Talk:The Hunger (1983 film)

Peter Murphy

I was under the assumption that Peter Murphy is in the film... Anyone know? 782 Naumova 17:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Who is Peter Murphy? Anyway, IMDB doesn't mention anything, so I doubt it... 惑乱 分からん 15:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

He does appear, in the opening credits, I believe it is? But I'm not sure exactly when.192.160.165.63 05:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Peter Murphy is the lead singer of the band Bauhaus (band). In the opening scene of The Hunger, it is Peter Murphy who is in the cage singing his immortal classic, Bela Lugosi's Dead.

-- Labyrinth13 18:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's all of the band, but you mostly just see Peter Murphy and a little bit of Daniel Ash.JanderVK (talk) 10:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Michel Rubini

Composed the music for this film.

Plot

I have indicated that the quoted text in Miriam and Sarah's interlude is not correct at all. I will not take that time to quote the material verbatim, because that should be done by the original writer, but it is similar to this:

SARAH: "Are you making a pass at me, Mrs. Blaylock?"

MIRIAM: "Not that I'm aware of, Sarah..."

And Miriam certainly does not say "Miriam, please..." which makes no sense, because she is not talking to herself. Alpine Joy (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

No, YOU should do it. If you find an error, YOU correct it; you do NOT insert snotty notes in the text of the article. Lawdroid (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You can call my comment "snotty" if you wish, but still, what I said was correct, and what is left in the article is incorrect. You may side with mistakes all you want--I prefer the correct facts. And I will not make it my business to correct someone else's work work when they so royally mess it up--let them do it. I don't care enough about it to do a complete correction.

I was was merely trying to point out to the original writer a major set of errors, of which that writer may wish to be apprised. But have it your way (it is the way of the world, after all): just leave wrong information out there, and when someone tries to correct it or set someone straight, criticize them. The both of you look very foolish! Alpine Joy (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

While the details of the plot were super thorough, it was not exactly a 'summary' and had a flag. I tightened up the section and removed the flag. A summary should leave at least a bit to the imagination... Anneaholaward (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I've rewritten and expanded the plot description. Further revisions and contributions are very welcome -- it's been a few years since I last saw The Hunger, and I may have made mistakes or omissions. I noticed that the older version of this section contained plot points and information that are not from the movie at all, but rather the novel. This is confusing and should be avoided. But since the plot of the novel is slightly different, should we add a section explaining these differences? There are already some comments about the altered ending. CKarnstein 04:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that you did an excellent job with your rewrite of this article. Nice work! Labyrinth13 18:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No alternate ending though? There is one, but it is not included.

I just watched the movie last night and it didn't seem to me that Miriam was pushed by her old lovers but rather that she panicked when confronted with her past and responsibility towards them and then fell down the stairs in an accident. Honestly, I have asked myself several times what the meaning of this end is. Why do her lovers finally die when she gets old? Why does she get old in the first place, she doesn't seem to die? etc. etc... kmir78

• Well, I disagree with the plot description. The (Miriam) lovers die only when Mirian herself is “vampirized” by Sarah (remember than both women have blood streaming from their mouths as if a fight took place), this caused that “her blood” was conquered by the new blood, the one of Sarah´s. Thus –when she hits the floor but not because of it- she ages very rapidly cause –on contraire of all of the lovers- she is very, very, very old. Once she gets old –but not die- all her vampirized victims can die –to really die, that is- so they turn to cracks and ashes. Sarah becomes the new dominant vampire, and she keeps instead new “lovers”. There is a hint with the real state man saying that the revenues of the mansion sale have to go to a clinic. Obviously its Sarah´s maneuver, but we don’t know if its done just for the sake of her old job or because she still have a hope of overcoming this vampire “disease”. At least she has centuries to try. Excuse my poor English. --Magnvss 04:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Although this was outlined in the novel, the movie omitted many explanations as to what the differences between Miriam and her lovers were, and what her species' powers and weaknesses were. Miriam's species can't die in the manner that regular humans are familiar with, but they can be injured badly, and still take a normal amount of time to heal. The fall she suffers at the end dealt Miriam what would otherwise be fatal injuries, disabling her long enough for Sarah to imprision her. The original ending (from the novel) had Sarah "dying" from blood loss and Miriam boxing her up, and fleeing New York to avoid potential investigations into the dissapearances of some of the characters. The ending was changed to give the audience the sense that Miriam was meeting some sort of punishment for her "crimes". They also seem to have fallen back on the old "saving everyone by killing the head vampire" cliche, having everyone finally die after Miriam is "dead"... although she's not dead. Needless to say, there's a reason why the cast and crew prefered the novel's ending over what the studio had put in place.

