Talk:Kind Hearts and Coronets/Archive 1

question on "American version"

Does the American version really matter now? I saw an art-house showing of the movie and I ordered it on videotype, both in the US. Both contain the N-word and both stop with Louis exclaiming "My memoirs!" Obviously the British version has prevailed.

Considering how unusual the plot is, how could any ending be considered conventional? CharlesTheBold (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a Glaring Omission in this, as well as in the IMDB article...

and that is, why is Alec Guiness playing 8 parts, or even 4? Whether this was convention, or the studios idea based on Sir Al's talents? This is an extrememly interesting point about the film and to not address it is murderous. (oops..) anyway, please add the why and the how.

I read that he was at first only signed up for four parts, and he insisted on playing all the d'Ascoynes himself. SingingZombie (talk) 07:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I also thought "The port is with you" was an interesting way to put it, but never thought of sTAR WARS... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.165.158.151 (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It's explained in the cast section. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

PORT. The reference to the Port has no connection to Star Wars.At formal dinners the decanter of Port is traditionally passed around the table to the left,if a person fails to pass it on after filling his glass the next person requiring it reminds him by saying his name and "The Port is with you,Sir" If this person is to the right the decanter is passed round the table to the left until it reaches the person who asked for it.94.196.115.37 (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Israel Hand

Although I think I did write a reasonable summary of Simon Heffer's review of "Israel Hand", and I question whether my revert was "lazy", I think that particularly in view of the most recent edit the issue of possible antisemitism in this work can hardly be regarded as unsourced. Anyone disagree? PatGallacher (talk) 00:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:BURDEN: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Clarityfiend (talk) 00:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Concomitant crudities

Does anyone have any idea what the "concomitant crudities" of Chaucer's period might have been? Kauffner (talk) 10:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It is rather odd to talk about a window in reference to the writer Chaucer - but in literary terms, of course, Chaucer is known for his energy and liveliness (exuberance) but also for quite shocking (to Edwardian gentlemen, certainly!) sexual and scatological imagery ("crudities"). You wouldn't want some of the more explicit scenes from, say, The Miller's Tale appearing in your quaint church's stain glass! This could be what is meant by "crudities" (crude = dirty!) although there is a pun here based on the use of the adjective "crude" being used to mean "primitive" in architectural/artistic terms as well. Daisyabigael (talk) 12:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Confirming plot based on Horniman's novel Israel Rank

Hello, PurpleHeartEditor. You recently deleted as "all speculation" this article's entire discussion of the film's relationship to Horniman's novel Israel Rank. However, this connection is in fact well-documented, including by the film's opening credits themselves, which I have now double-checked. Nandt1 (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, again. The account of the plot of Horniman's novel, which you deleted in toto, made it clear that there were numerous differences from the movie beyond the bare facts of the main character's name and race. I do not understand why you keep editing the paragraph to highlight just these two differences. At the very least, the addition of the phrase "inter alia" (or something equivalent) should surely not be something worth edit warring over? Nandt1 (talk) 15:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no edit warring: merely a correction of language. Where possible we use concise, easy to understand language for the layman, hence the removal of "inter alia". It is unnecessary, as is the extrapolation on the novel. The focus here is the film. PurpleHeartEditor (talk) 02:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Without conceding the need for any "correction" of my English, which has run along pretty well for several decades by now, I have now sought a simplified synonym for 'inter alia'. The substantive point here, though, is that there are numerous, significant differences between the two works. I would like to think we could at least agree that the article should make that point clearly, and therefore that we can now put this dispute permanently to bed. Nandt1 (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

So, I see you have now changed the text to state that the "main" difference between the two works is that of name and race. But what is the basis for that assessment? It seems to me that significant changes in the plot (and in tone, from dark to comic) could very well be said to outweigh a name and race. I would really hope we could avoid making this editing process into a "power struggle" -- you say that you do not want an edit war. I would thus like to suggest we both try to avoid subjective assessments of what is or is not the "main" difference. Nandt1 (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Try not to obsess over micro-details. I've tweaked the text and it is now adequate. Let's move on. PurpleHeartEditor (talk) 00:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

So here is where we are. I have challenged substantively the statement that name and race constitute "the main difference". You have declined to defend that substantive assertion here, but have in effect reverted it anyway (merely replacing "the main" by "the major"), and encourage me to move on. I am glad this is not edit warring. I am now offering a very small change which I could accept on substantive grounds ("a major change" for "the major change") which -- since you consider these to be "micro-details" -- I hope you will not have difficulty accepting. [If this isn't acceptable, I'd suggest as an alternative just starting that sentence: "Importantly, the main character..."] I hope you are prepared to compromise. Let's indeed move on. Nandt1 (talk) 11:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The tweak is fine, but all the points mentioned above were valid. PurpleHeartEditor (talk) 02:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Categories

You will see that the category "Black and white films" has been nominated for deletion 3 times in the past, the most recent earlier this year, and each time the conclusion was "no consensus". As long as this category exists this film should be included. PatGallacher (talk) 13:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but almost all those categories are incredibly nebulous. What's next - Films made on Earth? A good editor can see what is necessary and what isn't, and in this case not supporting such general categories is advantageous. What is required here is more lateral and less black and white thinking. Regards PurpleHeartEditor (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Louis becomes the tenth Duke

I don't know if this is a result of the latest changes, but surely Louis has not become the duke when he agrees the loan, and, for that matter refuses the second one. His employer must also still be alive. I saw the film recently, and I don't remember it like this at all. Myrvin (talk) 13:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

A quick review shows that the conversation with Lionel about refusing the loan, the fight, and the attempted blackmail by Sibella, all take place before Louis goes for the weekend at the castle when he kills the duke. Myrvin (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Had a go at fixing it. Myrvin (talk) 19:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Plot points

Some good additions, such as the Reviews. That said, some of the substituted wording in the Plot needed to be weeded out as it was very casual and at times overly dramatic. Examples include "lose his temper and his job", "sends them drifting to their doom" and "but not before revealing to his prey what he has done and why". Also a tad too much blow by blow detail: keep it brief and concise, rather than a "and then..." style. 165.69.252.173 (talk) 09:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? The version you insist upon is flawed. For example, it states that Sibella rebukes Louis without bothering to explain why. I didn't realize that balloon piercing was so dangerous. It also doesn't explain what Louis is even charged with. And you should not "correct" a quote (that's what the sic is for). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Since you refuse to respond to my objections, I'll just keep reverting your less than satisfactory version. It has very awkward phrasing, e.g. "Louis decides to become engaged to Edith" makes it sound like she has no say in the matter; "Louis then proposes to Edith, and after she accepts Louis advises that they notify Ethelred D'Ascoyne" is both badly written and mystifying, as Ethelred is only identified (and indirectly at that) as the current duke in the following sentence. It is filled with errors, e.g. it is a private bank, not the family bank; Admiral D'Ascoyne doesn't "escape Louis' notice" - Louis even considers building a torpedo to do the job; Louis is not "confronted by both Edith and Sibella", they merely wait in separated carriages. I could go on and on. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Best if you don't - perhaps you've said too much already. Minor plot points can be corrected, which I will do. Try and avoid arrogance in the edit summaries. 113.21.40.134 (talk) 07:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Is it arrogance to call a spade a spade? More arrogant than persisting in your attempts to hang onto a substandard synopsis? Each time I revert you, I will point out yet another flaw. Today, it is the WP:OR that Louis' first two victims die by drowning. Actually, no explanation is given. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this: Each time I revert you, I will point out yet another flaw is arrogance. Adding a claim of vandalism in the edit summary is simply the cherry on top. What is inferior is your attitude. I suggest you make all suggestions here rather than make knee-jerk reverts. Sensible, yes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.21.40.134 (talk) 03:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, is it "do as I say, not as I do" time already? Next blunder: "Louis' employer Lord Ascoyne D'Ascoyne is spared as he dies"? Come on, really? I'll throw in another, minor one: "narration" is usually spelled with only one "t". Why do you persist when you demonstrate over and over again that you're really not a very good writer? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I am quite willing to accommodate and work with anyone who is genuinely willing to make a cooperative effort, but have little patience with those who don't, and who can't or won't back up their position. If that strikes you as "arrogant", so be it. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

That's the clincher : Why do you persist when you demonstrate over and over again that you're really not a very good writer? As to "backing up", which I assume you mean is discuss, who is doing the mass reverts? 60.242.84.42 (talk) 11:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S - is this - [1] - truly deserved? A good editor plays by the rules all the time. 60.242.84.42 (talk) 11:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I've asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Kind Hearts and Coronets for a third party to take a look. User:Lugnuts has volunteered. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

As Lugnuts hasn't really responded, I will lay out how I see things below:

• First, inasmuch as the story centers on the murders, I believe they should be described in some detail, especially as there doesn't seem to be a substantial synopsis at IMDb, TCM, AllRovi or, surprisingly, BFI. This doesn't add inordinately to the length. In particular, details of the admiral's death have been left out of the IP's version, even though it ties in with the Historical source section, and the sailor going down with his ship is one of the most memorable images.
• The manner of the first deaths is not explicitly stated. They could have been killed by the fall (or skewered by the parasol of a passing lady for that matter). Saying they "drowned off screen" is WP:OR, as I have stated before.
• The third paragraph is a bit of a mess. Sibella "rebukes" Louis without explaining for what, nor is her motivation for marrying Lionel given. The reader is also left to guess why a "chance encounter" led to Louis' dismissal.
• Louis is not "confronted" by the two women at the end, as I already noted previously.
• Louis has no plan to kill the admiral.
• Louis' mother is not "forced" to seek help, Louis (and my version) states she humbles herself.
• The IP insists on keeping the link to balloon, rather than hot air balloon, indicating a lack of interest in any of my prior comments.
• Trivial details are kept and illuminating ones discarded. Is it more significant that Sibella is a doctor's daughter or that she is one of Louis' few childhood friends? Sibella is the one who takes the initiative to start the affair. This is clear in my version, not in the IP's. Also missing is her suspicion that Louis is a murderer, which explains why she makes her subtle proposition at the end. The fact that it is his mother's last wish to be buried in the family crypt is excised.
• There are examples of poor phrasing. "Louis leaves with Edith and mentally decides to eventually marry her" is just plain awkward. "Louis then proposes to Edith, and after she accepts Louis suggests that they notify Ethelred." After it is stated that his father dies, Louis is described as "now fatherless" in the very next sentence. Is "Louis reveals in narration" really better than my "Louis narrates"?

Kind Hearts and Coronets is the most elegant of black comedies. It deserves a less clunky synopsis. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

You are doing it again. I will lay out how I see things below; indicating a lack of interest in any of my prior comments and Is "Louis reveals in narration" really better than my "Louis narrates"? Some of your auggestions have also only just come to light. Will have a look. 165.69.252.173 (talk) 10:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Your last comment illustrates the problem. I've detailed many of my objections. Your response is to whine about what a big meany I am. Not one word of rebuttal addressing the issues. If you've got a case, state it; otherwise, leave things alone. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, you certainly can't see the forest for the trees here. I've already addressed several of your concerns. It's all there in the comparisons. I just find it poor form that you can only come back with more arrogance, a la leave things alone. Look up Wikipedia's policy on Civility when you have the time. 27.99.97.39 (talk) 13:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Still nothing. Could it be that you can't defend your choices? Clarityfiend (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

What is there to say? Your conduct thus far seems to indicate that you are more Fiend than Clarity. I've never encountered such a rude and arrogant user before. Is this deliberate? At any rate, had you checked you would have seen several of your suggestions have been implemented. What has been changed are those statements that are perhaps too casual in tone.

27.99.97.39 (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I have a long record of well-received edits, as attested to by several dozen barnstars. I've given you several opportunities to discuss our differences. Yet you steadfastly refuse to do so, and instead expect me to defer completely to the judgment of someone who is error prone, sloppy and an indifferent writer. And you call me arrogant? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Rude, I'll admit and apologize for. It's no excuse, but I have a tendency to respond in kind to those who are rude to me. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

No one was rude to you, but you certainly dished it out. Think about how your comments thus far would be perceived by an outsider. Based on this, why would anyone engage in dialogue with you? That said, I did make some of the suggested changes, which you reverted. And did anyone say you had to completely defer to me? By the by, the barnstars don't count for much - some of the very best editors have none and don't see the need. Be proud, sure, but realize they are really just for the individual, as opposed to a community wide endorsement. All that aside, I'm prepared to start again and cite list some of the problematic phrases, if the discussion can be civil.

