Talk:Once Upon a Time in America

Deborah's Rape and her reaction

How do we feel about the wording of this passage: "Seeking to form a genuine intimacy with Deborah, Noodles takes her on a lavish date, where she reveals her plans to pursue a career in Hollywood. On their drive back, a frustrated Noodles rapes her in the limousine. He is later met with Deborah's aloofness when he watches her board the train to California."

Feels quite problematic, perhaps?

First, the word 'frustration' might be his personal motivation, but its use here feels a bit off... and secondly Surely not wanting to make eye contact with someone who raped you just hours before seems like a justified reaction, and not anything to do with being "aloof?"

Wording

@User:Michael Bedarnek I don't understand your revert at all. The narrative - as it described in the article - entail an adult forcing a child to do sexual acts (which they ofc can't consent to). The boys use this to blackmail him. That's molestation. Please could u elaborate? Stephanie921 (talk) 13:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I restored the previous text with this edit summary: "no indication in the film or sources that Peggy was molested by Whitey/Fartface, or the others." To describe the policeman's (Whitey) treatment of the prostitute (Peggy) in 1918 as 'molestation' would need either a strong supporting primary source from the film (e.g. a quote) or better, a secondary source describing it as such. None of that was provided by your edit. The immediately following scene and the story of Peggy throughout the film doesn't lend itself to that description. Wikipedia allows some leeway in the requirement of sources for plot summaries, but any value statements have to be supported by reliable sources; without them, they are original research or MOS:OFCOURSE (editorializing). I agree that the word 'tryst' is questionable, too. Inspecting the article's history, I see that it used to be "having sex with", which seem more apposite. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't get how "have sex with" is appropriate, since it's not consensual and not presented as such @User:Michael Bednarek Stephanie921 (talk) 01:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree. Peggy's role as a working prostitute is shown throughout the film. Describing Whitey's treatment of Peggy, and the boys' after that, as 'molestation' seems to be a description through the lens of today's mores and laws, unsupported by the film or secondary sources. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Well it's always been immoral and illegal. This is even supported by the film. If it was legal back then, the kids wouldn't have any legal recourse to blackmail the copper with. They threaten to have him arrested and ruin his reputation, which clearly shows that they view it as wrong, society views it as wrong, and that he wouldn't be able to get away with it. If this wasn't the case he wouldn't have been scared of them Stephanie921 (talk) 01:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

You keep judging fiction describing events and characters in 1918 from your point of view today. What do you think would have happened if Patsy hadn't eaten that cupcake himself? Calling a sex worker's occupation immoral is a very strange argument to make in this context, and the legality of prostitution at that time is not a clear-cut situation, but it certainly would have looked very bad for a police officer. And that was the purpose of this scene: how the boys get a hold over Whitey. Peggy is a stereotypical character in the film: from village bike to madam, flawed like everyone else. If Leone wanted to depict 'molestation', I'm sure he would have had no hesitation, and the filmic vocabulary, to do that. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

You've misunderstood me. I don't think sex work is immoral. If women want to do sex work then we can. But we, we're often forced to do it because of systemic misogyny. But that doesn't mean we are doing something immoral, that means the men forcing us to do that is immoral. But in the case of the film that applies too (aside from the first bit, since girls can't consent in the same way women do). The film depicts the Cooper's actions as immoral, as I already said. Anyway, I suggest we get a 3rd opinion cos I think ur misunderstanding me Stephanie921 (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Bugsy (Siegel?)

Is the character "Bugsy" in this film based on Bugsy Siegel? I've come from Siegel's page, and here's what I've found out: Movie Bugsy is a Jewish gang boss who has young Jewish boys committing petty crimes for him on Manhattan’s Lower East Side; I’m not sure how old he’s supposed to be, but the actor was about 30 at the time. He dies in 1918 in the movie. The real man, who I’ll refer to as Siegel, was born in Brooklyn in 1906, and joined a gang on the Lower East Side in Manhattan as a boy. He committed petty crimes until he met Moe Segway and started an (extortion) protection racket for pushcart vendors. As a teenager, Siegel became instrumental in what became known as the Bugs and Meyer Mob; From there, the Mob expanded, grew in influence, and Siegel’s criminal career expanded outside of New York.

I think it’s pretty safe to say that, between misunderstandings and generalizations surrounding his early life, and alterations to fit the plot, our Movie Bugsy might be the same as Siegel - in a world where his gang is not so successful, and he’s killed by a young boy. But I admit, I haven't watched the movie, so perhaps somebody who has can weigh in on this before we put something in the article. If you want to know more about Siegel, I recommend his article as well as the one on his mob for relevant information.

Also, how does one cite a "correlation" like this that isn't explicitly stated on any credible sources (that I've seen)? Would appreciate input. 8"mrk"7 (talk) 16:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)