Talk:All About Eve

Censoring the gay away Part 2
This article has had a thematic content section for a long time now, and despite recent attempts to cut the section that discusses the very important (to the film) homosexuality and feminism/marriage themes -- there have been no justifications for this vandalism.

Simply deleting large sourced sections requires, at the very minimum, some logical explanation. Furthermore, it would be much better for the article and Wikipedia as a whole if people would not be lazy and delete sections. Instead, those people could spend some time revising the sections they think could be improved. I spent several hours revising, with sources, the Gender Politics part of Thematic Content only to see a revert soon after.

This is not how articles are improved. It is how they devolve. Stop censoring content because you have an agenda. There is much more to this film than vague or narrow-minded comments like those from Roger Ebert and other conventional critics who couldn't be bothered to address a core aspect of this film: its use of homosexual villains to promote a political view that Betty Friedan called "the problem that has no name". The superficial industry critic is not the only perspective readers need about this film, yet the malicious deletions continue to only leave comments from them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.101.211 (talk) 02:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The lengthy paragraph containing the Friedan quote does not actually have any citations for its thematic suppositions, and while an interesting argument it seems essentially like conjecture or at the very least original research without them. It seems as though you have been forcing an argument about the thematic content of the movie into that section for years, and quite frankly it does not seem as though the underlying problems pointed out in several sections below (viz., that it contains a synthesis of several arguments and does not represent any published viewpoint, that it is of undue length given the prominence of the relevant citations, and that it is presented as though it were proven and not an assertion by a few specific critics) have not actually changed, however much you accuse those who point it out of homophobia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.181.67 (talk) 08:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The whole debate here is ridiculous. It is not a matter of homophobia, it is a matter of length, assertiveness and neutrality. I am only an occasional contributor, but came to this talk because I just read the main article for the film, which I just re-watched, and was disoriented to find 30% of the whole article taken up by a single, partisan exegesis (presented as fact) on the movie's gay subtext. What seemed interesting to me at first, as I read – that the film even had such a subtext; genuinely intriguing – was then overtaken by slowly realising, as the sentences went by, that this was a long and strident academic theory presented as fact, and that it went on for paragraph after paragraph ... and presented it as if it were universally recognised that homophobia was the all-consuming central motif of All About Eve. That is not the case, and Wikipedia is not the place to outline, in full, such a thesis. What this theory requires is a few sentences, some links; then move on.


 * There are mainstream films of the era – Hitchcock's Rope being a good example – that attempted to smuggle dramatic homosexuality in under the Production Code, and this is widely recognised. But even Rope's Wikipedia article only has two sentences on the matter, even in an instance where the gay thematics are much more blatant and very widely acknowledged. What gay thematics there are in All About Eve are much more opaque and subjective, and therefore certainly not worthy – in a Wikipedia article; a place of fact, not assertion – of some 650 words of tubthumping rhetoric that overtake the entire article.


 * I'd consider myself very gay-friendly. I can buy the notion that there are homosexual thematics (because the whole film is riddled with sexual thematics). In fact, I find it fascinating and compelling. But presenting homophobia as the central, all-guiding motif of the film is disingenuous and wrong; it suggests something that isn't. All About Eve is a film about lust, ambition, fame, age and experience; about relationships; about the things women do to women, and men do to men; about the predation of powerful men on young women, and the wiles of the young over the old. It is about all these things and more. It is timeless for these reasons, because it is, primarily, a beautiful canvas for all the rhythms of drama through the ages: The complexities of human relationships. Indeed, it is a drama about drama. It doesn't surprise me that a homophobic subtext can be read into it, much as it wouldn't surprise me that a Freudian one about Elektra Complex could be read into it...


 * But a couple of critics' reading of subtext is not universal opinion. Every film can be read in multiple ways. I am certain there are many papers, books and journals out there that will tell you that Alien (1979) is a feminist critique of male dominance; or that it's a post-colonial critique of American imperialism; or a political metaphor of Cold War threats; or a Freudian depiction of phallocentrism; or an exegisis on anti-scientific paranoia; or a post-Vietnam revenge fantasy; or a historical reimagining of the American Revolution ... and so on.


 * But Alien's Wikipedia page would not be the place to go into all of these theories in detail; nor even to lay out in detail all the different points of evidence involved in these theories. Every article on every major movie would otherwise be endless. Wikipedia is a place to reference that there are these beliefs – the most common ones, at least – and then to move on. Wikipedia is a locus of fact, not an arena for expounding academic lectures and hypotheses at great length – much less, to outline one over many paragraphs as if it is widely acknowledged as the central motif of the film, when it clearly isn't.


 * The problem here is not the concept of a homophobic subject, but its length and presentation. To have a few sentences articulating that revisionists have posited All About Eve as a movie centred on anti-homosexual paranoia (with links to reference material for those interested in reading more) seems to me not just fine but adding admirable angles to the article; a view that many would otherwise be unaware of. To present 3 long paragraphs of increasingly subjective opinion (or the opinion of one critic) is foisting one contributor's agenda on the whole world. Kieronshaw (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It's ironic that, in 2014, people are still trying to hide homosexuality — to the point where going a bit deeper than the most superficial aspects of the film (e.g. aging actress versus young upstart) is seen as irrelevant. This is typical of the "homosexuality is always irrelevant" censoring mindset. Moreover, the deletions were, for a long time, of the entire thematic section! That makes it clear that the hope was to rid the article of pesky things like feminism and political homophobia so we can instead just look at the plot and the casting. I have to say, though, that I am impressed that this article has maintained and grown that thematic section, despite all the censorship attempts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.12.52 (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Oscar Campaign
There should be some mention of Anne Baxter's Oscar campaign to be nominated for lead actress instead of supporting actress.

