Talk:Charlotte Gray (film)

Film: Australian / British / French / German / War

	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 Australian cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the French cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the German cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the War films task force.

Australia: Cinema Low‑importance

	Australia portal Charlotte Gray (film) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Australian cinema task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

France Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scotland Low‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Buckinghamshire (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Buckinghamshire, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BuckinghamshireWikipedia:WikiProject BuckinghamshireTemplate:WikiProject BuckinghamshireBuckinghamshire articles

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Romance Low‑importance

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romance, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional romance in literature and romantic fiction writers. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.RomanceWikipedia:WikiProject RomanceTemplate:WikiProject Romanceromance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: War films / Intelligence / European / World War II C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	War films task force
	Intelligence task force
	European military history task force
	World War II task force

Fair use rationale for Image:Charlotte Gray film.jpg[edit]

Image:Charlotte Gray film.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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Facts of the film vs book[edit]

I don't like that stupid "citation needed" wording, but I had no choice in using the "fact" tag. if there is one more appropriate, I'm all ears. Wikipedia has absolutely too many "deleted" or "deprecated" tags that it makes actually tagging articles nearly impossible... but I digress... :: It appears to me that facts from the book has been slipped into the film's information, which are not actually in the film itself. I very well could be wrong, which is why I did not make any direct changes (yet). If I may, I would like to list the ones I believe we need checking on. If anyone can verify this with written dialog directly from the film, that will settle the matter.

"medical receptionist" - If I'm not mistaken she only says she works in surgery. Did we see her at work or something? I cannot recall ever knowing she was a receptionist.
"spent much of her childhood in France" - My understanding was that's where she went to college or at the very least was schooled there. I don't remember ever hearing she was a "child" in France.
"a no longer inspired painter" - I cannot recall hearing anything about his being an artist. He said he loved his work and women, and said he was an engineer during WWI. As far as I can remember, this was all we heard about him as a person.

A movie is not a book and a book is not a movie. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 16:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I watched the film last night (after reading the book) and on first reading of the article I noticed points 1 and 3 straight away. It definitely smells of facts leaking in from the book. Carmody (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you've watched the film, change the wording to fit the film's plot. Lapadite (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK Fassin Taak (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Ebert Review[edit]

Ebert's original review, you might be able to find on Ebert's website, assuming Ebert's website is still running. The scene towards the end, when Charlotte passes the fake note thru the train wall to her father and the two kids, is harshly criticized in Ebert's review. Ebert basically said this scene made no sense, and did nothing to move the story further. Although conversely, my own opinion was that this scene was brilliant. She wanted the two kids to think their mother sent them a letter, and they would die in the concentration with the comfort of having gotten that letter. Indeed it does give a briliant end to the movie. I think Charlotte comes to a realization, that her participation in the French resistance is going to barely make a dent in the fight against the Nazis. But she comes to a realization that taking care of the two boys was not merely a nuissance to be tolerated; But she comes to realize that was her bigger accomplishment. The fake letter is the final task to a completion of that accomplishment. MS, Dania Fl 206.192.35.125 (talk) 12:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Financial Failure?[edit]

How about instead of calling it a financial failure, we call it a Hollywood Distribution failure. This was not a bad movie. I dont work in Hollywood, so I don't know the business environment of Hollywood dealmaking. But this movie could have made its money back, if it wasnt a limited release in the United States. Years ago, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act used to mean something. Industries used to rally against one or a few companies getting all the business. Yet this is what you see in the movie distribution business. You see the Big studios in collusion with the theater chains to swallow up all the available movie-screen show dates. MS. Dania Fl 206.192.35.125 (talk) 13:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charlotte Gray (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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051022082547/http://charlottegraymovie.warnerbros.com/ to http://charlottegraymovie.warnerbros.com/

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 15:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]