Talk:The Crying Game

Dil was a homosexual transvestite

So says the writer and director of the film, Neil Jordan, in a 25th anniversary discussion about the movie available to watch here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HD2lhfB53Bs

British-Japanese?

What part of this movie or story is Japanese? There are no Japanese names associated with the movie, nor does Japan come up anywhere in this article. Am I missing something?Patwinkle (talk) 10:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• Gabbard, Glen O. (2001). "Neil Jordan's The Crying Game". In Gabbard, Glen O (ed.). Psychoanalysis and Film. International Journal of Psychoanalysis Key Paper Series. Karnac Books. ISBN 1855752751.
• Palmer, William J. (2009). "Spin Out: The Gay Nineties". The Films of the Nineties: The Decade of Spin. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 149–156. ISBN 0230613446.

Spoiler

I just want to throw this out there- A huge FUCK YOU goes out to whoever it was that thought it was a GOOD idea to give away the huge plot twist with NO SPOILER TAGS in the SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THE PAGE. Whoever made that call, please die in a chemical fire. Thank you!

And just to address the people who so desperately want to leave it in there: You can't say "oh people are coming to this article for this reason or that". you DONT KNOW why people are coming to this article, or what level of enjoyment of this film they expect for you to RUIN for them. HAs it ever occurred to you that Wikipedia is full of in-links, and someone (say, me) could arrive at this page without ever having heard of the film? I don't read through The Usual Suspects article and say "Hmm, it was rated as one of the best reveals, even topping The Crying Game. Gee what's that?" Oh that's what it is- Two hours I won't get to spend watching a classic film because you douchebags apparantly are psychic, and know the intentions and expectations of every person visiting this article

Thank you for helping to ruin Wikipedia.66.157.239.10 06:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm hardly an expert on these topics, but based on my own understanding of the (continually contested) meaning of the terms and my having seen this movie, I'm not sure "transsexual woman" is the best description of Dil. I would say he/she is a "transgendered man". As far as I know, and according the wikipedia article transsexual, a TS is someone who desires a physical sex change or operation of some sort, and is not merely someone who prefers to live with an identity of the other gender. There certainly is no evidence in the movie itself, or in anything I've read about the movie, to suggest that Dil desires an actual sex change operation. So, I don't see any reason why it's accurate to say she's "transsexual". Revolver 11:39, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would add that TG has become accepted as generally the most inclusive term, so by this reason it errs on the side of caution to use it. Revolver 11:40, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

After reading the transgender article, maybe "transwoman" is better...it clearly identifies the gender identity and stays clear of the TS/TG terminology debate (it seems at least one group of people will find inaccuracy whether TS or TG is used). Revolver 11:52, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Being male to female TS myself, I associated myself immediately with Dil. She is one of the most accurate representations of a pre-operative transsexual in any movies, and I would recognize myself immediately in her - I was just like her when I was pre-op. The point is not her physique or dressing code; the point is that she acts, speaks, walks and behaves like a woman. She speaks of her mood changes and her medication; I interprete it is about hormone replacement therapy. I do remember my own wild mood swings and the horrible spells of agony while I was poisoned by my own hormonal production. I changed the text in the article as "transgendered"; she certainly was NOT a transvestite as the article suggested.62.237.141.27 21:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I discussed this movie with a M2F TS friend of mine who was of the complete opposite opinion, i.e. that Dil was a male gay drag queen. Certainly her manner of speech and behaviour is more typical of gay people than women (I have several trans friends, none of whom use to go on stage in feathers and a boa). The fact that the actor is a gay man himself may certainly have something to do with this, but in the end it's the actor's interpretation we're discussing here, not the intention of the scriptwriter.Geira (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Should the reference to Dils trasngendered nature be removed from the begining of the article? While this is a long time after the movie it IS still a spoiler and someone might conceivably look at the article without knowing about "the secret"

Novel

Shouldn't the novel be in a disambiguation position if it is, in fact, wholly unrelated to the film? Right now the link of the novel on the John Braine page links to this page, which, if I understand what's going on here correctly, should not be the case. But I don't know enough about either the book or the novel to be certain. Can someone who knows this stuff either fix it or make it clear? CoramVobis 03:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Summary

The summary of this movie contains POV information. There is nothing in the movie that implies that Fergus is actually "attracted" to the Dil character. The person who wrote this was biased by their personal interpretations. The final paragraph that discusses the nature of Fergus's sexuality is also pure speculation and should be removed.

