Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Peer review/The Pit and the Pendulum (1961 film)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Pit and the Pendulum (1961 film)[edit]

I started this article from scratch, originally as a stub, in June of 2006. I've been gradually researching and updating the article since that time. Its been a "B" status article for some time now and I think it may currently meet the criteria for a Good Article. But I'd like others to take a look and suggest any possible improvements before I nominate it for GA. I've pretty much exhausted my various reference works...if someone could add any additional sourced details to the article regarding the film's production phase it would be appreciated.-Hal Raglan 20:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 02:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've responded to all suggestions on the automated peer review page.-Hal Raglan 05:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're missing one fair use rationale and the others are weak. I'll see if I can do a proper PR some time this week.--Supernumerary 03:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Updated/rewrote fair use rationales, should be proper and no longer "weak".-Hal Raglan 04:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also added the missing in action fair use rationale.-Hal Raglan 05:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trebor[edit]

  • for the next several years - I think "next" is implied; nothing else would make sense. "Several" is a bit vague, so perhaps more detail on timescale.
    • Rewrote slightly, noting specifically in what year the series ended.-Hal Raglan 20:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 16th Century Spain - rather blunt start. Incorporate the setting into full prose.
    • This is actually a fairly standard practice for a plot synopsis for films set in the past. I've changed it to read "In Spain, during the 16th century...", which seems a little clumsy to me.-Hal Raglan 20:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is it standard practice? If so, leave it; I've just never seen it before. Trebor 21:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although they are mentioned in the intro, I would wikilink and give the full name of the actors within the brackets. It just makes it easier to associate character and actor.
    • This seems redundant to me, but I've wikilinked all actors again in the Synopsis section.-Hal Raglan 20:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There could be more wikilinking within the synopsis and perhaps the section as a whole could be trimmed slightly.
    • More wikilinks added to the section (I hope I haven't gone overboard).-Hal Raglan 21:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The synopsis currently consists of 672 words. Wikipedia guidelines suggest "between 400 - 700" words as the recommended length for this section. Nonetheless, I will attempt to make some trims to the text.-Hal Raglan 21:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, it's probably alright. Take all my suggestions with judgement; I'm not always right (in fact, I'm frequently wrong). Trebor 21:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first part of production (The box office success...) isn't actually to do with the production of the film, so should probably be moved to response.
    • It was the box office success of the previous film that convinced AIP to proceed with the production of Pit, so I think this in fact does belong in the "Production" section.-Hal Raglan 20:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oops, I read that completely wrong; you're entirely right. Trebor 21:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, wikilink the actors in the Cast section (it's a pretty standard thing to do).
    • I understand your point, but the actors are already wikilinked in the infobox, lead paragraphs, and "Synopsis" section. I think to wikilink them again here would simply be redundant. If you really think this might be an issue for other editors, let me know.-Hal Raglan 21:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know, I can only comment on what is usually done in the articles I've seen (and the Film Wikiproject guidelines). Trebor 21:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With few exceptions, the majority of the film’s reviews - seems a bit redundant to say there were exceptions and also that the majority were positive - one implies the other. I'd cut the first three words.
    • Excellent point. Those three words are now gone.-Hal Raglan 20:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why has "uncredited" got a [sic]?
    • Because, despite the reviewer's comment, the screenplay was credited. The insertion of the [sic] is to show that this was Stinson's error, not mine.-Hal Raglan 20:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh okay. It might be better to make more explicit what you're correcting; in my experience, sic is usually used for spelling or grammar problems. Trebor 21:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe you are correct that sic is generally used for spelling and grammatical errors, but its also utilized to note that a transcription error has not occurred. I may just delete this particular comment to avoid any possible confusion.-Hal Raglan 21:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty good at the moment and fairly well-referenced. I'm not particularly involved with the GA process, but I reckon this stands a good chance. A bit of tidying and a copyedit should make sure of it. Good work. Trebor 20:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did a more detailed read through and came up with a few things:
  • Other sources, including Corman himself, have said that the film's budget was in fact approximately $300,000, nearly the same as for House - I don't like the "in fact", it sounds a bit conversation-like. Also, the sentence follows a very similar form to the previous one (budget was so-and-so, nearly so-and-so of House); it might be nicer to change the form a little.
    • Rewrote both sentences to avoid redundant "sound", while retaining basic facts.-Hal Raglan 21:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • horrific finale - I'm nit-picking, but isn't horrific a bit POV.
    • I think its borderline POV. The intent of the finale is clearly to be horrific. Removing the offending word, as I can't think of any other way to write this w/out being equally POV, is probably the best course of action.-Hal Raglan 21:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Filming went fairly smoothly without any major problems - bit of redundancy, "fairly smoothly" implies "no major problems" and vice versa.
  • It was determined the best way to film the flashbacks would be in monochrome - passive voice and a bit wordy; could probably be simplified.
    • Fixed! Removed passive voice and trimmed.-Hal Raglan 21:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • constructed "from scratch" - the quotation marks suggest it's a quotation which I don't think it is. If it isn't, perhaps something less slangy could be used.
    • "from scratch" is taken directly from the Lightman article.-Hal Raglan 22:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • these treasure troves - odd way to describe them, perhaps POV.
    • Changed to "various depositories"-Hal Raglan 22:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Various" is redundant ;) Trebor 22:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The film’s pressbook claimed - claimed is a word to avoid per this.
  • The film’s critical reputation has continued to grow over the years and it is now generally held to be a classic of the genre - definitely needs a reference if it's to be included.
    • Changed to less effusive "one of the best entries in Corman's Poe series." This is definitely supported by the numerous quotes that follow-Hal Raglan 22:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few sentences starting with conjunctions ("and" or "but"), which perhaps could be changed. I personally dislike them, but they are much more accepted these days; I don't know if it would count as poor prose, so you can take or leave this suggestion.
    • I'll take a look through the article and see if any these particular sentences can/should be changed.-Hal Raglan 22:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having read through this article in more detail, I've upgraded my opinion of it to "very good". Trebor 21:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

  • most of them starring Price - it'd be as easy and more informative to say "[number] of them starring Price."
  • a rare achievement for a follow-up/sequel - may need citing (I'm not sure). I dislike the slash as well, does "sequel" add a meaning that isn't implied through "follow-up"? Trebor 22:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • removed "sequel" (and that monstrously evil "slash"). I don't think this needs to be sourced, but I'll look for a cite if anybody believes otherwise.-Hal Raglan 22:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry, I just dislike slashes. I'm uncertain about the necessity of a cite but I think it's better with one than without. Trebor 23:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supernumerary[edit]

  • Please use <br/> in the infobox instead of ";" and ",".
  • "a young Englishman's visit to a forbidding castle to investigate his sister's mysterious death." Rephrase to avoid the repetition of "to". I suggest a who clause.
    • changed to "a young Englishman who visits a forbidding castle to investigate his sister's mysterious death"-Hal Raglan 00:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "immediately following Corman’s House of Usher (1960)" This naturally refers to the nearest noun, which is not what you want. I suggest rephrasing to make it clearer and to eliminate the parenthetical (perhaps with "released the year before" or a more specific measurement).
    • changed to "the first having been Corman’s House of Usher released the previous year"-Hal Raglan 00:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in order to find out" Redundant and colloquial.
    • changed to "to find out"-Hal Raglan 00:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • changed again to "to investigate"-Hal Raglan 02:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think "death" should be wikilinked, and I am iffy on "castle".
    • I agree with you; these were wikilinked based on a suggestion made during this peer review.-Hal Raglan 00:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "having died from a rare blood disorder." Maybe change "having died from" to just "dying from"
  • "However, it is soon revealed that Elizabeth had become obsessed with the various torture devices located in the basement of the castle and one day locked herself into an iron maiden, having gone insane." Avoid passive voice. Move the "having gone insane" to earlier to make it clear why she locked herself in. Is "various" needed?
    • Rewrote for clarity, removed "various"-Hal Raglan 01:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Francis, having noted that Nicholas appears to be feeling guilty regarding Elizabeth’s death, is offered a lengthy explanation by Catherine." Avoid passive! You have a clause larger than the main clause separating the subject and verb. Using active voice solves this problem.
