Talk:Mona Lisa Smile

message: :Mona Lisa Smile tells the story of a feminist teacher ("Katherine Watson"), who, after graduating from the fictional "Oakland State" University (thought to be a fictionalized University of California, Berkeley), leaves her boyfriend behind in Los Angeles, California in 1953, to teach at Wellesley College, a women's college in the Eastern coast of the United States. The movie portrays Wellesley in the 1950s as being conservative.
:Didn't the loosely-based novelization afterwards actually name the school as Berkeley? Mike H. That's hot 22:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe so, but this article is about the movie. It's fine if you want to add in a section about the novelization, but if details of the novelization differ from the movie, then those are details about the novelization, not about the movie. Catamorphism 00:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Location

message: Isn't "Mona Lisa Smile" a chapter heading in the Motorcycle Diaries of Ernesto Guevara? Is it coincidental? Matthew Platts 16:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: *Costs (approximate):
**Production: $65,000,000
**Marketing: $25,000,000
*Income:
**United States: $63,860,942
**Worldwide (excluding U.S.): $76,972,150
*Loss: $33,666,763 (approx.)
How exactly does the loss figure? If the reported loss is correct, then there must be unmentioned factors involved. If so, these figures should be presented differently because currently it looks wrong given the intuitive understanding that (loss/profit = income minus cost.)
:Agreed. I know that they practice "creative accountancy" in Hollywood, but the figures shown indicate a profit of $50,833,092. B00P 09:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would assume that the cinemas take their cut.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.13.224.140 (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Box office performance

message: The current version of the article says that there were (about) 3 Asian students enrolled in 1953, and 12 African-American students, but later says that
: [the movie did not] accurately reflect racial diversity of 1953.
I don't quite understand that.  Is a college with 12 African-American students "racially diverse"?   Or was that considered to be "racially diverse" in 1953?  According to the  2003 press release, 99% of the student population in 1953 was "white/caucasian". 
The article also says that "[the movie] significantly underrepresented African-Americans".    According to the press release mentioned above, the African-American student population in 1953 was 12 out of 1685, or 0.7%.  
About 200 extras were Wellesley students (according to the press release); one of them (according to our article; I assume she was a student too) was African-American, that is about 0.5%.   This is about as close as you can get to proportional representation; if 2 extras had been African-American, that would have been already 1%.    
--The very model of a minor general 22:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the article seems contradictory. 1 African-American extra out of 200 extras is a close enough proportion (the true proportion is 1.4243323442136498516320474777448).  I think that the fourth sentence in the fourth paragraph of the "Campus Controversy" section should simply be stricken.  It currently reads, "The film's casting was never altered to accurately reflect the racial diversity of 1953; producers now claim they were not interested in making a "documentary," and accuracy was not necessary."  The first clause in the sentence is contradictory and the second is original unsupported research and should be stricken, so the whole sentence should just be removed. Banaticus (talk) 09:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diversity - self-contradictory? 

message: :Image:Monalisasmile.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) 22:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Monalisasmile.jpg

message: The current "Campus Controversy" section is way too long and absurdly detailed -- it's longer than the plot synopsis of the film itself. Given that the whole controversy could be easily summarized in one paragraph, which would be appropriate for its level of importance, I suggest that the section be drastically shortened. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 09:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Campus controversy" section is too long

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Mona Lisa Smile. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wellesley.edu/PublicAffairs/President/DCW/Announcements/monalisasmile.html
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 22:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified