Talk:Suddenly (1954 film)

message: Does anyone have another word for meaning that we can use to replace that heading. "Meaning" doesn't sound right. I might think of something else later though. Thanks --Adam Wang 23:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Meaning

message: What does being 4-F mean?
This. 75.19.179.169 17:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sinatra was 4-F during World War II  

message: I had heard that Sinatra had the film withdrawn from circulation. IMDB mentions that was why the copyright was allowed to lapse. But there is no mention of that here. -- Beardo (talk) 02:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just saw it on TV, so any withdrawal seems to have been ineffective. Greglocock (talk) 02:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Withdrawal from circulation 

message: In 1959, five years after the release of the movie Suddenly, a novel was published which had a remarkably similar ending.  It was The Manchurian Candidate, written by Richard Condon, a former Hollywood press agent recently turned novelist.  His book also features a mentally troubled former war hero ("Raymond Shaw") who, at the climax, uses a rifle with scope to shoot at a presidential candidate.  Because of such strong similiarities, it is now thought that Suddenly was one inspiration for Condon's Manchurian CandidateJohn Loken, Oswald's Trigger Films, 2000, p. 36
Another person who was certainly aware of Suddenly, whether or not he ever saw it, was Lee Harvey Oswald, the assassin of President Kennedy in 1963.  The movie played at several New Orleans theaters for two months in the winter of 1954-55, at a time when Oswald was living there and was a 15-year-old borderline juvenile delinquent.  In his teenage world, Oswald cannot have been ignorant of such a violent and sensational movie.Oswald's Trigger Films, 2000, p. 34
It was long thought that Oswald actually saw Suddenly on television in October 1963 (one month before the assassination of Kennedy), but an investigation of that claim eventually revealed that he did not.  The confusion arose because Oswald actually saw another presidential assassination film, We Were Strangers, not once but twice on one weekend in October 1963.  His twofold viewing of that film came to be understood, in all the chaos immediately following the assassination of JFK, as his having seen two different assassination films at that time. Suddenly was naturally but mistakenly believed to have been the "second" one.Oswald's Trigger Films, pp. 24-36, 75. Vincent Bugliosi, in his 2007 work, Reclaiming History, claims that Oswald did see Suddenly in October 1963.  But Bugliosi misquoted and ignored several of Loken's findings, and his claim is incorrect.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.193.212 (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influence 

message: Regardless of what Carl Mazek says about one character's personality, I would not consider this to be a noir movie. That guff about "...mark the film as completely amoral, and, as such, Suddenly is quite opposite of non-noir films..." is frankly utter tosh. If a film is amoral it is not necessarily noir.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.64.142 (talk) 22:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noir? Really? 

message: An earlier version of this article cited
* Loken, John.Oswald's Trigger Films: The Manchurian Candidate, We Were Strangers, Suddenly? Kingwood, Texas: Falcon Publishing, 2000. .
as a source.  Use of that source violates WP:POLICY, specifically  WP:SELFPUBLISH.  — 72.244.206.122 (talk) 07:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed details that were sourced to a  self-published reference 

message: Much of the film appears to be shot outdoors on location.  It certainly looks like a real town and a real rail yard.  The train is real, of course.  Where was it filmed and what real town is standing in for the town of "Suddenly"?
Starhistory22 (talk) 06:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location? 

message: Per the Template:Infobox film: “Insert the names of the actors as they are listed in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release”. Since old posters technically have no billing block, it’s fair to assume that all names listed on the poster (in those case, Frank Sinatra, Sterling Hayden, James Gleason, Nancy Gates, Kim Charney and Paul Frees) are the top billed talent, and their names appear as such in the credits of the actual film.
As far as the runtime, the AFI Catalog lists it as “75,77 or 82 mins” and seeing as that’s the cited source, we go off that, don’t nit-pick.
And the caption should be capitalized for the first word, not awkwardly all lowercase. TropicAces (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I was incorrect about the 82 minutes, but not about the stars.  The reason that Sinatra and Hayden are listed in bold type in big letters above the rest of the credits is that they are the stars, that's how billing is done in Hollywood.  Not everyone in the billing box is a "star".  The actors in much smalerl type below Sinatra and Hayden are called "featured actors".  This is absolutely standard, and can be verified by watching the movie, where Sinatra and Hayden are billed first. Please do not change it again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding captions "Theatrical release poster" is neither a sentence nor a proper noun, so there is no need for a capitalization of the initial letter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox