Entertainment desk
< April 1	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 3 >

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.

April 2

Title of a film: The title is In the Bleak Midwinter or A Midwinter's Tale.

I am trying to remember the title of a film. This is what I remember about the plot. A group of poor struggling actors get together to perform a Shakespeare play. I am not sure which play, but I think it might be Hamlet. It's an extremely low-budget type of thing. I believe the play is being done as a charity fundraiser for a local church. The actors all have to live with each other in the same house during the course of the several weeks of rehearsal. I think the performance of the play is on Christmas Eve or Christmas Day. At the very last minute, one of the poor struggling actors (who is the main star of the Shakespeare play) gets a high-paying acting job; in order to accept the lucrative job, he needs to leave immediately (which his agent advises him to do). His quandary is whether to refuse the new job, so that he does not thwart the Christmas Shakespeare performance. Or to take the new job and turn his back on the cast of poor struggling actors who have grown to become his second family. I don't think there were any famous stars/actors in it. It was a modern picture, but it may have been in black and white. For some reason, I think the word "midnight" was in the title. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like it. In the Bleak Midwinter (film) 217.44.50.87 (talk) 11:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! That's it. Exactly! When I saw it, the film was under the title A Midwinter's Tale. Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Celia Imrie, Richard Briers, Julia Sawalha, John Sessions and Joan Collins aren't famous, I guess. —Tamfang (talk) 09:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The people you name are well known in the UK from television appearnaces - but from the title recognised this was seen in the USA - where most of them are probably a lot less well known. 217.44.50.87 (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, one of them was in Star Trek and mentioned in Buffy. —Tamfang (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I never heard of any of these actors before. And they are certainly not well-recognized names in the USA. The only name that I recognized was Kenneth Branagh. And he was not even in the film, as an actor. Joan Collins is quite recognizable in the USA. But she only had a two-minute role in this film. So, yes, I stand by my original assessment. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You put "I don't think there were any famous stars/actors in it." You didn't mention the USA, which is not actually the centre of the world, you know. --Viennese Waltz 07:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Viennese Waltz: Where exactly did I say that the USA was the center of the world? Please point out the exact location of that statement I supposedly made. Actually, what I said was, quote, "I don't think there were any famous stars/actors in it." I myself never heard of any of those actors. So, yes, to me (as an individual), there were indeed no famous stars/actors in the film. So, according to your logic, perhaps I was saying that my claim is that I myself am the center of the universe? Your argument makes little sense. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you have heard of someone is not a reliable indicator of whether or not they are famous. --Viennese Waltz 18:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a break. All of us would say "Brad Pitt is famous." And I am sure we can go to some remote village in Zimbabwe, where they never heard of the guy. So does that mean we have to correct ourselves and say "Brad Pitt is not famous"? Stop with the PC nonsense. And the "I want to be a victim" nonsense. I love how people are constantly seeking (manufacturing) reasons to "get" offended. Believe me, those actors are not famous in the USA. No one has ever heard of them. And I have never heard of them. So, yes, to me, they are not famous. No different than my example about Zimbabwe and Brad Pitt. So, what part of this post is now not PC and is somehow "offensive" to you? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a common thing, probably a fallacy of some kind. Someone really enjoys a book, movie, song, plate of food, whatever, so they say "It's great", a statement with which anyone else is free to disagree. An incontestably true statement would be "I really like it". So, if Joseph had said "I've never heard of any of the actors in the movie", that would not have caused any difficulties, whereas "There were no famous actors in the movie" is inherently controversial, because fame can be very selective, geographically speaking. This can lead to others assuming the speaker is equating "fame where I am" to "fame everywhere". As we see above. Best not to even create that can of worms for someone else to open. Talk about your experience, not about the object. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "controversy". And it's not a "can of worms". These are called "First World problems". Where people (who don't have any "real" problems) look for, find, and manufacture reasons to "get" offended. Obviously, when a speaker speaks, they are speaking from their own perspective. When I say "these actors are not famous", it means "to me, from my perspective, they are not famous". It does not mean "to my grandmother or to my mailman or to my next door neighbor or to the people in Zimbabwe, they are not famous". It's pretty implicit. Get over yourselves with the PC bull shit. And the "I want to join in and be a victim and claim that I am offended, too!" mindset. I am speaking generally and not to Jack specifically. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But think about it: "to me, from my perspective, they are not famous" - is the same as saying "Whatever fame they might have has not reached me". I'm sure I could list various names that are well-known to me, and certainly merit a WP article due to their notability, but which you've never heard of. And vice-versa, obviously. I see you live in Connecticut, and I see that the governor of that state is Dannel Malloy. I'm sure you've heard of him. Until just now, I never had. But would I say he's not famous? Just because I've never heard of him? That would be an absurd proposition. I don't think anyone's "manufacturing reasons to get offended" here, Joseph. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(1) So I am not "allowed" to say that Brad Pitt is famous because some people in some remote villages of Zimbabwe have never heard of him? Correct? Because we certainly don't want to offend the remote villagers of Zimbabwe. (2) Another editor above stated: ... the USA, which is not actually the centre of the world, you know ... Which, to me, clearly implies being offended. And indicates that my statement is non "PC" from the perspective of the British. Again, a first world problem. And a manufactured reason to be offended. Everybody wants to get on board the "victim train". That's my two cents. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, you've turned it around and are now mounting a strawman argument. You know that Brad Pitt is famous far and wide. Just because someone somewhere has not heard of him doesn't alter that. But you don't know that some name you've never heard of is not famous. All you know is that the name is unknown to you, and so you have no basis to conclude anything at all about them. Nothing. I see youngish people on Millionaire Hot Seat say they've never heard of Lyndon B Johnson, or Laurence Olivier, or William Holden, or whomever. Does that render them instantly obscure? No. It just renders most viewers slack-jawed with stupefaction that such names could have bypassed people so completely. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Brad Pitt "famous" if some people in Zimbabwe never heard of him? He's "famous" to you; he's famous to me --- but he's not famous to them. Therefore, we cannot claim that he is famous. What's the difference? No difference. Same difference with my examples above, about the Kenneth Branagh movie. Change the names (Brad Pitt; or Julia Sawalha); change the geographical locations (USA or UK or Zimbabwe). It's the same exact scenario. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not, but have it your way, Joseph. There's no value in continuing this at the moment. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am beginning to wish I had never identified the film in the first place! 217.44.50.87 (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am glad you told me. It would have driven me nuts. Great film, by the way! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Sawalha was in Absolutely Fabulous, which was shown on Comedy Central if memory serves. (Surely not on WGBH/PBS.) —Tamfang (talk) 08:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Briers was a much-loved British actor. If you can find episodes of The Good Life somewhere, the decor is dated but the humour is ever-fresh. And his on-screen wife, Felicity Kendal, is rather lovable too --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I especially liked her as Rosalind in As You Like It. —Tamfang (talk) 08:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Her more recent detective/gardening show Rosemary and Thyme, not so much. —Tamfang (talk) 02:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cash Box magazine being digitized and posted online

