# Talk:The Royal Tenenbaums

"* In some of Margot's scenes, "Christmas Time is Here" from the cartoon version of Charlie Brown's Christmas special plays occasionally in the background. The popular comic strip also influenced the comedy series Arrested Development."
Removed the sentence "The popular comic strip also influenced the comedy series Arrested Development." 
Peanuts influenced alot of things, this is completely out of place.

Are you sure that Tenenbaums poster isn't a copyvio? -- Lypheklub 21:37, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

No, I'm not sure. Remove it please if you feel like it. --KF 21:39, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Isn't this covered under fair use? -- wonko 21:41, Aug 27, 2003 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with U.S. coyright laws. Common sense, however, tells me that having this poster here will, if anything, serve as a free advertisement. Just imagine someone who has never heard of the movie -- I mean, Wikipedia is read all over the world -- , sees the poster, registers it subconsciously, and next time he is at the HMV shop or wherever goes and buys the DVD without really being aware of why he has decided to do so. Now who could object to having this poster here, and why? (As always, these are not rhetorical questions). But again, remove it immediately if we would infringe some law. KF 22:31, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Based on my understanding of US fair use law (which is explained quite well in the fair use article), I'm pretty sure the use of the poster image is acceptable. The image is not being used for profit, the article in which it is used is educational in nature, and the usage of the image could not possibly have any negative effect on the market value of the movie. Additionally, since the poster was designed to be seen by as many people as possible for the purposes of marketing the movie, using it in an article about the movie seems to be perfectly in line with the copyright owner's intentions. That said, I'm not a lawyer and this is merely my own opinion, not legal advice. -- wonko 22:55, Aug 27, 2003 (UTC)
Exactly. If I were able to express myself like that, that's what I would have said.  --KF 23:00, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Do we really need a list of Wes Anderson films on here? Isn't the Wes Anderson link enough? -- teucer 00:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

The screenplay of Royal Tenenbaums does borrow from J.D. Salinger.  Both the film--and the Glass family stories--are about child prodigies who find it difficult to adjust to adult life.  A more-specific parallel:  in Salinger's Franny and Zooey, a character lies in the bathtub, smoking, for an extended period.  However, this is Zooey, who is male.
In the Glass family, the ever-looming scandal is not incest, but suicide.  The oldest sibling, Seymour, takes his own life:  "A Perfect Day for Bananafish" (included in Nine Stories) describes the event, albeit ambiguously.
The Royal Tenenbaums article claims Salinger published five books.  There are only four:  The Catcher in the Rye, Nine Stories, Franny and Zooey, and (yes, the following is a single book) Raise High the Roof Beam, Carpenters/Seymour:  An Introduction.
(Each of the latter two books is a collection of two stories and/or novellas.  "Franny" and "Zooey" together form a coherent narrative in chronological order, whereas "Raise High..." and "Seymour..." are related to each other only by their common focus on Seymour and Buddy Glass.)
Perhaps the writer of the Royal Tenenbaums article was anticipating the rumored publication in book form of Salinger's not-so-short story "Hapworth 16, 1924", which appeared in the New Yorker magazine in 1965; it is his final published work to date.  ("Hapworth" is indeed a Glass family story:  a letter home from camp--of extraordinary erudition--from Seymour Glass at age seven.)
However, a book of "Hapworth" was never published.  It seems the rumors alone generated enough publicity to frighten obsessively-private Salinger into aborting the project.
Wikipedia's page on J.D. Salinger lists the following title among Salinger's published works:  Wonderful Town: New York Stories from the New Yorkers. Ed: David Remnick (2000)
Yes, the Wonderful Town anthology does contain Salinger's story "Slight Rebellion Off Madison", which features an early version of the Holden Caulfield character.  But it's quite a stretch to call it the fifth book published by Salinger.
"Slight Rebellion" had been an uncollected story; until recently, it had been available only in magazine form (again, the New Yorker).  Its presence in a book is indeed a significant literary event.  None of this, however, alters the fact that Wonderful Town is not a book published by J.D. Salinger.
A somewhat-related fact:  the film Royal Tenenbaums swipes an idea from another book.  Margot and Richie running away from home to live secretly in a New York museum is nearly identical to a major plot element in E.L. Konigsburg's From The Mixed-Up Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler.  The latter book, however, is a work of fiction for children, and its main characters' temporary and unconventional cohabitation has no taboo connotations.
Hmmm...no signature?  Sorry folks, I'm new to this.  drone5 20:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

There's also a very minor character in one of the "Nine Stories" named "Tenenbaum."
This is all very interesting and there seems to be a lot of work out there comparing the two fictional families - perhaps it should be added to the main page? Right now when I looked up Tenenbaum and Glass this was the first link that came up on Google. Rather odd for a talk page. Mbroderick271 (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

It has been decided that no tracks from Il Giardino Armonico's rendition of Vivaldi's Concerto per Liuto e Mandolino are used during the wedding scene. If you can positively identify a specific track as the one being played, feel free to put it in the complete soundtrack listing between Rachel Evans Tenenbaum and Chas Chases Eli; otherwise, it can be assumed that the Vivaldi album was used simply as an inspiration for the track played in the movie.
On a somewhat related note, when Chas first gets back home, Etheline is in a room with some guests listening to classical music that also has yet to be identified.
---
Am I the only one who thinks it's amazing what Anderson was able to do compiling this soundtrack?  The use of the Beatles and the "Happy Birthday" song are two of the most protected musical institutions in the world...
---
ALSO.... How does George Harrison fit in at ALL with getting the rights to Hey Jude which was a Lennon-McCartney song? Harrison AFAIK only controlled his own Harrisongs. Maybe someone could explain this better before I go and erase that whole "trivia factoid" --69.158.137.68 09:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
---
This is related to the question above... Isn't getting permission to use a particular RECORDING of a song different from getting rights to use the song itself? Maybe this had something to do with getting Harrison's approval, because the Beatles as a group had rights to the recording? I'm not really sure, but that's a possiblity. That would also explain why they could use a cover version but not the original recording itself. 
---
It's a great soundtrack, but it's a little strange that the section on the soundtrack seems longer than all the other material about the film combined. If the soundtrack is that important, perhaps it should have its own article?
---
Yeah, I'll break it into its own article right now. Pele Merengue 06:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
---
I added a note in the soundtrack section about the Elliott Smith song that is played during the scene in which Ritchie attempts suicide. I have always found the connection between that scene and Smith's death in 2003 to be a terribly sad coincidence. Wa67 (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to make a point of noting that this article incorrectly labels The Royal Tenenbaums as a dramedy. 
If we are to go by Wikipedia's definition of dramedy (which describes it as a work of theatre or film that has an "equal balance of humor and serious content") then we are grossly misrepresenting (and, I suppose, misinterpreting) the Royal Tenenbaums.
The film, I contend, is not a "dramedy" but a black comedy. It does not mix equal parts humor and serious content, but rather treats the serious content of the film (or the tragic aspects of it, if you like) in a humorous way. 
Let us not confuse the two.--Zpobric 01:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that wholeheartedly. --Charles 05:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I definitely have to disagree, this film is mislabeled as black comedy. Black Comedy needs to play murder, mishap and violence for laughs. While their are moments of that in the film, like when the dog gets run over, the overall tone of the film is far too whimsical and sentimental to be called a black comedy. Wes Anderson himself described it as a "New York Fairy Tale".
"Black comedy, also known as black humor or dark comedy, is a sub-genre of comedy and satire where topics and events normally treated seriously – death, mass murder, sickness, madness, terror, drug abuse, rape, war etc. – are treated in a humorous or satirical manner. Synonyms created to avoid possible racial overtones include dark humor, morbid humor, gallows humor and off-color humor"
There is very little if any, gallows humor present in this film. Again, just looking at the wikipedia defination, this is horribly mislabeled. Storytelling is black comedy, I don't know how you could possibly classify this in the same genre. ---Uselesswarrior 04:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you even seen the movie?!  There are a number of the elements mentioned in that quote in the movie: illness (both mental and physical), death, and drug abuse, not to mention theft, emotional abuse, and an unrequited incestuous obsession, all of which are played in the film for their comedic value.  This film is not a straight comedy, nor as Zpobric points out above, is it a dramedy.  This is a black comedy, the definition of which should not be drawn so narrowly as is your apparent wish. ---Charles 04:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, sign your comments and use proper talk page formatting please. ---Charles 04:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I think this is a case of over classification. It's just a comedy, plain and simple. By your definition, pretty much every comedy based in reality is black, the only pure comedy would be a few screwball comedies that deal with nothing close to real life. The truth of the matter is that it's not just about subject matter, it is how you deal  with it, Naked Gun deals with terrorism, Philadelphia Story deals with divorce,  Hot Shots part duex deals with prisoners of war, Young Frankenstein deals with almost the exact plot from the original Frankenstein movies, and Clerks deals with drug dealers. Everything in Anderson’s Film have a light, upbeat, touch to them. They are light-hearted, if you view his subject matter as dark, it takes place in a light-hearted world, with no bad intent from anyone, characters are just confused, but mean well, and are never beyond redemption. It lacks the cynicism and grit of a black comedy like Fargo. It's all about the presentation of the subject matter, whether it has repercussions, whether the characters are negatively affected, whether these themes have the implications of real life or worse. ---Uselesswarrior 04:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that "black commedy" doesn't fit this film...  I mean, Charles, you're certainly right that it finds humor in serious situations, but "black commedy" implies there's something morbid in the approach...  like a suicide attempt in a black commedy might get laughs because a guy shoots himself, stabs himself in the chest, pounds his head against a wall, etc, and still finds himself alive.  RT is something very different.  It's light-hearted and whimsical, which is basically the opposite of morbid. -—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.58.237.227 (talk • contribs) 
How can the Royal Tenenbaums be a dramatic comedy if a dramatic comedy mixes equal parts humor and seriouness? 
Nothing about it is to be taken seriously per se. It is, rather, a  film based on gallows humor: Pagoda tries to kill Royal because of a price on his head. This is meant to be taken humorously. Richie Tenenbaum tries to kill himself and afterwards has a conversation with Chas that entails Chas asking if his suicide note is dark. "Of course it's dark. It's a suicide note," replies Richie. When Eli crashes his car into the side of the house at the wedding and Etheline asks Margot what happened, she non-nonchalantly answers that "Eli crashed his car into the side of the house." What's not darkly humorous about that?
Whimsical? That's just silly. What's whimsical about suicide, stomach cancer, a misunderstood daughter, a couple of failed marriages, poor parenting and Royal's racism? Its not whimsical; it's just dark humor.
The film is not a "dramatic comedy." It's black humor. Period.--Pac (talk) 06:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmm.  I think you're all right, so i put it as a dramatic/black comedy...  I have to admit it has a bit of both.  Like there is a definite drama between margot and richie.  The movie is very light hearted, but black comedies are capable of that, also.  So... I think it's a bit of both.  Just write a reason for a change if you change it.  (Neutronbomb (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC))

