Talk:Amélie

Plot similarity

A reference to the close similarity to a british short film of 2 years before- 'the photoman', was removed, the reason given that the verification was not reliable. The verification was this link http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/title/654709 to the british film institutes website that describes 'the photoman's plot. in what way is this not reliable? could information about a film be any more reliable than from the bfi? thecavster

It's original research, so I would say it doesn't merit inclusion.-DMCer™ 22:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well this is what it says about that:

'Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented'.

The BFI link would seem to cover all that. It directly supports the information presented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.141.91 (talk) 10:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The point isn't the fact that the BFI link includes the plot of Photoman, it's the action of drawing a link between Photoman and Amélie, without a reliable source that does the same. The BFI link does not, I did a quick search, and I didn't see any either.—DMCer™ 10:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The link directly presents the exact same plotline, so you have to consider it fact, and not wait for somebody to opine that the fact is present --84.208.113.245 (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: I wondwer whether Britannica would fail to put something in if they could document that it was fact, for lack of opinion expressing the connection. --84.208.113.245 (talk) 12:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

No one can draw a definate link between one artistic work and another except the creator and in this case he isnt going to. Areas like this are never black and white. The absence of a definate link however does not render the suggestion of such a link historically invalid or uninteresting. There are many other suggestions of artistic infuence and inspiration on these pages unconfirmed by the creator of the work, that are there because they are of historical and artistic interest to readers and the pages would be very dry without them. However in this case the similarity is beyond dipute and just because someone doesnt like something doesnt mean its not valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.141.91 (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You destroy your own argument when you say "areas like this are never black and white." Well, this is an encyclopedia, which deals in facts. You can say the similiarity between the British short and Amelie is beyond dispute, but unless you can prove that Amelie was influenced by it, there is no reason to accept that as fact. It is your opinion, and thus matters not at all. And when you throw in petulant little statements like "just because someone doesnt like something doesnt mean its not valid," it really undermines your arguments and shows you have an agenda. It also makes you sound like a insipid pompous little twat, which I'm positive is what you probalby are in real life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.244.164 (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The garden gnome travelling the world and sending postcards is also nicked from somewhere else, but I can't remember where offhand. It certainly wasn't original to Amelie. 86.133.213.152 (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Orgasm counting

Article says she's imagining how many orgasms there are in the world right now, but I think it's just in Paris, based on

a) Her looking down over the city at the time

b) Number of people born every second is something like 4.4 according to google, so obviously there are many more orgasms than that occuring per second.:-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.118.97.95 (talk • contribs) .

As far as I can remember in the movie itself, the narrator says that she counts the number of orgasms happening at that moment - but does not say where. Elizej 17:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've always taken it to mean in Paris. I'll pay more attention to the individual settings and people next time. Of course, this may require single-framing that sequence on the old DVD player ;-) ...

Atlant 18:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

"Time hasn't changed anything. Amélie still shelters in solitude... and asks herself silly questions about the world or about this city. For example, how many couples are having an orgasm right now? -Fifteen..."

I guess we will never know since the narrator mentions both. _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 20:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• That's not what it says. [1]The wording is, "She amuses herself with silly questions about the world below, like how many couple's are having an orgasm right now." This hardly merits inclusion in the article, since it's so subjective. If it stays, then it should be Paris, since the "world below" is the city under her vantage point.-DMCer™ 22:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say she's counting the number of orgasms in the city within the boundary of her mind...(Jonarvs 08:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC))

I say, number of orgasms in the city because all the couples look very french to me. There is much more than 15 couples having an orgasm in the whole world in this exact moment.

In the original French movie, it is clearly stated that she is counting the number of orgasms being felt throughout *Paris* at one given instant.

Is that so? The original French text is as follows:

Le temps n'a rien changé. Amélie continue à se réfugier dans la solitude. Elle prend plaisir à se poser des questions idiotes sur le monde ou sur cette ville qui s'étend là sous ses yeux. Combien de couples, par exemple, sont-ils en train d'avoir un orgasme à cet instant précis?

