Talk:Ethan Hawke/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

I just edited the Ethan Hawke page

I put that he was in Quiz Show which I think he was but uncredited if he was not please remove my submission.

Ronin13 (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)ronin13 (talk) 7:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)Ronin13 (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that the article states that they stopped running The Cherry Orchard in March; however, it is now playing in Madrid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.18.235.206 (talk) 23:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I just added some information to this page last night. I'm glad that you actually kept some. I also noticed something in the Training day and after section, you wrote that "Before Sunset garnered an Academy Award for Best Adapted Screenplay, Hawke's first screenwriting Oscar nomination". Isn't it a bit contradictory? He garnered a nomination rather than the award, right? On the whole, it's a very detailed and well-written article. Best luck on the FA bid.

--Artoasis (talk) 03:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've read many reviews from UK praising Hawke's performances in both plays. Given that Hawke only played a tiny role in The Cherry Orchard and this article has elaborated on plenty of reviews regarding his earlier performances, I thought a simple mention of his nomination for the Drama Desk Award should be enough. Artoasis (talk) 09:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The removal of the review of The Cherry Orchard was truly unnecessary. The review was towards his accent in the play, something noteworthy to include. Also, the review was from the Daily News, a U.S. publication, not UK. The article shouldn't be bias. Also, what does this addition ---> "The two productions, launched in New York as part of "The Bridge Project" produced by the Brooklyn Academy of Music and the Old Vic, went on a transatlantic tour in six countries from January to August" warrant to the article? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I added "the bridge project" in the article because the main point of these two productions Hawke involved in is to "bridge theaters around the globe". I happened to catch their show at the Old Vic in London, and Sam Mendes emphasized how each actor committed 12 months of their life (including rehearsal time) to be part of this ambitious effort. Besides, Hawke didn't try an English accent (It's a decision made by Mr. Mendes that every actor should use their own accent), and he only appeared on stage for less than 15 mins in the three-hour Cherry Orchard (his main task was to star in the second act of The Winter's tale). I read the NY Daily News again, in which the critic wrote: "Ethan Hawke, in bedhead hair and rumpled clothes, fits the image of the "mangy" student Trofimov, but one wishes he didn't speak with a perennial frog in his throat. While on the subject of speech, no effort is made to homogenize English and American accents. That jars at first, then fades." I think it's a comment on the speech decision of the whole play rather than a particular actor. -- Artoasis (talk) 02:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Copy edit and further suggestions

Hi - just gave the article a copy edit, and have a few further suggestions for the push for FA:

• The article's style suffers a little from repetition. Each paragraph shares a broadly standard format: In Year X, he starred in film Y; reviewers said Z. It's not bad writing by any means, but to really pop the article's prose will need more variety. A good start would be to summarise more at the start of each section, to give the reader an idea of what s/he's about to learn: "During the 1990s Hawke's career gained traction as he appeared in a series of critically well-received blockbusters", or something, to foreshadow the detail the section will then cover. This was a more substantial change than I felt able to do as a copyeditor - one of you fine prose writers should take a crack at it :) Give the reader a bit more help in navigating the text: what are the really important things to know, even if we don't memorize the details?
  • I'll try to fix this. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
• Similarly, the lead needs pruning: it lists almost all of Hawke's films in strict chronological order. They could be resorted by prominence, and some of the less popular left out: cover debut, breakthrough, biggest hits, current work, and that's probably enough.
  • I'll do the same for the lead. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
• In some cases, it's not clear whether a quoted reviewer's opinion on a film is typical of the general critical response. The Chelsea Walls case is a good example: does the Globe's review reflect critical consensus on the film? Are there dissenters? Any other opinions to back up that one?
  • It seems it does. [1] Would this ---> "Upon its release, Hawke received mixed reviews; The Los Angeles Times wrote, "Ethan Hawke, in his feature directorial debut, has brought Nicolette Burdette's play to the screen with fluid grace and a perfect blend of dreaminess and grit",[2] while The Boston Globe criticized Hawke, citing that his direction is not apparent[3] in Chelsea Walls", work? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, this is a very well-cited, thorough, and clearly written piece - best of luck for the FA! Gonzonoir (talk) 14:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the copy-edit, I appreciate it. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Lead question

