Talk:A Matter of Life and Death (film)

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.

Contents

[edit] DVD

Does anyone know if and when this film is slated for release on DVD? It's a classic and one of Niven's finest perfomances. -- Jason Palpatine 01:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Check the "Coming soon on DVD" on my page of all Powell & Pressburger films on DVD or tape. We've been hearing rumours about a Region 1 DVD release of AMOLAD since April 2003. Still no definite word on it though. It is available on Region 2 DVD (PAL format) if you can play those. SteveCrook 07:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

This is already out on DVD although may have been deleted. Look at the picture on the article page to see what it looks like. It has been available to hire from my local library for at least two years. Maybe a search of ebay will turn one up. 172.206.245.48 12:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

That's the cover of the Region 2 DVD mentioned above. It's still eagerly awaited on a Region 1 DVD for the Americans that can't play Region 2 DVDs -- SteveCrook 02:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] June

I'm not sure, but I think June can be called during the trial because she fell asleep in the "real" world. Can somebody verify this? Clarityfiend 07:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Conductor 71 put her to sleep to make her available for the trial - SteveCrook 22:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC) Powell and Pressburger Appreciation Society
Thanks. I wanted to add that to the plot. Clarityfiend 03:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last line of the plot

Old: "Love, it seems, does conquer all, even Heaven."
New: "Nothing in the universe is more powerful than the law; but on Earth, nothing is more powerful than love."

I prefer my old, shorter ending, even though the new version sounds like what the judge says (if memory serves). Shall we put it to a vote? Clarityfiend 08:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That's actually Doc Reeves (Roger Livesey) that says that line (or something very like it). The Judge then quotes old Sir Walter Raleigh "Love rules the court, the camp, the grove / And men below and heaven above / For love is Heaven and Heaven is love" - that quotation is on Emeric Pressburger's grave. It was his favourite film.
Sir Walter Scott, you barbarian!
Nuttyskin 14:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I knew it was some Wally :) -- SteveCrook 15:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Given the choice I prefer the shorter version as well. The actual quote is even longer than the longer one above and is a bit clumsy out of context. -- SteveCrook 16:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Restored old ending, barring any more votes. Clarityfiend 01:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Cause of the head injury

I removed the "cused by fall from plane" line, before finding a reference [1] which reminds us that:

Diagnosis proposed by physician in the film: "chronic adhesive arachnoiditis (from concussion two years earlier) affecting the olfactory nerve." Dr Reeves says he saw this condition at the l'Hopital de la Pitie in Paris. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tagishsimon (talk • contribs) 00:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC). Oops, yes it was. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

But is it 'degenerative'? I'll ask the lady that wrote that article. She's done some amazing research into the medical symptoms and condition of Peter Carter. -- SteveCrook 00:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that word was a flyer; but I seem to recall that the urgency of the operation was based on the likelihood that the condition would degenerate. AMOLAD was on the telly a few days ago. Excellent stuff. And yes, A Matter of Fried Onions is an interesting read. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Tagishsimon, I have to query that last change about Peter & June not falling in love until after Conductor 71's mistake. It's due to the mistake by Conductor 71 that they met and fell deeper in love which made Peter more determined not to leave her. But as part of his defence he says "We fell in love before we'd ever met". When he's being questioned by Farlan, just after the "enamoured" gag. Sorry to be pedantic and I don't want to put anyone off contributing anything to this or any other article. But it is my favourite film. After hundreds of viewings I'm still in tears every time I see it. Peter's argument was more that despite being in love with June (or her voice and what she said) he was ready to die whe he jumped. But because of Conductor 71's mistake he survived the jump and met June. They had some time together and now it would be more cruel to split them up. -- SteveCrook 03:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to bow to your analysis of this, Steve. Para 3 of the spoiler also mentions him falling in love. Perhaps we should make changes to state he falls in love in P1, and further in love in P3. You or I can re-edit it later; but I have to go to work now. Oh, and FWIW, I wonder if we should / could add some more info on the "other place" ... Trubshaw (?) does not get a look in in our explanation, and we might be able to say something about the record keeping &c. --Tagishsimon (talk)

I asked Diane Friedman, the lady that wrote the "A Matter of Fried Onions" article and she says that even though it's causing him more and more problems, Pater's problem shouldn't be called degenerative. She suggests we use the phrase "a rapidly progressing brain injury" because the origin is amiguous. Diane is an advanced-practice nurse from Illinois specialising in neurology and sleep disorders and is very interested in treament of trauma, epilepsy and other brain related problems. We could add a whole other section about the accuracy of the medical references that Diane has identified. They show that Powell & Pressburger really did their homework. Sometimes for things that are only on screen very briefly but are medically accurate and would only have been known by a few people in 1946.

