Talk:Control (2007 film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Control (2007 film) was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
July 25, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
WikiProject Albums (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Film (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
 

Join Hands and The Idiot[edit]

Carliertwo, why are you pushing so hard for this mention in the plot summary? It's a minor detail that isn't necessary for a reader to understand the flow of events in the film. Your most recent claim was "his mistress looks like that female singer and this is why Curtis wrote his name and number on that LP", but that's (A) just your own opinion, not mentioned in the film nor—as far as I can tell—supported by any sources, and (B) not even correct: It's Annik's name and number on the LP, not Ian's...watch the scene yourself. The reason I'm against including this and other specific minor details is in the interest of keeping the plot summary concise. Per WP:FILMPLOT, plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words. The inclusion of this detail makes the difference in pushing the summary past the 700 word limit. Not only that, but this film's plot shouldn't even need all 700 words to explain, since it's not very complex (per the guideline: "The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, and technical detail."). The exact LP on which Deborah finds the number isn't relevant to an overview of the film's main events. These and other minute details don't need to be present in a summary of the plot. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I respected what IllaZilla first advised here which was to keep the number of words exactly as it was. It means that if one wants to put other things in the plot, one has to cut redundant details. That's what I did in my new version. Mentionning Join Hands is important as it marks the moment when singer's wife realizes he has an affair. It also implies why Curtis wrote her mistress's name on that Join Hands sleeve next to the picture of the singer. It was confirmed by Curtis's widow in an interview by the Guardian: "By that autumn, Ian had begun an affair with a Belgian Siouxsie Sioux look alike" this from an interiew with deborah Curtis. Iggy's The Idiot sleeve also marks another important moment in the plot. Carliertwo (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Note that per WP:FILMPLOT, "The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, and technical detail". The song that Curtis listened to before he hung himself is minutiae and is not a necessary detail in an encyclopedic summary of the film. The three basic elements of a story are plot, character and theme. Anything that is not necessary for a reader's understanding of these three elements, or is not widely recognized as an integral or iconic part of the work's notability, should not be included. Since neither fit this criteria they should not be included. --Yankees76 Talk 17:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
A few responses to things Carliertwo has said here and on Yankees76's talk page:
"It also implies why Curtis wrote her mistress's name on that Join Hands sleeve next to the picture of the singer." — You are drawing a connection not explicitly supported by the film nor by the interview you linked. That's original research. As far as the film goes, it's not important which LP Deborah finds the phone number on. It's not even important that it's on an LP; she ransacks Ian's room and it's not particularly relevant where she finds the name & number. What's important is that she finds it, and confronts Ian about it. Perhaps in real life Deborah Curtis did find Annik Honoré's name & number on a copy of Join Hands, I don't know. But in a summary of this film's plot it's a minute detail that isn't necessary to convey the flow of events to a reader.
The same goes for The Idiot: We don't need to mention this for readers to understand the scene in which he hangs himself. He also watches Stroszek in the scene, but we don't need to mention that either, nor the brand of whiskey he drinks or other minor details. What's significant is that he writes a suicide note, has a seizure, then hangs himself.
In response to what you said on Yankees76's talk page: Yes I did include these details when I rewrote the plot summary back in May 2010. That's because I was editing it down from the previous version which was over 1200 words. I was simply trying to get it within the 700 word limit of FILMPLOT. That doesn't mean that every detail I included in my rewrite should remain there forever. It's perfectly acceptable for me or anyone to go back through it and tighten it up, remove extraneous details, and do other trimming. In fact, I removed the mention of Join Hands myself, along with several other minor details, when I went through the plot a second time in September 2011. I probably could've removed mention of The Idiot at that point too, but I was satisfied at the time to have gotten it below 700 words. Your reinstatement of the Join Hands mention prompted me to take a fresh look at the summary with an eye toward further trimming, which is perfectly acceptable. As I said earlier, the plot of this film isn't complex and probably doesn't require 700 words to convey. Shorter is better, so long as we retain the essential plot points, characters, and themes. I refer you to a favorite quote from my userpage:

Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell. –Strunk, William Jr.; E. B. White (1918). "Elementary Principles of Composition". The Elements of Style. Pearson Education. 

