Talk:The Red Shoes (1948 film)

Nonsense
The last sentence does not make any sense to me. A verb is missing ? (68.165.99.171)


 * Which sentence is that then? They all seem to make sense to me. SteveCrook 20:34, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * Made sense to me too, but I added a helpful comma. Jihg 20:57, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Was Vicky "forced" to dance? SteveCrook 22:15, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Reviews
"When it was first previewed a lot of ballet critics (in the UK and in the USA) wrote very good reviews about it, pleased to see ballet portrayed so well on screen. But when they realised that it was universally popular their reviews suddenly became quite dismissive of the film." A particular pair of quotes would make this sound less foolish. But perhaps there aren't any, and this just should be true, because critics are simply like that. --Wetman 19:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It is true. But you're right, I should find some examples. SteveCrook 04:06, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * I edited this part to fit the sources given. A newspiece from a single critic, written "while the film was being made", isn't close to the first sentence written above.


 * Aside from that, even if you could prove that there was a glut of positive reviews on release, followed by a lot of negative reviews once it became popular, this doesn't necessarily justify the second sentence. Feeling like you are in the minority can intensify your opinion of something, and if it is inescapable then that can make you resent it. Additionally, if a film is hyped up before you see it, the high expectations might mean that you are judging it to a higher standard. This doesn't mean that their criticisms aren't genuine, or that they were dismissing it out of hand, because it was popular. I liked the film but I agreed with some of the points in the reviews, although others were quite preposterous. Anyway, just because they didn't like a classic doesn't mean that their opinions are invalid. Conradteixeira (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Plot hole
Artihcus022 added a paragraph: ''Interestingly, Vicky's jump from the terrace and subsequent death is a result of a rather obvious plot hole as noted by critic Roger Ebert in his great movie review. When Vicky runs down the stairs, the ballet had not yet started and her character within the ballet only acquires the shoes during it. Therefore, there was no logical reason for her wearing the red shoes before the ballet begins.'' As it says in that review, this was noted by, but not discovered by Ebert. Powell and Pressburger themselves discussed it (with the rest of the crew) as have many other people since then. Powell insisted that it was artistically right for Vicky to be wearing the shoes when she jumped. The reason why doesn't really matter too much. And there could be reasons why. She might have just been wearing them to check the fit or to break them in before using them for that performance. It was a one-off performance and she hadn't worn them for a performance for some time. So I don't think it can really be called a plot hole. If she isn't wearing the red shoes then they can't be considered as a possible reason why she jumped (or did she fall?) -- SteveCrook 21:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I knew fully well that it was an artistic decision by Powell and Pressburger. I just figured that people would click on the link and see the truth. I couldn't find a way to fit it in completely with the facts but yeah if you can do that'd be fine. But it is a plot hole. I loved the movie but it it isn't the first classic film with one. The Big Sleep also has one. There is no logical reason for Vicky to wear the shoes before the dance begins as she only acquires it during the first part of the performance within the film.

Does Vicky die?
Is it absolutely certain that she actually dies? Terrible injuries like having her legs crushed or severed would explain why she would never dance again. Unsigned comment by 24.39.163.114


