Talk:Topsy-Turvy

"Lozenge plot"

As I mentioned in my edit summary, the phrase "lozenge plot" is an odd one, and assumes that the reader has seen the movie (or read about it) and already understands what it means. I've rephrased the sentence a bit, keeping both "lozenge" and "plot" but not as a phrase. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 21:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I've tweaked it a little more. I would rather have the reference to Knightsbridge, because the exhibition there was a very famous one and gives the reader an idea that the exhibition was right in London, but if you don't think it's necessary, ok. The article certainly looks better than before, but it's a little thin on background of the movie, and it could quote some reviews. Also, should the plot summary be expanded a little? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was disappointed that my usual trusty sources didn't have much production info -- I agree it needs to be expanded, as does the plot, which peters out pretty abruptly. Problem with that is that I don't think it's worthwhile having our summary mirror the structure of the film, with its drop-in flash-forewards of song fragments which comment (?) on the story in rather subtle ways. Still, there's more to be made of the "many glipmses" of rehearsal & prep -- we could expand on the costume fittings, the blocking rehearsal, the stuff with the Japanese, Gilber's cutting of the Mikado's song; all of which would serve to give more of the flavor and the film. (It is, incidentally, one of the best depictions I've found of what working in the theatre is like, albeit in a different period with different attitudes and social relationsships.)

About Knightsbridge - if you feel strongly about it, go ahead and restore it - I wasn't sure how much information it would carry to people not familiar with London or the G&S story, and thought the sentence was cleaner without it. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 01:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

[left] Actually, according to the dialogue in the scene the lozenge appeared in an earlier production. "In this instance, it is a magic potion," says Gilbert. BTLizard (talk) 08:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure the movie got it backwards? Please check the film script again. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm quoting from the UK DVD; I watched it again last night. Is there a published script that says something different? BTLizard (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The DVD is fine; I just want to make sure that we are clear on exactly what is being said in the film. Historically, Dulcamara involved a magic face cream. The Sorcerer involved a magic potion. Gilbert's proposed plot right before The Mikado was about a magic lozenge. Are you saying that the film got this backwards, and in the film Gilbert is clearly referring to a lozenge in an earlier production, but his new proposed plot refers to a potion? Just clarifying. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I hadn't considered that the actual history might be different. I'm pretty certain about this, but in view of what you say I shall certainly check it again. 81.86.101.192 (talk) 11:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Gilbert marriage

The article currently states: However, the depiction of the Gilberts' marriage as cold and loveless is at odds with the available historical evidence. Having watched the film recently, I'm at a loss to understand this comment. Gilbert is certainly portrayed as pessimistic and socially inept, but Lesley Manville plays his wife Kitty as warm, supportive and affectionate, with no suggestion that the relationship is 'cold and loveless'. This seems to me to be broadly historically accurate. --Ef80 (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

In the film, Gilbert is portrayed as distant in his marriage. He and Kitty have no scenes where they kiss or are physically affectionate with each other. This is contrasted, dramatically, with the scenes of Sullivan's obvious libido. I disagree that the film portrays even Kitty as warm. She is polite; perhaps supportive, but they are portrayed as having no sexual connection. Plus, Kitty and Gilbert are rarely seen together in public in the film. However, in real life, the Gilberts were the life of the party, often entertaining friends and dignitaries in their home. Gilbert destroyed his personal correspondence (keeping only business correspondence), but the little of it that survives includes some tender and affectionate letters to his wife. From all we know, he was a man of considerable appetites and revelled in physical activity, and it is reasonable to believe that he and Kitty had an active sex life. Many in the G&S community feel that Leigh buys in to stories about Gilbert's personality told by those that Gilbert clashed with in the theatre world, and the writings of certain Gilbert critics, such as David Eden. Read the discussion of Gilbert's personality at W. S. Gilbert for several stories about Gilbert's warmth and charm. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ef80. You are applying modern conventions to a Victorian marriage when you say the lack of scenes of physical affection indicate a cold marriage. You are also missing the subtlety of the performance in this film. I have it on right now and am watching the scenes right before and when the Gilberts visit the Japanese exhibition; Gilbert's brusque refusal to attend and the immediate juxtaposition of the scene with him AT the exhibition show that he capitulates to his wife not matter how much he protests. Remember also the earlier scenes in which Gilbert refused to visit the dentist, she insisted and poof, there he was in the next shot. Your remarks about their sexual relationship are purely conjectural and therefore irrelevant. This annoys me so much that I'm ready to change the entry, but will wait a week or two to allow for argument otherwise. --Pergish1 (talk) 01:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Singing performances