The article could do with a whole lot of other work. What about Dr. Reeves, Abraham Farlan, Conductor 71, they could all do with more explanation and description. What about the naked goat herd, the Americans rehearsing A Midsummer Night's Dream, Dr. Reeves' diagnosis, Conductor 71's stopping time? The poetry, the metaphysical discussions, the staircase, the "other place".

The trouble is that I love the film so much and it hits me right in the emotions so I find it hard to write about it in a neutral way. -- SteveCrook 11:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parachute

If there was a dead crewmate aboard the bomber, why didn't Peter just take his parachute? Clarityfiend 08:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Good question. Bob Trubshaw (?), the dead navigator, turns up in the other place and hangs around waiting for Carter; and specifies that he knew (once dead) that Carter's 'chute was shot-up. I can't recall Trubshaw offering an explanation for Carter not nicking Trubshaw's parachute. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

June: Your sparks. You said he was dead. Hasn't he got a 'chute? Peter: Cut to ribbons. Cannon shell. Later, when Trubshaw is explaining things to the Chief Recorder he says that Peter's brolly was written off. "He got a direct hit while he was bandaging me." -- SteveCrook 11:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia - is this interesting?

If the character of June is taken as being the same age as the actress Kim Hunter (born 1922), it makes her 22 years old when the film is set. As, according to the conductor, she is to live until she is 97, she is still alive today and will pass away in 2020.

I know some people don't like trivia sections, but I'm sure I'm not the only person who would find this both interesting and charming - any thoughts? fizzybrain 87.81.62.83 (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting to those of us that love the film. But I don't think it's of enough general interest to include it. Shame she died in 2002, aged 79 -- SteveCrook (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blockquote

Ah, I see now why you put them in blockquotes Ed. The Salwolke book is full of errors [2]. I'll try to find the original quotes or passages that he copied from (and see if he got them right) -- SteveCrook (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be great - I got the quote second hand through the TCM article. Information on IMDB about the number of steps on the escaltor contradicts what Salwokle wrote, but since it came from the IMDB Trivia section and was unattributed, I went with the citable material. Please feel free to correct, dissect and unquote! Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 20:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I put the trivia item in the IMDb - and I got it from the Eric Warman book which has a photo of the escalator and quite a bit more information about it. I think it's more the case that Salwolke contradicts what everyone else wrote :) -- SteveCrook (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
That's great, since they're your words, you can use them verbatim again! I would have done that, since they were just fine as is, but wanted to avoid copyvio. Excellent. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 01:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bolding

Ed Fitzgerald, you claim bolding names in the cast notes is "a fairly standard technique which is widely used in that way." Fine, then you'll have no problem pointing out some examples. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, widely used in the real world, where the expression "bold names" or "bolded names" is well-understood, and the technique is used... well, sort of everywhere, just pick up a newspaper or magazine. I use it as a way of emphasizing who the cast note is about, to help that name stand out for the reader. If the name is wikilinked, it's not a problem, the linking takes care of pointing out the name, but since the cast notes appear under the cast list, and since the names in the cast list are already wikilinked, if the notes is about someone who is in the cast list (they often are not - many times the cast notes are about other people in the cast about which there are interesting things to point out, despite their having a relatively insignificant part in the film), then the name of the person who the note is about rather disappears into the text unless it is bolded to help it stand out.