  • "Their father was Sebastian Medina" Their goes back to Francis and Catherine here.
    • Rewrote, and removed the name "Francis" from the sentence to avoid any possible confusion.-Hal Raglan 01:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "suddenly began hitting" and "then began torturing" Avoid repeating "began".
  • "directly in front of Nicholas’s eyes" Drop "directly".
  • ' "But the doctor tells Nicholas that "if Elizabeth Medina walks these corridors, it is her spirit and not her living self." ' I dislike using "but" to start a sentence. Try a good "however" or "nevertheless".
  • "with one of her rings found in the keyboard." I don't think this clause works, I'd say change it to "and one of her ...".
    • magically transformed into two sentences to avoid clause problems-Hal Raglan 02:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "That night, Nicholas, now on the very edge of sanity, hears his wife calling him." Maybe excessive commas.
  • "hears his wife calling him. He follows her ghostly voice down to the torture chamber." These two sentences can be easily combined by just saying he follows her voice (or he is summoned by her voice).
    • yes, but I think it reads better the way it is.-Hal Raglan 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nicholas then approaches Elizabeth and promises he will torture her horribly." Needs a comma.
  • "pendulum/razor" Avoid using a slash. Perhaps "razor-tipped pendulum"?
    • changed to "razor-sharp blade"-Hal Raglan 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • decided to change to "the swinging blade" instead, because "razor-sharp" was used a sentence or two back.-Hal Raglan 17:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Catherine arrives just in time with a servant. After a brief fight, Nicholas falls to his death and Francis is removed from the torture device." The servant is not important, so cut him. You need a comma for the second sentence.
    • mentioning the servant is important, because it needs to be explained how and why Nicholas falls to his death. He doesn't fight Catherine.-Hal Raglan 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh! So he fights the servant? I just thought that she showed up with a servant. I didn't see the servant mentioned after that and assumed the fight was between him and Catherine.--Supernumerary 02:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Seriously? I'm sorry, this is the first time I've laughed during this peer review. If you honestly believe this is confusingly written, I'll need to clarify this plot point. I suppose I could change the second sentence to "After a brief fight with the servant..."-Hal Raglan 02:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, after glancing at this again I can see why there was confusion. I've made the change to the second sentence.-Hal Raglan 03:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Pit and the Pendulum was announced in August 1960 and filming began the first week of January, 1961." Comma!
  • "Williams' " You need to standardize to either "s's" or "s' ".
    • Oops, thought I had standardized this. Changed to "Williams's"-Hal Raglan 02:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to Lucy Chase Williams' book, The Complete Films of Vincent Price, the shooting schedule was fifteen days with an additional day set aside for cast rehearsals, and the film’s budget was almost $1 million." Again comma. Remove the parenthetical by simply saying "with an additional day for cast rehearsals".
    • I can't pretend to understand the horror some editors feel regarding parenthetical asides, but I've removed them here. The sentence seems clumsier to me this way.-Hal Raglan 02:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "$300,000." I'm not sure if you need to make it clear that it is US$. Though in the infobox you should.
    • I think this is fine the way it is.-Hal Raglan 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that barely resembled Poe, with only the finale having any similarity at all to the original short story on which the film was based." Redundant.
    • I see nothing redundant about specifically mentioning what aspect of the story was true to Poe's tale.-Hal Raglan 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You say that it barely resembles Poe, and then you say that the only similarity is the finale. I don't see why you wouldn't just say that it only resembles the Poe story during the finale. Doesn't that imply that it barely resembled Poe's story?--Supernumerary 02:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, the implication would indeed be there if I rewrote the sentence in the way you suggest. However, my personal preference is to keep it the way it is. I honestly don't find anything wrong with first noting that the narrative barely resembles Poe, then specifically detailing the small part of the film that does directly correspond to the short story. It doesn't seem redundant to me. I've incorporated many of your very helpful suggestions, but I just don't agree with you on this one.-Hal Raglan 02:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Price suggested numerous dialogue line changes himself for his character." Move or drop the "himself".
  • "Francis Barnard is first introduced to Nicholas and asks about loud, strange noises he has just heard." Awkward. Maybe use a when clause?
    • changed to "when Francis Barnard is first introduced to Nicholas, the young man asks about loud, strange noises he had heard a few moments earlier.-Hal Raglan 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dialogue would have ruined the power of the scene" Should just be "would".
  • "with Panavision cameras and lenses." I'm not sure how important what cameras and lenses they used.
    • probably not important; another editor had inserted this info into the text and, since the Corman quote referenced camerawork, I felt this was an appropriate place for the detail. I may simply delete this.-Hal Raglan 00:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the major technicians involved." Can probably drop "involved".
  • "Director of Photography Floyd Crosby and Art Director Daniel Haller" Wikilink "Director of Photography" and "Art Director", and check if they two people have articles.
    • both have articles, and both have been wikilinked previously in the infobox and in the lead paragraphs.-Hal Raglan 00:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "attempted to shoot them in a manner that would convey to the audience" I think "attempted to shoot them to convey to the audience" works just as well with fewer words, but I don't like the repetition of "to". I have no preference really.
    • since I can't think of a better way to write this (at least at the moment), I will let this stay the way it is.-Hal Raglan 00:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The sequences were then printed on blue-tinted stock which was subsequently toned red during development, effectively producing a two-tone image." Add some wikilinks.
  • "The image was then run through an optical printer where the edges were vignetted and a twisted linear distortion was introduced." Wikilink "optical printer" and "vignetted".
  • I don't see how wide-angle lenses help convey hysteria.
    • I don't really either, but that was Corman's reasoning, per the cited Lightman article.-Hal Raglan 01:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Except for a brief exterior prologue filmed on the Palos Verdes coast, featuring Kerr's arrival to the castle by coach, the entire production was shot in four sound stages at the California Studios in Hollywood." "featuring Kerr's arrival to the castle by coach" goes back to "the Palos Verdes coast"; reword. Also is "featuring" the right word? Maybe "showing" is better.
    • changed to "The film's brief exterior prologue showing Kerr's arrival to the castle was filmed on the Palos Verdes coast. The rest of the production was shot in four interior sound stages at the California Studios in Hollywood."
  • "all of which were dusty, discarded pieces left over from old Universal productions." There's no way to fix the ambiguity here (that always bothers me), but you could drop "left over from old Universal productions".
    • I rewrote the whole sentence to read "At Universal Studios, he located numerous discarded pieces from old productions, including massive archways, fireplaces, windows and doorways, and several torture machine props."-Hal Raglan 01:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he found gigantic stairways and stone wall units that were available" "that were available" is superfluous.
  • "Haller selected and rented numerous pieces" Is "selected" needed?
    • probably not, but it indicates that he did have ample choices. removed anyway.-Hal Raglan 01:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "film were subsequently constructed" Is "subsequently" necessary?
  • "The film’s pressbook noted that the pendulum utilized in the movie was eighteen feet long, with a realistic rubber cutting blade, and weighed over a ton." Is "utilized in the movie" necessary? I don't think the commas are needed, and you might want to move "weighed over a ton" to earlier.
    • slight rewrite, deleted "utilized in the movie" and moved "weighed over a ton" directly after "eighteen feet long"-Hal Raglan 01:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The pendulum was rigged from the top of the sound stage and suspended thirty-five feet in the air." Why not just "The pendulum was rigged from the top of the sound stage thirty-five feet from the floor."? Or am I misinterpreting "suspended"?
  • No, you're not misinterpreting...rewrote-Hal Raglan 01:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and a 40 mm Panavision wide-angle lens used" maybe "equipped with a 40 mm Panavision wide-angle lens"
  • "These areas were filled in later by printing-in process extensions of the set, doubling it's size onscreen." Wikilink "printing-in process extensions" and change "it's" to "its".
