Talk:Metropolitan (1990 film)/Archive 1

Untitled
Could the plot synopsis get (1) any more pretentious, and (2) worse written? Besides being an attempt at erudition (and failing miserably) it is just plain incoherent in places.


 * I concur and am removing it. --dm (talk) 05:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Speculation about timeframe
I'm removing the analysis about when the film takes place simply because it is analysis. A simpler explanation is that Stillman clearly intended the film to not be of any particular time and the film intentionally evokes many eras in NYC history. In any event analysis is analysis and doesn't belong in this article. --D. Monack | talk 01:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring on Plot by IP posted on IP Talk page is being ignored
The Talk page of the user has been posted for edit warring and the User has refused to start Talk in spite of multiple requests. IP editor has made a bold edit to Plot which has been reverted under BRD. My revert restored the old version of the section which should stand until consensus is reached. Further comments on this issue should be kept here on the Talk page at Metopolitan. FelixRosch  ( TALK ) 17:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This page has been dormant for some time before I edited it. Not every single edit on Wiki requires a discussion beforehand, especially to delete poorly written information on a low-importance article. You have offered nothing in the way of criticism on the improved information other than you don't like the fact that it was changed without your approval. Your user page shows a history of disciplinary issues with other Wiki articles and a difficulty getting along with other editors. Unless you can provide a cogent reason for why the actual content of the rewrites done to the article over the past week shouldn't be posted, you have no basis for maintaining the old, poorly written, summary.76.31.249.221 (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please acknowledge that I am the one who initiated Talk discussion. FelixRosch   ( TALK ) 16:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't a game of one-upsmanship, unless you want it to be; in that case, you need to be reported to Wiki editors for abuse. This is about the integrity of an article. Now please provide your reasons for wanting to delete the complete, coherent plot synopsis. The current version is rife with grammatical and syntactical errors which renders it cluttered and confusing.76.31.249.221 (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Felix, please try and understand: The version that another user and myself (I do admit that I am two of the anonymous editors; my IP changes randomly, though I don't know why) are to restore is, quite simply, better written than the version you are so passionately trying to protect. There is quite simply nothing good about it. It is incomplete, badly written, and much of it, as the other anonymous editor has pointed out, appears to be written by someone with a poor grasp of English. If this is something you wrote, I respect that you want your work to stand, but from any objective viewpoint, it's bad writing, and a bad summarization of the film. Also, even after the other editor tried to engage you at the talk page, your only response was the somewhat childish "acknowledge me." Nothing that you've done has helped the Metropolitan article; it's simply resulted in a lot of complaints and emphasis on the bureaucratic procedures of Wikipedia, without improving the page content. I'll echo the other editor: If you feel that the version you want to protect is superior, explain why. Others have given their reasons against it; you've still failed to give rational support FOR it.2601:E:2000:1A3:49D5:DC30:ED1F:507F (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:TALKDONTREVERT states "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines."
 * The relevant guidelines are discussed at WP:PLOTSUM.
 * Reviewing the arguments:
 * FelixRosch presented no argument regarding the content.
 * User:76.31.249.221 argued that the old version was "poorly written."
 * User:2601:E:2000:1A3:49D5:DC30:ED1F:507F argued that the new version is better written, and the old version is "incomplete," " badly written," and "a bad summarization of the film."
 * My argument, which I present here, is that the new plot summary better describes the plot of the film, provides a better foundation for commentary, is better English prose, better fulfills the guidelines at WP:PLOTSUM, and serves to improve the article.
 * If FelixRosch, or any other editors, would like to make an argument for the old version of the plot, or write/edit an improved new version, that would certainly be welcome (it would be nice if you'd mention whether you've actually seen the movie recently.) But, as of this point, the consensus - based on quality of arguments - is for the new version of the plot. Fearofreprisal (talk) 04:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I recently watched the film, and came here to learn more about it, and was surprised to find the incomplete plot summary, which spurred my editorial efforts.2601:E:2000:1A3:5E:57F1:A29D:5E89 (talk) 05:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