Remember, people don't necessarily read these articles as if they are sitting down and reading a book. They frequently scan sections, either looking for the information they're interested in or just browsing through to see if anything strikes them. It's really incumbent on us to help people to scan the article and easily pickup up hints and clues about what's being discussed, so they can stop if they want. That's why we have headings and sub-headings, and formatting options like bolding and italics. We've got to do our best not only to present the best information we can, but also to present that information in a way that it can be easily used by the reader. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 05:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I meant examples in Wikipedia. Why do you persist in trying to impose your own particular MOS? WP:MOSBOLD#Boldface clearly states that this is inappropriate usage:
  • Italics are supposed to be used for emphasis in text, other than in the article's intro.
  • Boldface has a few clearly defined purposes, listed in the section I linked. Your's is not one of them. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
We've had versions of this discussion before, but I'll try again: the Manual of Style is a guideline not a rigid set of rules designed to be dogmatically followed. It is meant to guide us in our editing, but not necessarily to restrict us. However, the only way for them to be guidelines and not rules is for us to continually test them, question them, and try new ways of doing things. If we don't do this, then they become indeed simply rules and not guidance. If every time someone tries something new, somebody else comes along and says "No, you can't do that because the MoS says you can't," then the MoS is not in any meaningful way the collected past thoughts of Wikipedia editors intended to guide our actions, it is a collection of hard and fast rules than can never under any circumstances be disobeyed.

Clearly, it was never intended that they be that, or else they would have been presented that way: "Do this, and nothing else!" The spirit of the way they are presented to us requires that we (collectively) allow them to breathe, and to live.

I'm not suggesting that it's not worthwhile to correct errors when they occur, or to, in most situations, try to adhere to the Manual, but it really is incumbent on us to allow people to try things out, to see how they work, to find out if they, perhaps, might have a better idea. That's the only way that the Manual of Style can evolve, for if everything even slightly new is squashed before anyone has a chance to see it and experience it, the MoS becomes a lifeless and dead thing.

Let me try to put this into context - what I'm doing is not disruptive, it's not an attempt at some kind of radical change, it's a simple matter of some very slightly different formatting, a use of bolding that's not covered by the Manual. As someone said about our previous disagreement over the use of italics, that seems like a pretty trivial thing to get upset about. (WP:LAME was the reference, I think.) I hardly think it's the beginning of the end of Wikipedia if you allow me the chance to try this very slightly new thing. It's not the top of the slippery slope, nor is it a harbinger of some formatting anarchy to come, it's just something a little different.

On the specifics of this formatting choice - I think the Manual, in this instance, is pretty much wrong when it specifies that italics should be used for emphasis and bold only for its short list of exceptions. What italics do is not to emphasize something so much as say "this text is different." Italics seperates the title or the foreign phrase from the text that surrounds it, but it really doesn't do a good job of making the text "pop" out of the page to emphasize it - the best way to do that is with bolding. Now, I do agree with the Manual in that such emphasis is so strong that in a encyclopedia, with its basically flat and neutral tone of voice, emphasis of any kind should be used very sparingly, especially in discursive text. But what I'm using bold for isn't that, it's simply pointing out in a short sentence, part of a list of short sentences, what the chief subject matter is. It's just a little bit of "pop" to help grab the eye of the reader and say "Here's who this item is about." That's the purpose of bolding names in the real world, and that's what I'm using it for here.

I do hope you can see that I'm not trying to force on you a personal aesthetic. I'm operating, I think, well within the bounds of the style and tone that's been set for Wikipedia, I'm simply utilizing my best judgment and whatever skills I have to make the articles I work on as functional for the reader as I can. Mostly, I don't have a lot of problems with the guidelines that have evolved on how things should be formatted, but there are some minor exceptions, and I think I make a fairly reasonable case for allowing me to try to do something very slightly different concerning them. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 05:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What a crock. Of course you're trying to enforce "a personal aesthetic". What else would you call it - divine inspiration? There's a forum for proposing changes to the WP:MOS somewhere. That's where you should be directing your "testing" and "questioning". Instead, you ignore a unanimous (if weak) WP:Third Opinion consensus against you regarding your use of italics and now you're doing the same with bolding. What next, underlines?
Also, if you can go ahead and use your best judgment, then you can have no objection to my using mine and reverting it. We would end up in an edit war, yet you claim this would not "the top of the slippery slope"? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
But starting an edit war wouldn't be displaying very good judgment, I don't think, especially over something of such a relatively unimportant nature. Wouldn't your energy (and mine!) be better put to editing articles, and improving the encyclopedia? As I've said before, I think that generally you do very good work in your editing, and I think that the project would be much better served by your continuing to do that rather than getting stuck in a morass than can be avoided with a little bit of forebearance. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 07:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm deeply unimpressed with Ed's idiosyncratic formatting, and have amended it per the manual of style. I trust, as edit wars display poor judgment, that we will not be seeing one here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
"Deeply unimpressed"? I'm cut to the core. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 23:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Zzzz. Listen ed. Is there any possibility that you could either work within the MOS, or get a change made to the MOS? You surely understand that imposing your own view over community consensus is going to raise hackles. Or do you just not care?
You say but it really is incumbent on us to allow people to try things out, to see how they work, to find out if they, perhaps, might have a better idea. That's the only way that the Manual of Style can evolve. Well that may be the case, but do it in a sandbox and argue your point with illustrations in talk MOS. Doing it on a live article is rather POINTy.
You are very strongly urged to seek consensus, and to stop imposing your view against plural objections. --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec) You certainly have a interesting style of discussion. You start out with an insult ("deeply unimpressed", "zzzzz") and then expect me to take seriously what you say afterwards? I'd say that most people would really be put off by the insult and not bother with the part that comes after, and the discussion turns out to be nothing but insult-slinging.

