Talk:All About Eve

message: There should be some mention of Anne Baxter's Oscar campaign to be nominated for lead actress instead of supporting actress.
Javabeanrush 00:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oscar Campaign

message: It appears as though no one has ever edited the article talk page; does this no-one has ever taken time to discuss the changes that could have been made to the main article? That's too bad, really. Perhaps I will take the initiative. The film is one of the best, and requires more notes and references, according to the WP:FAC process. –Cruz AFade (Speak about it | How many?) 15:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right in removing it.  Holm (Karen) is on the brink of telling Margo about Eve, until Eve reminds Karen that she played a big part in deceiving Margo by making her miss the performance that gave Eve her break.  Karen is ashamed, but bites her tongue.  From then on, Karen is more of an observer.  Rossrs 14:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Curious

message: An anonymous user expanded the plot. While it is a very good effort, I think it reads between the lines on a few occasions. I have seen the movie five or six times but not within the last three years.
But despite her unmatched success, she is beginning to show her age and being targetted by critics, most notably Addison DeWitt (who narrates the film). 
:I can't remember DeWitt making any criticisms about Margo or his age before the review of Eve's performance ("mature actresses" etc) Does he? There is no mention of other critics, as far as I can remember, anywhere though Margo is worried herself. 
With DeWitt filling the audience with his fellow critics, Eve performs to rave reviews from critics.
:This certainly is wrong. It is pretty clear that was Eve who invited the critics. In DeWitt's words "But those who remained cheered loudly, lustily and long for Eve...how thoughtful of her to call and invite me - that afternoon ... and what a happy coincidence that several representatives of other newspapers happened to be present. All of us - invited that afternoon to attend an understudy's performance..." 
Margo's rivalry with Eve coincides with a growing midlife crisis that is brought about due to her failing relationship with her boyfriend and her workaholic career.
:This gives the impression that the problems in his relationship with Merrill runs in parallel with the Eve affair, whereas it was brought about entirely because the presence of Eve. Pointy haired fellow (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Anon edit

message: The plot section was full of inaccuracies, assumptions, conclusions and analysis.  Until I have the chance to watch the film again and expand the section in an accurate way, I've reverted to a previous version which, although short, has the distinct advantage of not being incorrect.  Plot summaries are meant to describe the plot, not to engage in anaylsis of character, or filling in the backstory based on personal assumptions of what "must" have happened.  What happened is what we see happen, or what the characters tell us happened, not what we think probably happened. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 21:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot

message: My computer doesn't like the times.co.uk link, but it sure seems the 'Camp' section was copied word for word from it. Can someone double check? I hope I am making sense. Lots42 (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not. I wrote the summary myself.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.96.67 (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Camp Section

message: I'd like to offer my opinion regarding this section of the article: it doesn't belong here, at least not the way it exists today. It's so far away from NPOV that it reads as if this is the only accepted interpretation of the film, like a rather poorly-referenced term paper. Since a comparison was made earlier in the article to the film Sunset Boulevard, I clicked on the wiki-link for that page (a featured article, by the way) and didn't see any of this kind of interpretive commentary. If a section along the lines of "Interpretations" is to be included, I think it should strive to be as balanced as possible, with citations after each successive thought. Because the goal for this article should be to make it as accurate, neutral and well-referenced as possible, not work a certain set of talking points into it. 
I'll admit I didn't read every comment (signed or unsigned) on this talk page before adding this section, but I did see somebody throw the 'homophobic' word around. I guarantee you that I am not homophobic, and I find it disappointing when disagreements resort to these kinds of accusations. Am I volunteering to spend hours finding all kinds of sources that would make this section better? No. As it stands right now, I would suggest deleting about 90% of it, at least, and phrasing what's left in NPOV, but I'm worried that if I did that I'd start an edit war, something I really don't want to do. Anyone else have an opinion about this? Zephyrnthesky (talk) 23:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and here it is.  You are more charitable than I am. I'd delete more than 90% of it, and go for the full 100%.  It's unsourced commentary that places undue emphasis on an aspect of the film that may or may not have been the intention of the film maker.   There is not even the vaguest attempt at balanced criticism, and "rather poorly-referenced term paper" is a reasonable assessment.  This is a widely discussed film.  Critical comments should be easy to find, so there is no excuse for all the uncited material.    On the other hand, we need 3 sources to say that Bette Davis has a gay following?  Even though Davis's gay following has no relevance to the themes of the film, which is supposedly the issue being discussed in this section?  There is a lot more that could be said about the themes dealt with in the film, but I guess none of them are as interesting as the veiled sexuality.   Like you, I'm not volunteering to spend time fixing this, although I have spent a lot of time on this article.  Not recently though.  The homophobia accusation is an easy option but you'll notice that the accusation is not supported by anything of substance. Rossrs (talk) 09:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Also - oddly, the bits that are cited, are unrelated to All About Eve.    It's perplexing, but even more reason to delete the whole thing.  Rossrs (talk) 09:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur, that section needs to go. Otto4711 (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tagged the section "neutrality disputed"...I figure if we give it a week for any additional opinions to surface, then we can say we've reached a consensus. Thanks to both of you for your opinions. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem.  I think a week allows enough time for discussion, especially considering this has been discussed previously.  Rossrs (talk) 10:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I could see a section on various interpretations of the film existing in this article, but they would need to be sourced AND neutral. One aspect could be Eve's perceived lesbianism and that it would have had to be subtle due to the Production Code (I've seen Celluloid Closet but never read the book). Another seems to be Broadway v. Hollywood and a sort of antagonism that existed, or still exists today. Of course Margo turning 40 and being irritated by 20-something Eve and seeing that society condones an ageism and sexism exists as a layer of the film...but that all depends on whether a section like this even belongs in this article. There are other places on the internet that deal in speculation or analysis; I ran across a site recently trying to tell me what every song by Green Day really means. A big old "delete" of the whole section would be the easiest way to handle it short-term, but then it may just reappear (again). I'm just not sure. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sexuality and wars

message: It's tremendously ironic and quite silly that an article about a film about covert homosexuals is being censored today. This is 2009. Is homosexuality such a taboo on Wikipedia that what has been widely known for a long time as a gay camp classic has to be de-gayed? Not only that, but the section that was brutally chopped had relevant sourced (Betty Friedan) insights about the career woman vs. married woman theme in the film. It was chopped, I presume, because of its proximity to the dreaded gayness. That the most basic thematic and political content of the film is being ripped out of the article defies explanation. I can understand the desire to be concise. But, there is a difference between increasing a signal to noise ratio and simply reducing the signal with unwarranted cuts. The next person who simply removes the Politics section is out of line, again. Try to condense it if you must, but there is no justification for wholesale slaughter. If this post seems over the top, I have to say I'm really tired of the censor-the-gay-away agenda I keep seeing on Wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.96.67 (talk) 08:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell, the problem with the section is that it's an example of an original synthesis. The section has lots of 'references' but none of them actually mentions All About Eve. In other words, the section is trying to argue the case that the film has homosexual themes, rather than describing published writings about its homosexual themes. The lack of sources is, unfortunately, a "justification for wholesale slaughter", so I'd suggest you add some references from critics discussing these themes.Cop 663 (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It would help greatly if people would actually look at the citations before making such false arguments like "The section has lots of 'references' but none of them actually mentions 'All About Eve'." Here is one of those citations that people continue to utterly ignore: "American Cold War Culture, Chapter Two: Gender and Sexuality: All about the Subversive Femme: Cold War Homophobia in All About Eve". That doesn't mention All About Eve, eh?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.96.67 (talk) 02:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the comments from earlier this year have still not been addressed. Original research? It most definitely reads that way to me, notwithstanding the addition of a source. NPOV? Not in a million years with the way it's worded now. From the get-go it states: "All About Eve's underlying theme is that the norm of heterosexuality, specifically in the form of marriage, must be upheld, in contrast to the social threat posed by independent career women and especially homosexuals." As if this is the only possible reading of the film. There's no inline citation there to support this charge, and since the film itself never actually states "THIS FILM IS ABOUT HOW THE NORM OF HETEROSEXUALITY.." on a title card, it is the interpretation of what somebody assumes was the intent of the film's actors or creators. Couldn't an underlying theme of the film be the ageism actors face? Not according to the four paragraphs that keep getting reinserted to the article every couple of months, along with a predictable cry of 'homophobia!' or 'censorship!' This gives undue weight to a single aspect of a possible reading (yes, possible reading) of the film while attributing this claim to someone else's interpretation of a possible reading of the film, without bothering to even acknowledge the existence of other possible interpretations. If Joe Blow got a book published that stated in no uncertain terms that Elvis is alive, that might merit inclusion of a cited sentence or two in the Elvis article, but not an entire section about it, with only a single end-of-paragraph reference. The other unaddressed issue from earlier is whether a section about 'interpretations of the film' is even appropriate for this article, referenced or not. Could it be that there might be a problem with the content of this section (whatever it's called this time around)? If an editor puts a huge chunk of information into an article, some of which may be OK, and then responds by asking others to take the time to fix it...well, that just seems backwards to me, like a cart in front of a horse. Oh, and as I stated above, I'm not homophobic, and I seriously doubt that many (possibly any) of the others who commented about this earlier are either. Namecalling or accusing wikipedia of censorship is a counterproductive way to improve the article, which should be the goal. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it at all strange that people have asserted that the citations don't even discuss All About Eve, when one of them was an entire chapter of a book that was about the film? Yes, there definitely are some points that haven't been addressed, many of them based on such an absurd foundation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.96.67 (talk) 06:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I guess you still didn't look at the American Cold War Culture citation, since you used the citation needed tag in the article for the sentence about the film's homophobia. Here is the name of the citation, again, for future reference. American Cold War Culture", Ch. 2 – Gender and Sexuality – All about the Subversive Femme – Cold War Homophobia in All About Eve. If that isn't clear enough to negate a citation needed after a statement that the film has been said to have homophobia, I'm not sure what is. How many citations is it going to take to demonstrate that critics have discussed the film's politics, including homosexuality and homophobia?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.96.67 (talk) 07:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Two more citations added, one is a journal article from Duke and the other is another chapter of a book about the film, specifically its lesbian and gay content. Note that the author matter-of-factly refers "to gay gossip columnist Addison de Witt" on page 209. I welcome condensation of the Politics section, if anyone is so inclined. However, note that greater space is devoted in many articles to subjects that are of less relevance to the general public.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.96.67 (talk) 08:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

text: The final paragraph in this section has been expanded and referenced, and if this section does wind up remaining a part of the article I hope it reads as a bit more NPOV now. Since A) nobody came along to condense "the four paragraphs"; B) it's been a week since the last comment on this talk page; and C) the anonymous IP address that keeps inserting said paragraphs mentioned above that s/he welcomes condensation of the section, I trimmed it down to two paragraphs. Again, I think it could all fit into one paragraph, so maybe somebody will come along soon and read the whole thing with a fresh set of eyes. That may be the best thing for the long-term sustainability and eventual improvement of the article as a whole, whether it includes this section or not. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 02:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Censoring the gay away

message: In the section 'Heterosexual marriage versus homosexuality and female agency' (which I agree, reading the old comments, needs to be trimmed down), I think a definition of terms would be extremely helpful, especially the term 'agency'.  The section relies heavily on a few citations that employ technical sociological language with which the average reader is not going to be familiar.  --Sephiroth9611 (talk) 14:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of terms 

