Talk:Reds (film)

This was the last major Hollywood film released with an Intermission
Can someone say Titanic? -G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.142.44 (talk) 05:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation
This needs to be at Reds (film). There is no way that the two sports teams are any less notable. Reds should be a disambiguation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narrasawa (talk • contribs) 04:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Robert Penn Warren in the movie?
OK, it has been many years since I wore out the VHS tape from air of Reds that I obtained in college. But I watched it over and over both before and after I interviewed Robert Penn Warren while I was an undergrad at Vanderbilt. And I came away from watching it convinced that Warren was one of the interviewees. Neither IMDB nor Wikipedia has this. I'm going to get the new DVD and see whether it sheds any light.

Anyone else have any insight?

-Tom Tom Wood 05:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Critical Response?
Why is the only critical response a negative review? The movie currently holds a 94% percent on Rotten Tomatoes and 7.4 on imdb.com, putting this one reviewer (her strong reputation aside) in the small (6%) minority. I have not watched the movie myself, so I don't feel equipped to edit, but someone should correct what seems to be a case of a biased writer.

-JD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.108.232.74 (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Apart from anything else, Kael is simply one reviewer (however exalted) out of scores of eminent film reviewers. There is no earthly reason to include extended text from her subjective review over the subjective review of other writers supportive or otherwise of the film. If there are to be reviews - quote from a variety of reviews and reflect the balance between positive and negative reviews by major critics that the film received. Davidpatrick (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't the project to build up material, from many contributions - I added Kael's criticism because I'd read it, I didn't have any other reviews. It seems to me intelligent hands and minds could have edited it down if it was too much and then other , wholly positive critical reviews placed alongside. Just to slash and burn, is that the point?. seems dumbass to me, just my point of view. Sayerslle (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Reed vs. Goldman
I think this scene summarizes the whole film concisely. It's been quoted by WP:RSs, and it's short enough to be fair use. I'd like to put it in.


 * Emma Goldman: Jack, we have to face it. The dream that we had is dying. If Bolshevism means the peasants taking the land, the workers taking the factories…then Russia’s one place where there is no Bolshevism.


 * The Soviets have no local autonomy. The central state has all the power. All the power is in the hands of a few men and they are destroying the revolution. They are destroying any hope of real communism in Russia. They are putting people like me in jail. My understanding of revolution is not a continual extermination of political dissenters, and I want no part of it. Every single newspaper has been shut down or taken over by the Party. Anyone even vaguely suspected of being a counter-revolutionary can be taken out and shot without a trial. Where does it end? Is any nightmare justifiable in the name of defense against counter-revolution? The dream may be dying in Russia, but I’m not. It may take some time, but I’m getting out.


 * John Reed: You sound like you’re a little confused about the revolution in action…up until now you’ve only dealt with it in theory. What did you think this thing was going to be? A revolution by consensus where we all sat down and agreed over a cup of coffee?


 * Emma Goldman: Nothing works! Four million people died last year. Not from fighting war, they died from starvation and typhus in a militaristic police state that suppresses freedom and human rights where nothing works!


 * John Reed: They died because of a French, British and American blockade that cut off all food and medical supplies, and because counterrevolutionaries sabotaged the factories, the railroads and telephones, and because the people—the poor, ignorant, superstitious, illiterate people—are trying to run things themselves, just like you always said they should, but they don’t know how to run them yet! Did you honestly think things were going to work right away? Did you honestly expect social transformation to be anything other than a murderous process? It’s a war, EG! We’ve got to fight it like we fight a war: with discipline, with terror, with firing squads, or we can just give it up!


 * Emma Goldman: Those four million didn’t die fighting a war. They died from a system that cannot work!


 * John Reed: It’s just the beginning, EG. It’s not happening like we thought it would, it’s not happening the way we wanted it to, but it is happening. If you walk out on it now, what does your whole life mean?

--Nbauman (talk) 18:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Plot wrong
I just watched the movie and decided to send a friend here. I read the plot, and it does not match the movie at all after the intermission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:199:480:4081:8C17:37D6:1928:7E14 (talk) 05:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The line "Reed becomes involved in labor strikes with the "Reds" of the Communist Labor Party of America." is incorrect. Should read ""Reds" of the Industrial Workers of the World." The labor organizers are handing out IWW leaflets. The creation of the CLA is covered later in the movie and post dates the labor organizing shown at that point in the movie. 2601:406:4C01:F360:C0C2:B319:F7DC:7A67 (talk) 21:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

What is 'spotted typhus'?
Was Reed ill with 'spotted fever'? Or typhus? There are three kinds of typhus caused by three different kinds of bacteria. Spotted fever is caused by another kind of bacteria. keenuck (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)