Just like in the English translation, it's said that she likes to ask idiotic questions about the world or about the city she's looking at; for example, how many couples are having an orgasm right now?

I agree it's implied that it's about Paris, mainly because Paris is mentioned last before the example question, but it's not "clearly stated" at all. It's just as ambiguous in the original French version as in the English translation mentioned above. - Fyrius (talk) 10:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticism as racist

Re: Criticism section - You can see Afro-French people in the film. One of the shots in the train station, there are 3 black people walking behind her. On the old man's tv there is black and white footage of a black woman singing, and two of the photos in the scrapbook are of a black man. What is with the criticism of no Afro-French people in it? Lapinmies 19:06, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

People have to politicize everything nowadays. It's all very sad. If every ethnic group isn't represented in exact proportions to the real-world ones then it's racist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.186.43.161 (talk • contribs) .

My wife and I just watched the film again with this criticism in mind, and we've decided that the criticism is hogwash. Aside from the principal players (one of whom is apparently North-African), there are very few other people of any notable ethnicity really visible in the film; there are very few "crowd" scenes. Amelie leading the blind man to Abessess is the one that I recall. The scenes in the train station that show crowds are almost always very far shots. And Amelie appears to live towards the Abessess side of the butte, not the Barbès-Rochechouart side, so that attempt to prop-up this criticism doesn't hold water either.

Atlant 13:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Calling this film racist is friggen ridiculous! --164.107.92.120 23:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

We have our own ways of thinking but we're not all citizens of Paris. Maybe they should vote on this.(Jonarvs 08:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC))

If critics begin to criticise films because it doesn't portray a multicultural society, what on earth is happening? Who really cares whether or not there are French-Africans included in each shot. There is nothing racist about that. We have been driven by the media to believe that we must embrace every culture and people to the point where no culture can be seen in isolation. I didn't want to see every facet of Paris through this film. It could also be argued that this film "competely ignored the Eiffel Tower" and therefore did not show what Paris is really like. The problem with a politically correct society like ours today is that there is so much angst about these issues. People become so afraid that if even a film doesn't officially recognise every ethnicity there is, people become afraid as if a brawl is set to commence over such an offence.

I think the point is that the film tries to create a fantasy, 'perfect' version of Paris, right? Everyone knows that the real Paris is often cold and rainy, but in this film, everything is lit in golden sunlight. Everyone knows that the real Paris is often dirty, but in this film, all the litter and grafitti has vanished. And everyone knows that there are lots of black people in Paris, especially Montmartre, but in this film all the black people have vanished. I imagine that's why some viewers were offended: airbrushing black people out to create a sense of 'perfection' is perhaps just a little bit racist, isn't it? Cop 633 15:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

No matter what we think, is this ONE critic's opinion REALLY notable? I don't think it should even be included, considering it has little to do any aspect of the film's production, grossing, release, or reception (apart from that one little-circulated review). I think it should go. -DMCer 21:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No, keep it in! I came looking for information on that aspect because I'd heard the race criticism elsewhere. Allow people to make their own decisions on whether or not they think the film is racist, rather than deleting it and whitewashing over the issue in much the same way Jeunet may have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.108.203 (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

When you keep the criticism of one minor critic that the film is racist, you are not really allowing people to make their own decision,as it is providing a PC bias. No one is white-washing things, anbd for you to ask for people to think for themselves, while at the same time pushing for a skew towards a certain opinion is amazingly hypocritical and smug. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.244.164 (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

EMMMM I thought paris was a european country, can we PULLEEEZZEE try and keep our culture without the horrible multi cultural lunatics trying to rip apart everything we are. If a french film has no ethnic minorities then who cares. next youll be spouting OOMAN rights 78.144.165.216 (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