Anyway, what I'm concerned about is making articles as useful and functional as possible for the reader, and the choices I make about formatting all have that in mind - what will make it easiest for the people we are supposedly here to serve. I do realize that many people get upset when things change, but I admit that I didn't expect such relatively minor, but functionally effective, changes to provoke such strong feelings. After all, it's not as if I'm advocating making major changes, I'm just tweaking the formatting in relatively minor ways that are useful.

As for changing the MoS - there are many ways to do that. One is a frontal assault which, I learned early on here in Wikipedia, is not usually very effective, because you run into an extremely dense wall of resistance to change. Another way is by example - you try stuff out, see what works, and keep doing it to let other people get a chance to experience it and see how it works. Instead of being presented some theoretical change, they can gradually get used to a de facto change, little by little, and resistance is lessened (at least a little). That's the path I'm taking here, and, for all the reasons I wrote about above, it really is incumbent on us all to hew to the spirit of Wikipedia and allow such little experiments to have life.

I think that answers your questions. I hope you can see your way clear to letting my little experiment continue without us getting into some big hassle over it - it would be much appreciated. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 07:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

(out)I'm responding now to the part of your comment you added while I was composing my response above.

Clearly the sandbox doesn't suffice for the process I delineated above. Yes, it's OK for trying out changes yourself, but in order for the MoS to evolve in the way I outlined, people have to actually see the adjustments that are being made, and copy them if they like them.

As for my efforts being "pointy", that's not at all the case. My understanding of WP:POINT is that it's about doing things simply for the sake of making a point. I'm not doing that at all -- what in heaven's name would be the "point" of bolding a couple of name in one section of an article, what disruptive effect could I possibly be looking to create in order to make my "point"? No, I honestly think that these very minor, very small changes are helpful to the article, make it more functional and effective and useful to our customers, the people who come to Wikipedia to find some piece of information they need. Thanks again. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 07:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Deeply unimpressed was not an insult (though you may take it as one if you wish), but my reaction to your imposed style. My Zzzzz was merely a comment on your "cut to the core". I think it is clear that a number of editors have a problem with your impositions on pages which you "guard". There clearly are multiple ways in which you could have sought to introduce your change; not least, you could have discussed it here first. or, heavens, you could assume our good faith by presuming that we had made a judgment about which format we find preferable, rather than asserting that we are slavishly following guidelines. That sort of assertion is, I think you'll agree, an insult and unproductive. I note that you have a bunch of these style disputes running in parallel. I suggest we take the matter of your unilateral declaration of style independence to RFC. I trust you would concur that this is the best way forwards. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
No, not at all. These little discussions already take up too much time that can be used for editing articles, but if you really feel so strongly about it, and don't feel odd about bringing such a WP:LAME dispute to RfC -- I mean, really, italics and bolding!?!? -- and have the time to waste, well... Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 07:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
BTW, just by way of making a record, I strongly dispute your characterization of my argument as a "unilateral declaration of style independence." I think I've been quite clear, here and elsewhere, that my philosophy is anything but that, and my edits bear that out. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 10:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Ed, Ed, Ed <shake head>. How is it not unilateral? You refuse to accept the consensus of concerned editors. That leaves just the readers. But how are they to provide any feedback? Telepathy?
As for wasting time on something you consider lame, there's an easy solution - stop what you're doing. Since you're apparently arguing with several others, it's taking up a much larger fraction of your time than it is ours.
I can't quite fathom how someone who makes solid contributions can be so determined to step outside established etiquette and procedures. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Clearly. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 06:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)