Jump to content

Talk:Double Indemnity

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

I don't see how this could ever fit in but there is a nice comment in Some Dreamers of a Golden Dream which appears in Slouching Towards Bethlehem by Joan Didion (Joan Didion 1968 ISBN 0140037438), she is describing the San Bernardino valley, east of San Francisco and says:

"This is the country in which a belief in the literal interpretation of Genisis has slipped impercerceptiby into a belief in the literal interpretation of Double Indemnity . . ."—Preceding unsigned comment added by Notjim (talk • contribs) 22:47, 13 April 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Writing credits

[edit]

"Three of a Kind" not the title of a single novella, but the title of the collection of three novellas which contained the original Double Indemnity, so I've changed the writing credits here to reflect that.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.227.211 (talk) 03:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woody Allen's greatest.

[edit]

I thought I remembered having this discussion before, but perhaps I'm suffering from deja vu. The closest thing I have really found from what seemed to be a credible source was him saying that it was "Billy Wilder's best movie... practically anybody's best movie." [1] Other than that, it has been shown on IMDB and rotton tomatoes, and I don't know how reliable those are. I am yet to find a primary source though. I'll keep checking. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, more: I found "Double Indemnity is one of my all-time favourite films..." [2]. I found another secondary source for his "greatest ever" line, but nothing substantial yet. But I don't doubt we can agree that he really, really likes it. ;-) Perhaps more to come later. --LV (Dark Mark) 20:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Elements of film noir" section removed

[edit]

I have removed the section title "Elements of film noir" as it is entirely unsourced and original research. Do not readd this to the article without citing sources. The content removed is as follows: - kollision (talk) 08:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elements of film noir

Double Indemnity is an excellent example of a genre of films called film noir. Its plot and style contains almost all the elements that make up classic film noir:

  • Characters commit brutal, vengeful, and often psychopathic acts of violence.
  • The plot is about how a crime is committed and the story is told from the point of view of the criminal. In the case of Double Indemnity, the plot is literally told by the criminal. The entire plot (except the very first and very last scenes) is told in flashback with a voice-over by Walter Neff, who commits murder and very nearly gets away with it.
  • Double Indemnity, like many other film noirs, takes a naturalistic view of human nature. This is due in part to the flashback structure of the film. As everything in Double Indemnity described by Neff into the dictating machine clearly happened in the past, and there is no way in the present or future to alter events that occurred in the past, it is evident that the events leading up to the eventual execution of Neff were inevitable and were due mostly to Neff's nature as a weak-willed man in the hands of a femme fatale.
  • Themes illustrating how sexuality and psychology are interwoven emerge.
  • Moody lighting including Venetian blind effects on the walls and on characters' faces in some scenes look like bars on a jail and make the characters of Double Indemnity seem as though they are trapped by their human weaknesses and doomed to failure. The cinematographic compositions and the art direction are particularly claustrophobic as well. Characters are often backed into a corner where mobility is impossible (such as in cars or telephone booths).
  • The main female is used as a love interest and manipulation of the male lead. She is sexually independent and exploits her own sexuality for personal gain: the femme fatale.
  • Adapted from novels. Usually described as "hardboiled" detective stories, in which the lead is a usually innocent male led into corruption by the femme fatale and used by her to carry out her wishes in belief that it will secure their love. Eventually the lead figures out the femme fatale's true motives.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Wiki (talk • contribs) 08:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Remake" section removed...

