Talk:Moonlight (2016 film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

I think....

Having A24 as both a studio and a distributor is REALLY redundant. It should be only as a distributor. It activates my OCD.--174.219.141.22 (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. They are both and should get the credit. (Chizzy-chan (talk) 03:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC))

Criticism

So apparently Samuel L. Jackson is a movie critic now? Last I heard he was a hack actor who will appear in anything for a buck. Criticism should relate to critical reception, not what some Hollywood schmuck blats out on his Twitter feed to get attention.2601:80:C102:27C5:5440:6071:4C0C:9B7A (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Article Vandalism?

I haven't seen the movie. I'm just reading about it after it won the Oscar, but I would be willing to bet this doesn't happen: "Then they have an orgy with Bambi (from the Disney Movie), Snoop Dogg, Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Kim Kardashian-West, Chance the Rapper, Thomas the Tank Engine, and the Gummy Bear(Gummibär)." It's listed at the end of the plot summary. I would take it out myself, but given my lack of real knowledge, thought it better to bring it up here.

2601:196:17F:EEC0:4C03:E4D8:BDA7:89C0 (talk) 03:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

It was removed by someone else, thanks for the heads up. Feel free to remove vandalism yourself if you find it elsewhere. Blue Adventure (talk) 04:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Soc 314: Wikipedia Critique an Article Assignment

1. I clicked on a few citations just to make sure that they were all working and up to date. The ones I did click on were working and current, but I noticed two of the citations for the article are a bit biased. The bias is not noted in the article.

2. I noticed that the article focuses on the Praise the Movie received from only the African American community and not the African American LGBTQ community as well. There should be an even discussion of both, because the film does call to all people, but especially these two communities.

2620:CC:8000:486:D055:5CC2:E6F9:9A70 (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

1. If you think some citations should be changed, please be specific about which ones. All sources must conform to WP:BIASED; this does not mean that all sources must be neutral, but that the article overall should present a neutral view of the subject. 2. If you can find an article focusing on the way that the African-American LGBT community received the film, you are welcome to add it to the appropriate section. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The verb "to masturbate"

The verb to masturbate is used both intransitively and transitively. See Merriam-Webster, e.g. So, while "Kevin masturbates Chiron" (in the plot summary, part ii)  may sound unusual or a bit off to some, it is actually quite correct—not to mention precise in this context. Of course, others are free to come up with equally precise rephrasings that avoid inappropriate slang. Antinoos69 (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Since there is actually a Wikipedia page called handjob, I don't think it's inappropriate or unencyclopedic. It's a real term and I think the use of the term "masturbate" as a transitive verb is likely to confuse some readers, even if it is technically correct. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous argument. As slang exists, any encyclopedia is free to address it. That, however, is a matter unrelated to how an encyclopedia will address it. Encyclopedias generally avoid slang in their actual explanations of subjects. Wikipedia has an already cited policy against slang. Handjob is slang; see, e.g., [1] and [2]. The only reason that to masturbate confuses some here is that most people commonly discuss sexual matters strictly in slang, a practice that should be discouraged in an encyclopedia and that is against Wiki policy. Antinoos69 (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

First off, this needs to be settled here props for starting this discussion. I get Antinoos69's point but I understand why Njorent keeps changing it. "Masturbates Chiron" still sounds weird. I agree with Michelangelo1992. Since we lack any more-encyclopedic term that is not confusing to the reader, we have to go with handjob. Don't forget WP:IAR. In the context of this movie, it is appropriate.

Note also WP:SLANG only says: Formal tone means that the article should not be written using...  slang... that is unintelligible to an average reader. I don't see how the average reader would find handjob unintelligible.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 01:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

A few points:

1. First, as I stated above, the phrase only "sounds weird" to some because most people are unaccustomed to speaking properly about sex; instead, they speak about sex in slang, which is contrary to clear Wiki policy. Since "handjob" is slang, it cannot constitute encyclopedic diction. 
2. Second, you misread. The phrase, "that is unintelligible to an average reader," is meant to qualify only the word "jargon," not anything else. We are not meant to use jargon that is unintelligible. In other words, we don't use technospeak. WP:SLANG clearly states that we not use slang and that "the English language should be used in a businesslike manner." There is nothing businesslike about handjob. 
3. Third, slang very frequently, as here, is both offensive and demeaning. There is nothing about handjob that even remotely suggests the practically spiritual experience Chiron underwent that ended up shaping the rest of his life and inspired him to a rather extraordinary feat of apparent celibacy and sexual fidelity. By contrast, handjob suggests some dreary chore performed by a subservient on behalf of a dominating boss or master. The slang term is therefore doubly inappropriate here.  
4. Fourth, if any readers remain taken aback, they can pick up their favorite dictionaries and put them to the use for which they were intended, perhaps learning to speak a little better about sex in the process. Antinoos69 (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