27.99.97.39 (talk) 13:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

How about you guys stop the arguing and edit warring. If it continues we can get an admin/mod and maybe ask those involved to be given a vacation from editing the page. MartinezMD (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Once again, the anonymous IP has decided to revert without discussion. My version is significantly shorter, better written and more accurate. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I will list the points tomorrow, but I'd advise again to steer away from arrogance. Shorter is fine, but better written is contentious.

Thank you 165.228.180.253 (talk) 03:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, it must be noted that there has been compromise, and that several of the suggestions have been incorporated.

As to the remainder, the overriding problem is the casual language. Fragments such as:

"Louis narrates how he reached this point" is clunky and less formal than the more appropriate In a flashback, Louis reveals in narration the circumstances of his imprisonment.

This is minor, but Louis' mother is forced to take a boarder - more accurate than "humbles herself" which is also clunky.

"Unimpressed by his prospects, Sibella turns down his proposal and instead marries Lionel (John Penrose)" is firstly an assumption and casual (ie. "turns down"). This: After being rebuked by an now adult Sibella and witnessing her marriage to Lionel (John Penrose) is more formal and 100% accurate.

"At his workplace, Louis has to wait upon" is clumsy, but there can be a modification that incorporates the best of both. "A darkroom explosion makes her a widow" is simply unnecessary and casual in tone. This can also be modified. You've also missed the viewing of the remaining family at the church.

That said, there are some improvements, such as the fatal boating accident and the letter of condolence. 113.21.40.134 (talk) 00:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

You have very odd ideas as to what is "formal" and what is "casual". I suggest you ask any of the regulars at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language which version is preferable. I won't do it myself because I contribute there somewhat regularly, so the possibility of bias could enter your head. (On the other hand, if I'm the ogre that you've portrayed me as, I might be so despised, it could be in your favor.)

As I've stated over and over, someone unfamiliar with the film who reads "after being rebuked" will ask the obvious question: for what? Sneezing, dropping the h? I viewed the scene again, and there is a change I will make. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

No wants to think of you as an ogre, but your comments make it hard. 113.21.40.134 (talk) 03:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I've stuck to criticisms of the writing, which you appear to have interpreted as personal attacks. You're the one who bandies words like "rude" and "arrogant". (I did err in reverting you using the WP:Twinkle vandalism option, which was due to my mounting frustration.) I've gone into great detail as to what I consider errors and flaws in your various versions, which you mostly chosen not to respond to. I've sought third opinions and invited you to do the same, since we're at a deadlock. Yet you haven't done so, and persist in putting this on a personal level.

As for your latest attempt, here is what I find unsuitable:

• Using "reveals in narration" rather than the simpler and more direct "narrates". Shorter does not automatically mean less formal.
• The entire third paragraph still.
• "mentally decides to eventually marry her" is very awkward phrasing.
• Lionel doesn't ask for a loan, but rather an extension of one.
• Keeping various details which, in my judgment, aren't necessary and deleting those that are. For example, when you omit the admiral's responsibility for the accident, you lose the tie to the historical inspiration.
• "his drunken plea for additional help refused and humiliation at the hands of Louis" is ungrammatical.
• A minor point, but misspellings still persist: "Guiness", "Loius", "explostion". Clarityfiend (talk) 05:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you even have a copy of the film to consult? Because you're still making factual mistakes, even after all these iterations. Louis' mother receives a letter from the banker's secretary. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

So you make a snide remark, then revert on the strength of that, insteading of taking the time to make a minor alteration. And you think I'm making this personal. Go back and have a look at your comments above and in the Edit Summaries to date. 27.99.99.163 (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

This is descending into an unseemly squabble. Maybe both versions have their strenghts and weaknesses. I suggest more discussion here instead of blindly reverting. PatGallacher (talk) 11:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I've stated my position in detail over and over again and recommended getting third opinions, but I feel like Johnny Carson: a monologue every night. Instead of responding here, the IP persists in restoring substandard, error-plagued writing. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, you need stop with the "holier than thou" routine. And the snide remarks. Since this began, there have been several flaws with your version, some of which you have not contended. Secondly, I have implemented many of your suggestions, but when you see that not everything you want is present, you revert. You have been correct on some points, but not all. I only recently made some additions suggested by you, but that was still not enough and you reverted. So, to conclude, I would strongly suggest you leave off on the comments and allow a third party to mediate.

113.21.40.134 (talk) 01:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

When I said you just don't get it, this was not a snide remark (or at least not exclusively). You state in your last edit comment, "Do, don't Talk". That illustrates my point. The proper way to act in a dispute is "Talk first, don't (unilaterally) do".

• At the very beginning, I reverted an error-filled version. You yourself have tacitly admitted as much by making many, many corrections.
• My latest version is significantly shorter, while yours is at the upper limit of the recommended guideline.
• You claim my writing is too informal, "clumsy" and "clunky". I challenge you (again) to prove it. Ask a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors (GOCE) to go over each of our versions and render a verdict as to which is better. I should mention that a random sampling by GOCE coordinators of about half a million or more words I copy edited for various 2011 cleanup drives found nothing to complain about. You, on the other hand, have trouble with spelling and grammar, among other things. (Current example: "As a boy, Louis's mother ..." Mrs. Mazzini was never a boy.)
• Your idea of a "compromise" is for you to go ahead and do as you see fit without discussion. This is compromise?
• Much name calling on your part. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see that you've finally agreed to third party mediation. I will ask for a GOCE review. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Comparing the last two versions, I see some pros and cons to both. If you're disputing so much text, it would be better to take things piece by piece and work on a compromise in the wording for each paragraph instead of reverting the entire thing, in either direction. Forget the edit-warring, and start from scratch on making changes. It might be a hassle, but it's the only way to make progress at this point. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. PatGallacher (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

So do I - as long as we can do it without this perception that some editors are better than others (e.g. why are you giving us a resume? What name calling? In response to your comments? Have a think about how it appears to someone else). 165.228.180.253 (talk) 23:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree too. I can see good and not-so-good things about both versions, and you both have valid points to make. You each have an equal right to participate in Wikipedia and neither of you appears to be going away, so you must create a compromise version. That means working through each sentence individually and talking and listening to each other politely. There is no other way. The compromise version, incidentally, has been described as a version which neither party may have chosen, but with which both parties can live. Rumiton (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a good definition, and is what we all need to do all the time here. Go for it! --Stfg (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Off to a good start. Clarity's recent edits have really helped. 113.21.40.134 (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. To my great surprise (and relief), the article's almost where I'd like it to be. I just have to check whether the ninth duke died of shock or a stroke. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It is the banker that has the stroke and dies later, not needing to be murdered, to Louis' relief. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 06:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

We must be living in alternate universes. At the double funeral, I hear Louis say his employer died of shock. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he does. He had been made a partner, so technically he was no longer an employee at the bank. In spite of having suffered the stroke, D'Ascoyne had been fit enough to be able to make Louis his heir. In this regard, I think a little more needs to be added to the plot summary here. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

where

I'm not in love with the change of "In Edwardian England" to "...Britain". Is there any realistic possibility that any scene is in Scotland or Wales? Would we say a Woody Allen movie is set in "America" (rather than New York)? —Tamfang (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Untitled

Here's a weird fact. Just now watched Kind Hearts and Coronets, and between 53 and 54 minutes in, Alec Guinness, playing this time the somewhat demented rector of the church, after both had been drinking, says to Dennis Price, "My Lord, the Port is with you." I had to listen to this three times to get the wording right.

This is eerily close to Obi-Wan Kenobi's comment to Luke Skywalker in Star Wars, "Luke, the Force is with you." One wonders if it is not deliberate. Does it deserve mention in this or the Star Wars or the Alec Guinness article? I don't know. Bill Jefferys 02:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I read the script, and I noticed that as soon as I read the line. I was all, "Priest, church, windows, Star Wars, poison, e—Star Wars?" Yeah, you got the wording right. And I doubt it should be added, it's a coincidence. VolatileChemical 02:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The two usages are different: "the port is with you" is possibly a polite way of saying "pass the port, it's my turn, I want another drink", part of the old ritual of passing the port, where it has to go round to the left and each has a turn.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC))

Does anyone think we should list how the family members die? If this comment is ignored, I'll just wait a few days and put it on myself. VolatileChemical 09:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I personally think it adds too much detail, but I'm not strongly opposed to it. Clarityfiend 21:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that the way in which he dispatches his victims should be mentioned. This is, from a personal POV, one of my favourite films. The comments are quite exquisite. Darkmind1970 15:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I must strongly disagree. The section is called PLOT. The fact that he kills six of them in clever ways and the other two die on their own is certainly a complete enough description of the plot. Listing the details of each death would be an extraneous and unnecessary spoiler. (I know we're not withholding spoilers, but that doesn't mean we have to ruin ALL the suspense, does it???)

However, I think the fact that Guiness plays the youngest of the young and the oldest of the old (as well as a woman) should be mentioned; his astonishing versatility is one of the movie's greatest assets. (Although it could still have been a great movie without him because Dennis Price and Joan Greenwood are so damm great. Even still.)

Also, in the list of "notable performances" Miles Malleson must be included. The role is dead-center for him, the pompous, conscientious, well-meaning, totally absurd character, small but critical to the plot. In fact I can't think of any of his roles which DON'T fit this description! And this is one of its most effective iterations ("My friend, ahem, I mean, Your Grace, PREPARE....") SingingZombie (talk) 07:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

According to a few internet sources, there is an alternate ending in the original American release in which the protagonist is more explicitly punished for his crimes, so the film would comply with the Hays Code. I haven't seen the alternate ending myself but if it's true it is quite relevant to the article.66.32.181.116 (talk) 03:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, what is the alternate ending? I'd rather like to know, and it would be relevant. 69.157.227.224 (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Haven't seen it, but I've added what I've found about the other version. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

　

Ending...

Its in keeping with its Satiric nature that the ending is ambiguous...a conventional ending could have our anti-hero/hero retrieving his manuscript; depose of the blackmailing Sabilla and live unhappily ever afterward with Edith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.97 (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I would not call the ending ambiguous. If nothing else, the music tells the end of the story. And the change in his tone as he repeats "My memoirs... my memoirs!". He's done for, and he knows it. SingingZombie (talk) 07:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

This is pretty subjective, and I would say only indicates the possibility that he is done for. If the ending wasn't ambiguous then why did the Americans feel the need to change it to fit the Hayes Code? Some people like to think he ran back to the cell and managed to retrieve the memoirs before anyone found them. PatGallacher (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The Hays Office was so prudish that near-certainty wasn't enough. — I've heard that crime never went ultimately unpunished in Ealing comedies, though I've seen one exception: Whisky Galore (aka Tight Little Island), in which the taxman is successfully cheated; that's from a book, which I guess the producers were reluctant to alter. —Tamfang (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Mancini not Mazzini

I heard Mancini throughout, and a google search brings up this spelling too. Mancini is probably a commoner name than Mazzini. Suggest change spelling throughout.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC))

And I heard it clearly as Mazzini. (I imagine that the initial nasal could make some listeners hear an /n/ before the medial /ts/ or /dz/.) On what grounds do you say Mancini is probably commoner? Henry and Ray Boom-Boom make it more widely known to Anglophones, but I'm not aware offhand of any other Mancini. —Tamfang (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I suspect your ear is a bit too cosmopolitan and far ahead of a 1940's English audience, most of whom would not taste that exotic delicacy spaghetti until the passing of two decades and would not even have dreamt about cheap jet travel and a summer holiday in an Italian speaking destination. New Yorkers with the well-established Italian immigrant population may have been ahead of the Brits and known about the pronunciation of zz, but I think Mancini is a spelling more familiar to the average English speaker of that era. Let me turn your question around: Do you know of any celebrity Mazzini of that era?(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC))

I would guess that Giuseppe Mazzini was more widely known in England in 1949 than Henry Mancini. —Tamfang (talk) 23:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Garibaldi, yes, but Giuseppe Mazzini? I doubt it (Unless the film was aimed at students of political science and obsessive readers of the Times newspaper's foreign columns.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC))

They didn't need a name familiar to the audience: they only needed a name that sounded Italian. Mazzini would be known to the writer, at least. — There are two sides to that comparison: you still haven't said why Mancini would be more familiar to English audiences in 1949. —Tamfang (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

An Italian would pronounce Mancini with /č/ not /s/. —Tamfang (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Your erudition as always and in all languages is admirable and a joy to behold. No Italians were involved in the making of this film!(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC))

The qualities of the script suggest to me that someone was involved who could rival me in erudition. —Tamfang (talk) 23:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but possibly not in faithfulness to the Italian language.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 23:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC))

"Charmer" or "charm-ed"?