Pronouns

I agree with the change of pronouns to 'she', in accordance with Wikipedia's guideline regarding self-identification. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I actually found the sudden use of male pronouns extremely offensive. 95.150.9.128 (talk) 01:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ummm...

Is it just me, or does this article currently leave out a kind of important part of the film? Like, you know, the twist ending? 70.171.57.254 15:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the twist is described in the plot summary. -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers vs. NPOV

I have redone the introduction to this article. Specifically, I have added the twist ending into the introduction. I expect that somebody will want to revert this. I encourage this person not to. Here's why:

One of the most important things about this film is that it is the first mainstream drama to deal with transgender issues in a remotely serious way. It is an absolute touchstone of discussions of transgender people and cinema. The LGBT perspective on this film is huge, and needs to be mentioned in the lead. This cannot, to my mind, be done well without using the word "transgender" in the lead.

More to the point, it is a gross violation of WP:NPOV to exclude this perspective from the lead. It is a highly notable, absolutely important perspective. It should not be marginalized far outside of the lead. The need to write a good introduction that actually informs people of the major issues surrounding this film trumps the need to cover the twist ending of a 15 year old movie. Phil Sandifer 21:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, per Wikipedia:Lead section, the intro should be a standalone short article. That means that not including the twist in the intro is a violation of NPOV - David Gerard 21:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Somebody has inserted a very ugly spoiler warning into the middle of the lead section, without giving justification or discussing it here. I've removed it pending justification. --Tony Sidaway 05:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No, that is no justification. I haven't even seen the movie and now I know about the twist at the end. I hate that. Get that spoiler out of there. Whey don't you just put what you said, "One of the most important things about this film is that it is the first mainstream drama to deal with transgender issues in a remotely serious way. It is an absolute touchstone of discussions of transgender people and cinema." instead of giving it away? There is a reason something usually says "spoilers start here." ---jdsully8 02:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. It isn't Usenet. --Tony Sidaway 21:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. The fact that this is an "encyclopedia" does not preclude wikipedia from politeness towards its users. It might be an encyclopedia but it's still on line and this page might be the most wieved source about this film. It's a simple matter of not ruining works of fiction for potential readers/audiences. And the fact that "you have to expect spoilers in a plot summary" is simply untrue.Wedineinheck 15:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Some film fans think that everyone has seen every movie, and has heard all discussions about every movie. This is false. I suggest that a significant proportion of the earth’s population has not seen crying game or read about the twist. A spoiler alert would b good 71.245.188.249 (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with putting the plot twist in the introduction, but there really should be a spoiler warning. There is nothing giving the reader any indication that the film's ending is going to be given away right off the bat.

Consensus hasn't been reached on spoiler warnings. I honestly don't see why people oppose them so much. I have added a spoiler warning at the beginning of the article, which is permitted in rare situations. From the policy:

"Spoiler warnings may be used in articles whose primary subject is fictional, and where the editor proposing them presents compelling reasons for their insertion. Such reasons should demonstrate that the spoiler tag does not diminish article quality, and that knowledge of the spoiler would substantially diminish many readers' or viewers' enjoyment of the work. Very rarely, a spoiler warning may appear in the article lead. If this can be justified, the warning should be placed at the top of the article. The presumption should be that the article lead should not need to warn about plot spoilers that are significant enough to appear in the lead."

I think this applies in this case. True, the movie is 13 years old, but that doesn't mean that everybody has seen it already. There are surely people who were toddlers when the film came out and are looking to watch it. Adding the spoiler doesn't detract from the article because the important aspect remains intact in the lead. --YellowTapedR 03:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, the film is not "frankly primarily notable for its twist," as one editor said in an edit summary. It had six Academy Award nominations, including best picture.--YellowTapedR 05:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see why there should be a spoiler warning. The movie has been out for thirteen years. People coming to this article want to know more about the movie, and that includes the transgender revelation. This isn't some unreleased, lots-of-speculation movie where someone who hasn't seen it could accidentally stumble on it. Lead sections of movie articles should have a brief summary of the film. You can't briefly summarized this movie without mentioning the one thing that makes it notable: that Dil's trans. Putting a spoiler warning is, imho, unnecessary. Why would people read this article if they didn't expect to be spoiled? If someone didn't want to be spoiled, they'd take two hours out of their day and watch the movie, or they'd look it up on IMDB. This is an encyclopedia article, not a movie review. Kolindigo 05:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The comment by jdsully8 shows that not everyone going to this article has seen the movie or wishes to be spoiled. The twist belongs in the article and even probably should be in the introduction, but adding a spoiler warning does not take anything away from it. And, again, the transgender angle is not the only notable thing about the film, since it was heavily nominated at the Academy Awards and was praised overwhelmingly by critics.

A decade before The Crying Game came out, Sleepaway Camppulled the-girl-is-really-a-boy trick. That revelation is not in the lead of that article (perhaps it should be, because that's the only scene anyone remembers from it). --YellowTapedR 06:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The plot detail is the main thing that an encyslopedia on this article ought to discuss. There is no need for a spoiler tag; an ad description can be found on a more appropriate site. I have removed the spoiler tag again. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

And I have reinstated it. This is very uncivil for just a small compromise. Please be courteous. - Jeeny ^Talk 07:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

July 8

This plot detail is the key fact about the movie - it's embarrassing to put a "spoiler" tag on it. The movie isn't a new release, and people coming here are looking for critical commentary and historical importance, not for a summary to decide whether to go to the cinema to see it. I don't see why a spoiler tag is needed. As Kolindigo asks, "Why would people read this article if they didn't expect to be spoiled?" — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It's your opinion that the plot detail is the key fact about the movie. Just because it isn't a new release doesn't mean that everyone's seen it. It is not wikipedia's job to provide "critical commentary." You have no basis for your claims on why people are coming to this article. The spoiler tag takes nothing away from the article and doesn't prevent anyone looking to learn about historical significance from reading it.

The spoiler guidelines make it clear that tags in the introductions of articles are allowed in rare circumstances. This is one of the exceptions. People may expect to be spoiled when they read the plot summary in an article, but they don't expect to have the ending given away for them in the intro. --YellowTapedR 04:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} The "edit warring" is being done by a group of editors who are against spoiler warnings in just about every circumstance. The page in its current form is a version by one of those editors. --YellowTapedR 06:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Page protection is not an endorsement of any form of the page. Now is the time to reach concensus on the issue on this page. GDonato (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a spoiler warning is justified in the lead of this article. Revealing the key plot twist of a film in a Plot section is one thing, but I don't think a user would reasonably expect to come across it in the lead. It's not like the spoiler warning prevents the information being read by those who want to: As Jeeny says above, it's a "small compromise" of little detriment. Philip Reuben 17:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, "Why would people read this article if they didn't expect to be spoiled?" Very few movies justify a major spoiler in the lead, and if they are coming to the Crying Game article in the first place there's a good chance that they don't know enough about the movie to know it's one of those exceptions. They may accidentally find themselves reading an article they'd rather have avoided if they'd known this particular detail. Philip Reuben 17:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The big reveal does not need to be in the lead, as it does not compromise anything. If it stays in the lead, then the spoiler tag should be used. It shouldn't matter how old the movie is, it is not notable as a historical film. Why is this "embarrassing" to have a spoiler tag on the article? It's a small compromise -- There are people who were too young to see it the first time, and by putting the big reveal in the lead is a spoiler, as it will spoil the movie for those not having yet seen it. - Jeeny ^Talk 19:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Readers should expect us to cover plot details whenever necessary to write a good encyclopedia article. If they want to avoid being spoiled before seeing the movie, they shouldn't read the article before seeing it. I find it hard to believe that many people expect that reading an encyclopedia article on a classic film such as this will not reveal plot details, and I don't see any reason why we need to cater to such willful ignorance in this situation. I can see possible uses for spoiler tags on very recent works, but this movie is 15 years old. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not up to you to decide what readers should expect when going to any article. I read articles on movies I haven't yet seen, but I skip the plot section so as not to get spoiled. I would never expect a spoiler to be right there in the introduction without any kind of warning. --YellowTapedR 20:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Carl, how is this film concidered as "classic"? The big reveal? Sure, it is one of the more "shocking" twists, as it was unexpected, but it is not the whole movie. Please see this reviewer's take on the "big reveal", and how it takes away from the more significant aspects of the movie. The "big reveal" should not be in the lead at all. - Jeeny ^Talk 20:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It should. The big reveal is essential to LGBT criticism of the film and to the film's status in LGBT communities. To remove it from the lead is to marginalize this perspective, which violates WP:NPOV. Phil Sandifer 22:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

But, how does it marginalize the film? By leaving out the reveal in the lead, but all the other info still there, as I did before, is not maginalizing. Put it in the plot section where it belongs, because of my reasons in my last comment. I am very sensitive to the LGBT community, so I am not pushing an agenda, just in case one would think so. In fact, I want to be fair AND neutral, by using the justification that it should be in the lead because of criticism from a specific community is POV, therefore, not keeping with NPOV. - Jeeny ^Talk 22:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If you feel it is essential to the LGBT criticism of the film, then it should be in a section of critism, not in the lead. - Jeeny ^Talk 22:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:LS notes (correctly) that all major aspects of a subject need to be mentioned in the article lead. For the basis of a whole and major school of criticism to be excluded from the lead of the article is a major problem. Fundamentally, the ending is one of the most important things to know about this film - in a way that just isn't true for, say, Silence of the Lambs. Phil Sandifer 23:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not just LGBT criticism, really. The fact that Dil has a penis is not a massive surprise within the context of the film. The cleverness of the thing is the way Jody seduces Fergus. Fergus only makes contact with Dil because of the way Jody impresses Fergus. After the raid, and Jody's death, Fergus knows he's not safe in the province. He'll be picked up sooner or later by one side or the other, and in Jody he has found someone worthy of love, and he seeks the woman who loved him, to fulfil his promise to Jody. The imagery used here is cricket--the are cutaway sequences throughout the early part of the film showing Jody as a cricket bowler. After the big reveal Jody is shown in a cutaway sequence. I think some smashing of cricket bails is shown. Jody bowls Fergus the biggest googly in cricket history.

I'm certainly not saying that this is a great cricket film, and I definitely cannot be absolved of a LGBT bias, but there are several things to say about this:

• The dick isn't important within the plot. The surprise is that it isn't that important to Fergus. Fergus isn't depicted as a troubled, closeted gay man. Rather, his capacity for love ("it is in my nature") prevails despite his obvious shock at Dil's ambivalent gender identity.
• The film was part of a series of great works by Neil Jordan, including the great The Company of Wolves in which sexuality is very fluid (Rea, who plays Fergus here, appears as a werewolf in that film).
• The film bankrupted the film makers and it was picked up by a distribution company that profited from this. The film makers never made a penny from it, but Neil Jordan won a direct-to-screen Oscar for it and the film picked up several other nominations, and Jaye Davidson even went on to star in Stargate, the film that spawned over a decade of TV shows.

This is a very important film for many reasons: that it's a definitive breakthrough film for LGBT cinema, that it won an Oscar as the people who made it mortgaged their houses to the hilt, that it's a visually very pleasing film, that it includes peak performances from great actors (Rea, Whitaker, Richardson, Broadbent).

It worries me more, frankly, that we're arguing about the dick instead of the extraordinary circumstances of the film's production and distribution. --Tony Sidaway 23:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, so why is it important in the lead, but not the plot? (the penis, I mean). As it is remarkable that Fergus loved her anyway, but that's not in the lead, and if it were, that would justify adding the "shocker" she had a penis. - Jeeny ^Talk 23:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Because we're still arguing about it fifteen years later, and nobody remembers the other things I mentioned. The dick is what gave this film wings. --Tony Sidaway 23:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a fair compromise to keep the twist in the lead but have a spoiler warning. --YellowTapedR 00:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

A compromise with what? --Tony Sidaway 00:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

One side wants no spoiler in the lead at all. One side wants the spoiler in the lead and no tag. The middle ground is to have the spoiler in the lead with a tag. Philip Reuben 00:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, for me that is not what made this film memorable to me. It was the relationships, the acting, the production, the plot everything. That was just a small "surprise". ( no pun intended), although it did make it more interesting. I cried, not because of the friggen dick, but the relationships, the music, and Dil's performance was wonderful, so were Whitaker, Rea's, etc. That's why I feel it should NOT be in the lead, everyone will concentrate on THAT. Sheesh. - Jeeny ^Talk 01:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Cricket?! Did I watch the same movie every else did? I'm tired of debating this. You guys do what you want. But the movie I watched was about the theme that you can't change your spots and it featured a man who fell in love with a transwoman and still loved her after finding out she was a transwoman, which was shocking and groundbreaking at the time (and I dare say, it would still be shocking today). If you look on spoiler sites, the catchphrase is always the crude "she's a he!" It's what makes the film still very notable even over a decade after its release, because Jaye Davison managed to make people think he's a woman, and so it was a shock to audiences. I'm not saying it isn't notable for being yet another indie movie that managed to do well in awards season, but it's also notable for being a mainstream depiction of transgender characters without condemning them. Kolindigo 01:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Can the article say that in the lede (presuming a source can be found) without a spoiler tag? — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been looking through the discussion above. I come to Wikipedia for information. I might do that before I watch a movie, to see if it's worth watching, or after I've watched it to look at it in more detail. I expect a "Plot Summary" section that I can avoid. I do not expect a revelation of the surprise ending in the introduction, or anywhere in an article other than "Plot Summary" or "Synopsis." I find above comments indicating that Wikipedia is telling me it's my own fault for looking at the article to be disturbing, and such a policy will simply mean that I no longer come to WP for information. I understand that the plot revelation needs to be in the lead for NPOV purposes, but please, put a spoiler tag in. TMac 03:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

We don't put warning tags on the ledes of other sorts of articles that some readers might not want to see. The case for putting a tag on this article seems much weaker. It's not your 'fault' for looking at an article - it's to your benefit, because if the article is well written you will learn about the subject. If your goal is just to get vague information to decide whether to see a film, WP is probably not the place to look, because our goal is to be an encyclopedia rather than a movie review site. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines say spoiler tags are allowed in the introductions in rare circumstances. This is one of them, since the surprise is given away. --YellowTapedR 14:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The surprise is given away in every article about a fictional subject that has a surprise. That alone is not enough to justify a spoiler tag. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but not in the intro. Reading the above comments, I think you are clearly outnumbered here, so what's the point in arguing anymore?--YellowTapedR 15:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus isn't measured by counting the number of people on each side. If I were the only person who was arguing against the spoiler tag, I would take that into consideration, but it's clear to me that others agree with my assessment of this article.

As I see it, there is no way to write this article in an encyclopedic fashion without including major plot details, because those plot details are exactly the reason this film is notable. I don't believe we need to use a spoiler tag merely because these plot details are present in the lede, as though the reader could simply skip them and still get thorough coverage of the film from the rest of the article. Since they details can't be skipped, there's no point of a tag whose only purpose is help the reader skip them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, some others agree with your assessment of the article. And? That doesn't mean consensus is on your side any more than it means consensus is on the other side. As I said, the middle ground seems to be including the spoiler in the lead but tagging it. It would be nice if you would accept a compromise. Philip Reuben 14:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Kolindigo (above) suggested a different compromise, but apart from me nobody has commented on it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any suggested compromise in those comments. What do you suggest? --YellowTapedR 16:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, another spoiler dispute, with dear Tony showing up out of nowhere to show his support for getting rid of spoiler tags as always. Completely regardless of the situation. Let's sum this up. - The twist ending of this movie is apparently so essential to the reception and influence of this film that it has to be in the introduction. Argument accepted. - Putting the twist ending in the introduction will ruin the film for whoever reads the introduction. You can't stop in time. Common courtesy dictates you don't ruin a piece of art for someone in the introduction. If someone starts reading the plot/synopsis/etc, that's indeed at someone's own risk. This is something else. People - this is what spoiler tags were made for. There is no other way to put the twist ending of the movie in the introduction (where it apparently belongs) without ruining it for those who have not seen this film yet. This delay isn't getting the article anywhere. Cayafas 01:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The idea that knowing the plot "ruins" a film is a certain point of view but not at all universal. This isn't a new release in any sense; we don't need to worry so much about people reading this article having the film "ruined" for them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If it's okay to put the transgender spoiler in the lead of this article, someone should go and add the spoiler to the lead of The Sixth Sense. Seems only reasonable.--167.30.38.188 (talk) 03:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"has a penis"

Hmmm, I get the idea, "the big reveal is a dick". But the phrasing makes it sound like surrealism or radical plastic surgery, or even science fiction, when it's quite apparent that Dil, irrespective of whatever gender self-identification she may have, is biologically male. In fact, perhaps "biologically male" would be the right term. --Tony Sidaway 03:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

My problem with "biologically male" is that it's not as clear as it could be. The "shock" of the movie is that Dil is a transwoman and the "shocking scene" is when she strips naked and you can tell that she has a penis. "Biologically male" seems like unnecessary censoring to me. Kolindigo 03:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think on balance this wording is best. The revelation on the screen is intentionally startling. --Tony Sidaway 03:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I altered the wording slightly to say: "The film was notable for its dramatic plot twist, when the male protagonist discovers that his seemingly female love interest has a penis while undressing." I think it better represents why the revelation is so startling and takes away the sci-fi element. --YellowTapedR 01:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Negative progress?

I decided to look at a diff between the last unprotection and the current protection.

It's here.

A bit depressing, really.

The puzzling phrase "and the event passed without incident" remains. Perhaps it's just me, but doesn't that presuppose that Jaye Davidson turning up in any other gear might have caused a problem? The supposed "speculation about what Davidson would wear to the Oscars, as his appearing as a man would possibly spoil the film's surprise" seems to be completely unsupported.

And we have:

A parody of the The Crying Game was used as a twist in Jim Carrey's breakthrough film, Ace Ventura: Pet Detective.

Oh dear.

On the plus side of the equation, we now know what Jaye Davidson wore to the Oscars. Nice. --Tony Sidaway 04:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the trivia section needs to go, but maybe the Ace Ventura bit belongs somewhere. There are surely a lot of people who only know the twist in The Crying Game because they saw Ace Ventura. The part about Jaye Davidson going to the Oscars can be snipped, too. I've stopped caring what happens in the intro though, but I did add a citation request because the second paragraph seems somewhat opionated. --YellowTapedR 07:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

Instead of continuously edit warring, why don't both sides of the spoiler issue come to a compromise. I think the info about the twist should be in the lead. The more I think about it, the more I think the tag is unneccessary because of the film's age and the fact that it has been countlessly spoofed.

But I could go either way on it. To stop the article from being protected again because of edit warring, why not just keep the info in the lead and place a spoiler tag before the second paragraph? --YellowTapedR 19:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigh

Don't assume that everyone who visits wikipedia is familiar with this movie, or has even heard of it. Why spoil the surprises of the movie for someone who is just reading the main info section of the page. I mean it's not like people are putting in "Dil blasts away Jude at the movie's conclusion" in the intro. Why would you put the penis reference there? Just put it in the plot summary. The intro already mentions that the film has to do with transgenderism, alternate relationships, an effect on the LGBT community, etc, you don't need to put specific plot points in it that are meant to be surprising. "The movie everyone is talking about, but no one is giving away it's secrets" is how the movie was marketed. Come on.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tprayx (talk • contribs) 20:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Except that WP:LS says we have to give all the major information in the lead. And, fundamentally, at this point "she's a he" is the biggest thing about this film. It's the touchstone moment of the film. To my mind, the key question is this - what does someone, in 2007, need to know about this film? And for this film, the ending is one of the things they need to know. Phil Sandifer 22:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you happen to read the very first blurb on the WP:LS page:

"This page is considered a style guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Tprayx 22:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You ask why spoil the surprise. This is not a page that describes the movie. It is not a plot summary. It is not an advertisement for the movie, nor is it meant to be used for marketing in any way. It is not a whole bunch of things that aren't supposed to "spoil" movies. It's an encyclopedia article about the movie, and one of the most noteworthy things about the film is the "big reveal". It's one of those things that people who have heard about the movie but don't know much about it will come to this page expecting to see. If a movie's been out for 15 years, I do not think I have a moral obligation to make sure people don't get spoiled for it. Kolindigo 23:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not saying it shouldn't be mentioned. But common-sense wise, this revelation is the ulimate type of spoiler. Practically made for the word 'spoiler'. There at least should be a warning about it, but apparently this battle has long been fought. Put it back without a spoiler if you want, someone will eventually be pissed and change it again. That alone should tell you that it needs one. I have no idea why some people would be so adamant about having one. Tprayx 01:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The word "spoiler" doesn't mean a lot on Wikipedia. We're making an encyclopedia, not a fan site. --Tony Sidaway 01:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

(Resetting indent) About WP:LS again, it clearly states The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article.. I believe that the mention of the penis in the lead actually violates this part of the guideline.--Ramdrake 22:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Um... how? What important aspect of "She's a he" is left out of the lead? If anything, teasing its relevance to GLBT criticism and not explaining that is a bigger problem. Phil Sandifer 23:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it is mentioned in the lead but not explained in the body of the article is what I'm referring to. If you want it included in the body of the article, I have no objection, but if it is mentioned in the lead, it should be because there is at least some further explanation in the article. The way it is now, it looks like the 1)the spoiler is in the intro and 2)the intro is written for shock value. I also believe there is a rather sizable number of editors who have disagreed with this inclusion over the last few days, all the more reason to pause and take stock of the situation.--Ramdrake 23:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It is expanded in the article - we give the full plot summary. What do you think is missing? Phil Sandifer 23:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was looking further down in the article. Still, something seems wrong to me, as the mention that Dil is a transwoman seems more appropriate to the lead, and the mention of the penis seems more appropriate for the body of the article. Would you object to switching the sentences? As it was, the intro still looked like it was written for shock value.--Ramdrake 00:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say go for it, but I never liked the "has a penis" formulation in the first place. So you might get reverted by somebody else - but I'd say do it. Phil Sandifer 00:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Lol, what the hell is a transwoman? is that even a word?? Or maybe I'm just not up on the latest lingo. Tprayx 21:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess you're not up on the lastest lingo. Did you click on the wikilink that explains the term? That might help you and others learn that much more. :) Jeeny 23:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Because it is quite clear (see the talk page history) that Tprayx has logged-out to continue reverting the page (and to avoid WP:3RR, which he/she has now broken), I have semi-protected the page from editing. Tprayx, I could have blocked you for violating the three revert rule, but opted to protect instead. Do not break the 3RR in the future, using either your account or your IP or a combination, or you will be blocked. If the reverting continues on this page, I will be blocking anyone who breaks the 3RR (including Tprayx's backdated reverts if this user starts up again in the next twenty-four hours). Daniel 01:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why you would block the page instead of the user. Regardless, the warring is getting silly. --YellowTapedR 04:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me, I am new to Wikipedia and did not know the protocol. But I was reprimanded, then blocked, and now I feel like a criminal with a record. But all's fair in love and penises i guess. Tprayx 16:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Transwoman or male-to-female transexual

Transwoman is what Dil was in the movie and best fits the role, rather than to use "male-to-femle transexual", while linking to the article Transwoman is over-kill. More people will click on the link and read more and learn more, as is encouraged for wikipedia. Please don't change it. Thanks. Jeeny 00:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I find the use of the word transsexual dishonest. Every true transsexual has surgery as the goal and would hate their penis too much to have sex with a man while having a penis. This sounds more like a transgendered gay man pretending that he is a woman, and calling him a transsexual woman defames true-transsexual women who are a part of the mainstream community. What this guy in constant drag seems to have is the lifestyle/recreation of transgenderism, not the correctable medical condition or transsexualism nor any other therapeutic reason. True-transsexuals have nothing in common with this man living as a woman but treasuring his penis enough to keep it and let guys mess with it, nor the cross-dressed men in porno mags who get breast implants and take Viagra.72.11.40.181 (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Irish film?

Is the film an Irish film? I ask because it credits the country of origin is given as Uk/Japan, (which confuses me also). The film is by an Irish filmmaker, and one of the themes is about the troubles in Ireland. --Dumbo1 23:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The film was listed as being of japanese/UK because thats where the finance came from. However Neil Jordan (who's irish) has said on several occasion that it's an irish film. Both because of the themes/subject matter and the fact that the guy who concieved it and directed it is irish. So...take your pick I guess. Though I really don't think you could call it a japanese film. User:Teknolyze —Preceding comment was added at 23:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh Yeah But That's So Cool.

The Crying Game That Cries Out For Help.--2600:1702:4B28:F760:808B:CA42:FF39:E267 (talk) 00:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)