Talk:Quest for Fire (film)

	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 Canadian cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the French cinema task force.

Archives

Index

Archive 1

Why is this article tagged?

What's wrong with it? Zomputer (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still no answer? Zomputer (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need for more sources

A lot of the article is not cited. Zomputer (talk) 07:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who says this film was set in Europe?

The fact that they walked to Africa suggests it was in the middle east. Zomputer (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it the appearance of the characters? They look european?Zomputer (talk) 12:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They encounter woolly mammoths and saber toothed cats, as well as a cave bear. Those animals were not African, and there were no humans in the New World at that time, so it places them in Eurasia.73.168.225.117 (talk) 02:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Section headed 'Historical accuracy"

What moron decided to discuss the 'historical accuracy' of a film about pre-history?

(hashtag)wikiplebians

please sign your remarks with four tildas (HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)) HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed

In the movie companion, which I unfortunately don't have anymore, the Ulam were described as primitive homo sapiens. The hairy Wagabu were described as plundering Neanderthals.

The marsh scene in the film's opening was filmed around Owen Sound, Ontario (or thereabouts). Similar to the story line, the weather was cold and miserable. The actors were allowed to remain cold and miserable to give realism to their characters. Slight Smile 15:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What does the actual book describe the tribes as? It does seem strange that they would depict two groups of Neanderthals so differently. FunkMonk (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "the actual book" - the 1911 Belgian novel? I know my (clear) memory about the Ulam and Wagabo from a movie companion book years ago doesn't constitute reliable source but we still need reliable sources to say that the movie depicts the Ulam characters as Neanderthal.

I don't remember what it said about Kzamm and Ivaka. If I were to guess I would say Kzamm were also Neanderthal and Ivaka also Sapien in obviously in different ways from Wagabo and Ulam. Dunno. Slight Smile 21:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I mean the novel, which is probably the main authority. The companion book would probably be ok to cite, if we knew which edition of the film it came with, or something like that. Also, as someone asked about the location it is supposed to be in, the presence of both woolly mammoths and Neanderthals means it can only be somewhere in Eurasia. There were no woolly mammoths in the Middle East or Africa, and no Neanderthals in Africa. FunkMonk (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm watching the "making of" now, and the director says the "main tribe" are primitive Homo sapiens, and that the hairy guys who attack them are Neanderthals. So it appears our article is original research. FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While probably still not properly sourced, I'll go ahead and make the changes which is still better than what we established as the incorrect version.

Also worth noting that the film is based on a 1911 understanding of prehistoric times which is probably not scientifically correct. Slight Smile 16:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, because the the hairy guys seem like some earlier hominid rather than any recent one.73.168.225.117 (talk) 02:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reading some reviews on Amazon, it seems the film is rather loosely based on the book, and the names of the tribes were invented for the film. So I wonder whether some of it is just "artistic license". FunkMonk (talk) 05:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still confused about that. The french and german versions of this article are stating the Ulam as Neanderthal and the Wagabu as Homo erectus. Which makes much more sense, storywise. If both the Wagabu and the Kzamm tribes are Neanderthals why they don't look related? Like the Kzamm and the Ulam do. And the Ivaka are the only tribe looking like Sapiens. However I can't find an accurate source for that. 31.17.68.219 (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles were probably just based on this one. The extra materials on the DVD directly contradicts any of these claims, so we would need some pretty solid sources to state otherwise here. FunkMonk (talk) 08:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and fix it the definition as I agree there are enough sourced material to define the Ulam as homo sapien and not neanderthals even as the change was reverse at some point. Which is weird because even the section "Scientific accuracy" mentions the Ulam as homo sapiens. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned, the understanding of just what Neanderthals were, was likely misunderstood by the author of the novel, and possibly even by screenwriters. The opening shot of Ron Perlman (his make-up and clothing) pretty solidly shows that whatever they were going for, it was likely closer to our current understanding of Neanderthals, than anything else. (Not only prosthetic brow-ridges, but even attempted to de-emphasize the actors' chins.) (And they *are* clearly "cavemen", almost synonymous with neanderthals.) (Also to point out, that Neanderthals may still be considered as archaic Homo Sapiens, and even more likely to be classed as such in the 1980s; Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.) Drsruli (talk) 07:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It also occurs to me that although it is unlikely the Neanderthals ever co-existed with ape-men (as mentioned in the article), we can imagine that Homo Erectus in Asia did encounter some very large (likely much more peaceful) apes. (And now that I write this, I recall that Piers Anthony represents such a sequence in one of his novels.)Drsruli (talk) 07:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trailer Park Boys

The section on pop culture references or whatever, on this article spells Sam's name wrong, it's Losco, not Losko. Also it's not Bubbles who calls Sam "Quest for Fire," it's Jim Lahey who asks Sam "... you'll feel the heat! Remember heat? Quest for Fire?" A bot undid my edits, so change 'em, whoeever can.

