Talk:Kind Hearts and Coronets

Transcript of film

A complete transcript of the film is available at: www.linguetic.co.uk(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC))

The plot thickens, and needs to be thinned.

It's way over the recommended limit of 700 words. I'll get to it later if nobody does it first. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Good work so far. One substantive error: Mama's letter to the banker does get a reply, which Louis reads: "'Madam, I am instructed by Lord Ascoyne d'Ascoyne to inform you that he is not aware of your son's existence as a member of the d'Ascoyne family.' Signed by his secretary." I changed "receives no answer" to "receives only another snub"; is that too vague? —Tamfang (talk) 05:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

-- Regarding the last sentence of the Plot section: "available for anyone to read." I am minded to slightly change this to end with an ellipsis to read: "available for anyone to read..."

Would this be acceptable to Wikipedians? CatNip48 (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

No. It's not encyclopaedic writing. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kind Hearts and Coronets/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ssven2 (talk · contribs) 07:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I will review this article. Thank you.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• "After her death Louis decides to gain revenge on the family" — Can be rephrased as "After her death Louis decides to take revenge on the family"?
• "to take the dukedom" — "dukedom" sounds like stardom and a tad informal. Might consider rephrasing it to "to take the title Duke of Chalfont".

• It's the formal name for a duke's title and office (as opposed to the territory, which is a duchy). Perhaps if I linked it to the Wiktionary definition? - The Bounder (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@The Bounder: That's good.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• "Its reputation has lasted well" — Sounds like something one would write in a novel rather than an encyclopaedia. Might say it like "Its has continued to receive favourable reviews over the years".

• I've changed it, but "reputation" is broader than reviews suggests: it is still a film popular with viewers too, and the BFI and Times listings both fall outside reviews.

Favourable reviews applies to everyone (From public, historians and reviewers) in general.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

...Rest tomorrow.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you: I look forward to your comments. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Here they are:

• "The Mazzinis were poor but happy until Mazzini died upon seeing Louis, his newborn son, for the first time." — After seeing the film, I couldn't understand this part. All that Guinness says is "They were poor, but they had five happy and harmonious years before my arrival sent Papa off to join the heavenly choir." Was it because he was hideous looking or just die out of happiness and excitement of having a child? Better to clarify on this. (Just a clarification, no need to make any changes)
• "Other filming was undertaken at Ealing Studios" — A better alternative for "Other filming"?
• "The film has been adapted for radio. In March 1965 the BBC Home Service broadcast an adaptation by Gilbert Travers-Thomas, with Dennis Price reprising his role as Louis D'Ascoyne Mazzini. in 1990, BBC Radio 4 produced a new adaptation featuring Robert Powell as the entire D'Ascoyne clan, including Louis, and Timothy Bateson as the hangman, and another for BBC7 featuring Michael Kitchen as Mazzini and Harry Enfield as the D'Ascoyne family." — Reference no. 39 does not mention the year of the radio adaptation and the 1965 as well as the BBC7 versions aren't covered in it too.

That's about it from me. Good job overall with the article.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 15:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you Ssven2. All these have now been dealt with. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 20:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I've had to undo a couple of the changes you made. Firstly, "Jr." is almost never used in British English; occasionally "the younger" as a suffix, but the title of Lord can act just as well in this case. Secondly, "Marrying beneath one's station" is the norm in British English too, rather than "status", which carries little meaning in social class terms. I'll make the necessary alterations in line with your comments shortly. Thank you once again, All the best, The Bounder (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) the film has a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes (here). Please see where it can fit. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

There is little benefit to RT (in general, but particularly in what is supposed to be encyclopaedic content). The film has been criticised, if even only slightly, so to claim "100%" is doing their readers a disservice. RT is also mostly useless on anything before 2000, particularly from something from the 1940s, and the use of contemporary reviews (and subsequent poll placing) is a much better indicator than a misguided and misleading percentage figure. I think there was a film project consensus not to include them on older films, although I am uncertain about that. - The Bounder (talk) 18:06, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I have not heard of a consensus against adding RT scores for pre-2000s films, but you may read Wikipedia:Review aggregators#Limitations before proceeding. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't intend to proceed with any addition of RT information, but the limitations shown on that link are very clear for this film. – The Bounder (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Bounder's statement on RT. Even though some contemporary reviews criticise the film, it still shows a 100% rating. Even in some cases, you can see mixed reviews like 2.5/4 being given a fresh rating sometimes and a rotten rating sometimes. Better let it be an external link.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• Ssven2, I think I have covered all your points, but please let me know if there are any I have missed, or if you would like further work on any aspect. Thank you once again for your comments so far. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 07:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall: Passed, my queries were met and solved by the nominator.

   Pass or Fail:

Congratulations.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• That is wonderful news, thank you very much. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 07:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Active Disagreements

Copied closed discussion from user talk page for reference. 286blue (talk) 09:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Passport to Pimlico

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, not started a talk before (is this the right place?). About Passport to Pimlico, the release date of the 28th of April 1949 has been researched. You mention there is more than one source pointing to the 26th of April - what are these? The first cinema listings for the film are on the 28th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 286blue (talk • contribs) 19:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, The articles don't have publicly available or verifiable citations which is why I've added citations to links online whereby people can see for themselves. It may well be to a selling site but they reference the correct newspaper cinema listings. The actual cinema listings are behind paywalls so impossible to link to.

I've had a look at the newspaper listings personally since you edited the dates to incorrect ones and the citations I provided are correct regarding cinema dates. Kind Hearts & Coronets did NOT open on the 13th, it opened on the 23rd - likewise Passport to Pimlico did NOT open on the 26th, it opened on the 28th. To double-check, I took a look and I've seen the cinema listings myself on The Guardian newspaper archive as well as The Times Newspaper archive but I can't link to them as they're behind paywalls/registration pages.

I've just double-checked one of the citations for the wikipedia page of Passport to Pimlico and it's completely incorrect. The citation for the date of 26 April 1949 is for an article dated 30 April 1949 called "NEW FILMS IN LONDON" - this is for a short review of the film and does NOT list any release date. The correct release date is the 28th as I've seen in the newspaper cinema listings.

As for the citation used for the release date of Kind Hearts & Coronets, again, this is incorrect. The 13 June 1949 was a TRADE ONLY screening for PRESS and CINEMA distributors - this was not the public premiere of the film which took place on 23 June 1949.

I'm not particularly interested in helping Wikipedia to be correct but thought I'd try to help once I noticed the dates were wrong. Nor am I versed in the ways of Wikipedia with regards to talk/messaging/etc, but I'm trying to help make sure that the correct dates are listed on Wikipedia as they're currently incorrect and you've reverted my edits to reinstate the wrong dates which do not have relevant, reliable, or correct citations. If you're happy to leave incorrect information at Wikipedia, and seemingly intent on removing my correct dates, so be it - I was just trying to help with the facts as a good online citizen but seems that's not welcome. - 286blue

Kind Heart & Coronets

Hi again, the release date for Kind Hearts & Coronets has been researched and is correct from the cinema listings - you've seemingly changed it to an arbitrary date 10 days earlier without a citation. Do you have a reference for this new date you've added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 286blue (talk • contribs) 19:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, The articles don't have publicly available or verifiable citations which is why I've added citations to links online whereby people can see for themselves. It may well be to a selling site but they reference the correct newspaper cinema listings. The actual cinema listings are behind paywalls so impossible to link to.

I've had a look at the newspaper listings personally since you edited the dates to incorrect ones and the citations I provided are correct regarding cinema dates. Kind Hearts & Coronets did NOT open on the 13th, it opened on the 23rd - likewise Passport to Pimlico did NOT open on the 26th, it opened on the 28th. To double-check, I took a look and I've seen the cinema listings myself on The Guardian newspaper archive as well as The Times Newspaper archive but I can't link to them as they're behind paywalls/registration pages.

I've just double-checked one of the citations for the wikipedia page of Passport to Pimlico and it's completely incorrect. The citation for the date of 26 April 1949 is for an article dated 30 April 1949 called "NEW FILMS IN LONDON" - this is for a short review of the film and does NOT list any release date. The correct release date is the 28th as I've seen in the newspaper cinema listings.

As for the citation used for the release date of Kind Hearts & Coronets, again, this is incorrect. The 13 June 1949 was a TRADE ONLY screening for PRESS and CINEMA distributors - this was not the public premiere of the film which took place on 23 June 1949.

I'm not particularly interested in helping Wikipedia to be correct but thought I'd try to help once I noticed the dates were wrong. Nor am I versed in the ways of Wikipedia with regards to talk/messaging/etc, but I'm trying to help make sure that the correct dates are listed on Wikipedia as they're currently incorrect and you've reverted my edits to reinstate the wrong dates which do not have relevant, reliable, or correct citations. If you're happy to leave incorrect information at Wikipedia, and seemingly intent on removing my correct dates, so be it - I was just trying to help with the facts as a good online citizen but seems that's not welcome. - 286blue —Preceding undated comment added 21:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The date (for both films) is not arbitrary: they are both sourced in the body (and you should know that, as you've edited that part which has a citation next to it. The source you've used is a commercial site and therefore a no-no. It also wouldn't be considered a wp:reliable source. - SchroCat (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi again, As somewhat of a Wikipedia novice, I was concerned after your comment that I shouldn't be linking to commercial sites, even if they have helpful citations, so looked up the wiki policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest which states "Links to potentially revenue-generating web pages are not prohibited".

It is a reliable source as it's licensed the films we're discussing, as well as referenced the cinema release dates with screenshots, so will have had access to the actual film archives.

The dates (for both films) are still currently incorrect on their Wikipedia pages, arbitrary or not. The Passport to Pimlico citation for example is to a film review which does NOT list ANY date, correct or otherwise, as it's a review, and the citation for the Kind Hearts and Coronets date refers to a TRADE ONLY screening for Press, not the public premiere. So they are sourced incorrectly and currently incorrect.

BUT, like I previously said, I was only trying to help get the correct dates on Wikipedia once I spotted they were incorrect. I was just trying to help with the facts as a good online citizen but if you're intent on removing my correct dates, so be it. Let Wikipedia remain incorrect. 286blue (talk) 21:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't have all my sources to hand, but I do have the following:

Kind Hearts and Coronets by Michael Newton, published in 2003 by the BFI. Page 26: "watching the film at its premiere on the very hot night of 13 June 1949..."

The same BFI series also gives the correct date for the Whisky Galore release. I think there is enough doubt cast on the artandhue website with these two dates not to rely on it to only heavily. I see that unfortunately you've amended a great many dates for films based on what it says. Do you not think it might be best for you to revert back to the previous dates until a source is used that knows what it's talking about?

The guidance you've linked to is the one for External Links: that's about the section at the bottom of the page. It matters not in this case, as the information they are publishing is very, very wrong.

Editing comment to add the PtP information:

"Passport to Pimlico at 70", published by the BFI. "First released 70 years ago, on 26 April 1949..."

I hope this helps clarify things. - SchroCat (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The full quote from the Kind Hearts book starts "Yet for the reviewers watching the film at its premiere on the very hot night of 13 June 1949…" - this was a trade-only screening for press. and cinema distributors, not open to the public, so the writer should have not have called it a premiere. The first cinema listing in multiple newspapers was the 23rd.

There is no doubt about the dates on that site as far as I can see - I have double-checked the cinema listings in the actual online archives of The Guardian and The Times sites, and, for my own peace of mind, have verified they're correct. I would recommend you do the same.

The date for Whisky Galore is the same for a start, 16th, and the differences here are just your interpretation for Kind Hearts:

- You are maintaining that a trade-only screening for Kind Hearts, which was only open to the press, and not the public, is the official premiere date, which was actually the 23rd when it opened to the public.

- As for Passport to Pimlico, as much as I hate to contradict the wonderful BFI, the date of the 26th is wrong. Had I not delved deeper into the archives, I would have taken that at face value a couple of hours ago, but the first cinema listings in the newspapers were for the 28th. It may be that the BFI are referring to a possible press/trade-only screening on the 26th but the film was definitely not listed in cinemas on the 26th. Would recommend you go through the newspaper cinema listings for the 26th 27th and 28th yourself so you can see with your own eyes.

