Talk:High Noon

message: Took out unsupported "Some speculate that High Noon provided inspiration for Akira Kurosawa's The Seven Samurai." Clarityfiend 17:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they're getting it a bit mixed up with The Magnificent Seven, which was a remake of The Seven Samurai. --212.146.46.247 19:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia removal

message: :Image:Highnoon.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 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 22:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Highnoon.jpg

message: In the US edit the character of Helen Ramirez can be heard with an accent, in the german dubbing it is gone (I don't know about other localized versions, but assume it's the same). Does anybody know, if Katy Jurado actually had an accent that strong or whether she was instructed so, to strengthen the hispanic origin of her character?
Why is Carl Foreman (see Wiki entry "a revolutionary socialist and member of the American Communist Party") described as a "liberal" and John Wayne described as "right-wing"? That's some pretty disingenuous language.
So socialists and communists are "liberals", I'm sure Stalin and Mao would have a wry chuckle at that. And John Wayne is "as far to the right as you can get" Really? Pinochet? Franco? Peron? What do they teach you in film school anyway? Orwellian Doublespeak?
Wayne supported the likes of Pinochet and the US foreign policy that put him in place. It was clear what resulted from this, but the staunch conservatives of the time--and I daresay today--are wholly unapologetic. Whether or not Foreman did or would've also classified himself as a liberal is debatable; what is clear, however, is that John Wayne and his ilk made no such distinctions, that is, between Commie, Pinko, or Liberal. If being a heartfelt supporter of the McCarthy era tactics and right-wing dictators doesn't make one extreme right, then I don't know what does.
signed, davidly
High Noon obivously means different things to different people. No matter which side of the fence you are on it delivers a message. Saying whether this message is right or wrong is up to the individual. As for peoples political positions, well it makes for entertaining trivia, thats about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Royston.J.H (talk • contribs) 21:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Helen Ramirez

message: Wikipedia's banning policy states that "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion."
1)  and all of his sockpuppets are EXPRESSLY banned for life.
2) Be on the look out for any edits from these IP addresses:
:AOL NetRange: 92.8.0.0 - 92.225.255.255
:AOL NetRange: 172.128.0.0 - 172.209.255.255
:AOL NetRange: 195.93.0.0 - 195.93.255.255
ALSO, THIS PERSON MADE CRAZY EDITS TODAY: 108.90.25.136 (8/10/11)SHOULD BE BANNED FOR LIFE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hans100 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits from Banned User HC and IPs

message: The article currently describes the Helen Ramírez character as "Will's former lover, an implied madam" [emphasis added]. I find this possible, but very unlikely, and i question its inclusion without some sort of justification.
When she's planning to leave, Helen Ramírez needs to sell her "shop". That indicates she's a shopkeeper, not a madam. Concerning her past, the hotel clerk (owner?) says she had been a friend of the marshall, and before that a friend of Frank Miller, the outlaw. That certainly suggests relationships between her and three men (counting the current relationship with the deputy), but to me that indicates only that she had different lovers, not that she was "an implied madam".
When she confronts the deputy about his immaturity, Helen Ramírez forcefully describes her former relationship with the marshall as based upon her admiration for him as a man, and there's no hint of any role as a madam. She tells Mrs. Kane that she hasn't spoken to the marshall for a year, which suggests an intensely personal relationship that went bad, not some sort of relationship between a madam and her customers. The deputy takes the suspected spark that still exists between Helen Ramirez and the marshall very seriously— enough to start a fight— indicating that he believed it had been a personal relationship, not a professional one. Helen later tells Kane's wife, "I hate this town. I've always hated it. To be a Mexican woman in a town like this..." That isn't necessarily the view one might expect from a woman who had done business with much of the town's male clientele, but it certainly could be consistent with the view of someone victimized by prejudice because of daring to have personal relationships with caucasian men in the community.
I suspect that we may still be witnessing some subtle prejudice in the inclusion of this claim in the article— someone cannot conceive of a personal of relationship between Gary Cooper's character and a Mexican unless it is a "professional" relationship. I contend that this claim is not based upon any context offered within the movie. I strongly advocate removal of the "implied madam" claim unless it can be justified in some way. I just watched the movie with this question in mind, and i don't think that i missed anything. Richard Myers (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Will's former lover, an "implied madam" -- bias?

message: At the least, the artists behind the script have depicted a dark Mexican woman as immoral and a white Quaker as
moral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The only denomination mentioned explicitly is the Quaker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Obvious bias

message: In Reference #4, Carl Foreman is quoted to this effect, but Weidhorn does not cite the quotation.
Section still needs work, but, a little bit at a time . . .
--4.235.0.207 (talk) 08:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Analysis - first Citation request

message: A minor point, but any reason for the non-standard spacing as marked with a do note remove note? Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 02:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The one in Reception? It got added on Nov. 21 by an anonymous IP. I'll take it out. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the note. It appears to be in almost all the sections. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 15:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The others were added by User:Ed Fitzgerald on Aug. 1, 2008 for his own reasons. He's extremely stubborn about formatting things his way. I (and others) have butted heads with him several times. There's another editor who goes around deleting these spacing comments, but I've given up on unproductive edit wars. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the note and clarification. I don't see it as a particularly big issue and will leave it be for now. I thought it was at least worth dropping a note on the talk page. The WP:MOS appears to be somewhat silent on the topic. Thanks again. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 16:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Spacing?

