Talk:Laurence Olivier

Olivier's first performance and falling flat on his face

his first stage appearance was in a sketch called The Unfailing Instinct at the Brighton Hippodrome in August 1925.He tripped and fell on his face during the performance.

(underlined was removed)

This detail was added by me on 17 December during this discussion about the start date of Olivier's career. There were several other editors who massaged the text, it went back and forth, but this detail was ultimately included for 3 months, until today, when @SchroCat/HJ Mitchell removed it. (also pinging other original discussion participants Nemov and RL0919). I think it's overall a pretty good case for WP:STATUSQUO. It's also clearly WP:DUE for the body of the article, as it is mentioned in detail in numerous high quality reliable sources:

Donald Spoto's 1941 biography (page 44):

After four weeks on tour with this trifle in Manchester, Liverpool and Brighton, his salary of two pounds was slightly augmented when he was asked to be assistant stage manager and play the silent policeman in a melodrama, The Ghost Train, in which ‘Miller had scored a great success in London. No such success was Olivier’s: the Brighton drama correspondent alluded to him only to note his unintentionally dramatic entry onstage.. Heedless of the stage manager’s warning about the set’s raised doorsill, Olivier reduced a tense scene to giddy farce as he tripped, sliding precariously toward the footlights. He fared no better in his next employment..."

Anthony Holden's 1947 biography (page 326):

Twenty-two years his junior, Joan Plowright was young enough to be Olivier's daughter, precisely the role she played at the Palace Theatre, taking over the part of Jean Rice from Dorothy Tutin....Though she too was married - to the actor Roger Gage - there followed a "euphoric" progress through Glasgow, Edinburgh and Oxford to the Brighton Hippodrome - the scene of Olivier's first professional stage entrance, flat on his face, over thirty years before."

John Cottrell's 1975 biography (page 34):

"That summer Olivier made his first professional stage appearance since leaving drama school, and he literally fell flat on his face. The occasion was a sketch called Unfailing Instinct, put on as a curtain- raiser before a Brighton Hippodrome production of Arthur Ridley's new play The Ghost Train. Again and again the eighteen-year-old novice had been warned about the importance of lifting his feet as he came on stage via a door built into the scenery on a wooden base. It made not a dime's worth of difference. On the cue for his entrance he stumbled stupidly into the base of the door frame and plunged head- first into the footlights with sufficient impact to earn his first, brief notice as a pro: "Mr. Laurence Olivier made a good deal out of a rather small part."

Francis Beckett's 2005 biography (page 16):

"[His first performance was also] one of the most dramatic: he fell headlong, his face coming to rest in the footlights. There was a torrent of laughter from the packed house, and when he eventually left the stage, they gave him a round of applause."

Terry Coleman's 2006 biography (Pages 25, 485):

"The first time he appeared on stage as an actor, in public, was at the Brigthon Hippodrome at a charity gala at the beginning of August 1925, and it was in music hall, and he fell flat on his face...Olivier was in the one straight act of the evening, a short curtain-raising sketch called The Unfailing Instinct.""

It's also mentioned prominently in this New York Times review of Olivier's 1985 Autobiography Confessions of an Actor:

"In 1925 he made his first appearance on a professional stage, on a variety bill in Brighton, and he made his entrance by tripping over the sill of a door in the scenery. He sailed through the air right into the footlights, and the accident provoked the largest laugh he has ever received in his life as an actor."

All of this adds up to a detail about Olivier's early career that is clearly WP:DUE inclusion in the body, in a short sentence as above. There are numerous other details in the article currently which are not mentioned in so many biographies. It's an interesting fact that Olivier often mentioned to his biographers, and is especially notable as an actor with such great stage presence and poise as a dramatic leading man, who had such a clumsy foible in his first professional role. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Trivia. We are not writing a book-length biography, we are writing a summary of his career. Trying to compare full biographies with a summary is like comparing apples and spark plugs. Looking at summaries of Olivier’s life (ODNB and the Encyclopaedia Britannica, neither of which mention this triviality. SchroCat (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Our entry is quite a bit longer and more detailed than either of those sources. The NYT review does, however, mention it. And saw it as important enough in a much shorter format. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Just because our article is slightly longer, it doesn’t mean we have to fill it with trivial fluff. Does it explain anything about Olivier, his career, his approach to acting or anything at all? Are readers enlightened in any way about him for the inclusion of this nonsense? SchroCat (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I found it an interesting and insightful 10 words which highlighted the difference between Olivier at the very beginning of his career compared to the end. But that's all irrelevant nonsense. Our personal opinions of Olivier are not the point of WP:RSUW. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