 * I asked the same question quite a few years ago. It's not absolutely certain. But at the Unanswered Questions page about P&P films I put the same question and one of the members of our email group responded: The French doctor says, "Nul espoir" - "No hope" - to Julian. And the symbolism means she must die when the shoes are taken off, like her character in the ballet. When she asks Julian to take off the shoes, it means she wants to let go of life in the same way as in the ballet scene with Ivan as the minister. It's also implicit in the way Boris corrects himself to speak of her in the past tense when he introduces the ballet. Were she still alive, however injured, she would still be spoken of in the present tense. -- SteveCrook 17:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, they never perform a ballet with a spotlight on the empty area where the lead dancer would be unless that dancer has died. --Bluejay Young (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought the doctor said "Pas d'espoir." 19:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Fitzgerald (talk • contribs)
 * FWIW, Google translator gives "Zero hope" for "Nul Espoir" and "No hope" for "Pas d'espoir." Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  19:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Google's translator gives me "no hope" for both expressions. As does the Babel Fish translator. So whichever he actually says, it seems he's definitely saying that she's a goner -- SteveCrook (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Mais oui! Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  23:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * But the real question is whether she dies before the end of the movie, or at some later time. All human characters in movies die; just not always during the movie itself. Vicky may just have been horribly injured when the movie finished, and died 5 minutes later.  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, the original script had a closing sequence in which Vicky was rushed to a hospital's emergency room where the doctors attempt to save her. I believe the idea was to intercut between the ER and the performance with the spotlight, and just as the character in the performance died, so, too would Vicky.  The doctors "called" her time of death at precisely the same time, disconnecting the monitoring equipment to show us the flatline.  Then, just as Lermontov's head collapses back against the wall, we see in stark close up the signature of one of the doctors being out on the death certificate.  Ironically, the doctor's name is... Boris Shoemaker! Can't understand why they cut that sequence! Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  23:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Follow up to my earlier post: I have the movie and I just checked out the ending.  Lermontov comes out and announces that "Miss Page will not be dancing tonight, or on any other night".  But the show is going on, because "she would have wished it".  That form of words suggests she's already dead.  The ballet with the empty spotlight then starts.  The scene then switches to the railway line where Vicky, still alive, is lying, being comforted by Julian.  The doctor examines her, stands up, and says "Pas d'espoir".  Vicky asks Julian to "take off the Red Shoes", which he does.  That's the last we see of Vicky.  The scene then switches back to the ballet, and the movie ends.  So, it's clear that she's close to death when we last see her, but still not actually dead.  What's not clear is whether the scene at the railway line is a flashback, and that Lermontov has already heard of her death when he makes his announcement; or whether he was simply referring to her utter inability to dance tonight and her imminent (but not-yet-actually-happened) death.  --  JackofOz (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The scene that Ed mentioned would tie her death more closely to the death of "the girl" in the ballet. But The Archers did try to avoid the obvious and being too corny. And they do have us still discussing the finer points of it 60 years after they made it -- SteveCrook (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we can be sure that she's not long for this world.