For me it wasn't the under representation of afro-french people that seemed off to me. But I just watched the film again and I found the shot where she's running away from three afro-french gentlemen, while they seem to be harassing her after sleeping the night in the metro quite unsettling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.210.44 (talk) 05:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to charge anyone involved in this beautiful production racist. The only things we, the viewers, should recognize as 'off' is the fact that there are pretty much only three black people shown in the film; and to make matters worse, they appear to actually be harassing Amelie. I'm not saying there should never be that scenario in a film "because it's racist", because it does happen. But come on. I did not notice one single line of dialogue spoken by a black person throughout the entire film. Once again, it's not that society is pressuring total racial 'equality' in terms of a minority's presence within a film, but just SOME representation of that minority would make the film a bit more credible. After all, it is set in Paris, one of the most diverse cities in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackshelgren (talk • contribs) 04:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Death

Re: "But while she is looking after others, no one seems to be looking after Amélie, and internally, she recognizes that this unrequited devotion to the other people in her life is going to lead to her eventual death from despair." Could someone, perhaps the author of the above statement, clarify whether Amelie died in this film from despair?

I think this refers to a brief clip where Amélie is watching the news and, somewhat surreally, sees an old-fashioned news report of her death, where it praises her achievements in helping people but points out that she died lonely. I do reckon this could be altered a bit, though, as it is a bit confusing.--Joseph Q Publique 07:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that this movie is about a girl who was helping others trying to fix their lives but she couldn't fix her own. Amelie could have lived and died that way if she did not overcome her own "issue" with life. She's like a fixer and figured that maybe she's going to die that way just trying to fix other people's lives and she had to give up her own when in fact it didn't need to be the case. I think she was just this girl who couldn't get out of her shell and lived vicariously through others by doing what good she tried to do for them. But of course in the end the reverse happened because she was able to allow the man she fancied to step into her world.(Jonarvs 08:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC))

Red colour

This film is one of the best films I have ever seen. I noticed something. Almost every frame have some red article. Even some little thing is red in this film. Interesting... --Pockey 01:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Colour was definitely on the director's mind. (I don't recall if our article mentions it, but) you can see that the entire film has an overall greenish tint to it (and the director has stated that this was deliberate), so red would be a very good contrasting colour to draw attention to objects.

Atlant 11:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I recall hearing (as in a friend telling me) that the director's intention was to make the movie look like a painting come to life. Don't quote me on that, though, as I have nothing accept my friend's assurance that this is case - no direct quotes from the director or anything.--Joseph Q Publique 07:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I just watched the film again, and I paid particular note to the colour scheme. Pockey has it correct; the scenes that are green-tinted do almost always have a number of bright-red objects in them. A notable contrast to the entire colour-scheme is Amelie's apartment; themed almost entirely in red, she has an obvious bright blue table lamp and she is often wearing a bright-green dress. Again, very high colour contrast.

Atlant 13:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Color is a a medium of communication not only in paintings but in all art form. Color always means something. A director does not smack an object into a scene simply because it looks good. Every detail is calculated from the camera angle to lighting. A good director never misses that. If something catches your attention, it's not because it just happened to but because it was intended to.

(Jonarvs 09:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC))

I like the color in this movie. Blue, green, red are appeared most. The oil painting by Juarez Machado (Brazil) inspired the director. These colors made the whole movie full of happiness. The colors mix with vivacious music, you will get into bright atmosphere soon.

lddilu 12:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

"DVD" section

should this section be deleted? This is nothing but some kind of trivial fact that seldom relates to an article, so why needing this useless section? --69.232.47.90 08:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say yes, delete it.

Atlant 13:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Ratings backlash

When this film was released, I recall a major critic (I believe Roger Ebert) making mention of how the film proved the current MPAA ratings system was unrealistic in that it was given an R rating even though the film was virtually devoid of violence and had very little sex in it (indeed except for the orgasm sequence, there's more explictness in your average episode of CSI). I think it might be worth mentioning how this film sparked this discussion, perhaps in the Trivia section, but unfortunately I can't find any online source to back up my memory. Does anyone else recall this debate? 23skidoo 06:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

In France, it was rated "grand public". This is the most open rating one could get. Disney cartoons also get "grand public" for example.