[edit]

I have removed the section titled "Remake" as it is entirely unsourced and original research. Do not readd this to the article without citing sources. It is still there, albeit as an invisible note. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 05:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Schertzinger

[edit]

Does anyone know why Victor Schertzinger is given a "Music by" credit for this film? Everything I have read does not list him as having anything to do with this picture. In addition, he died in 1941, two years before it even went into production. The only other person I have seen connected with the music for Double Indemnity is Cesar Franck as the composer for some of the underlying music used by Rozsa in composing the score. I will be doing some more research for a music section in the article and see if his name pops up, but for now I am going to remove him unless somebody has a credible source for his inclusion.Dohhh22 (talk) 14:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it was added due to Schertzinger being a composer for a song called "Tangerine" which was apparently used in the film, according to IMDb. That, however, does not entitled him to a "Music by" credit in the infobox so you were right to removed it from the infobox. - Kollision (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see it now. The song was actually playing on the radio at the Dietrichson house. Definitely not a "music by" credit. Thanks for the input.Dohhh22 (talk) 15:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References to use

[edit]
Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
Done. Thanks!Trumpetrep (talk) 04:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anachronism about Red Scare and American Writers Authority

[edit]

The article, as written, claims "This was, however, the depth of the Red Scare in Hollywood and Guild members rejected the socialist notion and ran from the attempt.[1]"

Surely the "depth of the Red Scare" and the referenced McCarthyism was in the 1950s, during the so-called Army/McCarthy Hearings.

Few even knew who McCarthy was in early summer of 1946, when Cain proposed the American Writers Authority; McCarthy was not even seated in the Senate until the following year. In addition, American relations with the Soviet Union were still fairly good if not excellent in June 1946; the war, after all, had been over for less than a year. Stalin had not yet installed Communist governments in the countries he had occupied as a result of the War, the Russians did not yet have the bomb, Masaryk had not yet been defenestrated, the blockade of West Berlin had not been instituted, China had not yet been "lost;" in short, none of the things which historians often (usually?) argue caused the American public to so deeply fear and mistrust Soviet Communism had happened yet.

In addition, it is misleading to speak of "the Red Scare" as though there was only one; for example, there was a big "Bolshevism Scare" in America in the nineteen twenties (The Wall Street Bombing, Sacco and Vanzetti, etc.)

On the other hand, the Wikipedia article on the American Writers Association makes it clear that the specter of Soviet Communism was freely used in arguments against James M. Cain's idea for the Writers Authority. And there can be little doubt that nascent post-war anti-Communism did play a role in McCarthy's victory over Robert Lafollette Jr., and was otherwise stirring in 1946.

Therefore, propose changing the language in question to something along the lines of "However, there was a persistent element of anti-Communism in Hollywood, even in the afterglow of US/Soviet cooperation in the recent war effort (this element would shortly play a role in the Post-WW II Red Scare), and Guild members rejected the idea as "socialist" and ran from the attempt," and will do so in a few days if no one objects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.72.24 (talk) 01:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Muller, p. 59
Yes, the language is very unclear, and the cited source contains nothing to support the idea that the Red Scare was to blame. Will look for sources.Trumpetrep (talk) 04:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

[edit]

The plot has a number of errors in it. It makes me wonder if the writer of the plot actually watched the film.

For example, Neff was not aware of Ms. Dietrichson's plans until the second time they meet, which is in her home, not at his office. This is an important plot point; it establishes that, despite his years as an insurance salesman, he is still somewhat naive. William J Bean (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm responsible for a good chunk of the latest version of the plot. The synopsis makes it clear that Neff told her he wanted no part of what he guessed were her plans at her home, not at his office. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 2 external links on Double Indemnity (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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 03:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Double Indemnity (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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 07:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 August 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved to Double Indemnity. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Double Indemnity (film) → Double Indemnity (1944 film) – This main header's parenthetical qualifier has had the form of incomplete disambiguation since the March 2019 creation of Double Indemnity (1973 film). Double Indemnity (film) should be a redirect to the Double indemnity (disambiguation) page which has as its WP:PRIMARYTOPIC the stub describing an insurance policy provision. The nomination appears to be an uncontroversial technical request but, since previous requests for further disambiguation of iconic titles have encountered opposition, it seems best to put it on record in the event the 1944 film or the book are proposed as alternative primary topics. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If consensus skews towards Double Indemnity (film) → Double Indemnity [which currently serves as a redirect to Double indemnity (disambiguation)], I would also support such an alternative as well as supporting Double indemnity → Double indemnity (insurance provision). —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would prefer alternative the proposal above to move the page back to Double Indemnity, as it appears to be a clear primary topic by both page views and long term significance for the title case version. If we do not do that move though, then I would support the nomination to address the issue of incomplete disambiguation.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a better solution to move the 1944 film to the base title. I'll drop a note at WT:FILM for more input. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