--IllaZilla (talk) 19:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Also, Carliertwo, I notice that nearly all of your edits in the 5 years you've been on WP have been to Siouxie Sioux-related articles. While that's all well & good, it indicates to me that you may have a bias in pushing to keep the mention of Join Hands in the plot summary, and may be placing unnecessary emphasis on it. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Here's the opposite point of view, explaining why Join Hands and The Idiot have got their place in the plot, (this also relates the history of this article). :
Every one is aware of WP:FILMPLOT but there are always exceptions : wiki says that one can WP:BE BOLD when it is necessary. And this film is an exception as it is about music, it relates the life of a singer, Ian Curtis. Music was his life and his record collection was an important part of it.
Both Join hands and The Idiot had been present for 15 months each and were withdrawn by the previous opponent.
Join Hands was added in may 2010 by IllaZilla with this sentence : "he admits to Debbie that he is unsure if he loves her anymore. She searches his room and finds a copy of Siouxsie and the Banshees' Join Hands with Annik's name and telephone number written on it". (see May 2010). All the contributors let this as it was : this is indeed a key moment that is going to lead him to his fall, there are several close-ups on this sleeve. Yet, 16 months later, this part was erased (see September 2011) by the same user IllaZilla. I disagree with this change because this record represented a link to his mistress. Deborah Curtis who wrote the book for this film, and who also co-produced it, explained to a Guardian's journalist this : "Ian had begun an affair with a Belgian Siouxsie Sioux look alike named Annik Honore" (here).
For The Idiot, that had also been before for a long time, added by {on 2 May 2010) by IllaZilla and was erased in August 2012 (August 2012). It is : "Ian drinks whiskey while listening to Iggy Pop's The Idiot and writing Debbie a letter. As he places it on the mantlepiece he has another seizure. Regaining consciousness the following morning, he hangs himself from the clothes line in the kitchen." The Idiot is also important because it's the final lp he listened to. He literally feels like an idiot in his head. There are also close-ups on this record.
This was suddendly erased by IllaZilla after the Join Hands issue.
Here's (the good version) that one could put with both Join hands and The Idiot, and less than 700 words.
I'd also like to say that due to lack of time, I mainly focus my attention on one subject on wiki which is the impact singer Siouxsie has in the history of pop (henceforward, this concerns articles about her biography and her influence). It was said that this may biased my point of view here which I guess was a polite way to put pressure on me and invite me to step back.
I'd like to underline that there is maybe a WP:OWNnership with IllaZilla. All the plot was written by this person who seems to refuse new edits on this article from someone else. As both Join Hands and The Idiot were only erased by IllaZilla and accepted by only Yankee76 this week, it is now necessary to have other points of view.--Carliertwo (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Stroszek is not mentionned, said or shown in the film.--Carliertwo (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Curtis also watches Werner Herzog’s film Stroszek, which arguably is more notable than the last record (half record actually, as the record was still spinning on side one) he listened to considering it's mostly infamous for its somber outlook on life. I've noticed that you consistently fail to mention that film and why it hasn't been included. But really neither the film he watched, nor record he listened to hours before his death are notable. This is an encyclopedia plot summary. Regarding the death of Curtis, we just need to note that he writes a suicide note, has a seizure and then upon waking from the seizure hangs himself. He's found in the kitchen. That's it. There's no need to set the mood, or bog down an encyclopedia by describing the scene of the evening before he hangs himself. The summary for the film Trainspotting does not once mention what music was played in the background or sung by the cast in any of the key or iconic scenes from that movie, nor does the The Doors summary go into minor details like music played or minutae on what Morrison does or sees during the movie. As you can imagine, the list here of examples could get quite extensive, but the point is made.
As a side note, I would also advise anyone posting here to comment on content, not the contributor. Accusing others of WP:OWN is not helpful when attempting to come to a consensus.--Yankees76 Talk 18:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Some responses to Carliertwo:
I don't see how this film merits an exception to our Manual of Style. Exceptions to FILMPLOT are for films with complex plots for which 700 words isn't enough to summarize the story for a reader. Control is not such a case. Just because the film is "about music, it relates the life of a singer" doesn't mean we need to mention every piece of music-related trivia that pops up in the film. Doing so doesn't service a summation of the film's major events. The film is littered with references to music of the era, but there's no need for us to mention them in order to summarize what happens in the plot.
