Entertainment desk
< May 10	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 11

Song from The Sea Wolves

In The Sea Wolves, what was the song the German sailors aboard the spy ship Ehrenfels were singing to pass the time (loudly enough to be faintly audible to the British commandos as they came alongside the ship)? 2601:646:8A01:B180:3442:1BAA:F3EC:F243 (talk) 05:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a YouTube link? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can try, but I make no promises. 2601:646:8A01:B180:3442:1BAA:F3EC:F243 (talk) 09:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one that wants to know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In this clip German sailors can be heard singing a chant at 7:59 and at 8:10–8:18, mostly nonsense syllables, like he-bum-bum o-hai-la-la. I hear something that sounds like wird ganz so klar, but it is too indistinct to be sure. --Lambiam 09:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t make out any of the actual lyrics, either, but the chorus seems to be some variation of Ich bin der Doktor Eisenbart / Ein Mann, der sich Kolumbus nannt. Cheers ⌘ _hugarheimur 10:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finally found the bloody thing: it’s called Ein Seemann segelt um die Welt (sample on Youtube), and it was supposedly published in Knurrhahn. Sammlung deutscher und englischer Seemannslieder und Shanties, Vol. 2, 1936 (although I could only find a scan of the first volume). Thanks to Lambiam for the groundwork. Cheers ⌘ _hugarheimur 17:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tried finding a clip too, but failed, unlike Lambiam. And though I did know the Kolumbus/Eisenbarth tune, not this one with its different chorus. Excellent work, Lambiam and ⌘ hugarheimur! ---Sluzzelin talk 18:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the one -- thanks, Torana and Lambiam! (BTW, you must have better searching skills than me -- I tried looking everywhere for the clip, too, but couldn't find it!) 2601:646:8A01:B180:81AD:1C5B:1D4C:6D7A (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AMPAS membership

From article about NBC deciding not to broadcast the Golden Globes this year:[1]

Amazon and Netflix had previously cut ties with the HFPA, the somewhat mysterious critics association behind the Golden Globes. Unlike the Academy Awards, The HFPA doesn't reveal its members publicly. Following the outcry from many in Hollywood after this year's ceremony, the HFPA put forth a May 6 deadline "to increase transparency in our organization and build a more inclusive community." On May 6, the group's members voted in favor of changes that would seemingly address some of the concerns that have been brought to the forefront in recent weeks.

But, I thought that AMPAS membership was also something of a mystery. The total number of members is known, and in recent years they have published lists of new invitees, but there is no public membership roster of the whole academy or of its individual branches. Am I wrong about this? Is the Movieweb article linked above misleading in implying AMPAS is more open about it? Fwiw here some recent AMPAS financial disclosures made news. Thanks. 2601:648:8200:970:0:0:0:B6C3 (talk) 05:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to the AMPAS article, in 2012 the Los Angeles Times surveyed "over 5,000 of its 5,765 members" and since then we presumably know some if not all of its new invitees, and which of the "over 5000" have become inactive through death or other reasons, so we (or at least the LA Times) must now know (surely the LA Times or someone else has compiled and published the information) somewhat more (perhaps much more) than 87% of the current membership, which sounds like rather less of a mystery than the HFPA.

In any case, the Movieweb article you link does not seem to me to make any comparison whatever between HFPA's and AMPAS's openness: the latter is neither mentioned nor alluded to indirectly, by my reading, so there can be no "misleading" even if your view of AMPAS were accurate. Your argument seems to be an example of Whataboutism. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.125.73.196 (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP is commenting on the "Unlike the Academy Awards, The HFPA doesn't reveal its members publicly" bit which they directly quoted above including the weird capitalisation of The and to me does seem to me to be poorly written since from what I can tell the OP is right. While we lists of invitees in recent times and also surveys and other stuff, there seems to be no public list of all members of the AMPAS, who seem to be what can reasonably construed as the list of members of the "Academy Awards". Indeed, while I don't know where the LA Times got their data, from what I can tell it isn't from a public list released by the AMPAS. While I think they have confirmed some members, it seems they've mostly done other stuff, noting that even a list of invitees is quite different from a list of (new) members, since we have no way of knowing if the invitation was accepted other than by comments from the invitee themselves which is different from the AMPAS revealing such things. Note I make no comment on whether AMPAS should reveal such things, simply that to me, I would parse "unlike the Academy Awards, The HFPA doesn't reveal its members publicly" as indication the "Academy Awards" revealed its members publicly (as opposed to revealing other things which helped to compile a list of likely members), which doesn't seem to be the case. Likewise AMPAS may very well be significantly more transparent than HFPA, so the general tone of the article may be correct, I also make no comment. But again this doesn't mean preclude that specific statement being confusingly worded or frankly, misleading. Nil Einne (talk) 08:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]