Talk:Charade (1963 film)

message: The previous version of the description stated that Cary Grant's character (let's call him Peter Joshua) is revealed to be working for the CIA at the end of the movie.  While that is certainly one possible interpretation, another is that Joshua (who we may presume is a professional conman and criminal) assumes the identity of the CIA official in a final bid to get hold of the stamps.  He seems to dictate a memo to his secretary in order to prove his authenticity, but this too could be an illusion.  The movie allows both possibilities, so I have reworded the description to say that Audrey Hepburn's character finds Joshua behind the official's desk, without affirming that he is a genuine official. Grover cleveland 04:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nowhere (that I can recall) is it indicated that he worked for the CIA. Dyle claimed he was an agent, but not Joshua. In any case, it isn't the duty of the CIA to recover ill-gotten gains (see CIA). Joshua was just a embassy official, though I must admit, he went to rather extreme lengths to do his job. Clarityfiend 03:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess my question is: was Joshua really an embassy official, or was he just pretending to be one?  There are some interesting clues:  he dictates a message to "his" secretary, but we never see or hear any acknowledgement from the secretary -- for all we know the dictation machine might not even be turned on.  After Reggie accepts his proposal, we immediately see a montage of all Joshua's identities throughout the film -- suggesting that the embassy official is just another pose that Joshua will go through in order to get his hands on the money.  And Joshua's behavior throughout the movie is hardly consistent with that of a US government employee (although much of the rest of the movie is also implausible).  I'm suggesting that the movie deliberately leaves the answer to this question ambiguous.  Grover cleveland 04:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Was it a dictation machine or an intercom? Clarityfiend 05:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't remember:  however there was no response -- perhaps Grant's character didn't even turn it on. Grover cleveland 06:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Gwen Gale is correct; Cruikshank does not work for the CIA but for the Treasury Department. It's not all that believable that the U.S. government would have Treasury Department officials carrying guns while stationed in Paris, but that's the ultimate premise of the movie. As Grover Cleveland mentions above, at the end of the film we see Cary Grant buzz his secretary and tell her to take a memo on improving security, and this is the "evidence" on which Reggie believes he actually works there and is not a thief, even though we never hear the secretary reply. It's a little flimsy but it's pretty clear that the filmmakers' intention was for the Cary Grant character and the Audrey Hepburn character to end up together, married, and live happily ever after; they did not intend to leave open the possibility that Cary Grant was somebody different. --Mathew5000 00:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Was Cary Grant's character really working for the CIA? (spoilers)

message: The present version of the article states in the introduction: "It spans several genres including suspense thriller, romance, and comedy." The use of the word "including" implies that the movie belongs to other genres, not only those three. So what are they? Moreover, "romantic comedy" is really one genre -- at least it has become one, maybe in the 1960s the romantic comedy genre didn't exist; it's hard to tell from the article romantic comedy film. In any event, the word "several" suggests more than three. --Mathew5000 00:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "spans several genres"? 

message: :Image:Charade movieposter.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 20:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Charade movieposter.jpg

message: ...because the ref didn't support the content (that I could find), but also because I literally couldn't understand what the paragraph is saying.  If someone knows what it's supposed to say, please re-write it and restore.The movie was said to be an attempt by the studio to unite the popular stars onscreen. Grant had previously been offered a role opposite Hepburn in Roman Holiday, but had turned it down because he felt he was too old to play her love interest. The role eventually went to Gregory Peck. Grant finally agreed to take the role, but in order to play down the 25-year age difference between them, he insisted that Hepburn's character be made the aggressor in the relationship. The chemistry between Grant and Hepburn, as well as Grant's continuing success as a sex symbol despite his advanced age, have made many critics state that having Grant pursue Hepburn in Roman Holiday not only would have been plausible, it would have been even more perfect than the talented Peck in the role. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I removed this paragraph from the article's production section... 

message: No, the film is still AT the Internet Archive and has NOT been deleted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glammazon (talk • contribs) 22:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  GLAMMAZON'S REPLY 

message: I didn't read the synopsis and didn't know Hamilton Bartholomew was the real Carson Dyle until the cast section ruined the twist for me. Somebody should edit out the spoiler.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.132.255 (talk) 07:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler 

message: In the bottom half of the synopsis a character named Adam is referred to. No explanation regarding who he is.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:200:4200:5A40:C5E4:F2F4:3FA2:DD7E (talk) 01:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is, read closer. You also need to learn how to sign your posts. Sweetpool50 (talk) 11:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is Adam? 

message: The article says "The film remains fully protected by copyright outside the U.S." with no citation. Today (Sep. 4 2021) Swiss TV started a series using this movie but changing the soundtrack, with the argument it was free of copyright. I assume their lawyers know what they are doing. https://www.rts.ch/play/tv/redirect/detail/12467094?startTime=1613 Pkoppenb (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright outside of the US 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion