Talk:The Seventh Victim

Untitled

Can someone edit the info about the remake? It's now way past 2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.144.231 (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Poster image is not a poster

So the image in the infobox is not the poster, but apparently the lobby card. Per infobox standards, we are supposed to have a poster predominantly. should we change that? or at least change the subtitle? Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Peer review

I have looked over this article and it mostly complies with the criteria for B-class status. However there are a couple of issues that need to be addressed:

1. Some of the web sources look dubious to me. I have tagged these appropriately.
2. The lead also needs to be fleshed out. The lead is supposed to briefly summarize the article and the three senetnces covering the production, release and analysis doesn't cut it. Think of the lead as the article for the Twitter generation i..e for people who are too busy to read the entire article.

Also, in regards to the citations while I understand using the short footnote system for books—especially when multiple pages need to be referenced—it really makes no sense to use this system for web sources i.e. there is no value in making readers click twice to get to the reference. Personally I would just incorporate the web sources into the notes, but that is just a personal preference not a demand. Overall it's a nice little article; as a fan of Val Lewton films I found the article informative and interesting to read. The level of sourcing is generally high and the quality of the writing is good. I can't foresee any major obstacles at the GA review. Betty Logan (talk) 03:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Seventh Victim/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MatthewHoobin (talk · contribs) 23:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Time for my second review after The Revenant (2015 film)! After a read, this article appears fairly darn well written, and a worthy contender for good article status. Here's what I have to say about the article for The Seventh Victim:

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate. I give my props to the uploaders/contributors of the images in this article; they complement the text rather nicely.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Putting this on hold until issues below have been addressed.

Comments

• Cast: The "Cast" section lists the characters in boldface text and their actors in parentheses next to them, which is inconsistent with the vast majority of other film articles. Y
• Conception and filming: There is an incomplete short citation in the "Conception and filming" subsection. Y

Cheers for now! –Matthew - (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@MatthewHoobin:: I've looked at the two suggestions, and have fixed the American Film Institute citation issue, and un-boldened the character names for style/formatting consistency. Let me know if there is anything else I should re-evaluate. Thank you!! --Drown Soda (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Drown Soda: Nice work! I almost forgot something though; there should be a citation to support the film's running time (71 minutes) in the infobox. Rotten Tomatoes will likely have a running time listed. After that, I'll be ready to promote the article to GA status. –Matthew - (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@MatthewHoobin:, there is a list for the run time in the Michael Pitts book (RKO Radio Pictures Horror, Science Fiction and Fantasy Films, 1929–1956)--is that a reasonable source for the run-time? I will add it to the infobox. --Drown Soda (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Drown Soda: I looked up the book and it seems like a pretty reasonable source, seeing as it was published by McFarland, and fairly recently too (in 2015). Go right ahead, mate. –Matthew - (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Drown Soda: Congratulations, it's now GA status! Lovely work. –Matthew - (talk) 12:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

"Double suicide"

"The double suicide [of both Jacqueline and her neighbor, Mimi] that ends the film is perhaps the most baffling, depressing moment in all horror films."

There is no mention in the plot section of a double suicide, or in any of the sources that I can see, apart from that quote, and I can't find those words in the cited source. I asked about this during the FAC, but there was no response.

I haven't seen the film, but I thought that in the final scene Mimi, who is terminally ill, decides to go out for the evening instead of staying at home sick, while Jacqueline, who has nothing wrong with her, decides to die. See here, for example: "The last image in the film is outside in the hallway. Sick Mimi walking down the stairs dressed for an evening out while you hear the sound of Jacqueline hanging herself behind the door."

Pinging Drown Soda and Dank. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Drown Soda and Dank, I'd appreciate a response. DS, I assume you've seen the film because you nominated it (you added that quote here), and Dan I assume it made sense to you because you copy edited and supported it. Here's where I asked about it during the FAC. [1][2] I haven't seen the film and can't find the last scene online, so I can't fix this. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, my time is limited these days. Ask around for help. - Dank (push to talk) 00:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Apologies; I believe the "double suicide" referred to by Peary is the suicide of Jacqueline that ends the film, and implied suicide of her neighbor, Mimi, who tells Jacqueline she is going to have one last night on the town before dying (ostensibly of suicide). I'm not sure who tagged Mimi as having a "terminal illness" in the plot, as it's never really elucidated; it's more implied that she is clinically depressed. Not sure how to reconcile this with Peary's analysis per se, as it's not patently stated in the film that Mimi committees suicide, though it is most definitely implied that she plans on dying that night as well. --Drown Soda (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Drown Soda: thanks for the reply. Is it clearly implied in the film that Mimi plans to die that night too?

My understanding (admittedly from a very brief look at sources) is that Mimi does the opposite: she decides to live while she still can. The contrast is: sick woman who is dying but decides not to run to death to meet it (although she may die very soon) versus healthy woman who decides to die needlessly. I wonder whether that secondary source made a mistake. Can you find another source that discusses two suicides, stated or implied?

Edinburgh Film Guild:

There is also, throughout the film, a running bit of business with a girl (Elizabeth Russell) living next door to Mary, who throughout the film is seen walking through the halls coughing. She seems like an extraneous character, just a bit of color on the sidelines of the plot, until at the end of the film she engages Jacqueline in a conversation, philosophically discussing mortality, illness, and what makes life worth living. It's a strangely moving moment, as surprising as it is beautiful, and the film's final image shows this previously anonymous woman dressing up for a night of fun, having decided to stop simply waiting for death and go out and live, if only for a single night.

SarahSV ^(talk) 02:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

This is actually really interesting; it's been a long time since I've watched the film from beginning to end, but this could perhaps be an error in Peary's review. The American Film Institute synopsis makes no mention of any suicide (implied or occurred) other than Jacqueline's, and is more in alignment with what you wrote (and what the Edinburgh Film Guild also states). I'm not sure how to solve this necessarily other than truncate the Peary quote? I can't find any other reliable sources that corroborate his interpretation. --Drown Soda (talk) 02:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

If you can't find a source to support Peary, perhaps that part of his quote should be removed. You could leave it as "It features bizarre and sinister characters (i.e. a one-armed female devil-worshipper who plays piano), smart, strong-willed women, and several scary scenes ..." SarahSV ^(talk) 02:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed it. I also removed a lot of the rest of the quote as it was describing the film rather than offering the critic's view of it, but feel free to restore as you see fit. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)