Talk:Kind Hearts and Coronets

The plot thickens, and needs to be thinned.

It's way over the recommended limit of 700 words. I'll get to it later if nobody does it first. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Good work so far. One substantive error: Mama's letter to the banker does get a reply, which Louis reads: "'Madam, I am instructed by Lord Ascoyne d'Ascoyne to inform you that he is not aware of your son's existence as a member of the d'Ascoyne family.' Signed by his secretary." I changed "receives no answer" to "receives only another snub"; is that too vague? —Tamfang (talk) 05:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

-- Regarding the last sentence of the Plot section: "available for anyone to read." I am minded to slightly change this to end with an ellipsis to read: "available for anyone to read..."

Would this be acceptable to Wikipedians? CatNip48 (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

No. It's not encyclopaedic writing. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kind Hearts and Coronets/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ssven2 (talk · contribs) 07:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I will review this article. Thank you.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• "After her death Louis decides to gain revenge on the family" — Can be rephrased as "After her death Louis decides to take revenge on the family"?
• "to take the dukedom" — "dukedom" sounds like stardom and a tad informal. Might consider rephrasing it to "to take the title Duke of Chalfont".

• It's the formal name for a duke's title and office (as opposed to the territory, which is a duchy). Perhaps if I linked it to the Wiktionary definition? - The Bounder (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@The Bounder: That's good.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• "Its reputation has lasted well" — Sounds like something one would write in a novel rather than an encyclopaedia. Might say it like "Its has continued to receive favourable reviews over the years".

• I've changed it, but "reputation" is broader than reviews suggests: it is still a film popular with viewers too, and the BFI and Times listings both fall outside reviews.

Favourable reviews applies to everyone (From public, historians and reviewers) in general.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

...Rest tomorrow.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you: I look forward to your comments. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Here they are:

• "The Mazzinis were poor but happy until Mazzini died upon seeing Louis, his newborn son, for the first time." — After seeing the film, I couldn't understand this part. All that Guinness says is "They were poor, but they had five happy and harmonious years before my arrival sent Papa off to join the heavenly choir." Was it because he was hideous looking or just die out of happiness and excitement of having a child? Better to clarify on this. (Just a clarification, no need to make any changes)
• "Other filming was undertaken at Ealing Studios" — A better alternative for "Other filming"?
• "The film has been adapted for radio. In March 1965 the BBC Home Service broadcast an adaptation by Gilbert Travers-Thomas, with Dennis Price reprising his role as Louis D'Ascoyne Mazzini. in 1990, BBC Radio 4 produced a new adaptation featuring Robert Powell as the entire D'Ascoyne clan, including Louis, and Timothy Bateson as the hangman, and another for BBC7 featuring Michael Kitchen as Mazzini and Harry Enfield as the D'Ascoyne family." — Reference no. 39 does not mention the year of the radio adaptation and the 1965 as well as the BBC7 versions aren't covered in it too.

That's about it from me. Good job overall with the article.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 15:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you Ssven2. All these have now been dealt with. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 20:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I've had to undo a couple of the changes you made. Firstly, "Jr." is almost never used in British English; occasionally "the younger" as a suffix, but the title of Lord can act just as well in this case. Secondly, "Marrying beneath one's station" is the norm in British English too, rather than "status", which carries little meaning in social class terms. I'll make the necessary alterations in line with your comments shortly. Thank you once again, All the best, The Bounder (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) the film has a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes (here). Please see where it can fit. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

There is little benefit to RT (in general, but particularly in what is supposed to be encyclopaedic content). The film has been criticised, if even only slightly, so to claim "100%" is doing their readers a disservice. RT is also mostly useless on anything before 2000, particularly from something from the 1940s, and the use of contemporary reviews (and subsequent poll placing) is a much better indicator than a misguided and misleading percentage figure. I think there was a film project consensus not to include them on older films, although I am uncertain about that. - The Bounder (talk) 18:06, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I have not heard of a consensus against adding RT scores for pre-2000s films, but you may read Wikipedia:Review aggregators#Limitations before proceeding. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't intend to proceed with any addition of RT information, but the limitations shown on that link are very clear for this film. – The Bounder (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Bounder's statement on RT. Even though some contemporary reviews criticise the film, it still shows a 100% rating. Even in some cases, you can see mixed reviews like 2.5/4 being given a fresh rating sometimes and a rotten rating sometimes. Better let it be an external link.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• Ssven2, I think I have covered all your points, but please let me know if there are any I have missed, or if you would like further work on any aspect. Thank you once again for your comments so far. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 07:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall: Passed, my queries were met and solved by the nominator.