Mount or Rape?

Regarding Special:Diff/1162606506/1162717344 .. two books that interpret it as rape:

-- GreenC 21:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some more sources that describe it as rape.

Hendricks, Michael (1983). "Quest for Fire". Cinéaste. 12 (3). Cineaste Publishers, Inc.: 45–46. JSTOR 41686187. Progress is also the central issue for the love story betwen Naoh and Ika. Naoh's first romantic encounter with Ika takes the form of a brutal rape. She leaves him, and he realizes how much he loves her. When they are reunited, rape is replaced by caress.
Then there’s the question of sex. This being a tale of primitive man, we don’t get a lot in the way of tender loving romance; perhaps unsurprisingly, there are a fair few moments here which can only be classed as rape scenes.
page 73

— Isaidnoway (talk) 23:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My first argument for why the term "rape" shouldn't be used, is - and I've already said this several times - is that the word "mount" is used for another character's attempt at copulation, just before the so-called "rape", when it just as easily could *also* be read as an attempt at "rape". Both attempts might look violent and nonconsensual to our modern eyes. Why should only the second attempt be considered "rape"? The phrasing is very confusing. Either "rape" for both attempts or "mount" for both attempts. It's very subjective to use different words for two acts that are pretty similar in their depiction.

My second argument for why the term "rape" shouldn't be used, is because it is anachronistic. The most relevant term for the problematic concept here might be "presentism", and you can read more about it at the provided link, but I'll also quote a part of the article:

In historical writing, the most common type of anachronism is the adoption of the political, social or cultural concerns and assumptions of one era to interpret or evaluate the events and actions of another. The anachronistic application of present-day perspectives to comment on the historical past is sometimes described as presentism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anachronism#In_academia

As for sources calling the act anything other than rape:

There's a much more objective synopsis found on IMDb:

[1]https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082484/plotsummary/?ref_=tttr_ql_stry_2

Relevant passage, which takes nuance into consideration:

That evening around the fire, the sexual tension is think. Amoukar makes a try for Ika, but she appeals to Naoh, who warns off Amoukar and--a fast healer--promptly mounts her himself, despite her screams and struggles, though the brief interlude seems to conclude in mutual satisfaction.

Prehistoric Humans in Film and Television by Michael Klossner, page 121:

"At night Naoh has intercourse with Ika from behind."

Also, the same author refers to a previous sex scene - without apparent "consent" - as "copulation".

The very well-written entry on QfF continues to page 128, and doesn't use the word "rape" once, when speaking of the sexual encounters in the film.

[2]https://books.google.se/books?id=65QdBgAAQBAJ&hl=sv

Fire in the Stone: Prehistoric Fiction from Charles Darwin to Jean M. Auel (2009)

On page 90, delves into the sexual content of the movie and shines some light on Ika's reaction to Naoh's brutish way of copulation:

"When Ika shows Naoh the missionary position (his tribesmen know only to take women animalistically from behind) the scene plausibly conveys how intimacy might have been transmitted to men by exogamously acquired women."

On a side note, the term "animalistic" is key here; we would NOT necessarily describe sex between animals - which might look nonconsensual to us in 2023 - as "rape".

[3]https://books.google.com/books/about/Fire_in_the_Stone.html?id=g8gofQCPzOUC

"The Discovery Of Love In The Caveman Drama 'Quest For Fire'" by David Duprey (2017)

Lengthy text on the whole movie, included is the scene in question in this "talk" thread. "Rape" is not mentioned once, and please notice how much more nuanced it makes the text. Especially because of its contextuliazation of pre-historic intimacy:

[4]https://www.thatmomentin.com/the-discovery-of-love-in-the-caveman-drama-quest-for-fire/

It is also relevant to consider of pre-historic humans had sex, and how it differs from modern day customs:

[5]https://medium.com/lessons-from-history/sex-and-love-in-early-cavemen-societies-e9fbac4ac639

Relevant quote:

"It is almost certain that there was no foreplay, these men and women being unsubtle in their sexuality."

The following article focuses on "dolphins", but has some important points relevant to this discussion...

"Can a Dolphin Really Commit Rape?" by Adam Rutherford.

"[...] we must be careful not to anthropomorphize their behavior, whether it be cute, smart, or horrid."

