Talk:They Might Be Giants (film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Media franchises: Sherlock Holmes Stub‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media franchises, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to media franchises on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Media franchisesWikipedia:WikiProject Media franchisesTemplate:WikiProject Media franchisesmedia franchise articles
Stub	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Sherlock Holmes (assessed as Low-importance).

Ending![edit]

I think the article should say diverging about the movie’s ending, which is very strange and dark. I will put in something, but I invite improvement, and especially, some evidence of what the author’s intent was. Antiquated (talk) 09:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What you added was original research and editorializing, both of which are not encylopedic. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 13:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Namesake band[edit]

There's a note at the bottom of the article stating that the band They Might Be Giants takes their name from this movie. That's not entirely true, here's a relevant blurb from the TriviaTrivia page at This Might Be A Wiki:

The band obtained the name from the movie indirectly; Raoul Rosenberg, ventriloquist friend had procured the name from the film for his own act, and discarded it. John & John liked the name so They asked him if They could use it.

I'd like to edit the mention in the article to be more accurate, but I'm not sure how to do so without being overly wordy, so I figured I'd drop the note here and let someone with better editing skills than myself have a go at it. - Ugliness Man 19:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the phrase "they might be giants" (meaning windmills) appears in the Principia Discordia, published in 1965. If so, it may have inspired the film's title and the corresponding line in the dialogue. Sicherman (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:They Might Be Giants film poster.jpg[edit]

Image:They Might Be Giants film 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 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) 02:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophical and Social Themes[edit]

To portray this film as a mediocre romantic comedy is to entirely ignore the subtle (but pointed) satirical elements (criticism of authority structures with concerns other than the well-being of those over whom they have authority, impersonal bureaucracies, the labeling and commodifying of human beings), as well as the challenging existential questions it presents about the nature of madness, the role of fantasy, and the sovereignty of personal identity. The romance between Playfair and Watson could be seen as merely a device by which to bring the doctor into the lunatic's inner world, to allow her to see him as a sympathetic and whole individual whose biggest problem is not his delusion, but a collection of greedy and unscrupulous persons (the brother, the head of the psychiatric institute, the mobster) bent on taking advantage of the legal status his insistence on living in a fantasy brands him with -- that of someone who may be incarcerated and relieved of his livelihood and property without his having committed any crime or offense. Her ability to see him as a romantic equal implies that, in every way that matters, he is of sound mind, whether he chooses to live within a fantasy or not. As a consequence, his reasons for preferring fantasy to the reality in which he finds himself become the foremost questions of the film. The facile "his wife died and now he's crazy" explanation given explicitly by some of the other characters hardly seems to cover the range of issues raised by his melancholic ruminations on justice and meaning.

For my reading, it is impossible to view They Might Be Giants without considering the social and political climate of 1971. If you're aware, for instance, of the history of psychiatric hospital reform, or the federal malfeasance regarding responses to dissent (for instance COINTELPRO), many pointed challenges to authoritarianism, capitalism, and alienation can be noted in the film. In fact, the eponymous quotation and his explanation of it could be viewed as a subtle call to question received cultural notions of what is and isn't dangerous, of who doesn't and doesn't have our best interests at heart. These questions dovetail nicely, of course, with the plot contrivance that Playfair must flee, first in fear of his freedom from incarceration in a psychiatric facility run by a man more interested in money than in healing, and later in fear of his life from mobsters in cahoots with the authorities. Playfair and Watson inhabit a world in which men are viewed as obstacles to appropriating their material resources, made powerless to resist dehumanization by their own adherence to social constraints and civil laws. It is only by eschewing traditional reality and social expectations that they have any hope of escape.

The character of Watson can also be seen as a deeply progressive depiction of a woman in film, to an extent that borders on the radical, although the film declines to make any explicit analysis of her social situation. At no point in the film does any plot (or incidental reference, for that matter) rely solely on her femaleness, with the single exception of her romantic compatibility with Playfair/Holmes. In fact, the role in which he casts her within his fantasy is that Holmes' male colleague, another Dr. Watson. The typical, sexually-charged, woman-objectifying flirtation between male and female leads is not found here, nor is seduction, coquettishness, or sexual pursuit. The two characters meet as doctor and patient, and move forward as equals. Watson does not cease to be Watson once the two have revealed their feelings.

Additionally, Playfair's anguished search for meaning in an ugly, unjust world is deeply philosophical and frequently poignant. The ambiguous ending leaves the question open -- who, or what, is Justin Playfair's Moriarity? Is it injustice? Meaninglessness? Authoritarian control? Or death itself?

It was perhaps too subtle for most critics to grasp. I can't help but be reminded of Erik the Viking. Explores many of the same themes as Neverwas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.244.241 (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"God bless ya, Barbara Stanwyck"[edit]

I did not personally find this movie funny (scary, more like, with Playfair forcing his fantasy onto "poor, unfulfilled spinster" Watson) but there appears to be a very good in-joke imbedded in the movie-within-a-movie scene where Maud's invocation of Barbara Stanwyck is a clear reference to another Newman-Foreman production, "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" (starring Newman, Joanne Woodward's husband) via Barbara Stanwyck's own Butch Cassidy/Sundance Kid film (supposedly using the same Colorado location) "The Maverick Queen" (1956). Of course, this is personal research at this point so what is needed is some review or other published source that caught the joke. At this point I don't even know if it was actually "The Maverick Queen" that was used in the clip that was shown or if it was even Barbara Stanwyck who appeared briefly in it, so that information would be useful.There is a clear shot of one of the male stars at the end of the clip, but I can't place him. My copy is the 98 minute version, BTW.68.178.50.46 (talk) 04:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inspiration for Vonnegut?[edit]

The rooftop garden scene is very reminiscent of one of the settings in Kurt Vonnegut's novel, "Jailbird" (1979). Vonnegut had moved to New York and deeply involved in the NY theatre scene at the time this film was shot there and subsequently released and it is more than plausible that he saw it. However, some published reference would be needed either from him or someone he spoke to about it serving as an inspiration, if it did. The good news is Vonnegut talked to a lot of people and there are a lot of interviews and remarks out there from the period and later.68.178.50.46 (talk) 04:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]