    • "Printing-in process extensions" is exactly what is used in the Lightman article, and I confess I'm not quite sure what this means. I could find no wikipedia articles that relate to this term. In the film, its quite clear that a matte painting was added to the shot to enhance the size of the set, so I'll go out on a limb and wikilink the term to the article on matte paintings.-Hal Raglan 01:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some, however, thought his acting overly theatrical and damaging to the film's mood." The some here needs to be specified with a source.
    • I've quoted a critic who felt this way, and properly cited it.-Hal Raglan 01:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "so after the filming was completed he had all of her dialogue dubbed by a different actress." Why not just "so he had all of her dialogue dubbed by a different actress"?
    • I could rewrite it that way, but the dubbing was done after the filming was completed. Perhaps an irrelevant detail, but I don't see the harm in including it.-Hal Raglan 01:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Anders'" should be "Anders's"
  • "Anders' role as Price's (much younger) sister was one of several appearances she made in AIP productions, most of them directed by Corman." Did Corman direct most AIP productions, or did he direct most of her appearances? (I see that it is later clarified, but fix this nonetheless.)
  • "Other cast: Patrick Westwood as Maximillian, Lynette Bernay as Maria, Larry Turner as Nicholas as child, Mary Menzies as Isabella, Charles Victor as Bartolome." Who are these characters?
    • Nicholas as child, Isabella, and Bartolome are all mentioned in the synopsis. Maximillian was a servant and Maria was a maid. All five roles are bit parts. I'll add brief descriptors in the Cast Section to explain who Maximillian and Maria were.-Hal Raglan 01:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Prior to the start of filming, Corman had set aside one day of rehearsals with his cast. "Previously, I had painstakingly rehearsed the actors so there was complete understanding as to what each was to accomplish in each scene. This is most important; there is nothing worse than to be on the set and ready to roll, only to find that director and actor have different views as to how the scene is to be done. Thanks to pre-production planning and rehearsals, there was no time wasted on the set in haggling and making decisions." ' Didn't you already talk about this before the cast section?
    • No, a mention was made earlier of pre-planning with the technical crew. This is in reference to one-day set apart from the shooting schedule strictly for cast rehearsals.-Hal Raglan 01:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, I did mention this before, when discussing the production cost and shooting schedule. No need to state this twice, so I removed the previous reference.-Hal Raglan 02:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "$2,000,000 in domestic (U.S. and Canada)" This is a case where I think you really should clarify that it is US dollars.
  • "peccadilloes" I sadly think that most people do not know what "peccadilloes" means, and that you might want to wikitionary/wikipedia link it.
  • "near to burlesquing the role." Again "burlesquing" might have to be linked.
  • "While noting that the film was “marginally less successful” than House of Usher," Should mention that this is erroneous.
    • I don't think he was referring to box office success.-Hal Raglan 01:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thing is that earlier it says that the film was both a better box office success and a better critical success. What was he referring to?--Supernumerary 02:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • He was referring to the film's overall quality. His comment indicates that he personally didn't believe Pit was on quite the same level as House. That's why he says "marginally less successful". As this is one critic's opinion, I don't believe this conflicts with the earlier statement. If every critic felt this way, obviously the earlier statement would not be accurate.-Hal Raglan 03:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Since this is apparently one of those "open to interpretation" kind of things, and could conceivably confuse anybody reading the article, I've removed the comment.-Hal Raglan 04:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Phil Hardy’s The Aurum Film Encyclopedia: Horror observed" Wikilink the book?
    • I've been thinking about doing this for a long time. It is a major film reference work and needs a wikipedia article. I'll work on this later and eventually wikilink it.-Hal Raglan 01:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The response section seems to just heap praise on the film. I see that it is balanced by negative reviews, but consider cutting any of the less important/repetitive reviews.
    • My personal preference for "Response" sections is that they have as many notable positive and negative critical reactions as possible. I'll take another look here and remove what I can.-Hal Raglan 01:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's standard to have all film guide and rotten tomatoes links in the external links section.
    • OK, I'll add links to MRQE, DVD Beaver, MetaCritic, and Rotten Tomatoes to that section.-Hal Raglan 01:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks good overall and should easily pass GA criteria.--Supernumerary 00:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Peer_review/The_Pit_and_the_Pendulum_(1961_film)&oldid=393220929"