Jump to content

Talk:Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 90.249.169.199 (talk) at 10:54, 26 April 2019 (→Requested move 22 April 2019: support move). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconFilm: French / Core Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion 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.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the French cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is on the project's core list.
WikiProject iconBelgium Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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.
Nightspore (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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)[reply]

Requested move 22 April 2019

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)[reply]

There can be many competing sources — the author of a British film book may put three commas, the author of an American film book may use two commas and a Belgian film historian may depict only one comma. The cover of a VHS cassette may display an uppercase "Q" for "Quai" and the cover of the same film's DVD might exhibit a lowercase "q". There is no WP:COMMONNAME, thus the ultimate authority must rest with the on-screen credits, which feature an uppercase "Q", no space and a single comma. We are not writing an address on an envelope — we are indicating a film title in the same manner as the filmmaker intended, unless someone contends that a Belgian filmmaker doesn't know the proper form for an address in her native country. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 14:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia policy is at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films)#From other topics. The Criterion Collection DVD cover has only one comma. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The policy you cite does not support your argument. This is the correct policy, anyway. Your Criterion cover argument holds no weight as the title is on multiple lines. When written in prose on the back cover of the same DVD, as well as on the Criterion website, the title has three commas. And a quick Google search reveals that the common name (by far) has three commas in it. 90.249.169.199 (talk) 09:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Commas, or lack thereof, do not shift depending on how the title is formatted. If there are competing sources, the on-screen credits, with a single comma, constitute the ultimate provenance. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy to back up your strange position on this. On-screen credits are almost always broken by line breaks instead of punctuation (commas and colons in particular). It's a visual thing. How they stylize the title on-screen does not affect how you write it in prose. 90.249.169.199 (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jeanne_Dielman,_23_quai_du_Commerce,_1080_Bruxelles&oldid=894212338"