Talk:The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane/Archive 1

Archive 1

Edits by Anonymus

This edit 2006-03-11 07:37:45 89.57.62.146 (edited plot; +new sections "content" (with plot, characters, themes etc.), "cinematography", "actors") was made by me. The system had me auto-logged-out which I wasn't aware of while I spent hours doing the edits and previewing. Now I know better. Bisco 07:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral POV

I think I had much difficulty keeping a neutral POV. So the page needs probably reworking. Bisco 07:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Infos on cinematography

I'm aware that this section badly needs improvment. I just didn't know more. Bisco 07:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Saturn Awards

The facts are from the IMDb [1]. Wikipedias article about the Saturn Award gives 1977 for the Best Film and Best Actress but Best Actor for Martin Sheen is missing. Another odd thing is that the awards for best actors aren't split by film genres, at least not at this years Saturn Awards (but the awards for best films are). On the Saturn Awards Official Site [2] I couldn't find the information because of broken links or pc problems. But I e-mailed them today. Bisco 12 March 2006

The links on the official "Saturn Awards" page are now working: past awards. It shows that the facts from the IMDb are partially wrong. The film has won 1977 "Best Horror Film" and 1977 "Best Actress" for Jodie Foster. Martin Sheen hasn't won anything for this film. Bisco 09:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

minor edit: Mario's age

hi, I have changed "a boy at her own age" to "a slightly older boy" as Frank Hallet asks Mario if he "can't get a gf his own age". (or words to that effect, can't remember the exact quote without rewatching the film) Zider_red

That's okay, I remember that, too. Bisco 12:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• According to the book, Rynn is 13 and Mario is 16. So "slightly older" is probably accurate. 209.94.161.59 07:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Plot

Only Mario is laughing at his fears after drinking the tea, Rynn remains deadly serious the whole scene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.114.229.188 (talk) 21:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Not having read the book, only watched the film several times, in the scene where Rynn is preparing the tea service, she appears coldly calculating. I think the following sentence in the article is incorrect for the film.

Rynn, seemingly defeated and resigned to Frank's demands, agrees to his suggestion that they have a cup of tea. Into her own cup she places a dose of the cyanide her father gave her, perhaps intending to kill herself rather than be raped (when Frank calls her a survivor from the other room she says, "I thought I was," as she pours in the cyanide).

Even though she does say "I thought I was," it does not appear to be resignation to suicide. Rather, it appears to be prelude to justifiable self-defense homicide. I did not change the article because this could be open to interpretation and debate. Again, I'm going by the film, not the book. Hoxoh (talk) 06:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. I saw the film quite recently and agree with your recounting of the plot at that point Hoxoh. — SpikeToronto 07:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Hallet:"We could become very good friends" It's exactly after this line, not before, that Rynn hesitates for a second and thinks. Whatever plan she had until now, she changed it after she heard him. Without his unhealthy "prophecy" it's very clear she would have taken the tray and just served tea for two. She says "I thought I did" not "was". Suicide doesn't make sense here. She questions too many details like "What about Mario?" or the very interesting "Will you tell your wife?" (which is even repeated) These are questions of a girl who is "inventive and very cool under fire". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wreckage3001 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Grammar Esp. Apostrophes!

This article is poorly written. I've added some apostrophes, (where they were glaringly omitted), but the whole article needs a re-write.

I don't know why the whole article needs a re-write. What's here now was exactly what I was looking for and didn't find elsewhere. Frankly I did not find the film inviting enough to watch the whole thing. (I could tell that something unfortunate would happen to the hamster.) Thank you for telling me everything I wanted to know. oldcitycat 00:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I would say that the article at present has an appropriate POV and grammar — a bit unsophisticated for an encyclopedia entry, but okay. The major major problem, in my opinion, is that it goes into excruciating detail on plot, character development, and so on; it reads like an essay, or Cliffs Notes. Something in between the "short spoiler" and the "long spoiler" would be more appropriate, and the "themes" section can be gotten rid of entirely. I'm going to try to remove the Cliffsy "characters" section and merge it into a medium-length spoiler, now. --Quuxplusone 06:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. However, I realized after I'd finished that I'd mentioned the umbrella at the very beginning and then forgotten to mention it again (Mario finds it, and there's some more stage business in there when Frank is looking for clues). If anyone can remove the umbrella reference from "Plot" without disrupting the flow of that paragraph, please go ahead. OTOH, I assume (but am not sure) the later reference to "a line of dialog containing an expletive" refers to Mario's "Fucking Mary Poppins!", when he finds the umbrella, so maybe the umbrella should be kept and the "Censorship" sentence reworked to refer to it. --Quuxplusone 02:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the Plot section. I tried to correct some grammar and structure issues (many run-on sentences removed) while keeping the tone of the original author. When I first read it, I kept saying, "Wait.. what?" and I'd have to go back an re-read. Feel free to switch it back, but I'm just trying to make it a better read. 170.145.0.100 (talk) 01:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Pedophile or Hebephile?

Should Frank be described as a pedophile or a hebephile? The original 'pedophile' was changed to 'hebephile' on 14 January 2013 by 64.231.112.248 (admittedly not a well-known figure in the psychiatric research community). After a couple of editing tussles, it is now back to 'pedophile'.

In favour of retaining 'hebephile', I see that the article on pedophilia describes pedophilia with reference to prepubescent children (defined as 11 years or younger), in contrast to hebephilia which refers to pubescent children (defined as 11 to 14 years of age). I think it's a worthwhile distinction, and am generally not in favour of substituting a word with a replacement that is not actually a synonym. And if the distinction is valid, Rynn is definitely a pubescent character.

On the other hand, the popular understanding of pedophilia would probably see hebephilia, were the word even known, as a subset of pedophilia. It seems even the medical community is not agreed as to hebephilia's status as a separate sort of dysfunction. While I don't see the use of 'hebephilia' as denying the aspect of attraction to under-age partners (as asserted in the reversion's edit summary), I think 'arcane' and 'technical' are fair descriptions of the word.

So, I see hebephilia as distinct from pedophilia, and as the accurate term in this case. Arcane though the term may be, it's not always a bad thing to learn a new word; and the wikilink provided makes this easy enough.

I favour changing the article back to describing Frank as a 'hebephile'.

Willondon (talk) 14:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Replacing 'paedophile' with 'hebephile' is an unnecessary and, in my opinion, indulgent complication of something very simple. In the story, Frank is a paedophile who wishes to prey on Rynn who both physically and, in US law, is a child. No elaboration on the subject of paedophilia or its various sub-categories aids in the accuracy or pertinence of the article beyond the word 'paedophile'. To insist otherwise suggests motives that have nothing to do with this film and which should be pursued elsewhere. Hubertgrove (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

A convincing argument. If there's a question as to whether two words are synonyms or not, the battle is already lost. There is clearly a difference from the fact that two separate words exist. Context is the key, then. I agree with your conclusion that 'pedophile' is the word that does the job expected in this article. Willondon (talk) 03:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Bloated plot summary

I trimmed the plot summary down quite a bit. I was ready to remove the 'plot' tag after a couple of days, but I thought I'd check the word count first. Can anybody recommend a good tool for doing that? Thanks. Willondon (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Rewrite and Expansion

This article is way too short and is missing important information on the film's production and release which needs to be added to the article. The plot is also way too long and needs to be shortened since it comprises most of the article's information, more information on the film's reception should also be added to the article with reviews from notable critics added. There is so much that needs to be fixed and added to this article so that it meets Wikipiedia's standards and guidelines of a well developed and well sourced article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I expect I'll have some time to devote to this article over the next few weeks. First off, I'll try to get the plot whittled down even more. For that, I think the "blow by blow" model needs to be ditched in favour of something else. Cheers. Willondon (talk) 03:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Release date clarification

So the release date is quoted from a magazine for both a Canadian and US release date. There is only a year on the magazine, and I'm curious if whoever added it could clarify what its actually stating. Was it before it was actually released? Does it have premiere information? Because digging into the Library of Archives Canada articles and other release info, this film had a bit of a bumpy ride before its release date and no other source seems to correlate with the magazine. Could we get a quote from that to see what it is saying?Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

It was an announced date. References have been added about the 1976 Cannes Film Festival instead. Ribbet32 (talk) 05:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Ahhh good to know. Thank you for the extra research! Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)