Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:29, 13 March 2012

Film: Core / American B‑class

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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is on the project's core list. This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

United States B‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comedy B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1

"Best romantic comedy since Annie Hall."

For any Annie Hall fans offended by that tag in the commercials for the new film, "Definitely, Maybe," here's a link to the article in the Times in London that actually launched this marketing line: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article3278101.ece

It's important to note that the line, "it's the best rom-com since Annie Hall," was actually written by the newpaper's headline writer, not the reviewer (I'm a journalist; papers seldom go with the author's own headlines). Nowhere in the article itself, which actually bemoans the lack of intelligent romantic comedies in recent years, does the writer make any direct statement about "Definitely, Maybe" being on par with "Annie Hall." For those without enough time to read the whole piece, here's the sentence the headline writer picked up on: "What was the last truly great romantic comedy? Woody Allen's Annie Hall, in 1977. The Meg Ryan years produced a few little gems - When Harry Met Sally (1989) and the defiantly odd Joe versus the Volcano (1990). But they will always be guilty pleasures compared with Annie Hall's neurotic brilliance." The piece goes back further, to salute the older screwball comedies of Billy Wilder, Charles Brackett and Preston Sturges, then looks at modern comedies attempting to break out from the formula of bad chick-flicks, mentioning "Definitely, Maybe" as one cause for optimism. But the article also mentions "Juno" and even Judd Apatow's comedies. This film is only mentioned as a step in the right direction, not the greatest thing since Annie and Alvie. So . . . yeah. La-di-da. Fishcough (talk) 01:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Fishcough—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishcough (talk • contribs) 15:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Murder mystery?

"The film was originally intended to be a drama centered on a murder mystery with a comic and romantic subplot, and was filmed that way. According to Allen, the murder occurred after a scene that remains in the film, the sequence in which Annie and Alvy miss the Ingmar Bergman film Face to Face. After shooting had completed, the film's editor persuaded Woody Allen to cut the mystery plot and make the film a romantic comedy. (Allen would make a murder mystery film many years later, with 1993's Manhattan Murder Mystery, also starring Diane Keaton.)"

I don't have the expertise, but I wish someone who did would edit this to give a more well-rounded view of the role of editing in shaping the film. A quick Google search brings up multiple references to the film's conception being far removed from its end result, including the possibility of a light murder mystery. However as the article is written this particular possibility seems to be given more weight than it is due. There seems to have been other early ideas that were discarded such as its being set in Victorian England (per TCM.com) and my understanding is that this murder mystery plot was abandoned before shooting was completed (or before shooting began, for that matter). I seem to have read that the change to the film in the editing room was substantial, but that it consisted of making the film center around the relationship between Alvy and Annie rather than Alvy's relationships in general (i.e. his first two wives). If someone has a more concrete grasp on these facts, it would greatly improve the article's accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.26.64.88 (talk) 03:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There needs too be added a reference for the editing remark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barakpick (talk • contribs) 20:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Italicized article title

The title of this article is Annie Hall, rather than Annie Hall.
How was that achieved?
Varlaam (talk) 01:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The article title itself is not italicised. However, the first couple of words of the lead section are italicised. The wikimarkup looks like this:

'''Bold text''' -> Bold text

''Italic text'' -> Italic text

'''''Bold italic text''''' -> Bold italic text

Incidentally, you would have got a quicker answer had you asked at the help deak. Astronaut (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Varlaam, the {{Infobox film}} template does it automatically. It includes (by means of a couple of nested templates) {{Italic title}}, which sets the DISPLAYTITLE magic word. That allows the displayed article title to be set to anything you want; in this case it's just setting it to an italic version of the article's actual title. Misplaced Pages:Page name#Changing the displayed title explains further. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 21:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

To do

This article isn't a million miles away from GA status. It gets 1500 views a day, so it's worth getting it in better shape.

• The first Björkman (2004) reference covers its entire AH section. Specific page numbers should be given for each reference.
• The "Themes" section is in desperate need of development. At the moment we are ignoring a range of established scholars writing in peer-reviewed academic journals and books in favour of an online magazine. There is Peter Cowie's BFI monograph for a start. Anyone else have access to an academic journal database?
• The reception section needs development, ideally locating some negative comments for balance.
• Awards need to be in prose.
• Once it's in better shape, we can take it to Peer Review, then to GAN.

The referencing system, although complicated at first, is pretty easy once it's set up. You just need to copy and paste an existing reference and replace the appropriate fields. If stuck, just do it as plain text, and I'll fix it later. The JPS 11:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't the "Style and technique" section be incorporated within the production section? Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Film doesn't accommodate this separate section. The JPS 23:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

We should organize the article logically. The guidelines are just suggestions and not even very good at that. Given our material and the film itself, this seems like good organization, at least for now. For an example of really outstanding organization of a film article, check Titanic (1997 film) --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

A developed casting section can be incorporated within a L1 pre-production heading then. I have uncovered several analytical sources. They will take time to read and summarise (and I don't have an abundance of spare time ta the moment) -- but eventually we can develop that rather embarrassing 'themes' section. The JPS 09:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if it is "up to the editors", then I prefer the version in the guidelines. It separates the practical production issues (including writing) from the analysis and reception. What is your argument for your preferred version? The JPS 09:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Writing is not part of production. It happens before. The section on writing is about the writing and the section on production is about production. For an example of excellent organization of a film article, check Titanic (1997 film). Woody himself has repeated the old saw that a movie is created three times: writing, shooting, editing. Or, pre-production, production, post-production. The guidelines fall short in their knowledge of film culture (note the strange mentions of crew). --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• B-Class film articles
• B-Class core film articles
• WikiProject Film core articles
• B-Class American cinema articles
• American cinema task force articles
• Core film articles supported by the American cinema task force
• WikiProject Film articles
• B-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• B-Class Comedy articles
• High-importance Comedy articles
• WikiProject Comedy articles