This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I've just listened France Inter, in French (2000 ans d'histoire), about Greta Garbo : (please excuse my approximate quotes and English translations)
- The miracle with Garbo was obvious in the lab when developping the film. She was very photogenic....
- According to partners and directors Garbo did "nothing" on the set or was "acting badly". However in the movie you will only see her...
- She went in conflict with directors that asked her to "act more"....
- She didn't appear in a lot of great movies, but whenever she appeared in a movie she was unforgetabble...
I don't know how to incorporate it in the the article. But I think it would useful to insist on her photogeny and her "minimalism"...
Ericd 13:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Hello, I worked on the Barry Paris biography of Louise Brooks, and I don't recall that Brooks had an affair with Garbo. I also worked on one of the Garbo books and don't recall it either. Brooks was a lot of talk; she wanted people to think she was bi. According to her letters, she tried it once and didn't enjoy it.
There is no mention of Garbo's lengthy relationship with Georges Schlee. Anyone want to take a crack at this? Patrick925 02:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
This reads like a gushing fangirl summary of her life. Could you make the wording more neutral?
Agreed with all above, especially regarding the "Life in hollywood" section. 69.234.109.247 07:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
In the article there is a dispute as to whether her surname is spelled Gustafsson or Gustafson. I found some clarification from this URL: http://www.beepworld.de/members12/garbofan2/garbo_facts.htm
"When Greta signed a standard player’s contract with Svensk Filmindustri on July, 1923, she changed her last name to Gustafson ( one 's' ).This was the more contemporary spelling of her last name. Like her children, Anna Lovisa would follow Greta’s lead and use the new spelling of her last name too."
Can anyone else verify this? La Bicyclette 03:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a reference to Greta Garbo in the song "Circus" by Uriah Heep from their album "Sweet Freedom" released in 1973.
" Dressed up, messed up, walking around - thinking that you're Greta Garbos - I'm sorry, my dear but we only sat down and laughed and laughed in sorrows".
The song is a quiet, acoustic less "heavy" song than many of their usual material —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeremy livitt ( talk • contribs) 14:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
what about the reference to Greta Garbo in The Killers song - The Ballad Of Michael Valentine? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
81.132.224.245 (
talk)
21:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The song Right Before Your Eyes by America. "And then just like Greta Garbo. You staring like there's no tomorrow." Rudolph Valentino gets a nod, too. Macshill ( talk) 05:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Her role in Ninotchka required that she mimic a prolonged scene of forced, extreme laughter. This loud expression of amusement was so opposite to her true character that she decided to retire from the business. She had a serene and dignified beauty which didn't accord with a wide open, laughing mouth. To satisfy her contract, she made one more film and then retired at the pinnacle of a successful career. After so doing, she was able to live the remainder of her life unmolested and not required to feign laughter that was unnatural to her. Lestrade ( talk) 20:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
what about the reference to Greta Garbo in The Killers song - The Ballad Of Michael Valentine?
Her first job is recorded as being a "lather coy". Wikipedia has no other entry for this phrase. In fact, the only use that Google can find is in biographies of Greta Garbo... Should this be used without explanation?
The OED has an entry under 'lather' as follows: "lather-boy, a boy employed in a barber's shop to lather the chins of customers."
She almost married a man according to the article, and there's no indication that she didn't love him in this article. Thus she should be changed to a Bisexual Actor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.22.16 ( talk) 17:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
"Pretty well" established. Typical. Lestrade ( talk) 00:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
I'm sure I've heard that Greta Garbos Dussenberg wasw at one time the record holder for the highest amount achieved at auction. Is this true and If so could it be incorperated here?( 86.31.188.36 ( talk) 15:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC))
For me, Greta Garbo is... divine. |
If you like Greta Garbo, you can put this Userbox on your userpage like this: {{
User:UBX/Greta Garbo}}
--
Tangopaso (
talk)
21:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The article on Gayelord Hauser makes no mention of his sexuality. Why, then, is there a parenthetical comment to that effect by his name in this article? -- 192.115.133.116 ( talk) 17:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Can someone explain why she is no longer mentioned? She is clearly a notable lover, probably the most known. 75.72.213.199 ( talk) 04:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure why suddenly people are popping in to change images on this page. The photo that has been used as the main image is very very identifiable as Garbo, the quality of the image is quite good and it reflects a view that offers a clear image of her profile, which has been depicted many times in her films. A photo of her posing in a costume shot wearing a coat doesn't offer a readily identifiable view. The File:Greta Garbo 1924 2.jpg, which was put in tonight, is quite blurry and overly soft-focused and simply does not look a lot like the view of Garbo that is more often associated with her. I would suggest that further changes of the main photo be discussed here prior to making any changes and if necessary, then a request for comments can be opened regarding which images best portray a readily identifiable view for the main photo. LaVidaLoca ( talk) 03:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Most of the Garbo photos now available in Wiki Commons are from the mid-20s, prior to her Hollywood makeover. I would suggest using this as the lead photo at the top of the article. It shows Garbo in her most familiar MGM glamour mode, the image most people have of her from her 1930s films. Best wishes - Markhh ( talk) 03:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Was Garbo a religious person? If anyone comes across any sources please add to the article along with links
Apex156 ( talk) 12:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Greggers32, please stop reverting this sentence. There is absolutely no problem with the use of the word "relationship" in regard to the friendship or whatever it was between Garbo and de Costa. Besides one small edit to another article in Nicole Richie, every one of your 161 edits to Wikipedia has been to this article, so that makes you a single purpose account, and that you've worked continuously for 15 months to control the content of this article.
Recently, you've made some rather disturbing edit summaries, which encompass bad faith accusations and include some unsupported claims. "that women experimented with their sexuality in America around 1930 and in the decade before, is historical fact, not simply my opinion", " the editor wants to push her biases about Garbo's lesbianism. de Acosta was notoriously unreliable. yet the editor takes her autobiography as factual", "there is no evidence to support the contention that Garbo was at all gay. to assert otherwise is licentious and libellous". Your opinion does not matter, regarding sexual experimentation in 1930, my biases, de Acosta's reliability or what is or isn't libellous or licentious. The only thing that matters here is sourcing to support content. Because you don't consider de Costa reliable doesn't matter. The burden is upon you to provide reliable sourcing to refute other claims and then it can only be presented as alternative information to another author. There is no definitive "truth" about this subject, only authors/biographers/editors opinion and what can be sourced. Regardless, the use of the word "relationship" is absolutely valid is describing the interaction between two people, regardless of its depth or meaning. Relationship does not imply a sexual component and if you'll look it up in any dictionary, you'll find the relevant definition here would be "A particular type of connection existing between people related to or having dealings with each other." That describes a friendship, sexual interactions, business dealings, whatever. Please stop removing the word and trying to remove any reference to questions regarding Garbo's sexuality. That there are questions is indisputable. Scrubbing the article of any mention of that is unacceptable and has its own bias. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 02:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I think the article should mention somewhere that Lovisa is Swedish for Louisa. This is why Garbo's name appears in many places using either form. Another fact missing from the article are the circumstances surrounding the change in her name from Gustafsson to Gustafson. I will leave it to someone more knowledgeable than I to find references and make the edits. David spector ( talk) 01:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
A recent edit removed the claim in alt text that Garbo was "breathtakingly beautiful", using the edit summary "excuse me, but do not change one page to match your change to the WP page - this should be as neutral as possible". The same editor followed up in Wikipedia talk:Alternative text for images #Garbo descriptions in ALT text, arguing that phrases like "beautiful" are POV and should therefore should not be in alt text, and went further by removing every statement that Garbo was beautiful from WP:ALT.
For other images the point might be valid, but Garbo is an extreme case. By common consensus she was strikingly beautiful, and this beauty was a central reason for her importance.