   Pass or Fail:

Congratulations.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• That is wonderful news, thank you very much. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 07:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Use of unreliable commercial site

286blue, stop edit warring for crying out loud. Your knee-jerk reversion also took out other constructive changes, so please do not blindly revert on such limited rationale again. There is also an additional problem that the page you are linking to contains copyright infringing material. Under the WP:LINKVIO policy, we cannot link to sites that infringe copyright. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 08:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Origin of name "Mazzini"

I wonder whether Louis was named after Giuseppe Mazzini? Grassynoel (talk) 13:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I assume that he was. Although it's curious that he has the French name, Louis, rather than the Italian equivalent, Luigi. PatGallacher (talk) 13:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

It's just a name. Any such conjecture is totally unsupported. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Who is supposed to be the ninth D’Ascoyne?

The BFI website says that Alec Guinness played nine assorted members of the D’Ascoyne clan and the article mentions this fact repeatedly. Other sources declare unanimously that there were only eight of them, and in the film itself (and in the “Cast" table in the article) I also find only eight. So are we reproducing a mistake of the BFI website here, or is there a ninth D’Ascoyne played by Guinness? Jossi (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

It has been suggested that an earlier Duke of Chalfont, played by Guinness, appears briefly in a flashback scene. However I think this needs proper sourcing before we can include it. PatGallacher (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Now I've found this passage in the BFI book on Kind Hearts and Coronets by Michael Newton (p.55): "In Kind Hearts, Guinness plays eight roles, as well as being the original for the portrait of the first Duke of Chalfont, and perhaps also for the first duke and his wife in effigy on the family vault." I think this can hardly be considered as acting or playing a role, so it should be safe enough to change "nine" to "eight" in the article. --Jossi (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The source doesn't even claim he played 9 roles, just that he "dressed up" as 9, which, assuming one of these is for a portrait, is certainly not playing a role. I'm going to change it to 8 (which is what it says later in the article anyway). -R. fiend (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. --Jossi (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Interesting info. The source does say 'played' nine roles. I've most likely seen the film over ten times at least, but cannot recall, myself. It was on Talking Pictures recently and will be on again soon no doubt. I shall watch it with a renewed interest next time.Halbared (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

There is another possible answer. As PatGallacher has indicated above, in the scene when Louis’ father, the opera singer, performs at Chalfont castle, there is a short shot (about five seconds at 7:21) showing the ducal family (Louis’ mother and her parents) sitting stiffly on the sofa listening and her father falling asleep. Her father, the old duke, could very well be Alec Guinness, too, though the scene is too short and static to be absolutely sure. Accordingly, in Charles Barr’s book "Ealing Studios" from 1979, Guinness’ roles are listed as "Ascoyne d’Ascoyne / Henry d’Ascoyne / Canon d’Ascoyne / Admiral d’Ascoyne / General d’Ascoyne / Lady Agatha d’Ascoyne / Lord d’Ascoyne / Ethelbert, Duke of Chalfont / the old Duke“ (p. 189 in the US edition), whereas George Perry’s "Forever Ealing" from 1981 omits the old duke. If this is indeed Guinness’ ninth role, it was obviously not credited or part of the official promotion but a fact found out later by an astute film historian. --Jossi (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

the family tree

In the archived talk page no one seems to mention that Louis kept a family tree on the back of a painting of Chalfont Castle above the fireplace in his bedroom where he kept track of who has died and whom he has murdered. We just need a sharper blow up of those scenes, one of which appears half way down this page. http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDReviews20/kind_hearts_and_coronets_dvd_review.htm Ethelred is in the lower left corner next to his wife Mary, 2nd daughter of Henry Hollington, 5th baron of Angleford, and Agatha appears to be his sister. Kasadad (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

The reader doesn't need to know the exact kinship between Louis and his victims, only that they are heirs standing in his way. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)