A resource about American popular music from the second half of the 20th century is coming online. A blog post from the Internet Archive announced that 162 issues of Cash Box magazine from 1942 to 1996 are being digitized by the Swem Library at the College of William & Mary. They will be posted online by both the library and the Internet Archive. As of this writing, only one issue (December 9, 1950) is available from IA. You can see it here. I assume that when additional issues become available, they will be at that same address. Eddie Blick (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a question? Dismas|^(talk) 21:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just thought that people doing research into this niche of entertainment might like to know this. I apologize if this kind of post is not allowed. Feel free to delete it. Eddie Blick (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Teblick This page is reserved for general knowledge questions relating to entertainment. You can read the guidelines for what to post at a refdesk here Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines. Your information should be useful for adding references to articles. You could try posting it here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music or here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs or here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. I am not sure how active these projects are so you could also post it here Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and people there might direct you to other places to let editors know about this situation. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 21:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am still learning Wikipedia protocol. This forum has been useful to me when I have had questions. I appreciate the guidance. Eddie Blick (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome Teblick. Your post makes me think that you might have posted at the Wikipedia:Help desk in the past. That page is different from the various ref desks. It is a good place to ask the kind of question that you did here when you don't know where to start. Please forgive me if I am making assumptions that aren't the case. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 01:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]