Jump to content

Talk:A Serbian Film/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Interpretation

I know some people haven't been able to connect the dots so I am moving the interpretation from above here along with more clarifying comments .

Vukmir's character is based on the well known Director Srdan Dragojevic . He was trained as psychologist , went to a foreign country and when he came back to Serbia he started to make movies catered to the foreign market . His movies are funded by the pro-western Serbian government . The actor who plays Vukmir , Sergej Trifunovic , was fired from one of Dragojevic's last movies ( see Dragojevic's wiki ) and Srpski Film is on one level a revenge on Trifunovic's part .

The checkered floor , the man with one eye , alice in wonderland , right hand shake are all taken from New World Order , Illuminati conspiracy theory . See for example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9cnk5SqwBo (NWO = New World Order). The one eye above the pyramid is on the U.S. Dollar bill and represents the Eye of Horus ( Horus' left eye was pulled out by the God Set ). Conspiracy theory is very popular in the Balkans . There is a Serbian video on youtube called Digitalni Andjeo Zig Zveri ( Digital Angel Mark of the Beast ) . Among the many things discussed there are RFID technology that will allow world corporations to insert a bug ( digital angel ) under employees' skin for monitoring purposes , that the Serbian 3 fingered salute is actually Illuminati symbolism and that everyone should stock up on "rye" to prepare for the coming of the AntiChrist . The New World Order is alluded to in some of the statements made by the makers . There is for example the "politically correct facade of the New World" and also this quote by Radivojevic : "In the film, the hero is also a victim in a way because he is not at the top of the pyramid ." (http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/interview/638) Radivojevic is referring to Vukmir's remark to Milos that only Milos is not the victim . In the film , Milos represents the Serbian government . Milos is not the victim because he is the government but there is someone higher than him in the hierarchy .

  • To understand some of the dialogue in the movie , you have to have some knowledge of the political situation in Serbia . In Serbia there is currently a pro-western government that was installed about 10 years ago .
  • Milos says "I dunno , I’m a little tired of cameras and f******." This one is obviously about the civil wars . Cameras are referring to the world news cameras .
  • Vukmir : "You’re also tired of h****** scum any time your family needs dough. Kissing some wretched c**** with the same lips you’ kiss your kid". The "scum" is referring to foreign politicians .
  • Vukmir says : "Do you know what is proof that there is art in pornography? You , Milos . Your sense of handling a woman , your rhythm , of exhausting her , your talent to humiliate her , and then , when she is reduced to dog-s*** , to win her back ." More biting sarcasm . This is saying you exhausted NATO , humiliated NATO ( shot down stealth , minimal damage to Serbian equipment etc. ) but later you just let her back in .
  • Milos to his wife , "I love you , i was just f****** them" . "Them" is Croatia and Bosnia . But he loves the west/capitalism .
  • Marko watches video of Milos and says "Look at him servicing all of them , one , two , three" . One , Two , Three = EU , USA , NATO . ( note : translated "all three of them" )
  • Vukmir : "This whole country is a bunch of kids discarded by their parents ." Here is why the movie is set in an orphanage . The people have been abandoned by their government ; the government is busy looking after their own privileges and wheeling and dealings .
  • The kids represent the people in Serbia . See how Petar hits Milos on the head with the balloon police stick .
  • The act Milos performs on the one-eyed man is a play on the Serbian vulgar phrase "I will F you in the eye."
  • Vukmir : "it is an honor to shake the right hand of such an artist of fck". The word "right" wasn't translated in the subtitles . Vukmir also says , "Right hand is the sex center in any man . It is a direct line between your brain and cock."

The primary thing to grasp is that this movie is a parody of the postwar Serbian film industry and government . Spasojevic and his crew are for the most part talking and acting through Vukmir and his crew , creating the film they want to make . There is a lot of humour in the movie and if you don't see the humour in a dialogue or scene , you probably didn't understand it .

"The films that preach and enforce political correctness are the dominant form of cinematic expression today. Nowadays in Eastern Europe you cannot get a film financed unless you have a pathetic and heartwarming 'true story' to tell about some poor lost refugee girls with matchsticks, who ended up as victims of war, famine and/or intolerance. They mostly deal with VICTIMS as heroes, and they use and manipulate them in order to activate the viewer's empathy. They make a false, romanticized story about that victim and sell it as real life. That is real pornography and manipulation, and also spiritual violence -- the cinematic fascism of political correctness. We can freely tag these pictures as compassion-porn..."

The makers of srpski film are frustrated that they can't make the movies they want to make . They are saying to the Serbian government , "OK so you only want to make movies about war criminals and victims ? We can play that game too . Except we are going to turn things upside down ." And they are having a little fun by making the Serbian government ( Milos ) help them .

The writer Radivojevic calls Serbian cinema "...pathetic state financed films made by people who have no sense or connection to film, but are strongly supported by foreign funds." Radivojevic is directly talking about Srdan Dragojevic , the director Vukmir is based on .

The war widow . I am going to leave out my thoughts on the war widow until and if I can figure out something more precise but it is fairly clear that she represents the decay of postwar society and a political entity ( as most of the women in the film are ) .

The way the war widow is killed is a Satanic ritual of the Illuminati . It is mentioned in the book "The Illuminati Formula Used to Create an Undetectable Total Mind Controlled Slave". In that book is also mentioned "Alice in Wonderland programming".

Newborn porn . You are exploited as a commodity by government and are a victim of the monetary system the day you are born . Money is the root of all evil etc . Newborn porn also = "New World Order" . Pedophilia is all too often in the news in Serbia and this scene is definitely making a statement about that . Here Spasojevic is saying to the Serbian government "you wanted victims didn't you ? How do you like newborn porn then ? How come you don't get it ?"

The scene where Milos unknowingly rapes his son . Here Spasojevic is showing "our molestation by the Serbian government." His brother Marko represents the state security . It has been in the news that the Serbian state security was in cahoots with the CIA during the 90s . Marko wants a little piece of the action though too , he doesn't get as much as his brother . This scene as you can tell is mostly farce and another slap in the face of political correctness .

