Talk:Monsieur Verdoux

message: :Image:Monsieur verdoux57.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 04:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Monsieur verdoux57.jpg

message: The following quote from the entry seems a little odd to me: "The film and its dark themes were ill-suited to the American political and cultural climate of the time (less than two years after World War II ended)" I can understand, perhaps, that the movie was poorly received in the United States for various cultural or political reasons.  But to parenthetically cite World War II as a reason for that climate makes no sense since the movie was popular in Europe, as indicated by the entry. Didn't Europe also suffer through World War II?74.138.45.132 (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, they just sat around while John Wayne and Randolph Scott did all the heavy lifting. EEng (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd statement 

message: Son of the English music impressario Fred Karno, for whom Chaplin worked in his earlier years, is employed in the wedding reception scene as "Mr. Karno". 31.50.16.111 (talk) 04:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fred Karno Jr. 

message: The sentence 'Welles believed that a version directed by him would have been better, as he considered Chaplin a "genius" as an actor, but merely competent as a director.' is unsupported by the cited text, and no opinion of the sort appears elsewhere as far as I have seen. The source refers to Welles' chagrin at having his script overwritten and his directional request overruled, but there is absolutely no implication that he considers Chaplin 'merely competent'. While he does trumpet Chaplin's acting elsewhere, the term 'genius' is not used. I will remove the offending sentence from the article.
46.237.173.210 (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cited source does not reference Welles' opinion as stated 

message: Hi All,
I feel that this sentence in the Reception section is unclear & could be worded better, "The film was popular in France, where it had admissions of 2,605,679.[13]"  The exact number is not necessary, it could be worded, 'The film was popular in France where it had an initial box office draw of over 2 million.'  Or the same sentence with 'nearly 3 million.' instead.  Obviously these statements should be checked with the referenced source.  However, the link for Reference #13 points to 1963 films & this is a 1947 film.  Thanks.  SaturnCat (talk) 07:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception section