User talk:Paul Christensen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Anachronisms

Hi, I think it's fine with the references from the critics. I just wanted to avoid the problem that happens when editors note historical inaccuracies in films, and then post it on the article. Check out IMDB...there are many user-added historical inaccuracies. My problem with this is that let us say that some editors are really into gun history, and they note that a period war film set in 1930s depicts a lot of 1910s weapons. Let's say not a single movie critic, movie writer, etc notices this. But the editor lists a number of examples of how guns, rifles, etc are 10 years too late for the setting. I argue that this is original research, because even if the editor is correct, it is not the job of anonymous Wikipedia editors (you and I!) to critique films. Based on the Wikipedia standards for verifiability, it is the job of reputable, published film critics and film historians. Thanks for your note. By the way, did you enjoy the film. I liked how the film-noir edge contrasted with the lives of the idle rich, and the tension, duplicity/ moral ambiguity in the interactions between the protaganists was compelling.Nazamo (talk) 03:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the comments. I'm not anonymous, by the way. Personally I think Wiki would be much more valuable if people were required (at least in general - I can see that there might be exceptions made) to identify themselves.

Anyway, I quite liked Lust, Caution too: as you say, the portrayed ability of the idle rich to continue more or less unchanged in the middle of a war was telling. The duplicity had greater potential impact in those times, but I think there are plenty of parallels in the current world. And the sex was good :-) Paul Christensen (talk) 06:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)