The ending family suicide . Milos has had enough of capitalism . Think of any violent change of a political system ( in this case probably another war with NATO ). But it doesn't matter because the next government/system is the same garbage all over again and another fascist propaganda film crew is again at work . Think also "history is written by the victors." So you are f**** the day you are born and you are f**** even after you die . It is all controlled by the secret elite . The film is very anti-government .

Layla represents kosovo . She was Milos' last costar . Their act took place in Serbia's back alley . Marko : "she has a new rich provider."

There is a brief moment when Milos looks at Marko where it is insinuated that Milos is gay . This is a subtle reference to the gay rights and gay parade implemented by the Serbian government . Srdan Dragojevic has also just finished a film about gay rights ( The Parade ).

Milos looks and can talk Swedish . This is making a statement to the effect that the Serbian government "are not one of us."

Marija : "That's just a cartoon for adults." Spasojevic/Radivojevic :"We can freely tag these pictures as compassion-porn, made to elicit lowest form of sympathy and compassion and therefore cheapen national, political and personal tragedies." The films Milos made are a metaphor both for the wars and the films made about them .

Vukmir : "Rare kind of Monks put seven adult he-goats into a shed during summer ." This is all occult satanic stuff . The number 7 is well known and the he-goat is Pan/Baphomet worshiped by the masons . (http ://freemasonrywatch.org/baphomet.html) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmmm54 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The old-fashioned opening credits with the accordion music are a reference to the spate of period piece movies and tv series such as Ivkova slava (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0402493/) , Zona Zamfirova and Ranjeni Orao . There are many more ; period piece movies are very popular in the balkans .

Milos' birds and the bees talks with his son . This is also making a statement that modern films dealing with war themes actually foment war . Petar : "like a family, travelling." = Like an army , marching .

Some more relevant quotes from the makers : "We couldn't get any Euro from any cultural institution in Serbia, any official institution, any funds, or any European funds, of course – because this film deals with tough and real problems that are all around us, and unfortunately we decided to, let's say, face the beast of our own times." http://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/feature.php?id=848

Vukmir is "an exaggerated representation of the new European (means European Union = EU) film order . (http://www.electricsheepmagazine.co.uk/features/2010/12/05/a-serbian-film-interview-with-srdjan-spasojevic/)

A Serbian Film is also parodying the artsy style of the director Goran Paskaljevic . See his movies Midwinter Night's Dream and Cabaret Balkan , both allegories of the Balkan Wars .

There is no parody, it is simply made to be as shocking as possible. Read clinically and ignoring the shocking features the plot is nonsensical, pointless and has all the quality of an 11 year old cramming "twists" into a home made movie thinking its how a good film is made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.14.33.237 (talk) 06:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A Serbian Film. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:14, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on A Serbian Film. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Plot

Undid removal of plot by apparant distributors/filmakers. 124.197.51.38 (talk) 03:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Good job. The plot should stay, of course. The filmmakers editing it out is a pretty blatant conflict of interest violation, I would think. Besides that it is also completely illogical. Are they somehow stopping movie goers from telling their friends the details of the plot before going to see it? Somehow I doubt it. Millahnna (talk) 08:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Not a valid reason to remove the summary. It's not like Wikipedia is adding the whole film script to articles. Mike Allen 08:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
At a guess, i'd say they were trying to maintain the shock value of the movie. And god, it's shocking. Dizzizz (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

This article is wholly inappropriate for inclusion in a serious encyclopedia. The film exists yes. It should therefore be covered - yes. Its subject matter is way beyond contorversial - it should therefore be covered. It's sunbects are taboo, upsetting to most people and still all this should be covered. But a textual description of everything that happens in the movie is this case is grossly unfair to readers who wish to avail themselves of the knowledge about this film without having to be told about people gouging eyes out and inserting sex organs into the resulting socket. i do not CARE if the film does this - the film is a work of shameless exploitation which has been banned in sensible and rational countries right around the globe. Seeing Wikipedia as a way to circumvent this ban by relaying the film's twisted ideas in text is frankly as exploitative as the movie itself. You are film buff - fine. There are others here too. Please moderate this article into a description of what the film IS, not a blow by blow account of the seriously sick things it portrays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.241.133 (talk) 11:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