Javabeanrush 00:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Curious
It appears as though no one has ever edited the article talk page; does this no-one has ever taken time to discuss the changes that could have been made to the main article? That's too bad, really. Perhaps I will take the initiative. The film is one of the best, and requires more notes and references, according to the WP:FAC process. –Cruz AFade (Speak about it | How many?) 15:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Margo ignores the warnings of Eve’s devious plans from her cynical maid (played by Thelma Ritter) and Margo’s best friend (played by Celeste Holm).

Does Holm give any warning to Davis ? I can't even remember her telling (or rather having an opportunity to tell) anything negative to Davis about Baxter. I am removing the Holm part. Someone can add it if they are certain about it.� Pointy haired fellow 13:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You are right in removing it. Holm (Karen) is on the brink of telling Margo about Eve, until Eve reminds Karen that she played a big part in deceiving Margo by making her miss the performance that gave Eve her break.  Karen is ashamed, but bites her tongue.  From then on, Karen is more of an observer.  Rossrs 14:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality controversy
Am I the only one who thinks that there ought to be a page on this film's gay following, or the perception of Eve and/or Addison as homosexual? 72.166.213.97 18:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If you know of some reliable sources that describe this, go ahead. Cop 663 19:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There is, of course, All About All About Eve, although I've never read it. Has anyone?  Twin Bird 00:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have, and I've got a copy of it. The perception of Eve as a lesbian is discussed in some detail, and it is fairly strongly stated that it is more than mere interpretation - Eve was written and played as a lesbian.  For example, the author, Staggs,  notes that Baxter spoke in a deeper voice in the scenes with the young woman in the boarding house, and later with Phoebe to emphasise that she was intentionally softening her manner among the people she was trying to impress.  Mankiewicz is also quoted on the subject.  I can't remember anything being written about Addison's sexuality - I think he was written more as asexual.  Rossrs 14:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * My problem here is that I've never read the book, and the reason I ask this is not only from talk of that book, but from references to the film in Will & Grace (the episode - I don't know its name or number - where they move upstate) and A Home at the End of the World that, from context, seem to suggest that the authors are aware of a strong gay interest. (Although I don't really trust the former....)  However, I myself don't enough on the subject, so I'm calling for an "expert," albeit a very specific one.  Twin Bird 19:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If by perception you mean the obvious intent of Mankiewicz (which he acknowledged) that resulted in two obviously homosexual characters, then yes, it has gay interest. As for missing citations regarding the theme of sexuality (homosexuality versus heterosexuality) in the article... The Celluloid Closet was cited. The book and the film cover different ground and one of the links I posted was a web page about the Celluloid Closet that featured a photo from All Above Eve on its main page. Yet, someone decided the citations aren't relevant and deleted them. Someone else came in to complain that the section isn't cited. Hmm.... Maybe these folks should watch the film before declaring that there is no source, or perhaps read the Celluloid Closet or watch that film? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.99.133 (talk) 06:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

While the section as it currently exists is fine, though it could use better citations, homosexual subtext should not be the only theme, or even the most important theme, cited in the article. For balance, there should be additional content regarding themes of ambition, ageism in the theater, and the conduct of people in the public eye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.208.159.20 (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The most important theme is not actually subtext, it's that the heterosexual marriage arrangement is superior to anything else, such as fame. All About Eve makes the venerable point that fame is fleeting and empty, but it goes beyond that to make this other point, one that resonated so well at the time. The homosexuals, Addison and Eve, are contrasted with the heterosexuals, Bill and Margot. Their relationships are contrasted. This isn't subtext. This is the entire foundation of the film. Even the ad poster said the film is "All about women and their men". It didn't say "the film is all about aging and career competition". People see the window dressing plot primarily at first but, while subtle, the basic engine of the film is not "aging diva replaced by young blood". The career conflict is used skillfully to demonstrate the difference between humanity (married heterosexuals in love) and inhumanity (cold/cunning homosexuals). Eve obsessively works to get the "waves of love" from the audience but discovers it's an illusion. Her "killer to killer" relationship with Addison is hardly a matter of subtext. At the end of the film, we see that she's hopeless and doesn't have a Bill to turn to when she's going to be replaced by a hungry young actress. Notice also that her name is Eve, which is likely a reference to the "Adam and Steve" joke frequently made to deride gay relationships. There is no Adam for Eve, and no Steve for DeWitt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.99.133 (talk) 06:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Seeing that there is presently an entire (uncited!) section devoted to the whole "Eve is really a lesbian" theory, I think it's important to point out that Mankiewicz himself said quite the opposite. From Joseph L. Mankiewicz: Interviews, p.200:

Q: What about the rumor that Eve was a lesbian?

