Talk:Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Film: French / Core Start‑class | ||||||||||||
|
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Belgium Start‑class | |||||||||
|
DVD release
- Henderson, Eric (2009-08-24). "Jeanne Dielman, 23, Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles".
I had thought the recent DVD release was the first ever, but apparently there was an earlier issue.
Oddity: Jeanne Dielman–Criterion Cooking Video Contest! (archive). / edg ☺ ☭ 12:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
"Orgasm" interpretation is WP:OR
Several times the following explanation of the murder has been deleted (by varying editors),[1] [2] [3] [4]
when she unexpectedly has an orgasm with the day's client
... and then restored each time by Nightspore (talk · contribs).[5] [6] [7][8]
No case has been made for this orgasm—it's an ideocyncratic interpretation that I would consider rather contrary to the intent of the movie (and therefore a real disservice in this article). Rather than argue interpretations, however, I'll offer that the Slant magazine review (linked from this article) describes the ending as ambiguous (listing "unexpected orgasm" not once in the possible interpretations), and User:Nightspore has not provided a source for this this apparently unstated (and, IMO, unlikely) motivation. I don't have a link to the Akerman interview, but the Slant article refers to her saying the murder was an arbitrary, definitive ending without any other meaning in itself (the preceeding 3+ hours of the movie being the "point", so to speak).
Please understand I am not objecting to a plot spoiler; revealing the murder and its specifics are fine with me. My main concern is the motivation being given for this action is completely unsourced.
Since it pushes upon readers (and potential viewers) a pat (in the sense of being both trite and superficially complete) message that may not be (and I would say probably isn't) the director's intent, this error non-trivial in effect.
I would very much like to remove this misleading motivation from the summary, and I would like it not to be reinstated. I'd prefer to see some kind of WP:CONSENSUS established beforehand (rather than a perpetual WP:EDITWAR). Is there any reason I should not remove this line? Is there any reason for retaining this explanation? / edg ☺ ☭ 02:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- That element of the plot is now sourced from a major film critic's account of the movie. ~Nightspore
- Okay, that relieves me of the concern that this was WP:MADEUP. However, this still seems to be one viewer's opinion where many (if not most) viewers consider the motivation a mystery, in which case it might merit mention in the article, but still wouldn't be suited for a plot summary.
- I cannot find this book in my local library system. For WP:V's sake, could you provide a relevant excerpt from Cavell On Film so we can see what he says here? The closest I can find is a reference to the review from a book on Cavell. We should probably add a short quote to the article's citation as well, but for Talk page purposes it would be helpful to have enough to establish context. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- I guess I'm not seeing what's worrying you. The entry doesn't say that having an orgasm is what motivates her to stab of the john. It gives a sequence of events. Maybe it's the word "climax" that's bothering you. I'd invite you to change that word, if that's the case. I'll point out that I wasn't the editor who put in this element of the plot summary. And now I've cited arguably the most important film theorist in the world on the issue. It's quite a stretch to put Stanley Cavell in the category of WP:UNDUE, as you do in response.
- I don't think, by the way, that Cavell disagrees with you that much (nor do I really; I think her orgasm is at least as much a sign or result of the previous anomalies as a cause in itself), and I would be happy to have you quote his more detailed plot summary in that section, viz., "...on the third day we are not kept outside but accompany her with that day's client into her bedroom. After an abstract scene of intercourse in which she is apparently brought to orgasm despite her air of indifference, she rises, moves about her room to her dressing table to freshen herself, picks up the pair of scissors which we had seen her find and take into the room in order to cut the wrapping of the present just arrived from her sister, walks with the scissors over to the man lying back on her bed, stabs him fatally in the throat, and slides the scissors onto her table as she walks out of the room" (pp. 257-258). (I, by the way, don't think she stabs him in the throat, but other editors and I have papered over that disagreement.)
- Cavell goes on to say - and this is where I think you would more or less agree with him - "As for a narrative that amounts to an explanation of the stabbing, it would make sense to say that it was caused by any of the differences between one day and the following", and he lists a bunch of those differences (the coffee, the potatoes, the dress) including but not privileging "slipping against her will into orgasm." But certainly what happens in bed that third day is a difference from the previous two.
- Though not verifiable by WP standards, I'll say, since this is a talk page, what I think you may have seen me say elsewhere, that Akerman said to me, and to Cavell, in conversation, that he was right to lay stress on the orgasm she experiences. This is part of Cavell's general interest in representations of women's experience and the problem that it causes for male viewers, in Shakespeare, in what he calls comedies of remarriage, in what he calls the melodrama of the unknown woman, and in Jeanne Dielman.
- In The Woman at the Keyhole: Feminism and Women's Cinema, Judith Mayne writes: "After Jeanne experiences what appears to be sexual orgasm, she kills her client." Very interesting is Mayne's footnote to this where she says that the orgasm seems obvious to her, but where she also cites an article by Brenda Longfellow who said that she surveyed woman for what they thought happened in that last scene, and that their reading of Jeanne's response - pleasure or disgust - correlated with their own sexual orientation.
- I am a big believer in a maximalist approach to Wikipedia. I would be happy to have Cavell quoted and Slant magazine or some skeptic of the orgasm-interpretation and Maybe and Longfellow quoted as well. Also, thanks for reminding me about the four tildes - it was late and I was very tired when I posted last night.
'Real Time' - 'The film depicts the life of Jeanne Dielman in real time'
Akerman says it is not real time in this interview.
www.canvas.be/programmas/de-canvasconnectie/server1-4fb24d04%3A13d7c2bafba%3A-4a14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.172.196.228 (talk) 11:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Category "Cooking Films" or "Films about food and drink"
Thanks to Icarus of old for raising this issue in a reversion of "CATEGORY:Films about food and drink," and edit summary (here).
I share the concern to get it right, or at least as close to "right" as the existing categories allow. It would be better if there were a category "Films with food themes" or some such, but....
The closest category I could find was "Films about food and drink," which still seems to me a little better than "Cooking films." I agree that it would be "reductionist" to use either one of them as the only category, but no more so than "Films about prostitution." Each of these categories has heuristic value.
My motive was to lead readers to this "seminal feminist film" (as IOO rightly terms it). Akerman has used food and cooking from the beginning of her career for thematic and analytical purposes, and it is not "reductionist" to acknowledge this aspect of her craft.
But again thanks for objecting to the original category and forcing me to add more sources.
BTW, what makes anyone think I am a "MAN"? ch (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140331174817/http://www.filmsite.org/villvoice.html to http://www.filmsite.org/villvoice.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Requested move 22 April 2019
![]() | It has been proposed in this section that Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles be renamed and moved to Jeanne Dielman, 23, Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}} . Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. |
Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles → Jeanne Dielman, 23, Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles – Restoring the missing comma after "23". 90.249.169.199 (talk) 12:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. The correct title is Jeanne Dielman 23,Quai du Commerce 1080 Bruxelles. There is only one comma in the title and there is no space between the comma and "Quai" in "23,Quai". The opening credits may be viewed here. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- You don't title articles based on opening credits. You title them based on the WP:COMMONNAME, which is Jeanne Dielman, 23, Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles. And when writing addresses, a new line equates a comma, Roman Spinner. 90.249.169.199 (talk) 12:18, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- Start-Class film articles
- Start-Class French cinema articles
- French cinema task force articles
- Core film articles supported by the French cinema task force
- Start-Class core film articles
- WikiProject Film core articles
- WikiProject Film articles
- Start-Class Belgium-related articles
- Unknown-importance Belgium-related articles
- All WikiProject Belgium pages
- Requested moves