To the person who commented above: I disagree with you. Whether or not something is disturbing is of course up to each individual, as each person is different, but Wikipedia is meant to be an uncensored source of information if I remember correctly. You do not get to decide for this entire website that they should not include something just because you don't like it, and you do not get to decide for everyone else what is and is not appropriate. I don't know what it is with this surge of people thinking that because something personally offends them that they get to chose to take another person's choice to do it away. If people do not want to know the details of the film then I would argue to stay away from the page. You do not get to control another person's freedom to expression. I am a rape survivor myself. I have no personal issues with this kind of content, but at one point for about a solid three years I actually did, so that's like if I went to, say, a Wikipedia page about a rape hentai and then got mad at everyone who manages the page for daring to talk about what goes on in the hentai. That is not okay. They can right what they want. We are the ones that make a conscious decision whether or not to read it. I don't mean for this to sound like an attack at all, just that you are going to have a very hard time on the internet and off the internet if you try to be in control and use the "it's triggering so it shouldn't exist" card every sing time something offends or upsets you or someone else. I do think education on triggers should be taken, as we lack education on it. But helping people with triggers is not a reason to go forcing everyone into censorship. During the time I was triggered by a lot of things such as this film, I stayed away from it. If I saw it, maybe I would remark but eventually I realized that it's their right to expression. If it is upsetting, you stay away. It's gonna sound messed up, but it is not the rest of the world's responsibility to move aside for your triggers and so on. It's not fair that we have to have these triggers, but it's not fair to the world to say "So because it's unfair to ME I get to take some of your things away because you have it more fair than me now" or something. It just doesn't work like that. I do not mean this as harshly as it sounds, and I don't mean to be on your case. I am merely trying to explain in as many different ways as possible.107.0.223.236 (talk) 06:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Many Thanks for the courteous reply to my concerns. You raised important points of course, however in reply to your "you do not get to decide for this website that they should not include...." - well, I don't think that I ever suggested that I did. Nor did I embark on any changes to the entry, no editing took place influenced by my own opinions. I think that I clearly state TWICE that the film is clearly something that needs covering and I still hold this to be so. My comments were on the detailed blow by blow account of the plot line. These are somewhat gleefully presented by the original writers. and are not presented in a way that are pertinent to any kind of research. They are as useless as having detailed real-time and graphic descriptions of hardcore sex scenes, the writing of which would in effect be pornography.. and it is my belief that the article presented here is text sado-porn and does not belong here. I maintain that the plot outline should be far more along the lines of ".... where under the influence of drugs he is filmed partaking in acts of extreme sexual brutality, infanticide, necrophilia and amputation......" I'd also like to point out that your suggestion that {one should not read Wiki articles if one can't cope with them} (paraphrase) is rather seen from a view as if all personal visits to Wikipedia are made for leisure. I was visiting this page because one of my students had referred to the film in her work. I needed to find out where the information had been gathered on a film I knew nothing about. I found that the student was guilty of plagiarising this article, in many cases verbatim. The external assessors of the work had raised "student safeguarding" flags as a result of the "disturbing content" copied from this article and I had been forced to check this in accordance with college/institutional and government policies in place to protect young people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.16.227.92 (talk) 09:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm not the one who commented above, I just happen to have this article on my watchlist. Also, I haven't seen the film. The plot section is currently about 947 words long, where it should be between 400-700 per WP:FILMPLOT, so unnecessary details could absolutely be trimmed, but it seems like it could be challenging to figure out what details are pertinent to our understanding of the plot, without removing details just because it is potentially disturbing or offensive. For instance, if it is a significant plot point that a main character is caught masturbating and is beaten up by thugs, then it seems like we shouldn't gloss over the fact that he was masturbating. In contrast, some details may not be pertinent, like noting that someone was bludgeoned to death specifically by a sculpture, as opposed to just saying they were bludgeoned to death. The article isn't protected, so you could take a stab at trimming it if you were so inclined, (no pressure) and my main suggestion would be to try to be as objective as possible, which I'm sure you would be, because you sound like a smart person. I don't think the current version reads like pornography, since it doesn't seem to be written to appeal to the prurient interest, or so the expression goes. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

...And it is called "The Aristocrats"!

IMHO Plot needs to me more of an encyclopaedic summary and less of an "enthusiastically expressed outpouring". Currently it is 792 words long: the plot summary of The Godfather is only 963 words! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.214.193 (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Would suggest changing plot desc to: "Man screws corpse, own child." -- 4.153.81.187 (talk) 02:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Only if we can then add "All wackiness ensues." --Bobak (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced material

"According to film authors, it accurately depicts the way it feels to live in Serbia for powerless citizens, harassed by powerful people from governments and industries inside and abroad. It is also a potent comment on nature of exploitation, and it deliberately makes its viewers uncomfortable, complicit in the viewing of the horrors and making them feel dirty, exposing inherent hypocrisy. Although such topics have been explored in the movies such as Man bites dog or Natural Born Killers, the realism of the presentation enters the new area. The porn industry hinted in the movie does not exist in Serbia, but the realism works on a different level. Over the top violence and sexual content functions both as protest to the "terror of political correctness" (Slavoj Zizek), and as a reminder of the abuse Serbs were subject to (the Yellow house scandal with organ harvesting in Albania coincided with the release of the movie). However, these points escape causal viewer from the West, unready to face some tough questions about the world, that this film poses."

None of this has sources. And it is very POV. So, either provide sources, or it can't stay. Geoff B (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

In fact, references are in the text, and author claims are what this is about. For anyone who read a number of reviews knows that author claimed this to be a political allegory. Blank deletion of whole paragraph, with references, is deletion vandalism. ObodepmYWalls (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
For anyone who read a number of reviews knows - Irrelevant. Cite sources. Describing a content dispute as vandalism could land you in the shit, so I'd rein it in. Try and remain civil. Geoff B (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Sources are cited, you ignore them. Could add about the Zizek, which is important point, supported by authors, but there are numerous sources about what authors of the film said, one added at the beginning. Blank deletion of content not of your liking is deletion vandalism in fact. ObodepmYWalls (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC).
How on Earth could you possibly know how I feel about the content? Pretending you know how I feel is offensive and fails WP:AGF in this case. And you still have to cite sources, even if I love the content. Geoff B (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Geoff B above. Unsourced comparisons are original research. Dayewalker (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC).
I'm not saying the information in that paragraph is correct, but if it is or isn't, it should be quite easy to tell considering the preponderance of available sources. SilverserenC 09:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I concur with the others. Content needs to be verifiable. What can be obvious to one person is not obvious to another, especially when a topic recedes into history. The sources in the "Themes and message" section do not support the content. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree need sources but if you know Serbian politics and cinema , you will see the clear parallels in the movie . Vukmir's character is based on the well known Director Srdan Dragojevic . He was trained as psychologist , went to a foreign country and when he came back to Serbia he started to make movies catered to the foreign market . His movies are funded by the pro-western Serbian government . The actor who plays Vukmir , Sergej Trifunovic , was fired from one of Dragojevic's last movies ( see Dragojevic's wiki ) and Srpski Film is on one level a revenge on Trifunovic's part . That is just one aspect of the movie . I am going to go ahead and insert an interpretation section here over the next weeks . Ekaj1988 (talk)
This is all interesting, and I certainly don't doubt you, but Wiki's policy is "verifiability over truth". Has the director or anyone involved with the film discussed these parallels in any interviews? Have any critics brought these up? Those would certainly count as being reliable sources for inclusion.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Well , I will be placing the interpretation below here in the discussion . Personally I feel if one is able to show the parallels that should be enough . But all I will do is place my analysis here and I will leave the rest up to the wiki professionals . I don't think there is a single article on the internet that addresses the real content and meaning of the film . As for the backlash against the "terror of political correctness" mentioned above , I can site the makers' own words from http://aserbianfilm.co.uk/statement.html :
"...The films that preach and enforce political correctness are the dominant form of cinematic expression today. Nowadays in Eastern Europe you cannot get a film financed unless you have a pathetic and heartwarming 'true story' to tell about some poor lost refugee girls with matchsticks, who ended up as victims of war, famine and/or intolerance. They mostly deal with VICTIMS as heroes, and they use and manipulate them in order to activate the viewer's empathy. They make a false, romanticized story about that victim and sell it as real life. That is real pornography and manipulation, and also spiritual violence -- the cinematic fascism of political correctness. We can freely tag these pictures as compassion-porn..." and "Contrary to the peerless politically correct facade of the New World, it’s still a soulless devouring machine for killing every small freedom – of art and free speech – we have left, destroying everything different in its path." Ekaj1988 (talk)
Showing the parallels by itself and drawing the conclusion yourself is original research. Trust me, I find the rules frustrating as well, but you can only make an observation if it has been made outside of Wikipedia first. But the sourced material you quoted is fine for the article for that specific area. --CyberGhostface (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
More on political correctness : http://www.slobodnadalmacija.hr/Kultura/tabid/81/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/101831/Default.aspx . Interview in croatian . The headline says "Srdan Spasojevic : my shocking 'A Serbian Film' exposes the fascism of political correctness." payoff99

