# Talk:Fargo (1996 film)

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
Gilmore, Richard Allen (2005). "The American Sublime in Fargo". Doing Philosophy At The Movies. State University of New York Press. pp. 57–80. ISBN 0791463915.
Leitch, Thomas (2002). "Fargo and the Crime Comedy". Crime Films. Genres in American Cinema. Cambridge University Press. pp. 265–288. ISBN 0521646715.

I would like some clarification on this fact. The source used for this section is a book published in 1992 (Footnote 17). How would the woodchipper idea be "later reused" but cited in a book published four years prior to the release of the film? --Kchambers (talk) 07:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The article quotes the opening "TRUE STORY" text:
"THIS IS A TRUE STORY. The events depicted in this film took place in Minnesota in 1987. At the request of the survivors, the names have been changed. Out of respect for the dead, the rest has been told exactly as it occurred."
In the film, the word "occurred" is spelled "occured". Should this be represented here? Perhaps with '[sic]'? Yokwephil (talk) 23:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Fargo at AllMovie ... plot synopsis, review, cast, production credits, awards
Reference available for citing in the article body. Erik (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

To the anonymous contributor at IP address 68.192.130.189:  I don't see any point in changing "he kills Carl" to "he attacks and kills Carl with an axe". The fact that Gaear uses an axe may be notable because it could reflect on his character, but the axe might also have been handy at the time, and the course of events isn't dependent on his choice of weapon.  As for "he attacks", I think that's more or less implied.  The summary is currently over 600 words, so I think it already has enough detail.  —Codrdan (talk) 06:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know any more about the snow globe that was released with the special edition VHS?  I just altered the article to remove the reference to the wood chipper, because an anon. changed it to say it was the overturned car.  Does anyone know which it was? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 00:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed the following unreferenced section and bring it here for discussion:

The title to the film is taken from the city of Fargo, North Dakota, which plays a small role in the beginning of the film, seen only in a wideshot for only a few seconds following a short scene set in a bar. Although a subtitle states the scene is set in Fargo, the actual shooting location for the bar was in northeast Minneapolis. The rest of the film is completely set around Minnesota, mostly in Minneapolis and Brainerd. However, due to the mild winter of Minnesota during production, much of the film was in fact shot in North Dakota. During an interview with Charlie Rose on the special edition DVD, the Coens stated that they titled the movie Fargo because it sounded more interesting than Brainerd.
As far as the title of the film is concerned, that seems rather obvious.  The rest of this is, or should be, covered in the locations section.  This is all simply redundant. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking for some feedback on this revision about the origin of Jerry Lundegaard's name. Would any citation be sufficient to add this bit of trivia to the Wiki article? It seems rather well-supported to me.  RepublicanJacobite, has removed the info twice now, hopefully someone else can weigh in. Unclevinny (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
The citation I read spoke to the existence of a Minneapolis film critic named Lundegaard, but didn't mention anything about a connection with Fargo, or the Cohen brothers.  Not to read RepublicanJacobite's mind, but perhaps that's why they felt the citation was inadequate.
Willondon (talk) 02:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The locations section is referenced almost entirely with the IMDB page, which is not considered a reliable source.  I suggest items sourced in this way be removed, or better sources found. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that we merge the List of Fargo characters into this article.  Most of that article is devoid of content, with section headings for both major and minor characters empty after many years.  In most cases, there is little that can be added, because very little is known.  Since there is already a character section here, any of the relevant information in that article can easily be brought here --- in the case of Carl, Gaer, and Jerry, there is some good information, with sources.  But, I see no reason why a film with such a small cast, and with so little solid character information, needs a separate cast article. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 16:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Having received no response here in the past 2 weeks, I redirected the list article to the main article.  There was nothing there that was worth merging.  The only two sections that had content were Carl and Gaer, and the content consisted entirely of varying interpretations of their character and motivations.  There is no section in this article where that content would have been appropriate, and these interpretations are of questionable value.  I see no loss in simply redirecting. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 18:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Fargo (film), without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. The Old JacobiteThe '45 04:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

What is the cited source for the "crime drama" descriptive term which I corrected and clarified? N.B.: This is why I no longer edit Wikipedia. I make an improvement; it gets reverted, requiring a "citation" when no citation exists for the original descriptive term. Who has time for this high-schoolish nonsense today? Allen Roth 207.237.89.3 (talk) 12:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Relevant dialog:              

(siren)
CARL: Ah, shit.
Oh, the tags. (sighs)
All right, it's just the tags.
I never put my tags on the car.
Don't worry. I'll take care of this.
(whimpering)
Keep it still back there, lady, or else
we're gonna have to, you know, shoot ya.
Hey, I'll take care of this.
CARL: How can I help you, Officer?
OFFICER: This a new car, then, sir?
CARL Certainly is, Officer. Still got that smell.
OFFICER: You're required to display temporary tags, either in the plate area or taped to the back window.
CARL: Certainly.
OFFICER: Can I see your licence and registration?
CARL: Certainly.
Yeah, I was gonna tape up the tag, you know, to be in full compliance, but, uh, it must've, uh...
It must've slipped my mind.
...
Last vehicle he wrote in was a tan Ciera. Under plate number he put DLR.
I figure they shot him before he could finish filling out the tag number.
- Uh-huh.
- So I got the state looking for a Ciera with a tag startin' DLR.
They don't got no match yet.
I'm not sure that I agree with you on your police work there, Lou.
- Yah?
- Yah.
I think that vehicle there probably had dealer plates. DLR.

There is some inconsistency in the script.
In the first part the "tags" in that context is a temporary license which is a piece of paper you tape on your new car - like the officer says, either in the plate area or on the windshield - until the permanent tags (plates) arrive in the mail.  That suggests that there are no plates on the car.  
But later they refer to dealer plates, like this because the officer wrote "DLR".  But if the car had dealer plates, why not write down the number on the dealer plates?  
A flaw in the script?
I suppose maybe it did have dealer plates and he wrote DLR because the number on them was irrelevant... the new car purchaser needs to have and display the temporary paper tags.    --B2C 00:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I assumed it had plates because of the reference to them in the movie, and because where I live, I don't think you can have nothing in the plate area.  If not your new license plate, then it's a dealer plate.
I see how your description might be slightly more accurate, but it seems wordy and distracting from the main plot, seeing as it's mostly just a device to have them pulled over.  Sometimes brevity is worth a small loss in accuracy or completeness.  Willondon (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Great job on transcribing the relevant dialogue.  To address your edit comments "He says 'plate area' because there is no plate.", I took the officer's words to be more of a routine recounting of the relevant law, not necessarily reacting to an observation about the situation.
There've been tussles in the history of edits on how to describe this.  There must be some accurate way of describing this to a general audience.  Maybe the problem is lack of consensus on what 'plates' and 'tags' means in different jurisdictions.
To me, the bottom line is that whatever the local law enforcement requires to identify your car to them is not present, and that's why they got pulled over.  There must be a concise, jurisdiction-free way of describing this that doesn't overshadow the actual narrative.
Willondon (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
It makes no sense. Dealer tags are tags, and officers don't pull over cars for having no tags when they do have tags. The film stomps all over its own premise, and why? Couldn't the script have had the cop pull them over for a blinking taillight? However, that's what's in the film, so that's how we describe the scenario in the plot section, without commentary. Largoplazo (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I've always felt that the first sentence describing the plot, "automobile salesman Jerry Lundegaard is in financial trouble", wasn't actually established in the movie.
Although the movie shows his fraudulent dealings with the financing company, and he certainly will be in financial trouble in the near future, it seems that during the time the movie portrays, his motivation is greed, and ambition not to be under the wing of his father-in-law, to have his own business, rather than being aware of the quicksand just yet.
Perhaps "desperate for money" is a more accurate description.
Willondon (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
The movie doesn't depict any addictions to alcohol, other drugs or gambling, investment gone wrong, or unwarranted opulence that could provide a suck-hole for money to explain an existing debt.  I think the span of the movie portrays Jerry's ambitions as they unfold.  Jerry isn't actually in financial trouble, he just needs more money to be successful.
Willondon (talk) 04:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I wish I could remember the exact dialog at the beginning of the movie, when Jerry is first talking to Carl.  His choice of words may be paramount in establishing the severity of his "problem."  He does say he "needs the money," and that his family "doesn't know [he] needs it."  This doesn't mean a lot on its own, but taking a look at the situation (arranging the kidnapping) then it would be reasonable to surmise he wants the money to fix an existing problem, not just give him a little more financial padding.  He's nervous about the plan every step of the way.  It has always seemed clear to me that Jerry has built himself a house of cards for some unidentified reason.  Whatever the situation, and however severe, it's bad enough for him to engage in fraudulent dealings at work and seek out this investment plan for his father-in-law.  Who knows what got him into the mess; that doesn't really matter.  What does matter is that we plainly see the mess he's in, namely that of the lender hounding him about the non-existent cars which he's already received money for.
This is really the only piece of information the movie gives us, and it appears to illustrate the urgency with which Jerry needs this money.  Whatever his past troubles were is unknown, but they've culminated in him borrowing money against cars which don't exist, and now the lender is on to him, so he has a very finite amount of time to straighten things out.  Patrick of J (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

In the movie credits, the actor who played "Victim in Field" is given as Prince's logo, but rotated ninety degrees clockwise. The article shows the symbol as , which isn't rotated. Is there any way we can create the correct symbol? -- Dan Griscom (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Found some more info here: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0026824/bio . The symbol is, more specifically, "the Artist Formerly Known As Prince symbol lying on its' side with a happy face in the middle". I can't see the "happy face" on my copy, but there is something in the loop. Not sure where to take this, but the symbol as-is is incorrect. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 02:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

in the plot summary I believe a clarification/correction needs to be made in referring to the duck stamp. I believe this refers to the Federal Duck Stamp competition For a hunting stamp. In the current summary it's referred to as a postage stamp I believe this is  misleading.  M[[1]]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.249.88.33 (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC) 

The Federal Duck Stamp seems to be a certificate permitting one to hunt ducks. The competition for its design sounds just like the competition for a U.S. postage stamp design described in the movie.
The dialogue I remember refers to the small denominations being just as important as the larger ones, because when the rates go up, people need the smaller ones to make the correct amount along with the larger denominations. The dialogue refers to the stamps as if they were a currency, like a U.S. postage stamp that has a duck on it. Willondon (talk) 03:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Since there is an annual competition for duck stamp designs, it seems obvious Norm has submitted a design for a duck stamp. The USPS does not hold competitions to design regular postage stamps.Norm also refers to "Hautman's blue-winged teal" winning the 29c stamp. The Hautman brothers are real and have won the Duck Stamp competition 15 times. As for the small denomination, I believe this is either just the writers lack of knowledge on the subject (unlikely) or simply dramatic license. 73.37.61.57 (talk) 08:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
It has to have been a flawed understanding on the part of the filmmakers, unless they were intentionally messing around. (Hardly the first flaw in the film. The trooper pulls the villains over for not displaying plates. Later, Marge observes that the trooper had marked down on his pad part of the plate number, and recognizes it as a dealer plate—obliterating the trooper's stated reason for having pulled them over.) The Federal Duck Stamp isn't a postage stamp and it doesn't have varying denominations, it's marked with the annual tax for the stamp. Per Federal Duck Stamp, the 1987 stamp cost $10. The film has the designs winning a pladce on stamps of separate denominations. The coveted placement was on the 29 cent stamp, where the price for a first class stamp was slated to rise to 29 cents in 1991, four years after the setting of the film. Marge clearly talks about the stamps in terms of postage. So the filmmakers didn't understand that the Federal Duck Stamp isn't a postage stamp. Or else they did know it but, as the film is a farce, they added this as a farcical element. Largoplazo (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
It has to have been a flawed understanding on the part of the filmmakers There's a much, much simpler explanation. There are many U.S. postage stamps which have a duck/mallard on them [2], [3],[4], [5] (showing 3, 5, 29 and 51 cent denominations), and that's what the bros. Cohen intended to describe. The fact that there's a duck on the postage stamp seems to have attracted the attention of jumpers to conclusions and unnecessary multipliers of entities. The duck hunting permit cost around $10 in 1987, and $15 in 1991, far more than the denominations mentioned in the movie (3 cents, 29 cents), denominations much more in line with postage stamps. And I don't know for sure, but I believe the duck stamps are issued annually at that year's cost, and are never used to supplement the value of a stamp bought previously. It's a postage stamp with a duck on it. That's what the movie makers meant, and there's nothing in the dialogue to suggest they were referencing anything else.   signed, Willondon (talk)  15:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
That is a simpler and also inadequate explanation because it overlooks the point that the other editor made, which is that the Hautman designs were for Federal Duck Stamps. Well, unless he also designed for postage stamps, I suppose. But until this was brought to our attention here, I didn't even know that there was a separate thing called a "Federal Duck Stamp" that could lead to any confusion. The bottom line is that I agree with you. Hautman's real-life activities notwithstanding, in the film they are unmistakably talking about postage stamps.
The other editor is correct that postage stamp designs are not now chosen by competition. It's stated explicitly here. I don't know how it worked in 1986. I do know that two competing designs from two artists for the 1993 Elvis Presley stamp were submitted to the public for a vote.[6] Largoplazo (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not clear in the current language that the 1997 TV pilot was a continuation or remake of the film - while the 2014 TV series is inspired by the film, and set in the same fictional universe, but with a different cast of characters. I'll try to clarify accordingly. --Chaswmsday (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