His 2001 movie role in Training Day is mentioned in the second paragraph and then his roles in Gattaca (1997) and Hamlet (2000) are introduced with "Since then". Shouldn't that be reworded? Hekerui (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

NY Times review of Ash Wednesday

New York Times is arguably the most influential newspaper in the arts, so I thought if they're delivering a verdict on a book, it's worth mentioning. True, it is a favorable review, but it's not a gushing one. (And technically speaking, every review is a POV by its nature.) This critic has managed to keep it balanced: she analyzed both Hawke's strength and weakness as a novelist, and summed up rather convincingly by stating that "Ash Wednesday is not a perfect novel or a major one, but it is absorbing and thoughtful, observant and witty, with enough delicately crafted flashes to justify its existence well beyond its author's Hollywood fame". So I'll just leave this review here, in case somebody would like to read it. -- Artoasis (talk) 01:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Reviews of "A Lie of the Mind"

Hi, ThinkBlue. I collected some major reviews of the revival, in case you want to work them into the article. It seemed like an amazing production. I wish I could be there, :)

• New York Times Review
• The New Yorker —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artoasis (talk • contribs) 00:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
• New York Magazine
• Variety's Review
• Associated Press via San Francisco Chronicle
• Entertainment Weekly

- Artoasis (talk) 01:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You know, Artoasis, you can add them yourself. :) You don't have to leave a note on the talkpage telling me about them. I mean, I don't own the article, I'm just here doing my job of patrolling the article and updating his acting roles and stuff. But, I'll use some of the sources you provided, thanks for that. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I know, :) but I figured it's a featured article, and it's best to maintain a uniform writing style, especially when it comes to large chunk of addition. Besides, you know, I'm a fan of Hawke. I'm afraid I'll get too enthusiastic on this production, like the NYT's critic, :p Anyway, I'm so glad that the play worked out well. - Artoasis (talk) 01:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

True, but somewhere deep down ya you'll have a better sense of how to write the review. ;) I always try to think of it before I write it, you know. I'm a fan of his too, but I need to realize that I need to maintain a fair view of the article's structure. Which, I think you have that too. I was going to include the Entertainment Weekly review, because there's a too many NYT, Variety, New York magazine, etc., though the wording for me wasn't "there". I'll try again, though. I want to be fair about this and see how the play is received. At the moment there seems to be mixed reception, so. I guess I can add a positive one and a mixed one, to be fair. If you want help me with the wording for the EW one I would appreciate it. :) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I'll try to write a version with EW's review included. But I do suggest that we include the NYT's review, as Ben Brantley is the most powerful theatre critic in America, and the only one who can single-handedly destroy or make a production. Quite honestly, very few theatregoers rely on EW or NYPost for theatre reviews. And I also feel that it's a milestone for Hawke as a director: One, A Lie of the Mind is an incredibly difficult play to stage, and that's part of why nobody has revived it since 1985. Two, this is the first time Hawke earned major accolades from authoritative critics. Although I couldn't see the play, as a regular theatregoer myself, I do get a sense from reading all the reviews that Hawke has made it as a serious theatre directer. So if you don't mind, I'd like to write a version on my talk page, with three or four reviews. And if you're happy with it, we'll include it in the article. Is that OK? - Artoasis (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright, let's include Brantley in it. Though, did he like it or what? I just want to say this, I do want to have a consistency of not adding too many of the same reviewers in the section, you know what I mean. We can definitely add the bit about how difficult this production is, and how Hawke's direction is received. IDK about adding four reviews into the article, or do you mean constructing four of them and choosing between them? I'm fine with developing the reviews, and adding them to the article, once their finished. I'm game. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry. I'll try to keep them short and sweet. I very much doubt that Hawke'll take on any stage projects this year, so I think we can afford to do it at a paragraph length. I'm working on it now, :) - Artoasis (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I trust you. I'll help you. I think in this interview he talks about the play. If he does, we can paraphrase what he thinks of the play or something, and add it to the paragraph. What do you think? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I finished a draft. Check out my talk page. - Artoasis (talk) 04:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

