![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Shouldn't the headline be modified to The Monuments Men from just Monuments Men as done elsewhere in the article and evidently used at IMDB ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2177771/)? Alandeus ( talk) 08:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Hardly mixed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.78.37 ( talk) 04:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Why include an historically flawed review quote of the historical flaws in the movie? "von Tunzelmann" (a Guardian blogger/'historian') suggests that Stokes would not use 'Da Vinci' to refer to 'The Last Supper' since it's merely a phrase indicating that "Leonardo" was from Vinci, a community near Florence... and further suggests that using 'Da Vinci' was not common until after Dan Brown's novel "The Da Vinci Code". Those suggestions reveal her youth and/or a definite lack of knowledge of American culture as bad as that which she cites Americans have for European surnames. Americans' preference for referring to everyone by first name, last name has existed for quite a long time, and 'Da Vinci' usage has been around far longer than Dan Brown himself, not to mention that the more learned Stokes would have been explaining to Americans who would, most likely, have long known Leonardo as 'Da Vinci'... a short form appelation of convenience favored in America at least. von Tunzelmann's own surname means 'of' or 'from Tunzelmann'... and she suggests 'da Vinci' is inappropriate as a surname. This is just comical. Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci (Leonardo son of Piero from Vinci) is listed as the full name in Wikipedia... which may not include a definite 'surname' as Americans may expect. However, many American surnames are simply convenient short forms also indicating lineage or origin as does Da Vinci's appelation. The entire von Tunzelmann quote is specious, and likely simply opinion and not researched as to the usage in the 1940s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RpDn ( talk • contribs) 11:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
The length of this section here is ridiculous. It feels like half a dozen reviews are nearly quoted in entirety. Someone care to clean it up? Walkersam ( talk) 02:52, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Done. Vyselink ( talk) 15:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
This movie makes the point that a psychopath like Hitler wanted to seize or destroy symbols of sane western culture. However, this movie could not even be produced today because, all over America, statues are being pulled down or destroyed by the current Left in an attempt to destroy our own historical and cultural symbols. And for the same sad reason -- to start afresh. Of course, Hitler was an insane fascist dictator, but the modern Left also wants to start fresh by destroying social icons and pretending America's history consists solely of racist, sexist oppression when in reality America has been the best large experiment in democracy on this planet. Not perfect, but the best big experiment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 ( talk) 14:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
... and her ‘The Beautiful Spoils’ ? Flanner’s thoroughly researched (and beautifully written) account of the Nazi looting of Europe, and the work of the ‘Monuments Men’ in recovering and returning these artifacts, was published in 1947, collected in her Men and Monuments (Harper and Row, 1957), and originally appeared in The New Yorker. I saw this silly movie, and considered it should be re-titled Ocean’s Eleven Save Private Ryan From the Temple of Doom. -- 2001:44B8:3102:BB00:507B:4DB7:1FD6:A81B ( talk) 09:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Shouldn't the headline be modified to The Monuments Men from just Monuments Men as done elsewhere in the article and evidently used at IMDB ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2177771/)? Alandeus ( talk) 08:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Hardly mixed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.78.37 ( talk) 04:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Why include an historically flawed review quote of the historical flaws in the movie? "von Tunzelmann" (a Guardian blogger/'historian') suggests that Stokes would not use 'Da Vinci' to refer to 'The Last Supper' since it's merely a phrase indicating that "Leonardo" was from Vinci, a community near Florence... and further suggests that using 'Da Vinci' was not common until after Dan Brown's novel "The Da Vinci Code". Those suggestions reveal her youth and/or a definite lack of knowledge of American culture as bad as that which she cites Americans have for European surnames. Americans' preference for referring to everyone by first name, last name has existed for quite a long time, and 'Da Vinci' usage has been around far longer than Dan Brown himself, not to mention that the more learned Stokes would have been explaining to Americans who would, most likely, have long known Leonardo as 'Da Vinci'... a short form appelation of convenience favored in America at least. von Tunzelmann's own surname means 'of' or 'from Tunzelmann'... and she suggests 'da Vinci' is inappropriate as a surname. This is just comical. Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci (Leonardo son of Piero from Vinci) is listed as the full name in Wikipedia... which may not include a definite 'surname' as Americans may expect. However, many American surnames are simply convenient short forms also indicating lineage or origin as does Da Vinci's appelation. The entire von Tunzelmann quote is specious, and likely simply opinion and not researched as to the usage in the 1940s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RpDn ( talk • contribs) 11:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
The length of this section here is ridiculous. It feels like half a dozen reviews are nearly quoted in entirety. Someone care to clean it up? Walkersam ( talk) 02:52, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Done. Vyselink ( talk) 15:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
This movie makes the point that a psychopath like Hitler wanted to seize or destroy symbols of sane western culture. However, this movie could not even be produced today because, all over America, statues are being pulled down or destroyed by the current Left in an attempt to destroy our own historical and cultural symbols. And for the same sad reason -- to start afresh. Of course, Hitler was an insane fascist dictator, but the modern Left also wants to start fresh by destroying social icons and pretending America's history consists solely of racist, sexist oppression when in reality America has been the best large experiment in democracy on this planet. Not perfect, but the best big experiment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 ( talk) 14:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
... and her ‘The Beautiful Spoils’ ? Flanner’s thoroughly researched (and beautifully written) account of the Nazi looting of Europe, and the work of the ‘Monuments Men’ in recovering and returning these artifacts, was published in 1947, collected in her Men and Monuments (Harper and Row, 1957), and originally appeared in The New Yorker. I saw this silly movie, and considered it should be re-titled Ocean’s Eleven Save Private Ryan From the Temple of Doom. -- 2001:44B8:3102:BB00:507B:4DB7:1FD6:A81B ( talk) 09:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)