Talk:4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Ending

Hi. How exactly does the film end? What is the demand that Mr. Bebe makes towards Otilia and Găbiţă? I couldn't find this information anywhere, and I think this (plot spoiler) would be important in the Synopsis section. Ronline ✉ 10:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess we'll have to wait for its release to find that up, or find someone who has been to Cannes and has seen it :D About the demand, there's a short scene from the film on YouTube which shows him asking them to both have sex with him AdamSmithee 22:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a scheduled release? I'd really like to see this film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.187.1.23 (talk) 20:28, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

fucken stupid endin thats all i can say —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.71.37.72 (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Synopsis be completed with the ending? --Error (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


He has sex with both of them and then performs the abortion. Otilia returns after the party and then she takes the fetus and throws it in the garbage. There is some suggestion that she herself may now be pregnant and she is shown vomiting before returning to the hotel. At the end, the two have dinner and Otilia looks upset about how her friend uses her and how shes always having to go along with the demands of others. In the last moment she looks toward the camera, a rather haunting expression on her face, and the screen goes black.

Stockholm Film Festival

Film won the Bronze Horse for best film at the Stockholm International Film Festival this weekend. http://www.altfg.com/blog/film-festivals/stockholm-film-festival-2007-winners/ Rogerfgay (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Film Location

I don't think this film is centered in Bucharest. One of the hotel clerks mentions a large group coming in from Bucharest. I think in a another portion of the film they mention that they are in the city of Roman. I have never been so I don't know if Roman has the type of electric bus system seen in the film. No Bucharest landmarks are visible that I could see during the movie, which would have been easy to include, as the film was shot in Bucharest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.94.35 (talk) 13:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

in my opinion the film took place in Iasi, in order to the used hotel names like "Moldova" or "Unirea". The scenery of the reception area looks like in Astoria Hotel before the renovation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.164.248.11 (talk) 20:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sex

Does Bebe really have sex with both women? — Preceding

talk • contribs) 14:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Indeed. Ribbet32 (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences of Argentina Awards

This movie won the "Best Foreign Film" in 2008. http://www.academiadecine.org.ar/2008-ganadores.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.182.145.201 (talk) 05:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments

Hi Ribbet32. I've made some copy edits, clarifications. Unfortunately I don't have access to some of the sources that have been cited, so feel free to amend anything that I've changed the meaning of.

  • Our Decree 770 article has the date of 1966, so I've used that here.
  • The first sentence in 'Box Office' is confusing, particularly the last clause "making it the seventh most attended film in the country that year, and the most from that country." I don't know what was being aimed for here, any suggestions? Scribolt (talk) 11:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Scribolt, I've tweaked the phrase Ribbet32 (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cast

Is there a reason this article shouldn't have a Cast section?

mad 11:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:CASTLIST (was moved to an infobox in casting per guideline). The cast section that was here was extremely skimpy. Ribbet32 (talk) 13:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I think this may have gotten mixed up. The castlist guidelines for films does not require a cast section to be placed in the infobox. The castlist for TV shows does prefer them in the infobox. In fact if you scroll down at Template:Infobox film#TemplateData you will see the instructions "Insert the names of the actors as they are listed in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release" the rest of the cast should be listed in cast section just below the plot section. I know this difference between difference between the filmproject and the TVproject can be confusing. If memory serves it came about eight or nine years ago and has been that way ever since. MarnetteD|Talk 21:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No one said anything was/is "required". The guideline provides recommendations, with this one seeming highly appropriate here. This is not the only film GA to use this method anyway. Maybe a GA reviewer will make me think differently. Ribbet32 (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
The Apt Pupil article only has the names on the poster in the infobox and then has a separate cast section with a fuller list of actors who appeared in the film in the body of the article. This is exactly what I mentioned above so I am not sure what "method" you are referring to. The
WP:MOSFILM and "infobox film" guidelines have been in place for over a decade and all "good" and "featured" articles follow them so I am not sure what the problem is with mentioning them here. MarnetteD|Talk 23:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Please note that
WP:CASTLIST makes no mention of putting the entire cast in the infobox. Of course it doesn't state that it can't be done but that does not mean that the template documentation should be ignored. MarnetteD|Talk 23:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:MOSFILM: "The structure of the article may also influence form. A basic cast list in a "Cast" section is appropriate for the majority of Stub-class articles. When the article is in an advanced stage of development, information about the cast can be presented in other ways. A "Cast" section may be maintained but with more detailed bulleted entries, ensuring that these lists adhere to accessibility standards; or a table or infobox grouping actors and their roles may be placed in the plot summary or in the "Casting" subsection of a "Production" section." Also, what do you mean the cast's not mentioned? Of course they're mentioned. This article uses the exact same table adjacent to a Casting section as does Apt Pupil- the difference being Apt Pupil is disorganized in not having Casting as part of Production. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh good grief Ribbet 32. I missed it completely - 1000 apologies. I have some trout (almondine) ready for face slapping as soon as I am done here. I guess I'm not used to those boxes for cast lists yet. I'm also sorry that I don't know how to fix those two refs that I marked as not working above. Hopefully you or another editor can get to them. You've put a lot of work into the article so I will just repeat what I said in my edit summary "I wish you well in getting this to GA status!!" MarnetteD|Talk 00:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category

@MarnetteD:, can you please explain why you keep removing this category? You claim there's no reference for it, but there are references for it under Release and Box office. What are you doing? Ribbet32 (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your post
WP:CATDEF where it states "A central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article" - the distributor of a film is not defining to the film - conversely the company that produces the film is. That concept is reinforced by the instructions here Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Categorization#General categorization. Please don't get me wrong - mentioning the distributor in the article is fine and it also works in a "list article" like List of Miramax films. They just aren't appropriate as a category. MarnetteD|Talk 21:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Art film?

I recall once reading an interview with the director of the Hostel series claiming these are art films. Long story short: interviews with directors are primary sources, not independent of their subject according to

WP:USEPRIMARY. What did you expect, anyway? That he will call it a bad film? This is like citing an interview with a director claiming their film is a good film... And, the other sources do not explicitly call it thusly: wrt to the hostile comment you left at my talk page, of the three sources, the only one explicitly stating it is an art film is the interview. Of the other two, one says the film's competitors are art films, the other, that it will be screened in arthouses.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

You're pretending like that's the only source for the point; it notes his intent, reported by a secondary source, combined with two secondary sources remarking on its arthouse appeal. There're no rule requiring 15 sources before the category can be used, like you did with
Do not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
So, should Hostel be listed as an art film because an interview could be find in which Eli Roth states his intention i.e. an article reports about it? The article also categorizes this as a genre film, and, nobody considers those to be art films. Appeal is not enough: repertory cinemas screen all sorts of films, only a minority of whom are art films, and, the public is clueless about art. When I dealt with Ghost World, I was careful to include mostly secondary sources explicitly calling it an art film.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, other secondary sources. I question your grasp of this. The source that you said states this is only competing against art films? It refers to the competition as "other" art films, meaning this is one as well. The other says it will have an arthouse audience. Our definition of art film: "a serious, independent film aimed at a niche market rather than a mass market audience." Ribbet32 (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not explicit enough: it does not say 4M3Wa2D is an art film etc., so, the reader is left to insinuate. The other article says it would attract discerning auds in Stateside and Euro arthouses i.e. in cinematheques/repertory cinemas (see my notes about these above). It merely deals with the location of the screenings, and, again, even if it dealt with the audience members, these are clueless about art. You can find a website considered reliable by Wikipedia categorizing as an art film just about any above-average Hollywood film, especially from the popular press. Those people are clueless and all three sources are from the popular press. As an aside, intention/marketing is meaningless (see the Hostel issue above), only the result matters: for example, Cassavetes tried to premiere some of his films at grindhouses and I read directors such as Pasolini, Straub/Huillet, etc. claiming their films are meant for the common man. Even funding is meaningless. Finally, not sure which point you think I am trying to prove, or, why you think my editing is disruptive, so, I do not get your hostility. Nevertheless, seeing that I have no way of convincing you, feel free, if you do not find this convincing, to keep the category/delete my article.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First, it's not insinuation, it's simple English. Second, arthouse audience fits the cited definition of art film. Third, on the question of the director's intent and whether he'd say he made a bad film, not all art is good, so it's actually a neutral statement. Finally, I wasn't hostile. Simply annoyed at persistent reverts. Ribbet32 (talk) 03:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is
transcluded from Talk:4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days/GA1
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gabriel Yuji (talk · contribs) 00:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Hey, I'll start this review as soon as possible. Sorry for the time you had to wait. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 00:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • Partially based on
    WP:FILMLEAD
    and partially based on the article's structure itself I'd say the Cannes mention in the second sentence is kind of out of nowhere. I mean, wouldn't be more logical to mention it in the last paragraph that discusses the reception?
  • Actually I'd group the first and second paragraph as they discuss plot, cast and production; and the third and fourth as they talk about the release and reception. Not really a major problem at all, and maybe a matter of stylistic preferences only, but I recommend this because short paragraphs are somewhat discouraged in good articles.
Plot
  • Nothing to say. Everything seems fine.
Historical background
  • "continued to fall aside from one year after"; I'm not really sure (English is not my native language) but "fall aside" seems really informal (in fact it's not frequently used in Wikipedia if you do a search). I'd also remove the "from" (as I think a "from" implies a "to").
  • Just to avoid the repetition of "abortion" you could replace it with other words such as "procedure" (in the first paragraph there's three following sentences that use the word). It's not really a problem, but some say word repetition is not good prose, and in this case there'll be no ambiguity because the paragraph is about it (in the plot, it's kind of difficult to argue this).
  • Who is Gradea? You could mention her full name and her profession in the first mention - as you did with "Author Dominique Nasta".
Development
  • "Though he had heard it from a friend 15 years ago, the incident occurred five years before that, in 1987" – it will be outdated soon; it's preferable to use an actual date rather than having someone to update every year (the same goes for "more than 15 years later")
    • Clarified. 15 years before the film. The number 15 will never be outdated. Ribbet32 (talk) 05:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The film was produced on budget of under €600,000" – should it be "on a budget"?
Casting
  • "Mungiu viewed auditions for many young women for the two protagonists"; should "of" be used?
Filming
  • "The Mr. Bebe character was also given a red Dacia car" – although the context implies it's an old brand, the sentence by itself is quite vague; you could something like "Dacia car, popular on the period" (I'm assuming it) or something that gives a little context for the reader
  • Score could be linked in its first mention here instead of in "Themes and interpretations"
Themes and interpretations
  • WP:DUPLINK
    of Decree 770 and Nicolae Ceaușescu, as they are already linked in "Historical background"
  • "In the bartering scenes, corporate goods common west of the Iron Curtain were prohibited in Romania and were viewed as luxuries" – I think there are missing words here to link the idea to the film and a preposition may be useful; I'd rewrite as "The bartering scenes depicts how corporate goods common in the west of the Iron Curtain were prohibited in Romania and were viewed as luxuries
    • Adjusted, but "west of the" is proper English Ribbet32 (talk) 05:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Style