I'm compiling a list of differences between the movie and the novel, and plan to post it here over the weekend. It's so far just main plot points (like the one explaining Miriam's abilities/weaknesses), and I plan to re-read the novel and review the movie to root out details I've missed. --Kt'Hyla 20:20, 18 October 2007 (EST)

I've removed the portion in the plot outline regarding Sarah being Miriam's first lesbian lover, as Miriam has taken other female lovers before. In particular, she addresses Lollia, a former lover in the coffin next to John's, in the scene where she boxes him up. Other females also appear amongst the corpses at the end of the movie. Alice was also being groomed as John's replacement, although it was more prudent not to spell this out in the movie, IMO.

I'm also wondering about dropping the word "lesbian" in describing the "tie" between Sarah and Miriam, so the sentence reads "Sarah discovers that her tie with Miriam...", as the term seems to be extraneous here. Otherwise, what's written here is probably the best rationalization of an ending that probably wasn't meant to make sense in the first place.

As a bit of trivia, neither of the characters are actually lesbian, of which implies that they only like other women: Sarah is still hetero, she's just seduced by Miriam (Miriosexual?). Miriam herself could be considered bisexual, although the novel's sequel actually alludes to her relationships with humans being more along the lines of bestiality, as her kind considers humans to be nothing more than livestock. As the frisky Scotsman would say, "ewwwwwwe" :D. Strieber actually explains both of these points in the novels. --Kt'Hyla 05:20, 30 October 2007 (EST)

Movie and the Novel Differences

I've added sections for "Explanation of the difference between Miriam and her lovers" and "Differences between the Movie and the Novel". It occurred to me when writing the differences between the novel and the movie that a short section explaining the Miriam's condition vs her lovers would be helpful for people looking to understand that aspect of the story. Feedback on the form and content would be appreciated, personally I feel the section covering the novel is a bit long. --Kt'Hyla 04:40, 30 October 2007 (EST)

What else is needed?

I love this film and have seen it a dozen times. What else needs to be added? Anneaholaward (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I am interested in the opera piece that Mirian plays to Sarah - she begins on the piano and then it becomes background opera. It's a famous piece - what is it called? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.132.124.118 (talk) 23:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

ok I found it - it's "The Flower Duet" by Lakmé. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.132.124.118 (talk) 23:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Added to article. --cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 04:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

So I think the thing to add then is more about the music, which is pivotal to the filmAnneaholaward (talk) 01:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, what is the musical theme of film? Some operatic piece, but which? --cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 04:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

What happened to the plot?

As is it, it makes no sense because someone has cut out the beginning, middle and the end! This isn't the teaser on the back of a DVD, it should explain comprehensively the film's story. I had to read the article in 2007 to make sense of it all.

That is how truly bad the plot really is, it needs to be reworked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.137.136 (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Daughters of Darkness

The plot is very similar. Is this one of the films it has been compared to? details, please, if available.(mercurywoodrose)75.61.132.46 (talk) 01:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced commentary

To reply to Michael C. Price's question to me here: no, the book itself cannot be used as a source for commentary on how the book differs from the film. That's original research, and ruled out by the relevant policy. Nor could the book itself be used to support the other original research in that section ("As is the case with most film adaptations of novels..."), which really does need to be deleted. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

"screened out of competition"

"The film was screened out of competition at the 1983 Cannes Film Festival." What in the Sam Hill does that mean? 108.7.232.142 (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

It means it was screened at the Cannes Film Festival in 1983, but that it wasn't up for any awards. Pretty normal parlance. Cardinal Wurzel (talk) 13:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Character names => actors

It is traditional to insert in brackets after the character's name, the actor or actresses name. Please someone, do this (or restore it if someone deleted it previously). [do not publish my IP, I shouldn't need to ask it, I guess the people who lurk on this site are rapist stalkers because they perpetually invade our privacy and degrade our dignity and force the requirement to beg for mercy as in this addendum, longer than the comment I sought to make for my enquiry, what a ***** that tosser Jimmy Wales must be, to not only permit to occur without comment, but actually to fund and stand his reputation on such an operation, without properly ensuring it is safe and respectful, my God they put the facebook creep in front of congress, when will they grill Mr Wales?] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.157.18 (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

it is referenced prominently in a key scene of The Miseducation of Cameron Post

in the scene, it is used as a seduction tool by Cameron Post on her friend Coley Taylor, leading to them having sex and Cameron's imprisonment in a conversion camp. In an interview with autostraddle, Emily M Danforth discusses this use of The Hunger in some detail. 92.40.5.78 (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)