"Interesting" does not equal encyclopaedic. And if you are trying to make a comparison from beginning to end, that’s Unclear to the point of ridiculous. - SchroCat (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I concur with SchroCat. Our job as editors is to try to boil down to a few thousand words the key contents of 500-page biographies. Tempting though it may be to add amusing incidental anecdotes they are not what an encyclopaedia article is about. Tim riley talk 17:27, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I also agree with SchroCat. It is neither possible or necessary to include every trivial detail on a subject’s life. Jack1956 (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been listed at the NPOV noticeboard, WP Actors and Filmmakers, and WP Theater. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

(from NPOVN) That a legendary actor tripped and fell in his first stage appearance is not trivia, it's obviously a salient detail of his career, as evidence by the inclusion of this detail in what appears to be every biography, including those that are shorter than ours. Of course, my mind would be persuaded if someone showed me six biographies of equal quality that did not mention this detail. But based on these sources: include. Levivich (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Shall we refer to every other occasion he bumped into furniture? This is about as trivial an incident I can think of and is not encyclopaedic in any way. Can you provide a link to a biographies that are short than ours that include this vital piece of information? - SchroCat (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

He dedicated 5 of 330 pages in his autobiography to the incident (~1.6% by word count). The NYT includes it in a 60-word mention in a review that's only 1780 words (3%). We can manage to include 10 words. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you not interrupt the flow with non sequiturs? I have asked a question of someone else to provide information: you are providing ridiculous numbers that prove or mean absolutely zero in this context. Writing biographies entries by statistics? No wonder things like Rylance and the misrepresentation of sources happen. Turgid rubbish. SchroCat (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Shib is showing the "weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material"... it's kind of a key part of figuring out if something is WP:DUE for inclusion or a WP:MINORASPECT. Levivich (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Not every other occasion, we should treat each occasion with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. In other words, it doesn't matter at all if you think it's trivial or not, it matters how much coverage it receives in RS biographies of Olivier. So, all the bumps and falls the RSes cover. But to cut the bullshit, you're being disingenuous by pretending you don't see why a famous actor falling on stage in his first performance would be a detail people would include in a biography of that actor. To treat that as just bumping into furniture is transparently disingenuous. You're not stupid and we know it. :-) Levivich (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the slur - that's very kind of you. I am waiting for the supposed biographies (plural) that are shorter than ours and still contain this crucial piece of information that somehow enlighten or explain something about Olivier - can you do that? At some point the penny may drop that WP:NOTEVERYTHING should actually mean something. - SchroCat (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

What slur, "disingenuous" or "not stupid"? The NYT autobiography review linked above. Levivich (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

That's a review in a newspaper, not a biography; there is a considerable amount of difference between newspaper copy and an encyclopaedic article. Now, can you provide the biographies (plural) that are shorter than this that include this crucial piece of information? - SchroCat (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• Keep it in. I'd say. Johnbod (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Seems like there's a enough coverage of it happening to warrant an inclusion, but it should remain short if included. Nemov (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
    • If this seems indispensable to some editors, we could at a pinch treat it as we do another amusing anecdote, viz the dog Roger and his fascination with Olivier's genitals, and put it in a footnote. See footnote k for Roger and Olivier's private parts. I remain unconvinced that a one-off onstage accident needs inclusion, but if there is a consensus to add it, I recommend we add it in a footnote. Tim riley talk 19:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

      Which biographies about Laurence Olivier cover that detail about Roger the dog and in how much proportional detail do they cover it? I don't see it in any of the above linked sources. Seems it's a fact about Nöel Coward, not Olivier. Not sure why it's in the article since it doesn't appear in a cursory search of sources about Olivier. This fact about Olivier's first professional on-stage role seems quite a bit more DUE. Talk about "trivia".