In his review Ebert wrote "It is this innocent sequence, plus an equally harmless childbirth scene, that has caused the MPAA to give the movie an undeserved R rating (in Norway it was approved for everyone over 11)."[2] (Nov 9, 2001). In his "Movies Answer Man" column a reader asked how Amelie got a R rating [3] (Oct 21, 2001) and wrote "the MPAA objected to the chldbirth scene at the beginning, and the montage in which all of Paris seems to have an orgasm."

Ebert twice criticized the MPAA for how it rated this film but one critic is not enough to call it a "backlash", more sources would be needed to support stronger wording like that. WP:FILMRATINGS are not normally noteworthy but there is enough to make an exception in this case if someone wanted to add it to the article. [Mention in a listicle about film ratings by The Guardian. Texas Teacher Trouble for showing R Rated film[4].] -- 109.76.195.59 (talk) 12:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Film clips

Aren't there clips of the TF1 bulletin giving the news of Princess Diana's death (before she finds the box) and a Tour de France (added to the video for Raymond Dufayel). If so, why aren't these in this list? I was going to add, but I was worried they might be deleted. Having watched the French version twice, Im sure I saw this DannyM 10:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It isn't from the Tour de France but from Critérium International video here. Anyone know what the tumbler and the dog is from which follows this? (Emperor 00:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC))

According to Death_of_Diana,_Princess_of_Wales, “On 31 August 1997, Diana, Princess of Wales, died as a result of injuries sustained in a car crash” so perhaps the statement in the Plot section, “On 30 August 1997, startled by the news of the death of Princess Diana, ...” is a day wrong Jwpat7 (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Capitalization

I do not know if there's some policy on wiki, but French and Italian movie titles are always written devoid of capital letters. If there's no policy it should be changed, together with all the interwiki articles using the French title. _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 00:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• The naming policy on the article title is to use the English title, capitals and all. Like "Le Fabuleux Destin d'Amélie Poulain" becomes "Amélie". And the French Amélie article uses capitals. It seems to me that only Italian films do not use capitals.

Italian film articles: it:Il favoloso mondo di Amélie, it:La vita è bella, it:Il dottor Stranamore, ovvero: come imparai a non preoccuparmi e ad amare la bomba. Calicore 01:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

"Cinema Paradiso" is capitalised, so is "Malena", both are Italian films. They may be uncapitalised in the Italian language but this is the English version of Wikipedia so the titles should stay as they are.Gillean666

First letter is obviously capitalized in any language :) And both Cinema Paridiso and Malena are proper names! On IMDb it's written Le fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulin. Now what I'm asking is about policy not your patriotic views of the English language, since IMO a title should be kept in its original format (as is the case for Se7en). Now if it's policy / practice to use the title released in English speaking countries (which, may I add, was actually Amélie of Montemartre not Amélie) it's another story and I'm not going to go against that. Thing is, the title is already the "English" version, but in the text the original title is given (and is fully capitalized). Now, throwing an argument against myself, the poster actually capitalizes all words.

This was more of a general question rather than specific to Amélie, to know how things stand for all other Italian and French movies! _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 00:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The habit in French is not to capitise nearly so frequently as in English. For example, in French one could re-write that first sentence: "C'est l'habitude en français de ne pas capitaliser si souvent qu'en anglais." "French" and "English" customarily are graced with capitals, but "français" and "anglais" are not. This is really only a detail: I frequently over-capitalise when writing in French, which native speakers probably find a little odd but nothing more. Howevere, where the French title is being written it would seem reasonable to me to stick to the native language convention. Malkin the Cat 19:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah?!?? No native French writer would ever not capitalize "français" or "anglais" (unless they were used as adjectives. But as language names, they are, and must be, capitalized).

Yeah. Five seconds on Google suffice to show that native French speakers often write the name of the language "l'anglais" without capital.

wikilinks

i just removed two wikilinks from a completely blue sentence.--trueblood 10:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violation?

