Talk:Safe (1995 film)/Archive 1

NPOV
This paragraph has valid points but is inherently non-neutral: "In taking this approach to the material, Haynes makes good on his academic background in the theoretically-inflected field of art semiotics. But far from reading like a college essay,  [safe]  is an emotionally resonant exploration both of a single woman's struggles with illness and of a more pervasive zeitgeist of fear and alienation. Moore imbues the intentionally two-dimensional character of Carol White with naivete and tenderness." It needs fixing. Little help? Zepheus &lt;ツィフィアス&gt; 00:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I made a stab at editing and paring down some of the unnecessarily complicated sentences into simpler explanations. I also removed repeated summaries of the movie plot and MCS. Banzaiboy 06:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

1980s style
Am I the only one that thinks that, similar to "Far from heaven", the style of this movie was a very deliberate pastiche of 80's movies, particularly from directors like David Cronenberg and such, or was that just a personal impression? 惑乱 分からん 23:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well it was made in 95 but set in 87 so yes its supposed to be 'retro'- hence the frequent aerobics, and the perm.:)Merkinsmum 01:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Title: Safe or [safe]?
Even though the logo for Safe is indeed [safe] I wouldn't neccessarily say it's the the title of the film. Go to its imdb entry, and it's just Safe. The only place you see the brackets is on the movie posters and DVD cover. So I think that little disclaimer is unneccessary. It's like spelling Sopranos with a gun as the "r." Besides, if you go by the logo, it's actually [SAFE], not [safe]. But that's beside the point.

If anyone is adamant about [safe], discuss it here, if not I'll take it down shortly.

For what it's worth, the opening credits state the title as '[SAFE]'. Krevans 04:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing last paragraph
I removed the last paragraph in the "story" section, because it seems to lack perspective. As you can read by visiting one of the sources for this article, http://www.othervoices.org/2.3/jgrossman/, the ending is *not* a simple matter of the character getting better and "removing toxins" from her body. The movie (and its ironic treatment of the "retreat") implies that while the character has gotten better physically, mentally she has regressed even further. It would be acceptable if the last paragraph left the "moral of the story" or the "ending" up in the air, because that's how the movie leaves the character's fate. The film implies that the MCS the character suffers is as much mental and emotional, as it is physical, so to only claim the ending is about her purifying her body... causes readers to miss the point. 98.196.202.92 22:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)