Talk:An Education

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the Nordic cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Romance Low‑importance

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romance, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional romance in literature and romantic fiction writers. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.RomanceWikipedia:WikiProject RomanceTemplate:WikiProject Romanceromance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Removal of Parallels section about Rachman

I removed the whole section; it was speculation, based on knowledge of Rachman which was almost co-incidental. As Barber makes clear in her memoir, the David character was based on a real person she had a real affair with; but this was not Rachman, it was somebody else also in the dirtier end of the property business in London. --VinceBowdren (talk) 10:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what was removed, but here is Barber herself in The Times: "I suppose it all began six years ago when I wrote about my schoolgirl affair with a conman, Simon, an associate of Peter Rachman, the notorious slum landlord." page 1, 2nd para 86.150.96.8 (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC) and some people live in a S.O.C.I.E.T.Y.[reply]

Anachronisms

The taxis are of the modern design, rather than the previous one in use in 1961. Deipnosophista (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another anachronism, if you want to see it that way... the music she plays as a cellist during the film, (or that's being played as the actress performs in the orchestra scene)... according to the credits is from the Adagio of Anthony Payne's reconstruction of the sketches to Sir Edward Elgar's symphony no. 3. In the 1960s these were still sketches, and mostly in piano score (and locked up in the British Museum I believe, for the most part?...) and in no wise playable! Schissel | Sound the Note! 01:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the article it says that the Pentax K camera used in the film makes an anachronism, as the K-series Pentax cameras were not introduced until the 1970's. However, the came in the movie is a Pentax S2 or S3, which is period correct. Can somebody double-check? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.255.163.142 (talk) 10:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that this section of the article be deleted; I mean seriously it's a substantial portion of the article yet adds nothing material to one's knowledge of the film, it's basically just showing off by some sad wiki-editor, no doubt aged about 15 (mentally at least), with limited social life and poor personal hygiene; I would add that it's also inconsistent with numerous other articles in wikipedia about films that don't have such a tedious section 16:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.232.34.3 (talk)

Review about antisemitism

In the reception section a critic who wrote that the film is antisemitic is mentioned, yet I really don't believe this represents a valuable opinion and no one else really sees this. Shouldn't it be removed?--99.251.94.170 (talk) 05:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. The sentence in question employs weasel words to hide the fact that this antisemitism claim comes from one author, and that author has provided a supremely biased point of view. Irina Bragin claims the film is antisemitic because two people in it utter antisemitic rhetoric. The problem is that those two people consists of the villainous David and the ignorant Headmistress Walters. In case of the latter, Jenny does an excellent job of showing she is totally ignorant. For a film to be antisemitic, its nature must be antisemitic, not its villains and idiots. Look at all the prosemitic films; you can always find a Nazi in them yelling antisemitic rhetoric.

Quite clearly, our Ms. Irina Bragin is not seeing things from a rational point of view.

158.58.115.63 (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny {Mellor, Miller}?

I saw the film with subtitles, and I read “Mellor”. But in the article both names are written… How to know which is the correct one? Jill-Jênn 23:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. It's fixed now. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copy?

The content on the "plot" section was added entirely on this edition and it is pretty much the same as in IMDB. I don't know if the user that added it is the owner of the text or what is IMDB licence policy (although I think it is copyrighted content, from the bottom of their page) so I just removed it. If I'm wrong somebody should just undo what I did anyway. - Jorge Morais 19:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)