This article is pretty much just the narrative of the story. Doesn't this violate some sort of rule?--WHS 13:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so as the words as written are original to this article (as far as I can tell from a bit of Googling on samples of text). Also, in the Copyright article, it says "Copyright law covers only the particular form or manner in which ideas or information have been manifested, the "form of material expression". It is not designed or intended to cover the actual idea, concepts, facts, styles, or techniques which may be embodied in or represented by the copyright work. Copyright law provides scope for satirical or interpretive works which themselves may be copyrighted." My interpretation is that a "form of material expression" would mean the actual words and sentences used (or ones very close), and doesn't apply if you're doing a freshly-written synopsis. If you were to hawk this synopsis round film studios as an idea for a screenplay, then I reckon that would be different. Anyone else got any views? --A bit iffy 14:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

By narrative of the story, I meant that the words that the narrator is saying in the story. I apologize on my part for the lack of unclarity. Most of the synopsis, while not quite word for word with the script, follows the lines recited in the narration throughout the movie extremely closely, which I'm pretty sure must qualify as a copyright violation of some kind.--WHS 21:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I see no similarity whatsoever, sorry! Anyway, isn't the narration in French?! _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 00:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to the subtitled English, at least in my copy of the movie. But if no one else agrees with me then I suppose I'm wrong. Here's a copy of the script, just for reference. [5]--WHS 07:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not quite sure at what point something becomes a copyright violation, and I wouldn't have a clue how to determine it. So I'm only going on my gut feeling which is that, as I'm sure that the writing of the sysnopsis here is original, then there isn't a copyright violation. I'm sure that the writing here is original because I can see from the history it's been built up gradually. It's possible some contributors have used the script to construct parts of the article, but the texts are quite different in my opinion. The sequence of events described in this article and occurring in the film appear to be the same, but I doubt if reporting a sequence can be construed as violation of copyright. So sorry, WHS, I still don't agree! All the best, --A bit iffy 07:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

All the same, that was just my initial feeling upon reading the article. Thanks for giving your input. --WHS 08:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

How do you pronunciate Amelie? Is it like "a-meal" or "a-meal-a" or "a-meal-e?", or something different? And perhaps it should be mentioned in the article? Funkadillo 02:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well... you could try watching the movie! But anyway, it's "A-mel-ee", with the "A" pronounced as in "cat" (I've heard a lot of Americans pronouncing "a" as in "father" but that's wrong) Cop 633 02:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree a bit: "cat" sounds a bit harsh to my ears. So, in English, I'd recommend "Ah-may-lee". And next time, I'll update this if the Glass Man really does use a "cat"-like pronunciation of that first "A".

Atlant 17:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I have watched the movie, but its hard to pick up how the characters are pronouncing the name when you're watching it in a foreign language with subtitles. You're more listening to the tones they're using and reading the words than listening to the words they're actually saying. Funkadillo 22:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Funny how you tell others that (1) they should try watching the film and (2) that they mispronounce the name, because you're wrong yourself. I've never heard a Frenchman pronouncing an 'a' like in 'cat'. 'Ah' isn't right either. Correct pronunciation:

a (like in Chicago) - may (like in okay) - lee (as in Bruce).

Troy 18:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Look, I'm sorry, but you're wrong. It is a as in 'cat'. Click here. Listen to the first time her name is spoken (it's when we see the sperms and the narrator says "Amelie Poulain is born". It's much closer to 'cat' than anything else suggested here (although I can't hear any difference between Chicago and father, so maybe we're all talking at cross purposes here...). Cop 633 15:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

To be very nitpicky, the a in 'cat' is a near-open front unrounded vowel, while the French a (according to French phonology) is an open front unrounded vowel... a huge difference! (not really) :) ugen64 16:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)]

Haha! SO much for a frenchman never pronoucing an a like in 'cat' what about 'Avec' meaning 'with' ?? and if it was like chicago, does that make it pronouced (when spelt phentically) ARRRMELIEEEEE ?

thats surely not right :/? 18:42 March 2007

To set the record straight - you can't talk about pronunciation in such scalar terms. To some people, the 'a' in Amélie will sound like the 'a' in cat; that depends on the way you pronounce 'cat'! To others, it will sound different. Huge regional variations exist, and really the only way you can talk about it in objective terms is to use correct terminology. In truth, it's not the 'same' as any sound in English. You're talking about a word from a whole new language, with a whole new phonological system and use of different sounds completely. Will2710|^Talk! 01:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Dwarf