I've seen KH&C a great many times in theater and on home-video. (I would bet at least forty times; it's been my tip-top number-one favorite flick of all time since I first saw it in mid 1970s). When Louis quotes "How happy could I be with either, were t'other dear charmer away", which this site http://www.fullbooks.com/The-Beggar-s-Opera.html says is the true line from THE BEGGAR'S OPERA, I would swear he says "charm-ed", not "charmer". "Charmed away" would mean made to disappear, as in SPIRITED away. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? SingingZombie (talk) 07:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Refering to someone as a "charmer" is perfectly proper (British) English, and entirely in keeping with the tone and period of the film. Wishing someone "charmed away" would also fit, but to my hearing the song was clearly about (two) "dear charmers." Aidan Karley (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Louis pronounces charmer with an alveolar flap (as in Spanish) for the final r before a vowel, so I can well believe that SingingZombie heard it as charmèd. But if it were charmèd I'd expect more emphasis on dear (a noun, in that construction) and a slight pause before charmèd (which I'd then make charm'd for rhythm). —Tamfang (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Revenge is a dish...

How about some mention of the line "Revenge is a dish best served cold" occurring in this movie? It's now a well-known saying, most commonly attributed to Khan (Ricardo Montalban), calling it an "old Klingon proverb", in Star Trek [II]: The Wrath of Khan. That it actually dates back at least as far as THIS movie (was it in the Israel Rank novel??) seems notable to moi. 141.158.64.158 (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Amending: I see that Wikiquote says this about the line in Wrath of Khan:

• • Allusion to Les Liaisons Dangereuses, (1782) by Pierre Choderlos de Laclos
    

...so maybe it's all rather moot — but possibly still worthy of a mention that it's in the movie? 141.158.64.158 (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

In case someone does decide to include it, here's the line as I transcribed it from the movie just now: "…as the Italian proverb says: revenge is a dish which people of taste prefer to eat cold." —Tamfang (talk) 05:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

D'Ascoigne not D'Ascoyne

The spelling should be in the Norman-French D'Ascoigne, parody of the Gascoigne family (actually probably from Gascogny, as the name de Gascoigne states, not Normandy) to emphasise the noble origins, not D'Ascoyne.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC))

Isn't each name (Asc——ne and Ma——ini) legible on screen at some point? I guess I'll have to buy the disc. —Tamfang (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Enjoy!(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC))

D'oh, I already had it. The name Louis D'Ascoyne Mazzini is seen in two places: in a notice on the prison gate (scribbled so that the y could be a sloppy g; the a of Mazzini is also open at the top), and more clearly, in a careful copperplate script, on the front page of the memoirs, when we first see Louis in his cell and again (obliquely) in the closing shot. Also: in the opening titles, "Alec Guinness – The D'Ascoyne Family"; and in the closing credits, "Young Ascoyne". —Tamfang (talk) 03:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Can't argue with that, well spotted. I missed the first few minutes of the film.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC))

love

… Sibella the blackmailer whom he truly loved and who could perhaps be silenced by marital happiness and Edith the woman who had fulfilled her role in his social ascent and whom he was not truly in love with.

Wow. As I saw it, Louis was tired of Sibella and genuinely attracted to Edith. Did I miss something in the narration to suggest that he courted Edith because she could get him access to the Duke? —Tamfang (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I never saw him kiss the worthy and teetotaller Edith, unless it happened during my popcorn break. I did see quite a lot of hot action between him and Sibella, even after he had started courting Edith, as far as I remember. Sibella was his childhood sweetheart of whom he had been robbed by Lionel, so to gain the dukedom and the girl seems like the classic happy ending. Yes, I had assumed he courted Edith because she could help him to make contact with the duke, whom she was close to, and indeed the announcement of the engagement performed that exact function. Once he himself was the duke he had no more need of her. I suspect to keep the sympathy of the viewer for his character, some ambiguity and nicety in his feelings was deliberate and he was not portrayed as a "total cad".(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC))

Transcribed from the narration:

• The mental picture of his wife that I had formed from Henry's words left me unprepared for the charm of the woman I was to meet. ...
• ... Mrs D'Ascoyne was beautiful; but what a prig she was.
• After Henry's funeral: I was conscious that a new obsession was about to join the one that I should wear the coronet of the Duke of Chalfont: that Edith D'Ascoyne should wear that of the Duchess beside me. Her dignity of bearing [on?] the worst moments of her grief had impressed me the feeling that here was a woman whose quality matched her beauty. I resolved to embark upon her courtship as soon as a decent period of mourning should have elapsed. Sibella? Yes, Sibella was pretty enough in her suburban way, and indeed there was no reason why we shouldn't continue to meet on friendly terms. But her face would have looked rather out of place under a coronet.
• ...while I never admired Edith as much as when I was with Sibella, I never longed for Sibella as much as when I was with Edith.

It is Louis' idea to notify Ethelred, but it appears to come to him at the moment when Edith accepts, not before. —Tamfang (talk) 05:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Great research, that seems to nail it. It leaves a lot hanging at the end, no pun intended, which I suppose is a sign of a good film.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC))

the family tree

his mother, the daughter of the 7th Duke of Chalfont

her last request [...] is denied by her brother, the 8th Duke of Chalfont.