message: An editor recently put the three navboxes in this article into a collapsed navbox. I reverted with the comment that this was unnecessary. The original editor then reverted without explanation. I propose to restore the original three collapsed navboxes because making readers open a navbox to find out what navboxes are available seems to be hiding the ball. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose that you don't do that, because collapsing multiple navboxes within a shell is a fairly standard procedure, and the additional click is hardly onerous. So my suggestion is that you hold off until you have a consensus.  (And, BTW, take a look at WP:LAME, because this could be a candidate; talk page stalkers are invited to look at WP:NAVHEAD, Butwhatdoiknow's single-editor essay proposing that navboxes should be slugged with yet another section header, which would appear to be the reason he opposes use of the navbox shell.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that, at some point, the number of navboxes becomes so large that putting them in a shell makes sense. But this article has only three navboxes. Why do you think this "fairly common" procedure - and the extra click it requires of readers - is appropriate in this case? (BTW, attacking me personally and speculating regarding my motivations does not help answer the question of whether it is a good idea to use a navbox shell in this particular article.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 11:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collapsing collapsed navboxes 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on All About Eve. 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/20130328133050/http://www.loc.gov/film/registry_titles.php to http://www.loc.gov/film/registry_titles.php
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) 20:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on All About Eve. 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  tag to http://www.boxoffice.com/boxoffice_scr/boxoffice_dvd_result.asp?terms=12
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090202125847/http://honors.umd.edu/HONR269J//projects/hchunt/main.htm to http://www.honors.umd.edu/HONR269J/projects/hchunt/main.htm
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) 08:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: After reading several critics' interpretation of the film's gay subtext, I was about to heap praise on this excellent entry when I made the mistake of reading comments about removing/reverting this section.
A few points:
This well-researched and -cited section gives the entry depth and helps viewers interpret the film. Even a casual viewer would see that there is more going on in "All About Eve" than just the plot.
I also noticed several editors bristled at the idea their attempts to excise gay themes were homophobic. Curiously, few of them objected to feminist themes and the surrendering of female agency. So I'm not buying their "I'm-not-homophobic/some-of-my-best-friends-are-Bette-Davis-worshipping-homosexuals" drivel. I suspect the accusations of homophobia stung because they were true.
Rather than getting defensive, editors should honestly examine their own prejudices to see if they're really capable of approaching controversial topics with a neutral point of view.
Mostly I think this article is better than most wiki film entries because it offers abundant CONTEXT -- something sorely lacking in so many fan-boy entries.
Maybe we'll never know all about "All About Eve", but this outstanding article comes pretty damn close and is a revelation. It's also an example of what film entries should aspire to. 🎥 Kinkyturnip (talk) 05:47, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You're commenting on a discussion which took place 8 years ago. and is now a dead letter since, obviously, you read the section. Not only that, but the comments almost entirely revolved around Wikipedia's standards for sourcing, and not about content per se. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't aware that debates have a statute of limitations. Henceforth, I will refrain from commenting on any topic relating to anything more than 24 hours old, given the whiplash nature of our current president's governing style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinkyturnip (talk • contribs) 18:47, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Now you're just being silly.  Here's an old saw for you: "Let sleeping dogs lie."  And here's a Wikipedia policy as well: WP:NOTAFORUM.. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Duly noted (<redacted>) Kinkyturnip (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: As the person who created the thematic content section (and had to literally fight to convince people that theme should actually exist in a film's page), I have written what I feel is an important response to the matters you have brought up. It is on your personal page. Put very simply, it wasn't just the existence of analysis relating to heterosexism that was under attack, it was originally the entire idea that films have thematic content (and the idea that they have politics). Hopefully, this article will evolve to regain its Politics section. All films are political and this one is very political. A film does not have to be Mr. Smith Goes to Washington to fit that bill. Yes, the existence of analysis related to the film's obvious and strong heterosexism was attacked later, also. It seems that the addition of softer, more superficial, analysis (e.g. Ebert's "universal type" and AllMovie) enabled the homophobia/heterosexism analysis to be retained. I have little doubt that, without that other analysis (which was, not coincidentally, moved to the top of the section) -- the "always irrelevant" gayness would have been excised again. It's not a bad thing, really, to start with the more superficial and work toward the deeper analysis, though. If people want to believe that the differing opinions in the section support the notion that the film really isn't highly invested in a heterosexist/homophobic dichotomy, at least they'll be able to read that analysis at all.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.193.32 (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  This entry is amazing, so I don't understand the controversy