The Lead section says: "Leigh cast actors who did their own singing in the film, and the singing performances were faulted by some critics...." I am sure that this is true, but the reception section does not give examples. Can anyone expand the reception section to cover this aspect of the reviews? -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Correct word for "restoring the solo" in the Plot section

The scene takes place in the staircase where he is confronted by what appears to be the entire cast requesting that the solo be restored in the performance. After some back and forth, he then asks the soloist if he is ready to perform the solo as ready for the stage and he is told by the soloist that he is ready. The soloist is then told to perform it without any further reconsiderations or changes to it, as the solo was prior to his deleting it. This appears to be more than merely a reconsideration with or without modifications, and it is restored into the performance in full. The correct phrase should be 'restores the solo'. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's clearer and does not add any redundancy this time. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: It would be nice to hear if you might have any thoughts for how to move this article toward a "B"-class article. Since you are being listed as a top editor here its really your plans that are going to carry weight here. Its a substantial two and a half hour film which many have enjoyed, and it would be nice to hear your thoughts. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I have no plans to work on this article, other than to monitor it for vandalism, errors and prose quality. I am a Gilbert and Sullivan fan, but I rarely contribute to film articles. If you or anyone else wants to do the research, be my guest! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the article needs more information about the soundtrack. Also, the production section needs more information about Leigh's historical research, which I understand was extensive. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

"Central Themes"

I think Ssilvers has misconstrued the film. Yes, the central characters are Gilbert and Sullivan, but their conflict is only a small part of the picture. Sullivan objects to the repetition and supernatural elements in Gilbert’s proposal, and Gilbert objects to Sullivan’s criticisms and his reluctance to fulfill his contractual responsibilities. But those conflicts are easily resolved fairly early on. The point is how social conventions of deference and civility prevent these and many other conflicts from blocking the collective creation. (This is in direct contrast to the romantic view of artistic creation as the work of a lone genius in an attic at perpetual war with society and its conventions.)

Just “production details”? I don’t think so. The roles of Carte and Lenoir in mediating the tensions; Gilbert’s problematic relationships with his father, mother, sisters, and servants; Sullivan’s relationships with Ronalds and the French prostitutes; the resolution of conflicts over pay and sobriety between Carte and the major players; Temple and the chorus’ concerns about the dropping of the Mikado’s song; Gilbert getting the readings he wants from the major players; Sullivan’s relations with the orchestra members; quarrels over the costumes and the choreography; and so on. These things, and the social contexts within which they are managed, is what most of the film depicts, and what it is really about.

I am not interested in getting into an editing war, but I hope you will seriously consider restoring my modest amendments to the article. Rhyme4 (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't write the part of the LEAD that you refer to, so your accusation might be directed at someone else (or possibly several people -- you can go through the article history if you wish to find out). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that reflects a consensus of editorial views reached by those who have been working on each article. But the sentence we are discussing has been in the article for many years, and I did not think your change was an improvement; I note that it also was different from what you now write above. If you want to make a significant change to the LEAD section of the article, you need to back up your changes by showing that WP:Reliable sources have stated the points you wish to add. I would not object to your summarizing those critical or scholarly comments in the Lead (and also adding them, possibly in more detail, to the critical reception section, if they are not already clearly represented there). Otherwise, what you are adding is WP:OR, which is prohibited. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)