I don't remember that her position in the family tree is made so explicit; I had supposed that she was somewhat more distant – the 7th duke's niece, say – particularly since Ethelred implies that he'd never heard of her before her last letter. If Ethelred is indeed her brother, then Lord Ascoyne (Banker), Reverend Lord Henry, General Lord Rufus, Admiral Lord Horatio and Lady Agatha must also be her siblings, and incidentally she must be Lady ____ Mazzini. (Is she ever named?) —Tamfang (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Lord Ascoigne D'Ascoigne (presumably the son and heir apparent of the then duke),<ref>Baron D'Ascoigne probably being one of the duke's lesser titles used as a courtesy title by his son</ref>

Every child of a duke has the prefix Lord or Lady. The heir apparent would be Lord Title, not Lord Forename Title. The banker (9th duke) appears to be a younger son of the 7th duke. (Incidentally there's now only one duke – Somerset – whose heir's style is a barony, and one – Manchester – whose heir's style is a viscountcy.) —Tamfang (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC))

After watching:

• Mamma is explicitly the daughter of the 7th duke.
• Ethelred, the 8th duke, has no children other than the twins who died young in an epidemic; certainly the banker is not his son.
• Ethelred refers to the rector as "cousin Henry" (not brother). When Lord Henry dies, Louis crosses off an entry in the generation above Ethelred. If Ethelred's uncle is ahead of Louis, then the 7th duke must be Ethelred's grandfather, not his father. — Lord Henry tells the phony bishop that he has the honour to belong to a cadet branch of the ducal family, implying that he is more than one generation away from the nearest titled ancestor, inconsistent with his having the prefix Lord.
• Edith mentions "uncle Ethelred", so young Henry the photographer is the son of an unspecified brother of Ethelred – perhaps an unnamed one who died before Louis began his project.

—Tamfang (talk) 05:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Very useful. It seems in fact that if "Mamma is the daughter of the 7th duke" the fact that she does not appear to have had any brothers would have made her the sole heiress (the title was able to descend in a female line as we are told) and thus surely the "8th Duchess" (I don't think a female suo jure duchess has ever existed?), her Italian husband would have been the 8th Duke jure uxoris, and her son Louis eventually the 9th duke, without all the hassle of the murders. Am I missing something? Does the film need to be rewritten?(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC))

Why do you say Mama had no brothers? My guess is that the Rector, the Banker and the General are her brothers. Even without brothers, she might have an older sister. — There have been a handful of duchesses suo jure. Disregarding those of first creation:

• Anne Hamilton, 3rd Duchess of Hamilton
• Henrietta Godolphin, 2nd Duchess of Marlborough
• Princess Alexandra, 2nd Duchess of Fife

The first dukes of Marlborough and Fife had no surviving sons, so their titles were created with special remainders. (I think the last example of that practice was Earl Mountbatten of Burma.) — Numerous Scottish peerages have passed to daughters, including the current countess of Mar and the late countess of Erroll. There is said to be only one British dukedom that can "still" pass to a daughter; I don't know when or how the other Scottish dukedoms lost that possibility. —Tamfang (talk) 04:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. I think this conversation is the biggest waste of time I've had on WP yet, being purely theoretical and of no importance whatsoever, but it is strangely fascinating:

• If the banker was Mama's brother, are we right in saying in the article "When Louis leaves school, his mother writes to her kinsman Lord Ascoyne D'Ascoyne, a private banker". Some family rift to have a sister addressing her own brother thus!
• We can surely rule out the Rector as one of Mama's brothers, he's called himself a member of a cadet line, not something a son of the 7th duke would say.
• That leaves the General as the only possible brother of Mama. Unless of course the 8th duke himself is her brother, but he said he'd never heard of the person who wrote to him from Tooting asking for a burial in the family vault. Perhaps they all erased the name Mazzini from their collective memories (not something easy to do), having been so appalled at Mama's marital choice.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC))

To paraphrase what I said above, if the Rector is not a son of a duke, how is he Lord Henry? — I reckon that no family tree can fit all the evidence, because the writer simply didn't bother working it out. — I chose the word kinsman for its breadth: we don't normally call a brother a "kinsman" but he is one. —Tamfang (talk) 08:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

my turn

Most of what I just did is simple copyediting for style. A few points of substance bear noting:

• Young Ascoyne dies in a small stream, so I removed mention of Henley Royal Regatta, which is on the Thames. Sorry I didn't note the name of the resort where it happened, which is mentioned in the drapery shop conversation.
  • The Thames this far upstream is quite narrow. I am almost certain that this was intended to depict Henley Royal Regatta, a major event in the "social calendar" as Royal Ascot, etc., but perhaps this can be confirmed if someone listens again.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC))
    • Got it this time. "I've booked rooms at Cruikshank's at Maidenhead," which is on the Thames (somehow I thought it to be in Kent, where the movie was shot); the Thames is wider even there than as seen in the episode, but there are other streams about ... — Young Ascoyne emphasises to his companion that at Cruikshank's they can be quite anonymous; I doubt he'd pick a major social event for a discreet weekend of hanky-panky. —Tamfang (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
      • You're right again! I suppose that was just the way high society people dressed for a weekend in those days, not just for special events.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC))
        • Every time Sibella showed up at the flat, I thought of Audrey Hepburn at Ascot! —Tamfang (talk) 02:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• "someone else should pay for Sibella's extravagances" is not the wording of the narration, so I unquoted it. ("It would have delighted me to refuse him; however, a bankrupt Lionel could hardly continue to support Sibella in her extravagances, and I had no wish to do so myself.")
• The suicide note is described as "undoubtedly" Lionel's handwriting, so I removed the speculation that Sibella forged it.
  • Yes, I did remember that bit, but perhaps she had just fooled the authorities by the skill of her forgery?(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC))
    • If there were any hint that she had such talent, I'd be less inclined to cut the speculation. In its absence, well, the reader can imagine it as well as we can. —Tamfang (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
• I heard no mention of how Lord Henry got the job as Rector, so I cut that.
  • Can't argue with that, but commonly great aristocrats like the duke owned both the manor (on which was situated the manor house/castle) and advowson of the rectory, to which they appointed a youger son (first son was heir, second was a soldier, third a priest, 4th had to shift for himself, etc, as the old story goes, possibly not in that order). This was definitely the parish church of Chalfont Castle, as all the D'Ascoigne monuments were in it.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC))
    • I agree it's probably true, but the source doesn't say so, so we shouldn't assert it. The nearest is the narrator's musing that, per tradition, the family gave its most foolish member to the church (paraphrased). —Tamfang (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Read on a bit and you come to Ethelred saying: "Glad we had cousin Henry to take the service. Boring old ass, but it keeps the thing in the family." I take that to mean that Henry had been appointed Rector by the family, i.e. by one of the Dukes.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC))
        • That's too much, imho, to read into Ethelred's line. If Henry were a curate somewhere else, they might still have him do the funeral. —Tamfang (talk) 02:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
          • But then what is meant by "keeps the thing in the family"? What is "the thing"? I would take it to mean "the rectory of Chalfont". I thought we'd established that Henry was indeed rector of Chalfont, following the guided tour he gave Louis round his(?) church.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC))
            • What thing did Ethelred mention in his preceding sentence? The funeral service! — I agree that Lord Henry is rector of Chalfont. I agree that we can reasonably assume that he was appointed by advowson. I merely disagree with the proposition that there's enough evidence of it to say so in the article (or that it helps to say so). —Tamfang (talk) 08:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
              • The word "Cousin" could be used in the older meaning of "relative" - in Shakespeare, it often means "relative" rather than "your parent was my parent's sibling".

