Talk:Midsommar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Midsommar (film))

Title[edit]

There are conflicting reports on if it's Midsommar or Sommar. Either way, it should be consistent and should be added to the appropriate disambiguation page. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a propaganda film[edit]

The premise is that white Swedish are bad, their traditions are bad, and that the nation should become a giant version of Rinkeby (which is a failed and crime-ridden social experiment on the outskirts of Stockholm). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:140C:9B12:1:2:978B:AC0F (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to add information along these lines to the article, you will need reliable sources to support your claims. –Matthew - (talk) 16:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the commenter is so damn right! In secrecy, the Illuminati paid for this movie to help them crush the beloved white Swedish bullerby society, start a civil war and then take control of Sweden. Later on, they will hand it to the aliens. Everybody in the government and parliament are in on it! The King too! Read Swedish shitbrown alt-right media, like Nyheter idag, Samhällsnytt or Nordfront and you'll know everything about it. Beware, planet Earth! /2019-07-05 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.234.131.68 (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy?[edit]

What's the basis for putting "comedy" in the genre description? It strikes me as a film that takes itself extremely seriously. Barnabypage (talk) 13:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Senicide Elders[edit]

During the final fire scene, the plot summary says the two dead cultists are the senicide elders who threw themselves off the cliff earlier in the film. This cannot be the case as their bodies were burned over a pyre well before the final scene. This should be corrected in the plot summary. PokeHomsar (talk) 01:41, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think its point is that they counted toward the total of nine - somebody says something about them having died earlier - and as I recall they are burned in effigy during the final scene, rather than their actual bodies burned. Barnabypage (talk) 06:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The two elders who threw themselves over the cliff are represented by wooden effigies in the final fire but are included in the count of nine.User:joeldelusional (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2021(UTC)

Genre[edit]

AFI Allmovie.com specifically classifies this film as mystery/horror[1]. I see no mention of folk. If you want to retain the folk classification, please indicate what source you're using for it. DonIago (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source you cite is actually "AllMovie.com", not the American Film Institute. AllMovie's genres appear to be user-generated, and are not considered reliable per WP:RSP. AFI actually describes it as "horror drama" [2] while an AFI interview with the director calls it "folk horror" [3]. Numerous reviews also describe the film as "folk horror" (e.g., Variety, AV Club, The Guardian, and Time Out. I do not see any sources describe it as "mystery horror". – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ack, you're right. My apologies for misstating my source. That said, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Genres and verification, AllMovie.com came up and the editors involved in that discussion appeared to consider it a reasonable source for genre data. The conversation is still live if you'd like to offer your opinion. I don't think a conversation with the director should be used because that would be the director offering their opinion, but they're not necessarily well-versed in the conventions of film genre classification (or their answer may be off-the-cuff). Based on the discussion I linked to, I would use AFI over the reviews; I'd also note that folk horror doesn't appear to be enough of a recognized genre for us to have an article discussing it. Thanks for coming to the table to talk this out with me! DonIago (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per the source I provided, the AFI article author calls it "folk horror", and not the film's director. I also never suggested that "folk horror" be made into a separate article. "Folk horror" is used in numerous sources, and it is the most common descriptor of the film in all the sources I have seen along with simply "horror". I can find very few sources that even mention "mystery" as a genre. Per WP:DUE, articles should reflect what is most common in the sources. Based on the sources, I do not see any reason to use the less-specific "horror" descriptor over "folk horror". – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I don't have enough skin in this game to care all that much, pun intended. If there are reliable sources calling it "folk horror", that's good enough for me. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sounds good. I appreciate the conversation, and also for letting me know about the other discussion. I wish I could contribute to a solution more, but I am still learning a lot about Wikipedia and don't think I am that useful in most policy discussions yet. Dealing with film and music genres is such a hassle too, and so thanks for your work in that area. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you all know what the director himself says:
Ari Aster: "I've been calling this movie a wish-fulfilment film and fantasy from the beginning. It's a perverse wish-fulfilment film and fantasy. But for me, yeah, I do see the film as a dark comedy. The ending makes me laugh. Yeah, I was hoping to make kind of like a malignant crowd-pleaser."
Thank you.[1] 83.70.62.101 (talk) 02:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Foutch, Haleigh (July 4, 2019). "Ari Aster on 'Midsommar's "Perverse Wish-Fulfillment" & Provoking Questions Through Catharsis". Collider.
I appreciate your bodlness here, but given that this issue was controversial in the past, I would ask that you wait to make this edit until at least one other editor supports it, per WP:CONSENSUS. I have my concerns that we should be categorizing the film based on what Aster said versus how recognized film sites have categorized the film. I'll ping @Wallyfromdilbert: given that they weighed in on this previously. DonIago (talk) 03:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that reliable independent sources like recognized film sites are more reliable and useful for genre categorizations than the statements of directors. However, in the source here, Aster also explicitly states, "we're working in the folk horror sub-genre, and anybody who knows the genre knows exactly where we're headed". While he later also says, "for me, yeah, I do see the film as a dark comedy", that is not needed in the lead sentence as per WP:FILMLEAD, which says to include "the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified". I think added something about how Aster intended the film to be humorous would be beneficial to add somewhere in the article. I'll try to add something if I can find the time. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the movie would honestly fit nicely as being listed a “psychological folk horror” due to the fact many of the scenes are meant to unease and disturb the viewer. ChrisBungle (talk) 02:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We go by what sources say, not by our own opinions. Is there a source that's described the film as a psychological folk horror? DonIago (talk) 02:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is Wikipedia a source? The article "psychological horror" has Midsommar as an example of psychological horror in film, as well as folk horror. I believe that the term "psychological folk horror" would suffice in this case. Klee Bakudan (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a source. Is the listing of Midsommar at that article (reliably) sourced? If so, you could use that source here as well. If not, then that's an issue with that article. DonIago (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a list of websites that refer to Midsommar as psychological _____.
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/leisure/arts-and-culture/g33635310/best-psychological-thriller-movies/
https://movieweb.com/florence-pugh-emotional-toll-making-midsommar/#:~:text=As Florence Pugh looks back,herself too hard for it.
https://dianamarin.com/2019/10/22/midsommar-2019-the-representation-of-mental-illness-through-horror-the-psychological-susceptibility-to-cult-narratives/
https://deadtalknews.com/2021/02/midsommar-horror-review/
many of these refer to the film as "psychological horror", "psychological thriller", or "psychological thriller horror" Klee Bakudan (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong opinion on this. Pinging Notwally (talk · contribs) as they were another active participant in this thread. DonIago (talk) 02:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think additional genres are useful in the lead sentence. Only the primary genre or subgenre is supposed to be included. Adding content to the reception or themes sections may be more appropriate, and would allow for more context to be added. – notwally (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Midsommer (upcoming film)" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Midsommer (upcoming film). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Also Link to Wicker Man Film[edit]