A: (Mankiewicz laughs) Yes, I've heard that. Look, sex has no emotional impact on Eve. It's nothing more than a bodily function. If she can use it, she'll use it. If it was to her advantage, Eve would hump a cat! Next! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.159.246 (talk) 05:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In actuality, Mankiewicz's statement doesn't eliminate the possibility of Eve having sex with women, it just eliminates her enjoying having sec with women, so it all depends on what you mean by "lesbian". After all, if Eve were to "hump a cat" (for whatever reason), we'd have no problem saying that she had practiced bestiality, so if she had sex with another woman, why wouldn't she have practiced lebianism?  Is it really necessary for the sex to have an "emotional impact" for it to be "real"? In fact, M's statement keeps the question entirely open. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Not realising that there had been previous discussion I removed the list of quotes and was promptly reverted. Having viewed the discussion I think that in line with policy the section, in its current form, should be removed. According to What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia is not a directory, it sepcifically says "If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote." (emphasis added). Having a list of quotes like this does not add to an encyclopaedic treatment of the topic; an unsourced list of "Memorable quotes" is just a list of quotes any particular editor happened to like enough to put in. Mentioning quotes can be appropriate if they or their influence has been discussed by reliable sources and the information can be put in the appropriate context - of discussion of the reception, influence or screenplay of the film. A list of quotes like this with no context or explanation does nothing to enhance the readers understanding of the topic, is completely redundant to the link to the appropriate Wikiquote page and marking them as memorable is borderline original research. Wikipedia could easily have pages dedicated to "Quotes of..." and "Quotes from..." but we don't simply because normally that is not within the remit of an encyclopaedic treatment. If someone can find reliable sources that discuss quotes from the film then by all means that information - not just the quotes - could be added to sections of reception, influence or the screenplay but as it is the section should be removed.

The sexuality section is completely unsourced and as it is I think it ties together different materials in a way that amounts to synthesis - applying general theory to aspects of the specific film. The section has been removed before and replaced without improvement or alteration, Verifiability makes it clear that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material... any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" (emphasis from original). In the several months since the section was added in October no one has been able to find reliable sources to support the information in the section (since looking I have not been able to) whilst it has clearly been challenged, again I think this section should be removed. Guest9999 (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree with everything Guest9999 said about quotes. Not sure what the other part actually means, though, I guess I need to wait until the caffiene kicks in. Lots42 (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with most of the comment.  The quotes in list form do not enlighten and are presented in a very random manner.   Discussion of the script is vital for this article as the script is one of the most important features of this film and is far more important than the majority of scripts.  The problem is that there is no discussion, no attempt to place the quotes into context and no attempt to prioritize them.   I think that at the very least it should be trimmed, and the more significant of the quotes could/should be placed within a framework that explains either the author's intent, or the way they have been perceived or absorbed into film history.   It even looks untidy as the quotes aren't particularly well presented. Bearing in mind that this is a start class article, it's fair to expect it to be raw, but this is a little too raw.


 * The sexuality section is inappropriate and I agree with your comments. It attempts to apply a general theory that is not attributed to anyone nor is it cited.   Again, the theme is potentially important and I would have no objection to a properly cited, neutrally presented section.   This does not come close to meeting our standards.   Rossrs (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As alluded to in the edit history, the sheer age of an uneeded section does not grant it any more gravitas, old mistakes are still mistakes. Lots42 (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't, and yes they are. But if something has been in an article for a considerable period of time, it is reasonable to assume that during that time other editors have looked at the article.  That they have chosen not to remove it or question it,  does not necessarily mean that they support retaining the information, but maybe it does.   In any case it's reasonable for an editor to revert the deletion and request discussion for such a major deletion, especially as it has been a long-standing inclusion.    I don't think there was any suggestion that its age alone gave it any gravitas, rather it was the possible relevance of the material and the size of it.  Rossrs (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Age does not mean approval. If I saw some 'Joe Quesada hates the fans' comments from 2005, I'd delete those. Lots42 (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Huh? I was agreeing with you! Rossrs (talk) 05:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Then I misunderstood. My bad. Lots42 (talk) 10:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the "sexuality" section needs to be removed unless it can be verified and cited correctly. "Citing" the topic by referencing another film (The Celluloid Closet), even a documentary, is tenuous verification at best.   Zelmia 07:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zelmia (talk • contribs)

Since it's been more than a week and no one has supported keeping the material I'm going to remove it for now. Guest9999 (talk) 13:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Censoring the critical section about homosexuality from the article is homophobic. The film's two antagonists are homosexuals and they are contrasted with the heterosexuality of Margo Channing and her beau, as the sexuality theme section discussed clearly. If the thematic material, which happens to be the foundation of the plot, is "irrelevant", then why even have an article and not a stub? I think people should think harder before excising important content from articles to avoid discussion of homosexuality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.3.105 (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Dude, what? Please, the central wikipedia policy is to assume good intentions. The theme section, -before- the links was added in, was seemingly just original research. Yes, there's a lot to be said about it, but just random talking about it is not usually suitable for a wikipedia article. Seeing as how there are now -sources-, it is suitable. But I say, went to the article for the Lord of the Rings book and wrote several paragraphs on how Hobbit life is different and similar to Elf life, it'd be deleted and rightfully so. But if say, Issac Asimov had wrote a columnm about that, it would be noteable. Lots42 (talk) 04:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Anon edit
An anonymous user expanded the plot. While it is a very good effort, I think it reads between the lines on a few occasions. I have seen the movie five or six times but not within the last three years.

''But despite her unmatched success, she is beginning to show her age and being targetted by critics, most notably Addison DeWitt (who narrates the film). ''
 * I can't remember DeWitt making any criticisms about Margo or his age before the review of Eve's performance ("mature actresses" etc) Does he? There is no mention of other critics, as far as I can remember, anywhere though Margo is worried herself.

With DeWitt filling the audience with his fellow critics, Eve performs to rave reviews from critics.
 * This certainly is wrong. It is pretty clear that was Eve who invited the critics. In DeWitt's words "But those who remained cheered loudly, lustily and long for Eve...how thoughtful of her to call and invite me - that afternoon ... and what a happy coincidence that several representatives of other newspapers happened to be present. All of us - invited that afternoon to attend an understudy's performance..."