suggested tiny edit

[edit]

there's a section in 'release' about the "most important words in motion-picture history", relating to wilder's ad in the trade papers & selznick's reaction to being mimicked, then in the 'reviews' section beneath, we read that hitchcock wrote to wilder using a similar construction, presumably a humorous call-back to this.

wouldn't it make more sense if the hitchcock story was alongside the selznick anecdote in the 'release' section? it's not clear that it was a 'review', as such, if it was in a letter to wilder, & in any case, it is obviously a reference to the trade ads taken out by selznick.

duncanrmi (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bradbury Building

[edit]

I walked past downtown Los Angeles's Bradbury Building this weekend and heard a tour guide concluding a speech with the "fact" that the opening and closing scenes of Double Indemnity are set or shot in the Bradbury Building, which made me wince in the same way I do when I read it on Wikipedia or the sources usually claimed, like tourist blogs, or, I think perhaps the source prime source of the concept, a 1990s LA Times article. Actual close viewing of the movie will show that this is not the case (not did Wilder/the studio ever claim such).

Fred MacMurray's insurance agent character works in an office building on Olive Street (they say so by name in the final scene, and when they have a meeting with the boss you can see the Security Building across Pershing Square in his window). His building has a separate lobby (opening scene), then an elevator lobby of only one story (with visible ceiling) that then goes from two doors into a larger atrium of offices surrounding a central typing pool.

This is a set that was inspired by Paramount's corporate parent headquarters in New York City. I believe MacMurray's office being placed on Olive at the south end of Pershing Square is intentional, because it's the home of the Pacific Mutual insurance complex, which would have been well known as a landmark in that business in central Los Angeles at the time.

https://calisphere.org/item/0adad9be01b5966d1738d2c3589e8c54/

https://dtla-weekly.com/monuments-time-pacific-mutual-life-insurance-building/

That first shot when he does out into the open plan does resemble the Bradbury's interior briefly, but it's more rectangular, much larger, only two stories, and does not contain the Bradbury's distinctive iron pipework and elevators.

Looking at the office pool sets in the actual movie demonstrates the dissimilarity to the Bradbury.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r_jjQ_idz8 (about 1:00)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41brxmagh3A. (around 8:50) 2603:8000:C003:AA29:8DF7:AC85:4391:B8D2 (talk) 02:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources & Citations

[edit]

There are excellent sources for this article, but they are used and cited in a shambolic format. Content is repeated, sometimes in different sections. The same source is given different reference names. The result is thousands of characters of bloat on the article, and some extremely clumsy prose. I am cleaning things up. There were 103 footnotes when I started. Just by eliminating the duplicate citations, I've whittled that down to 69. Any help would be great. Trumpetrep (talk) 04:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now down to 50 citations and has been trimmed from 73k bytes to 50k. I've streamlined a lot of the diversions in the text, and eliminated a great deal of material that belongs elsewhere.Trumpetrep (talk) 06:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Release Date is Incorrect

[edit]

A letter from James M. Cain to Fred MacMurray dated February 4th, 1944 refers to a screening of the film the two attended on a prior night of unspecified date. Cain makes reference to MacMurray having made a "french exit" to avoid the crowd, implying that this was a public screening, and likely the premiere night of the film given that Cain and MacMurray were in attendance. Haven't been able to find further information as to the specific date the screening took place, wondering if any sleuths out there can follow up in this.

https://blogs.loc.gov/loc/2022/03/the-very-polite-letters-behind-double-indemnity/

https://www.loc.gov/item/mm73047399?loclr=blogloc 2600:1700:70D4:880:9D64:5625:9235:894 (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Double_Indemnity&oldid=1264340113"