Talk:The Lion in Winter (1968 film)

(moved from earlier article ) Never saw the film, so I came here. The sentences have too many clauses with too many facts. E.G.: Why do we need to know about Louis VII if he's never mentioned again in this article? Sentences should contain only new facts necessary for the paragraph, not later paragraphs. This is common in wikiped and should be addressed globally.

I'm guessing the comma here is incorrect: He makes a side deal with Eleanor for her freedom in return for Aquitaine, to be given to John.

I'm also guessing the deal was with the King, not the prisoner Eleanor, but I don't know.

I don't understand this: "After Richard leaves, Eleanor masochistically asks Henry to kiss Alais in front of her, and then looks on in horror as they perform a mock marriage ceremony. Having believed Henry's intentions, " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.194.226 (talk) 04:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Found this at another website. Something similar would make a great lead-in maybe short synopsis section. It's Christmas 1183, and King Henry II (Peter O'Toole) is planning to announce his successor to the throne. The jockeying for the crown, though, is complex. Henry has three sons and wants his boy Prince John (Nigel Terry) to take over. Henry's wife, Queen Eleanor (Katharine Hepburn), has other ideas. She believes their son Prince Richard (Anthony Hopkins) should be king. As the family and various schemers gather for the holiday, each tries to make the indecisive king choose their option. Follow that with a detailed plot section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.194.226 (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

RE: Anthony Hopkins
This article says that this is Anthony Hopkins:

"in his film debut"

What about "The White Bus" (1967)? Was 'Lion' filmed first? If not maybe it should say:

"in his major movie debut"

WikiDon 21:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Sir Anthony?
Also, re Anthony Hopkins, he wasn't knighted at the time this film was shot or released, so is it correct to say "Sir Anthony" in this context? Perhaps "Anthony Hopkins (later Sir Anthony)" if it's necessary at all? Rapscallion 19:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Longevity of Cast?
"One unusual note of trivia regarding the movie was the longevity of its cast. The film was made in 1968, yet no major cast member died until Katharine Hepburn in 2003, thirty five years later."

What's so unusual? With the exception of Hepburn, every other major cast member was well under 40 years of age when the film was made.
 * You may not feel this is unusual but it is apparently unique. I've asked around among knowledgable people and nobody can give an example of any other movie that had its entire cast alive thirty five years later.MK2 (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Chinon
Firstly, Chinon is not in Normandy, France. And secondly, saying "current day France" is idiomatically incorrect. It should either be Chinon, France, or Chinon, Loire Valley (present-day France). In my opinion it shouldn't say present-day France at all, because back in the time when the movie was set, the place was still called France. Before editing an article, you should do a little research. Chinon is absolutely not in Normandy, look at a map of France or Wikipedia's Chinon page, and the place was known as France at the time the movie was set. Jontveit

Gee, didn't realize the King of England made his home in France(!) (that it was a French fief a technicality). In fact Chinon was in Anjou, a part of the Angevin Empire, and Anjou (and Normandy) did not become a permanent part of France until after the Battle of Bouvines (1214) -- movie is set in 1183. I guess we could all do a little research. -- Stbalbach 16:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I was merely over-simplfying, because the region of France in the many years before and during the Hundred Years War was a very confusing place, with England owning regions of land here and there. My point was mainly that Chinon is not now, and never was, a part of Normandy. Jontveit

LGBT film?
Why is this a LGBT related film? trolleymusic 05:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Because Phil and Dickie were lovers. 60.230.44.199 02:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You mean the King of France and Richard Lionheart? if it is that relevant, why is it not mentioned in the article. It seems to be only mentioned in the article about the play, then perhaps it was written out? 98.206.155.53 (talk) 07:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Lion of Title
The article says the lion of the title is Eleanor of Acquitaine because the arms of Acquitaine had a lion and she was let out in winter. This is a personal opinion I believe - it could just as easily refer to Henry (arms of England; Henry is referred to in the film as "the lion" by Richard) in the winter of his life.

I believe this should either be clarified, supported, or removed. 205.234.12.14 (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fictitious in Nature
Whilst I do not doubt that The Lion in Winter is a case of art filling in the gaps of history, some of the supporting sentences in this paragraph are incorrect:

"The Lion in Winter is fictional: there was no Christmas Court at Chinon in 1183; there was a Christmas court at Caen in 1182; none of the dialogue and action is historical, though the outcomes of the characters and the background are historically accurate. In reality, Henry had many mistresses and many illegitimate children; the "Rosamund" mentioned in the film was Henry II's mistress until she died. The article on the Revolt of 1173–1174 describes the historical events leading to the play's events."

It's the "in reality" part. The movie let the viewer know that Rosamund was Henry's mistress (virtually, as she had been sent to a nunnery) until he died, so the "in reality" doesn't quite make sense. Secondly, the movie version of Henry at least admitted to numerous extramarital sexual relationships in the line, "In my time I've known contessas, milkmaids, courtesans and novices, whores, gypsies, jades, and little boys, but nowhere in God's western world have I found anyone to love but you."

The "in reality" part should be amended to something that tells the reader that the film did have some historical accuracies, though really this is not necessary at all. Anyone could guess that some things are historically accurate. If the other information in the paragraph is correct then let's just strike those two facts. MicheleFloyd (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Paden?
Just wondering what the Paden article is doing here. Is it the source for the general discussion or a particular point? 68.226.85.64 (talk) 05:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Inaccuracies
Not only is none of the dialogue or action historical but either for dramatic effect or from authorial ignorance both are also full of anachronisms. So the film manages to give a false picture of life in an Anjou castle in 1183.

--Hors-la-loi (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hors-la-loi: If you are still about, would you please discuss the anachronisms that you detected? I am very interested in the time period and the historical persons portrayed in the film. (As for "...dramatic effect or from authorial ignorance...", I would just point out that both the stage play and the screen play are works of fiction. Fiction is very stretchy; facts frequently bend this way and that for the sake of a good drama.) Thank you, I anticipate your reply. Wordreader (talk) 04:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

West Wing reference
Not sure if anyone is watching this page, but thought I'd mention it. This movie is referenced on The West Wing in S03E11 'H. Con-172' Toby quotes a line and refers to it as the president's favorite movie. Here's at least one source, although I'm not sure imdb is consdered reputable: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0745628/trivia?ref_=tt_trv_trv

I have no idea how to cite a TV show, and that may not be sufficient since the title of the movie is never mentioned. I also don't know if this is even notable enough to warrant mention in the article, or the addition of a cultural references section, so I thought I'd mention it. If no one responds, I'll throw it in. ThunderBacon (talk) 16:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to see it referenced. Crouchend524 (talk) 14:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)