Entertainment desk
< December 9	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 11 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 10

Am I missing an important film?

On December 25, 1948, the some of the first, if not the first, true (meaning glasses-free) stereoscopic footage in live-action and full color premiered at an autostereoscopic cinema in russia called the Stereokino (or maybe it was called the Vostokkino). This footage belongs to the film Crystals. I wasn't born until the 1980s, so I can't see Crystals anymore. Because a cinema won't show the same film permanently. So that would mean that the Stereokino is not showing Crystals anymore. The first true stereoscopic live-action full color footage that was meant to be enjoyed permanently was a special episode (June 7, 2011) of GameCenter CX which a download for the Nintendo 3DS (once the episode's downloaded, you can keep it permanently on your Nintendo 3DS). The title of this episode was Arino's Challenge 3D (3D Classics: Excitebike). I am enjoying watching this special GameCenter CX episode. But I still was not able to see Crystals when it was released. It was possibly the first time true stereoscopic live-action full color footage was publicly available (albeit not permanently), so am I missing an important film? Ebaillargeon82 (talk) 06:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The word "important", when applied to films, doesn't typically mean the first to add some new technology, but rather refers to the significance of the plot, quality of the acting, etc. Indeed, some movies with relatively low levels of technology for their time, like black and white Film noir movies, are nonetheless considered "important". StuRat (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disney movies and religion

The Disney movie, Frozen, has the coronation scene, and the bonus short video has the wedding scene. But neither of them depicts the Christian cross. Is it trying to depict the culture as secular or pagan? If they were intentionally trying to remove religion, then why not just avoid having a coronation ceremony or wedding ceremony that resembles that in the Roman Catholic Church and theological descendants (Protestants and et cetera)? 140.254.136.179 (talk) 13:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that the reason is that Arrendelle is not set in the real world, and thus Christianity doesn't exist there. Also it avoids potential issues selling the film in foreign markets. I'd imagine they based it on things like the coronation of Queen Elizabeth, but removing the religious elements while keeping the pomp and circumstance. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There are many little girls who would like to imagine themselves as princesses but who aren't Christian (or their parents aren't). Omitting the religious symbols makes it more likelty that their parents will bring them. Similarly, in Disney's version of Aladin, you didn't see much as far as Muslim symbols. The same reasoning applies here as to why many companies now say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas". "...and a Merry whatever-won't-offend-you to everyone ! - Laff TV StuRat (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Start with the null hypothesis and don't look for the lack of evidence to mean the evidence of lack. By that I mean that you start with no assumptions at all: start with the fact that you don't know the stance of the film creators on religion one way or the other. Then, if there is no evidence to refute the null hypothesis (that you don't know one way or the other), then you can make no statements, even in the negative, which change that null hypothesis. The lack of religious elements doesn't positively prove the scene is pagan OR christian. It is merely a lack of evidence, and lacks of evidence cannot be used to move one off of a state of uncertainty. Since you know no more about your question because you have no evidence to push to one way or another, you still don't know. Getting more comfortable with your inability to know something is a sign of intelligence. --Jayron 32 16:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1930s American actress Barbara Weeks

I have encountered some puzzling information about Barbara Weeks, who was an American actress in the 1930s. Wikipedia's article about her says, "she married the Lockheed test pilot Lewis Parker in 1938." Although the article didn't provide a citation, I found an online obituary that supports the statement. Also, a website has excerpts from an interview with Weeks in which she says about Parker, "He was transferred to Japan for a year, so it wasn’t until December 4, 1938, that we married in Yuma, AZ."

Here is the puzzling element: The Dec. 1, 1938, issue of the trade publication Broadcasting contains the statement, "CARL FRANK announcer of Original Good Will Hour on WGN -MBS, on Nov. 26 married Barbara Weeks, star of Her Honor, Nancy James."

How could Weeks have married two men within about a week (unless she committed bigamy, which would certainly have made news)? On the other hand, it doesn't seem likely that two actresses -- one in film and one in radio -- would have had the same name.

I had begun adding some information about Weeks' radio career to the article, but I am reluctant to continue doing so until I can find out more about the apparent discrepancy. If anyone reading this has access to reference material that would clarify the situation, I will appreciate your help. Eddie Blick (talk) 14:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It took a *lot* of searching and I ran into the same problems on the way (including wading through a Walter Winchell column) but there were two Barbara Weeks who were actresses with the other active on radio (and was quite well-known), which led to confusion when the other actress died in 1954. Here's a link to an excerpt from a book "The Sound of Silence" by Michael G. Ankerich on Google. (link) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 15:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I initially found the "radio" Barbara Weeks while doing research on Her Honor, Nancy James, thinking that I might create an article about that program. When I searched on Wikipedia for her name, I found the article about the film actress. It's strange that two actresses in roughly the same era had the same name. I appreciate the clarification. Eddie Blick (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There were two '80s wrestlers like that. Until the Internet came about, I'd thought Nightmare Danny Davis was just an alter ego of Dangerous Danny Davis. Nowadays, things are much clearer, but Googling "Danny Davis Jr. Wikipedia" doesn't find the unrelated mixed martial artist. Just Sammy Davis Jr. His Rat Pack is unrelated to two almost concurrent wrestling Rat Packs. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting find! Here's a photo of the radio actress, clearly not the same woman in the Wikipedia article. Via Google Books I found On the Air: The Encyclopedia of Old-Time Radio by John Dunning, which says that Her Honor, Nancy James ran from October 1938 to July 1939 and Weeks played the title character. Note incidentally that the episode length was 15 minutes. Anyway, I guess that makes her notable enough for a short article of her own, and then we could add hatnotes to both articles to point out the similar names. --76.69.45.64 (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to the picture. I think I will try to develop an article about the radio actress. I'm currently working on an article about another OTR actress, Alice Reinheart. Once that is completed, I'll see what I can do about one on Barbara Weeks. Eddie Blick (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is more about Her Honor, Nancy James in the Radio Guide magazine of December 3, 1938, including another photo of the (radio) actress on page 6. link to pdf. (Any excuse for trawling through americanradiohistory.com; it's great fun :)) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll take a look at that. I agree about americanradiohistory.com. It's fun to browse through in addition to being a terrific resource for information about old-time radio people and programs. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page has an interesting paragraph about the two actresses in the upper-right corner. It's from the June 1939 issue of Radio Mirror, and it's the first item (albeit only one paragraph) I have found that mentions both women in the same article. Eddie Blick (talk) 03:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rhapsody In Blue - George Gershwin 1924

I love this composition as many do. It's a long piece, about 19 minutes. It's semi-classical in nature. What was Gershwin trying to convey to his listeners when he wrote this? It is unique and unusual in that nothing has ever been written that resembles this in it's style and complexity. The piano solos, the best part, in my opinion, are played all over the place from the bottom of the keyboard to the top. Does anyone have any comments? Thank you.Rcrmartin (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does this or this or this or this help?--Jayron 32 16:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the time Gershwin wrote this, "serious" musicians looked down on the emerging jazz music as being inferior, and not worthy of their consideration as "proper" music. Gershwin wanted to show how, actually, the two genres could learn from and merge with each other to produce music worthy of musicological consideration. He also wanted to showcase his own musicality (the piano solo was written for him to perform originally) and show that jazz musicians were capable of great things, just as "serious" musicians were. (I know you want references but this was what I was taught when I studied Gershwin for advanced level music in the mid-1970s.) --TammyMoet (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]