Talk:Bright Young Things (film)

All_Things_Bright_and_Beautiful

All_Things_Bright_and_Beautiful: whereas searching f/ one brings both, is there an influence, or a coincidence?

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 22:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This article omits characters; they are listed @:

• < http://akas.imdb.com/title/tt0325123 >.
• This movie refers to naughty salt, which seems to be cocaine, as well as other culture, such as Bugatti.

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 21:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

America is not the world

Why are all the quoted reviews for this British film from American publications? As if I need to ask... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.251.196.62 (talk) 11:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Bright Young Things / People

The "Bright Young People" of the 1920s were also commonly referred to as Bright Young Things, and still are, and the article should reflect this somewhere. If not, the film title may hijack the phrase on wikipedia.86.42.223.129 (talk) 14:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Which war

The article says "World War II", but the book was written in 1930, so Waugh must have been (prophetically) imagining some future war. Should we really call it World War II in the article? The article on Vile Bodies simply says "War looms ... we find Adam alone on an apocalyptic European battlefield." OTOH, the film is from 2005, and by then its makers may have had WWII in mind. Do we know, one way or another? If we don't, should we switch back to a less specifically named war to echo the book? ubiquity (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Just found this, which is something I was wondering about too. Waugh clearly had a (non-specific) "next war" in mind. However, in the film the news that war has been declared arrives via Neville Chamberlain's actual 1939 wireless broadcast ("... no such undertaking has been received, and that consequently this country is at war with Germany"). The next scene finds Adam and the drunk major (now a general) on a battlefield in a bleak, flat landscape that looks like Flanders, wearing uniforms that look to me more like WWI than WWII, and the general has an open-topped car that looks to me more like something of c.1930 than c.1940 (though I'm no expert on either uniforms or cars). Adam then returns to England, landing at Dover in a chaotic scene clearly reminiscent of the Dunkirk evacuation. He travels to London, which has been bombed. He meets Ginger and Nina, and Nina's young son (aged 4–5) – who is strongly implied to be Adam's, conceived in an earlier scene in the body of the film, which was definitely set c.1930. So in other words, Stephen Fry has left things deliberately ambiguous, but has included some clear WWII allusions.

My solution – which I will now be bold and enact – is to replace the explicit WWII reference with one to "a new world war"; and also change the mention in the lede that the film's action takes place from "the late 1920s through to the early 1940s" (which I think is misleadingly precise) to a vaguer reference to "the "interwar era". If anyone disagrees, feel free to discuss further. GrindtXX (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)