Reviews

I've removed a review [1] from musician William Bennett. To begin with, the link to the review is broken, and it seems to come from the musician's own blog. Glancing at his Wikipedia page [2] (Bennett isn't notable enough for his own page), Bennett doesn't seem to be mentioned as a movie reviewer of note. It certainly doesn't seem notable enough to be mentioned alongside reviews from the New York Times, IFC, Ain't It Cool, etc. Any thoughts? Dayewalker (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It was re-added without discussing or even fixing it. I removed it again. this just isn't notable enough to mention. Jarkeld (talk) 00:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually I did in fact reach out to Dayewalker concerning his removal several days ago and notifying him of my wish to discuss his edit and the subjective nature of it. Sadly no response was made, and Dayewalker choose to remove my message completely. So after a respectful, period I returned the review, only to have it removed again without notice or exchange! whats that all about?! :) when a issue has attracted the attention of several editor good form tells us to discuss with all parties before moving unilaterally. Otherwise that is how Edit-warring begins. Now I have reached out again to Dayewalker, yet have only heard from Jarkeld who has sent a brief warning not to blindly revedit others work without discussion, perhaps I should have had you contact Dayewalker in the fist place eh Jarkeld? Hopefully all involved will now have some healthy discussion before anymore ill-advised sweeping actions are made regarding the item.

Keep in mind, this is no longer solely concerning a particular review but how we communicate and respect each other as equal editors for the betterment of the project, or am I wrong? BespokeFM (talk) 01:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

To briefly explain, your original comments on my page gave no policy-based reason whatsoever to reinstate the edit. I deleted the comments as is my right. You reinstated the material without addressing the reason for removal, in fact your addition wasn't formatted correctly and removed other properly sourced material [3]. I re-removed it, and started a discussion on the talk page [4], which another editor has now joined in to agree with the removal of the section. You commented at my talk page, which I responded to [5] and told you that this discussion should take place on the article's talk page. You've had every opportunity to come here and make your case, I'm glad to see you've finally done that. Let's see if other editors agree with the removal of the review. If necessary, a request for comment can be filed for further opinion. Dayewalker (talk) 01:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Sadly I did respond to your reason for removal from the first, pointing out that your removal was abitrary and subjective in light of you accompanying edit comment. In fact it is rather humerous to think that you have subjectively damned a movie review, which is in essence a subjective act in its own. Even more importantly I asked directly for your discussion on the matter. Instead, you "as is my right" removed my request for discussion and ignored the attempt at discussion and finding consensus. So after waiting a respectful period for your comments/input I reinstated the material, as I told you I would, without any response from you regarding the matter. Which you revedited without any of the contact or friendly notice of the type I gave you.

Luckily for all concerned you have now chosen to open a discussion on the talk page, better late then never.

From your comments Mr. Bennetts review was Non-notable because of his profession and profile did not measure up to the reviewer from the New York Times, I will give you that for sure, but.... as active member of the arts who has maintained a steadily tended to and informative blog site for the past five years he does measure up to the other reviewers your arbitrary "non-noteable" review removal left unscathed. Mr. Bennett, has been reviewing films, books, and the arts on his site since 2006, take a look at his informative review of "aletheia" a remarkable documenty about Jacques Derrida from December 16 2006. In fact Mr. Bennett has been reviewing films on the internet as long as Mr. Scott Weinburg of "fear.net" has been. With Mr Weinburg's first online review being in the fall of 2006 as well. Or how does he measure up to Mr. Tim Anderson? well, Mr. Anderson has been blogging on the web-site "bloody-disgusting.com" but only since 2008. Now granted, "bloody-disgusting.com" really is the Ivy league of film review, Im sure Robert Ebert or Gene Siskel must wish they could have gotten their start at such a respected institution, yet Mr. Anderson has only been reviewing for that vaunted organization and on the internet since 2008 which means Mr. Bennett has him by a matter of years. Never mind the fact that Bennett has been involved and working in the arts, for decades, no just take the time to look at his practical and insightful reviews and suggestions on film, music, and literature that are updated regularly. Funny story, I knew nothing about William Bennett until just the past few days, in fact it was Dayewalker's off-handed revedit removal and its "non-noteable" comment that caught my eye, and has now lead me into the discovery a fascinating personage in Mr. Bennett. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BespokeFM (talk • contribs) 02:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Please source your accusation that Jarkeld and I "show a remarkable tendency to back each other up out of the blue," or strike it. I don't think our paths have ever even crossed. Dayewalker (talk) 02:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Now, now, calm down Daye! our paths have not crossed but to my eye yours and Jarkeld's have, but keep in mind that is purely my subjective view of the facts, subjectivejust as your "non-noteable" reason is subjective. but rest assured if my conclusion really offends you I would be happy to strike it in hopes that we can get on with the discussion I have been hoping for since I first saw your edit comment and got in touch with you.