  • For consistency, I think you should choose to mention or not to mention someone's affiliation i.e. you use "British Film Institute writer Ben Walters", "The Guardian's Peter Bradshaw", "The Independent critic Jonathan Romney" but then we got "Journalist Brian Gibson" (and no mention to Vue Weekly), and the same goes for Debruge, Boone, Wissot...
    • It doesn't hurt to have some variation. Vue Weekly isn't as familiar to people outside Alberta as The Guardian and BFI are to people everywhere, as well. Ribbet32 (talk) 05:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say "academic Ileana Jitaru identified as including desaturated greys, blues and greens"; the source says, "4 months 3 weeks and 2 days is designed in desaturated shades of grey, blue, red and green" – why red was omitted?
  • "Aside from reflecting the length of the fictional pregnancy, the 4-3-2 form of the title creates the impression of rushed countdown reinforcing the thriller genre aspects" – as everything else is attributed to someone in the article's body, I think the same should apply here
Release
Box office
  • "It made $1,198,208 in North America and $8,642,130 in other territories" – I understand that Box Office Mojo prioritizes US figures but I think the article shouldn't do the same. Romania should be the main focus here.
    • The first para gives the main focus to Romania (and France, where it premiered). (As an aside, North America is more than the US) Ribbet32 (talk) 05:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I saw this, but I think gross figures are more clear than admissions. The "Foreign" section gives what you need. (I know that, just missed it; it's more than US and Canada too) Gabriel Yuji (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd agree, but admissions seem to be more commonly counted in Europe. Gross figures are hard to come by Ribbet32 (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Critical reception
  • I wonder about your criteria of not adding names in the "Best of 2007 rankings" table. I mean, there are people listed in the given source (ex. Chicago Tribune's Michael Phillips, Hollywood Reporter's Kirk Honeycutt and Sheri Linden) that don't appear in the article's table. If it was to keep it shorter I'd say to remove the lowest-position rankings. (In the 2008 list you only omitted Empire presumably because it did not ranked the films, and although I'm not sure if this is a valid criteria, it's still a criteria.)
    • Not my doing if lists were left out. I merely beautified them. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could also add something to sum up the tables' information in prose i.e on how many author's/media's list it appeared on each year. It would be a great way of exemplifying what's on "The film received an enthusiastic response from critics" or maybe it could fit in the last paragraph if added prior the decade's listing.
  • Duplink of Peter Bradshaw, The Guardian, The Independent, already linked in "Style"
  • For consistency, you should mention Jean-Baptiste Morain was the writer for Les Inrockuptibles (probably you just missed this one, as you don't cite him in the reference itself)
  • Although it's a news via AFP, I'm not sure SAWF News is a reliable source. Furthermore, it seems a literal copy of SBS, so I think it's useless anyway. We then have a problem with the opening sentence of the paragraph: "Some sources view the film as indicative of a broader renaissance in Romanian cinema in the 2000s". However, I think it's can be easily resolved as you already have Gradea and Pop with sources that have "new wave" on its title.
    • Replaced. SAWF link was not my doing. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could link Palme d'Or here and remove its link in the subsequent appearance in "Accolades"
Abortion debate
  • "reviewer Maureen Medved judged 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days to approximate a horror film" – I'm not really sure on this, but it sounds strange to me (and I did some Google searchs with the term); "judged 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days to be similar to", or "to remind a", wouldn't be better options?
  • Duplink of Time magazine
    • Done 02:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Just out of curiosity, no official Mungiu's position? I'd say he maybe not expressed it, as he said the abortion was not the focus of the film and that there is no discussion at all in his country, but didn't you find nothing on it?
Accolades
  • Duplink of 2007 Cannes Film Festival, already linked in "Filming"
    • Sufficient space between the two sections to justify. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy
  • In the rest of the article you use "Ceaușescu"; why to use "Ceausescu" here?
References
  • You could add this link to ref #14 (Cineaste); and why not add it "Bibliography" and apply the harvcite style to avoid repetition (btw, #14 and #99 cite exactly the same page)?
    • Fixed duplicate link. Cineaste is a paper ref. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #23 (ABC.net.au) is dead
  • The same question goes for Jitaru's ref; why don't you add it to "Bibliography" to simplify?
    • Bibliography means books, as is my understanding. Not sure about this. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see your point, as the word has many meanings. But one of them, according to Merriam-Webster, is "the works or a list of the works referred to in a text or consulted by the author in its production". And, the best, you have precedent based on other FAs such as
        Vladmir Lenin or A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. If you still think it's wrong, you can alternately use this format. It's not really a big deal at all, though. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
        ]
  • Missing accessdate for ref #74 (the Corliss)
  • Missing page for ref #82
    • Didn't have page numbers, but the reader can look up films alphabetically Ribbet32 (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except for the ones highlighted on their respective sections I found no problems with sources attribution; for the record, I spot checked some references that made impressive statements or that may be controversial (in my opinion of course), namely ref #2 (SBS), ref #11 (Nasta), Gradea (#13, #18 and #46), "Not Just an Abortion Film" (refs #14, #31, #34, #99 and #100), ref #27 (IndieWire), ref #59 (Reuters), ref #62 ("Just don't mention Dracula"), ref #64 (Emanuellevy.com), refs #75 and #93 (on Oscar controversy), ref #83 (BBC's 100 best), and ref #86
    • I don't know what you're suggesting, but Wikipedia can't shy from controversy, and opinions are not in "Wikipedia's voice". Ribbet32 (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not suggesting anything. I feel I expressed myself bad. I just said I didn't check all refs, and my criteria to spot check (a common practice on FAs, peer reviews, etc.) was if it grabbed my attention as something likely to be challenged (
        WP:GA?, 2b). I mean, it is just a regular statement that it screened at the 2007 Toronto International Film Festival (#ref 61), but it's an interesting affirmation that it attracted long queues (#62). Just it. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
        ]
  • I don't know German, but just out of curiosity I checked their FA and I've found this article that is used several times there. I don't if it will bring new content for you, but it maybe worth checking at least. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 02:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I looked at it now and then long ago and picked up some ideas from it. Didn't translate anything from it or use any of its sources, tho Ribbet32 (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bibliography
  • You cite Andreescu's "The Changing Face", but in the Google Book version there is no such chapter; the chapters whose names are more close to it are "Transitions and the Changing Face of the Social Authority" and "The Changing Face of the Sacrificial Romanian Woman – did you miss some words in the title or is it a difference in edition/version?
  • You could add this link Gradea's reference
  • You could add this link to Nasta's "Contemporary Romanian auteurs"
Conclusion