BUT, like I said previously, let the wrong dates stand. I'm a film buff who was trying to be helpful, not a full-time wikipedia editor, so let Wikipedia remain incorrect. 286blue (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The BFI have called it a premiere, and it took place on a Friday evening (the traditional days of premieres back then). It's a very reliable source, certainly much more so than the absence of a newspaper advert! There is nothing wrong here: you are trying to argue against very solid sources. If you come up with a better source, please let me know, but otherwise there is no point going round in circles.

Can I suggest you revert your other changes to dates, if you've used the artandhue website as the source of your information? It's obviously very wrong. - SchroCat (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

It's a leap to say it's very wrong because you are choosing to stick to incorrect sources. Firstly, the screenshots on that site match up with the cinema listings I've double-checked for my own peace of mind at the newspaper archive sites.

Secondly, the incorrect date you're referring to at the BFI website of April 26th was not a Friday but a Tuesday in 1949 - not a typical release or premiere day so was either trade-only or a BFI typo.

Thirdly, it's incorrect that Friday was the traditional days for premieres back then. It was/is Thursdays. Whisky Galore opened on a Thursday, as did Kind Hearts and Coronets, and Passport to Pimlico.

If you check the calendar for 1949, you'll see that the CORRECT release dates of 23 June (Kind Hearts and Coronets), 16 June (Whisky Galore) and 28 April (Passport to Pimlico), are all Thursdays, the traditional British day for new film releases.

The newspaper cinema listings exist online for reference and research, albeit behind registrations/paywalls, and are not absent. Unfortunately they aren't publicly available for viewing for use as citations so I can't link to them directly for you to see for yourself that Passport to Pimlico was not released on Tuesday 26th April 1949 but rather on Thursday the 28th, but there is a screenshot of one publication at the original citation link I provided which states the film opens on the 28th. 286blue (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Look, we have dates that are provided by the BFI. You are relying on WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, which is what we don't do. As a tertiary source, we reflect what the reliable sources say, we don't make it up. It's time to move on. As you are sticking to your guns on this, I presume you're not bothering to change the rest of the film dates you've altered to reflect an incorrect source, which means someone else will have to work their way through to pit them back to the correct dates. - SchroCat (talk) 02:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Use of unreliable commercial site

286blue, stop edit warring for crying out loud. Your knee-jerk reversion also took out other constructive changes, so please do not blindly revert on such limited rationale again. There is also an additional problem that the page you are linking to contains copyright infringing material. Under the WP:LINKVIO policy, we cannot link to sites that infringe copyright. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 08:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Origin of name "Mazzini"

I wonder whether Louis was named after Giuseppe Mazzini? Grassynoel (talk) 13:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I assume that he was. Although it's curious that he has the French name, Louis, rather than the Italian equivalent, Luigi. PatGallacher (talk) 13:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

It's just a name. Any such conjecture is totally unsupported. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Who is supposed to be the ninth D’Ascoyne?

The BFI website says that Alec Guinness played nine assorted members of the D’Ascoyne clan and the article mentions this fact repeatedly. Other sources declare unanimously that there were only eight of them, and in the film itself (and in the “Cast" table in the article) I also find only eight. So are we reproducing a mistake of the BFI website here, or is there a ninth D’Ascoyne played by Guinness? Jossi (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

It has been suggested that an earlier Duke of Chalfont, played by Guinness, appears briefly in a flashback scene. However I think this needs proper sourcing before we can include it. PatGallacher (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Now I've found this passage in the BFI book on Kind Hearts and Coronets by Michael Newton (p.55): "In Kind Hearts, Guinness plays eight roles, as well as being the original for the portrait of the first Duke of Chalfont, and perhaps also for the first duke and his wife in effigy on the family vault." I think this can hardly be considered as acting or playing a role, so it should be safe enough to change "nine" to "eight" in the article. --Jossi (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)