 * Ahhhh... you guys knew I was joking, right? I understand your point, Jack, it does indeed seem as if Lermontov knows that she is dead before we see at the railway station that she is beyond hope. I'm sure that P&P were aware of the discontinuity, but chose the sequence they did because it created a very strong parallel between what is going on in the real world and what is happeneing in the ballet, and that was necessary for the storytelling to be more powerful. Remember, these films were made to be seen once, or at most a couple of times (by fanatics), so the filmmakers could rely on being able to be a bit "sloppy" in specifics in order to created the right emotional arc, knowing that few people would pick up on it, especially if they're being carried away by the story. So it's a plot inconsistency, sort of on the level of the one about why she's wearing the red shoes before the ballet begins, but I think I understand why it came about, and it doesn't particularly bother me. Overall, I'd say the film is stronger for it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  02:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Speculation
I edited the summary where Vicki dies. The text originally had "She leapt from the balcony," implying she committed suicide. I've heard more debate on her death. I added in a sentence about the speculation and different theories on why she fell from the balcony (suicide, overjoy at seeing Julian, or the shoes drove her to it). --Jessikins 03:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Overjoy at seeing Julian? Who suggested that? Usually the choice is between suicide due to her divided loyalties and that the shoes drover her to it. I think that the sentence explaining the speculation does break the flow of that penultimate paragraph. -- SteveCrook 09:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the sentence, because it really doesn't belong in the synopsis, which is basically a recitation of important plot events. It could conceivably be included in a section analyzing the film, I suppose, if citations could be found to support it. Ed Fitzgerald 13:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of spoiler warnings
There is a ongoing community debate about spoilers and how (and if) they should be used. The wholseale removal of them is pre-empting that result of that debate before a consensus is declared. While the debate is ongoing, the status quo should be maintained, and that means that spoilers should (and shall) stay in place until a consensus is reached. Please do not continue to delete them, and they will just be replaced. If you feel strongly about this, go participate in the debate -- if your point of view prevails, then there's nothing to stop spoilers from being removed. Until then, please cease. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 05:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a wiki. You can't stop people to stop editing just because there's an ongoing discussion. --Tony Sidaway 03:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You're certainly correct, I cannot reach into your mind and stop you from taking improper actions, but that doesn't make them any more improper. The community is talking, trying to make up its collective mind as to what to do about spoilers.  Those who are interested in a particular outcome have an avenue to sway the outcome of the debate: participate in the discussion.  In the meantime, a good Wikipedia citizen doesn't act as a vigilante and presume that one's own opinion is going to prevail.  A good citizen waits for the decision and THEN acts, if the decision goes their way.  For this reason, people who are going around removing spoilers on a mass basis need to restrain themselves and await the community's decision. Please stop removing spoiler warnings until that happens -- but also, please do participate in the discussion (which should not take place here, or on the talk page of any other article. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 04:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikis are about editing. Discussion only goes so far. --Tony Sidaway 07:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, everyone can go off half-cocked and do exactly what they want to do without consideration of the wishes of the community as a whole, but it's unlikely to result in a reference work that's functional for the users, for whom Wikipedia ultimately exists (not the editors). Some methodology must be employed to control and coordinate individual action, and on Wikipedia, it's determination of community consensus.  There was once a consensus about the use of spoilers, and that is now under discussion and may change.  Until it does change, however (if it does), people really shouldn't act as if their viewpoint has already won, pe-empting the debate and usurping the perogatives of the community as a whole.  Continuing to do so by removing spoilers in a wholesale manner, and doing it again and again when they are properly installed is anti-social behavior, and goes against Wikpedia standards.  Please stop and reconsider your actions.  There is no hurry to remove spoilers -- if your side wins the debate, you can remove them at that time, but in the meantime you need to desist. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 08:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know you think the discussion will have a neat and tidy ending with everybody going away with exactly the same opinion, but that isn't how it works. Making a new policy on Wikipedia is often a matter of lots of different people changing their editing practices.  Now you can use these rather nasty words like "pre-empting", "usurping", "vandalism" as you did in one edit summary, and "antiwikisocial", but they don't actually mean anything. You edit, I edit, and we'll see what happens. --Tony Sidaway 08:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * An interesting and I think very revealing comment, which will surely come into play at some time when these actions are under review. Just to be clear -- I think spoiler warnings are useful from the standpoint of the user, who frequently reads through an article without necessarily taking strong notice of the section headings; the spoiler warning is another chance for the use to avoid reading something that wouldn't want to -- but even so, if the community consensus determines that spoilers shouldn't be used, I'm going to go along with that.  I won't be going through thousands of articles inserting spoiler warnings because that's my ideological predisposition, and attempting to force a fait accompli. 08:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That's why I haven't bothered to restore any of these spoiler tags that a few people have been removing from quite a few films. I was going to wait for the outcome of a consensus and then put them all back (if that is the consensus). It's not worth getting into edit wars, there are more important and more interesting things to do -- SteveCrook 11:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler tags wouldn't be necessary at all if people stopped writing long, rambling plot "summaries" that include every single detail of the story! I'd like to see a discussion about how much or how little should be included in a synopsis. 209.247.22.164 13:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but that's just not true. A single sentence can spoil a movie's ending for the unwary reader -- occasionally even a single word -- and would best be marked by a spoiler warning.  The length of a synopsis bears no relationship to its spoiler potential.  Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 19:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Red shoes.jpg
Image:Red shoes.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 09:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Relation to Andersen story
I removed a line saying that the Ballet 'roughly follows' the Andersen story, which is simply not true. But it might be good if someone wrote a few accurate lines about the relation between the film and the fairy tale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.164.41 (talk) 10:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In what way doesn't it follow the Andersen story? They're both about a girl who gets a pair of red shoes for a dance but when the dance is over the shoes won't let her stop dancing. That's the main part of the story and they both seem essentially the same. The ending varies in different versions of the Andersen story -- SteveCrook (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Steve: I just read the Anderson story here, and there really isn't much similarity to the ballet, outside of there being red shoes and the girl dancing in them against her will. They obviously took the "hook" of the Anderson story -- a pair of red shows causes a girl to dance -- and built an entirely new scenario around it - not at all unusual for the movies. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  19:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's why this article said "roughly follows" as opposed to "closely follows". It's only a very short story, even shorter once you take out all the "once upon a time" and other padding. There really isn't much more to the story than "the girl covets some red shoes for the dance. She gets them and goes to the dance. But when the dance is over the shoes won't let her stop dancing. She finally gets her come-uppance" -- SteveCrook (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the story I read didn't really follow that at all. I wonder if there are more then I versions of the Anderson story?  Did you take a look at the link above to see if it's the same story you're familiar with? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  23:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There are different versions, usually due to different translations from the Danish. Some have the girl's feet cut off by a woodsman, some by an executioner. But that does seem to be a very unusual version you found. The more normal story is at The Red Shoes (fairy tale) -- SteveCrook (talk) 08:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that seems a lot closer in outline to the ballet. I wonder whether Anderson's stories got Bowdlerized in the same way that Grimms' fairy tales did?  The story I reas certainly seemed much more severe and harsh. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  17:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's the other way around. Andersen's basic story has often been expanded into more complicated versions, like that one that you found. It was originally printed as a short story in various books of short stories by Andersen. "Fairy tales" often are harsh but I don't think I've ever heard of a version of The Red Shoes which has been expanded as much as the one you found. I'll put the line (or something similar) back in the main article -- SteveCrook (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is getting ridiculous. I've looked at the translations just referenced, and the original Danish; and the only things the fairy tale has in common with the ballet are the color of the shoes and the satanic compulsion. (The girl certainly does not "covet some red shoes for the dance." She doesn't covet the shoes, she already has them, and the dancing is a demonic suggestion that occurs later.) At most, the ballet is inspired by a Freudian analysis of the story: the red shoes symbolize menstruation, and therefore puberty, and therefore sex. If someone thinks there are parallels I'm missing, they should spell them out -- which was my original suggestion. "Roughly follows" is a bad substitute for actual analysis.24.186.69.59 (talk) 12:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So is the tale at The Red Shoes (fairy tale) closer to the original? That's certainly how it's told in all versions that I've seen -- SteveCrook (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Fan comment
I absolutely ADORE this film and always will. For those of us who love a good story and great music this is the most awesome combination of those in the entire universe. The score by Easdale is the most beautiful and chilling music combination I have ever heard.

