Talk:Vincente Minnelli

Sources for inclusion in categories

There were {{fact}} tags on two category tags for the article:

{{fact}} tags don't work for categories—they don't show up in the list of categories.

I've removed the category tags as well—they shouldn't be there unless they're well-sourced.66.73.170.248 05:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Back again—didn't mean to be anonymous; didn't see that I wasn't logged in.)—Chidom talk  05:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality

Although he was married several times, wasn't he gay? Jtyroler (talk) 09:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The url for the article seems to be spelled wrong- Minelli instead of Minnelli —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iful (talk • contribs) 08:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, at least bisexual, but this is Wikipedia! Several editors would like to rewrite history (not to mention the future) with no gays allowed! DCX (talk) 09:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following post should tell you your fears are unfounded. If there's information published in reliable sources about a subject's gayness, then it's fair game to report it in Wikipedia. What Wikipedia does NOT do, though, is report rumours, innuendos and "he's obviously gay, the way he walks/talks/dresses/whatever" as fact. The best we could do is report, with citations, the fact that Minnelli has often been rumoured to be gay - because it is a fact; such rumours have been around for 50 years to my knowledge. But to convert those rumours into "he was gay" - that's a no-no. Not without a reputable source that says so. And why on earth should it be any different? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 12:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A recent biographer specifically sought to find and confirm any gay relationships, including by interviewing those in Hollywood's known gay circles. Nobody could provide any names, relationships, anything other than the vaguest rumors (most of which where based on gay stereotypes - his sensitivity, gentleness, design acumen, etc.). When the biographer sought to get contact information from a Judy Garland biographer for a source he cited, the Garland biographer couldn't provide it and then failed to respond to further contact attempts. There was no information found to definitively establish whether or not Minnelli had any gay encounters at all.Biomebaby (talk) 04:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Levy's biography, Vincente Minnelli: Hollywood's Dark Dreamer (2009) provides evidence that Minnelli did live as an openly gay man in New York prior to relocating to Hollywood. In discussing Minnelli's marriage to Judy Garland, Levy reports that: “Judy caught him in compromising positions at least twice, once with a bit player and once with their gardener.” Jburlinson (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Levy's book is very poorly documented and purports many things without properly sourcing or supporting the assertions. His book is not credible. Biomebaby (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a passage in the article that refutes Levy's claims but that doesn't provide any reference to a reliable source that would support dismissing Levy's assertions. While some of the reviews I read of Levy's book criticized his writing style, none that I recall challenged his truthfulness or accuracy. The passage in question, especially the following statement, appears to be someone's opinion, but whose? "Presently, there is nothing but unsupported hearsay and stereotype-based rumor regarding any gay relationships in Minnelli's life." Unless there is a citation to an RS proving otherwise, Levy's biography would appear to be more than "unsupported hearsay and stereotype-based rumor." Jburlinson (talk) 00:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jburlinson makes a good point. The lack of sourcing here sticks out. Also, I believe these are weasel words and also probably bad grammar: "However, upon checking Levy's noted sources for the Dorothy Parker-related information, none of his claims were evident." Grammatically, there's no one in this sentence doing the checking. I think it may signify original research. Relgif (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So the Levy book is credible just because it's published? Let Jburlinson quote Levy's cited sources, if he can find them, instead of perpetuating the presentation of rumor and supposition as fact. Check some of the Amazon reviews for the book - a number of readers pointed out blatant errors. Levy's previous books have had accuracy issues also. The National Enquirer is published information - do you consider it a credible source? Biomebaby (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.180.114 (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Emanuel Levy is a Columbia University Ph.D. who has taught at Columbia University, the New School of Social Research, Wellesley College, Arizona State University, and UCLA Film School and is a two-time president of the Los Angeles Film Critics Association. His book on Minnelli has indeed been criticized, but primarily for the quality of the writing, not for the quality of the scholarship or the evidence. Quote from Washington Post review -- "it's the only full-length biography of Minnelli we're likely to get. Levy is a close observer of the films in question, and while his judgments rarely stray from the conventional ("It's useful to think about 'Lust for Life' as an intense melodramatic biopic"), he does afford some insight into the work's complexity." Quote from NY Times review -- "In this book, Levy errs on the side of thoroughness, with the paradoxical result that readers learn more than they ever wanted to know about Vincente Minnelli’s life". According to Cineaste: "Hollywood’s Dark Dreamer is exceptionally well researched. In addition to the 'invaluable information and materials' with which Anderson Minnelli provided him, Levy has drawn prodigiously from the Special Minnelli Collection at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Center for Motion Picture Study and the AMPAS Library. He has also drawn from interviews he conducted with Betty Comden, Robert Mitchum, Katharine Hepburn." Levy was encouraged to write his book by Minnelli's widow Lee Anderson Minnelli, who gave him complete access to her files of documents and letters. If there is a reliable source out there who has cast doubt on Levy's work, I'd appreciate hearing about it. Amazon reviews usually don't qualify -- but, here's a quote from one of them: "Several months ago, I attended a ceremony of the National Book Award for biographies and autobiographies of gay, lesbian and bisexual figures. Emanuel Levy's book on Vincente Minnelli, was deservedly one of the five finalists. After the event, I picked up the book and found it totally amazing. What Levy has done is take Minnelli's troubled sexual orientation vis-à-vis Hollywood's dominant sexual politics, and subjected all of the director's work to scrutiny along these lines." Jburlinson (talk) 04:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can trot out all the titles and kudos you want but it doesn't change the fact that Levy shows no verifiable primary sources to support his claims. --Biomebaby (talk) 02:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


He is referenced on the Mineshaft page, so the least you could do is cross-refer the two pages. FangoFuficius (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Camera dolly

Can someone put up a section on how he invented the camera dolly/crab dolly? 98.220.156.143 (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is: there's no real way to tell who invented the crab dolly. Many filmmakers improvised during the course of their work to achieve similar results. Research shows many claims to the crab dolly going all the way back to the 1920s. A better approach might be to develop a section about his skilled use of camera movement, whatever equipment was used to achieve that movement. Biomebaby (talk) 01:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, TCM is currently (November 2019) running a new documentary on early cinematography, and when they start to talk about the fact that these artists had to invent all the tools of their new craft, it shows an old photo of James Wong Howe with his crab dolly.

Death

The last paragraph of the section is awkwardly written and confusing. Seems it is trying to say he left $100k to his widow and the rest of his $1.1M estate to his daughter Liza. (I'll not change it myself as I have not researched it for accuracy.) ChgoLarry (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote that paragraph. Dave Schweisguth (talk) 00:13, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Vincente Minnelli/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: PrinceArchelaus (talk · contribs) 19:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Dave Schweisguth (talk · contribs) 00:21, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make a separate reply to myself with my finding for each review criterion. To keep the conversation organized, please reply to each finding when you've addressed it or you have a question or comment. However, as I review, I'm finding issues which invalidate my initial conclusions, so please hold off on responding until my signal. Thanks!
WP:GACR6 1a: Looks generally good. No doubt I'll find nits as I get deeper. Dave Schweisguth (talk) 00:33, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did a second pass, fixed any issues I could, and tagged those I couldn't (because they required more effort than I was willing to expend in mid-review, or because I needed a reference that I don't have handy, e.g. Levy's bio). You can find them by searching for "needed" or "?]" (for tags like [when?]). Dave Schweisguth (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, a few things that bear on this criterion that I didn't express in the article:
  • "Early life" jumps around confusingly in time. It would be easier to follow if it were rewritten to be chronological: discuss grandfathers, then parents, then marriage, then Minelli's birth.
  • The pattern of a section heading per notable film followed by a Main link appears to have been applied to this article after much of it had been written, so there is some text which is no longer needed and could be removed to make the article more concise and less repetitive. Look for places where a film, or a phrase like "a film adaptation" of the film's source, appears close to the Main link and also links to the article on the film, and consider whether it is still necessary.
  • "Perception as an auteur" has good material, but it seems to me to jump around a bit in an unclear way. I would first cover the negative criticism of Minnelli's visual focus (Sarris, Schickel, the comparison with Donen), then those who also see him as primarily visual but see it positively (Johnson, Basinger, Bergan, Casper), and finish with those who saw him as more than just a visual stylist (Levy, Lerner).
Dave Schweisguth (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restructuring the article addressed the second bullet above. ✔️ Dave Schweisguth (talk) 01:02, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found copies of Levy and some other references. I could potentially go back and fix some small issues myself that depend on those references, but I'll prioritize actually reviewing. Dave Schweisguth (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is some unclarity around the financial success of each film. I think it's relevant to this article whether each film was or was not a financial success. Sometimes that is clearly indicated or can easily be inferred from the cost and earnings given; sometimes it is not. As I haven't reviewed every source for every film I don't know how clearly this question can be answered for each film. I think that stating earnings without saying whether the film was profitable is unhelpful detail. To consider this article clear on this topic, I think that the section for each film should either state whether or not the film was successful, make it obvious (e.g. by saying the film cost X and earned Y) or simply say nothing about the film's earnings. I could have easily removed unqualified statements about earnings, but wanted to lay the question out here in case the nominator wants to suggest a different criterion or approach.
Relatedly, the terminology around earnings is unclear. The frequently used phrase "distributor rentals" strikes me as a specialist term which needs explanation. I can guess what it means literally, but I don't know whether it could be regarded as the total gross earnings for a film of the era. (The recurrence of that specialist term also makes me wonder what source used it, and whether that source needs to be reviewed for too-close paraphrasing.) Another unclarity is that when a film is said to have earned some amount I don't know whether gross or net earnings is meant. Again, I think either the article should be completely clear in this respect or remove statements about earnings to remove the unclarity. Dave Schweisguth (talk) 23:43, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GACR6 1b MOS:LEAD: The lead section has too much detail. I would merge the coverage of his early and late career into the body. His film career merits coverage, but I would summarize it more concisely, probably individually mentioning only films which won major awards or are otherwise especially noteworthy. Mention of his famous first wife and older daughter does seem appropriate here. Also, the mention of the National Film Registry films references a note, but I believe all information in the lead should summarize information in the body of the article, [edit: not required, only usually the case] so inclusion in the Registry should be indicated in the body (and the single note would then be unnecessary). Dave Schweisguth (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for deciding to review it. I disagree about the lead section being too long. It's pretty concise compared to the lead section for Stanley Kubrick's article, which is well over 400 words. However, I can certainly narrow down his acclaimed 1950s films to four. The note may not be necessary, but I thought it was an interesting factoid when I was writing the article.
I'll be making some changes over the weekend to reclarify some of the details. PrinceArchelaus (talk) 04:40, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a treat to spend some time on this topic!
The lead's length is fine. (I haven't reviewed the lead or the article for completeness yet, and after I do I might suggest adding to the lead.) I mean that it devotes disproportionate space to some less-important details. Primarily I would drop or greatly condense the second paragraph (moving info to the body as necessary), on his early career. (Compare to how quickly Kubrick's lead gets to his directing career.) The last paragraph could be condensed somewhat as well; Venice Productions is noteworthy, but the late films are less so than the major classics mentioned earlier in the lead.
The information in the note is absolutely, um, noteworthy. I mean that the discussion in the body of each of the films should say that they're in the registry (this is the important part) and then the note would no longer be needed (not important, just a consequence). Dave Schweisguth (talk) 03:23, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GACR6 1b MOS:LAYOUT: Good. Dave Schweisguth (talk) 02:44, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GACR6 1b MOS:WTW, MOS:WAF, MOS:EMBED: Good. Dave Schweisguth (talk) 21:56, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GACR6 2a WP:FNNR: Good. Dave Schweisguth (talk) 23:32, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PrinceArchelaus go ahead and address any issues I already identified. I'm still working (currently spot-checking references), so I'll have more, and it's possible I'll find issues in areas that I previously evaluated as good. Dave Schweisguth (talk) 15:01, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GACR6 2b WP:Verifiability: The article has enough citations and not too many. I spot-checked about 30 and addressed issues I found, resulting in revisions 17:07, 3 October 2025 through 16:43, 4 October 2025.
I found five small matters of fact not supported by citations (see the non-minor edits), which is a high enough rate that I would expect a more thorough survey to find around 50 more such small discrepancies. I'll have to consider further whether those putative discrepancies would preclude GA.
I found one small instance of too-close paraphrasing, which is a low enough rate that I would not expect a more thorough survey to find significant plagiarism. Dave Schweisguth (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for others' opinion on the inaccurate citations here: Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Threshold_for_verification_of_cited_statements Dave Schweisguth (talk) 00:33, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PrinceArchelaus Per the discussion I linked to, the rate of discrepancies I found merits failing the review. Unless you advise otherwise, I'll hold it for the default length (or feel free to ask for a different length of hold), and spot-check again when you tell me to.
In any case I'll continue reviewing the rest of the criteria. I may pitch in with correcting verifiability and other issues when I've completed reviewing. Dave Schweisguth (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made some revisions a few hours ago, and will be adding an awards table tomorrow. Anyway, thanks for the much needed revisions and clarification issues. PrinceArchelaus (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GACR6 2c WP:NOR: Good. Dave Schweisguth (talk) 00:38, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GACR6 2d WP:CV WP:PLAGIARISM: I found and fixed one one-sentence case of plagiarism. Spot-check of citations found no CV/plagiarism. Good. Dave Schweisguth (talk) 05:39, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GACR6 3a I reviewed some sources and did not find any major areas covered in them that are not covered in the article. Good. Dave Schweisguth (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GACR6 3b I don't think there are any egregious instances of excessive detail. Good. Dave Schweisguth (talk) 23:10, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GACR6 4 WP:NPOV Topics where there might be different points of view include Minnelli's sexual orientation, his focus on visuals and its relation to his directing style, and his treatment of actors.
  • Several sources quote various contemporaries as insisting that Minnelli was straight. If this article discussed Minnelli's sexual orientation at more length they could be mentioned. However, I think that the current discussion is a balanced assessment of a breadth of sources.
  • Although the discussion of directing style is confusingly organized (see under 1a above), it does present different viewpoints in a balanced manner.
  • The discussion of Minnelli's handling of actors is rather one-sided, but I haven't come across substantial praise of his skill in that area, so I conclude that the discussion gives an accurate picture.
Good. Dave Schweisguth (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GACR6 5 No sign of instability. Good. Dave Schweisguth (talk) 23:21, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GACR6 6 The subject and many sections of the article are illustrated. All images are usable on Wikipedia. Captions are relevant. Good. Dave Schweisguth (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. @PrinceArchelaus nice job on the star pic! Dave Schweisguth (talk) 03:24, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done reviewing. This is a good article, in the ordinary English sense. It is within striking distance of being a Good Article in the Wikipedia sense, but is not yet. @PrinceArchelaus would you like me to fail immediately (that might be the right thing to do if you think it will take a long time to address the issues above), or hold for a week, or hold for some other period, or something else? Dave Schweisguth (talk) 03:28, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hold off for a week. There's some changes I can make to help it reach the criteria of a Good Article. PrinceArchelaus (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PrinceArchelaus Are you done revising or do you need more time? Dave Schweisguth (talk) 21:47, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still revising some details. I should be done by the middle of the week. PrinceArchelaus (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK Dave Schweisguth (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be less available soon, so let's wrap up your part no later than October 31. After that I'll re-review and pass or fail. If there will be more to do after October 31, I'll fail, you can continue working at your own pace and re-nominate any time. Sound good? Dave Schweisguth (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some time has passed without further edits, so I'll fail this review. The failure is without prejudice; it only means that there is some work left to do. Kudos to @PrinceArchelaus for your work so far on the article and the review. I would gladly re-review when the article is re-nominated.
Issues remain in criteria WP:GACR6 1a, 1b MOS:LEAD and 2b WP:Verifiability. Details are above. Dave Schweisguth (talk) 19:34, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Noticed while reviewing for GA, but not required for GA

If I write them down here I can forget about them now and get back to reviewing :) Dave Schweisguth (talk) 02:43, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many biographical articles on prominent people in the performing arts have an "Awards" or similar section. I think this article would benefit from one. Dave Schweisguth (talk) 02:43, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An awards table can certainly be added. I'll get to work on it tomorrow. PrinceArchelaus (talk) 23:32, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be helpful or interesting to actually draw a line between Minnelli's early employment as a window dresser, costume designer and set designer and his directorial style. No WP:OR here, but someone writing about Minnelli must have done so. It might be summarized in Legacy, or in a new section if there's enough material (something like the "Musical style" or "Lyrical style" sections that some articles on songwriters have). Dave Schweisguth (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Griffin p. 15 & 20 are relevant Dave Schweisguth (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Griffin has good discussions of Denise's role in Venice Productions and of Mata Hari ("one of the greatest debacles in theatrical history") which could be drawn on. Dave Schweisguth (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More than one source mentions Minnelli wearing conspicuous makeup in both New York and Hollywood, a detail which would add interest and seems relevant to the discussion of sexual orientation. Dave Schweisguth (talk) 23:11, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://digital.library.ucla.edu/catalog/ark:/21198/zz0002np7z is CC licensed and has more photos that could be used in this article and those for Minnelli's films, e.g. for Brigadoon. I looked for a photo of MGM Studios, but didn't find one. Dave Schweisguth (talk) 02:43, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vincente_Minnelli