With that in mind, what do you think about my argument concerning Bennett and the other reviewers qualification, or lack of qualification? what was you reason for pulling Bennett but leaving the others I mentioned? Did you find something in your pre-removal research of Bennett that your found especially damning? or was it that your were familiar with his music career, and felt that it in itself disqualified him from commenting on film? Has you view changed at all now that we know he has been a cultural critic for the last 6 years even while some of the other reviewers you left actually have pretty thin credits?

What do you and others think? should we put Bennett back in? or should we pull the others out? and if that is the case, then how do we judge what merits a "notable" reviewer? what metric do we use to gauge reviewers? and does that need to be applied to all other reviewers on Wiki? come on people these are some good questions, jump in here editors, remember we are all trying to make the wiki project the best it can be right?BespokeFM (talk) 03:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I've done the work for you, here's [6] the list of topics where our edits cross over. I'd appreciate it if you'd either point out our pattern of backing each other up, or strike your accusation.
To sum up, Bennett is not notable as a movie reviewer. He's a musician, writing about movies on his personal blog. He's not notable as a movie reviewer in any way that I can see. If Terri Nunn, Al Jourgensen, or Martin Fry wrote about the movie on their blogs, those wouldn't be notable either. Can you show Bennett's notability as a reviewer? Currently, we don't even have enough notability for Bennett to justify his own Wikipedia article, much less be quoting him as a movie reviewer just because he has a blog. Dayewalker (talk) 04:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Daye, daye, calm down. There is no need for you to be so agressive, its really not called for, we are all fellow editors here try and remember that, no one is out to get you, so relax.

Unfortunately, you have just restated your position that Bennett is "not notable" again, you already have said this in several forms, but all the same in substance, please address my other points in regards to "not noteable" I.E. what does "Noteable" mean? how do you define "non-noteable" and "noteable"? what about the other reviewers that you left in the article that have less on their record then Bennett, the two I gave you examples of that you left in the article? what is the metric that you suggest we use to measure what is and is not "noteable"? Do we need to remove reviews from other articles that do not measure up to your metric of "Noteable"? Should we remove the reviews of the other "non-noteable" individuals that you choose to leave be when you pulled the Bennett review? please get on with helping us answer those questions, be part of a real discussion, this is not about you so stop worrying about giving a inch and stop looking for a fight that is not there. Please, cant we work together? is it so hard?

In that spirit I will try to answer your question about supporting Bennett as a reviewer; taking just a hour to actually read through Bennetts 6 years of regular and well reasoned thoughts on myriad cultural subjects, and taking time to listen to his avant-guarde music gives a excellent profile of a artist with a insider view and decades old knowledge of the european arts scene, including litrature, music, fine art, cinema, and social art. His website entries speak well for him in regard to his analysis of works in many fields including Film. All of which are on par with or exceed the standards set by "bloody-disgusting.com" which you choose to retain because it was "noteable" enough for you.

You will be happy to see that I am removing my subjective conclusion about your fellow editor relationships that has seemed to cause you such concern that you were unable to address the points of the actual discussion. With it gone I am sure You and I and any other interested editor will be able to focus on this issue of "Non-noteable" and all its other attending effects. Cheers!BespokeFM (talk) 05:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm perfectly calm here, thank you for striking your incorrect assertion above. In my last comment I asked an easy question, can you show through some kind of sources that Bennett is notable as a reviewer? That's what this boils down to. I know you think he's notable, but just reading his reviews and saying "I like his work, he deserves to be here" isn't sufficient. As far as I can tell, he's not reviewing movies for any other media outlets, he's just writing on his personal blog. A non-notable person writing on their blog isn't sufficiently notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, otherwise every film's page would be endless.
If you can show his notability, please go ahead. I'm going to wait and see what other editors have to say based on the current discussion. Dayewalker (talk) 05:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Daye, please lets be serious, you keep asking me to make your argument regarding Bennett for you, perhaps because it is one that you cannot win, who knows? You keep saying Bennett is "Non-noteable" in fact I see that you have used that reason for other revedits you have made on other articles as well. Seeing as wiki itself has no definition for "non-noteable" and "Noteable" how do you define it? from here it looks like a very arbitrary term that you have yet to explain much less defend, that is just not good enough. If you are going to use "non-noteable" as a reason to remove the work of other editors, you have to be able to explain what it is, and how it is measured, otherwise you are just making these revedits based on you own taste and opinion, which is not allowed. Please be very specific, what is "Non-noteable" and what is "Noteable" and support it with sources.

And lets not forget, that you still have not addressed why if "Noteable" and "Non-noteable" is of such great importance to you, then why did you leave in the reviews of two other reviewers I pointed out for you, who have lesser media profiles and less time in the field then Bennett, not to mention all my other points that you continue to ignore.

Lets stop playing games and answer questions shall we? BespokeFM (talk) 05:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BespokeFM (talk • contribs) 05:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I thought you understood the terms here. Wikipedia absolutely does define what is and what is not notable. You can find the definition for notability of subjects at WP:NOTABILITY. I'm not sure if there's a separate noticeboard for film reviews, but there is also a noticeboard for further opinions on whether or not a source is reliable, you can find it at WP:RSN. Maybe one of those sites will help, feel free to open a discussion at the RSN board, or file an request for comment if you'd prefer. If you have any other questions about dispute resolution, feel free to ask them here and I'll try (or one of our other editors) to help you. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 06:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Dont go away now Dayewalker! since you have been kind enough to find this definition of "noteable" please show how Mr. Bennett fails it, and more importantly now please show how the other reviewers you chose to leave in didn't fail it. A demonstration of those reasons will put to rest any concern we may have that the initial removal of the Bennett review was arbitrary or rushed, and will assure other editors that you took the time to review all the reviewers before isolating and removing Bennetts review. Please also take the time to explain the use of the term "trivial" which you also have used in the removal of content in other articles most recently the blister in the sun article. I for one am concerned that "trivial" might be used as another blank check to justify arbitrary revedits and content removal, which I know you would hate to see happen as well. please look to my comments on the article's talk page for more on that.

