Talk:The Life of David Gale

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Life of David Gale article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Film: British / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Ebert's Political Views

I'm taking out the parts of Ebert's quotes that are strictly political. I think the point comes across just fine without them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.106.209.61 (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Norman??

I've edited the page to change "Tony Norman" to "David Gale" at the very beginning of the "Plot" section. I'm not sure who Tony Norman is supposed to be but the context clearly refers to the David Gale character. If I've completely missed something here, feel free to change it back, but some extra explanation would be nice if that's the case. Cvkline (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link to David Gale (the person)

I have removed the link to David Gale, since (I'm pretty sure) the person described on that page has nothing to do with this film.

Factual Inaccuracy & a Stub

This article is a stub (it was a lengthy article before; not sure what happened to it). I was surprised that the article makes the claim that the film was generally well received by critics; but with a simple glance at it's rating at rottentomatoes.com; it is clearly the opposite of that -- this film was not well received. I have no idea where the authors got this idea. The lack of references shows this. I'll likely either remove the line "The film was generally well received by critics upon its release, particularly because of its surprising twist at the end and Spacey's performance.", or slap an "Inaccuracy" tag on the article.

Filming Locations?

Sam Houston State University is listed a filming location. Can someone tell me what scenes are filmed there? I was suprised UT-Austin was not on the list but SHSU was. The classroom scene and outdoors scene immediately after are clearly shot in the old Batts Hall at UT and the South Mall.

Several scenes at Constance's house were filmed at 1303 W. 10th St (for whatever reason the road scene down the street when Gale first goes there jogged my memory of this location even though I haven't been there in decades). Google Street View shows clearly that it's the same house as in the movie. 70.116.69.206 (talk) 04:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cage

Why does it say produced by Nicolas Cage on the information box on the right? Nicolas Cage had nothing to do with this movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.32.171 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 18 August 2006 24.225.32.171

IMDB has Cage as producer, too. -- Beardo 09:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I watched the movie last night, Cage was credited as a producer.Brian8710 21:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Twist

I noticed the twist isn't mentioned in the article while it is for other movies like The Sixth Sense and Fight Club (film). Sense the twist is a large part of the negative reaction and controversary of the film, I think it'd be okay to add it to the summary. Other people's thoughts? Tebor 08:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The twist is there now, but it was in an awkward position within the flow of the summary, so it's been rearranged.TashTish 17:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Davidgale.jpg

Image:Davidgale.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 00:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some interpretations

On the page are some details told in an interpretative way.

First: it should be said that the game which connects bitsey with the man, who is under death penalty lasts just three days. Not some days! Second: to me it wasn't visible, that he leaves a thump print on the plastic bag. He didn't touched her in this way, just leads his hand to her wrapped face, may be in form of an unvisible mirrow. The critics are dump, because they deal with the first meaning of death penalty.Lacans ring of borowmay told in such a vicious circle story is marvellous on the second and third meaning of existence. Global players act on might and false power and reveal them, by using the martyer torture.[ PLOT] Ask critics for POV!--Danaide (talk) 11:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is kinda stupid

From the "Plot" section, I quote:

"In an epilogue, the mysterious stranger delivers the interview fee from the magazine to Gale's wife in Spain along with a postcard from Berlin apologizing for the false rape accusation."

Dusty Wright, played by Matt Craven, was the alleged one-time lover and full-time activist partner of Laura Linney's character Constance Harraway. Nothing mysterious or strange about him except in the beginning of the film. Iin fact he is a key figure, once we know who he is, which we do by the last third of the film. If no one minds, I'm going to re-write that bit. Everyone cool with it?

Jesus, write something properly if you're going to write it at all!ElKeKomeIKanta (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Trial of Socrates

This will be counted "original research," so I'll only put it here, but what no one seems to have ever noticed about this underrated movie is that it is pretty obviously based on I.F. Stone's book The Trial of Socrates. In the movie David Gale goes into a long, drunken rant about Socrates's trial that seems incidental to the movie, merely a sign of his intellectual preoccupations, but actually it's a strong clue. Stone's thesis, which I gather is controversial, is that Socrates wanted to convict Athenian democracy of being defective by forcing it to unjustly execute him. And that's exactly what David Gale does.Kylegann (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]