message: The famous Western writer Louis L'Amour once stated that the plot in High Noon was rediculous. Why? Because two thirds of the adult men in Western towns had fought in the Civil War on one side or the other and a gang of badmen,such as Frank Miller's, would have been cut to pieces by the townsmen. Witness what happened to the James-Younger Gang in Northfield, MN, or the Dalton Gang in Coffeyville, KS. Interesting take on the movie.
70.230.243.167 (talk) 03:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Ridiculous plot claim

message: I have reported  for an edit war violation at WP:AN3. Merely waiting 24 hours, then continuing to edit war is violating the spirit of the policy, and doesn't automatically make your edits allowed.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 3rr

message: To expand on my edit to the main article: it's surprising that almost every review or comment on the film states that it takes place in real time, when a few simple calculations will show that it doesn't. The first clock we see, a few moments in, reads 1033. The train pull in exactly at noon. Frank Miller's gang walk from the depot to the main street - it's never stated how far away the depot is from there, but earlier one of the gang rides in to get some whisky - and then there is a gunfight which must last around 7-8 minutes minimum. There is then the aftermath and Will Kane driving away - so the events, even at face value, would run almost an hour and 40 minutes.
Add to that Will's drive in early part of the film, where he goes far enough away from the town for it not to be visible before deciding to turn round. I haven't calculated this but I doubt that it could fit into the supposed time frame. Similarly the debate in the church would almost certainly be longer in reality than the time taken in the film. Again, it's not stated how far away from the main street is the livery stable where Will and the deputy fight.
The progression of time as shown as the clocks is probably fairly accurate but not completely so - it's difficult to measure when seen on British TV which runs the film 4% fast, but a magazine article some years ago (I don't know where) did a close analysis and observed that at one point the clocks almost stand still for a period, while elsewhere they move forward faster than the running time. Indeed in the last 10 minutes or so before two minutes to noon no clocks are shown, so as to disguise the fact that the time-scale is being squeezed.
It's quite a compliment to the film's conjuring trick that it manages to convince almost everyone who sees it of the real time illusion.
These comments and the edit to the main article were written as a result of seeing the film the previous evening (on high-definition satellite TV, where it looked superb).
EDIT: I see someone has removed the entire section containing my edit, and the article now continues to claim that the film takes place in real time. It does not; but I'm not about to type all that out again.
RFWilmut (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "it's surprising that almost every review or comment on the film states that it takes place in real time" = verified. Cptnono (talk) 07:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Real Time' 

message: THE PAGE HAS BEEN VANDALIZED BY 108.90.25.136. I CORRECTED SOME OF IT, BUT THERE IS MORE TO DO.
THE CORRECTIONS HAVE TO BE MANUALLY DONE BECAUSE THIS BOZO FIXED IT SO THAT SIMPLE "UNDOS" WON'T WORK.
THIS PERSON 108.90.25.136 SHOULD BE BANISHED FROM WIKIPEDIA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hans100 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted to the last stable version. Dayewalker (talk) 04:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  VANDALISM BY 108.90.25.136 

message: What is the present Copyright status on the movie? --41.151.115.107 (talk) 23:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright 

message: Why does the reception section only seem to describe negative reaction? The whole section can be summarized as: "Politically engaged people didn't like it for political reasons" the thing has 96% score on Rotten Tomatoes, it's considered a classic, why is there barely any mention of this? 62.44.134.102 (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias in Reception 

message: The introduction says it won two Golden Globes but then lists, parenthetically, four awards. The accolades section only mentions one Golden Globe. Which is it?
87.115.16.140 (talk) 12:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Golden globes 

message: Frank Miller was not "pardoned on an unspecified legal technicality". Technicalities are what allow acquittals. Pardons are granted by politicians on a whim.Royalcourtier (talk) 10:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Under federal law which obtained in the NMT, a convicted felon could have a gun, up until 1968. knoodelhed (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pardon 

message: The bit about David Bishop on Grace Kelly's character under "Reception" misreads the cited reference, and indeed gets Bishop's argument exactly backwards. 73.36.76.253 (talk) 03:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Bishop Reference 

message: "The events occur in approximate real time." does not belong in the Plot section.  It is already in the Lead.I have added the sentence to the Filming section— | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 18:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot summary 

message: I question if this should be regarded as a Revisionist Western.  I quote the relevant article: "The traditional Western generally follows a standard format, centered around a strong, male lead character, who through direct action, leads the forces of a civilized people against the uncivilized forces that stand in their way. Traditionally, this pitted the "good guys,” usually lawmen, against the "bad guys,” usually criminals or Native Americans."  This film shows a tough lawman deciding that "a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do" and taking on a gang of rather stereotypical criminals.  It might be seen as revisionist because some issues about the way it was made mean that it is widely seen as an allegory against McCarthyism, but IMHO that's not quite the same. PatGallacher (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: A fair question which applies to other 1950s Westerns but there is a school of thought to support this one. Please see the Legacy and cultural influence section for the views of Don Graham and Kim Newman. In essence, the film is considered revisionist for the presentation of its female characters and the cowardice of the townspeople. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Revisionist Western?