Just want to spark a discussion on the use of an elf. Why not a dwarf? Or an elephant? Or anything else but an elf? (Jonarvs 09:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC))

Garden gnomes are popular in France and liberating gnomes is an old prank. -Lapinmies 10:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• I have an interesting question about the gnome. Was it what inspired the "Roaming Gnome" commercials for Travelocity, or the other way around? I can't remember the timing. Also, I just wanted to comment on the wonderful symbolism of the gnome... that her father is so quirky and antisocial that he spends his time heaping love and attention upon the inanimate object, rather than people; Amelie says she is better than him in that she at least spends time on people... but at the same time, she doesn't come to terms with her own avoidance of emotional investment and has to live vicariously through others until the end. GREAT movie. --68.239.232.19 20:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

According to IMDB, the garden gnome was inspired by similar pranks in the 1990s by the "Front de Libération des Nains de Jardins", and the idea was later used for the advert. Here is the link to the IMDB page. Améliefan 15:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Travelocity pumped the idea from the movie. However, the movie got it from a real "club" of Frenchmen who formed the so-called "Liberating Front of Garden Gnomes". They would sporadically shuffle gnomes from garden to garden, usually at night, much to the amazement of the gnomes owners. They'd play many similar pranks involving gnomes (e.g. repainting them, dress them up with accessories, etc...)

Romantic comedy?

It's a light-hearted romance, but is it really a romantic comedy? It doesn't seem to fit the definition given in that article. But perhaps that's just a bad definition (it certainly seems to be overly specific).--Shantavira 18:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is the romantic comedy article, not this one; that article has a ridiculously narrow definition of the genre. Cop 633 21:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Being that I generally hate romantic comedies but LOVED Amelie, I hope it never ends up with that genre label. But that probably has to do with my own ridiculusly narrow definitions. :) --68.239.232.19 20:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Mistakes

Under the mistakes section, it mentions a car model that was not around at the time the film is set, but that the director knows this and left it in on purpose. If the director left it there on purpose, is it really a mistake? Pnkrockr 18:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Princess Di Significance

• I was just curious what everyone else thought the meaning of the Princess Di subplot had to the story, it's a recurrent theme that gets brought up a lot. I know that the Glass Man hated hearing about her all the time. I thought it was commentary that modern society is superficial (the comparison with Mother Theresa's more overlooked death during that time) and gives undeserved worship to pop iconography rather than to milestones of deeper significance. Maybe there's more to it, and I'm curious what others thought. --68.239.232.19 20:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Jeunet mentioned that he mainly included that particular subplot to give the film some kind of temporal location: i.e. to show its setting in 1997. When you think about it, there's little else that would give any clues as to a definite year or era in which it was set. I think that's why it's in there: it was pretty big news in France too, so I think it's also to evoke the kind of 'where were you when this happened' idea and situate it concretely within people's understanding. ghostmoon^EVP_hauntings 00:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Truffaut Clip

Right now, the text of the page reads "A 'kissing scene' during which a bug, apparently unnoticed by the filmmakers, crawls across the screen behind the two lovers and appears to enter the woman's mouth." I'm not sure it's really fair to say "apparently unnoticed by the filmmakers", because my understanding was that Truffaut noticed this but left it in intentionally.

I always understood that it was unnoticed by the maker of the original film, but that it was noticed and pointed out as part of the plot here, as that's one of Amélie's 'quirks'. ghostmoon^EVP_hauntings 00:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The whole point of the scene is that Amélie likes to notices little details in movies that no one else does - like the bug appearing to enter the women's mouth. In fact, the narrator says as much right as the clip plays, and then Amélie smiles. Not only is this not a mistake in the film, it's *literally the entire point* of the scene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.42.77 (talk) 04:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Removed piece of text

I removed the following piece of text, as it made the page much too wide:

("If the director was trying to create an idyllic vision of a perfect Paris, the critic argued, he seemed to think that it was necessary to remove nearly all black people from the scene in order to do so." Jeunet dismissed such criticism by pointing out both that the photo collection contains pictures of many different people from numerous ethnic backgrounds, and that Jamel Debbouze, who plays Lucien, is of North African descent"

Can someone rework this into the article? 82.5.94.8 (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that too, very annoying; however I'm not sure why it changed the width. Simple rewording w/ simplified punctuation should do the trick.-DMCer (talk) 08:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

poulain is French for foal.

