Talk:An American Crime

Untitled

The problem with the Rotten Tomatoes rating is those are a few random reviews that appeared when the film was at Sundance, where Variety and Hollywood Reporter posted angry reviews, and most of the online community followed suit. When the film was actually screened on Showtime -- the exact same cut, by the way -- the reviews were overwhelmingly positive, with the New York Times calling it "one of the best movies to appear on television in years." Hence the nominations that followed.

I sincerely wish there was a way to communicate this in the entry, because the Rotten Tomatoes reviews are not at all representative of the bulk of reviews that were published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.70.65 (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

controversy amongst the critics

Opening paragraph states "controversy amongst the critics" but does not actually mention what that controversy is anywhere in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.98.249.59 (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

AGreed. There seems to be a lot to add here, considering the awards won - and something should be said about the similar film scheduled to come out on its original release date which /was/ released in theatres.

removed from article

no longer true; cite is not a permalink, alas.

The review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reported that 29% of critics gave the film positive reviews.

The problem with the Rotten Tomatoes rating is those are a few random reviews that appeared when the film was at Sundance, where Variety and Hollywood Reporter posted angry reviews, and most of the online community followed suit. When the film was actually screened on Showtime -- the exact same cut, by the way -- the reviews were overwhelmingly positive, with the New York Times calling it "one of the best movies to appear on television in years." Hence the nominations that followed.

I sincerely wish there was a way to communicate this in the entry, because the Rotten Tomatoes reviews are not at all representative of the bulk of reviews that were published.

Interesting. I agree that it would be beneficial to downplay the heavy-handed critics. I worked at Sundance that year and happened to see this film. A number of audience members were moved to tears. There was a discussion/Q & A afterwards with some of the creators, during which it was made clear that the bulk of the audience felt as though we had just seen something incredibly moving and well executed. In short, it seemed extremely well received, so the post-Showtime reviews are no surprise. How much is the opinion of a professional critic really worth, if the vast majority disagrees with it? --Bubbleking (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Back when this conversation was new, I was talking with an editor who had a WP:COI because he'd worked on the film. We were able to drum up some sources to better reflect the mixed reviews the film actually received. I had a decent rough draft of a revamped reception section that got eaten in an unfortunate flash drive incident and just didn't have the heart to rewrite it again (I generally stick to editing text for readability and plot summaries so dealing with all of the refs and pull quotes was a bit more mental effort for me than I normally exert around here). Somewhere on this talk page, I left the list of sources I was pulling from. I may even come back to it someday but I'm genuinely hoping someone beats me to it. Millahnna (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Disagree with request for shortening article plot summary

"This plot summary may be too long or overly detailed. Please help improve it by removing unnecessary details and making it more concise. (September 2008)"

I am not sure what could be considered 'unnecessary details' in the plot summary. It does not include everything or close to everything in the film it is describing. It is a chronologically accurate account, stated briefly, of the most important turning points in a fact-based true story.

Gertrude was sent to prison for the murder of Sylvia. Is that, for instance, an unnecessary detail?

I put it before the Wikipedia Commons to state clearly which of the details appear to be unnecessary. That Sylvia was tortured not only by the adult in charge of her but daily by the children in the neighborhood as well? Should that be removed in order to fulfill the "command" to editors on the main page of this article asking that 'unnecessary details' need removal?

It cannot, in my opinion be made more concise. The account as it is in the plot summary is void of judgment and emotionality. It is precise and clear. It is a crime that was very complex and it appears to me that the plot summary does well to 'cut to the chase' and explain the facts necessary to understand the story without getting bogged down in the details that could so easily be included; such as the children in that house as well as neighborhood children tortured Sylvia first by burning her with cigarettes, later by tying her up, sometimes by dancing her around like a mannequin. Or the fact that Gertrude was drinking and smoking with one of the teenage neighborhood boys who then completed the branding. When the branding is described all that detail is left out. Those are also facts, but unnecessary to explain the plot beyond the facts laid out in the plot summary as it is now. I see no reason to further reduce the plot description as it is concise and accurate and it would be in the Wikipedia Commons' as well as editors on Wikipedia's wisdom to leave it as it is currently. It is longer than most plot summaries because there were many people sent to incarcerating facilities regarding this particular case. None of that was mentioned either. It would seem right, therefore, to encourage editors and Commons alike to leave the plot summary as it is now, regardless of their own personal emotional responses to the detail. It is neither gratuitous nor in excess.

Nobodyz (talk) 12:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

"Truth should not be changed or altered in order to cover the embarrassment or guilt of any member of society who has wronged society." -- S.S. Carpenter, Published and Honored Poet, 2009.