In the Greta Garbo article, there is real harm in removing the word "beautiful" from the alt text. A sighted reader who begins to read the article sees Garbo's beauty immediately, just by looking at the lead image. A visually impaired reader won't get it, if the alt text doesn't say it. So it's important for the visually impaired reader that the alt text briefly describes just how beautiful she was. Maybe "breathtakingly beautiful" is not the right phrase, but omitting all mention of her beauty goes too far.
In this context, using the term "POV" to describe the word beautiful misunderstands the intent of WP:NPOV. WP:NPOV is not about omitting all points of view; it is about representing points of view with regard to external consensus. With Garbo, there's no question about this consensus, and there's no POV justification this objection to calling her "beautiful" in alt text. Eubulides ( talk) 01:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Eubulides ( talk) 19:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) You're bordering on insulting here, Eubulides, and your bias for Garbo is showing. The fact that some people may not agree with your particular point of view, as an editor of an encyclopedia, is a fundamental reason for only including verifiable and supportable facts. Your citation examples are all things that are verifiable, your opinion about beauty is not. Regarding the photo itself, the page for the image contains all that is needed to know to support anything about the actual photo. It indicates its source, who took it, when it was taken, the subject. Directly from the US Library of Congress, from where the image comes. Birthdates and places, death dates and places, career statistics, occupation are all verifiable. A reference exists for her birthdate, her films themselves are sources for her career length and work, facts that aren't cited can be cited. Beauty is not a fact, beauty is a construct, both personal and social. It comes back to policy and guidelines, including WP:POV and WP:PEACOCK. Your opinion that the most important fact about Greta Garbo is that she was beautiful has absolutely nothing to do with what made her notable. Her acting career made her notable. I have posted a request for other comments at WT:ACTOR regarding your contention about the ALT text. And while you're online, please read WP:LEAD. Mentioning that Eubulides thinks the most important thing regarding Garbo is her beauty isn't something for the lead sentence. It's not encyclopedic, and all of your hyperbole and outrageous claims about direct facts being more doubtful than an opinion about her beauty have little meaning in the face of verifiability. This is about what is verifiable from a neutral point of view. Your point of view is not neutral, and thus your stress on describing a photo as "breathtakingly beautiful" is not neutral either. There are images of scores of beautiful women, and handsome men, on Wikipedia but aren't described as such in neutral, balanced descriptions of images. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 09:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 11:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
This was removed from the article as "trivia" today:
Question: Is all this trivia or is some of it relevant, interesting and useful information that could be added somehow - in some format or article where it would be a good idea to have it? Cordially, SergeWoodzing ( talk) 17:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I added a reference to Spanish Catalan WWII double-agent Joan Pujol Garcia who was given the code name GARBO for his acting skill, creating characters to mislead the Nazis. It happened during her lifetime, and directly indicates the esteem Greta Garbo was held in. K8 fan ( talk) 01:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I think the "tid bits," while interesting (especially the the note about Pujol) are fundamentially trivial in the context of an encyclopedia. This discussion was already held in 2009 in this section. The writer at the top gives a list of similar examples and makes a strong case that they are trivial. I say we nix them. Her legacy should consist of substantive contributions she made to the cinema and to culture. This is a weak section in the page and should be bolstered with weightier material. Which leads me to another trivia-related matter in the legacy section. I finally got rid of the list of cartoons in which she's featured. As I say in the edit box, all the big stars were caricatured in animations in the 30s and 40s and they do not, I think, constitute part of their cinematic legacies (as I define it above). I find no such list in any of the WP pages of top stars of this period. In a way, they degrade the page a little. Your thoughts?-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 02:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Lobo512 makes an valuable point. It's fundamentally not about Garbo's contributions to culture and the cinema. It's about this one man's personal opinion of her and the use of her name to advance his interests. Note that the other elements in the section speak directly about her contribution to a wider public, and its ongoing fascination with her because of her stature, talents, and magnetism in pictures. So in the end, I think, contrary to what I said earlier, it should be left out. Still the conversation has been interesting as we unpack the criteria for trivia.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 01:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
All these are, afaik, personal sites so they need to be removed (according to WP's policy on self-published sources).-- Dipa1965 ( talk) 19:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
It seems like this article is part of a secret photo contest to see how many poor, insignificant, and unattractive photos can be found and added. A simple image search of Google will show hundreds of images, none of which are as bad as the ones in the article, and most of which are probably PD. -- Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 23:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I have added Garbo to the Rosicrucians category on the basis of the following qoaution;
Garbo sought out mediums, spiritualists and devil worshippers - all to help her understand death... it was at this time she became an initiate of the Christian mystical assosication AMORC, which she retained membership in until her death.
(pp. 36) Gronowicz, Antoni. Garbo. 1990. London: Simon & Schuster Ltd
Please offer contrary information before removing her from this category in future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.243.186 ( talk) 11:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I edited this sentence
in the lede of the article, with the edit summary comment
My new version was:
This was reversed with another editor's edit summary comment:
We do not agree about the use of the adjective perfect in this case, not even about the use of the noun sense. Why should the article begin wiith a confusing statement that makes it look like this woman could have been active only in Sweden during Hollywood's silent film period and part of its Golden Age? Not everyone knows her story. Since the fact that she was a Swedish-American (a U.S. citizen since 1950, when she had to give up her Swedish citizenship as per Swedish law) keeps getting removed, I maintain that the sentence as it reads now makes no sense as an introduction to her life story. The fact that she originally was Swedish and did a small bit of work in Sweden is of minor importance and interest in comparison to her work in America, which is her major claim to fame and should be clear from the outset in this article. I am reversing this and ask cordially for a bit more care here. SergeWoodzing ( talk) 10:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Someone from an IP put a lot of time and effort and work into vandalizing this article extensively yesterday. I made the mistake of reading through it all when it was reveresed here and almost died laughing. At least the vandal in question, though he/she should not be encouraged, had a great sense of humor this time. SergeWoodzing ( talk) 01:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The paragraph about her burial was edited this way today:
She was cremated, and after a nearly decade-long legal battle her ashes were finally interred on June 16, 1999, at the Skogskyrkogården Cemetery in her native Stockholm. On that summer day in 1999, Bishop Caroline Krook presided over the services, along with Gray Reisfield, niece and sole heir of Greta Garbo, follow bagpipe players in kilts to the grave of Greta Garbo. Gray's son Derek Reisfield (Garbo great-nephew) was chosen to lower the urn containing the ashes of Greta Garbo, into the open grave during her ceremony. She left her entire estate, estimated at $20,000,000 USD to her niece, Gray Reisfield of New Jersey.
I went to revise it, (removing fluff, fixing Swenglish etc.) to this:
She was cremated, and after a nearly decade-long legal battle her ashes were interred on June 16, 1999, at Skogskyrkogården Cemetery just south of her native Stockholm. Bishop Caroline Krook presided along with Gray Reisfield of New Jersey, Garbo's niece and only heir. They followed bagpipers in kilts to the grave into which Reisfeld's son Derek Reisfield had been chosen to lower the urn with her ashes. Garbo left her entire estate, estimated at $20,000,000 USD to her niece.
The additional info is unsourced here however (though known to me as fact) and needs a ref. I have none today. If one is found, I suggest my wording is used. SergeWoodzing ( talk) 21:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
To whomever reverted the text to the original on August 4 I must say I'm shocked. I spent hours revising and updating it, making corrections, and adding information I think is relevant. I kept much, if not most, of what you wrote. But I also reorganize sections for coherence, and improved prose. I removed few sources and every significant edit I made cited, contrary to what you said. I am a PhD and this has been a significant research project. It is extraordinary that you would delete the [entire page I edited with out any recognition of my achievements in any section whatsoever. I will copy my version back on the site. Please re-read it and edit only what you think will truly improve the entry. Thank you, classicfilmbuff
his article came up in the Guild of Copy Editors' backlog, so I've gone through and fixed English, grammar, punctuation, and some organizational problems. I've also expanded the lead to reflect the content of the article. I've removed some irrelevant content (i.e., the niece's name--the niece is also entitled to some privacy). I have left the chart alone.
I suggest for further work: this article needs many many more citations, and better referencing, especially relating to the questions about her love-life and her various psychological issues. If the article refers to the major depressive diagnosis, but there is no actual diagnosis, then that whole sentence should probably be removed--it's speculative. I've left it in there for now, because I can see there is some active work here. Auntieruth55 ( talk) 01:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
The sentence "She stated in the book Garbo On Garbo (p. 33) that her relationship with her mother was not strained" (citing a book not mentioned in the Bibliography), in the short section Early Life, appears to me to be standing quite alone and out of context, as nothing else about Garbo's mother is mentioned in the article (although they both look happy on a photo further down in the article). Is it a denial of an alleged strained relationship? Is it reasonable to ask for either more information on the subject or to delete the sentence as less than relevant for the article? MarB4 ( talk) 18:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason why the article expounds at some lengths about her lesbian affairs but she is included in none of the LGBT categories (Category:Bisexual actors or Category:LGBT people from Sweden, for instance)? I would have just added them myself but I suspect there I might be something else behind this and so thought I had better bring it here for discussion first. Keresaspa ( talk) 19:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I assure you there's no bias in this section, which I wrote. The reason I state her relationships with men "as fact" (whereas with women I say "speculate" and "allege," etc.,) is because they were well-documented during her life and after. The one person of either sex who actually said he had a sexual relationship with her of any duration was a man--Cecil Beaton, who wrote about their affair in his memoirs. This is why I have to describe her relationships with men "friendships or romances." Although her relationship with Mercedes de Acosta is assumed by her recent biographers there is no definitive proof of it. This aspect of her life is complex and has been very difficult for her biographers to document. I just don't think it's appropriate write about all the vagaries of her romantic relationships in more than I have. If you're interested in this, you can read her recent biographies by Barry Paris (1994), Karen Swensen (1997), and Mark Vieira (2005) (Also Hugo Vickers) and if you can think of a better way to characterize her sexuality, go for it! I think the "bias" and "objectivity" ratings will go back and forth between 3.0 and 5.0 because of this one damn paragraph! Greetings,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 00:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
After mulling this over, I think I can be more specific about the 4 men in her life whom I mention. The trick is to be short and concise. This thing cannot be any longer than it is because in the end, her sexuality is not important--its her extraordinary cultural and cinematic impact in the 1930s and on. Anon,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 00:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
A minor edit war seems to be in motion over the date for the image at the top of the article; the year above is the one IMDb, and other sources give for the movie. While I can find several uses of the photograph linking it to the film, I can find none which do not or suggest the correct date might be 1926 which are unconnected with Wikipedia or are probably mirror sites. (Exploring all avenues it seemed the image file title ought to be checked.) Incidentally, the image does not come up on Google under the other name IMDb gives for the film (The Rise of Helga), but I will assume this is a fluke. Philip Cross ( talk) 15:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
This article is seriously lacking for not addressing reasons why Garbo decided to stop acting. Obviously, there were interviews/books from herself and her friends which have quotes about this matter. Why none of this is the article? 95.25.222.70 ( talk) 09:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
After skimming the bios, I see there are no clear reasons why she retired. Although G herself didn't intend to retire after the failure of Two-Faced Woman, she was also ambivalent (her age, exhaustion, among other things). One reason was that the war destroyed the foreign market on which her movies depended so MGM didn't make a strong effort to create a vehicle for her. Then, the problem is that many people with whom she worked and others in the business cited different, often contradictory, reasons. All speculation. In any case, it won't be simple to sift through this stuff and concisely orginize it--unless I say what I've just written, which is probably enough. As I say, I'll get to it as soon as I can.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 21:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Done. Any thoughts?-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 23:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
No, really more complex. As I say, she had no intention of retiring after TFW. Just thought she'd wait till the war ended. All the recent biographies cite the complexity of her "reasons" as I tred to explain. As K Swenson says, did the movies leave her or did she leave the movies? She may have said something quite different to Broman in her later life, but the research about her feelings after TFW shows her ambivalence. This is what I try to convey. But throughout her career, she said/did a lot of contradictory things about it. A continuing problem for her throughout her life was her indecisiveness about everything! She also said other crazy things later in her life about her "former job". For example, she continuously said she hated Hollywood and wanted to retire, but she kept on working. I think the failure of the 1948 Wanger project (to which she was fully committed) led to her final decision. So, I stand by what I say, all cited. Take care,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 20:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC) But if you want to, go ahead and add the Broman quote as representing her thoughts later in life-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 21:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia claims that Greta Garbo learned Transcendental Meditation, yet this fact is not noted in this article. As a practitioner myself, I find this of interest. I would like to know when she learned. If any reader knows this, and can find a citation in a reliable source, please add it to the article, thanks. David Spector (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
(Discussion moved from User_talk:Wikiwatcher1)
Hello there, I'm flummoxed about why you put the AK pic at the top of the page. In it, GG looks morose and cold and it captures none of her dazzling magnetism, mystique, and beauty. Personally, in fact, I think it's a bad picture. I wish that you had discussed this on the talk p. without making a unilateral decision. Also don't understand why you'd put a the Susan Lennox pic where it creates a huge space between the sections. The other problem is that it's a glamour pic where as the other pics in the article are, rightly I think, publicity stills. The only other glamour pic is in the Legacy section, on the right, where it arguably belongs. I'm going to revert to previous p. Then, perhaps you might show/discuss the pics on the talk p.? If we see a consensus for your ideas, we'll return them. I hope you're ok with this. Respectfully,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 18:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh yeah, one other thing. The website you put in there is not, I learned, a legitimate source as per WP protocol. Thanks,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 18:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Btw, Ww, what do you think of the AK in the photo gallery at the bottom of the gg p? It's at least a much better AK photo--much more spirit, life, electric. But I don't think, because of the gap, that we should put the SL pick where you put it for the reasons I mentioned. I spent days with another user setting up the images for the page and I think it's very effective now. Another user and I recently adjusted images to conform to WP protocol (no pics to the left under new section; no "sandwiching" from opposing pics. Also, eliminated one pic because p. was "overcrowded." But I wouldn't mind switching the AK from the Gallery to the top, and putting SL in the gallery. I just really don't think your AK is a good or representative photo! Take care,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 21:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello WW,
You've added and rewritten some stuff that I'm very uncomfortable with: In 1925, Stiller and Garbo, who was then age twenty and unable to speak any English, arrived in New York where they remained for over six months without any word from MGM.
She was on the verge of returning Sweden, and wrote to her boyfriend back home
A Swedish friend (who?) thought he would help her by contacting MGM producer Irving Thalberg (citation?), who then agreed to give her a screen test.
According to author Frederick Sands, "the result of the test was electrifying. Thalberg was impressed and began grooming the new starlet the following day.
You're using Sands, who's biography is 33 years old and has been revised and corrected by Vieira, Swenson, and Paris (whom I see you've also read.)I'm very concerned that you are planning to go through the entire article and just change things willy-nilly. I have spent months researching and writing this article with extraordinary care and in great detail. It is an excellent page as it now stands. Well researched, organized, and written. I'm a scholar. I welcome additions, of course, but will be disturbed if you remove text that is accurate and carefully crafted. I don't know what your plans are, but please show me the respect to talk with me on my talk page before changing things so drastically as you have done today. I will revert to the previous version and then feel free to add, of course, you are an editor too. but if you want to change anything I hope you'll talk to me before making the change. Thanks,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 22:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Miss Garbo at first didn't like playing the exotic, the sophisticated, the woman of the world. She used to complain: "Mr. Thalberg, I am just a young gur-rl!" Irving tossed it off with a laugh. With those elegant pictures he was creating the Garbo image.[34]:70
Hello WW, oh dear, I think we've begun an editing war and I'm not familiar enough with WP protocol to know how to resolve it. But I'll start by commenting on elements of this message from you
Nor was I planning on going through "your" article "willy-nilly" and rewriting anything. I just happened to notice some missing transition details about her early career in the U.S. and had the sources to fill it in a bit.
As for showing "respect," I give the most to the subject of a biography, to make sure it's clear and complete. I'm more interested in upping the biography quality than one-upping any editors. BTW, "respect" is a two-way street.
Per your first sentence above about the additions, you wrote you were "very uncomfortable" with them. But I honestly don't see much of an issue here, and Fat&Happy's comment that an article can "reflect both versions" with proper context, seems logical. The added text ( see diff), was simply to fill in missing details about what happened after she first arrived in the U.S. You kept in the 6-month waiting period as a fact, but deleted her personal feelings and some other quotes which helped personalize this transitional period and discovery by the U.S. audience.
This might have been done erroneously, not intentionally. For instance, you thought I was quoting the 2005 Vieira book about Garbo, but the book cite deleted was actually his 2010 bio about Thalberg. You mention the minor point that whoever she wrote to was not a "boyfriend." Fine, call him "friend" if you wish. But you stated above that she talked about wanting to return to Sweden, so why remove her letter?
If she was under contract, that's not a contradiction to her difficulty in getting screen tested. You could simply rephrase any ambiguity, rather than proclaiming a phrase as "simply false" and deleting it. As for her producer having to be "pushed" to give her a part, that's a different subject, since the text I added referred only to her first screen test. Maybe that was a mistake in your reading. I used the material from the Sands book because he included her actual letters and details not included in the article, and the "discovery" period, before the new material, only included this description:
. . . the two set sail for America on the last day of June 1925. (new section) Stiller and Garbo arrived in Hollywood in the first week of July 1925. Although she expected to work with Stiller on her first film,[33] she was cast in Torrent (1926).
That sort of jump in time from getting off the boat and soon acting in her first role left a lot to be desired, and was misleading. Especially since you wrote above: Garbo's "discovery is absolutely unique and unprecedented" . I sort of agree, and felt some more accuracy about this transition and her own feelings were valuable. Considering that her famous movie line, "I want to be alone," is referred to eight times in the article, even though the words were not hers, but the screenwriter's, why then remove her actual quoted words from two new sources? She did have a mind of her own, did she not?
You also mentioned a few other problems, that page numbers were missing from the quotes. However, everything I added did have page numbers, so check again. You also focused on a few trivial details rather than simply rephrasing, such as terms "new starlet" and "later rise." An article doesn't need to be written like a timeline diary, and referring to something in the future isn't automatically wrong. As for the name of the "Swedish friend," you could have asked on the talk page rather than delete the whole quote. I'm not comfortable with comments such as these:
I don't know what your plans are, but please show me the respect to talk with me on my talk page before changing things so drastically as you have done today.
As explained, there was nothing drastic about the added citations which you summarily removed, and still consider your deletions unexplainable. You could have easily rephrased for context or discussed first.-- Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 19:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, got it F&H. The talk page it is. Why don't we do this: Ww, cut and paste your version into the GG talk p. Then anyone who's interested can see both (mine's in the article now). I'll identify problems I see with your version and you can do the same with mine. At this point, we will hopefully have some consensus about the matter (either in the community or between us). I think we can get this straightened out without going to Wp editing court, which I suggest be the last resort. But please know that, as I earlier said, 1/3 of my concerns have to do with content, including veracity and up-to-date scholarship. (Much of what the recent biographers--Swenson, Paris, Vieira--have done is update information and correct long-standing errors and myths about GG's life. This, in fact, was my initial interest in contributing to the page. I'm equally concerned with writing, in partiuclar, changing a well-crafted paragraph that is internally unified. My final related disagreement has to do with the content that you've added that I personally don't think should be included since, because it has nothing to do with the essence of the paragraph. For this reason, it disrupts and slows down the narrative. This is all scholarly stuff. Later,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 13:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 13:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello readers. My critique of the most recent additions and changes to the article, which I undid prematurely, follow. "Comment by the editor" refers to a message from him or her to me. Quoted material is that written by him or her. The indented comments compise my critique, as follows.
Comment by the editor: "The added text which you took out was only added to fill in missing or incorrect details about what happened after she first arrived in the U.S. and the quotes are included to give some color and depth to her personal feelings."
Comment by the editor: "A typical example of an incorrect detail is mentioned earlier, stating that she "set sail for America on the last day of June 1925," followed by "Stiller and Garbo arrived in Hollywood in the first week of July 1925." -- Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 18:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
"In 1925, Stiller and Garbo, who was then age twenty and unable to speak any English, was brought over from Sweden at the request of MGM head Louis B. Mayer, as he liked her appearance from seeing her photos."
"However, they remained in New York for over six months without any word from MGM. She and Stiller then went to Los Angeles on their own, [5] [6] but another five weeks passed with no contacts from the studio."
"She was on the verge of returning Sweden, and wrote to her boyfriend back home [as I said, she had no boyfriend; I think you're referring to Saxon with whom she had a platonic friendship] quote|You're quite right when you think I don't feel at home here. . . Oh you lovely little Sweden, I promise that when I return to you my sad face will smile as never before." [7]}}"
"A Swedish friend thought he would help her by contacting MGM producer Irving Thalberg, who then agreed to give her a screen test. According to author Frederick Sands, "the result of the test was electrifying." Thalberg was impressed and began grooming the new starlet the following day:"
"The studio arranged to fix her teeth, made sure she lost weight, and gave her an English tutor." [7]
"During her later rise to stardom,"
"According to film historian Mark Vieira, "Thalberg decreed that henceforth Garbo would play a young but worldly-wise woman . . . " [8]: 71 However, according to Norma Shearer, Thalberg's wife, Garbo did not necessarily agree with his ideas:
Miss Garbo at first didn't like playing the exotic, the sophisticated, the woman of the world. She used to complain: "Mr. Thalberg, I am just a young gur-rl!" Irving tossed it off with a laugh. With those elegant pictures he was creating the Garbo image." [8]: 70
OK, I just read Swenson's, Paris's, and Vieira's (2005 and perhaps 2010?) accounts of the events that occurred starting with the initiation of screen tests to her 1st role. They all differ significantly from the S/B version (and in a couple of details contradict each other's). So I think the piece should be left out. Personnally, I don't think this matter is important enough to discuss each separately and of course S,'s, P's, nd V's are more recent. Btw, they all say that GG and Stiller remained in NY for only 3 months. But, Ww, you will be interested to know that Swenson (alone) states the steamship's journey to the U.S. took close to two weeks. So I will adjust this in the text.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 22:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
WW, why didn't you either talk to me (since you know I and another made the first choice) or raise as a discussion point first about making this big change? The whole point of the other image is to show her laughing! This was the big tag-line and it was her first and only 1 of 2 comedies. It's very important to the article because it shows her range. Can you explain why you made this change? So with due respect, I'm going to revert again and unless you can persuade on discussion page, we really should keep the choice Fat&Happy and I made several weeks ago. Take care,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 21:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
For me, Greta Garbo is... divine. |
If you like Greta Garbo, you can put this Userbox on your userpage like this: {{User:UBX/Greta Garbo}}
--
Tangopaso (
talk)
14:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Two images, both iconic, have been added to the Commons. The first of these is so classic that it might be worth considering as a lead image.
-- Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 21:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I have updated the Visconti story in retirement section to speculation (not fact, as it had earlier been described. My most recent edit: "In 1969, Italian motion picture director Luchino Visconti allegedly attempted to bring Garbo back to the screen with a small part, Maria Sophia, Queen of Naples, in his adaptation of Proust's Remembrance of Things Past. He exclaimed: "I am very pleased at the idea that this woman, with her severe and authoritarian presence, should figure in the decadent and rarefied climate of the world described by Proust".[114] Claims that Garbo was interested in the part, however, cannot be substantiated.[115][114]
Do you think this story is worth being included in page, or is it trivia?-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 19:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I've just listened France Inter, in French (2000 ans d'histoire), about Greta Garbo : (please excuse my approximate quotes and English translations)
- The miracle with Garbo was obvious in the lab when developping the film. She was very photogenic....
- According to partners and directors Garbo did "nothing" on the set or was "acting badly". However in the movie you will only see her...
- She went in conflict with directors that asked her to "act more"....
- She didn't appear in a lot of great movies, but whenever she appeared in a movie she was unforgetabble...
I don't know how to incorporate it in the the article. But I think it would useful to insist on her photogeny and her "minimalism"...
Ericd 13:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Hello, I worked on the Barry Paris biography of Louise Brooks, and I don't recall that Brooks had an affair with Garbo. I also worked on one of the Garbo books and don't recall it either. Brooks was a lot of talk; she wanted people to think she was bi. According to her letters, she tried it once and didn't enjoy it.
There is no mention of Garbo's lengthy relationship with Georges Schlee. Anyone want to take a crack at this? Patrick925 02:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
This reads like a gushing fangirl summary of her life. Could you make the wording more neutral?
Agreed with all above, especially regarding the "Life in hollywood" section. 69.234.109.247 07:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
In the article there is a dispute as to whether her surname is spelled Gustafsson or Gustafson. I found some clarification from this URL: http://www.beepworld.de/members12/garbofan2/garbo_facts.htm
"When Greta signed a standard player’s contract with Svensk Filmindustri on July, 1923, she changed her last name to Gustafson ( one 's' ).This was the more contemporary spelling of her last name. Like her children, Anna Lovisa would follow Greta’s lead and use the new spelling of her last name too."
Can anyone else verify this? La Bicyclette 03:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a reference to Greta Garbo in the song "Circus" by Uriah Heep from their album "Sweet Freedom" released in 1973.
" Dressed up, messed up, walking around - thinking that you're Greta Garbos - I'm sorry, my dear but we only sat down and laughed and laughed in sorrows".
The song is a quiet, acoustic less "heavy" song than many of their usual material —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeremy livitt ( talk • contribs) 14:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
what about the reference to Greta Garbo in The Killers song - The Ballad Of Michael Valentine? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
81.132.224.245 (
talk)
21:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The song Right Before Your Eyes by America. "And then just like Greta Garbo. You staring like there's no tomorrow." Rudolph Valentino gets a nod, too. Macshill ( talk) 05:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Her role in Ninotchka required that she mimic a prolonged scene of forced, extreme laughter. This loud expression of amusement was so opposite to her true character that she decided to retire from the business. She had a serene and dignified beauty which didn't accord with a wide open, laughing mouth. To satisfy her contract, she made one more film and then retired at the pinnacle of a successful career. After so doing, she was able to live the remainder of her life unmolested and not required to feign laughter that was unnatural to her. Lestrade ( talk) 20:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
what about the reference to Greta Garbo in The Killers song - The Ballad Of Michael Valentine?
Her first job is recorded as being a "lather coy". Wikipedia has no other entry for this phrase. In fact, the only use that Google can find is in biographies of Greta Garbo... Should this be used without explanation?
The OED has an entry under 'lather' as follows: "lather-boy, a boy employed in a barber's shop to lather the chins of customers."
She almost married a man according to the article, and there's no indication that she didn't love him in this article. Thus she should be changed to a Bisexual Actor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.22.16 ( talk) 17:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
"Pretty well" established. Typical. Lestrade ( talk) 00:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
I'm sure I've heard that Greta Garbos Dussenberg wasw at one time the record holder for the highest amount achieved at auction. Is this true and If so could it be incorperated here?( 86.31.188.36 ( talk) 15:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC))
For me, Greta Garbo is... divine. |
If you like Greta Garbo, you can put this Userbox on your userpage like this: {{
User:UBX/Greta Garbo}}
--
Tangopaso (
talk)
21:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The article on Gayelord Hauser makes no mention of his sexuality. Why, then, is there a parenthetical comment to that effect by his name in this article? -- 192.115.133.116 ( talk) 17:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Can someone explain why she is no longer mentioned? She is clearly a notable lover, probably the most known. 75.72.213.199 ( talk) 04:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure why suddenly people are popping in to change images on this page. The photo that has been used as the main image is very very identifiable as Garbo, the quality of the image is quite good and it reflects a view that offers a clear image of her profile, which has been depicted many times in her films. A photo of her posing in a costume shot wearing a coat doesn't offer a readily identifiable view. The File:Greta Garbo 1924 2.jpg, which was put in tonight, is quite blurry and overly soft-focused and simply does not look a lot like the view of Garbo that is more often associated with her. I would suggest that further changes of the main photo be discussed here prior to making any changes and if necessary, then a request for comments can be opened regarding which images best portray a readily identifiable view for the main photo. LaVidaLoca ( talk) 03:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Most of the Garbo photos now available in Wiki Commons are from the mid-20s, prior to her Hollywood makeover. I would suggest using this as the lead photo at the top of the article. It shows Garbo in her most familiar MGM glamour mode, the image most people have of her from her 1930s films. Best wishes - Markhh ( talk) 03:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Was Garbo a religious person? If anyone comes across any sources please add to the article along with links
Apex156 ( talk) 12:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Greggers32, please stop reverting this sentence. There is absolutely no problem with the use of the word "relationship" in regard to the friendship or whatever it was between Garbo and de Costa. Besides one small edit to another article in Nicole Richie, every one of your 161 edits to Wikipedia has been to this article, so that makes you a single purpose account, and that you've worked continuously for 15 months to control the content of this article.
Recently, you've made some rather disturbing edit summaries, which encompass bad faith accusations and include some unsupported claims. "that women experimented with their sexuality in America around 1930 and in the decade before, is historical fact, not simply my opinion", " the editor wants to push her biases about Garbo's lesbianism. de Acosta was notoriously unreliable. yet the editor takes her autobiography as factual", "there is no evidence to support the contention that Garbo was at all gay. to assert otherwise is licentious and libellous". Your opinion does not matter, regarding sexual experimentation in 1930, my biases, de Acosta's reliability or what is or isn't libellous or licentious. The only thing that matters here is sourcing to support content. Because you don't consider de Costa reliable doesn't matter. The burden is upon you to provide reliable sourcing to refute other claims and then it can only be presented as alternative information to another author. There is no definitive "truth" about this subject, only authors/biographers/editors opinion and what can be sourced. Regardless, the use of the word "relationship" is absolutely valid is describing the interaction between two people, regardless of its depth or meaning. Relationship does not imply a sexual component and if you'll look it up in any dictionary, you'll find the relevant definition here would be "A particular type of connection existing between people related to or having dealings with each other." That describes a friendship, sexual interactions, business dealings, whatever. Please stop removing the word and trying to remove any reference to questions regarding Garbo's sexuality. That there are questions is indisputable. Scrubbing the article of any mention of that is unacceptable and has its own bias. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 02:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I think the article should mention somewhere that Lovisa is Swedish for Louisa. This is why Garbo's name appears in many places using either form. Another fact missing from the article are the circumstances surrounding the change in her name from Gustafsson to Gustafson. I will leave it to someone more knowledgeable than I to find references and make the edits. David spector ( talk) 01:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
A recent edit removed the claim in alt text that Garbo was "breathtakingly beautiful", using the edit summary "excuse me, but do not change one page to match your change to the WP page - this should be as neutral as possible". The same editor followed up in Wikipedia talk:Alternative text for images #Garbo descriptions in ALT text, arguing that phrases like "beautiful" are POV and should therefore should not be in alt text, and went further by removing every statement that Garbo was beautiful from WP:ALT.
For other images the point might be valid, but Garbo is an extreme case. By common consensus she was strikingly beautiful, and this beauty was a central reason for her importance.
In the Greta Garbo article, there is real harm in removing the word "beautiful" from the alt text. A sighted reader who begins to read the article sees Garbo's beauty immediately, just by looking at the lead image. A visually impaired reader won't get it, if the alt text doesn't say it. So it's important for the visually impaired reader that the alt text briefly describes just how beautiful she was. Maybe "breathtakingly beautiful" is not the right phrase, but omitting all mention of her beauty goes too far.
In this context, using the term "POV" to describe the word beautiful misunderstands the intent of WP:NPOV. WP:NPOV is not about omitting all points of view; it is about representing points of view with regard to external consensus. With Garbo, there's no question about this consensus, and there's no POV justification this objection to calling her "beautiful" in alt text. Eubulides ( talk) 01:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Eubulides ( talk) 19:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) You're bordering on insulting here, Eubulides, and your bias for Garbo is showing. The fact that some people may not agree with your particular point of view, as an editor of an encyclopedia, is a fundamental reason for only including verifiable and supportable facts. Your citation examples are all things that are verifiable, your opinion about beauty is not. Regarding the photo itself, the page for the image contains all that is needed to know to support anything about the actual photo. It indicates its source, who took it, when it was taken, the subject. Directly from the US Library of Congress, from where the image comes. Birthdates and places, death dates and places, career statistics, occupation are all verifiable. A reference exists for her birthdate, her films themselves are sources for her career length and work, facts that aren't cited can be cited. Beauty is not a fact, beauty is a construct, both personal and social. It comes back to policy and guidelines, including WP:POV and WP:PEACOCK. Your opinion that the most important fact about Greta Garbo is that she was beautiful has absolutely nothing to do with what made her notable. Her acting career made her notable. I have posted a request for other comments at WT:ACTOR regarding your contention about the ALT text. And while you're online, please read WP:LEAD. Mentioning that Eubulides thinks the most important thing regarding Garbo is her beauty isn't something for the lead sentence. It's not encyclopedic, and all of your hyperbole and outrageous claims about direct facts being more doubtful than an opinion about her beauty have little meaning in the face of verifiability. This is about what is verifiable from a neutral point of view. Your point of view is not neutral, and thus your stress on describing a photo as "breathtakingly beautiful" is not neutral either. There are images of scores of beautiful women, and handsome men, on Wikipedia but aren't described as such in neutral, balanced descriptions of images. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 09:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 11:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
This was removed from the article as "trivia" today:
Question: Is all this trivia or is some of it relevant, interesting and useful information that could be added somehow - in some format or article where it would be a good idea to have it? Cordially, SergeWoodzing ( talk) 17:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I added a reference to Spanish Catalan WWII double-agent Joan Pujol Garcia who was given the code name GARBO for his acting skill, creating characters to mislead the Nazis. It happened during her lifetime, and directly indicates the esteem Greta Garbo was held in. K8 fan ( talk) 01:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I think the "tid bits," while interesting (especially the the note about Pujol) are fundamentially trivial in the context of an encyclopedia. This discussion was already held in 2009 in this section. The writer at the top gives a list of similar examples and makes a strong case that they are trivial. I say we nix them. Her legacy should consist of substantive contributions she made to the cinema and to culture. This is a weak section in the page and should be bolstered with weightier material. Which leads me to another trivia-related matter in the legacy section. I finally got rid of the list of cartoons in which she's featured. As I say in the edit box, all the big stars were caricatured in animations in the 30s and 40s and they do not, I think, constitute part of their cinematic legacies (as I define it above). I find no such list in any of the WP pages of top stars of this period. In a way, they degrade the page a little. Your thoughts?-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 02:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Lobo512 makes an valuable point. It's fundamentally not about Garbo's contributions to culture and the cinema. It's about this one man's personal opinion of her and the use of her name to advance his interests. Note that the other elements in the section speak directly about her contribution to a wider public, and its ongoing fascination with her because of her stature, talents, and magnetism in pictures. So in the end, I think, contrary to what I said earlier, it should be left out. Still the conversation has been interesting as we unpack the criteria for trivia.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 01:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
All these are, afaik, personal sites so they need to be removed (according to WP's policy on self-published sources).-- Dipa1965 ( talk) 19:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
It seems like this article is part of a secret photo contest to see how many poor, insignificant, and unattractive photos can be found and added. A simple image search of Google will show hundreds of images, none of which are as bad as the ones in the article, and most of which are probably PD. -- Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 23:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I have added Garbo to the Rosicrucians category on the basis of the following qoaution;
Garbo sought out mediums, spiritualists and devil worshippers - all to help her understand death... it was at this time she became an initiate of the Christian mystical assosication AMORC, which she retained membership in until her death.
(pp. 36) Gronowicz, Antoni. Garbo. 1990. London: Simon & Schuster Ltd
Please offer contrary information before removing her from this category in future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.243.186 ( talk) 11:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I edited this sentence
in the lede of the article, with the edit summary comment
My new version was:
This was reversed with another editor's edit summary comment:
We do not agree about the use of the adjective perfect in this case, not even about the use of the noun sense. Why should the article begin wiith a confusing statement that makes it look like this woman could have been active only in Sweden during Hollywood's silent film period and part of its Golden Age? Not everyone knows her story. Since the fact that she was a Swedish-American (a U.S. citizen since 1950, when she had to give up her Swedish citizenship as per Swedish law) keeps getting removed, I maintain that the sentence as it reads now makes no sense as an introduction to her life story. The fact that she originally was Swedish and did a small bit of work in Sweden is of minor importance and interest in comparison to her work in America, which is her major claim to fame and should be clear from the outset in this article. I am reversing this and ask cordially for a bit more care here. SergeWoodzing ( talk) 10:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Someone from an IP put a lot of time and effort and work into vandalizing this article extensively yesterday. I made the mistake of reading through it all when it was reveresed here and almost died laughing. At least the vandal in question, though he/she should not be encouraged, had a great sense of humor this time. SergeWoodzing ( talk) 01:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The paragraph about her burial was edited this way today:
She was cremated, and after a nearly decade-long legal battle her ashes were finally interred on June 16, 1999, at the Skogskyrkogården Cemetery in her native Stockholm. On that summer day in 1999, Bishop Caroline Krook presided over the services, along with Gray Reisfield, niece and sole heir of Greta Garbo, follow bagpipe players in kilts to the grave of Greta Garbo. Gray's son Derek Reisfield (Garbo great-nephew) was chosen to lower the urn containing the ashes of Greta Garbo, into the open grave during her ceremony. She left her entire estate, estimated at $20,000,000 USD to her niece, Gray Reisfield of New Jersey.
I went to revise it, (removing fluff, fixing Swenglish etc.) to this:
She was cremated, and after a nearly decade-long legal battle her ashes were interred on June 16, 1999, at Skogskyrkogården Cemetery just south of her native Stockholm. Bishop Caroline Krook presided along with Gray Reisfield of New Jersey, Garbo's niece and only heir. They followed bagpipers in kilts to the grave into which Reisfeld's son Derek Reisfield had been chosen to lower the urn with her ashes. Garbo left her entire estate, estimated at $20,000,000 USD to her niece.
The additional info is unsourced here however (though known to me as fact) and needs a ref. I have none today. If one is found, I suggest my wording is used. SergeWoodzing ( talk) 21:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
To whomever reverted the text to the original on August 4 I must say I'm shocked. I spent hours revising and updating it, making corrections, and adding information I think is relevant. I kept much, if not most, of what you wrote. But I also reorganize sections for coherence, and improved prose. I removed few sources and every significant edit I made cited, contrary to what you said. I am a PhD and this has been a significant research project. It is extraordinary that you would delete the [entire page I edited with out any recognition of my achievements in any section whatsoever. I will copy my version back on the site. Please re-read it and edit only what you think will truly improve the entry. Thank you, classicfilmbuff
his article came up in the Guild of Copy Editors' backlog, so I've gone through and fixed English, grammar, punctuation, and some organizational problems. I've also expanded the lead to reflect the content of the article. I've removed some irrelevant content (i.e., the niece's name--the niece is also entitled to some privacy). I have left the chart alone.
I suggest for further work: this article needs many many more citations, and better referencing, especially relating to the questions about her love-life and her various psychological issues. If the article refers to the major depressive diagnosis, but there is no actual diagnosis, then that whole sentence should probably be removed--it's speculative. I've left it in there for now, because I can see there is some active work here. Auntieruth55 ( talk) 01:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
The sentence "She stated in the book Garbo On Garbo (p. 33) that her relationship with her mother was not strained" (citing a book not mentioned in the Bibliography), in the short section Early Life, appears to me to be standing quite alone and out of context, as nothing else about Garbo's mother is mentioned in the article (although they both look happy on a photo further down in the article). Is it a denial of an alleged strained relationship? Is it reasonable to ask for either more information on the subject or to delete the sentence as less than relevant for the article? MarB4 ( talk) 18:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason why the article expounds at some lengths about her lesbian affairs but she is included in none of the LGBT categories (Category:Bisexual actors or Category:LGBT people from Sweden, for instance)? I would have just added them myself but I suspect there I might be something else behind this and so thought I had better bring it here for discussion first. Keresaspa ( talk) 19:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I assure you there's no bias in this section, which I wrote. The reason I state her relationships with men "as fact" (whereas with women I say "speculate" and "allege," etc.,) is because they were well-documented during her life and after. The one person of either sex who actually said he had a sexual relationship with her of any duration was a man--Cecil Beaton, who wrote about their affair in his memoirs. This is why I have to describe her relationships with men "friendships or romances." Although her relationship with Mercedes de Acosta is assumed by her recent biographers there is no definitive proof of it. This aspect of her life is complex and has been very difficult for her biographers to document. I just don't think it's appropriate write about all the vagaries of her romantic relationships in more than I have. If you're interested in this, you can read her recent biographies by Barry Paris (1994), Karen Swensen (1997), and Mark Vieira (2005) (Also Hugo Vickers) and if you can think of a better way to characterize her sexuality, go for it! I think the "bias" and "objectivity" ratings will go back and forth between 3.0 and 5.0 because of this one damn paragraph! Greetings,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 00:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
After mulling this over, I think I can be more specific about the 4 men in her life whom I mention. The trick is to be short and concise. This thing cannot be any longer than it is because in the end, her sexuality is not important--its her extraordinary cultural and cinematic impact in the 1930s and on. Anon,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 00:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
A minor edit war seems to be in motion over the date for the image at the top of the article; the year above is the one IMDb, and other sources give for the movie. While I can find several uses of the photograph linking it to the film, I can find none which do not or suggest the correct date might be 1926 which are unconnected with Wikipedia or are probably mirror sites. (Exploring all avenues it seemed the image file title ought to be checked.) Incidentally, the image does not come up on Google under the other name IMDb gives for the film (The Rise of Helga), but I will assume this is a fluke. Philip Cross ( talk) 15:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
This article is seriously lacking for not addressing reasons why Garbo decided to stop acting. Obviously, there were interviews/books from herself and her friends which have quotes about this matter. Why none of this is the article? 95.25.222.70 ( talk) 09:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
After skimming the bios, I see there are no clear reasons why she retired. Although G herself didn't intend to retire after the failure of Two-Faced Woman, she was also ambivalent (her age, exhaustion, among other things). One reason was that the war destroyed the foreign market on which her movies depended so MGM didn't make a strong effort to create a vehicle for her. Then, the problem is that many people with whom she worked and others in the business cited different, often contradictory, reasons. All speculation. In any case, it won't be simple to sift through this stuff and concisely orginize it--unless I say what I've just written, which is probably enough. As I say, I'll get to it as soon as I can.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 21:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Done. Any thoughts?-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 23:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
No, really more complex. As I say, she had no intention of retiring after TFW. Just thought she'd wait till the war ended. All the recent biographies cite the complexity of her "reasons" as I tred to explain. As K Swenson says, did the movies leave her or did she leave the movies? She may have said something quite different to Broman in her later life, but the research about her feelings after TFW shows her ambivalence. This is what I try to convey. But throughout her career, she said/did a lot of contradictory things about it. A continuing problem for her throughout her life was her indecisiveness about everything! She also said other crazy things later in her life about her "former job". For example, she continuously said she hated Hollywood and wanted to retire, but she kept on working. I think the failure of the 1948 Wanger project (to which she was fully committed) led to her final decision. So, I stand by what I say, all cited. Take care,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 20:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC) But if you want to, go ahead and add the Broman quote as representing her thoughts later in life-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 21:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia claims that Greta Garbo learned Transcendental Meditation, yet this fact is not noted in this article. As a practitioner myself, I find this of interest. I would like to know when she learned. If any reader knows this, and can find a citation in a reliable source, please add it to the article, thanks. David Spector (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
(Discussion moved from User_talk:Wikiwatcher1)
Hello there, I'm flummoxed about why you put the AK pic at the top of the page. In it, GG looks morose and cold and it captures none of her dazzling magnetism, mystique, and beauty. Personally, in fact, I think it's a bad picture. I wish that you had discussed this on the talk p. without making a unilateral decision. Also don't understand why you'd put a the Susan Lennox pic where it creates a huge space between the sections. The other problem is that it's a glamour pic where as the other pics in the article are, rightly I think, publicity stills. The only other glamour pic is in the Legacy section, on the right, where it arguably belongs. I'm going to revert to previous p. Then, perhaps you might show/discuss the pics on the talk p.? If we see a consensus for your ideas, we'll return them. I hope you're ok with this. Respectfully,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 18:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh yeah, one other thing. The website you put in there is not, I learned, a legitimate source as per WP protocol. Thanks,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 18:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Btw, Ww, what do you think of the AK in the photo gallery at the bottom of the gg p? It's at least a much better AK photo--much more spirit, life, electric. But I don't think, because of the gap, that we should put the SL pick where you put it for the reasons I mentioned. I spent days with another user setting up the images for the page and I think it's very effective now. Another user and I recently adjusted images to conform to WP protocol (no pics to the left under new section; no "sandwiching" from opposing pics. Also, eliminated one pic because p. was "overcrowded." But I wouldn't mind switching the AK from the Gallery to the top, and putting SL in the gallery. I just really don't think your AK is a good or representative photo! Take care,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 21:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello WW,
You've added and rewritten some stuff that I'm very uncomfortable with: In 1925, Stiller and Garbo, who was then age twenty and unable to speak any English, arrived in New York where they remained for over six months without any word from MGM.
She was on the verge of returning Sweden, and wrote to her boyfriend back home
A Swedish friend (who?) thought he would help her by contacting MGM producer Irving Thalberg (citation?), who then agreed to give her a screen test.
According to author Frederick Sands, "the result of the test was electrifying. Thalberg was impressed and began grooming the new starlet the following day.
You're using Sands, who's biography is 33 years old and has been revised and corrected by Vieira, Swenson, and Paris (whom I see you've also read.)I'm very concerned that you are planning to go through the entire article and just change things willy-nilly. I have spent months researching and writing this article with extraordinary care and in great detail. It is an excellent page as it now stands. Well researched, organized, and written. I'm a scholar. I welcome additions, of course, but will be disturbed if you remove text that is accurate and carefully crafted. I don't know what your plans are, but please show me the respect to talk with me on my talk page before changing things so drastically as you have done today. I will revert to the previous version and then feel free to add, of course, you are an editor too. but if you want to change anything I hope you'll talk to me before making the change. Thanks,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 22:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Miss Garbo at first didn't like playing the exotic, the sophisticated, the woman of the world. She used to complain: "Mr. Thalberg, I am just a young gur-rl!" Irving tossed it off with a laugh. With those elegant pictures he was creating the Garbo image.[34]:70
Hello WW, oh dear, I think we've begun an editing war and I'm not familiar enough with WP protocol to know how to resolve it. But I'll start by commenting on elements of this message from you
Nor was I planning on going through "your" article "willy-nilly" and rewriting anything. I just happened to notice some missing transition details about her early career in the U.S. and had the sources to fill it in a bit.
As for showing "respect," I give the most to the subject of a biography, to make sure it's clear and complete. I'm more interested in upping the biography quality than one-upping any editors. BTW, "respect" is a two-way street.
Per your first sentence above about the additions, you wrote you were "very uncomfortable" with them. But I honestly don't see much of an issue here, and Fat&Happy's comment that an article can "reflect both versions" with proper context, seems logical. The added text ( see diff), was simply to fill in missing details about what happened after she first arrived in the U.S. You kept in the 6-month waiting period as a fact, but deleted her personal feelings and some other quotes which helped personalize this transitional period and discovery by the U.S. audience.
This might have been done erroneously, not intentionally. For instance, you thought I was quoting the 2005 Vieira book about Garbo, but the book cite deleted was actually his 2010 bio about Thalberg. You mention the minor point that whoever she wrote to was not a "boyfriend." Fine, call him "friend" if you wish. But you stated above that she talked about wanting to return to Sweden, so why remove her letter?
If she was under contract, that's not a contradiction to her difficulty in getting screen tested. You could simply rephrase any ambiguity, rather than proclaiming a phrase as "simply false" and deleting it. As for her producer having to be "pushed" to give her a part, that's a different subject, since the text I added referred only to her first screen test. Maybe that was a mistake in your reading. I used the material from the Sands book because he included her actual letters and details not included in the article, and the "discovery" period, before the new material, only included this description:
. . . the two set sail for America on the last day of June 1925. (new section) Stiller and Garbo arrived in Hollywood in the first week of July 1925. Although she expected to work with Stiller on her first film,[33] she was cast in Torrent (1926).
That sort of jump in time from getting off the boat and soon acting in her first role left a lot to be desired, and was misleading. Especially since you wrote above: Garbo's "discovery is absolutely unique and unprecedented" . I sort of agree, and felt some more accuracy about this transition and her own feelings were valuable. Considering that her famous movie line, "I want to be alone," is referred to eight times in the article, even though the words were not hers, but the screenwriter's, why then remove her actual quoted words from two new sources? She did have a mind of her own, did she not?
You also mentioned a few other problems, that page numbers were missing from the quotes. However, everything I added did have page numbers, so check again. You also focused on a few trivial details rather than simply rephrasing, such as terms "new starlet" and "later rise." An article doesn't need to be written like a timeline diary, and referring to something in the future isn't automatically wrong. As for the name of the "Swedish friend," you could have asked on the talk page rather than delete the whole quote. I'm not comfortable with comments such as these:
I don't know what your plans are, but please show me the respect to talk with me on my talk page before changing things so drastically as you have done today.
As explained, there was nothing drastic about the added citations which you summarily removed, and still consider your deletions unexplainable. You could have easily rephrased for context or discussed first.-- Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 19:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, got it F&H. The talk page it is. Why don't we do this: Ww, cut and paste your version into the GG talk p. Then anyone who's interested can see both (mine's in the article now). I'll identify problems I see with your version and you can do the same with mine. At this point, we will hopefully have some consensus about the matter (either in the community or between us). I think we can get this straightened out without going to Wp editing court, which I suggest be the last resort. But please know that, as I earlier said, 1/3 of my concerns have to do with content, including veracity and up-to-date scholarship. (Much of what the recent biographers--Swenson, Paris, Vieira--have done is update information and correct long-standing errors and myths about GG's life. This, in fact, was my initial interest in contributing to the page. I'm equally concerned with writing, in partiuclar, changing a well-crafted paragraph that is internally unified. My final related disagreement has to do with the content that you've added that I personally don't think should be included since, because it has nothing to do with the essence of the paragraph. For this reason, it disrupts and slows down the narrative. This is all scholarly stuff. Later,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 13:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 13:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello readers. My critique of the most recent additions and changes to the article, which I undid prematurely, follow. "Comment by the editor" refers to a message from him or her to me. Quoted material is that written by him or her. The indented comments compise my critique, as follows.
Comment by the editor: "The added text which you took out was only added to fill in missing or incorrect details about what happened after she first arrived in the U.S. and the quotes are included to give some color and depth to her personal feelings."
Comment by the editor: "A typical example of an incorrect detail is mentioned earlier, stating that she "set sail for America on the last day of June 1925," followed by "Stiller and Garbo arrived in Hollywood in the first week of July 1925." -- Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 18:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
"In 1925, Stiller and Garbo, who was then age twenty and unable to speak any English, was brought over from Sweden at the request of MGM head Louis B. Mayer, as he liked her appearance from seeing her photos."
"However, they remained in New York for over six months without any word from MGM. She and Stiller then went to Los Angeles on their own, [5] [6] but another five weeks passed with no contacts from the studio."
"She was on the verge of returning Sweden, and wrote to her boyfriend back home [as I said, she had no boyfriend; I think you're referring to Saxon with whom she had a platonic friendship] quote|You're quite right when you think I don't feel at home here. . . Oh you lovely little Sweden, I promise that when I return to you my sad face will smile as never before." [7]}}"
"A Swedish friend thought he would help her by contacting MGM producer Irving Thalberg, who then agreed to give her a screen test. According to author Frederick Sands, "the result of the test was electrifying." Thalberg was impressed and began grooming the new starlet the following day:"
"The studio arranged to fix her teeth, made sure she lost weight, and gave her an English tutor." [7]
"During her later rise to stardom,"
"According to film historian Mark Vieira, "Thalberg decreed that henceforth Garbo would play a young but worldly-wise woman . . . " [8]: 71 However, according to Norma Shearer, Thalberg's wife, Garbo did not necessarily agree with his ideas:
Miss Garbo at first didn't like playing the exotic, the sophisticated, the woman of the world. She used to complain: "Mr. Thalberg, I am just a young gur-rl!" Irving tossed it off with a laugh. With those elegant pictures he was creating the Garbo image." [8]: 70
OK, I just read Swenson's, Paris's, and Vieira's (2005 and perhaps 2010?) accounts of the events that occurred starting with the initiation of screen tests to her 1st role. They all differ significantly from the S/B version (and in a couple of details contradict each other's). So I think the piece should be left out. Personnally, I don't think this matter is important enough to discuss each separately and of course S,'s, P's, nd V's are more recent. Btw, they all say that GG and Stiller remained in NY for only 3 months. But, Ww, you will be interested to know that Swenson (alone) states the steamship's journey to the U.S. took close to two weeks. So I will adjust this in the text.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 22:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
WW, why didn't you either talk to me (since you know I and another made the first choice) or raise as a discussion point first about making this big change? The whole point of the other image is to show her laughing! This was the big tag-line and it was her first and only 1 of 2 comedies. It's very important to the article because it shows her range. Can you explain why you made this change? So with due respect, I'm going to revert again and unless you can persuade on discussion page, we really should keep the choice Fat&Happy and I made several weeks ago. Take care,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 21:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
For me, Greta Garbo is... divine. |
If you like Greta Garbo, you can put this Userbox on your userpage like this: {{User:UBX/Greta Garbo}}
--
Tangopaso (
talk)
14:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Two images, both iconic, have been added to the Commons. The first of these is so classic that it might be worth considering as a lead image.
-- Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 21:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I have updated the Visconti story in retirement section to speculation (not fact, as it had earlier been described. My most recent edit: "In 1969, Italian motion picture director Luchino Visconti allegedly attempted to bring Garbo back to the screen with a small part, Maria Sophia, Queen of Naples, in his adaptation of Proust's Remembrance of Things Past. He exclaimed: "I am very pleased at the idea that this woman, with her severe and authoritarian presence, should figure in the decadent and rarefied climate of the world described by Proust".[114] Claims that Garbo was interested in the part, however, cannot be substantiated.[115][114]
Do you think this story is worth being included in page, or is it trivia?-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 19:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)