      To put these two pieces of information on the same level in any way is bizarre. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• I can see both sides. It is fairly trivial in such a long and distinguished career. On the other, it's widely mentioned in the source material. I'm loathe to disagree with the authors of such an excellent FA, but if there was a consensus for inclusion I could support a brief mention. We could re-cast the sentence slightly so that the fall is not the main subject and uses fewer words. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
• I would leave it out. It may be amusing to note that a famous actor tripped during his maiden outing on stage, and it may help to sell a memoir or biography, but it doesn't give the reader any enyclopedic information about his life or career. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: to meet above compromises

In Olivier's first professional stage appearance in a sketch called The Unfailing Instinct at the Brighton Hippodrome in August 1925, he tripped and fell on his face.

That's 7 words versus 10. Any other suggestions? I would ref this to the sources which best summarize the incident, Cottrell and Beckett.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• Still unencyclopaedic trivia. Again, what do these seven words add to the understanding of Olivier, his work or his life? - SchroCat (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  See above. If you think a footnote about an imaginary dog in someone else's biography is encyclopedic, but this fact isn't, then I don't know if there is anything I can say to convince you otherwise. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Are you going to answer my question? - SchroCat (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I explained my answer above in short [1], and in detail over at WP:NPOV/N: [2]. To repeat, I think this detail adds an understanding of how much Olivier's stage presence evolved over the course of his career, from extremely humble beginnings to being perhaps one of the greatest such actors in our time, with an incredible presence. I provided sources to back up this interpretation, and I also described how I would elaborate on it if necessary. My best guess is that you don't consider those answers satisfactory. And as I said, if that's true, then I'm not sure anything I could say would be. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you're likely to get a consensus one way or the other, Shibbolethink. But if it is to be included, I'd suggest reframing the sentence so the fall isn't the subject, like Olivier's first professional stage appearance was in a sketch called The Unfailing Instinct at the Brighton Hippodrome in August 1925, during which he tripped and fell. I don't think "on his face" adds anything, though now I see it without that I'm leaning more towards excluding the whole thing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you're likely to get a consensus one way or the other, Shibbolethink
If that's true, then the article should revert to the WP:STATUSQUO which, most recently, was inclusion (for 3 months). — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

STATUSQUO is an essay and this is a featured article so, barring major developments in the subject matter or major new sources, we should take the version that passed FAC as the consensus version. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

You think those seven words expresses exactly what? That this was in the same city where Olivier and his wife “spent their golden years”, to quote you. How exactly does it do that, and what exactly does it add? - SchroCat (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Whatever you think about Shibbolethink's judgement you have to acknowledge his persistence. Nonetheless, I think we can now conclude that there is no consensus to alter the agreed FAC text in the matter under consideration. Tim riley talk 23:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Infobox image

The present image is a little disturbing. I kind of prefer reverting it back to the one with Olivier in old age. I'm also open to other suggestions. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 07:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

What makes you think the current image is disturbing? Ollieisanerd (talk • contribs) 09:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Yourlocallordandsavior and Ollieinsanerd, what do you think about this image? 88.29.165.207 (talk) 09:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

It’s probably the smile, although I myself think it’s okay. Dantus21 (talk) 04:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I prefer the old lead image too. It's in colour, is higher resolution than the current lead image, and was taken by a famous photographer. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 08:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Laurence is too old in that photography, as the infobox photo should feature the individual (Olivier) in its prime. 88.28.10.208 (talk) 13:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The current image works in that he's at his most recognisable. Ultimately that's the aim for an infobox image. We already have an image of him as a much older man (photographed by Allan Warren) in the appropriate section. Duffy BT (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

• I've put back in the 1972 picture: it's a higher resolution and there isn't a consensus for change. Given his career was a long and rich one, to try and claim the b&w one is "in his prime" is a bit questionable, given the Warren one was in '72, the same year he was in Sleuth (1972) and before he appeared in Marathon Man (1976) and The Boys from Brazil (1978): he was nominated for Oscars for those three films, which suggests he was still pretty much in his prime. Feel free to open an RfC to discuss the options if you wish. - SchroCat (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)