Talk:The Graduate
From the main article
- The film is well-shot, beautifully edited, and superbly acted. The screenplay is consistently strong and imaginative.
Whilst I like the film, I find the editing tedious and the imagery occasionally OTT. To my recollection, the film also struggles to explain why Elaine has any interest in Benjamin. It might be best if these views can be attributed somewhere. For instance, it might well be appropriate to distill commentary from imdb.com user reviews, quote Leonard Maltin, or some such. --Robert Merkel
I think what the person is referring to above is the symmetry of the scenes, and various other edits e.g. where Benjamin getting out of pool turns into Benjamin on top of Mrs. Robinson. I'd have to second your statement, though: those bits above are purely opinion and do not belong in an encyclopedia. Oh and IMHO Roger Ebert has a point when he says the film is best the first time around, and loses a lot the second time through. Koyaanis Qatsi
The novel came first. For what it is worth, I love the film, but I do not think wikipedia is a place for movie reviews (although it can and should give accounts of critical and popular reception). In any event, without taking anything away from Mike Nichols, we should not praise him at the expense of the author of the novel that inspired him, Slrubenstein
That's all well and good, but it's both established & accepted to write articles about movies worth writing about--and this one certainly is worth writing about, at least in the eyes of the U.S. National Film Registry.
Why not just add some bits about the novel? No one else seems to have known about it, and I certainly don't.
So far as your summary comment about disambiguation goes, I'd argue for not disambiguating this article until there's an article's worth of material on the novel and/or musical. No sense in creating more two-line stubs, IMO. Cheers, --KQ 14:36 Aug 2, 2002 (PDT)
- I hope you are not being defensive -- I certainly didn't mean to criticize the article -- just the fact that it did not mention the novel (which surprised me as I just read some of your other articles on film -- which I appreciate, byt the way -- and saw that you were careful to mention the novels upon which they were based. In any event, beyond having read and liked the novel (it does tell rather more about Benjamin's trying to "find himself" between graduating college and the affair with Mrs. Robinson), I do not remember much and know nothing more about it or the author. As for disambiguation -- I do not really care one way or the other, if anything I agree with you -- but I have noticed that some entries specify "movie" or "book." But like I said, I do not really care. Slrubenstein
No, I didn't mean to be defensive, though maybe I was anyway. I simply think that disambiguation has gotten a bit out of hand, to the point where we disambiguate for topics that have less than a decent paragraph on them. And I honestly did not know about the book, though I should have. :-) I would love to see an article on it. I'd say I'd love to read it, except I have a stack of books here already waiting for me. --KQ
"the second film?" What does that mean? -- Zoe
- I think it means that Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf came first. Slrubenstein
- Oh, thanks, I thought it meant that there were two film versions of the book. -- Zoe
- Oops, I've removed that part, as it's not particularly relevant to a discussion of the film, though it may be to one of Mike Nichols. Feel free to add it back and/or clarify. --KQ