Also, dont forget while I am looking over your new info, you can take the time to answer the other points from above that your seem to have forgotten to address again. Thanks! really looking forward to your answers!BespokeFM (talk) 06:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, no. I've given you the links, and I've asked one simple question you haven't answered yet that would answer quickly whether or not Bennett is notable as a movie reviewer. We can wait for other editors, or you can file a case at any of the places I've suggested above. If you feel the other sites in the article (or any other) aren't reliable, feel free to remove them. Before you do, please read about Wikipedia's Bold, Revert, Discuss] cycle to see how to handle it if another editor reverts you. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 06:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Gosh Dayewalker, I have answered you question, several times but I guess you just dont agree with it, good thing other editors will be able to help us decide eh?.

Yet I am a little concerned that you seem to not realize that you really have a responsibility to explain why Mr. Bennett's review is not "noteable" yet Mr.Weinburg's and Mr. Anderson's reviews are somehow "noteable" and therefore left in by you when you removed the Bennett review. The point to remember is you removed another editors content for that reason, that is why is falls to you to defend your reasoning to take something out and leave something similar in. While I think differently and reached out to you to discuss it unsuccessfully at first, under good faith your removal is still in effect while it is discussed for consensus.

And you cant go now, with the other questions on the matter you have not addressed at all yet. Im sure you realize a failure to actually defend your reasoning, is not really acceptable for a editor with your long service record, especially when a review of your many edits shows a really large number of revedits, undos, and block warnings on a daily basis.

And thanks for the offer, but I dont need to file a dispute or a case, because, we are working it out together here in public, and on our talk pages. As we both know the enormous amount of revedits and content removal, and blocks that you have overseen demands a high level of accountability, and luckily that can be found right here, in the simple discussion of why one review was removed and others similar were not removed. I really look forward to hearing your reasoning, for those choices! thanks!BespokeFM (talk) 06:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BespokeFM (talk • contribs) 06:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Since William Bennett isn't known as a movie reviewer and I'm not aware of any link between him and the film, his outlooks on the film aren't encyclopedic here. This has nothing to do with whether or not what he has to say is worthy as such, but I can't see how it would belong in the article, here on en.Wikipedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Then surely we must remove the reviews of the other 2 individuals who have a less notable standing then William Bennett as well right? If Bennett's postings dont merit use then obviously the others dont as well. So after we remove them, where do we go next? do we go through every movie entry on Wiki and Vet the qualifications of any reviewer who's material is used? No, I dont mean this in a sarcastic way, I just want to bring focus to the original issue, Why cut Bennett and leave the others? well it was because a editor recognized his name as a musician who's work he did not care for and therefore decided his reviews didn't merit use. If said editor had removed the other lightweight reviewers at the same time for their lack of standing it would have strengthened his position regarding the removal of Bennett for lack of "noteability" But he did not, which gave light to the lie that the real motivation for the removal of Bennett's review was in fact Bias against Bennett for the standing he had achieved as a Musician and performer, Which is hardly a defensible action. Which has been my point since the beginning: the briefest look at Dayewalker's initial revedit and later edit comments make it clear that it was biased and unfounded by any metric of "noteable", instead he was being dismissed because of the standing he had achieved in another field that was more widely known to the editor then the cultural reviews that Bennett had been making for over 6 years. This is a flaw that is shared by to many hardworking editors who feel there efforts somehow guilde their opinions with a veneer of indisputable right of way. It does not. Hard work, no matter how appreciated does not excuse personal slanting, bias and attempts to avoid accountability with the ghost threat of editor blocking for pointing it out.

Which leaves the question, have the involved editors learned anything? and who is going to remove all the reviewers on wiki that share the same level of "noteable" with William Bennett?

I have taken a lot of time to frame and write my entry here, so if any of the past involved editors or anyone else chooses to answer it I will have to insist that you answer all the items and challenges that it posits and NOT CHERRY PICK one or two and ignore the rest, as has happened numerous times thus far. That would not be a demonstration of good faith in discussion.BespokeFM (talk) 04:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Anderson is a reviewer from a site regarded as a reliable source for reviews. Weinberg is a prolific reviewer on a notable website. Bennett is neither. Jarkeld (talk) 05:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
What Jarkeld said sums it up nicely. BeSpokeFM, this discussion is centered around the addition of the Bennett material only. If you don't feel that some of the other film reviewers used here (and on dozens, maybe hundreds of other articles) deserve mention, probably the best place to start a discussion about that would be on WT:FILM, which is the talk page for Wikipedia's Film Wikiproject. The people in that project are very knowledgeable about films and the notability of reviews, if you're serious about this that would be the best place to start. Dayewalker (talk) 06:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
To add to Dayewalker's comment above mine, the film project actually keeps a repository of sources that we can use for film articles. Not all of them are going to be relevant to this film, but the folks who have gathered them are excellent at finding this sort of thing and may be able to help find more reviews to round out the reception section, if needed. Millahnna (talk) 06:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is laughable . What is important is what the director and writer says and not irrelevant opinions . I mean , what exactly constitutes an expert on this movie ? Do any of the people quoted on the front page actually understand or know anything about the movie ? Are they experts in Serbian politics and cinema ? They are just there to say whether they liked the movie or not . And somehow this is important ? This is the verifiable sources you are looking for ? What a waste of time and focus . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revethaw (talk • contribs) 17:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

So...