The characters depicted in Quest for Fire might be Homo sapien, but they are still an early form of *us*, far removed from our cultures and practices.

But Rutherford follows this point up with a very sharp observation that is relevant to the heart of the matter:

"Infanticide is another unpleasant behavior seen in dolphins. It often gets translated into murder in the popular press, but it should be noted that in plenty of other organisms, both males and females kill the young of others within their own species as a reproductive strategy."

The point being that, just as it'd be absurd to call a dolphin infanticide "murder", it is more objective to describe violent pre-historic copulation as "mounting" rather than "raping". The description of the scene wouldn't lack anything with another phrasing, but would rather gain accuracy and avoid unnecessary presentism, anthropomorphizing and politicizing.

[6]https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/03/animals-rape-murder-morality-humans/585049/ Mykyw (talk) 03:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The core argument for not including rape is the concept is anachronistic. However the film is not an accurate depiction of prehistory, rather it's a fantasy film for modern viewers, it's entertainment, art, not documentary. The film is clearly contrasting the rape scenes versus the later scene where the fat woman is laying face to face, then turns around so he can mount her and everyone laughs. The script is making a point there is a dividing line between primitive and civilized, with rape being on that line. This interpretation is sourced in one of the books above. The People source calls it a "rape scene" not a rape, and I think this might be the key - if it was a rape or not is less important than what the scene is trying to achieve to advance the storyline and theme of the film ie. the dawn of civilization. -- GreenC 04:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The core argument for not including rape is the concept is anachronistic.

I would just like to be clear that I, on my part, feel that all my mentioned arguments are relevant to the terminology used.

However the film is not an accurate depiction of prehistory, rather it's a fantasy film for modern viewers, it's entertainment, art, not documentary.

While it's true that it is not a documentary and that it is known for some inaccuracies and use of artistic freedom, it is *far* from a work without context. It's a movie that the viewers *have* to understand as a depiction of pre-historic man, and it includes a lot of markers for us to do so. It is unarguably an attempt to depict real pre-historic life, and not a detached "imagination world" with, say, aliens or completely invented fantasy creatures.

The film is clearly contrasting the rape scenes versus the later scene where the fat woman is laying face to face, then turns around so he can mount her and everyone laughs. The script is making a point there is a dividing line between primitive and civilized, with rape being on that line. [...]

On the whole, I agree with this sentiment, but have a hard time seeing how it does relate to the question at hand. There are contrasts between the way the early humans of the movie copulate, but that fact doesn't stand in contrast to the above arguments for trying to use objective and neutral terminology.

If anyone wants a, possibly clearer, repetition of what I've already said, ChatGPT (for once) provided this surprisingly sound argument:

"While it is possible that sexual violence or forced copulation may have occurred in prehistoric populations, applying the term "rape" to their behaviors requires caution. It is crucial to avoid anachronistic interpretations or projecting contemporary concepts onto past societies. Instead, it may be more appropriate to describe such behaviors using neutral terms like "forced copulation" or "sexual coercion" when discussing prehistoric populations. These terms focus on the physical act without attributing specific intentions or motivations to the individuals involved, as our understanding of their social dynamics and cultural norms is limited."

I'd also like to add that I'm trying to take the *neutral* stance here. It is *not* like I've tried to change "rape" to "making love" - the phrasing that would be the other polar opposite. I'm proposing a terminology that lands in the middle - that's neutral - which I believe is in accordance with how an Encyclopedia should be.

(I would also like to point out to anyone who reads this, that most of my arguments - especially the first one which is equally important to all the others - have consistently been ignored.) Mykyw (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unless anyone else wants to chime in here, I think your next best option is an WP:RFC, let the community decide. This is something where there are arguments either way with no clear answer, it's complicated. BTW nobody is ignoring you, I think this is controversial and complex and it's going to require a "higher court", so to speak, an elevated conflict resolution process. If you want help drafting an RfC statement, I highly recommend something very simple and black and white, so there is clear consensus. For example the RfC question might be: Should we use the word "rape" or "mount" in this edit (link to your edit). That's the question to be voted on. You can then expound on your position why mount is preferred.

Right now you have 4 against 1, and I think it will take an RfC to overturn that inertia without this page devolving into a lengthy debate that gets nowhere. But it's your choice how to proceed, this is my recommendation to resolve this without too much drama. I'm somewhat sympathetic to your position (not all of it) as the word mount is more neutral, the problem is those 5 sources that call it rape. So the term is justifiable, the only question is do we want to include it in Wikipedia, which will come down a matter of opinion. -- GreenC 16:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]