Talk:Murders in the Rue Morgue (1932 film)

Murders in the Rue Morgue (1932 film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: January 21, 2021. (Reviewed version).

Film: French / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the French cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Horror Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Cinema Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Plot summary problem

The plot summary currently states that "Mirakle ... abducts young virgin women and injects them with ape blood, in order to create a mate for his talking sideshow ape Erik". This badly mangles the most outrageously pre-code aspect of the film. Mirakle injects them with ape blood, not to "create" a mate for Erik, but to test their biological compatibility with Erik. The "mixing of the blood" he is after is not the literal one actually shown, but the figurative one for which that phrase was a period euphemism. His plan is to find a compatible virgin ("Will my search never end?") and sexually couple her with his ape. The resulting progeny will enable him to "prove [man's] kinship with the ape" (and therefore the theory of evolution), as he told his hostile audience he would do in the tent show scene.

Apes ravishing women in the jungle are a titillating feature of more than one lurid pre-20th century piece of "literature" and the meaning would have been clear enough to many viewers of the film in 1932, as it was clear enough to the several later commentators who have mentioned it in print. However, I have no proper citable refs for those sources at hand, and at least one respectable cit will certainly be required to sustain a revision of the plot summary per the above. Is anyone out there better equipped and up for the task? 66.81.241.72 (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. From this [1] source, which, unfortunately like several outstanding online sources for classic film scholarship, is a blog and therefore verboten per strict WP criteria for citation, some typical commentary: "It is hard not to conclude that despite what we know of Mirakle’s previous experiments, he intends to prove his theories by making Camille the recipient of something other than merely Erik’s blood. Otherwise…why all the emphasis upon how much Erik likes Camille…?"; " [...] the censors [...] were also outraged by the implications of Mirakle’s plans for Camille, which apparently they interpreted the same way we do." 66.81.240.90 (talk) 12:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Murders in the Rue Morgue (1932 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 18:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments later in the week. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 18:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Basic stuff and comments

Change the uses of [[Leon Ames (actor)|Leon Ames]] to simply [[Leon Ames]]

Done. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Change all uses of the book "Universal Horrors" to either Universal Horrors or "Universal Horrors".

Changed Universal Horrors to italics as its a book. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead

Miton Carruth → Milton Carruth per the reference used.

Done. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Articles (examples 1 and 2) usually have the premiere location, (in this case, the RKO-Mayfair Theatre) after the first date in the infobox, and (United States) after the second.

Done. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some characters in the first paragraph have the actor's name right after they are mentioned, but others do not. Try to be consistent.

I've changed this so they all match. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A good lead section has a good premise that doesn't spoil the entire plot of the film. To accomplish this, simply remove the sentence starting with "Dupin proves his innocence".

Done. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of the date February 21, 1932, in the lead?

I mean, do we need to? I think it's ok how it is. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plot and cast

The plot changes from using the name "Pierre" to using "Dupin" to describe the same character. Fix this.

Now says Pierre consistently. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"deliver it to Pierre the next day" → "deliver it to him the next day"

Done. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remove (D'Arcy Corrigan) per consistency with the rest of the plot section.

Done. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The actors who portrayed the "Italian Alberto Montani, German Franz Odenheimer and a Danish man" should probably be mentioned in the cast list.

Done. They are thankfully within the Universal Horrors source as well. As is the Ape, so I've removed the unique source for it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Production

Move the third reference after the sentence ending with "did not begin until 1931" to after the comma following "March 1930". Additionally, merge the other two references into a single citation titled "Weaver, Brunas & Brunas 2007, pp. 47-48."

Done. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Frankenstein was in production" → "Frankenstein was in pre-production" or "Frankenstein was in preparation".

Done. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mention the fact that the studio dropped Melford as director once Florey was available for leaving Frankenstein.

From my readings, its not clear that's exactly the case. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Put "a lack of sex appeal" in quotations in the article.

Done. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the two citations after "murderer spoke" to a single citation titled "Taves 1987, pp. 137-138."

Done. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing with the two references after "numerous characters". Change to a single citation titled "Taves 1987, pp. 138-139."

Done. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"..." → "[...]"

Done. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Release

Combine the two citations after "1949" to a single one titled "Rhodes & Kaffenberger 2016, pp. 113-114."

Done. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

"Andre Sennwarld" → "Andre Sennwald"

Done. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Link "The National Board of Review Magazine" to National Board of Review.

Done. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Try removing some quotes from the review by Patrick Legare per WP:RECEPTION.

I just cleaned up the quotes here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the following: "The authors also said: Entrenched in a style which condemned it as a relic before its time, Florey's experiment has come to be regarded as a cinematic barrel of spinach that even the most jaded fan finds hard to swallow. Beyond its vulgar excesses and inspired theatrics, however, lurks a daring full-throttled-Poe inspired thriller couched in a darkly sinister aesthetic all its own" per WP:OVERQUOTE.

Done. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also remove the following per WP:OVERQUOTE: ", and said; "Depending on the disposition of the individual viewer, the 'feeling of dreamlike unreality' can go either way, to describe an 'oneiric masterpiece' or just plain incompetence".

Done. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

Remove the "!" after "haunt me".

Done. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The Raven and The Black Cat" → "The Black Cat and The Raven"

Done. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the two citations after "deranged scientists" to a single reference titled "Heller-Nicholas 2020, pp. 7-8."

Done. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

Archive all archivable sources.

Done now. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Link the American Film Institute in the last two references.

Done. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overview

GAN table

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Notes

@Andrzejbanas: This article is in great shape but could use some small adjustments. I have just finished adding most, if not all of my notes for this review, so feel free to add comments and message me back. I hope I can promote this article to GA-status really soon. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 23:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I think i've addressed everything @Some Dude From North Carolina:. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]