Is this really relevant ? In France, we don't translate every english name, like for exemple : Eastwood means "Bois de l'est", Baker means "Boulanger", Stone means "Pierre"... Plus, it has no connection with the subject of the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.78.0.137 (talk) 09:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I was just wondering about that too. To me too it seems completely irrelevant (it's just her last name), and even more so in the introduction paragraph. It would at most make a mildly interesting footnote or trivium somewhere in the text body.

For those reasons, I'm going to take it out now. - Fyrius (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It might have sense, as a running horse is featured in one of the videos she brings to the Glass Man. By the way, what does have sense, for sure, is her first name Amélie. Amélie has the same origin as améliorer, which means to enhance or to make better in French. Thierry Caro (talk) 04:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That may be so, but unless you can verify these names were intended in the way you interpret them, this would count as fan speculation and/or original research, my friend. Therefore, kindly keep it out of the article.

From a less obnoxiously vandal-hunting we-have-rules-here-hurr-durr-pragmatist perspective, I think you might be on to something with your interpretation of her first name. I for one hadn't thought of that yet. - Fyrius (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

autism?

having just read this article Parallel Play by Tim Page from the new yorker http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/08/20/070820fa_fact_page and watched Amelie it reminded me of the way the two protagonists view the world is different from everyone else. Here is an excerpt from the New Yorker article:

My second-grade teacher never liked me much, and one assignment I turned in annoyed her so extravagantly that the red pencil with which she scrawled “See me!” broke through the lined paper. Our class had been asked to write about a recent field trip, and, as was so often the case in those days, I had noticed the wrong things: "Well, we went to Boston, Massachusetts through the town of Warrenville, Connecticut on Route 44A. It was very pretty and there was a church that reminded me of pictures of Russia from our book that is published by Time-Life. We arrived in Boston at 9:17. At 11 we went on a big tour of Boston on Gray Line 43, made by the Superior Bus Company like School Bus Six,"...

see what I mean? Alextheblade (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Alex

I've also noticed references to autism and schizophrenia through the whole movie, almost all characters could be classified as lightly autistic, and whole movie has strong references to schizophrenic 'stages' (i.e. enlightenment phases, hallucinations, emotional detachment, etc) . Also physical characteristics of main character (Amelia) - especiallye earlobes and face, or maybe choice of actress in general seem to be intentional. Personally i find this movie very moving and visualising autistic world in very positive (not treating it only as pathology) manner.

I find it visualising many aspects of positive feelings of schizophrenics, which could nicely illustrate many parts of Antoni_Kępiński's 'schizophrenia' like this one :

Positive feelings 

Happiness

Schizophrenic happiness rarely involves things related with life: successes, fulfillment of biological needs etc.

It's usually abstract happiness, not related with facts from life, with activity, pleasure, play.

It's not happiness of mere, ordinary earthly life, but happiness ununsual "extraterestrial"

Usually one can recognize three types of schizophrenic happiness: liberation, enlightenment and devotion

Happiness from liberation by feeling of freedom and dropping of current mask, social bonds, emotional attachments, often false and annoying.

There is lightness of detachment from reality in it.
Some attributes of such type of happiness can be found in hebephrenia.

Happiness from enlightment results from seeing new order of things; 
there is amusement with new world, and new oneself.

Happiness from devotion is related with feeling of mission, in which one 
can find goal and sense of life.

Similiarly to sadness, schizophrenic happiness differs in the very base from cyclophrenic happiness.
It is not manic activity, sinking it swirl of life, which one causes himself, it's not any carnival, but enchantment with world, which appears in new form.