Overall, it's a very good article, well-written, well-sourced, with a good use of images and tables. I have only minor concerns, and Icould only find few problems (if they can be called problems at all; maybe they are only nitpicks of mine). I'll put this on hold. When you do your reply, ping me. Feel free to disagree, and you can choose if you want to respond below each point or below this closing commentary. Thanks for the wait, Ribbet32. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gabriel Yuji: I think I've gone through all important concerns by now. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Almost there. I'd insist on the Dacia stuff, on summarizing tables in prose, on dead links, and about Andreescu's reference. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Gabriel Yuji: I believe that should all be resolved Ribbet32 (talk) 04:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:GA? point at all. Good job! Gabriel Yuji (talk) 04:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NEW SECTION: Exclusion from the 80th Academy Awards

I immediately wanted to learn more about WHY it was excluded from the 80th Academy Awards. Should that not be addressed under "Controversies" or "Critical Reception"? WordwizardW (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC) "4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days became the subject of some controversy over censorship, the abortion debate, and its exclusion from the 80th Academy Awards,"

I immediately wanted to learn more about WHY it was excluded from the 80th Academy Awards. Should that not be addressed under "Controversies" or "Critical Reception"? WordwizardW (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to put a headline for the new section, so this was placed under the wrong section. WordwizardW (talk)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:4_Months,_3_Weeks_and_2_Days&oldid=1197052775"