Hi all, and back with another lost film article from the Dutch East Indies. As with Sorga Ka Toedjoe last year, there was no plot information available for this film in online sources (or recently published ones). Luckily (also as with Sorga Ka Toedjoe) the novelisation was held at Taman Siswa's museum, not too far from my home. Thus, this article represents the first online publication of this film's plot.
Another interesting fact about Asmara Moerni is that its male star is now considered a National Hero of Indonesia, making him (as far as I know) the only National Hero to have worked in film. I hope you enjoy this article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Taylor Trescott
The prose and infobox use Rd. Ariffien; the article on him, filmindonesia, and the "directed by" category omit the full stop. Which one is it?
Without (though since Rd is an abbreviation, Rd. would be correct in American English) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
(now Jakarta) - We should use (today Jakarta), I initially thought this referred to the plot of the film
Produksi Film Negara, or PFN, was the state-operated film studio from the time (it started from a merger of Berita Film Indonesia and Regerings Film Bedrijf, and was later renamed PPFN [Perum Produksi Film Negara]; we have at least one article on the company's productions, Pengkhianatan G30S/PKI). I've added a redlink. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure I like the "...is a likely lost 1941 romance film" construction in the lead. Given how brief the lead is, I don't think it would be a bad idea to drop the "likely lost" from this and turn it into a clause or sentence a little later (perhaps adding "The film is now likely lost." after "for Union Film"?).
Added it at the
Is "the capital at Batavia" right? I've never been great at these things but I assumed it would be along the lines of "the capital, Batavia". Perfectly willing to be corrected on this.
I seem to recall things working both ways, though I agree that the comma city construction will draw less criticism. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
"Tati is a quick study". I don't think a person is a study unless they're being studied; perhaps "Tati is a fast learner" or words to that effect?
Not an article comment, but that's not really much of a happy ending.
We could probably look at it as the ultimate triumph of the modern-capitalist society over the traditional one, or something deep like that, but nothings been published of the like. Saeroen really enjoyed contrasting tradition and modernity through villages and cities... I'm tempted to write a journal article about it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
With the paired portraits, I'd consider adding a "(left) and (right)" notation; the alt text could be a little more descriptive too (just add which one's the female lead and which the male lead, as I can only assume a screenreader just reading two names and then the caption might be a little jarring).
"Gani and Joesoef made their feature film debut," -> This reads oddly to me; perhaps "It was the feature film debut of Gani and Joesoef", as this keeps the film the subject and not an incidental mention.
Just one last gripe—you have " Karl G. Heider writes that all Indonesian film...", then very shortly afterwards, " film historian Misbach Yusa Biran writes that...". The "X writes" construction seems uncommon enough to stand out, especially twice in a paragraph, I'd change one or another to a synonym just for variety. GRAPPLEX 02:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Changed the first to "suggests". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Works for me. GRAPPLEX 03:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Article 31 is the one that applies to anonymous works, under paragraph 2 ("The Copyright on works which are held or exercised by the State, pursuant to: ... Article 11 paragraph (1) and paragraph (3) shall be valid for 50 (fifty) years as of the first time the work is known to the public.") The Copyright of works as referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this article, and Article 29 paragraph (1) which are owned or held by a legal body, shall be valid for 50 (fifty) years as of from the first publication."), article 11.3 stating "If a work has been published and the Author and/or the publisher of which are unknown, the State shall hold the Copyright on such a work for the interest of the Author." This template would also apply if the cover were owned by the publisher. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Very nice indeed. Only a couple of very minor points to look at, but I think this is a very solid and easily readable piece: