Jump to content

Talk:White Zombie (film)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: LittleMissWikipoo (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of my favorite movies! First, I think you need a Themes section. What is this movie about (besides the obvious)? Is there a psychological, archetypal resonance about this film? Please develop a themes section? I'm going to start with a copyedit sort of thing and will take the article section by section. Looks good!

If I can find any information about it. I don't know how much can be added. Remember, this is for a simple GA not FA! :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you do. All films are about something. In this one a missionary defeats Murder. Is this about Christianity triumphing over Death or something? Madeleine falls into trance. Psychologically, is she avoiding marriage? She comes around after her lover "proves" himself a man by going to great and dangerous lengths to rescue her. See what I mean? Do you have the author's name for the play "Zombie"? Include it. More later! LittleMissWikipoo (talk) 06:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone! I just kind stumbled across this GA review, so I'm just an impartial observer, but I'd just like to leave a comment regarding the reviewer's suggestion to add a "Themes" section to the article. As far as I understand, a "theme" is the viewer's opinion of the motif of the movie, the point that a film's creators wish to convey to their audience and varies from viewer to viewer. So, because of this, wouldn't a "Themes" section classify as original research? My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lauri, good call! But sometimes a theme section can be applied, sometimes it can't. I'd rather add it if I can find the Director, screenwriter or other crew members discussing themes. But since so few people from this production are alive and due to the film's mixed reception, not much information is available. That's why I'm not so hectic to bring them into play. But I guess it's up to LMW to decide. Thanks for your input! Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've revised the article (see below). You can use or reject. Here are some suggestions to improve the article.

  • Try to avoid constantly using the words "film" (or "the film's"), White Zombie, and "includes/included/including" over and over again. Overuse of these words becomes dulling.
  • Start with a background or context section about American perceptions of Haiti and zombiism. The Rhodes book has something on this.
  • Keep the "plot" section brief and focus on the main thread. The film is about Madeleine; write from her point of view. Details like driving a coach down the road are unnecessary.
  • Develop the cast/characters section by giving a "plot summary" sort of thingie for each character. Move the real world stuff to this section about the performers' salaries.
  • I've severely condensed the "production" section and deleted the pic which IMO says nothing.
  • The "critical responses" section can also be pruned. Keep some bad reviews and some good reviews and all the overseas reviews.
  • Use the critical review about the fairy tale aspect of the film as a "themes" section.
  • Check my citation style. You don't need to include publication date when you have one source by a particular author. Rhodes is an example. You can forgo the "p." and "pp." business and just list the page number like this: Rhodes 28. Save yourself some keystrokes. They're taking a toll on your keyboard.
  • Categories should be alphabetized and references alphabetized by author rather than title.
  • This is a good article but can use some content upgrade, revision, and prose tightening. My revision needs some work but I thought I'd get it up here for your consideration before we go further. LittleMissWikipoo (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
White Zombie
Directed byVictor Halperin
Written byStory and Dialogue:
Garnett Weston
Produced byEdward Halperin
StarringMadge Bellamy
Joseph Cawthorn
Robert Frazer
John Harron
Béla Lugosi
CinematographyArthur Martinelli
Edited byHarold McLernon
Music byGuy Bevier Williams
Xavier Cugat[1]
Distributed byUnited Artists
Release date
July 28, 1932 (1932-07-28)
Running time
67 minutes[2]
CountryUnited States
LanguageEnglish
BudgetUS$50,000[3]

White Zombie is a 1932 American independent horror film directed and produced by brothers Victor Halperin and Edward Halperin respectively. The screenplay by Garnett Weston tells the story of a young woman's transformation into a zombie and her eventual release. The film stars Madge Bellamy as the young woman, John Harron as her lover, Robert Frazer as a wealthy Haitian, Béla Lugosi as a zombie master, and Joseph Cawthorn as a missionary. Large portions of the film were shot on the Universal Studios lot with scenery and furnishings rented from other horror films of the era.

White Zombie opened in New York to critical complaints about the film's over-the-top story and weak performances. Although the film did poorly at the box office, it made a substantial profit as an independent feature. Modern critics praise the film's atmosphere and make positive comparisons with Val Lewton's horror films of the 1940s but still give the acting a thumbs-down. White Zombie is considered the first zombie film and was followed in 1936 by a Halperin-directed sequel, Revolt of the Zombies.

Plot

[edit]

Haitian plantation owner Charles Beaumont suffers an obsessive love for Madeleine Short, the fiancée of his agent Neil Parker. He enters a plot with zombie master Murder Legendre to gain her love. Immediately following Madeleine's marriage to Neil, Legendre places her in a death-like state and spirits her away to his castle with Beaumont's connivance. Lusting for the young woman himself, Legendre rids himself of his rival Beaumont by weakening him with poison. Parker and his missionary friend Dr. Bruner are led to Legendre's castle in their quest to recover Madeleine and there free her from Legendre's power. The zombie master, his zombie slaves, and Beaumont fall to their deaths from the castle parapet.

Cast

[edit]
  • Bela Lugosi as Murder Legendre, a zombie master
  • Madge Bellamy as Madeleine Short, the fiancée and later the wife of Neil Parker
  • John Harron as Neil Parker, Madeleine's fiance and later her husband
  • Joseph Cawthorn as Dr. Bruner, a missionary
  • Robert Frazer as Charles Beaumont, a Haitian plantation owner
  • Brandon Hurst as Silver, a butler in Beaumont's home
  • Annette Stone as a maid in Beaumont's home
  • George Burr Macannan as Von Gelder, a zombie
  • Frederick Peters as Chauvin, a zombie
  • John Printz as Ledot, a zombie
  • Dan Crimmins as Pierre, a zombie

Production

[edit]

White Zombie went into development early in 1932 with the Halperin brothers leasing office space from Universal Studios in January and producer Phil Goldstone securing financial backing for the film.[4] The Broadway play Zombie provided the film's inspiration and was radically overhauled for the film.[3] Filming transpired over eleven days in March 1932, mostly at the Universal Studios lot with location shoots at Bronson Canyon.[5]

Lugosi, who had recently achieved superstardom in Dracula, was cast as the zombie master, Murder Legendre. Sources vary about his salary but claims range from US$500 to $800–$900, and as much as $5,000. Joseph Cawthorn, known for providing comic relief in his stage and screen roles, was cast as Dr. Bruner. Madge Bellamy's career had taken a nose-dive before she was offered the role of Madeline for $5,000, and Robert W. Frazer (also suffering career doldrums) was cast as the wealthy Charles Beaumont.[6] Reactions to superstar Lugosi on the set were mixed. Madge Bellamy had positive recollections, stating that working with him was "very pleasant" but assistant cameraman Enzo Martinelli said, "Lugosi wasn't really a friendly type".[7][8]

Like some of the cast, some of the production crew were experiencing career down-swings. Lead cinematographer Arthur Martinelli had known better days working with superstars John Barrymore and Mary Pickford and settled for relative unknowns and has-beens in White Zombie. Set designer Ralph Berger was forced to accept rented sets from Universal Studios such as the great halls from Dracula, pillars and an exterior balcony from The Hunchback of Notre Dame, the corridors from Frankenstein, and chairs from The Cat and the Canary.

White Zombie was the first film credit for set designer Berger, assistant director William Cody, and sound director L. E. "Pete" Clark. Make-up artist Jack Pierce applied Lugosi's make-up for the film and gained fame for his work in Frankenstein, The Wolf Man, and The Mummy.[9]

Music

[edit]

The music in White Zombie draws from obscure works: Mussorgsky's "Pictures at an Exhibition", Gaston Borch's "Incidental Symphonies", and Hugo Riesenfeld's "Death of the Great Chief".[10] Other music includes works of Richard Wagner, H. Maurice Jacquet, Leo Kempenski, and Franz Liszt. The wordless vocals and drumming heard at the opening is titled "Chant" and was created by Universal Studios employee Guy Bevier Williams who specialized in ethnic music.[11]

Release

[edit]

White Zombie faced distribution problems from the get-go. Columbia Studios, Universal, and Educational Pictures were all thwarted by various complications. The film's first cut was previewed in New York City on June 16, 1932, and, following further complications and delays, the film was finally released by United Artists in late July 1932.[12]

The first cut of White Zombie ran 74 minutes while the regular distribution prints clocked-in at 69 minutes. Running time was cut further when shown on television in the 1950s to times as brief as 55 minutes. The film's public domain status allowed anyone to copy and sell it without having to obtain rights to the film.[13]

Critical response

[edit]

Most critical reviews focused on the poor acting and over-the-top storyline.[14] William Boehnel of the New York World-Telegram stated: "The plot...is really ridiculous, but not so startlingly so as the acting."[15] Thornton Delehaney of the New York Evening Post wrote, "[T]he story tries to out–Frankenstein Frankenstein, and so earnest is it in its attempt to be thrilling that it overreaches its mark all along the line and resolves into an unintentional and often hilarious comedy."[15] Irene Thirer of the New York Daily News wrote, "Many fantastic and eerie scenes are evolved, but most of them border on ludicrous".[16]

Industry trade reviews were more positive. The Film Daily wrote: "It rates with the best of this type of film [...] Bela Lugosi is very impressive and makes the picture worthwhile".[16] Harrison's Reports wrote, "[The film] is certainly not up to the standards of Dracula or Frankenstein, but the types of audience that go for horror pictures will enjoy it".[17]

In national media outlets the film's reception was generally negative. Commonweal opined, "[The film is] interesting only in measure of its complete failure".[17] Liberty wrote, "If you do not get a shock out of this thriller, you will get one out of the acting". The film made Vanity Fair's "Worst Movie of 1932" article in January 1933: "Terrific deadlock with Blonde Venus holding a slight lead over White Zombie, Bring 'Em Back Alive, and Murders in the Rue Morgue".[18]

In the United Kingdom, press was mixed. The Kinematograph Weekly thought the film was "quite well acted, and has good atmosphere" but thought, too, it was "not for the squeamish or the highly intelligent".[19] The Cinema News and Property Gazette thought the film was for the "less sophisticated" and that the "exaggerated treatment of the subject achieves reverse effect to thrill or conviction".[20] Years after the film's release, Victor Halperin expressed a distaste for his horror films: "I don't believe in fear, violence, and horror, so why traffic in them?"[21]

Modern critical reception has been mixed, with critics praising the film's atmosphere while deprecating the acting. Time Out London wrote, "Halperin shoots this poetic melodrama as trance; insinuating ideas and images of possession, defloration, and necrophilia into a perfectly stylised design, with the atmospherics conjuring echoes of countless resonant fairytales. The unique result constitutes a virtual bridge between classic Universal horror and the later Val Lewton productions."[22] TV Guide gave the film three and a half stars out of four, stating that the film "creates a sense of nightmarish foreboding and dreamy disorientation [...] rivaled only by Carl Dreyer's masterpiece Vampyr (1931) [...] [the Halperins] handling of actors is woefully inadequate. With the exception of Bela Lugosi, who turns in one of his finest performances, most of the acting [...] is weak."[23] Edward G. Bansk, the author of Fearing the Dark wrote "White Zombie is not an unqualified masterpiece. The acting is stilted, the timing is off and certain aspects of the film are haphazard and sloppy" and "[e]ven Lugosi is off the mark now and then; the silent pauses between his lines last entirely too long. Although White Zombie is a film with courage, a film difficult not to admire, its ambitions overstep competence of its principal players".[24]

Box office

[edit]

White Zombie opened on July 28, 1932 in New York City's Rivoli theater to a mixed reception,[25] but proved a great financial success in the end and brought director Halperin a Paramount Studios contract. During 1933-34, the film scored big in small town America, and in Germany as Flucht von der Teufelsinsel (Curse of the Devil's Island), was one of the few American horror films to be approved and released by the Nazis.[26]

Opening on July 29, 1932 in Providence, Rhode Island and Indianapolis, Indiana, the film grossed $9,900 and $5,000 respectively following one-week engagements. Frankenstein and other contemporary horror films had grossed more in Providence, and the Indianapolis theater "wasn't too happy with White Zombie, but what audiences saw it were pleased enough."[27] In Cleveland, Ohio in August, Zombie sold a record 16,728 tickets its first weekend.[28]

In Montreal, Canada, the film opened August 3 at the Princess Theater. The façade had been transformed into a "House of the Living Dead" and "zombies" walked atop the marquee. Despite the gimmicks, the film failed to gross its estimated $8,000 and realized only $6,500 following a one-week run. In comparison, Dracula had grossed $14,000 at Montreal's Palace Theater during its first week in March 1931.[27]

Home media

[edit]

White Zombie was transferred from poor quality prints to VHS and Betamax in the 1980s,[29] and released to DVD by K-Tel, Alpha Video, and other companies.[30][31] The movie has been bundled in box sets with miscellaneous Lugosi vehicles or various zombie-themed flicks.[31] Some believe the Roan Archival Group DVD version the best in quality.[32][30]

Legacy

[edit]

White Zombie has been described as "the archetype and model of all zombie movies".[33] The film struck an authentic note with its focus on the Haitian origins of the zombie. Not many early zombie films took the trouble to cultivate the zombie's Haitian origins but relied instead on resurrection of the dead or mixed zombie mythology. The zombie was considered a second-rate monster.[34] In 1936, White Zombie was followed by the Victor Halperin-directed sequel, Revolt of the Zombies. Béla Lugosi was considered for the role of villain Armand Louque, but the part went to Dean Jagger.[35] Cinematographer Arthur Martinelli and producer Edward Halperin returned for the proceedings.[36] Modern critical response to Revolt is generally unfavorable. Glenn Kay wrote, "[T]here's no experimentation here, only dull composition shots and flatly lit shots of yakking characters in a by-the-numbers plot."[37] Hal Erikson rated White Zombie three stars out of five, and gave Revolt a lower one star rating stating, "Revolt of the Zombies unfortunately isn't nearly as good [as White Zombie]".[38][39]

Added to "List of films where clips of White Zombie appears": Michael Moore's Sicko, After seeing the Michael Moore documentary today, which featured a brief section where the zombies are working in Legendre's sugar cane mill, pushing the cane cutter machine. - GGL, 5/7/2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory.george.lewis (talk • contribs) 00:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ Rhodes 257
  2. ^ Kay 313
  3. ^ a b Kay 6
  4. ^ Rhodes 89,91-2
  5. ^ Rhodes 104-5
  6. ^ Rhodes 97,99-100
  7. ^ Rhodes 98
  8. ^ In the 1970s, Bellamy noted that nothing out of the ordinary occurred while filming: "I can't think of a single catastrophe or strange thing happening [on the set]. I feel like making up something – like telling how Bela invited me to take a nap in his coffin![O]r how his false teeth got caught in my neck!" (Rhodes 107).
  9. ^ Rhodes 103-4
  10. ^ Rhodes 109
  11. ^ Rhodes 110
  12. ^ Rhodes 111-4
  13. ^ Rhodes 194
  14. ^ Rhodes 266
  15. ^ a b Rhodes 265
  16. ^ a b Rhodes 266
  17. ^ a b Rhodes 267
  18. ^ Rhodes 268
  19. ^ Rhodes 162
  20. ^ Rhodes 163
  21. ^ Rhodes 237
  22. ^ "White Zombie Review. Movie Reviews - Film - Time Out London". Time Out. Retrieved October 6, 2009.
  23. ^ "White Zombie Review". TV Guide. Retrieved October 6, 2009.
  24. ^ Bansk 109
  25. ^ Rhodes 266,271
  26. ^ Rhodes 233
  27. ^ a b Rhodes 269
  28. ^ Rhodes 162
  29. ^ Rhodes 194
  30. ^ a b Buchanan, Jason. "Horror Classics, Vol. 1: White Zombie: Overview". Allmovie.
  31. ^ a b "DVD Releases for White Zombie". Allmovie. Retrieved October 6, 2009.
  32. ^ Kay 313
  33. ^ Prawer 68
  34. ^ Kay 5
  35. ^ Rhodes 171
  36. ^ "Revolt of the Zombies: Production credits". Allmovie. Retrieved October 6, 2009.
  37. ^ Kay 9
  38. ^ Erickson, Hal. "White Zombie: Overview". Allmovie. Retrieved October 6, 2009.
  39. ^ Erickson, Hal. "Revolt of the Zombies: Overview". Allmovie. Retrieved October 6, 2009.

References

[edit]
[edit]

Reply

[edit]

Whoa, that prunes a lot though! There are some issues with your review though. WP:FILMCAST says "Try to avoid using the section as a repository for further "in-universe" that really belongs in the plot summary." so I don't think more cast information belongs there. I would've added this information to the cast section in the first place, but outside the leads in the film, I can not find references to other cast members. Much information that has been found on over the year has been proven wrong by "White Zombie: Anatomy of a Horror Film" book and even in the information in that book is often "suggested" rather then being factual.

I do not think the Music section is needed for a section of it's own. MOS:FILM says to place that information in the production section. I've also found some information about the Halperin's style I'd like to implement, namely that they created charts and graphs to make a perfect formula for films as well as the lawsuit brought against them byby Webb, the creator of the play Zombie. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do think the article needs extreme pruning. The production section especially. There's not enough material to create all these separate sections and stretch the section to the crack of doom. This is not good writing. A tight, compact section here called "Production" or "Production notes" would be the best alternative. This is not the place to rewrite Rhodes's book. The production sections have the feel of being "puffed up" in order to create sections! The critical responses may stand with perhaps a few deleted that repeat the others. If you're going to expand the article with new material, it might be best to remove it from GAC, do your work, and return it to the queue. I must be honest. As it stands, I cannot pass the article. It needs a lot of work. I think it has some serious problems as an encyclopedia article and some small glitches here and there such as: "The film has significantly altered story to the original play." Do we need 'the' before story? A better read might be: "The play was significantly altered in its translation to the screen." If possible you might like to call in a friend to give you some criticism or I could ask for a second opionion. Please let me know! All the best! LittleMissWikipoo (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an example of what I'm up against in reviewing this article and why I found simply rewriting it easier than trying to straighten things out:
"White Zombie is considered the first feature length zombie film with its story featuring resurrected corpses who walk in a trance. A sequel, also directed by Halperin, was made in 1936 titled Revolt of the Zombies. Modern reception to White Zombie has been more positive then its initial release. Critics have praised the atmosphere of the film, leading it comparisons to the 1940s horror film productions of Val Lewton, while others still have an unfavorable opinion on the quality of acting from the cast."
First, the "feature ... featuring" echo in the first sentence is not the best writing. Second, I'm not sure these are "resurrected corpses" but (as I understand it) Haitians drugged by Legendre to be used as cheap labor. "Considered" prompts the question "by who?" In the second sentence "titled" is unnecessary. The first two sentences can be combined: "White Zombie is the first feature length zombie film, and was followed in 1936 by the Halperin-directed sequel, The Revolt of the Zombies". In the third sentence, 'then' should be 'than'. In the fourth sentence, this group "of the film, leading it comparisons to" is missing something. At the end, the "from the cast" is unnecessary. Here is my revision:
"White Zombie is the first feature-length zombie film and was followed in 1936 by the Halperin-directed sequel, The Revolt of the Zombies. The original met with general critical disdain upon release but modern critics have been kinder, praising the film's atmosphere and making positive comparisons to the works of Val Lewton. The cast however still receive the thumbs down." This is a good article and shows much work but needs to be tightened up a bit. Hope this helps! LittleMissWikipoo (talk) 01:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do some pruning and cleaning. I agree on not having the article be a re-write of the book you mentioned, but I think some things should stay per the MOS:FILM. For example your plot is about 114 words long, while WP:FILMPLOT states that good plot summaries for feature films are between 400 and 700 words. I'll clean up the article per your suggestions. Just umm..give me until Sunday or something. If you still think it needs work, I'd be grateful for the second opinion on the article. Thanks for all your work and suggestions so far though! Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a bit of pruning and tried to remove some dull terms. I've kept the paragraphs in the lead somewhat similar to what they are. I've tried to have the lead follow WP:LEAD and MOS:FILM. I've expanded the plot more then your example per WP:FILMPLOT which suggests that plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words. Mine is still currently smaller then 400, but then again, this is a short film. I've expanded it from yours as well as it feels a bit stuby and I do feel it's not in any violation from being a bit longer. I've eliminated some less interesting facts from the trivia section. I do not think moving this information to the cast will be helpful as we really only have information retaining to two characters. WP:FILMCAST says it's alright to have this information in the production section as well. I also changed the page numbers back to the citation I was using per Wikipedia:Citing_sources#How_to_present_citations.

Thanks a lot for spending so much time helping with an interesting film and it's article. I think since you've contributed so much we should get a second opinion as you are now a major contributor to the article. But I guess it's all up to you. I still think it could use a copy-edit, but I'm leaving it in your hands until then! Cheers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your 'plot' section is of a suitable length but there are still some problems. Let's look at the first sentence: "On arrival in Haiti, the young couple of Neil Parker (John Harron) and Madeleine arrive with plans to be married." First, you use 'arrival' and 'arrive' awkwardly in the same sentence. Second, you indicate the part of Parker is played by Harron but leave us guessing about Madeleine. Since you've given us character and interpreter in the lead, there's no reason to repeat the interpreter here, in the plot section. Third, this phrase, "the young couple of" can be reduced to "young couple" or completely eliminated. Fourth, Neil and Madeleine don't arrive together in Haiti. Madeleine arrives alone and joins Neil who is working in a bank in Haiti. Other problems in the first paragraph: Madeleine is referred to as 'Chance' and 'the Chance'. Why? I'm missing something here. I think the lovers should be consistently referred to as Madeleine and Neil rather than Short and Parker which sounds like they're business partners. (Where did you get 'Short' and 'Parker' anyway? I don't find their surnames in the film.) LittleMissWikipoo (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed up for your suggestions. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, for source on characters last name, see here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Lennig may be a good citation to get in; in his Immortal Count he claims to have been the first to give it serious attention and to find it a minor masterpiece, citing his Classics of the Film (1965). I'm just going by what's accessible via Google Books, but I do have both of these in storage, I'll see if I can get to them. Шизомби (talk) 05:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a good citation for it, by all means add it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't seem to be getting through to you. Here's another example: "White Zombie was filmed in eleven days in March 1932 and was filmed at the Universal Studios lot and Bronson Canyon." Why the "was filmed ... was filmed" in one sentence? This is not good writing. Delete "and was filmed" to read: "White Zombie was filmed in eleven days in March 1932 at the Universal Studios lot and Bronson Canyon." Reviewing this article has become an exercise in frustration. What am I doing wrong? I rewrite some material only to find it's been altered ever so slightly into something confusing, grammatically incorrect, or just bad writing. This article needs a lot of work. LittleMissWikipoo (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's more: "Phil Goldstone had previously worked with Bellamy, and offered her the role of Madeline Short for salary of $5,000. The Halperins looked for an actor with name value for the character of Dr. Bruner and casted Joseph Cawthorn who was known to audiences at the time as comic relief in stage and film roles." Correctly, "for a salary" and "cast". This is becoming a very frustrating experience. Please tell me what I am doing wrong. It would be unfair to ask for a second opinion at this point because that second opinion would have to stumble through this article just as I am making minor corrections here and there and suggesting improvements. LittleMissWikipoo (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed those. I've found this equally frustrating for me as you don't seem to be following Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles. Most film editors do not edit the entire article and post it on the review page. Why did you do that? Was I supposed to copy and paste it? The whole thing was unorthodox. I admit this article has some grammar trouble, but if you have go through the process, I think outside the grammar and spelling problems, that this article is good for everything else. I appreciate your help but I'm equally frustrated. I do not think a second opinion would be problematic as I believe a second opinion from another reviewer would follow the process I mentioned above. Cheers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about "the process". If I adhered unflinchingly to "the process", this article would have failed at the get-go based on MoS alone. I made suggestions for improvements only to have them ignored. "Following the process" is not going to help you because you're resisting the reviewer's help. If I dropped out, you would have same problems with the next reviewer! I make corrections only to find them altered ever so slightly into something confusing or incorrect. Stop being so stubborn. LittleMissWikipoo (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering about this. I wrote: "Home media White Zombie was transferred from poor quality prints to VHS and Betamax in the 1980s, and released to DVD by K-Tel, Alpha Video, and other companies. The movie has been bundled in box sets with miscellaneous Lugosi vehicles or various zombie-themed flicks. Some believe the Roan Archival Group DVD version the best in quality."
Which you altered to: "Home video White Zombie was transferred from poor quality prints to VHS and Betamax in the 1980s. The film has been released on DVD from several companies such as K-Tel and Alpha Video in varying image qualities. In the book Zombie Movies: The Ultimate Guide, the Roan Archival Group's was referred to as the best DVD version. The online film database Allmovie wrote a positive review of the Roan Group's transfer stating that the film "has never looked better".
Why? I'm trying to help you but for every step forward we take two steps back. If you provide a citation for a statement, that citation doesn't need to be repeated in the statement. "In the book Zombie Movies: The Ultimate Guide" has a citation in the Notes so there's no reason to repeat it as a prepositional phrase. Likewise, "The online film database Allmovie". And why "positive review" only to tell us a few words later "has never looked better"? Most users will read that as "positive", they don't need to be told. I think I said it best and I wish you could appreciate that. I'm trying to help you, not steal your thunder. How can I work with you if you continue to make this a frustrating experience? I can drop out but you're only going to have the same experience with another reviewer because this article needs a lot of work. LittleMissWikipoo (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

outdent Just putting my two-sense in here again, but why not just put the article On Hold and allow for a general copy-edit of the article to be done? In my opinion, the article only really needs a good ol' copy-edit to reach GA-Class. I'm sure that Andrzejbanas and I could have it done in a few days. What do you think? My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for this! Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good! Laurinavicius (talk) 23:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially it is on hold with suggestions for improvement being ignored or altered ever so slightly. I have been copy editing only to find things messed up when I return.

