Talk:Gigi (1958 film)

	Film portal 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
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Library of Congress Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Library of Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Library of Congress 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.Library of CongressWikipedia:WikiProject Library of CongressTemplate:WikiProject Library of CongressLibrary of Congress articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Spring 2016. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Queen Mary, University of London/Research Methods (Film) (Spring 2016)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

Page move[edit]

This page was moved from "Gigi (1958 movie)" to "Gigi (1958 film)" as per the naming convention set out at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) – Ianblair23 04:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Song List[edit]

How about a proper song list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.199.150 (talk • contribs)

Yes, needed--doneJeanColumbia 10:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

The "Production" section seems to be adapted, for the most part, from the chapter on "Gigi" in the book "The Street Where I Live", by Alan Jay Lerner (1978). The entire chapter on the making of "Gigi" is 51 pages; I haven't given specific page numbers for other statements, but they appear to be correct, based on the Lerner book.

I made one change to reflect what Lerner writes with respect to their dissatisfaction with the initial print of Gigi--the strategy of offering to buy a percentage of the movie, then to buy the print--I do not read the relevant paragraph as stating they actually offered to pay for changes. JeanColumbia 11:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, good work. Please check out WP:CITE. I don't think we need to cite the IBDB for the musical here on the film article, since the musical's article cites it, and you have a blue link to the musical's article. You're such a valuable contributor to aricles related to musicals -- I suggest you add your name as a participant at WP:MUSICALS. See also the Article Structure page and discussion at WP:MUSICALS. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 15:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen the film i was surprised to hear gigi described as a courtesan. Not knowing what the term meant i followed the link to find an article about upper class, educated, prostitutes (for lack of a better word). It is entirely possible that i romanticised Gigi's lessons with her aunt but i had always assumed they were simply a form of deportment. I also believe that had Gigi been groomed as a courtier she would not be so opposed to the idea of being with Gaston. It seemed to me like she detested the idea of being with several men for financial support and as though she had always inteded to marry a man whome she loved. i also have a problem with the reference to gaston stating "it occurs to gaston that he could be gigi's first patron". It sounds a bit crass and makes gaston seem like a giant creep, i never saw him like that before. Have i completely missunderstood the film? i hope not 203.221.63.93 06:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gigi is indeed a courtesean. The Colette novella on which this film/musical is based makes this point explicit. The film, coming from the 1950s, had to be more discreet. - AKeen 14:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Gigi is definitely not a courtesan. I've recently read the novella (again), and the point is clear that she's a virgin. However, her grandmother and great-aunt are training her for a life as a Grand Horizontal, as the most successful courtesans were called at that time. They themselves had led what was euphemistically called "a life of gallantry," and did not have the imagination or faith to believe that she could break out of the mould. But she did. The novella ends with Gigi poised to lead an innocent and respectable married life with Gaston. Younggoldchip (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:GigiPoster.jpg[edit]

Image:GigiPoster.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 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 04:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QMUL Education Project[edit]

Laraknauf (talk), Libertyelise96 (talk), Cwong33 (talk), Vyasn (talk)

We'll be working on this page for our Research Class January - March 2016

Digital restoration[edit]

We tried to fact check the digital restoration of Gigi but didn't find any actual proof. The given reference website is quite misleading and doesn't show Gigi under their restored film selection ( http://www.prasadgroup.org/projects.html ). Furthermore we checked on IMDB where it says Crest Digital restored the work but was left uncreadited. We didn't find any reference other than the IMDB page either. Can anyone clarify this point? Laraknauf (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Laraknauf: Just on a referencial note, citing IMDb is, in most cases, not ok. Regarding the content in the article, you may tag the content with {{Not in source}}, or remove the content all together, uneless you can find a source. Hopefully though, someone might be able to do so. (t) Josve05a (c) 15:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a couple of links I found with a simple Google search: http://www.prasadcorp.com/dfr.html http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/09/entertainment/et-caron9 The LA Times article confirms it has been digitally restored around 2008. The second confirms who did it. The latter is a primary source. There are restrictions on how those are used, so read the link first. If this looks good to you, try modifying the section according to the sources and substituting/adding them in as references. I suggest using the WP:VisualEditor and its cite function--via the "Edit" tab and links. Don't worry about mistakes--this is an iterative process. Barte (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And if something looks "wrong" (stylisticly) after editing using the VisualEditor, you're able to check the source code by pressing the normal Edit tab and see if you can detect the error. (t) Josve05a (c) 17:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit source, yes? Barte (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right, I have made some personal setting-changes...^ (t) Josve05a (c) 20:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Box Office[edit]