Hal Evans, moviemaker 209.98.168.134 (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's nice, Hal. However, this is a place for discussing the actual content of the Wikipedia article, not for general chit-chat about the topic.  I'm moving this to the bottom of the page (all posts on new topics go at the bottom), and giving it a header.  Cheers.  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Academy Award links missing
You might also link to the categories the film was also nominated. Now e have to copy and paste and guess what "Best Writing, Motion Picture Story" category is nowadays and in wikipedia...--Nedergard (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Influences
Am just dropping a note to say that Darren Aranofski's latest film, Black Swan, is drawing upon The Red Shoes in a number of ways which would be great to include in this section of the page. Will start thinking on this, but if anyone has the time and inclination to get started it would be of great benefit to the entry. 92.7.78.36 (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC) basmatazz
 * Doesn't every film which is about ballet in any way get compared to The Red Shoes? - Usually by people saying "It's not as good as The Red Shoes" :)
 * Aranofski has denied that The Red Shoes was a direct influence but it's probably at least a subconscious influence -- SteveCrook (talk) 04:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Box office?
Is the worldwide or UK box office gross/theatrical rental known? I've looked through several sources but can only find the American box-office. It seems a bit bizarre to use the US box office data for a British film, so it would be great if the British or international data could be tracked down. Betty Logan (talk) 12:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Even most the American box office figures don't go back to its first release. Remember that this one didn't have a big première anywhere, it trickled out and its reputation grew by word of mouth. When the Rank executives saw it they thought they'd lost all their money and didn't give it any big publicity, but it still finished up as one of the most popular films of 1948. In the US it was only after it was shown every day for over a year at the Bijou Theatre in NYC that the American distributors realised that they had a film that people liked. It was only then that they started to publicise it. It was listed as the highest earning British films for a long time, but the people who list it thus, usually don't offer any citable references -- SteveCrook (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Red Shoes (1948 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141013095312/http://www.prasadgroup.org/downloads/pg-restore-v9-1.pdf to http://www.prasadgroup.org/downloads/pg-restore-v9-1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)