My first post on a discussion page. Surely it is not correct to refer to Ethan Hawke's role in Dead Poets Society as a 'supporting role'. He was third on the cast list! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.208.49.66 (talk) 13:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Levon's name, Jim's work, and Current projects

Hi there. I left some notes on ThinkBlue's talk page, but now realize it's probably more appropriate to post them here (I'm new to editing on wikipedia). Let me preface this by saying that I have a COI because I work for Ethan, but my only interest here is promoting accuracy, not promoting Ethan. However, because of my COI, I am going to stop putting in my own edits and trust that somebody else will do that. The article in general is impressive and mostly accurate, but there are a couple fairly major inaccuracies - not the fault of the editors, there's a lot of misinformation out there even in seemingly reliable sources; but these are things that should definitely be corrected as this page is possibly the most frequently-used source for information on Ethan. Firstly, Ethan's son's name is "Levon Green Thurman-Hawke," not "Levon Roan Thurman-Hawke." Unfortunately many (actually most) reliable sources on the web have "Roan" as his middle name. I do have a copy of his social security card (with the first 7 numbers whited-out). I'm not sure how to use this as a source, but it's pretty compelling, primary-source evidence of his real name. If somebody could suggest how this can be fixed and referenced in the article, that would be very helpful. Secondly, Jim Hawke (Ethan's dad) no longer works at Conseco; he works at Torchmark. Unfortunately, I can't find any good sources to confirm this online (except for a legal document from Torchmark that has his name in one of the clauses). My suggestion would be to change the wording ("at the time" he was an executive at Conseco) or to eliminate the reference to Conseco altogether. Lastly, Ethan is no longer involved in the projects "Number Station" and "Late Quartet." There is pretty good evidence online that he's no longer attached to "Late Quartet" (see Variety from Jan 10 and the imbd page for the movie), but there's still nothing out there that confirms he's not doing "Number Station" (in fact, he's still listed as being in the cast on the imdb page). I deleted the reference to "Late Quartet," but I suppose "Number Station" will have to stay there until there's actual press confirming that he's no longer involved. Bix.bettwy (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

High school

When Ethan Hawke attended west Windsor plainsboro south, west Windsor plainsboro south was called west Windsor plainsboro high school. WWP High school was renamed WWP High School South when WWP High School North was built. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.6.162 (talk) 14:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Possible FAR

This article has some issues regarding comprehensiveness and citations.

• His recent work needs updating and requires more information than just he started in X in [year], then he starred in y in [year]..
• Sources from New York Post don’t belong in Wikipedia let alone in an FA (that too of a BLP).
• I notice that we don’t have a section that discusses his artistry at all. This is definitely needed for an actor of his stature.
• The entire awards section lacks sources. While we’re at it, I wonder if we’re better off moving his filmography and awards to a separate page(s?). The size (especially of the filmography) is large enough to warrant its own article(s).

Some of these issues are a dealbreaker. Hopefully, someone (or myself) will find time to fix these otherwise this might need an FAR at some point, I’m afraid. FrB.TG (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Newton Boys

Also started in the Newton Boys 1998 2605:8D80:6A0:48A:E1CF:39B4:3AFE:D8E1 (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2023

The "Name" field associated with the photo currently reads "Monster." It should contain the page's title. 2600:1008:B03F:B9F4:BB4A:6FC9:62E6:9929 (talk) 01:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for pointing this out. —C.Fred (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)