I added a small tidbit about Ritchie Tenenbaum. --RicKAbbo 06:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I never noticed it before, but after just finishing watching the movie again I noticed that Chaz's wife's headstone seems to say 1985-2001.  If so, she'd only be 15.  I could see it being 1965, as that would be consistent with everyone else's age, but I'm almost certain it's an 85.  Can anyone else confirm and if so is it something notable to add to the article? Kakaze 03:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like 1965 to me... Miss Dark 02:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that once before, and I could not make it out with any degree of certainty.  But, for at least a moment, it did look like 1985, which does not make sense. ---Charles 03:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
This site says 85 http://www.moviemistakes.com/film1824 Kakaze 04:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Even though the main discussion here took place YEARS ago, I still wanted to comment for the benefit - hopefully - of any future editors who read this. First, I'm a major fan of moviemistakes.com ([1]) and I have not ever seen a good listed there that said anything at all about Rachel Tenenbaum's gravestone. Although, that is user-created/edited content, so maybe I just never looked at the right time. Regardless, I am about 95% positive that the year on the gravestone is 1965. Sadly, I get a lot of the joy in my life from pointing out the glaring mistakes made by others and my idea of a good time is watching a film for the fourth or fifth time just to find continuity errors (because I am a very bitchy geek.) But there was NOT a mistake - intentional or otherwise - in this particular scene. I think the confusion comes from the quality of the video itself and the angle of the shot. If you have a DLed copy or a VHS copy or even a DVD that you're watching on your computer or an older-model CRT television then there's going to be the slightest bit of pixelation and blurriness and that makes the numbers look like one year for a few seconds and then you look back...and she's 20 years younger! I uploaded a screen shot here:[2] because I was worried a pic would be a copyvio if I posted it in here. ocrasaroon| blah blah blah

The first sentence of the plot is a little confusing, at least to me.  How much time elapses between Royal and Etheline's separation, and Royal's return, faking the stomach cancer?  The impression one can get from that sentence is that no one has had contact with him in the intervening years---this, of course, is not the case, as the narration says no one had spoken to him in two years.  I would be willing to rewrite the sentence for greater clarity if someone can give me accurate information about how long Royal had been away.  Thanks. ---Charles 03:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
how about shortening the plot to a brief, general synopsis rather than a play by play65.93.33.34 17:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I made some changes to the plot outline to clarify some of the events as well as some of the characters' motivations.  After Mr. Sherman proposes to Etheline, I clarified that she does not immediately accept the proposal. Likewise, in the paragraph that claims Royal learns that Etheline is falling in love with Mr. Sherman, he actually learns that she is thinking about marrying him.
I specified Royal's reasoning for telling Etheline that he has stomach cancer - he is driven to do so only partially because he is broke and homeless, he also feels a desire to reconnect with his estranged wife and children.
I also deleted the sentence that stated "There are implied suspicions that Eli is an illegitimate child of Royal." I am not aware of any such implications in the film, I have never seen that or heard anything about it.  If this is true, please clarify what implications are being referred to. Wa67 (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I've reduced and edited the summary to better conform to wiki standards for plot and summary. Was 1500 words, now 930 with far less detail. (Deftonesderrick (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC))

"The actual name for the movie was inspired in part, by longtime friend of Wes Anderson, Brian Tenenbaum who has appeared in several of Anderson's movies"
Isn't it just a corruption of Tannenbaum? DavidFarmbrough 13:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I will take that as a 'no', then :) DavidFarmbrough (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

People
I watched this movie 2 weeks before. Its just the same plot, same characters and same human relations study of a dysfunctional family that was writtern 50 years before by Dauphne De Maurier( The Parasites). Do you guys have ever read this work ?
Cheers,
Krishna Deva Raya

That is all well and good, but you must find a reputable and verifiable source for such an assertion.  Your own observation of a similarity between the two is not encyclopaedic.  If you find a source---which meets Wikipedia's standards---that shows that someone else has noted these similarities, you can add it.  Thanks. ---TheoldanarchistComhrá 13:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Friends
Please check this url which has the summary of The Parasites. Please let me know if you find any similarities between the charismatic Delaney's family of Europe and Tenenbaum's family of America.
Hi Oldanarchist
Sorry for editing the article without citing the source. I am picking up the wiqitette(wiki's etiquette). Thanks for your advice.
Cheers,
http://www.dumaurier.org/reviews-parasites.html
is the url.

While the page you've linked to does provide information on the book, any source that would support a controversial statement like you have submitted, that "The Royal Tenenbaums is plagiarized from The Parasites" must do so explicitly (making note of similarities to TRT in the page itself, which it does not), and it is not enough to provide the link and have the reader simply imply the relation. That would be tantamount to Original Research, which is discouraged on Wikipedia. Try reading this page on what constitutes a reliable source, and I hope it aids you in your editing. Thank you.
68.186.51.190 02:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Given that the "influence on popular culture" section is so short, and the trivia section needs to be got rid of entirely, should we not consider condensing all of it into a section with a different name, or integrating all of it into the main body of the article? ---TheoldanarchistComhrá 04:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I realize that it is a really minor point, but I went ahead and made a small deletion in the Richie Tenebaum section concerning Bjorn Borg.  Obviously it is true that the character of Richie is based on Borg, my really small issue is the statement that "many people consider [Borg] to have been the greatest player of all time."  First of all, it's a dumb statement and second, who are these people?  Who honestly considers Bjorn Borg the greatest player of all time?  Sure he was good, but come on, saying many people would consider him in the top five of all time would be seriously pushing it.  Either way, it's a small point, but I deleted because the statement is pointless, and frankly untrue.  I have never known a single sports critic, commentator, columnist, etc. who would actually agree with that statement.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdlund (talk • contribs) 22:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC) 

No need to explain, really.  It was a dumb comment, and it had no place in the article.  Even if it is a widely-held opinion, and there was a source for same, it is really irrelevant to the character and the movie.  Had I seen it, I would have removed it myself. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 22:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

RepublicanJacobite removed the link from the insult "Coltrane" to "John Coltrane."  He said it has nothing to do with him.  What other Coltrane would he be talking about?  I think this is an important part of the page.  When I see Coltrane, I want to know what their referring to, some people might be interested into what he was referring to in the movie.  I'm going to link it back.  Give me a good explanation to why Coltrane has nothing to do with John Coltrane.  (Neutronbomb (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC))

"Coltrane," alternately "coal train," is an old racial slur for African Americans.  The use of the phrase in the movie has nothing to do with John Coltrane.  Why would it be an insult---which, in the context, it most certainly is---for a black man to be compared to one of the most famous African American men of the latter half of the 20th century?  When Royal says it, Henry Sherman automatically knows what he means, and he knows he is not being compared to the jazz musician.  If you stop and think about it for a moment, you will see that such a comparison makes no sense, certainly not as an insult. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow, this is actually a very interesting subject.  Apparently there is an ongoing debate as to whether it is or is not an actual racial slur. [3].  That website states "Coltrane: reference to jazz musician John Coltrane.  Used in the movie The Royal Tenenbaums."  And there's another blog site with another debate about it's use in the movie.  I think we overturned some kind of strange coincidental void in the public idea of what is generally accepted as common terminology.  I've never heard that used as a racial slur until this movie and apparently neither has the RACIAL SLUR DATABASE!  This is kind of strangely ironic.  Also, I don't know if you noticed, but I created one of your userboxes.  User:Neutronbomb/clockworkorange  (Neutronbomb (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC))
Yes, I think it is quite fascinating, actually.  I looked at the RSDB website, and was sorry to see that many of its sources come from popular culture, which is merely reflecting and repeating older sources.  Tomorrow, when I will have access to the nearby university library, I intend to dig deeper into this, and hopefully come up with some references.  What I managed to find on the internet was paltry and not terribly helpful.  But, after seeing the film, I asked some older jazz musician friends of mine about it, and they said that it is a very old racial slur, dating from before John Coltrane's career.
And, no, I did not notice that you were the source of the userbox.  But, I thank you for it! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

A question: the section "Characters" reads: "Margot is not only a playwright, but also a book critic; she wrote a negative review of Eli Cash's latest book". Can anyone tell me where in the movie script is this stated?
Thanks!  User:Cristian Opazo 10:45, 03 December 2008 (UTC).

In the beginning, just after 10 minutes into the film, Eli Cash is on the phone discussing a book review with Margot Tenenbaum following his book signing.  He says "Let me ask you something, why would a review make the point of saying someone's not a genius?" followed by "You think I'm especially not a genius?"  Margot answers that she does not think he is a genius, but there is no indication that she is the author of the review they are discussing.  In fact, Eli probably would have said "why would your review make the point..." if it had been authored by Margot. Tom (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the script, he does say "I mean, do you think I'm especially not a genius?" followed by "You didn't even have to think about it, did you?" Margot then replies that she doesn't use that word lightly. I've always interpreted him calling her to discuss the review as implying that it was her review, and given her obvious sensitivity towards the word genius due to Etheline's use of it during Margot's upbringing it makes sense that she would specifically call someone not a genius were she to write a review. Particularly a review of someone who was around her and her family growing up, and therefore someone she would have ample time to compare to alleged geniuses in order to determine that he was, in fact, not a genius. 67.133.229.226 (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
As you have pointed out, it requires an interpretation by the viewer to make the conclusion that Margot is a critic.  There is no specific indication as to whether Eli and Margo are discussing a review written by Margot or if Eli is merely seeking (unsuccessfully) Margot's praise after reading the negative review.  Further, since Margot is suffering from writers' block and stays in the bathroom most of the day, it is my personal interpretation that it would be highly out of character for her to be writing book reviews.  Still, all interpretations aside, there is nothing in the script or movie that definitively says that Margot is a critic. Tom (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Where is anrew wilson he was the third wilson brother in this film and there is no mention of him. he played the farmer.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.171.158.21 (talk) 07:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC) 

The characters played by Andrew Wilson in The Royal Tenenbaums have very little screentime and do not bear mention in the article. Tom (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

To whom can the concept for the set design be attributed?  216.99.198.146 (talk) 05:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

"An ironic and absurdist sense of humor pervades the film."
I don't really understand why people keep calling Wes Anderson's films "ironic"? I can understand how they are absurd, but in what way are they ironic? Can someone specify?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.98.122.101 (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC) 

I removed the above line from Raleigh's bio because it's unnecessary and nonsensical - there are no other neurologists in the family so how could he be a famous neurologist "in his own right"?  69.158.167.58 (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Websters:
neither
not one or the other (of two); not either: neither boy went; neither of them was invited.
Origin of neither
Webster's New World College Dictionary Copyright © 2010 by Wiley Publishing, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio. 
Read more at http://www.yourdictionary.com/neither#WUiQiLCkUMTwDe9H.99
Neither of them was invited.
Present tense: Neither of them (the children, two of them) is invited.92.207.218.180 (talk) 12:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I propose removing the family tree from the cast section and replacing it with a simple cast list.  I truly think the current version is unnecessary.  The film does not have so many characters that a chart is needed to understand their connections to one another. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

A simple cast list was bare and ugly, and the article was developed enough that it would be discouraged per WP:CASTLIST. And there are a number of natural children, adoptions, marriages and remarriages where this could be helpful, with precedent for using for fictional families given List of Arrested Development characters. Ribbet32 (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

As Margot is adopted, her link line should be dotted or dashed, otherwise her relationship with Richie seems incestual.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:1405:3F00:C004:29F3:4339:110C (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)