As I previously mentioned, it does not matter that these albums were mentioned in the plot summary for however long. I explained why I left the mentions in during my initial rewrite in 2010, and why I removed them later on. This film's plot is not complex and doesn't require 700 words to convey; I or anyone else is welcome to make further revisions to trim the summary down to the key events (see my previous comment). The mere presence of something over a period of time is not, in and of itself, an indicator of endorsement. Before I rewrote the plot summary in 2010, it was over 1200 words long and had been relatively unchanged for about 3 years (compare 2007 to 2010). "All the contributors let this as it was" for 3 years; Does that mean there was consensus for such a long summary, and it should never have been changed? Of course not.
Your continued insistence that this particular record is vitally important and needs to be mentioned doesn't hold up. You're synthesizing multile sources to make a claim that none of them explicitly supports: "The film shows Annik's number on this LP" + "Deborah called Annik a Souxie look-alike" + "Deborah was involved in making the film" = "Ian Curtis had Annik Honore's name & number written on Join Hands because of Honore's resemblance to Siouxie Sioux." If you want to make this claim, you need a source that explicitly supports it, not your own interpretation cobbled together from tangential connections. In any case, it's a detail not relevant to a summary of the plot. As far as the flow of events is concerned, where Debbie finds the number isn't important; she could have found it on a slip of paper, in a diary, or anywhere else in Ian's room and it'd make no difference to the film's plot.
These same arguments apply to The Idiot. Saying "He literally feels like an idiot in his head" is your own analysis. There are, if I recall correctly, sources that actually support that Curtis watched Stroszek and listened to The Idiot on the night of his suicide, but these are minor details that aren't essential to relating the events of this film. As Yankees76 said, we don't need to set the mood or get bogged down in the minor details within the plot summary. These kinds of details are certainly pertinent to Curtis' biography, and could perhaps be discussed elsewhere in this article in a discussion of how true-to-life the film is. But in the plot summary, it's superfluous.
The reason I brought up your edit history wasn't to put pressure on you, but rather to suggest (as I stated) that since you seem to be passionate about Siouxie Sioux and her works, perhaps you're not looking at this objectively. I'm looking at it from a writer's standpoint: What needs to be communicated to a reader in order for them to understand the events of the film? You seem to be looking at it more from a perspective of a fan.
--IllaZilla (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Check the whole history of that article from May 2010 til now.
No one has ever added or erased Stroszek, I guess it is because Curtis was a singer and musician. In Control, images of Stroszek appear in bad quality, flickering on a tv screen in the background, (it is credited at the end of Control). The director doesn't make any close-ups on that tv'screen, one doesn't see the title of this cult film appearing.
Ok, one knows Yankees76's point of view and IllaZilla's (who has already written long posts here). One knows Carliertwo's that stands for what a lot of contributors agreed from May 2010 til September 2011. So, now, it is time to hear opinions from other wiki contributors.
As a side note, wiki says that "there's no need to re-raise the same issues that have already been discussed numerous times."--Carliertwo (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
"Check the whole history of that article from May 2010 til now. "No one has ever added or erased Stroszek" — Wrong: Strozek not present in April 2010, added the following month, removed August 2011.
You cannot claim that your opinion "stands for what a lot of contributors agreed from May 2010 til September 2011". There has never been a discussion on this issue; you can't claim to represent a consensus on an issue that was never discussed. There is no evidence that anyone cared one way or the other about these albums being mentioned in the plot summary until this discussion began.
Your last point make no sense: Since this issue has never been discussed before, we're not re-raising an old topic. I don't know why you're quoting something that's inapplicable here. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I'm going to continue revising the plot summary to get it somewhere in the 550 word range. I think that's an appropriate length for summarizing this film's plot (not overly simple, but also not complex). Note that the abundance of "superfluous, non-plot details" is one of the reasons this article failed GA review in 2008. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC[edit]