Margo's rivalry with Eve coincides with a growing midlife crisis that is brought about due to her failing relationship with her boyfriend and her workaholic career.
 * This gives the impression that the problems in his relationship with Merrill runs in parallel with the Eve affair, whereas it was brought about entirely because the presence of Eve. Pointy haired fellow (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Plot
The plot section was full of inaccuracies, assumptions, conclusions and analysis. Until I have the chance to watch the film again and expand the section in an accurate way, I've reverted to a previous version which, although short, has the distinct advantage of not being incorrect. Plot summaries are meant to describe the plot, not to engage in anaylsis of character, or filling in the backstory based on personal assumptions of what "must" have happened. What happened is what we see happen, or what the characters tell us happened, not what we think probably happened. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  21:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Quotes
The existence of Wikiquotes does not mean that quotes are forbidden in Wikipedia. While I would agree that larding down every film article with a bunch of uninteresting quotes would not be a good thing, All About Eve happens to be the source for some particularly juicy and very memorable quotes. The quote section is therfore not only allowed, but totally justified -- please stop removing it wholesale. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  20:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is your (entirely valid) opinion that the quotes are 'juicy' and memorable. But it is an -opinion-. And like the other stuff I just deleted, that means it is original research and thus frowned upon. In short, nuetrallity. P.S. For the record, the other stuff disparaged real people, granted it was a long time ago, but said real people might still be alive. Wiki prefers erring on the side of caution in stuff that disprages real folks. Lots42 (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've undone your non-consensual edits, which are not supported by policy or guidelines. If you disagree, please cite specific rules here, 'before' restoring your edits.Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ed, in restoring the quotes by reverting, you've also restored a particularly ugly piece of text that I object to strongly. I've removed "This is not surprising given the arguably obvious clues to the homosexuality of Harrington. DeWitt, the critic, is an effete who does not desire the loving heterosexual relationship of Channing and Simpson but rather a Satan-like bargain designed to deceive the public."  - I don't feel this is subject to consensus.  It's unsourced, original research presented in such a way, that Wikipedia is making a value judgement about homosexuality within the framework of the behaviour of these characters.  By its tone seems to be talking a wild guess rather than an informed assessment of Mankiewicz's intentions.   The rest of the section needs to be cited and it's tagged as such.  Within the context of Mankiewicz's comments and it's placement in a wider context per The Celluloid Closet, the section is potentially useful, as long as we don't place undue emphasis on what Mankiewicz may have intended as a minor (or at least secondary) theme.


 * As for the quotes - I think they are important. The screenplay is obviously a major part of the film's enduring appeal, and it is more "quotable" than many others, so perhaps it's appropriate to discuss it further.  I think the list of quotes is currently too long and too "listy" but it is worthy of a section that places some of these quotes into context.   The script was originally written for Claudette Colbert and some of the lines were devised to accommodate the different personality that Bette Davis brought to the project.   Rather than a list of quotes that may or may not be memorable depending on individual point of view, I think it would be stronger to add a section that discusses them - what was intended, how they were devised, how they were received... etc.   Something along the lines of Sunset Boulevard which contains quite a few quotes from the screenplay but within discussion rather than list form.  Part of the problem however is that this article is incomplete.  If it was complete (and by saying this I'm also referring to the sourcing of the other issue) these things would be dealt with.   I think it needs further development. Rossrs (talk) 08:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Also... some of the quotes may make more sense to unfamiliar readers if the plot section is expanded at some point. A person who has never seen or heard of the film, may not make much of the quotes in isolation.  Davis's "lonely" speech is much stronger when you know why and when she delivered it, for example.  The plot section shouldn't use too many of them, but it may be a good way of positioning a small number of them.  2 or 3 at most.  The other problem with the list format is we don't know who the lines was said to.  "This beats all world's records for running, standing or jumping gall!" - I haven't seen the film for a few years, and I'm scratching my head to recall exactly why Karen said this, and who she said it to.  The quote by itself doesn't really give much.  Rossrs (talk) 08:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * My clear mistake that in reacting to the removal of the quotes, I did not investigate the other section that User:Lots42 removed -- you are quite right to delete it. (And, in fact, I can't quite figure out how it got in there in the first place.)  My apologies to Lot42 for that oversight on my part. (The Crying of Eds Fitzgerald) I agree that the plot section is skimpy -- a number of times I've said to myself that I should expand it, but I don't think it ever made my "To Do" list (not that there's any guarantee that it would have gotten done if it had made it).  If someone would like to jump start it, I'd be more than glad to contribute. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 09:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, Karen's remark: she says it after receiving a note from Eve asking Karen to meet her in the Ladies Lounge at the Cub Room. In the scene that follows, Eve attempts to blackmail Karen into supporting her bid to play the lead role in Lloyd's new play, by threatening to reveal the trick that Karen played on Margo which caused her to miss a performance. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 09:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ed. I could place the other quotes, but that one had me stumped. Rossrs (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding my edits: We -do- have WikiQuotes.org just for quotes. And when it comes to potentially negative, potentially libelous stuff about real folks, Wikipedia policy is to err on the side of caution. WP: BPAL is the relevant link, I believe. Lots42 (talk) 11:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope, it's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons. It applies to any info about real folks. I also follow WP: BOLD. Lots42 (talk) 11:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * These aren't real people. WP:BLP only applies to real people.  I agree with removing the sentence, but not sure about your reasoning.  In the end, the result's the same.  Rossrs (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * ???? There's stuff in the sexuallity section (as of now) that ascribes certain motives to the producers of the movie, this is the kind of stuff I was protesting to begin with. And I would like to reiterate the existence of WikiQuotes, making the article's Quotes section redundant and uneeded. Lots42 (talk) 05:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my mistake. Even so, the producers are dead. I think the section badly needs sourcing, no argument there. Rossrs (talk) 08:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand as of now that the producers are dead, I failed to realize that the first time around. Lots42 (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Camp Section
My computer doesn't like the times.co.uk link, but it sure seems the 'Camp' section was copied word for word from it. Can someone double check? I hope I am making sense. Lots42 (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. I wrote the summary myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.96.67 (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sexuality and wars
I'd like to offer my opinion regarding this section of the article: it doesn't belong here, at least not the way it exists today. It's so far away from NPOV that it reads as if this is the only accepted interpretation of the film, like a rather poorly-referenced term paper. Since a comparison was made earlier in the article to the film Sunset Boulevard, I clicked on the wiki-link for that page (a featured article, by the way) and didn't see any of this kind of interpretive commentary. If a section along the lines of "Interpretations" is to be included, I think it should strive to be as balanced as possible, with citations after each successive thought. Because the goal for this article should be to make it as accurate, neutral and well-referenced as possible, not work a certain set of talking points into it.

I'll admit I didn't read every comment (signed or unsigned) on this talk page before adding this section, but I did see somebody throw the 'homophobic' word around. I guarantee you that I am not homophobic, and I find it disappointing when disagreements resort to these kinds of accusations. Am I volunteering to spend hours finding all kinds of sources that would make this section better? No. As it stands right now, I would suggest deleting about 90% of it, at least, and phrasing what's left in NPOV, but I'm worried that if I did that I'd start an edit war, something I really don't want to do. Anyone else have an opinion about this? Zephyrnthesky (talk) 23:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and here it is. You are more charitable than I am. I'd delete more than 90% of it, and go for the full 100%.  It's unsourced commentary that places undue emphasis on an aspect of the film that may or may not have been the intention of the film maker.   There is not even the vaguest attempt at balanced criticism, and "rather poorly-referenced term paper" is a reasonable assessment.  This is a widely discussed film.  Critical comments should be easy to find, so there is no excuse for all the uncited material.    On the other hand, we need 3 sources to say that Bette Davis has a gay following?  Even though Davis's gay following has no relevance to the themes of the film, which is supposedly the issue being discussed in this section?  There is a lot more that could be said about the themes dealt with in the film, but I guess none of them are as interesting as the veiled sexuality.   Like you, I'm not volunteering to spend time fixing this, although I have spent a lot of time on this article.  Not recently though.  The homophobia accusation is an easy option but you'll notice that the accusation is not supported by anything of substance. Rossrs (talk) 09:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also - oddly, the bits that are cited, are unrelated to All About Eve.   It's perplexing, but even more reason to delete the whole thing.  Rossrs (talk) 09:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur, that section needs to go. Otto4711 (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've tagged the section "neutrality disputed"...I figure if we give it a week for any additional opinions to surface, then we can say we've reached a consensus. Thanks to both of you for your opinions. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I think a week allows enough time for discussion, especially considering this has been discussed previously.  Rossrs (talk) 10:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I could see a section on various interpretations of the film existing in this article, but they would need to be sourced AND neutral. One aspect could be Eve's perceived lesbianism and that it would have had to be subtle due to the Production Code (I've seen Celluloid Closet but never read the book). Another seems to be Broadway v. Hollywood and a sort of antagonism that existed, or still exists today. Of course Margo turning 40 and being irritated by 20-something Eve and seeing that society condones an ageism and sexism exists as a layer of the film...but that all depends on whether a section like this even belongs in this article. There are other places on the internet that deal in speculation or analysis; I ran across a site recently trying to tell me what every song by Green Day really means. A big old "delete" of the whole section would be the easiest way to handle it short-term, but then it may just reappear (again). I'm just not sure. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess we have a consensus, so I decided to boldly go where others have gone before me and delete this section. It fell under the categories "original research", "undue weight" and was not well-referenced. And it made no effort to be NPOV. If it reappears I hope the editor chooses to participate in a meaningful dialogue about the issue, which I actually think may have some validity and could be presented as an insightful observation about the film, if not in this article then perhaps in a "see also"-type article (Possible Interpretations of All About Eve). But only if it had better references. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Censoring the gay away
It's tremendously ironic and quite silly that an article about a film about covert homosexuals is being censored today. This is 2009. Is homosexuality such a taboo on Wikipedia that what has been widely known for a long time as a gay camp classic has to be de-gayed? Not only that, but the section that was brutally chopped had relevant sourced (Betty Friedan) insights about the career woman vs. married woman theme in the film. It was chopped, I presume, because of its proximity to the dreaded gayness. That the most basic thematic and political content of the film is being ripped out of the article defies explanation. I can understand the desire to be concise. But, there is a difference between increasing a signal to noise ratio and simply reducing the signal with unwarranted cuts. The next person who simply removes the Politics section is out of line, again. Try to condense it if you must, but there is no justification for wholesale slaughter. If this post seems over the top, I have to say I'm really tired of the censor-the-gay-away agenda I keep seeing on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.96.67 (talk) 08:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, the problem with the section is that it's an example of an original synthesis. The section has lots of 'references' but none of them actually mentions All About Eve. In other words, the section is trying to argue the case that the film has homosexual themes, rather than describing published writings about its homosexual themes. The lack of sources is, unfortunately, a "justification for wholesale slaughter", so I'd suggest you add some references from critics discussing these themes.Cop 663 (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It would help greatly if people would actually look at the citations before making such false arguments like "The section has lots of 'references' but none of them actually mentions 'All About Eve'." Here is one of those citations that people continue to utterly ignore: "American Cold War Culture, Chapter Two: Gender and Sexuality: All about the Subversive Femme: Cold War Homophobia in All About Eve". That doesn't mention All About Eve, eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.96.67 (talk) 02:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Some of the comments from earlier this year have still not been addressed. Original research? It most definitely reads that way to me, notwithstanding the addition of a source. NPOV? Not in a million years with the way it's worded now. From the get-go it states: "All About Eve's underlying theme is that the norm of heterosexuality, specifically in the form of marriage, must be upheld, in contrast to the social threat posed by independent career women and especially homosexuals." As if this is the only possible reading of the film. There's no inline citation there to support this charge, and since the film itself never actually states "THIS FILM IS ABOUT HOW THE NORM OF HETEROSEXUALITY.." on a title card, it is the interpretation of what somebody assumes was the intent of the film's actors or creators. Couldn't an underlying theme of the film be the ageism actors face? Not according to the four paragraphs that keep getting reinserted to the article every couple of months, along with a predictable cry of 'homophobia!' or 'censorship!' This gives undue weight to a single aspect of a possible reading (yes, possible reading) of the film while attributing this claim to someone else's interpretation of a possible reading of the film, without bothering to even acknowledge the existence of other possible interpretations. If Joe Blow got a book published that stated in no uncertain terms that Elvis is alive, that might merit inclusion of a cited sentence or two in the Elvis article, but not an entire section about it, with only a single end-of-paragraph reference. The other unaddressed issue from earlier is whether a section about 'interpretations of the film' is even appropriate for this article, referenced or not. Could it be that there might be a problem with the content of this section (whatever it's called this time around)? If an editor puts a huge chunk of information into an article, some of which may be OK, and then responds by asking others to take the time to fix it...well, that just seems backwards to me, like a cart in front of a horse. Oh, and as I stated above, I'm not homophobic, and I seriously doubt that many (possibly any) of the others who commented about this earlier are either. Namecalling or accusing wikipedia of censorship is a counterproductive way to improve the article, which should be the goal. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Isn't it at all strange that people have asserted that the citations don't even discuss All About Eve, when one of them was an entire chapter of a book that was about the film? Yes, there definitely are some points that haven't been addressed, many of them based on such an absurd foundation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.96.67 (talk) 06:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess you still didn't look at the American Cold War Culture citation, since you used the citation needed tag in the article for the sentence about the film's homophobia. Here is the name of the citation, again, for future reference. American Cold War Culture", Ch. 2 – Gender and Sexuality – All about the Subversive Femme – Cold War Homophobia in All About Eve. If that isn't clear enough to negate a citation needed after a statement that the film has been said to have homophobia, I'm not sure what is. How many citations is it going to take to demonstrate that critics have discussed the film's politics, including homosexuality and homophobia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.96.67 (talk) 07:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Two more citations added, one is a journal article from Duke and the other is another chapter of a book about the film, specifically its lesbian and gay content. Note that the author matter-of-factly refers "to gay gossip columnist Addison de Witt" on page 209. I welcome condensation of the Politics section, if anyone is so inclined. However, note that greater space is devoted in many articles to subjects that are of less relevance to the general public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.96.67 (talk) 08:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I made a few edits to the section, which I tried to describe in the edit summary. If a sentence mentions the actor, last name is preferable ("Davis and Baxter received Academy Award nominations"), but for characters that formality isn't necessary ("Margo grew to hate Eve"). I left the references intact but just shortened the cite method. A few sentences got swept out, including the one about de Kooning that didn't seem to have anything to do with the movie. I also tried to reword a few of the sentences and make them less absolute. Look, I can tell that you believe what you've written, but not everyone does. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox where everybody takes turns standing up and trying to get noticed by saying something unique. It's about consensus-building. There's a huge difference between "Despite its homophobia" and "Despite what some critics have described as the film's homophobia", because the first assumes that homophobia in the film is a given, like 2+2=4. Just because a few references support this charge doesn't make it fact, and the accusation of homophobia (like racism, discrimination, etc) is a POV in-your-face charge that puts people on the defensive. The addition of Roger Ebert is a step in the right direction, but IMHO it's still too much undue weight on the gay theme. I stopped myself from deleting too much, but not because I think all of that belongs there. Ideally, I believe the gay subtext read into the film could fit into a single medium-sized paragraph (and, again, that's assuming this section even belongs in the article, which I'm not sold on). Other paragraphs could expand upon the ageism or whatever other themes critics have discussed. I could keep trimming, but I want to give you an opportunity to condense, shorten and summarize your thoughts. What about the book somebody mentioned earlier on this talk page, All About All About Eve? I haven't read it, but it may back up some of your points or explore some of the other themes that have been read into the film. In the next few days I'll try to find some references to expand the ageism paragraph. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The final paragraph in this section has been expanded and referenced, and if this section does wind up remaining a part of the article I hope it reads as a bit more NPOV now. Since A) nobody came along to condense "the four paragraphs"; B) it's been a week since the last comment on this talk page; and C) the anonymous IP address that keeps inserting said paragraphs mentioned above that s/he welcomes condensation of the section, I trimmed it down to two paragraphs. Again, I think it could all fit into one paragraph, so maybe somebody will come along soon and read the whole thing with a fresh set of eyes. That may be the best thing for the long-term sustainability and eventual improvement of the article as a whole, whether it includes this section or not. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 02:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Definition of terms
In the section 'Heterosexual marriage versus homosexuality and female agency' (which I agree, reading the old comments, needs to be trimmed down), I think a definition of terms would be extremely helpful, especially the term 'agency'. The section relies heavily on a few citations that employ technical sociological language with which the average reader is not going to be familiar. --Sephiroth9611 (talk) 14:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Collapsing collapsed navboxes
An editor recently put the three navboxes in this article into a collapsed navbox. I reverted with the comment that this was unnecessary. The original editor then reverted without explanation. I propose to restore the original three collapsed navboxes because making readers open a navbox to find out what navboxes are available seems to be hiding the ball. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I propose that you don't do that, because collapsing multiple navboxes within a shell is a fairly standard procedure, and the additional click is hardly onerous. So my suggestion is that you hold off until you have a consensus. (And, BTW, take a look at WP:LAME, because this could be a candidate; talk page stalkers are invited to look at WP:NAVHEAD, Butwhatdoiknow's single-editor essay proposing that navboxes should be slugged with yet another section header, which would appear to be the reason he opposes use of the navbox shell.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that, at some point, the number of navboxes becomes so large that putting them in a shell makes sense. But this article has only three navboxes. Why do you think this "fairly common" procedure - and the extra click it requires of readers - is appropriate in this case? (BTW, attacking me personally and speculating regarding my motivations does not help answer the question of whether it is a good idea to use a navbox shell in this particular article.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 11:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

