Talk:Gangster film

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Organized crime Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Organized crime task force (assessed as High-importance).

Film

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles

Pre-1930s Films[edit]

It's very strange to me that this article doesn't discuss any films made before the 1930s. There are gangster films that predate that decade. The Black Hand (1906 film) is said to be the first gangster film. D. W. Griffith's The Musketeers of Pig Alley is another important film that should be covered on this page. While it's correct that the advent of prohibition made both gangsters and gangster films more widespread, there's no reason to ignore the films that came before that point.Offensivename (talk) 13:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 October 2019 and 19 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AlfredMevo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by contributors[edit]

Use this section for comments and please sign them. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 00:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting this page. I have posted in WP Films about it. I think that there are two main lines to keep. One is the geographic and the other is the kind of gangs in question, and surely the geographic may offer different kinds for each country. The geographic may have links, like USA-Ireland, USA-Italy, USA-Mexico, etc, and then we have the other big international ones and the smaller local ones. Whether it's comedy or drama, should not draw the main lines, though we can treat comedy in its own corner as well. I'll be helping though I have very limited knowledge in this genre. Hoverfish Talk 17:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoverfish: I'm a little ashamed to admit I didn't realize I could create a talk page for my sandbox :-) Thanks Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 20:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure about a section on French gangster films. It just doesn't seem to belong here. Perhaps on the French Wikipedia page but I can't think of any films that leap to mind and I imagine most people would feel the same way Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page was suggested by Erik actually. And he thinks we should have done this as a Draft to start with, but I don;t see much participation and I'm not sure if drafting this would make it any better. Now about French ganster films, it's funny you say this as the French have developed excellent gangster films. I read that Pépé le Moko (1937) was... suppressed for many years in the US by those who had made a US remake called Algiers (film)!! So there was a kind of Hollywood monopoly of gangster films at the time (not that I can cite this claim, just a personal obsevation). Then we have such famous films like Touchez pas au grisbi (1954), Rififi (1955), Bob le flambeur (1956), Borsalino (film) (1970) all of which belong to Category:Gangster films in Wikipedia, then we have Le clan des siciliens (1969) a French Mafia film, Le Cercle Rouge (1970) seen as "neo-noir", Mesrine (2008 film) which is in Category:Biographical films about French gangsters (check out some more in there), so why discount this area from a general Gangster film article? Hoverfish Talk 21:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I'm discounting them so much as saying that I'm simply not familiar with French gangster films as a main contributor to the genre. Mind you, I tread lightly here :-) this is after all English Wikipedia. It seems to me that the notability standards have to be those within the English-speaking world. If there's a part of the genre that I have missed and you can Source content describing its significance or the significance of French films about gangsters, then by all means you should proceed. I chose the section headers based on my own knowledge of this genre and it is far from encyclopedic, pun intended. It's similarly why I didn't put a section down for Russia, I just don't know of the works that would populate a section on Russian gangster films. I don't doubt they're there it just seems like they're not notable enough to be mentioned in this article...? Please continue to contribute, and don't let me get in the way :-) Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By all means please, do get in the way, and I hope also more people get in the way soon. I will surely give refs for notability, no worries there, but I wouldn't like to keep going very far on my own. Hoverfish Talk 22:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoverfish: Does Quadrophenia belong here? Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 02:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno about motorcycle gangs[edit]

I think those films might not belong here. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 02:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed the ping about this. You see the thing with the issue ofgangs really should be decided by someone more knowlegeable on the genre. What the American Film Institute says is fine, but limited to the American view. From the empirical view, gangster-films-anywhere is more about organized crime, but there are gangs, not just motorcycle or scooter ones, but various British subculture gangs. The same goes for the film about the skinheads. If we don't have some rather academic-genre source to quote from, we can leave it out for now, but I think we should keep in mind that it might fit in somehow, even as a note in some section. Hoverfish Talk 02:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still another example is Clockwork Orange. It's as British/gangster as it can be, but I would need to quote someone notable. Hoverfish Talk 02:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason Quadrophenia and A Clockwork Orange don't belong here, is that while they both feature "gangs", the gangs aren't central to either film's narrative. The mods and rockers are more a metaphor for youth culture, than organized criminals. Alex's droogs, and even their criminal acts are primarily a plot device to move him toward the film's central moral conflict concerning free-will and science. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 03:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up and move?[edit]

@Hoverfish, Northamerica1000, and Vaselineeeeeeee: I think it's ready. We can leave the other sections to editors with more knowledge of the subject. What say you all? Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 02:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I like it, great job all; should be good to go! Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 02:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great job indeed, InformationvsInjustice. Sorry I couldn't do more. Leave the rest of the British and the Russian section in list form for now. All I could think would be to put the list in prose, but it wouldn't really add much usefull info. There is material for a South African section too, but better leave it as external links for others to expand. I think it can go now, maybe with a {{lacking overview}} or {{missing information}} template in a couple of sections for now. Hoverfish Talk 02:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if that's necessary...sometimes list sections can be more useful than prose...I don't think the maintenance templates are immediately needed. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 13:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, fine then. Can you move this userpage and its talk page to Gangster film and Talk now? Hoverfish Talk 16:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Should the Mobster film redirect to Mafia film (Mob film), or here to Gangster film? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 16:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Film Theory[edit]

There is a lot of information about the analysis of gangster film on more of the theory side of things. I have been working on the page Scarface (1932 film) and recently got it promoted to good article. I had to remove some of the stuff I wrote in my article about themes related less related to Scarface and more related to gangster film in general. I have this information in my sandbox, does anyone think this would be a good addition to the article? And would anyone be willing to expand upon it? Skyes(BYU) (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Intoduction photo[edit]

The photo used at the top of the article is from the 1938 film Angels with Dirty Faces, not 1931's Public Enemy. It has been incorrectly named. The photo is very clearly from the scene near the end of the picture where Rocky is arrested after the shootout with the police. No such scene exists in The Public Enemy. There are reliable sources which correctly name it, for example:

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-chicago-engel-mit-schmutzigen-gesichtern-angels-with-dirty-faces-james-52634661.html

https://www.agefotostock.com/age/en/Stock-Images/Rights-Managed/ZUJ-19380209-mab-g90-375

Karpouzi (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karpouzi, just so you know, I have no interest in starting an edit war. I just want to make sure the correct image is being used whether it means that the caption on this article needs to be changed or it needs to be changed on Pre-Code Hollywood to reflect the correct film, the image deleted from The Public Enemy, and the image description changed on Wikimedia commons. When I reverse google image search the picture, everything shows up as coming from The Public Enemy. But looking at the links you provided, I can clearly see that there is some discrepancy online about which film this image comes from. I do not doubt your knowledge, but I have not personally seen either film so I can only take your word for it and believe what I see online. Maybe I need to watch the films myself so we can reach some consensus. Thank you for your contributions, hopefully we can figure this out. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karpouzi, okay so I scrubbed through both of the films and you are 100% correct! I couldn't find a scene that looked exactly like the picture, but the same actors are present and he is wearing the same tuxedo so maybe the image was from some kind of promo shoot. Regardless, the image description should probably be changed in order to reflect that. Would you be willing to help out with that? I think it's important that this be fixed on other articles, but I am concerned about starting edits wars on other pages since people could easily say exactly what I previously said to you, not realizing that they are wrong. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]