New section recap of IP-editor edits at Metropolitan (1990 film)
To editors: @Fearofreprisal, @CambridgeBayWeather, @Callanecc, @EdJohnston; This is a short attempt to try to summarize the windstorm that took place on my account during the last week, by a new editor requesting that all of us be polite and welcoming to a new user, and who was elsewhere filing multiple ANI reports against my account and forum shopping against my account. The following is the short list of sequential edits (in "collapsed" format) made against my account by this new IP-editor while expecting other editors to be polite and welcoming. Several other editors asked for the new IP-editor to withdraw the multiple ANI reports and to stop forum shopping, which were ignored by the new IP-editor. To my knowledge only one other editor had previously gone to this degree of edit warring and forum shopping against my account:

23:29, 22 December 2014 (diff | hist). . (+508)‎ . . User talk:76.31.249.221 ‎ (→‎December 2014)

23:26, 22 December 2014 (diff | hist). . (+505)‎ . . User talk:Robert McClenon ‎ (→‎User FelixRosch)

19:27, 22 December 2014 (diff | hist). . (+4)‎ . . User talk:Robert McClenon ‎ (→‎User FelixRosch)

19:25, 22 December 2014 (diff | hist). . (+929)‎ . . Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→‎Abuse by user FelixRosch)

19:23, 22 December 2014 (diff | hist). . (+839)‎ . . User talk:76.31.249.221 ‎ (→‎December 2014)

19:23, 22 December 2014 (diff | hist). . (+979)‎ . . User talk:Robert McClenon ‎ (→‎User FelixRosch: new section)

19:19, 22 December 2014 (diff | hist). . (+336)‎ . . Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→‎Abuse by user FelixRosch)

18:00, 22 December 2014 (diff | hist). . (+258)‎ . . User talk:FelixRosch ‎ (→‎Report: new section)

18:00, 22 December 2014 (diff | hist). . (+1,204)‎ . . Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→‎Abuse by user FelixRosch: new section)

17:50, 22 December 2014 (diff | hist). . (+495)‎ . . Talk:Metropolitan (1990 film) ‎ (→‎Edit warring on Plot by IP posted on IP Talk page is being ignored)

17:47, 22 December 2014 (diff | hist). . (+173)‎ . . User talk:CambridgeBayWeather ‎ (→‎Metropolitan (1990 film) edit war)

18:48, 18 December 2014 (diff | hist). . (+93)‎ . . Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring ‎ (→‎User:FelixRosch reported by User:76.31.249.221 (Result: ))

18:48, 18 December 2014 (diff | hist). . (+404)‎ . . User talk:FelixRosch ‎ (→‎Edit warring at Metropolitan (1990 film))

18:47, 18 December 2014 (diff | hist). . (+1,610)‎ . . Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring ‎

18:31, 18 December 2014 (diff | hist). . (+1,357)‎ . . Metropolitan (1990 film) ‎ (Please provide reasons why you find the new content of the article inferior to the old, incomplete summary.)

18:30, 18 December 2014 (diff | hist). . (+818)‎ . . Talk:Metropolitan (1990 film) ‎ (→‎Edit warring on Plot by IP posted on IP Talk page is being ignored)

16:44, 18 December 2014 (diff | hist). . (+5)‎ . . Metropolitan (1990 film) ‎ (→‎Plot)

16:42, 18 December 2014 (diff | hist). . (+702)‎ . . User talk:FelixRosch ‎ (→‎Edit warring at Sigmund Freud)

16:35, 18 December 2014 (diff | hist). . (+800)‎ . . User talk:Callanecc ‎ (→‎Formatting question)

16:26, 18 December 2014 (diff | hist). . (+1,352)‎ . . Metropolitan (1990 film) ‎ (Restoring summary. Your talk page demonstrates a history of disruptive behavior and unwarranted edits to articles. Please stop reverting or I will file a complaint with the appropriate Wiki editors.)

19:43, 17 December 2014 (diff | hist). . (+1,352)‎ . . Metropolitan (1990 film) ‎ (Restoring better summary... There's no need to seek consensus to change bad writing on a low-importance article)

It appears odd to me that the first account appealed to for help by the new IP-editor was User:Callanecc prior to filing the first ANI being placed against my account within 2 hours on that same day by the new IP-editor. The only other editor who has been edit warring against my account has been User:Moxy for the past several months, and who at the same time has presented himself on this Talk page as an uninvolved "samaritan" wanting to help. Before this, User:Moxy had just finishing edit warring on my edits for the Wikipedia article for Freud by making an ambiguous request for page protection of the Freud article which was granted on the request board by User:Callanecc, and possibly to gain favor from User:Callanecc for other reasons. Now that the dynamic IP-editor has implanted the Metropolitan edit with help from @Fearofreprosal and @CambridgeBayWeather, and the forum shopping ANIs against my account are archived, User:Moxy has started again edit warring against my account on the page for Lawrence Weiskrantz by making false claims of copyright issues for an edit I wrote (my edit fully used quote marks, attributed the author of the quote, and provided a link and url for the source of the material). If someone could piece this together in a rational way, it would be helpful to me since my account has gone through a windstorm during this last week of editing here. It appears that User:Callanecc was intentionally given mis-stated reports for the private reasons of these other editors. User:Moxy has separately been edit warring against my edits on the following Wikipedia pages for several months: Romeo and Juliet, Music, Wikipedia, Law, Lawrence Weiskrantz, etc.

As for my edit on this page for the Plot section of Metropolitan (1990 film), my own view was that both versions were written, at best, as start class or stub class quality, neither of which was worthy of the film. The previous version was however more stable and did not include the bias of selectively highlighting some characters as more likable than others, which is against Wikipedia neutrality guidelines. It would likely be best at this time if both versions were deleted, and possibly a Wikipedia editor from one of Whit Stillman's (the director's) other 3 movies maintained on Wikipedia could be invited to rewrite the plot here to a full B-class or C-class article as part of a page upgrade process. For now, the Plot section might best be served by deleting it until a neutral editor writes a better plot summary for the film which is presently at Start class. My summary above is for the sake of the good-faith editors who became involved in this edit and may have been led to misunderstand what the dynamic IP-editor was doing here while forum shopping elsewhere. FelixRosch  ( TALK ) 18:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Much of what you write above (everything but the last paragraph) seems not to have to do with improving the article, and may be out-of-place here on the talk page.
 * Regarding the plot summary:
 * I think the new version is better than the old version. A couple of other editors do too. That's consensus for the moment (until it changes.)
 * If you'd like to improve it, that'd be great.
 * If you'd like to invite someone else to improve it, that'd be great too.
 * If you'd like to delete it, you'd need to get consensus that doing so would actually improve the article. WP community consensus strongly favors improving content over deleting it.
 * If you'd like to do an RfC, mediation, or any other dispute resolution on any of the above, that'd be fine.
 * Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * @Fearofreprisal; Thanks for your comments. The conduct of the IP-editor was an issue which impeded others and myself from being able to edit the article in a constructive way. Your previous edits appear to have asked the IP-editor to settle down, which the IP-editor ignored and did not do. Since most of the editors participating here with their comments did not see the film, here is the list of plot and character distortions introduced in the presently posted Plot section: (1) There is no use of the phrase "gang-rape" in the entire film, this is a distortion of the plot and the entire film does not even mention the word "rape" one single time, (2) The characterization of the leading character Tom as "Middle-class" is false and never used in the movie to describe Tom by anyone in the film, it is the IP-editor's bias alone, (3) The character of "Nick Smith, a cynical dandy" is not used anywhere in the film and no-one uses the word "dandy" a single time in the film to describe him, it is the IP bias alone, (4) The character of "Audrey, the shy girl" is the invention of the IP bias again since no-one in the film calls her this, (5) The character of "Charlie, a soft-spoken" is again the invention of the IP bias, since no-one in the film calls him "soft-spoken" a single time in the entire film, (6) The character "Von Slonecher, a young European aristocrat" is another bias and distortion since he is an American with an American accent throughout the film of noble ancestary, again the IP-bias, (7) The character described as "Nick alienates himself" is a distortion of bias by the IP again with the "alienation" not being a comment made by anyone in the entire film, and (8) "Walking" back to Manhattan from the Hamptons is not a possibility in the film which is several hours driving by car from Manhattan. The current plot summary should be removed as lacking competence to express a neutral rendering of the Plot, and the invention of a "rape" theme or reference in the plot summary is tasteless and an invented insertion by the IP since the word is never used in the film. Delete this Plot summary if you care about accuracy at Wikipedia or at least mark it as highly suspect if you are still defending the IP-editor as someone deserving of "being polite and welcoming to new editors." FelixRosch   ( TALK ) 17:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

A number of sources describe "Nick Smith" as a "dandy". I would suggest actually searching for (independent reliable) sources before dismissing the IP's suggestions as OR. If I was going to write a synopsis of a film, I would look at professionally written plot summaries first, and I would look at as many as possible. James500 (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm completely uninterested in listening to you complain about other editors' conduct. Let's stick to content, OK?
 * I did just a little bit of googling (just like James500), and I quickly found reviews that use a number of the terms that you have objected to.
 * I'll do a bit more work, and then look at the plot summary with fresh eyes, and see if I can help clean it up.
 * Possibly you could spend a little bit of effort in helping to clean it up too? Fearofreprisal (talk) 04:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The cast in other media
If I recall correctly, members of the cast appeared in a fashion spread in The New York Times Magazine. BambangP 04:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Headlines

 * Down and Out on Park Ave
 * Rich and Poor in One World of Film
 * Metropolitan Chronicles Preppy Angst
 * Whit Stillman interview
 * to use with this article.--J.D. (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Details about the characters
The interesting details about the characters were added on 23 Dec 2010 by Carlson288. Unfortunately no citation is given for this information and I cannot find the information in the movie or elsewhere. At the very least, citations are needed. If none are forthcoming, I suggest removing the additions as unverifiable. (Several similar situations are noted on Carlson288's user page, suggesting that the user is in the habit of making edits without citations. At best, this is lack of rigor; at worst, it could amount to making up facts out of thin air. Not calling the user a liar, just pointing out that without cites, it's possible.) Jedwards01 (talk) 06:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Updates to plot summary
I just watched the movie again, taking notes to improve the plot summary. Here are some direct responses to FelixRosch's criticisms:


 * 1) There is no use of the phrase "gang-rape" in the entire film, this is a distortion of the plot and the entire film does not even mention the word "rape" one single time – See movie, 45:45. “When Von Sloneker had gotten her blind drunk one night, he talked her into pulling a train.” See Pulling a train, which references “gang rape.” The implication in the film, which includes the elements that the woman was drunk at the time, and thereafter committed suicide, is that it was a gang rape. The use of the term is hardly “tasteless.” It is descriptive.
 * 2) The characterization of the leading character Tom as "Middle-class" is false and never used in the movie to describe Tom by anyone in the film, it is the IP-editor's bias alone – The film makes it clear that Tom is formerly upper-class, and currently middle-class. It does this both through the scenes set in his mother's apartment, and through his conversations with other members of the Rat Pack (e.g., see movie 54:54). The class difference between Tom and the Rat Pack is key to the plot of the movie, and to suggest that the characterization is false is ridiculous.
 * 3) The character of "Nick Smith, a cynical dandy" is not used anywhere in the film and no-one uses the word "dandy" a single time in the film to describe him, it is the IP bias alone – the film's script shows Nick to be both cynical and a dandy, and, as has been pointed out earlier, film critics have specifically noted this. (Cinema of Outsiders: The Rise of American Independent Film, by Emanuel Levy, p 199 )
 * 4) The character of "Audrey, the shy girl" is the invention of the IP bias again since no-one in the film calls her this – Again, the film portrays her as shy, and this is a central feature of her crush on Tom. And, again, film critics have described her as shy. (Jane Austen and Co.: Remaking the Past in Contemporary Culture, edited by Suzanne R. Pucci, James Thompson, p. 254 )
 * 5) The character of "Charlie, a soft-spoken" is again the invention of the IP bias, since no-one in the film calls him "soft-spoken" a single time in the entire film – The film does show him as soft-spoken, but it might be better to describe him as “overly philosophical but romantically frustrated.” (Cinema of Outsiders: The Rise of American Independent Film by Emanuel Levy, p 199)
 * 6) The character "Von Sloneker, a young European aristocrat" is another bias and distortion since he is an American with an American accent throughout the film of noble ancestary, again the IP-bias – See movie, 15:50, where Nick refers to Rick Von Sloneker as “titled aristocracy,” and 1:06:40, where von Sloneker says he is a baron (i.e., European aristocracy). Incidentally, the film does not ever say he is American.
 * 7) The character described as "Nick alienates himself" is a distortion of bias by the IP again with the "alienation" not being a comment made by anyone in the entire film – The scenes show the alienation in the reactions of some of the other characters. (e.g., see movie 1:08:35) It is a significant factor in Nick leaving Manhattan.
 * 8) "Walking" back to Manhattan from the Hamptons is not a possibility in the film which is several hours driving by car from Manhattan – Yet, this is exactly what the last scene of the movie shows: the characters walking towards Manhattan.)

You've talked quite a lot about the “IP-editor's bias” – but your complaints about the plot summary appear, for the most part, either poorly founded, or outright mistaken. The “IP editor”, who you seem to dislike so much, actually did a pretty decent job of writing a plot summary. No, it's not perfect, and yes, it does need some improvement. So, I'm posting an updated version. If you would like to add your own improvements, please feel free. Fearofreprisal (talk) 09:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * @Fearofreprisal; Your taking the time to do such an extensive rewrite of the previous version needs to be noted in some way at this New Year. My remaining comment will note that your Talk page comments were even stronger in parts here than your extensive rewrite in the Article. Your comment on the Talk page that Tom is an East side Aristocrat who becomes subject to a change of fortune following the unfortunate divorce of his parents is more accurate than calling him "Middle-class" in the Plot summary. He was invited to the Metropolitan Ball because of his previous East side high-class ties, not because of his set-back following the divorce. The short Themes section on the page is to support the noted scholars whom you cited on this Talk Page. FelixRosch   ( TALK ) 19:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Nice job on the themes section. Definitely adds to the article. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Felix, you realize that, by your standards, a synopsis of The Godfather could not call the Corleones gangsters or Mafioso, since neither of those words actually appear in the film?76.31.249.221 (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I am changing the use of the term "set piece" to "dialogue" to more accurately represent what occurs in the film. If I recall correctly I am the author who originally used "set piece" and realize now that it is an inaccurate term; per its article here, a set piece is "an elaborate sequence which sees a chase, fight, or other action taking place in an original and memorable way". I am replacing it with dialogues, "a literary and theatrical form consisting of a written or spoken conversational exchange between two or more people."76.31.249.221 (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Uncited paragraph -- moved here from body text
This paragraph was added in 2010 and is and was completely uncited. I can't find verification of it anywhere, even though Stillman seems to have given a number of print interviews. So I'm placing the paragraph here until such time as someone finds a reliable citation for it: "Stillman has said the movie is based on events from his life in late 1970, while he was living with his divorced mother in Washington, D.C. While on Christmas break during his first year at Harvard University, he met a group of like-minded college students from various schools. Each night, he and his new friends attended a formal ballroom dance party at a hotel or convention hall, and then retired to an after-hours gathering at one of the students' parents' houses in nearby Georgetown, where they spent the remainder of the night talking, debating and discussing a wide range of topics. As in the movie, this nightly ritual ended just after New Year's Day, when Stillman and the rest of the group returned to their respective schools."

-- Softlavender (talk) 04:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Christmas film or no
It appears my edit to the article was changed roughly two months after I added the Christmas film categories. It has been published in the media that Metropolitan is a Christmas film.


 * Article from Vulture
 * Article from Refinery29

Whit Stillman has stated the film as a Christmas movie on his Twitter and his personal website showing references to Christmas in the film. It has about the same amount of Christmas references as other films such as Die Hard and Trading Places. Both having a Christmas film category in their article. FunksBrother (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The two independent citations actually refute the notion that it's a Christmas movie. And Stillman's tweet and stills don't make it a Christmas movie. Please see WP:NONDEFINING. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)