Talk:The Bedsitting Room (play)

Theatre Low‑importance

	Theatre portal This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Film: American

	Film portal This 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
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Note

Article says film came out in 1970, it's in 1969 category, IMDB says 1969 --Macarion 19:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Like Beckett..."

Who is the critic that memorably said this? In what paper?

War duration

"The play is set in a post-apocalyptic London, nine months after World War III, which lasted for three minutes and forty-seven second" ... "The film is set on the third or fourth anniversary of a war which lasted two hours and twenty-eight minutes." - which is it? --McGeddon 15:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never read the play, seen the play, or seen the film, but can easily imagine that it takes place at a single time that's both (a) the third or fourth anniversary of war that wasn't a world war, and also (b) nine months after a world war. (Not that the rest of the description of the play seems to make it require internal consistency such as this.) -- Hoary 05:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've similarly not seen either, but it is trivial to see from any number of film adaptations that setting, timing, timeline, etc can be different than an original book or play. Those are not contradictoray statements since one is clearly about the play and the other is clearly about the film. --jzp 18:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that, given the absurdist nature of this play and film, the time scale mistakes are deliberate and intentional, intended to provide some sense of the disorientation and psychological damage that would ensue amongst the survivors of a bona fide nuclear holocaust?

Calibanu 07:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC) User Calibanu 19.24, 14 September 2007 NZST[reply]

While there are naturally some variations between the film and play, there is no discrepancy regarding the duration of the war. On page 14 of the 1973 Tandem paperback publication, the Prime Minister is quoted on the news as saying "I'd like to point out that under a Labour Administration, this was the shortest World War on record, two minutes twenty-eight seconds precisely, including the signing of the Peace Treaty, which is now on sale at Her Majesty's Stationery Office".

In the film, a man dressed in a ragged tuxedo introduces himself as "the BBC", and kneels behind the empty frame of a television set to read the news, in which he says:

"On this, the third, or is it the fourth anniversary of the nuclear misunderstanding which led to the Third World War...here is the last recorded statement of the Prime Minister, as he then was: 'I feel I am not boasting when I remind you that this was without a shadow of a doubt the very shortest war in living memory, two minutes twenty-eight seconds up to and including the grave process of signing the Peace Treaty' " Wotnow (talk) 06:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need for a disambiguation page

I believe this entry has now grown long enough that it should be given a disambiguation page that separates the film from the play. LA Movie Buff (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. See WP:SS to see about how to separate film information from play information, and use the film guidelines to shape the new film article. Let me know if you want assistance. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, as it is as much about the play as it as about the film, the disambiguator "(film)" remains inappropriate and misleading. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with JackofOz. Three months after the page was moved, nobody has yet created a separate play article, and until they do no disambiguation is needed. And as already mentioned, the diambiguation used isn't even correct for the content of the article as it stands. Time to move it back? Jellyman (talk) 10:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cast List is very confusing…

The cast list as it appears is introduced as if it is about to reproduce the one found in the published script, and then veers into semi-explanations of character name changes, casting details for stage productions and some but not all of the film cast. As it is also said to be accompanied by music played by The Temperance Seven (I strained my ears but could not hear them), I am left wondering if this is just due to editing, whether the script actually has this garbled text as reproduced here, or if it has just morphed into an absurdist parody of a cast list to reflect the confusion of the original work by Spike Milligan? Jock123 (talk) 09:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]