Essentially, Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary#Length states the plot summary should be 300-500 words. This summary is roughly 1000 words. At least 50% of this summary could be reduced simply by making the descriptions less wordy. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I concur and am adding the film to my own personal to do list (movie summaries are becoming my thing I guess). While many irrelevant details are left out, the whole thing could be tightened up just by making better word usage choices. I estimate it oculd easily be brought down to 700 words or less. Put another way, it is not the level of detail in the article that makes it too long but rather the caliber of the writing.Millahnna (talk) 14:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Wildharlivie and Millahnna - plot summary needs extensive rewriting for serious conciseness and flow issues. The first sentence, for example, "An American Crime is split into reflections of contemporary and real and past settings" is awkward and makes little sense. The summary can easily be cut in half.Shirtwaist (talk) 12:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ellen Page starving herself

According to IMDB's trivia page for the movie, Page starved herself for this role. Would this be worth mentioning, and does anyone know the source of that info? 66.57.42.103 (talk) 11:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources for reception

Just dropping some links in to use to flesh out the reception section over the weekend:

http://tv.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/arts/television/10crim.html
http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117932475?refcatid=31
http://web.archive.org/web/20070127013459/http://www.fangoria.com/ghastly_review.php?id=3558

not sure we can use

http://www.cinema-crazed.com/0-g/anamericancrime.htm
http://blog.moviefone.com/2007/01/23/sundance-review-an-american-crime/
http://www.emanuellevy.com/review/an-american-crime-7/
http://www.filmthreat.com/reviews/9654/
http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/an-american-crime/3731

Millahnna (talk) 01:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Los Angeles Times. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Erik. I've also got a request in at the resource exchange for a copy of the Hollywood Reporter's negative review (and if anyone has a copy please email me). Since it's one of the only two "top critic" reviews listed at Tomatoes, it seems like it should be included. Right now, the LA and NY Times, Variety, and Moviefone reviews are my major contenders. Other reviews seem to note the same positives and negatives but less succinctly than those publications. Millahnna (talk) 15:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I can help with that too! Reuters tends to reprint The Hollywood Reporter articles, so Googling site:reuters.com "an american crime" gave me this. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 15:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I could hug you. So when I cite that one, I'll just use cite web then? I was all set to finally figure out everything I needed to note to source a ref to a print mag but that seems easier. Question... any opinion on using the Fangoria review? The author made a couple of nice points (one each positive and negative) that I'd like to reference. In particular I'd like to quote her sentence about "bleak" since it's a recurring theme in all of the reviews but some writers counted it as a plus and others a negative. But I'm not sure how Fangoria fares in the reliable source category since it's a niche publication (do they still even do a print mag). Millahnna (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

For Reuters, I just use {{cite news}} with an empty "work" field and a "publisher" field containing Reuters. You can add a "(Reprinted from The Hollywood Reporter.)" after the citation template but before the closing ref. tag. I think the Fangoria review is fine to use, just not as high of a priority as the more mainstream reviews. Seems like Fangoria is still in circulation, so per WP:NEWSBLOG, we can assume the same "authority" exists in the online review. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on An American Crime. 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/20071012143828/http://tommyohaver.com:80/anamericancrime/ to http://tommyohaver.com/anamericancrime/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 04:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Should American English Be Preferred Here?

I've recently become interested in editing for Wikipedia. I noticed somewhere in the materials for beginners that editing pages to use specific varieties of English should only be done if the topic pertains to the place where that variety is used. Since then, I've been wondering about the gray areas of what that could mean. I happened to come across this article, and it seemed like a good example of one of these gray areas, once I noticed a British spelling in it. Obviously, the movie's title implies that it takes place in America. It's an American-made movie, and premiered in America. Does this mean it would be preferable to correct for American English spellings, or is that more reserved for articles about America, its territories, government, history, etc?

--Bubbleking (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

It would definitely be preferable to write in American English in this particular case. If it were an American film about something in British history (or the reverse), we'd probably have a debate on our hands. But this one is pretty clear cut. I do recall there being a film that was an American-British co-production where which version of English to use was pretty hotly debated. Can't recall which one though. But that gives you a good idea of a grey area you might bump into on articles about films and the like. I primarily stick to film and tv articles, myself, so I have no idea if this comes up more in other projects around the site. Millahnna (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Horror?

I mean, Sylvia's torture and murder IS horrifying, but I wouldn't exactly call this a "horror" movie. MrWii000 (talk) 15:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)