Here are two things you can do right now to make progress toward a better article: 1) Enter the five principals and their roles without any adornment in the characters section. Cite the Rhodes work if necessary but note that there is an error in it. John Harron is listed as playing Neil Harron. Enter the secondary players and their roles. 2) Rewrite the plot while viewing the video. I strongly suggest the first paragraph detail the relationships between the characters, their backgrounds, and everything that happens before the film begins. It should start something like this:

"In the film's back story, Madeline Short meets wealthy Haitian plantation owner Charles Beaumont aboard a ship bound for Haiti. He falls in love with her. Once in Port au Prince, Madeline joins her fiance Neil Parker and Beaumont invites the couple to celebrate their nuptials on his estate. They consent – little knowing Beaumont hopes to woo Madeline away from Neil. Beaumont contacts Murder Legendre to aid him in his design.
When the film opens, Legendre steals a scarf from Madeline and uses it later to cast a spell upon her. Beaumont receives the couple at his home before hurrying off to meet Legendre who gives him a poison that will place Madeline in a death-like state ... etc. etc." Use the characters' names in a consistent manner: Madeline and always Madeline, Beaumont and always Beaumont (don't switch back and forth between Beaumont and Charles). I'll drop by tomorrow. LittleMissWikipoo (talk) 23:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Kahn's review

[edit]

Ok, so according to this archived discussion and this note on her "User contributions" site, it appears LittleMissWikipoo (talk · contribs) has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts. I've just worked with Andrzejbanas on his Henri-Georges Clouzot nomination, and I've seen White Zombie and am vaguely familiar with the film, so I'm going to take over this review. LittleMissWikipoo seemed to have an unorthodox approach to reviewing this GAN that I don't entirely agree with (particularly with copying-and-pasting an entirely revised article into the GAN review!), but that being said, I think some of her suggestions were good and shouldn't be disregarded. The way I'm going to approach this is by going through it section by section as I did at the Clouzot review. As I get to a specific section I'll read it, make my own considerations, look at LittleMissWikipoo's suggestions and then make my comments for Andrzejbanas to respond to (please respond line-by-line). Sound good? — Hunter Kahn (c) 05:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me! Cheers! Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, let's get started... Lead:

  • You have to mention that the screenplay was written by Garnett Weston in the lead. That's a must.
    Done! Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...directed and produced by brothers Victor Halperin and Edward Halperin respectively." The word respectively isn't necessary here, is it? This indicates there is an order, but it's not as if Victor produced it first and then Edward produced it second, right?
I think the "respectively" is designating that the first directed the movie, while the second produced it. The sentence is a little awkward, but compact. -Krasnoludek (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would actually suggest that you take some of LMWP's advice about the plot summary description in the lead. I think it should be more succinct, and I know various Wikipedia guidelines call for the use of actors in parentheses the way you have them, but I think it reads awkwardly here. I have, however, modified LMWP's wording a bit. I would suggest: "...tells the story of a young woman's transformation into a zombie at the hands of an evil voodoo master." And I would end the paragraph with something like this: "Béla Lugosi starred as the antagonist, Murder Legendre, with Madge Bellamy appearing as his victim. Other cast members included Robert W. Frazer, John Harron and Joseph Cawthorn."
    Done! Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • (For the record, I favor mentioning Murder Legendre by name and the others not in the lead because I think the Murder character is one of the most well known legacies of the movie...)
  • I'd also suggest keeping this variation of LMWP's wording on this sentence: "White Zombie opened in New York to negative reception, with reviewers criticizing the film's over-the-top story and weak acting performances."
    Done! Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The film was not as popular as other horror films at the box office but made a great profit as an independent feature." I'd reword this to, "Although White Zombie made a substantial financial profit as an independent feature, it proved to be less popular at the box office than other horror films of the time."
    Done and done! Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Throwing in my own question here: the lead says "...leading Short's fiancé Neil Parker (John Harron) to attack Murder's sugar mill." I do not remember this from the movie. The culminating scene is at Murder's castle/fortress on a cliffside, not at the creepy mill seen earlier in the film (where a zombie accidentally falls into a vat). -Krasnoludek (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This part of the intro has been removed, so it should be cleaned up now. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