Cyclophrenic happiness is "earthly", while schizophrenic - 
"extraterestial".

83.18.229.190 (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Long plot "summary"

I've tagged this article as having an overly-long plot "summary". The summary as it stands is more like a screenplay. Rather than just being bold and cutting lumps out of it, I'm inviting comments here on what should stay. 81.159.0.142 (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it ok, now? It's such an unusually complicated film, it would be interesting to know how it could have been concisely explained to potential producers! 98.210.208.107 (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Barthes reference

The movie's opening narration from the off introducing the main characters echoes Roland Barthes' list of like/don't like; worth adding to "influences" section? --Webmgr (talk) 10:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Just because there are similarities between the two, it does not immediately mean that it is an influence. For this to be added to the article, a reliable source explicitly stating that Barthes' work influenced Amelie needs to be provided. Otherwise it is just original research. - kollision (talk) 10:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Godiva chocolates

there is a commercial I just seen involving Godiva chocolates with reference to Amelie. Narration the same and character (amelie the same) if anyone has more on this reference please advise however I am certain that is what the commercial was conveying/illustrating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taboooooooooo (talk • contribs) 04:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Confusion about what is related to article topic

I removed material from the Influence section that did not have to do with the film, but a generic object within the film that appears in other work. Unless someone says "I put object/word/concept X in my film because I saw it in Amélie, then it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia articles can't be cross-references to every use of a object/word/concept in the media, particularly when the creator of the media didn't say they did it intentionally, but it's original research speculation on the part of the editor. 98.210.208.107 (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Russian language film? Really?

The infobox says that among the languages in the film there's Russian, and the article is categorized as a "Russian language film". I don't myself recall when we hear any Russian in the movie, but if there is, surely it's only a few sentences at one forgettable moment. Similarly, there is English in the movie as well (perhaps more than Russian), for example when Amélie tapes a program on TV with a handicapped black man dancing, he's speaking English, or when she's in the cinema watching an old American black and white film. So should we also categorize this film as an "English language film"?--Munin75 (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall either, but it's been a long time since I've seen the film, and IMDB cites the languages as French and Russian. —sroc (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I have removed it from the infobox. There's no Russian as far as I can tell, and if there is, it's clearly very brief and not of significance to the film. The infobox guidelines state we should "Insert the language primarily used in the film" and enter more than one "Only in rare cases of clearly bilingual or multilingual films". IMDb is, I think, in error here, and is not considered a reliable source in any case. Jellyman (talk) 10:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

One of the TV clips is in Russian (it's just after Amélie dissolves into water). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.192.188 (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Amélie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140226153927/http://www.variety.com/ac2005_article/VR1117915901?nav=lenser&categoryid=1804 to http://www.variety.com/ac2005_article/VR1117915901?nav=lenser&categoryid=1804

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

So what is german here ?

I don't see any trace of Germany in this.--Ezzex (talk) 02:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from E. One of the production companies was German. In this day and age the main way that films like this get made is through multination financing and German company is mentioned in Amélie#Production so the inclusion in the infobox is proper - though I can understand how it seems "not quite right." MarnetteD|Talk 02:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Amélie. 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/20120323105658/http://www.filmlinc.com/film-comment/article/the-amelie-effect to http://www.filmlinc.com/film-comment/article/the-amelie-effect

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 10:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

discussion - removing Kaganski critique planned

I'm not sure why the Kaganski critic is included. The "...bygone French society..." is like saying a superhero film is bad because it is unrealistic or a science fiction movie is bad because we really don't know what the future looks like. I'd hazard a guess that we have a large percentage of unrealistic films such that this isn't a meaningful critique. It seems more like marketing for Kaganski and Les Inrockuptibles. 198.2.81.60 (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

North American Box Office

The current article specifically mentions the film's take in the US. However, in the cited source, that number is the Domestic Box Office, which is the US and Canada. Especially considering this film may have had an outsized reception in Canada where there is a large French speaking population, referring to the Domestic (US and Canada) box office as 'In the US' is inaccurate, and should be changed.

03:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC) 47.54.10.185 (talk) 03:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)