On more than one occasion, it has been claimed that Jerry embezzled money from the dealership, and that this is his motivation for the loan from GMAC.  Never once is this stated in the film.  Jerry is clearly in financial trouble, and he is being pressured by GMAC to provide proof of the cars he has put up as collateral, but we are never told what the source of his troubles is.  We cannot make assumptions or speculate in the plot.  We can only state what we know for certain. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 16:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

To elaborate on my recent edit [7]: the question of Jerry's motivation has been discussed here before (Is Jerry in financial trouble?, and Embezzlement?). I rephrased the sentence to avoid the implication that Jerry is desperate for money because he has embezzled, which I think is original research. Another explanation is that Jerry was originally desperate for money because he wants to own his own business, and not be under the wing of his father-in-law. (Jerry: "We wouldn't have to worry about money." Wade: "Scottie and Jeannie never have to worry about money.") Of course his desperate attempts to get money by embezzling are shown to be catching up to him, so he's certainly even more desperate for money now. But the original reasons for his desperate thirst for money are never explicitly stated, the closest indications being Jerry's desire to own his own business investment. In any case, I think we have to be careful assuming any motivations that aren't explicitly depicted.   signed, Willondon (talk)  13:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Following up on #The tags above, I think that, for the same reason we would put "[sic]" after a quotation to indicate a mistake is in the original and wasn't introduced by a Wikipedia editor, we might want to add a footnote after the mention of the dealer tags to explain that the inconsistency between that and the supposed absence of tags that led to the traffic stop is in the film and not a mistake made by editors here. Thoughts? Largoplazo (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it's described that way. The film is a fairly straightforward murder story and there aren't any "comedy" elements in it, even as dark/black comedy. 
I'd advocate we remove that from the description. 
Thoughts? Strongwranglers (talk) 06:15, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

"Pancakes." "Unguent." "Ya" - "Ya". Every Carl snit. Every time Carl gets his ass handed to him. Every Jerry setback. Yeah, it's a black comedy. Peter Bradshaw of The Guardian, Gene Siskel, Neil Mitchell for the British Film Institute have called it one. The Chicago Tribune carried the headline "‘Fargo’ review: Before the TV series, Coen brothers created a classic dark comedy" over a review by Michael Wilmington. Roger Ebert called it a comedy. The film received Golden Globes nominations for "Best Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy" and "Best Actress – Motion Picture Comedy or Musical" (and it sure isn't a musical). I've reverted your removals (not an advisable approach, coming here to advocate changes but then making them anyway minutes later without waiting for feedback) and added citations for the first two of these sources. Largoplazo (talk) 11:51, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
I don't think that characters having accents makes it a "black comedy". If you grew up in Minnesota, this is how people talk. Is Minnesota secretly a constant black comedy and not a state?
I think lots of critics have simply been wrong on this one, and it's a very "coastal" take to say "this is a comedy because they have accents!". It's a crime film.
Everything I see in your sources reflects the same and doesn't support the 'black comedy' label.
Again, unless you think that Minnesota itself is a black comedy I don't see why this is being considered.
I suppose we will keep it the way it is because that helps keep wikipedia in its current janky state.
Strongwranglers (talk) 12:38, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
The film didn't just portray characters from Minnesota speaking like Minnesotans, it obviously had fun with the way they sounded. You may find that comedy to be in bad taste, but comedy in bad taste is still comedy. Despite my considering some Adam Sandler films not to be funny at all, they're still obviously comedies.
The sources say it's "black comedy" and "comedy", so in what way do they not support describing the film as a black comedy or as a comedy?
It doesn't matter whether you agree with the sources. But even regarding your opinion of it, you keep harping on the accents, while ignoring other examples I gave about what makes the film comedic.
Does "janky" means "not presuming to have its own opinion that differs from what reliable sources covering the subject have to say about it"? That's a good thing, Wikipedia isn't supposed to have its own opinions about anything. Wikipedia isn't, and isn't meant to be, a source of independent commentary. Largoplazo (talk) 13:31, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
I agree that we need to follow the sources regardless of our own opinions. We are not supposed to override such sources with our own takes. The same goes with Trainspotting here. Erik (talk | contrib) 13:45, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
I don't agree that a few critic off-hand comments or that Entertainment Weekly are especially good or neutral sources.
Again, the "joke" or "comedy" of the movie seems to be that people with funny accents die.
Ha ha.
Again not seeing how this is comedic, other than if you're terminally coastal and think people from where you don't live dying is funny.
I suppose The Wire could be considered a black comedy because I think east coast names and accents are stupid? Strongwranglers (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Again, you ignored the other examples of comedic elements I pointed to, as well as my point about how something doesn't fail to be comedy because you think the comedy isn't funny, is in poor taste, etc. Largoplazo (talk) 15:46, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Agreed. I updated The Wire as being a black comedy as well. For consistency's sake. Strongwranglers (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
It's janky because you're ignoring reality in favor of a constructed view which is tangentially based on offhand comments or bad descriptions.
A feedback loop of stupid shouldn't be the ultimate goal.
https://hbowatch.com/story/the-wires-best-comedy-moments-when-baltimore-got-funny/ Just because I can find sources that describe The Wire as a black comedy doesn't make it so. In fact, I can go update The Wire using this source and it would appreciably make the article worse.
Is that what we're going for here? Using sources to argue stupid things?
Strongwranglers (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
We use sources, full stop. We don't write articles based on our own opinions. Even if we don't like what sources say, there is nothing we can do about it. Erik (talk | contrib) 15:16, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
OK but we shouldn't be slaves to adding dumb information just because it's in a source. Strongwranglers (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Well, we are, if you insist on looking at it that way. It's Wikipedia policy. See WP:RS, WP:OR. Wikipedia is not a collection of the personal opinions of editors who think they know better than others. Largoplazo (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
This seems like it rewards stupidity as long as it's stupidity said by "official morons". Strongwranglers (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
All those sources say the same thing but they're "stupid" because a random guy editing on Wikipedia disagrees with them? Largoplazo (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia a black comedy? Strongwranglers (talk) 15:46, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

https://chicagoreader.com/film-tv/fargo/
"their well-honed antihumanist vision remains as bleak as ever."
This claim is sourced. Please discuss here if you disagree with the edit. Strongwranglers (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Antihumanist is not a film genre. In addition, the source has the word "antihumanist" in it not to describe the film but the Coen Brothers' vision. So you do not have a source saying that the film is from any kind of antihumanist genre. This is nothing I didn't already say in the edit summary. And since you didn't take to heart what I wrote to you about the outcome from disruptive editing and making a point, I've posted a notice about the situation at WP:ANI. Largoplazo (talk) 16:37, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
It is a film genre. Sources:
https://findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au/scholarlywork/1272000-anti-humanist-film--greed-and-source-code
https://www.tasteofcinema.com/2018/the-10-best-movies-about-dehumanization/
https://academic.oup.com/screen/article-abstract/58/1/1/3101327?login=false
I notice by timestamp you decided to post a notice at WP:ANI instead of ... using the talk page.
You posted on WP:ANI at 16:33, and then 16:37 reply here. You could simply discuss the edit instead of bothering the administrators about something that you clearly didn't want to discuss amicably.
Sad to see.
Anyway,
There's nothing disagreeable about this edit. Strongwranglers (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

This topic can be closed based on this comment: "Greetings, you're synthesizing a genre using original research. Anti-humanism is a theme, not a encyclopedia-defined genre." - Augmented Seventh (talk · contribs)

"In 1998, the American Film Institute named it one of the 100 greatest American films in history (the most recent film on the list up to that point) but it was subsequently de-listed in 2007."
Why was it delisted? WordwizardW (talk) 02:54, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Other films replaced it. The original list was in 1998, and the updated one was in 2007. You can see Fargo and other films that dropped off the updated list here: AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies (10th Anniversary Edition) § Changes from the original list. Erik (talk | contrib) 03:13, 1 October 2025 (UTC)