There is some slight confusion about the box office statistics. The international box office statistic of $13,208,725 is from IMDB but this isn't an academic, reliable source. To avoid confusion, perhaps this statistic should be replaced with the US box office of $6.5 million under the subheading Box Office. Thoughts? Cwong33 (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems a grey area. Best I can infer from Wikipedia:Citing IMDb, the use of IMDB box office stats on Wikipedia are in dispute--neither approved nor banished. What to do? As you brought it up here in Talk, give it a day or two to see if others respond. Unless there's strong, reasoned disagreement, WP:BEBOLD and use your best judgement. Barte (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Popular Culture Section[edit]

The statement about the film being Barbara Walters favourite seems unneeded in the Popular Culture section. The reference for this statement also happens to be a Youtube link to a video of someone recording the interview on their television via a phone or camera, which brings up copyright issues. Libertyelise96 (talk) 13:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After doing some research on the topic, there doesn't appear to be a reliable source for this statement that can be acquired. The other source found was an interview found on someone's personal YouTube channel therefore flags up more copyright violations.Vyasn (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have decided to remove the statement below as it lacks verifiability and also holds a copyright violation.

  Television journalist Barbara Walters announced on her daytime talk show The View that Gigi is her favorite movie of all time.[25] ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0_ohZferO4     Libertyelise96 (talk) 13:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plot[edit]

For the quotes in the plot section, should they be referenced from the film? Cwong33 (talk) 13:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The plot needs rewriting for clarity and grammar issures. Laraknauf (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed some of the quotes and cleaned up some of the sentences for clarity. Libertyelise96 (talk) 12:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Musical numbers[edit]

"Overture" is linked to the Wikipedia website on what an overture is. Is this relevant in this context? Also the note which refers to the cameo appearance of the Gigi cover on versions of the Pink Floyd Ummagumma album cover should be taken out since this information appears in the Popular culture section and is not directly relevant to the musical numbers. Laraknauf (talk) 13:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the sentence about the Pink Floyd album. Libertyelise96 (talk) 12:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Layout[edit]

I would suggest to maybe put the sections 'Critical reception', 'Awards and nominations' and 'Digital restoration' as sub-sections under 'Release' to make the page more coherent and easier to navigate. Laraknauf (talk) 13:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some guidance from the Wikipedia Manual of Style: MOS:FILM. If it's not there, it's your best judgement: try it, and see if anyone pushes back. WP:BEBOLD Barte (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. We changed the layout and hope that it is more coherent now. Also this layout now makes it easier to add sections and subsections Laraknauf (talk) 12:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

". . . he publicly humiliates her, resulting in her suicide."[edit]

It is made clear that Liane's attempt at suicide fails. She is apparently prone to such attempts, presumably half-hearted. (Two characters discuss her latest attempt as follows: "Liane d'Exelmans has committed suicide - again." "How did she do it?" "As always: Insufficient poison.") Kostaki mou (talk) 18:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly the wrong link?[edit]

After reading this article, I think it likely that the link for courtesan is the wrong one. In the plot, Gigi's aunt thinks it would be advantdgeous for her niece to become a mistress. The courtesan link in this article is as it reads at the time of this post, is for an attendant at court. It is not the same thing as a mistress. Because the article was a group project, I am pinging the three remaining group members, I am not blaming them, only seeking to have their input on the courtesan topic. Though anyone else should feel free to weigh in on this. @Laraknauf, @Libertyelise96, @Vyasn SeaBeeDee 15:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC) SeaBeeDee 15:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeaBeeDee (talk • contribs)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gigi (1958 film). 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090113134928/http://www.timeout.com/film/newyork/reviews/70189/Gigi.html to http://www.timeout.com/film/newyork/reviews/70189/Gigi.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]