Talk:Jezebel (1938 film)

message: The article says that on the strength of her performance in Jezebel, Bette Davis was considered for the GwtW role. But there's an extensive examination of the situation on several bio pages on IMDB that suggest Davis was never seriously considered (even though she was offered the role, in a kind of poison pill way), and was given Jezebel as a consolation prize. I know IMDB is not definitive, but this info is consistent over several bio pages, and sounds compelling. I think at least that the statement should be cited if it is to stay.--Anchoress 02:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed by 207.200.116.137 today, thanx.--Anchoress 23:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On the strength of this...?

message: There should be something on the infamous red dress (shown in glorious monochrome...). Churchh 01:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay please provide a reference and a full explanation; place in background section.  As such it's trivia at this point and not included in an encyclopedia.  Luigibob 07:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Red dress

message: The red dress is an essential plot point (now included in the article). This film served to remind mid-20th-century people how narrow the codes of the Victorian era could be.  It wasn't usually as simplistic as "red dress = ruined reputation", and sometimes women could get away with outfits at masquerade balls or costume balls that would have been considered problematic anywhere else.  Nevertheless, if a Victorian-era woman of the "respectable" classes conspicuously publicly deviated from accepted norms in clothing and adornment, and didn't have influential social sponsors who could attempt to repair her faux pas, then she could easily find herself "excluded from polite society" -- which could be fatal to an unmarried woman's chances of finding a "genteel" husband, etc. Churchh (talk) 04:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Victorian codes

message: :Image:Jezebelimage145.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 Wikipedia: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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, 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) 16:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Jezebelimage145.jpg

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Jezebel (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/20120710115532/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091230/ap_en_mo/us_classic_films_glance;_ylt=Am9aCMfxzzsN4EY9F802IESs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNzcHU5NnU4BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMjMwL3VzX2NsYXNzaWNfZmlsbXNfZ2xhbmNlBGNjb2RlA21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb3MDMTAEcG9zAzcEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl9oZWFkbGluZV9saXN0BHNsawMyNW5ld3RpdGxlc2E- to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091230/ap_en_mo/us_classic_films_glance;_ylt=Am9aCMfxzzsN4EY9F802IESs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNzcHU5NnU4BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMjMwL3VzX2NsYXNzaWNfZmlsbXNfZ2xhbmNlBGNjb2RlA21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb3MDMTAEcG9zAzcEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl9oZWFkbGluZV9saXN0BHNsawMyNW5ld3RpdGxlc2E-
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Here's a review of the movie by a panel of microbiologists, elaborating on the yellow fever plot point. TWiM 233: Antivirals made by bacteria
January 9, 2021, Vincent Racaniello, Elio Schaechter, Michele Swanson, and Michael Schmidt. For them, the hero is Dr. Livingstone. They point out that yellow fever is spread by mosquitoes, although in 1852, it was thought to be spread by human contact and miasma. They note that in one scene, Preston swats a mosquito. --Nbauman (talk) 02:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yellow fever 

message: ‘The film also demonstrates that the North could have avoided the Civil War had it simply waited for the Southern hotheads to kill themselves off in duels.’
I have not seen the film, but this line strikes me as rather odd. I would suggest a review of the social commentary portion as a whole by anyone qualified. 159.250.106.167 (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social commentary portion