                

                Kind Hearts and Coronets Family Tree.

                This would leave Rev Lord Henry as one of the many siblings on the same level as Horatio, Agatha, Mama, Rufus, the 8th Earl's father (who was himself son of the 7th Earl), Lord Ascoyne, and Mr Henry's father. It would also explain why the 8th Duke is so much younger than Lords Ascoyne, Henry, Horatio and Rufus. I can't know for certain the order of Lords Ascoyne, Henry, Y (Mr Henry's father), Horatio, Rufus and Lady Agatha, but as they all come before Louis in the succession, they must therefore all be older than his mama. The family tree below is (barring the sibling order) as of the point Louis decides to take up tree-surgery as a hobby.

Reynardo (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Evidence of the exact shape of the family tree is obscure and possibly contradictory, so I cut most assertions about it.

—Tamfang (talk) 04:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

What an admirable example of dedication to duty, or maybe just a good excuse to rewatch a great film! Hope you enjoyed it as much as your previous viewing, having only seen it once, I suspect it's one of those films you can watch again and again and every time notice a new subtle nuance. I'm not going to question any of your factual corrections, very useful. I might add a few tweaks of my own. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC))

Transcript of film

A complete transcript of the film is available at: www.linguetic.co.uk(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC))

Active Disagreements

Copied closed discussion from user talk page for reference. 286blue (talk) 09:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Passport to Pimlico

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, not started a talk before (is this the right place?). About Passport to Pimlico, the release date of the 28th of April 1949 has been researched. You mention there is more than one source pointing to the 26th of April - what are these? The first cinema listings for the film are on the 28th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 286blue (talk • contribs) 19:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, The articles don't have publicly available or verifiable citations which is why I've added citations to links online whereby people can see for themselves. It may well be to a selling site but they reference the correct newspaper cinema listings. The actual cinema listings are behind paywalls so impossible to link to.

I've had a look at the newspaper listings personally since you edited the dates to incorrect ones and the citations I provided are correct regarding cinema dates. Kind Hearts & Coronets did NOT open on the 13th, it opened on the 23rd - likewise Passport to Pimlico did NOT open on the 26th, it opened on the 28th. To double-check, I took a look and I've seen the cinema listings myself on The Guardian newspaper archive as well as The Times Newspaper archive but I can't link to them as they're behind paywalls/registration pages.

I've just double-checked one of the citations for the wikipedia page of Passport to Pimlico and it's completely incorrect. The citation for the date of 26 April 1949 is for an article dated 30 April 1949 called "NEW FILMS IN LONDON" - this is for a short review of the film and does NOT list any release date. The correct release date is the 28th as I've seen in the newspaper cinema listings.

As for the citation used for the release date of Kind Hearts & Coronets, again, this is incorrect. The 13 June 1949 was a TRADE ONLY screening for PRESS and CINEMA distributors - this was not the public premiere of the film which took place on 23 June 1949.

I'm not particularly interested in helping Wikipedia to be correct but thought I'd try to help once I noticed the dates were wrong. Nor am I versed in the ways of Wikipedia with regards to talk/messaging/etc, but I'm trying to help make sure that the correct dates are listed on Wikipedia as they're currently incorrect and you've reverted my edits to reinstate the wrong dates which do not have relevant, reliable, or correct citations. If you're happy to leave incorrect information at Wikipedia, and seemingly intent on removing my correct dates, so be it - I was just trying to help with the facts as a good online citizen but seems that's not welcome. - 286blue

Kind Heart & Coronets

Hi again, the release date for Kind Hearts & Coronets has been researched and is correct from the cinema listings - you've seemingly changed it to an arbitrary date 10 days earlier without a citation. Do you have a reference for this new date you've added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 286blue (talk • contribs) 19:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, The articles don't have publicly available or verifiable citations which is why I've added citations to links online whereby people can see for themselves. It may well be to a selling site but they reference the correct newspaper cinema listings. The actual cinema listings are behind paywalls so impossible to link to.

I've had a look at the newspaper listings personally since you edited the dates to incorrect ones and the citations I provided are correct regarding cinema dates. Kind Hearts & Coronets did NOT open on the 13th, it opened on the 23rd - likewise Passport to Pimlico did NOT open on the 26th, it opened on the 28th. To double-check, I took a look and I've seen the cinema listings myself on The Guardian newspaper archive as well as The Times Newspaper archive but I can't link to them as they're behind paywalls/registration pages.

I've just double-checked one of the citations for the wikipedia page of Passport to Pimlico and it's completely incorrect. The citation for the date of 26 April 1949 is for an article dated 30 April 1949 called "NEW FILMS IN LONDON" - this is for a short review of the film and does NOT list any release date. The correct release date is the 28th as I've seen in the newspaper cinema listings.

As for the citation used for the release date of Kind Hearts & Coronets, again, this is incorrect. The 13 June 1949 was a TRADE ONLY screening for PRESS and CINEMA distributors - this was not the public premiere of the film which took place on 23 June 1949.