So if I even mention children and sex in the the same sentence I would get arrested but if I make a movie out of it I can get away with it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.172.99.15 (talk • contribs)

A work of fiction that involves pedophilia isn't illegal. Or else Robert Knepper and Philip Seymour Hoffman would be in jail right now.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add to these comments... I am deeply disturbed by the existence of this film, and by the existence of this Wikipedia article. Of course it must exist, but seriously... everyone reading this article.... this is seriously sick. What world do we live in? The further these boundaries are pushed the darker our world will become. Death, rape, and destruction--everything that was foreseen by our ancestors.... it is becoming a reality on such a scale that is quite frightening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.55.231 (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

"I am deeply disturbed by the existence of this film"

So what?

" and by the existence of this Wikipedia article. "

Do you object to the article about Auschwitz, too? That was FAR more disturbing because it was real.

"seriously... everyone reading this article...."

The reason I made this reply was mainly to ask about the above statement. What ABOUT "everyone reading this article...."? I'd very much like to see that phrase expanded into a sentence in a way that you wouldn't be ashamed of and wouldn't be call for action you'd agree is wrong.

" this is seriously sick."

But that's the point! It's not the film that's sick; it's the PC culture it's a parody of that is sick. The "empathy movement" started out noble, in the sixties—a reaction to husbands who beat up their wives and kids, and molested women at work with impunity. Then it morphed into the PC monster that stands over us. When I was a kid, I got called a "nigger". Then that became uncool—GREAT! But now if somebody calls me that, they committed a "hate crime" and go to jail ...for government-disapproved SPEECH.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
That's what this excellent film rebels against.

'What world do we live in?:

Earth.
Love it or leave it.

"The further these boundaries are pushed the darker our world will become. "

Suppressing other people's emotions and punishing their resentment of this suppression: THAT'S when the world becomes dark.

"Death, rape, and destruction--everything that was foreseen by our ancestors...."

You got it backwards, my occult-believing friend. FBI stats say there is LESS crime every year. The more centuries you look into the past, the more wars, death, rape, and destruction there is.
Indeed, Steven Pinker concurs.
- Aurelian Carpathia (talk) 01:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

"It is becoming a reality on such a scale that is quite frightening."

Only to those inclined to be frightened.
Dave Bowman - Discovery Won (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Reaction

Someone wants to keep imposing the "Reaction" section into the Interpretation section . Bjelogrlic is not offering an interpretation of the film but only his personal feelings/disgust with the Director . I don't know where this belongs ( if anywhere ) but it doesn't belong in Interpretation . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huh123 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

That someone is me and I'm not "imposing", I'm trying to contribute. I'm not really sure what your main beef is, here. Bjelogrlic is a major figure in Serbian and Balkan cinema and the fact that he had such a strong reaction to the film (and stated it publicly) is certainly worthy of mention.99.225.203.13 (talk) 04:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't have a beef except that it doesn't belong as a subsection of the Interpretation section . My opinion is that it should probably stay under Critical Reception . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huh123 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
The problem with listing Bjelogrlic's opinion of the film under Critical Reception is that he's not a film critic.99.225.203.13 (talk) 05:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Ukrainian language

Regarding this edit: is Ukrainian language actually used in this film in any way? --Djadjko (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

eraser Undone. --Djadjko (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Plot editing

JTBX, I understand your goal of streamlining the plots in film articles, but could you please add edit summaries to the changes you make? I'd have to question some of your editing choices, such as removing direct quotes from the film in exchange for some borderline OR descriptions, as well as adding certain details that may not be necessary (ie, the bald man doesn't really matter, there are plenty on anonymous crew and security members and it's fine if they stay as such). I'm sure we can come to a mutually agreeable compromise for a tight, concise and accurate plot section. If you want to open a discussion, please do so or let me know and I'll kick it off. --Williamsburgland (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, glad to see you interested. I don't leave edit summaries for minor edits and so on due to rush of editing. However I did incorporate your edits and explained my first edit of which the follow ups were an addendum of corrections. JTBX (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, glad to see you interested. I don't leave edit summaries for minor edits and so on due to rush of editing. I disliked the idea of having quotes unnecessarily, too much information which is not necessary on what is happening, so we should just leave it to "begin rape of the bodies". JTBX (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

However I did incorporate your edits and explained my first edit of which the follow ups were an addendum of corrections. . JTBX (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

"The footage continues as Miloš is led to Jeca's home where an elderly woman praises him for killing Jeca's mother and offers Jeca for sex to cement his status, explaining it as a family incestual tradition. Miloš refuses and escapes through a window to an alleyway, where he watches a girl pass by. He begins masturbating and is assaulted by a group of thugs before they are killed by Raša, who then takes Miloš back to a warehouse with Vukmir." The reason I included these details and the rigor mortis bit is because they are important to the films' interpretation of what happens. Also, while I appreciate you trying to trim the plot as I did yesterday from 900 words, it is below 700 now and within guidelines. Most of the information is summarised and details like Marija "wonders about her husband" are not needed at all in my opinion, nor the fact that Milos' son saw a film of his father, though I left it in there because it may have to do with the interpretation.--JTBX (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