Tried to add a See Also link to the Wicker Man movie and my edits keep being reverted. IMDB has the Wicker Man as a movie connection to Midsommer due to plot similarities. Not wanting to get into an endless edit loop could some people who have seen both films comment if there should be a link between these movies and do the proper link for me because it seems the way I am doing it does not satisfy some editors. Septagram (talk) 07:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "see also" sections are all that useful, and since Midsommar is frequently compared to the Wicker Man, I simply added some content with a wikilink to the main body of the article. I think more details could be added to the reception and probably the production section as well. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I use the See Also sections all the time to go to other items that are connected to the article. Where else would The Wicker Man link be placed that those who never heard of it would look it up?Septagram (talk) 03:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's better to put the information in the main body of the article with appropriate context. There seems to be a decent amount more that could be added to the article about The Wicker Man just based on a quick internet search. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

US location?[edit]

Did anyone recognize the US city the film plays in? Not important for the plot, I am just interested. Thanks in advance! -Abzo (talk) 13:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Edit Warring[edit]

In my revision 984964912, I tried to restore the article's veracity regarding the spelling of the character name 'Maja' by reverting changes to 'Maya.'

I included a still photograph from the credits, backing up my decision. I can appreciate if my image does not meet the standards for a credible citation, but because my revert was reverted without explanation, I have no such gesture of good faith.

After my revert was reverted, a third user seems to have come in to manually reproduce (over the course of three separate edits) the correct spelling. I am concerned that this is turning into an edit war, because this article has been revised on three separate occasions by the same user for the same reason (trying to keep the spelling as 'Maya'). I would appreciate any comments and suggestions.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.15.116.160 (talk) 04:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 April 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 04:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Midsommar (film) → Midsommar – When comparing pageviews between this article and the article for the celebration Midsummer, it seems clear that significantly more people are looking for this article. Within the Midsummer article, the spelling "Midsommar" only appears as an alternate name in its infobox, while the spelling is predominantly associated with this film, which is also reflected in the Google search results for "Midsommar". Amending this page's hatnote to an "other uses" template pointing to Midsummer (disambiguation) would seem like an easy solution. Sock (tock talk) 23:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Merger proposal[edit]

A separate article currently exists for Dani Ardor, the main protagonist of Midsommar. This character does not seem to be of any note outside of the context of the film, and the article's content contains nothing that couldn't/shouldn't be included in the main Midsommar article. Hence, I propose merging that article into this one.. Cripesohblimey (talk) 08:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support merger: There seems to be little evidence that the character has any particular real-world significance outside of this film. DonIago (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Critical response seems slightly biased[edit]

The section on critical response seems somewhat biased towards a negative or muddled view of the film. This only struck because it got generally favorable reviews from Critics according to aggregate scores, but negative views seem to out weight the positive when it comes to individually listed reviews — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.204.252 (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Midsommar/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MyCatIsAChonk (talk · contribs) 21:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


I'm starting my review now, hope to have it done today or tomorrow. -MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Spelling/grammar are correct, prose is concise and makes sense.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. The cast list is correctly formatted and the synopsis is 699 words, one under the 700 word limit; nice. Everything else is good.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Proper list of references at the bottom, and all claims are cited.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). All quotes and claims are cited; the "themes and analysis" and "reception" sections are quite heavy with these, and they're all cited correctly.
2c. it contains no original research. No original research that I can see.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Earwig shows no violations, and quotes are properly cited.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Addresses all the topics you'd usually see on an article about a film. The addition of the "themes and analysis" section was helpful and interesting too.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Readable prose size and stays focused.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Sections that could be biased (especially reviews/reception) are all quoted and properly cited.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. No edit wars.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. All media is correctly tagged; theatrical release poster has non-free use rationale.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Images are relevant and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. Very nice article, and seems like an interesting movie. Nicely done, and thanks to @Cinemacriterion: for creating this article and contributing a good bit and to @Arcahaeoindris: for contributing a lot and nominating. -MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Arcahaeoindris (talk). Self-nominated at 16:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.
Overall: Epicgenius (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Eagle victim is still alive[edit]

In the plot summary, Simon is subjected to a blood eagle (the person's back is split open and their lungs are taken out of the body, but are still connected and still work), and the subtitles reveal the lungs are still working and he is breathing, indicating he is alive--but the plot summary states "Simon's 'corpse'."

Klee Bakudan (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews[edit]

Why are only American reviews quoted? It's had an international release. 217.42.0.94 (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to edit the page and add more (notable) reviews. After all, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Mike Allen 20:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Midsommar&oldid=1209050693"