Talk:The Public Enemy
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
The Public Enemy was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Delisted version: February 21, 2007
Reason for "top importance" assessment
This flick marks an important turning point in Hollywood film and had significant cultural/political ramifications beyond the world of entertainment. Improved sound recording technology allowed a protagonist who does not speak the Queen's English. Instead we get Cagney, in the role that catapulted him to fame, speaking a machine-gun English. It's perhaps the most memorable of the gangster movies and helped inaugurate that genre. The movie offers a powerful critique of prohibition and inspired the 'war on crime,' which was a vehicle for J. Edgar Hoover to turn the FBI into a powerful force. The war on crime included recruiting Cagney to star in an antidote to The Public Enemy, G Men, in an attempt to subvert the gangster movie genre into a pro-law and order phenomenon. Bobanny 17:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Definite good article for this early Cagney film. Keep up the good work for this and other Cagney film articles. Wiki-newbie 15:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- How the hell this crappy article got an award, I don't know. Typical Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
What makes it redundant? If you are referring to the infobox, it is supposed to be redundant to that... Cbrown1023 21:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- I just thought it was excessive to list the cast in the infobox, the opening paragraph, and in a separate section. I would suggest checking out other movie articles and seeing what the norm is (I'm not stuck on this position or anything). It'd also be nice to find out if there are any movie Featured Articles as a guide for further improvements on this one. It definately could be expanded, in which case repetition wouldn't seem so, well, repetitive. I was amazed when I saw how comprehensive the article for Bohemian Rhapsody was, considering it is just one song on one record -- so imagine how much this thing could be enlarged with a bit more research. Anyway, thanks for all your work on this. Bobanny 21:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- As a follow-up, here's a page that lists featured film articles. I looked on Blade Runner and the same redundancy exists there, but the cast section provides additional information on cast members in relation to the film, thus making it more than just repetition. Bobanny 22:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Too short and not enough sources. Chaldean 02:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- I dunno about this one, plot sections are generally never sourced, (I mean, what can someone do, find the timestamps in a movie where something happens? :/) and the other stuff doesn't seem that bad, some movies just aren't as famous or notable as others. Homestarmy 03:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
The point of GA is for short articles of FA quality. Wiki-newbie 11:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Eh? The Beatles article is ex-FA and around 10,000 characters long. It is in the listings below. LessHeard vanU 22:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- That's why it's a long nomination. Look at the Candidates page please, in reference to Chaldean's objection. Wiki-newbie 18:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Just a note, the editors of this article were not properly informed of this nomination by the talk page announcement. Cbrown1023 03:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, no critical issues IMO / Fred-Chess 13:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Since when have IMDb trivia sections been considered a reliable source? Hbdragon88 23:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Remove. The references are to not-very-reliable sources; the prose isn't up to much; and the main omission from the content of the page is any comparison with other similar movies that might give it some context. The Land 21:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Remove Needs more reliable references. The JPStalk to me 00:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep there is no reason to remove, all reason listed above are trivial. No articles can be perfect, but this one clearly does meet criteria. Wooyi 16:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to tip this towards a consensus and say Keep. The article fits the criteria as far as I can tell and agree the reasons given are trivial. We'll give it a couple of days before archiving to see if anyone comes out with a fantastic reason to say otherwise. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- delistper above. Rlevse 03:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- DelistSumoeagle179 12:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- DelistRlevse 01:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- The death of "Nails Nathan" is based on real 1923 death of gangster Samuel Morton nicknamed "Nails" of Chicago's North Side Gang. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 12:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- "Schemer" Brynes is possibly based on Vincent Drucci aka "The Schemer" also of Chicago's North Side Gang —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 12:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
In the begining Powers father is a policeman; about half way Powers mother is a widow. In between is the botched robbery attempt in which a policeman is killed by Powers. Is it implied that Powers killed his own father? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I've been studying film for years, especially Cagney films, and I've never heard about the inclusion of Bugs Moran in the film, nor that these scenes were deleted outside of this article. The only citation is a capsule review from the New York Times, and it is unclear if that information was posted after this articles posted the Moran claim. Believe it or not, even the NYT has used Wiki as a source for such article. If that is the case, the citation source is inappropriate. I question why Bugs Moran would be used in this film under his real name, when other real life characters were re-named for the film? Hoax? (18.104.22.168 (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC))
- In looking at the NYT citation, it actually says that it's just a reprint of the review from All Movie Guide. So that's the real source. I'm changing the citation accordingly, and others can decide whether All Movie Guide should be considered a WP:RS. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Nonsensical opening paragraph?
"The opening sequence of The Public Enemy is a montage depicting prohibition—beer parlors closing shop and police raids—before directing the viewer’s attention to two boys growing up with the resultant lure of corruption in 1920s urban America. We get a glimpse into the family life of one of the boys, Tom Powers, including a doting mother and an emotionally absent father who also happens to be a policeman. The consequence of the father’s distance is revealed in one scene in which he attempts to discipline his increasingly delinquent son. This sparks a change in young Tom, which is indicated by his souring expression while being beaten by his father with a leather strap." What on earth is this all about? It makes no sense whatsoever. In order:
- The opening sequence is not a montage.
- The opening sequence displays everyday life in 1909, eleven years before prohibition was passed into law. No beer parlors closing, no police raids.
- The two boys do not grow up during the 1920s. The film's first sequence, during which the characters are played by child actors, is set in 1909. The second sequence is clearly 1915, in which Cagney is meant to still be a teenager. The third sequence is in 1917 and Cagney's character is now a young man. Still no prohibition. The film even uses date slides to show the audience the year, so quite where this paragraph gets the idea that the boys grew up in the 1920s from, I don't know.
- The mother is doting, but that's not revealed until the second sequence, when Powers is no longer a child.
- There's no indication in this opening sequence that the father is emotionally absent. He doesn't even get a line and only one small scene (not 'a scene', which indicates many).
- The discipline scene doesn't reveal his father's distance. It reveals primarily that Tom is constantly in trouble and has learned to accept it, and subsequently his stoic nature when enduring the punishment. There is no change in Tom, no souring expression.