So to start with, I question edits like this, where you undo an edit I made redoing one of your edits earlier, only to redo the edit (merging the paragraphs) later. It's edits like this, and the fact that you leave summaries for very few of your edits, including huge edits (example 2). This leaves little room for other editors to participate and give the impression that you'll accept no version but one approved by you.
Now, as to the current discussion, I still have a number of issues. To start, Marija's curiosity matters less I suppose, but her concern for their families finances is what drives the entire plot forward and is thus very notable, and is verifiable using the film as it's own source as Milos says this during the film. Further, your version states that Milos is 'ambivalent' towards the offer; this really isn't the right word; it implies he doesn't care, when in fact he does - he doesn't want to return to pornography but does out of concern for his family. Moving along to the second paragraph, I'm fine with it save for two or three minor grammatical fixes, I will perform those edits separately and make note in the summary. The third paragraph, in my opinion, is a mess. "Under this and Vukmir's influence" reads terribly - perhaps "beats and rapes... at Vukmir's direction" will work better and suit both of us. The tense her also needs to be changed (the entire section is present tense). The rigor mortis, on the other hand, has nothing to do with the plot, or even that scene as far as I can recall; do they even say that this is the reason they cut her head off? Regardless it's not a detail that needs to be included. Finally, the 'cement his status' thing makes no sense. Cement his status as what? Is this a direct or indirect quote from the movie or just a phrase that an editor decided to use. Further, the tradition piece is also objectionable in my opinion because the woman A) Never says it's a tradition, she just says her father raped her and B) Never identifies Jeca as a familial relation. She offers her as a virgin commune, again, the movie as a source backs this up. In paragraph four, I'm not sure if you meant to revert this (which is why wholesale reverts aren't generally a great idea, I think you've said this yourself), but as it stands the use of the word 'but' makes no sense. Either she tried to inject milos but he overpowers her, or she injects him and he overpowers her. Either way my version makes more sense. Finally, in the past paragraph there are a number of issues. The first sentence is troublesome in both versions because it must be in present tense but say the Milos remembers that he locked his wife and children in the basement earlier. I'll try for a version that accomplishes this goal. After this, we have a section that mentions cleaning up in your version. Why does this matter? The scene details the murder/suicide, that's really all that matters. When it comes to the movie's final scene, we don't need to identify the bald headed man anywhere in the plot; he's one of a few minor characters and isn't identified as 'Bald Headed Man' in the credits. Lastly, in the closing, the final quote, in my opinion wraps up the article perfectly and let's the movie tell the reader how it ends. Leaving it out is like saying in the movie Seven Morgan Freeman's character opens the box, but doesn't say what's in it.
Because you reverted my edits wholesale, I'm going to go through and apply these edits to each paragraph as I've outlined above. Again, I'm here to come to a consensus, so let's work on doing that. --Williamsburgland (talk) 01:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Oops, one more - in the third paragraph it says 'restrained with her teeth removed'. This doesn't convey that she his restrained and then her teeth are removed, so I've changed that as well. --Williamsburgland (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
First let me state there is no conflict and that the plot, instead of pointing those things out to me, was not written by me, but other editors and I merely cut it down from 900 to 700 without much of the sentences restructured. I agree with most of your edits and which is why incorporated them back in. There were just bits here and there. I left the "cement his status" bit because that is a long scene in which he is being wound up to agree to have sex with Jeca. Thought it may be relevant, and find it strange you would leave out details like that but include (still in my opinion) an unnecessary quote, we only need to know they will begin raping the bodies. And the rigor mortis is certainly in there, he continues raping after decapitation. I suggest we bring this discussion to the film talk page. JTBX (talk) 02:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I didn't mean to infer that there was a conflict, and I think I said (if not I meant to say) that certain thins were added by 'editors' and not necessarily you. I said 'your version' because it was your latest edit, and wasn't meant to indicate that you were responsible for all the content in there. Lastly, thank you for moving the entire discussion here; that will make it much easier for us to keep track of the discussion and for other editors to participate.
To your concerns, my question was regarding whether 'cement his status' is a direct quote... if not, why not just say what you've said - the old woman is trying to compel Milos to have sex with Jeka? On the quote, I think saying 'rape the dead bodies' is borderline OR; while a reasonable person comes to that conclusion watching the film, the quote comes directly from the film and frankly, leaves the reader to come to their own conclusion (the same way they would if they were watching the film). I'm open to further discussion on this of course as the version you prefer doesn't violate WP, this is just a matter of opinion at this point. Lastly, to the rigor mortis - in a real world context and very much outside this discussion rigor mortis takes hours to set in, which wouldn't effect the few minutes Milos spends having sex with the corpse, but in the context of the film, it appears the Vukmir says something about 'the magic of rigor mortis' (google search, I don't recall that line). I still don't think it has any bearing on the plot, but if you want to include is I'd ask that it be in reference to what Vukmir is saying as I don't think Milos did it for any reason other than being goaded by Vukmir's team while under the influence of the drugs.
See my individual responses to each of your notes below, and thanks again for working on this with me. --Williamsburgland (talk) 03:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Also, for the Last of the Mohicans edit which you pulled, again look back at it, I reincorporated the User's ideas back in, my main goal was to revert an IP's addition to the plot. I do not know yet how to revert multiple edits that is why. Same with yours I reincorporated your ideas back in. Apologies for not leaving editing summaries. --JTBX (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I didn't actually look at the edits or the history leading up to them, it just stood out as a large edit with no summary to back it up, which can make it hard for other editors to track changes, and can look suspicious if one is not familiar with the user making the changes - this is in no way a condemnation of you or an assertion on my part that your edits are suspicious though. No need to apologize, I just think, unless you're reverting obvious vandalism or making very minor changes. --Williamsburgland (talk) 03:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

But yes, I looked through your reasoning, its fine and I agree on virtually all your improvements now. Question about italicising the "virgin commune" part though? Also, again I didn't mean to revert your changes wholesale for no reason, as I know what that feels like. JTBX (talk) 02:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

This was an error on my part, I just fixed it. I didn't take it personally, and I understand where you're coming from, and I feel most of your changes to date on this article have been very helpful and constructive, particularly given the quality of the content you had to work with at the get go. --Williamsburgland (talk) 03:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yes the bald headed man. Well Milos sees him at the start, I thought it may be significant as he reappears with the film crew later. Sort of like the sinister individual or group working behind the scenes. JTBX (talk) 02:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand this point... can we perhaps tie him to a character in the film via the credits (on imdb or elsewhere)? My concern is too many anonymous figures in the plot, and we already need to use 'the masked man' description. --Williamsburgland (talk) 03:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Serbian_Film/Archive_1&oldid=1083505657"