Talk:Weddings and Babies

Plagiarism issues

Parts of this article are almost exact duplicates of the language in the sources. I spotted at least two problem sentences at just my first glance:

• It was the first 35 mm. fiction feature to be made with a portable camera that allowed synchronized sound.
• difficulty finding a distributor, and ultimately booked the film into theaters himself

I don't know about all this stuff so I'm not going to attempt rewriting those parts, but someone needs to do so, and quickly. I also suggest that you find another uninvolved editor to do a read-through of the whole article and fix the problem areas. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I've rewritten those two passages. Stetsonharry (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, here is the original text for the two passages above:

• The last film was the first 35 mm. fiction feature to be made with a portable camera with synchronous sound attachment[1]
• In a New York Times interview, Engel said that after trying for two years to come to a satisfactory arrangement with a distributor, he decided to try booking the film into theaters himself.[2].

This was not exactly a cut-and-paste, but I'll admit there were some repeated words. I've rectified that in the rewrite. Stetsonharry (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Per a request from Stetsonharry, I've popped in to add a third set of eyes here. In reviewing the article and rearranged it some to better match the MoS and reworded some parts to better paraphrase. One of the largest issues is that almost the entire article is sourced to the TCM movie database, which is not a reliable source. For the reception section, in particularly, the original reviews need to be found to properly attribute these reviews to their authors and to see the full reviews for they can be properly re-paraphrased rather than just taking/accepting the TCM quotes. I've also completely removed the plot as it was too over the line to keep as it without violating WP:COPYVIO. It needs to be completely rewritten, preferably from someone viewing the film, otherwise reading other plot summaries and then completely rewriting/paraphrasing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I've seen the film, so I can take care of the plot summary. I've also found the Time article online. Thanks for weighing in on this. Stetsonharry (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:NONFREE compliance

File:Myhers and lindfors in weddings and babies.jpg clearly fails the WP:NONFREE policy. It is not used for critical commentary of the film, it does not add any meaningful content nor illustrate any concepts that can not be purveyed through text. Non-free images must be used sporadically and, per policy "is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". This image is not necessary to the understanding of the topic. Its removal was done to enforce this policy. As a note, User:Stetsonharry and I have been discussing this via email, but as User:DGG reverted the removal, I am now posting a summary of my explanation to him here. I have also posted at the policy page for additional views. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

A scene in a movie discussed in the article , where the discussion is accompanied by a source, needs the scene displayed to make sense. The relevant topic for your quote is the discussion of that scene, not the movie as a whole. Movies are a visual medium. This seems to be a question that arises frequently, so I look forward to the more general discussion, which is currently at [3]. Another person commented there: I know we don't go by votes, but the view it's unacceptable seems idiosyncratic. DGG (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict. I was about to say: This film centers on the two people illustrated in this photograph, and the photograph shows them in a significant early scene discussing their relationship. So I don't think it's correct to say that this is purely illustrative. I think the image is as useful to the understanding of the topic as any illustration in Wikipedia showing a significant scene from a film. Stetsonharry (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing in the Wikipedia article specifically discusses the scene in question nor any element of the scene itself. It is synthesis to tie the screenshot to Crowther's analysis, which I assume others are referring to. How do we know that she is not referring to later scenes in the film? It is false to believe that her analysis could apply to any given screenshot presenting Lindfors. Screenshots should be added to the article body when existing critical commentary indicates that a visual aid would help readers. Here we should not make up justifications after the fact. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

No, this specific scene is mentioned at the beginning of the plot summary: "As the film begins, Bea tells Al how anxious she is to get married and have children of her own." Stetsonharry (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources have no inherent significance, so adding non-free images based on descriptions of primary sources is a violation of WP:NFCC #8 [and WP:NFC#Images, #5]. WP:FILMNFI clarifies, "Since a film article's 'Plot' section contains descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source (the film) and not information found in reliable sources regarding the film, the section is not considered critical commentary or discussion of film. Thus, non-free images need to belong in other sections in which they can be supported by critical commentary." An improved (but not an indisputable) alternative is this (emphasis mine):

The third film, Weddings and Babies, is more ambitious. It revolves around a tense Greenwich Village commercial photographer, Al (John Myhers), who has unrealized artistic ambitions, and his vivacious assistant and lover, Bea (a young and beautiful Viveca Lindfors). Bea is an intelligent, prefeminist woman of twenty-nine, who just wants to get married and have a child. Al clumsily puts her off because he fears marriage means a fettered life that will trap him forever photographing weddings and babies. Al also feels responsible for his aged, toothless, Italian immigrant mother dressed in black, who has begun to talk to herself (poignantly and unselfconsciously played by an immigrant woman Engel found on the street).

Weddings and Babies contains a great many tedious long takes and improvised, banal dialog (banality is too often seen as a sign of realism in Engel's films) but its images are vividly imaginative. Engel's camera captures street life on the Lower East Side--the San Gennaro Festival with its booths selling sausages, boys wrestling in the streets, and an embracing couple silhouetted in a doorway. The most striking scene takes place in an immense cemetery, amid a sea of tombstones, where Al searches for his wandering mother. There an anguished Al has an epiphany--that he must fully commit himself to life rather than stagnate until the grave claims him. The film ends with Al ultimately settling for marriage and babies with Bea--neither a triumph nor a disaster--just an acceptance of what is possible.

From: Quart, Leonard (1998). "America's new wave cinema of the fifties". Cineaste. 23 (3). {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

It is also worth checking out this documentary for external perspectives that can provide better rationale for another kind of screenshot. [Nevermind, thought this was a documentary covering the films.] —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I see your point about the cemetery scene, but no screenshot or still of that seems to exist. What about the mention of this and similar scenes in the Crowther article? These are actually more typical of the film than the one in the cemetery, this being an equivalent of the British "kitchen sink" dramas. Stetsonharry (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this close at all? Seems like a production still. If not, if you have the DVD, you could capture a screenshot through a program like VLC Media Player. In my experience, screenshots are to assist critical commentary, which may or may not be representative of the whole film. (See Changeling (film)#Closing sequence.) For example, commentators could focus on a particularly controversial scene where the rest of the film is not like that. So not in all cases can we ensure that screenshots are thematically in line with the overall nature of the film (though I do understand how it can help). If the film is a "kitchen sink" drama, then it may help to include descriptive text somewhere in addition to this possible alternative. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that does seem to fit the bill. The cemetery scene was remarked upon by several commentators, including most recently J. Hoberman of the Village Voice. I think also that this current photo that we are discussing is justifiable as per the critical commentary of Crowther and others, though that text needs to be added. I'm out of pocket for the next few days so it take a while to add. This is a significant film, so expansion is definitely warranted. Stetsonharry (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Per the discussion here and in WP:NONFREE, I've reinserted the image with a caption that more directly ties it in with the critical commentary. I.e., Crowther saying that Lindfors is the critical core of the film and that "everything she does—every movement, every gesture, every reaction, every lift and fall of her voice—is so absolutely right and convincing that the style drapes most fitly around her. . . She is the solid core of this film."

Another editor in the discussion in the other page, in agreeing with use of this image, noted that nonfree images should "show a point a reliable source has made to be integral to the understanding of the concept in question; it should be used to convey a concept that words cannot." Clearly this image does just that, by showing the body language of Lindfors' performance. The publicity photo does show the two people in the cemetery, but I'm not sure it really helps in terms of illuminating that particular scene. However, when tied in with the Crowther commentary, particularly since I use his full language, I think that this image of the two in their argument fully complies with policy as it relates specifically to his description of Lindfors' performance. Stetsonharry (talk) 09:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Crowther's analysis does not apply to the screenshot. We do not know if Crowther is referring to this particular scene at all and we cannot originally claim that Crowther's analysis applies to any screenshot in which Lindfors plays her character. How do we know that her analysis does not apply to her later scenes in the film? We don't. In terms of justifying, we cannot push a square peg through a round hole. The cemetery screenshot is far more applicable in identifying a specific moment, yet we have to remember that the article does not need any screenshots, especially considering how light it is. I'm putting the image up at WP:FFD and strongly encourage looking into the cemetery image, which actually has some basis to it. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your suggestion on the cemetery photo, and also for bringing that website to my attention. However, I see that those are also nonfree images and I have no idea if there will be yet another issue over the cemetery photo. However, I do think that this image we're now discussing is superior in conveying various aspects of the film in one shot, and would prefer to keep it. Stetsonharry (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)