  • "On arrival in Haiti, Madeline Short meets her fiancée Neil Parker with plans to be married." This sentence read weird to me. The way it's written, it almost sounded like she was meeting her fiancee here for the first time! lol. Maybe you could reword it by adding why she was coming to Haiti, where she was coming from, or why they had been separated in the first place? (It's been a while since I've seen the film, so I honestly don't remember.
I don't remember if this was their first time meeting. I'm pretty sure they were separated because Neil had started a new business partnership with Beaumont and she wasn't going to arrive until it got set up. But I'm fuzzy on this detail. Made the wording less awkward though. -Krasnoludek (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you drop in some context as to who exactly Murder Legendre is? Isn't he some sort of voodoo master, if I recall correctly?
Correct, Murder had mastered voodoo arts and become stronger than all his rivals, turning them into his zombie "thug squad".-Krasnoludek (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, some context as to who most of these characters are wouldn't hurt. Do we know Neil Parker's profession? What is the couple's relation to Charles Beaumont? (In other words, why are they visiting him? Is a friend? Family?)
I believe he was a new business partner of Beaumont, but I'll leave that to someone more knowledgeable. -Krasnoludek (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added this to the cast section. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The couple's coach passes Murder Legendre who watches as they pass by." This sentence also needs rewording; the use of "pass" twice so quickly is sort of awkward. You could change it to something like, "As their coach drives away, they are watched by Murder Legendre, an evil voodoo master."
Reworded. -Krasnoludek (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Murder and Charles later bring Madeline back to life as a zombie." I don't remember, is there any indication in the plot as to how they do this? Or do they just sort of wait around until she turns into a zombie? lol
They go to her tomb, open up her coffin, but I forget what they actually do to reanimate her corpse. Added in at least the partial details. -Krasnoludek (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually sort of like waiting around! In watching this again, she has her funeral, they have a service for her. They later show Legendre and Beaumont moving her casket and they open it up. This then cuts to a scene with Neil. After this scene with Neil it cuts to a castle where Madeline is playing piano! It's all part of Legendre's magic. It just takes some time to get working! Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In a drunken state, a depressed Neil sees apparitions of Madeline..." How exactly does this happen? What causes Neil to have such a supernatural experience?
He decides to cry his heart out at his wife's tomb and then somehow realizes it's empty. I have a vague memory that his "apparitions" were actually the real Madeline rising from her grave and walking out of her tomb. -Krasnoludek (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. He sees ghostly visages and runs out into the field screaming Madeleine's name! He goes to her tomb where he finds it empty (Legendre and Beaumont have just carried it away). Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of curiosity, did Dr. Bruner have suspicions or knowledge of Murder's evil ways before Neil approached him? I can't remember. If he did, we should add a mention of it here...
Bruner knew a lot of past rivals of Murder and their fates. If I remember correctly, I even think Bruner's son had been zombified by Murder. -Krasnoludek (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Charles finds himself also tainted by Murder's potion and finds himself becoming a zombie." Why does this start happening to Charles? Did he take some of the potion himself? Or did Murder secretly give him some? (Also, please rework thise sentence to get rid of the two redundant "find himself"s. ;) )
Reworked. I believe Murder had secretly slipped the potion into the drink Charles had been drinking. -Krasnoludek (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On watching again, it's not 100% certain that something was slipped into Beaumont's drink, but he's definitely becoming a zombie. This movie has too many plot holes. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "commands his zombies to kill Neil" This indicates that Murder has a bunch of other zombies at his fortress, which is never indicated in the plot summary. If that's the case, you should make reference to it somewhere before this.
I tried to work in mention of Murder's "posse" into the first paragraph, but perhaps this can be smoothed out. -Krasnoludek (talk) 00:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cast:

  • I sort of agree with LMWP on this one too. Would you be opposed to adding just a brief description after each character here? (This would be particularly useful since a lot of these characters aren't identified in the plot summary at all.) Just a brief description like she provided. For example, "Robert Frazer as Charles Beaumont, a Haitian plantation owner" or "Dan Crimmins as Pierre, a zombie".

More to come! — Hunter Kahn (c) 18:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the cast a bit here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Box office:

  • Sorry if I'm not following GA review protocol, but I think this review page is presently getting more attention than the article talk page. I wanted to jump ahead with a question for this section. "...the film scored big in small towns in the United States and in Germany under the title Flucht von der Teufelsinsel (English: Curse of the Devil's Island)" My fairly limited knowledge of German translates that title as "Flight/Escape from the Devil's Island". Is the English supposed to be a translation of the German (in which case it may be mistranslated), or is it an alternate name the movie was released under in the US (in which case, this should be made more clear)? -Krasnoludek (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More:

Production:

  • "On January 6, 1932 the Hollywood Reporter wrote that the Halperins leased office space from Universal Studios to get their film (then titled Zombie) underway..." Is there any particular reason you think the Hollywood Reporter has to be identified as the source of this information in the prose? Why not just say, "The Halperins leased office space from Universal Studios..." and leave out the Hollywood Reporter altogether?
    Done! Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The play was significantly altered in its translation to the screen..." Do your sources have any information on what specifically the changes were?
  • "...Webb brought up a suit against the producers." Does the source say why? Was he seeking credit or compensation? Or simply didn't want a film adaptation?
    On looking it up in Webb's book, they mention on a page that there is no real evidence to prove that this suit happened. None of the newspapers mention it as well. So i've removed this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm confused. So the suit is mentioned in the book, but it is also mentioned there is no proof that it existed? If there was talk of a possible suit, that should still be in this article. Could you type the exact prose of the source here so I can see it for myself? — Hunter Kahn (c) 03:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no description of who Phil Goldstone is on the first reference. Could you add it?
  • "Murder Legendre is played by Lugosi, who..." Since you already have established that Lugosi is played by Murder Legendre, I changed this to "By the time Lugosi appeared in White Zombie, he was already popular with contemporary audiences..." Does that work for you?
Works for me! Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lugosi's make-up artist, Jack Pierce..." I changed this to "Jack Pierce, Lugosi's make-up artist on White Zombie..." to make it more clear that Pierce worked with him on this specific movie. Is that OK with you?
    That's fine. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More to come! — Hunter Kahn (c) 00:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Release:[reply]

Critical response:

  • These quotes should really have the author names, not just the publications. For example, it should say "Joe Schmoe of Commonweal opined..." instead of just "'Commonweal opined..." For the cases where you have the writers' names, can you add them in? — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section has a lot of long quotes. Could you give it a quick readthru and try to see if you can reduce some of those long quotes into a mixture of small- or medium-size quotes and some paraphrasing? For example:
Edward G. Bansk, the author Fearing the Dark, wrote: "White Zombie is not an unqualified masterpiece. The acting is stilted, the timing is off and certain aspects of the film are haphazard and sloppy" and "[e]ven Lugosi is off the mark now and then; the silent pauses between his lines last entirely too long. Although White Zombie is a film with courage, a film difficult not to admire, its ambitions overstep competence of its principal players."
This can and should be more like...
Edward G. Bansk, the author of Fearing the Dark, said the film included several flaws, such as poor acting, bad timing and "haphazard and sloppy" film aspects. Bansk wrote, "Although White Zombie is a film with courage, a film difficult not to admire, its ambitions overstep competence of its principal players."
Cleaned up a little! Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please go through and see what other examples you can modify this way...
  • Could you add dates for the reviews in the "modern critics" paragraph? In the others its not necessary, since those reviews are already presumed to have been written around the time of the film's release, but for the modern reviews we need a context of when (how long after the film was released) they were written...
I would have normally added the dates for these reviews in their citations, but if you look at the sources of these films, I can not find when these were written. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...creates a sense of nightmarish foreboding and dreamy disorientation [...] rivaled only by Carl Dreyer's masterpiece Vampyr (1931) [...] [the Halperins] handling of actors is woefully inadequate. With the exception of Bela Lugosi, who turns in one of his finest performances, most of the acting [...] is weak." This quote is awful long, and it seems to me like it would be easy to break it up. I'd suggest you end the quote at "woefully inadequate." and then start a new sentence, something like, "However, the magazine criticized the acting, claiming, "With the exception of Bela Legosi..."
  • "...the author of Fearing the Dark..." Can you very briefly add some context about what this book is? Something like, "Bansk, author of Fearing the Dark, a book about horror films..." or whatever it is...

Box office:

  • "The film received a mixed box office reception at theaters upon its initial release, but was a great financial success for an independent film at the time." I don't suppose there's any more specific info about this? Like specific cost amounts?
    Not really on this department. If I can find anything I'll add it! Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Cleveland, Ohio in August, White Zombie sold a record 16,728 tickets its first weekend." The "In Cleveland in August" thing reads awkwardly here, could you reword? Also, it's unclear to me whether this record is specific to Cleveland or not...?
    I've moved the August statement, it's specific to Cleveland. How's that? Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The film failed to gross its estimated $8,000 and earned only $6,500 following a one-week run." Is this information specific to Montreal? Could you reword this slightly to make that more clear?

Almost done. :) — Hunter Kahn (c) 05:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy:

  • This section feels extremely short and flimsy for such a legendary movie. Are you sure it can't be expanded? Especially considering that that "Anatomy of a Horror Film" source dedicates more than 300 pages to the subject of this film alone,
    I've expanded it a bit now. is it better? Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...and has been described as "the archetype and model of all zombie movies". If you use a quote, you have to attribute it to the person who said it. In this case, it would probably be best to drop the quotation marks altogether and paraphrase it, since it seems to be coming from two sources...
    I've removed the quote. How's that? :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Not many early horror films followed the style of White Zombie's Haitian origins, with most similar films borrowing themes of people returning from the dead or mixed zombie mythology." I assume you are saying that White Zombie was unique among early horror films because of it's Haitian themes? Could you reword this a bit to be more clear? (As it stands right now, following the bit about it being the "model of all zombie movies", it read at first to me like you were saying that White Zombie was an architypal zombie movie, but that no other movies released after it followed its example, which I don't think is what you're saying, right?)
    Again, expanded. It's a bit better I think! Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A good article is:

  1. Well-written: Prose is good, MOS is good.
  2. Factually accurate and verifiable: Sources are good, no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage: Covers main aspects, no unneeded detail.
  4. Neutral: Yes.
  5. Stable: Yes.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: Yes.

Congrats! That's a pass! — Hunter Kahn 22:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:White_Zombie_(film)/GA1&oldid=1255174884"