Talk:A Canterbury Tale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

Contents 1 Cathedral set? 2 Expansion 3 Prologue 4 Images

[edit] Cathedral set?

Neddyseagoon, you are not alone in being fooled into thinking it was filmed inside the Cathedral. I've known official guides to think that it was - until I pointed out the differences. Like the steps that lead up to the organ (in the film). The steps are there in the real Cathedral, but the organ isn't there, and never was.

Yes, it's sort of at right angles to that isn't it, over the choir screen? Neddyseagoon - talk 21:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

There is one shot, when they look up to the roof of the Cathedral as Peter & Bob first enter. That was taken sneakily with a hand-held camera. If you want to know more, get the book about the film and/or join us on one of our annual location walks -- SteveCrook 20:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion

Huge improvement to a previously underpowered article, Neddyseagoon – great stuff! --Moonraker88 14:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You're too kind! :-) Neddyseagoon - talk 15:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

PS I'm hoping to boost up the Chillingbourne plot section too, and perhaps explain how the real and set shots inside the cathedral marry up and do/don't show the reality of the interior of the cathedral, next time I have the chance to watch the film again. Neddyseagoon - talk 15:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to do this to you Neddyseagoon, but I reverted the plot. Your version is far too detailed IMO; certainly it's longer than any other synopsis I've seen. Clarityfiend 05:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, no problem - tis a work in progress, and I probably got a bit carried away (though there are some quite long ones around on Wikipedia - can't think of the names right now). I'm going to copy the long version across onto User:Neddyseagoon/sandbox/Canterbury Tale plot to work on (any additions welcome!), and then I'll 'release' a final copy for you and others to edit down to what looks like a reasonable length.Neddyseagoon - talk 10:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

ACT is an important and influential film and is acknowledged as such by many later directors of note. (I can only think of Kubrick at the moment, but there are lots.) It deserves a more detailed treatment than, say, the latest, fleeting romcom to demonstrate its historical significance. I look forward to your new version! --Moonraker88 11:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Please include me in on any distribution list for this. If you want to know anything about locations or which shots were studio sets I can probably answer if nobody else knows. BTW add Scorsese to the list of those that greatly admire it -- SteveCrook 23:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC) Powell and Pressburger Appreciation Society

There is a lot in Neddyseagoon's expanded version, and probably too much detail about the opening,

Perhaps, though it's important to the theme of heritage, England, history etc.

introducing characters that aren't all that significant.

True

And there's not enough about Colpeper. Either the man himself and his reasons for doing what he did.

Well, his motivations are left kind of opaque in the film itself.

If you do it again, some of the character names were wrong, it should be Fee Baker & Pru Honeywood, not C. Baker & Pru Hunywood.

Corrected.

Clarityfiend, a lot of other films have more information on their page, mainly more recent one like The Departed. But not often as much in just the Plot section. Are there any rules or guidelines about how much detail to include? It's nowhere near big enough to get a "too big" warning when you edit it -- SteveCrook 00:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, having answered all that - news! I've finished polishing my copy of this, and would like to keep it as a master copy, but here is one for all you good people to edit to your heart's content, particularly with regards to getting it down to a reasonable (but not as over-short as the present one in the article) length. We might be able to bring some of the unneccessary detail and characters out into a new level 2 section called Themes, including level 3 sections such as Anglo-American misunderstandings eg tea, phones; Heritage / History / Landscape / Pilgrims - including the opening; Cinematic style - eg 2001-type cut. Plus a level 2 one on influences, to cover the Kubrick / Scorsese angle, with some quotes. Neddyseagoon - talk 12:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Or, an idea - keep the present summary as a 'Synopsis' section, then have a fuller (though not over-long) one as 'Plot' ? Neddyseagoon - talk 12:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Considering it just got a showing on TCM (where I caught it for the first time but wish I'd DVR'ed it now to add to my "library" of Archers films), this ought to be a busy place! BTW, m-a-a-ny film article plot summaries in wiki are highly detailed--whether for good or ill is in the eye of the beholder.--User:Buckboard talk 08:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It's available on a Criterion DVD. And I'm not just saying that because I'm on one of the many, very good extras on the DVD :) -- SteveCrook 09:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Summary lenghts were discussed recently at WikiProject Film here where Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style#Plot was cited. Basically they shouldn't exceed 900 words which means you only need to shave off ten-thousand words or so. Let me add, wow, if you can channel the energy here into the other sections you'll have one of the better film articles on Wikipedia in no time. I was wondering if someone here hadn't appeared on the Criterion disc when I was reading the comments here. Anyway, one other thing I might suggest is creating a separate article for the cast and crew and just summarize the key figures here with a main article link, as is done on the Ran (film) article. And on the off chance that you need or haven't seen this I'll leave you with Wikipedia:Article development. Kudos on your good work, Doctor Sunshine 20:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, that clarifies things. The present plot is 315 words, so we'll need to triple it, basically by whittling down the 10,000 one. Neddyseagoon - talk 20:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prologue

The prologue narrated by Esmond Knight doesn't seem to be Neville Coghill's modern translation. It's closer to the original Chaucer. But it is modified slightly (in just a few words) to fit the film. See scanned image of the words as shown in the film. What is read follows this and a couple of lines beyond what is shown, but that is still from Chaucer. Compare that to Chaucer's original and Coghill's translation -- SteveCrook 22:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Normally I like images to the left and to the right. But doing it here with the images in the Major characters section does make them overlap vertically and squeezes the piece about Peter into quite a narrow column between them. I think it'd be better to keep them both on the same side -- SteveCrook 22:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)