Talk:Not My Life

Copyedit finished

This is just a note to let you know that I'm done with copyediting the article. I hope I helped and didn't mess things up too much. As you can see, I removed a bunch of wiki links from words that I felt were too general or commonly known. For example, I removed the states from "Chicago, Illinois" etc. because I felt these cities were all well-known enough to stand by themselves.

I also want to talk to you about one of the images in this article: File:Wiki-prostitute.png, the drawing of the woman leaning on the car window. I think it should be removed. It doesn't have anything in particular to do with this movie, and honestly, I think it portrays a pretty stereotypical view of prostitution, something this movie tried to refute.

Anyhoo, have a good one. Bobnorwal (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the copyedit! It is greatly appreciated. I have replaced the image you mention with a more suitable one. Thanks again! Neelix (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Not My Life/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 1ST7 (talk · contribs) 01:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey Neelix, I'll review this. Initial comments should be posted in the next twenty-four hours. --1ST7 (talk) 01:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's the review:

1. Well-written
   • The phrase "many people watching the film bring to it the belief that slavery was abolished a long time ago" sounds a little strange. I think it would be better to just say that "many people believe that slavery was abolished a long time ago".
   • Please explain this phrase a little more: "These girls are pictured in a doorway." Does it mean they are standing in a doorway while they are being filmed? What is the reason for including this detail?
2. Verifiable with no original research:
   • Reference no. 23 is a dead link.
3. Broad in its coverage:
   • The article implies that the third installment to the trilogy has been cancelled. Can you please make this more clear?
4. Neutral:
5. Stable:
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:

Overall, this article looks close to ready for promotion, and you've done a great job on it (documentaries can be pretty hard to find a sufficient number of sources for). I'll put the article on hold until the things mentioned above are addressed. --1ST7 (talk) 01:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking on this review! I have reworded the sentence about the abolishment of slavery, clarified the nature of the scene in which girls appear in a doorway, repaired the link rot, and added a new source to explain the current situation with Bilheimer's plans for his next film. Please let me know if you have any remaining concerns regarding the article. Neelix (talk) 05:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Everything looks good now, so I'm passing the article. Congratulations, and thanks for your work on it! --1ST7 (talk) 05:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Rhodes article

An awful lot of this is based on Nancy Keefe Rhodes's article in Stone Canoe. In fact, that is the only item in the Bibliography as of now. This is not bad of itself, but there are places where the article ceases to be about the film and instead is about the article. For instance

...audiences' views on contemporary slavery are nonetheless influenced by the slave-like imagery in such films as Hustle & Flow (2005) and Black Snake Moan (2007). The Academy Award-winning Hustle & Flow portrays a pimp as the hero, while Black Snake Moan features Christina Ricci as a young nymphomaniac; the marketing for Black Snake Moan centered on evocative, sexualized slave imagery, including a scantily-clad Ricci in chains.

These are interesting points, but they are points made by Rhodes in her article, not Bilheimer in his film, and therefore not directly pertinent to the Themes section of this article. Regardless of the fact that this now has Featured Article status, it needs to be edited to stay focused on the film, and not stray off into tangential discussion about slavery or its perception in the modern world. 86.41.35.180 (talk) 14:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I would recommend that this content be re-added to the article because, without it, the subsequent sentence is difficult to parse:

According to Rhodes, Bilheimer "rescue[s] modern slaves from representation as exotic creatures, to restore their humanity" and allow audiences to relate to them.

Without the context of how Rhodes believes audiences are likely to conceive of modern sex slaves because of other popular films, readers are likely to be left wondering what would cause slaves to be considered exotic creatures. What do you think, 86.41.35.180? Neelix (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that that sentence should be removed as well. If Bilheimer did not say that he wanted to , then Rhodes's suggestion that he did is as irrelevant as the description of the films themselves. I am going to edit accordingly. 86.41.36.106 (talk) 12:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Because we are still discussing these edits, I have reverted your most recent ones. We can implement edits once consensus is reached. I disagree that Rhodes's statements about Bilheimer's intentions in making the film are irrelevant; Rhodes is a film critic who wrote an important review of this film, and her arguments about Bilheimer's intentions should be included in this article, as should the relevant contextualization. Remember that this is the "Themes" section, not the "Contents" section. The "Themes" section is supposed to deal with critics' opinions on what the themes of the film are, and these critics' comparisons of the film's themes with the themes of other films is relevant. Neelix (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

No, the Themes section is supposed to deal with the themes of the film, citing notable critics. Obviously, this means their opinions are taken into account, but it does not include supposition or imagination of what was in the film-maker's mind. I haven't seen this film, but from what I read in the rest of the article, it did not at any stage, even indirectly, deal with posters of a scantily-clad Christina Ricci, or say that its purpose was to "rescue modern slaves from representation as exotic creatures". If these are not verifiably themes of the film, they are completely out of place in the Themes section, and spoil what is otherwise a good analysis. Nancy Keefe Rhodes did not explicitly say that they were themes of the film (how could she?), she indulged in a little philosophizing of her own. And, as film critic, she has every right to. Journalists are encouraged to "sex up" (in this case literally) their pieces. She cannot be blamed for going down this side-street, and as I said in my original post, she made some good points. But even a section of an article on a film should not become an article on a film critique in a journal.

As for "comparisons of the film's themes with the themes of other films", comparing Things to Do in Denver When You're Dead with Pulp Fiction is a useful exercise; critiquing a documentary on slavery by reference to a fictional movie that's not about slavery is not the same thing at all. Surely you can see that?

You have wisely put a disclaimer on the top of this page, saying you are not asserting ownership of the article. Nevertheless, you clearly have an emotional investment in the article, and you have difficulty in accepting that anything in what has become a Featured Article could be less than perfect. Perhaps you need to take a step back and try to look at it as an outsider. If an ordinary Joe like me can read the article and immediately think "that's wrong; it shouldn't be here", does that not suggest that there remains something that can be improved? And if my edits were allowed to stand, would the section, never mind the whole article, be poorer as a result? You asked me above, "what do you think?" I think the Themes section is better, not poorer, for the absence of those distractions. 86.41.47.157 (talk) 09:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from making comments about editors; this is a place for discussion of article content. I support article changes that represent the consensus of the community. At present, the consensus of the community on the particular passage we are discussing was established through the featured article candidacy, in which this passage was discussed specifically. This passage was partially generated as part of that discussion, involving multiple editors. I respect the fact that you disagree with that consensus, and it is certainly possible for that consensus to change, but consensus has not yet changed on this point. If we are unable to come to an agreement between the two of us, we should request the input of the other editors who expressed an interest in this passage. I am still hopeful, however, that we will manage to reach a mutually satisfactory decision on our own.

To address your points, I do not see how the passage we are discussing constitutes suppositions or imagination. Rhodes wrote her article as a result of an extensive interview process with Bilheimer. She didn't just imagine things or go off independently philosophizing; she got to know Bilheimer and received an understanding of what his intentions were in making the film. These intentions do not need to be stated in the film in order to be justifiably expressed in this article. With respect to the poster of a scantily-clad Ricci, the comparison with this film is very relevant. While popular culture (instantiated by the films mentioned) commonly gives the public the impression that sex slaves are exotic and de-emphasizes their relatability, Bilheimer tried to fashion Not My Life in such a way as to depict the sex slaves in such a way that audiences would relate to them. This is a central thrust of the film. I am surprised that you wish to remove this content from the article. Neelix (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

If you want a third opinion, then I'll simply ask for a third opinion. I'm not going to go round in circles. 86.41.47.30 (talk) 10:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

District attorney blow job request

According to an interview with Bilheimer outside the film, an assistant district attorney, who was contacted to help a friend of Angie's prepare her testimony, "asked her to ... give him a blow job before he talked to her". I had to re-read this sentence 4 times before I could make sense of it---there are too many nested modifiers for my brain. Instead of fixing it, I would like to delete it because this section pertains to the "contents" of the movie, but this sentence appears to refer to something that isn't actually part of the movie. Any objections? Phlar (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I would recommend that this statement be re-added (albiet in a clearer way), because it provides valuable contextual information regarding the kinds of revictimization Angie and her peers were at risk of facing even after having been rescued. While this information does not appear in the film itself, Bilheimer provided this information in an interview about the film, and it is information that he gathered while doing research for the film. What do you think, Phlar? Neelix (talk) 20:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@Neelix: I think the article already goes into more than enough detail on the subject. No need to re-add it, in my opinion. Phlar (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. 86.41.36.106 (talk) 12:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Is anybody there?

This article was on the front page of Wikipedia a couple of weeks ago, yet nobody appears to even be watching the talk page! Or at least nobody seems to be bothered to respond to serious questions about the content. I'm going to simply delete the sentences referred to in the two sections above, as nobody has come up with any ideas for improving them. 86.41.47.125 (talk) 14:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing an interest in improving this article. It is common for article talk pages to lack constant monitoring. I personally am involved with a wide range of articles, and do not have time to monitor all of them. It is for this reason that I added a link to my user page above, so that people could notify me directly if they had questions about the article. If you have any further questions, I would greatly appreciate a message on my talk page, or else a ping by linking my username in your comment here. Neelix (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)