I'm not particularly interested in helping Wikipedia to be correct but thought I'd try to help once I noticed the dates were wrong. Nor am I versed in the ways of Wikipedia with regards to talk/messaging/etc, but I'm trying to help make sure that the correct dates are listed on Wikipedia as they're currently incorrect and you've reverted my edits to reinstate the wrong dates which do not have relevant, reliable, or correct citations. If you're happy to leave incorrect information at Wikipedia, and seemingly intent on removing my correct dates, so be it - I was just trying to help with the facts as a good online citizen but seems that's not welcome. - 286blue —Preceding undated comment added 21:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The date (for both films) is not arbitrary: they are both sourced in the body (and you should know that, as you've edited that part which has a citation next to it. The source you've used is a commercial site and therefore a no-no. It also wouldn't be considered a wp:reliable source. - SchroCat (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi again, As somewhat of a Wikipedia novice, I was concerned after your comment that I shouldn't be linking to commercial sites, even if they have helpful citations, so looked up the wiki policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest which states "Links to potentially revenue-generating web pages are not prohibited".

It is a reliable source as it's licensed the films we're discussing, as well as referenced the cinema release dates with screenshots, so will have had access to the actual film archives.

The dates (for both films) are still currently incorrect on their Wikipedia pages, arbitrary or not. The Passport to Pimlico citation for example is to a film review which does NOT list ANY date, correct or otherwise, as it's a review, and the citation for the Kind Hearts and Coronets date refers to a TRADE ONLY screening for Press, not the public premiere. So they are sourced incorrectly and currently incorrect.

BUT, like I previously said, I was only trying to help get the correct dates on Wikipedia once I spotted they were incorrect. I was just trying to help with the facts as a good online citizen but if you're intent on removing my correct dates, so be it. Let Wikipedia remain incorrect. 286blue (talk) 21:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't have all my sources to hand, but I do have the following:

Kind Hearts and Coronets by Michael Newton, published in 2003 by the BFI. Page 26: "watching the film at its premiere on the very hot night of 13 June 1949..."

The same BFI series also gives the correct date for the Whisky Galore release. I think there is enough doubt cast on the artandhue website with these two dates not to rely on it to only heavily. I see that unfortunately you've amended a great many dates for films based on what it says. Do you not think it might be best for you to revert back to the previous dates until a source is used that knows what it's talking about?

The guidance you've linked to is the one for External Links: that's about the section at the bottom of the page. It matters not in this case, as the information they are publishing is very, very wrong.

Editing comment to add the PtP information:

"Passport to Pimlico at 70", published by the BFI. "First released 70 years ago, on 26 April 1949..."

I hope this helps clarify things. - SchroCat (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The full quote from the Kind Hearts book starts "Yet for the reviewers watching the film at its premiere on the very hot night of 13 June 1949…" - this was a trade-only screening for press. and cinema distributors, not open to the public, so the writer should have not have called it a premiere. The first cinema listing in multiple newspapers was the 23rd.

There is no doubt about the dates on that site as far as I can see - I have double-checked the cinema listings in the actual online archives of The Guardian and The Times sites, and, for my own peace of mind, have verified they're correct. I would recommend you do the same.

The date for Whisky Galore is the same for a start, 16th, and the differences here are just your interpretation for Kind Hearts:

- You are maintaining that a trade-only screening for Kind Hearts, which was only open to the press, and not the public, is the official premiere date, which was actually the 23rd when it opened to the public.

- As for Passport to Pimlico, as much as I hate to contradict the wonderful BFI, the date of the 26th is wrong. Had I not delved deeper into the archives, I would have taken that at face value a couple of hours ago, but the first cinema listings in the newspapers were for the 28th. It may be that the BFI are referring to a possible press/trade-only screening on the 26th but the film was definitely not listed in cinemas on the 26th. Would recommend you go through the newspaper cinema listings for the 26th 27th and 28th yourself so you can see with your own eyes.

BUT, like I said previously, let the wrong dates stand. I'm a film buff who was trying to be helpful, not a full-time wikipedia editor, so let Wikipedia remain incorrect. 286blue (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The BFI have called it a premiere, and it took place on a Friday evening (the traditional days of premieres back then). It's a very reliable source, certainly much more so than the absence of a newspaper advert! There is nothing wrong here: you are trying to argue against very solid sources. If you come up with a better source, please let me know, but otherwise there is no point going round in circles.

Can I suggest you revert your other changes to dates, if you've used the artandhue website as the source of your information? It's obviously very wrong. - SchroCat (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

It's a leap to say it's very wrong because you are choosing to stick to incorrect sources. Firstly, the screenshots on that site match up with the cinema listings I've double-checked for my own peace of mind at the newspaper archive sites.

Secondly, the incorrect date you're referring to at the BFI website of April 26th was not a Friday but a Tuesday in 1949 - not a typical release or premiere day so was either trade-only or a BFI typo.

Thirdly, it's incorrect that Friday was the traditional days for premieres back then. It was/is Thursdays. Whisky Galore opened on a Thursday, as did Kind Hearts and Coronets, and Passport to Pimlico.

If you check the calendar for 1949, you'll see that the CORRECT release dates of 23 June (Kind Hearts and Coronets), 16 June (Whisky Galore) and 28 April (Passport to Pimlico), are all Thursdays, the traditional British day for new film releases.

The newspaper cinema listings exist online for reference and research, albeit behind registrations/paywalls, and are not absent. Unfortunately they aren't publicly available for viewing for use as citations so I can't link to them directly for you to see for yourself that Passport to Pimlico was not released on Tuesday 26th April 1949 but rather on Thursday the 28th, but there is a screenshot of one publication at the original citation link I provided which states the film opens on the 28th. 286blue (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Look, we have dates that are provided by the BFI. You are relying on WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, which is what we don't do. As a tertiary source, we reflect what the reliable sources say, we don't make it up. It's time to move on. As you are sticking to your guns on this, I presume you're not bothering to change the rest of the film dates you've altered to reflect an incorrect source, which means someone else will have to work their way through to pit them back to the correct dates. - SchroCat (talk) 02:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.