Talk:Private Benjamin (1980 film)

Fair use rationale for Image:Private benjamon.jpg
Image:Private benjamon.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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

What's it got to do with Judaism?
It's a light comedy, with a pretty strong feminist theme, I guess, especially for 1980 I guess. The main character is American. And yeah, she has Jewish parents; they're also wealthy. So that makes her Jewish. And she sleeps with this guy, and the clincher for her is that he's Jewish. He's also French, though. And rich. And then she almost marries him, but she doesn't because he's a three-timing paternalistic shmuck.

So it's about an American woman who joins the Army, does very well in a rollicking bumbling way, is sexually harassed by her commanding officer, meets a guy, has to leave the Army to be with him, and repeatedly discovers her own power and breaks through paternalistic barriers to actualize herself. And she happens to be Jewish. There's no religion in it, no religious issues that I can see; it takes place in Mississippi and Paris. There's no anti-Semitism in it. When she (almost) gets married she doesn't have a conference with a rabbi or anything, she just goes ahead and (almost) does it. She doesn't show any sign of having issues or problems related to her religion; it's all about the women's issues. And maybe a little about class; her family doesn't approve of her joining the Army, because they're you know, class. Rich.

Is every movie with a Jewish main character a movie about Jewish issues? If she was Catholic would it qualify for a section on Catholic something or other? If she happened to be black would it qualify for a section on African-American studies? I think this should probably be taken out of that category. I don't understand what it's doing there in the first place.Wood Monkey 23:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurodog (talk • contribs)


 * The opening wedding scene is Jewish, the funeral was Jewish, incidentally the actress is Jewish, but this is a morality tale about crying, straightening yourself out and being a better Jew after the drinking, sex and maybe some of the money runs out. But the poster above is right, it could have been about joining the Army and being a better Catholic too: wedding, death, no more drinking and sex, crying, sobering up and pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps and voila a happily ever after ending. Shalom/Peace be with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.153.25.194 (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Propaganda
When was joining the army cool (again) in a comedic sort of way? Well, when Reagan was elected and Hollywood got to work. "Stripes", 'Private Benjamin" et. al were partly films about making the military seem a bit more interesting than it might have been just a few years earlier at the end of the Vietnam war. This went along with the consensus that Russia needed to be defeated, now more than ever, since the economy was never going to be better for most people. Chuck Norris and Stallone were going to be in the theaters next.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.153.25.194 (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)