2 is a good point. I missed that. I reject 4 as contrary to an accessible encyclopedia. However, #1 thru 3 are sufficient to convince at least me.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I wish to reiterate an original point of mine. I have no objection to someone finding an alternative phrasing, provided it avoids slang, euphemisms, and circumlocutions; is precise; doesn't introduce excessive detail or paint too explicit a portrait; and doesn't end up excessively extending the text. Offhand, I can't think of anything that satisfies that standard, though I haven't exactly fixated on the task. In other words, I'm not wedded to the verb masturbate. But let's just be clear and honest. Can anyone here really imagine Encyclopaedia Britannica objectively describing a scene in a movie as one person giving another a handjob? I didn't think so. Antinoos69 (talk) 11:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

We need to have a talk about Midnight Cowboy (and an impending edit war we need to prevent)

Okay, so I've noticed this topic come up surprisingly frequently and we need to reach a consensus on it. Midnight Cowboy is frequently being cited as the first LGBT film to win an Oscar. There are many here who agree with this, and many who disagree. As a result the page is in a state of constant flux as to which stance on the issue it takes, and because of these frequent changes, a potential edit war in the near future is likely. So to prevent this, we should discuss the issue to finally resolve this before it inevitably gets out of hand. MuganiHakHakHak (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)MuganiHakHakHak

Well, here, the only point is what reliable sources say. The ones I've seen after an admittedly cursory search call Moonlight the first LGBT film to win. More broadly, I don't see how Midnight Cowboy could be called anything more than LGBT-related but not LGBT. No major character is LGBT, at least not without loads of nontrivial interpretation. Antinoos69 (talk) 06:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I think to disregard Midnight Cowboy as an LGBT film undermines it's signifigance. Midnight Cowboy contains a man giving another man a blowjob, two men who are clearly in a romance desiring to run away to Florida together and the main character beating up another person to get money for his sick boyfriend, in addition to numerous queer themes. To not acknowledge these queer themes seems slightly homophobic, and also disrespects the openly gay director of the picture. I suppose it boils down to how one defines an LGBT picture, but I think because of it's queer themes and elements, it fits most definitions.Henrylemmon60 (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

An encyclopaedia can only acknowledge these themes if a reliable secondary source does. DonQuixote (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2010/04/midnight-revolution-200503Henrylemmon60 (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

That article only mentions that it has some gay elements--it does not say it was the first LGBT film to win best picture. This reflects what I've found in other sources as well. Robert Ebert mentions Midnight Cowboy includes a "frank portrait of prostitution and homosexuality" but Ebert doesn't address the "first" question. People Magazine cites Midnight Cowboy as "centered around a possibly gay character. John Schlesinger also became one of the few LGBT filmmakers to win the Best Director Oscar"...yet that's in the context of an article that calls Moonlight the first. Prior to the 2017 Oscars, the British Film Institute described Midnight Cowboy as "gayest best picture winner to date has to be Midnight Cowboy (1969). The queer politics of the films aren’t great – the gay clients of Joe, a sex worker played by Jon Voight, are an unappealing parade of gawky closet cases. But it remains a masterly study of male friendship and sexuality, and John Schlesinger became one of the few LGBT filmmakers to win the best director Oscar." But, the same article also leads with the sentence: "On 26 February, Moonlight could become the first LGBT-themed film to take home the best picture Oscar" (along with many others calling Moonlight the first.) I'm sensitive to the fact that Midnight Cowboy is pre-internet and sources on it are harder to come by but we can't ignore reliable sources we do have for hypothetical sources, nor for analysis by WP editors that the sources themselves did not make (WP:NOR), so unless we can turn up sources that specifically call Midnight Cowboy the first... Innisfree987 (talk) 02:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Orville Lloyd Douglas review of Moonlight should be on page

I am disturbed that someone removed Orville Lloyd Douglas critical review of Moonlight. Douglas March 22nd 2017 article in Film International is important. He makes some excellent points about Moonlight. First, Douglas is a gay black man and he is correct as a black film critic he has a deeper understanding of black queer issues than a white film critic. His review of Moonlight provides insight into why the film was not popular with black people. From my reading of his review he makes excellent points about the blatant homophobia and heterosexism about the film. I urge the Wikipedia editor's to please put his review of Moonlight back on the page of film. Andrewmorrisseyx (talk) 23:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)