Talk:Down with Love

Pastiche/parody

"The movie is an affectionate pastiche of the films made by Rock Hudson and Doris Day in the late 1950s and early 1960s, most notably Pillow Talk (1959) and Lover Come Back (1961)."

Affectionate my ass. I'm taking that part out. 161.115.210.12 14:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that sounded SO neutral of you... and you get Brownie points for using such delightfully highbrow terminology as "my ass". Note that I say this even as I (sort of) agree with you. Stop making my side look bad!

"Affectionate", may indeed be taking it a little far, given the film's somewhat anvilicious ending seems practically designed to say "look how stupid the ends of these films that we're pastiche-ing were!". It's definitely a pastiche (given that it copies the styles and settings and the like), but I'm also somewhat leery of calling it an outright "homage", given that "homage" implies it's, well, affectionate. Seeing as, if it's a shout-out that isn't affectionate, it's usually called a "parody". Then again, "somewhat of an homage" might work, or perhap, just "pastiche" would be better, as it's somewhat a more netural term that still includes the "copying elements of it" aspect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.235.0.159 (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Downwithlovemovie.jpg

Image:Downwithlovemovie.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 09:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Copy-edited!

Finished copy-editing. Everything seems to sound alright =) Pheebalicious (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Lead

"The plot reflects the attitudes and behaviour of the early pre-sexual revolution 1960s; but, to some, may have an anachronistic conclusion, driven by more modern, post-feminist attitudes."

This seems to be a preemptive (not to mention uncited) analysis of the film's content that would more properly fit in the Reception section. Although it's interesting, I have removed it for now. 108.28.170.60 (talk) 02:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

It's also odd, confusing and maybe misleading to describe this movie's plot as if it exists on its own and not as an amalgam of the genre being parodied.

Traximm (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit of June 28 2017

A fair amount of material with citations was added by myself and others gradually over time and except for the Plot section this article was finally about to be full of good citations, and then suddenly all that work was wiped out by an anonymous editor returning article to a much earlier, less informative version with no citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mungryheart (talk • contribs) 02:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)