In popular culture section
contained a host of trivial references to the film, many of which were only mention of the film's name in a single line of dialogue or a single reference to a character from the film. My edit consolidated the references to episodes and retained those where the episode plot significantly references the film as well as the notation about All About Eve (band), while also linking to the actual episode list article for those television programs ("All About Eva" from Gilligan's Island, 1966; "The New Sue Ann" from The Mary Tyler Moore Show, 1974; "All About Lisa" from The Simpsons, 2008 ) as well as the references that went along with two of the episodes.

While WP:IPC is an unofficial essay, the section should not contain references in which characters lament another is "a Latina Eve Harrington", comment "I've seen 'All About Eve'. Poooor Eve!" or "If Eve Harrington were an actual person today…", etc. AldezD (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to discuss the particulars of any item, if you would provide your specific objection to it, but the wholesale removal of IPC entries has been consistently rejected by the communtiy. BMK (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * My comments above are the specific objections. Meaningless references to the film in one line of dialogue do not belong in an IPC section. Did you read the version included in my edit? AldezD (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the television episodes were linked in my revision. The plots of the episodes referencing this film do not need to be re-typed in this article if it is already included in that television show's episode article. AldezD (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Why not? This is this article, not that article. BMK (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And I simply don't agree with your assessment that all of these are "trivial". IPS is an essay, and not one which has widespread support.  It's more of a mantra for the anti-popcult folks.  It sure as hell ain't WP:BRD. BMK (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In your reversion, you re-added a reference to All About Steve, which is merely a pun on this film's title. What exactly are you trying to accomplish? Your reversion did little more than re-add an indiscriminate collection of trivial references. AldezD (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * A single line of dialogue from a television show in which this film is referenced—which in no way is related to the plot of the episode or even a larger conversation about the film itself within the episode—is trivial. AldezD (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Trying to accomplish? All IPC sections have the same goal, to show the influence on the culture of the film.  That an unrelated film made almost 60 years later can use as its title a pun on All About Eve in an indication of how deeply the film is embedded in our collective psyche. BMK (talk) 18:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * A single line of dialogue is not an example of this film's influence. A pun is not an example of this film's influence. The references in my revision were more than appropriate to demonstrate this film's impact on popular culture. Why do you feel single lines of dialogue from television shows are appropriate for this section? AldezD (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, yes they both are exactly that. That these things can be done in a throw-away fashion is the ultimate proof that the film is deeply embedded, as the writer(s) simply assume that everyone will know what it being referred to. BMK (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * A throwaway line of dialogue is not something that should be included with IPC content. AldezD (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Since you have resorted to reporting me to the noticeboards on another unrelated matter, presumably as a tactic to get the upper hand in this discussion, I will not be responding to your comments here again. I will await the comments of other, unbiased, editors and see where the consensus falls. BMK (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The "throw-away/trivial" objection is based in a fundamental misunderstanding of the definition of pop culture. The objector should take a look at Warhol's Campbell's soup can painting and realize that the throw-away nature of the object in question was precisely the point. Pop art is about recontextualizing a seemingly trivial item from existing popular culture. That's exactly what TV and film lines referencing All About Eve are doing. Take the pop out of pop culture and then, yes, the lines qualify as trivial/throw-away. This person doesn't seem to understand that throw-away and trivial lines are lines that really could not be in a product without having any effect on it. That's clearly not the case for a reference to an icon of pop culture like this film. Perhaps removing "umm" from a character's dialogue might qualify. Writers include references to other pop culture icons for the opposite point of the lines being "throw-away". They include them because they want their audience to notice. If someone disrespects a pop culture product to the point of considering the lines its writers included because they wanted them to be important trivial/throw away it seems that person either has a problem respecting pop culture products or has a problem with the particular product in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.193.32 (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Third Opinion
A third opinion has been requested. Is there any specific In Popular Culture reference that is the subject of the question? If it has to be do with inclusion of the line "All About Steve", then I think that the pun is appropriate because it illustrates the importance with which this title is held in "popular culture". If that is the question, the request has been satisfied. If not, what is the question? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Specific references in question:
 * In the second season of Glee, Kurt Hummel calls his fellow glee club member Santana Lopez "a Latina Eve Harrington", after learning she is blackmailing a closeted jock into becoming her "beard" and running mate for Prom Queen and King.
 * In the first season of Will & Grace, Grace becomes dependent on a maid to give her a confidence boost during a design competition. This prompts her drunken assistant Karen to suspect a plot and she confronts the maid, exclaiming "I've seen 'All About Eve'. Poooor Eve!"
 * In the pilot episode of Political Animals, when Susan suspects Georgia, a fellow reporter, has a crush on her boyfriend and is attempting to outshine her at the newspaper, she says, "If Eve Harrington were an actual person today, she would look like Georgia. She would bake cupcakes, and she would have a blog."
 * In the Alex Holdridge's film In Search of a Midnight Kiss, Vivian, an amateur actress played by Sara Simmonds, says to Wilson, played by Scoot McNairy: "I just don't think people out here have the raw ambition that I do". And he replies: "You are a real All About Eve".
 * The references above are all trivial and/or throw-away lines of dialogue. A laundry list of television episodes where characters say "Eve Harrington" or the film's title is listcruft trivia. The other items currently in the article ("All About Eva" from Gilligan's Island; "The New Sue Ann" from The Mary Tyler Moore Show; "All About Lisa" from The Simpsons; Pedro Almodóvar's film and All About Eve (band)) should stay as they are all significant references to the film. AldezD (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It now appears that this question involves multiple In Popular Culture references. If so, this question may be too multi-parted for Third Opinion.  I am leaving it up in case another editor can take care of it, but I would suggest requesting additional editors at WP:WikiProject Film.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "The references above are all trivial and/or throw-away lines of dialogue" Those lines are what make television shows and films work. I still quote "trivial and/or throw-away" lines from comedy made in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. Family members recognize them and quote them. I think you're forgetting the pop in pop culture. A Campbell's soup can was supposed to be trivial and throw-away. That's precisely why Warhol's painting mattered to people at the time. As for "listcruft" — all content is valuable to someone. Just because it doesn't interest you doesn't mean it shouldn't be included in an article. Perhaps Wikipedia should have an inline tabbed system so people can expand sections by clicking them open? There seems to be a widespread mistaken belief among so many editors of this site that more content is worse than less. Ever heard of the word encyclopedic? It does not have the connotation of Twitter. Also, the notion that a line is trivial and throw-away that references another pop culture item really fails. A throw-away/trivial line is one that is totally mundane, one that could be excised without making really any difference at all. The entire point of making active references to influential pop culture icons, like this film, is to get the audience to notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.193.32 (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on All About Eve. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130328133050/http://www.loc.gov/film/registry_titles.php to http://www.loc.gov/film/registry_titles.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on All About Eve. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.boxoffice.com/boxoffice_scr/boxoffice_dvd_result.asp?terms=12
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090202125847/http://honors.umd.edu/HONR269J//projects/hchunt/main.htm to http://www.honors.umd.edu/HONR269J/projects/hchunt/main.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

