everything into a disambiguation page. Let's deal with one issue at a time, at present we only have two articles called "To Catch a Thief" and I would argue that one is the clear primary meaning WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If we ever get a third article we will deal with resulting issues. PatGallacher (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support/oppose I support moving the novel, I oppose moving the film, I suggest placing a dab page at the primary name. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Disambiguation pages usually exist for three or more topics. The only reason we'd have a dab page for two is if neither is the primary topic. Do you not believe that the film is far more known than the novel, based on page views and Google search results? It's not unprecedented to have a film as the primary topic if the source material is unknown. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It is possible to have a disambiguation page for two articles, but this should only apply if they are of roughly similar notability, it's difficult to judge which is the more notable. Does this really apply in this case? PatGallacher (talk) 11:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment there's a missing move header on the novel talk page. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support the move. The novel is only noteworthy because of the film. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support. The film seems to be the primary topic and there shouldn't be any issues in amending the target of links to To Catch a Thief. There aren't that many and a few of them seem to be intended to link to the film anyways. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
• Request. Can someone cleanup the links to To Catch a Thief for the novel? When done, leave a note on my talk page and I'll finish the move. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I think it would make more sense to make the move first then sort out the links. PatGallacher (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Masked Moor

I saw the film 2 nights ago and yesterday noticed that the description of the plot suggested that a "switch" was made, i.e. 2 characters exchanged places:

'At the ball, Francie is resplendent in a gold gown, Robie unrecognizable behind the mask of a Moor. The police hover nearby. Upstairs, the cat burglar silently cleans out several jewel boxes. When Jessie asks the Moor to go get her "heart pills," Robie’s voice tips off his identity to the authorities. Upon his return the police wait out Francie and the Moor as they dance the night away. Finally, Francie and the Moor go to her room, and the mask is removed: it is Hughson, switched to conceal Robie’s exit.'

I don't believe this "switch" occurs. Jessie and Francie simply mislead the police into supposing the Moor is Robie, when in fact it is Hughson. I therefore changed the above text to read:

'At the ball, Francie is resplendent in a gold gown, and she and Jessie are accompanied by a masked Moor. The police, who have been trailing Robie, hover nearby. Upstairs, the cat burglar silently cleans out several jewel boxes. When Jessie asks the Moor to go get her "heart pills," she refers to him as "John" and is admonished by Francie. Upon his return the police wait out Francie and the Moor as they dance the night away. Finally, Francie and the Moor go to her room, and the mask is removed: the Moor is in fact Hughson.'

This change has been reversed by user Ring Cinema. I'm confident of my recollection, but am trying to locate a DVD of the film to check. Furthermore, if a "switch" did occur it would make the dialogue I described redundant, as well as a later query by Jessie as to whether she played her part well. I can't recollect Hitchcock ever expecting the audience to recognise a character by their voice in any other movie - after all he learnt his trade in the silent era and later cast Sean Connery as an American in Marnie!

May I reapply my change?--TimJoslin (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

You are mistaken. There is a switch. That is why he is sent upstairs: to switch. Cary Grant's voice is heard from behind the mask of the Moor, and this is confirmed by reading the transcription. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Ring Cinema. There was definitely a switch. There were two points to Jessie asking for her heart pills. The first is so that Robie could speak out loud, so that everyone would think that he's behind the mask even after the switch has been made. The second is to give him a valid excuse to leave the ball and make the switch with Hughson. Just because it's not something Hitchcock had done before does not mean that it was something that the audience wouldn't be able to understand. All the dialogue, in both the ball and afterword in the room, even make it seem a little heavy handed, I'd say.109.128.171.121 (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Having just watched it - Lord, Hitchcock on VERY poor form - it is perfectly obvious that there was a switch and that H intended the audience to notice it. Before he gets the pills, he speaks, when he gets back, he doesn’t. KJP1 (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Caméo - La main au collet.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit needed.

"...including a wealthy widow, played by Grace Kelly"

The widow is Kelly's character's mother. 86.163.201.20 (talk) 16:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)