This entry is amazing, so I don't understand the controversy
After reading several critics' interpretation of the film's gay subtext, I was about to heap praise on this excellent entry when I made the mistake of reading comments about removing/reverting this section. A few points: This well-researched and -cited section gives the entry depth and helps viewers interpret the film. Even a casual viewer would see that there is more going on in "All About Eve" than just the plot. I also noticed several editors bristled at the idea their attempts to excise gay themes were homophobic. Curiously, few of them objected to feminist themes and the surrendering of female agency. So I'm not buying their "I'm-not-homophobic/some-of-my-best-friends-are-Bette-Davis-worshipping-homosexuals" drivel. I suspect the accusations of homophobia stung because they were true. Rather than getting defensive, editors should honestly examine their own prejudices to see if they're really capable of approaching controversial topics with a neutral point of view. Mostly I think this article is better than most wiki film entries because it offers abundant CONTEXT -- something sorely lacking in so many fan-boy entries. Maybe we'll never know all about "All About Eve", but this outstanding article comes pretty damn close and is a revelation. It's also an example of what film entries should aspire to. 🎥 Kinkyturnip (talk) 05:47, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You're commenting on a discussion which took place 8 years ago. and is now a dead letter since, obviously, you read the section. Not only that, but the comments almost entirely revolved around Wikipedia's standards for sourcing, and not about content per se. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that debates have a statute of limitations. Henceforth, I will refrain from commenting on any topic relating to anything more than 24 hours old, given the whiplash nature of our current president's governing style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinkyturnip (talk • contribs) 18:47, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Now you're just being silly. Here's an old saw for you: "Let sleeping dogs lie."  And here's a Wikipedia policy as well: WP:NOTAFORUM.. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Duly noted Kinkyturnip (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As the person who created the thematic content section (and had to literally fight to convince people that theme should actually exist in a film's page), I have written what I feel is an important response to the matters you have brought up. It is on your personal page. Put very simply, it wasn't just the existence of analysis relating to heterosexism that was under attack, it was originally the entire idea that films have thematic content (and the idea that they have politics). Hopefully, this article will evolve to regain its Politics section. All films are political and this one is very political. A film does not have to be Mr. Smith Goes to Washington to fit that bill. Yes, the existence of analysis related to the film's obvious and strong heterosexism was attacked later, also. It seems that the addition of softer, more superficial, analysis (e.g. Ebert's "universal type" and AllMovie) enabled the homophobia/heterosexism analysis to be retained. I have little doubt that, without that other analysis (which was, not coincidentally, moved to the top of the section) -- the "always irrelevant" gayness would have been excised again. It's not a bad thing, really, to start with the more superficial and work toward the deeper analysis, though. If people want to believe that the differing opinions in the section support the notion that the film really isn't highly invested in a heterosexist/homophobic dichotomy, at least they'll be able to read that analysis at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.193.32 (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)