Talk:A Matter of Life and Death (film)

	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
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the War films task force.
	This article is on the project's core list.

Retelling of the Alcestis story?

The film draws our attention to the ancient Greeks in the discussion between Peter and the Conductor on the Staircase. In fact, the story has parallels with the 438BCE work Alcestis (play) by Euripides.

There, Admetus has irregularly been granted an extra span of life. When Death comes to collect his soul, out of love for him his wife Alcestis volunteers to go in his place. Learning of this, Heracles, a loud and combative friend, goes to the other world and wins her back.

The Lawless One (talk) 13:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a very parallel parallel :)

There are other Greek associations in the naked goat-herd in the sand dunes as Peter Carter is washed ashore. Just like something out of Theocritus or a tale of the Elysian Fields. But that and other historical references are usually though to be there because Peter Carter was studying European History - that's why he knows about the French & American Revolutions and all the other historical stuff. Was it in his imagination?

The idea of sacrifice for love that we see towards the end of the film isn't exclusive to any one particular work. It's a general idea that has been used many times throughout history, in drama and in real life.

But if you think it's enough of a parallel to include it, then include it. Personally I wouldn't include it. But I don't dislike the idea enough to remove it if someone else includes it -- SteveCrook (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DVD

Does anyone know if and when this film is slated for release on DVD? It's a classic and one of Niven's finest perfomances. -- Jason Palpatine 01:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check the "Coming soon on DVD" on my page of all Powell & Pressburger films on DVD or tape. We've been hearing rumours about a Region 1 DVD release of AMOLAD since April 2003. Still no definite word on it though. It is available on Region 2 DVD (PAL format) if you can play those. SteveCrook 07:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is already out on DVD although may have been deleted. Look at the picture on the article page to see what it looks like. It has been available to hire from my local library for at least two years. Maybe a search of ebay will turn one up. 172.206.245.48 12:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the cover of the Region 2 DVD mentioned above. It's still eagerly awaited on a Region 1 DVD for the Americans that can't play Region 2 DVDs -- SteveCrook 02:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June

I'm not sure, but I think June can be called during the trial because she fell asleep in the "real" world. Can somebody verify this? Clarityfiend 07:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conductor 71 put her to sleep to make her available for the trial - SteveCrook 22:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC) Powell and Pressburger Appreciation Society[reply]

Thanks. I wanted to add that to the plot. Clarityfiend 03:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last line of the plot

Old: "Love, it seems, does conquer all, even Heaven."
New: "Nothing in the universe is more powerful than the law; but on Earth, nothing is more powerful than love."

I prefer my old, shorter ending, even though the new version sounds like what the judge says (if memory serves). Shall we put it to a vote? Clarityfiend 08:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually Doc Reeves (Roger Livesey) that says that line (or something very like it). The Judge then quotes old Sir Walter Raleigh "Love rules the court, the camp, the grove / And men below and heaven above / For love is Heaven and Heaven is love" - that quotation is on Emeric Pressburger's grave. It was his favourite film.

Sir Walter Scott, you barbarian!

Nuttyskin 14:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I knew it was some Wally :) -- SteveCrook 15:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the choice I prefer the shorter version as well. The actual quote is even longer than the longer one above and is a bit clumsy out of context. -- SteveCrook 16:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restored old ending, barring any more votes. Clarityfiend 01:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cause of the head injury

I removed the "cused by fall from plane" line, before finding a reference [1] which reminds us that:

Diagnosis proposed by physician in the film: "chronic adhesive arachnoiditis (from concussion two years earlier) affecting the olfactory nerve." Dr Reeves says he saw this condition at the l'Hopital de la Pitie in Paris. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tagishsimon (talk • contribs) 00:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC). Oops, yes it was. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But is it 'degenerative'? I'll ask the lady that wrote that article. She's done some amazing research into the medical symptoms and condition of Peter Carter. -- SteveCrook 00:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that word was a flyer; but I seem to recall that the urgency of the operation was based on the likelihood that the condition would degenerate. AMOLAD was on the telly a few days ago. Excellent stuff. And yes, A Matter of Fried Onions is an interesting read. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Tagishsimon, I have to query that last change about Peter & June not falling in love until after Conductor 71's mistake. It's due to the mistake by Conductor 71 that they met and fell deeper in love which made Peter more determined not to leave her. But as part of his defence he says "We fell in love before we'd ever met". When he's being questioned by Farlan, just after the "enamoured" gag. Sorry to be pedantic and I don't want to put anyone off contributing anything to this or any other article. But it is my favourite film. After hundreds of viewings I'm still in tears every time I see it. Peter's argument was more that despite being in love with June (or her voice and what she said) he was ready to die whe he jumped. But because of Conductor 71's mistake he survived the jump and met June. They had some time together and now it would be more cruel to split them up. -- SteveCrook 03:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to bow to your analysis of this, Steve. Para 3 of the spoiler also mentions him falling in love. Perhaps we should make changes to state he falls in love in P1, and further in love in P3. You or I can re-edit it later; but I have to go to work now. Oh, and FWIW, I wonder if we should / could add some more info on the "other place" ... Trubshaw (?) does not get a look in in our explanation, and we might be able to say something about the record keeping &c. --Tagishsimon (talk)

I asked Diane Friedman, the lady that wrote the "A Matter of Fried Onions" article and she says that even though it's causing him more and more problems, Peter's problem shouldn't be called degenerative. She suggests we use the phrase "a rapidly progressing brain injury" because the origin is amiguous. Diane is an advanced-practice nurse from Illinois specialising in neurology and sleep disorders and is very interested in treament of trauma, epilepsy and other brain related problems. We could add a whole other section about the accuracy of the medical references that Diane has identified. They show that Powell & Pressburger really did their homework. Sometimes for things that are only on screen very briefly but are medically accurate and would only have been known by a few people in 1946.

The article could do with a whole lot of other work. What about Dr. Reeves, Abraham Farlan, Conductor 71, they could all do with more explanation and description. What about the naked goat herd, the Americans rehearsing A Midsummer Night's Dream, Dr. Reeves' diagnosis, Conductor 71's stopping time? The poetry, the metaphysical discussions, the staircase, the "other place".

The trouble is that I love the film so much and it hits me right in the emotions so I find it hard to write about it in a neutral way. -- SteveCrook 11:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parachute

If there was a dead crewmate aboard the bomber, why didn't Peter just take his parachute? Clarityfiend 08:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Bob Trubshaw (?), the dead navigator, turns up in the other place and hangs around waiting for Carter; and specifies that he knew (once dead) that Carter's 'chute was shot-up. I can't recall Trubshaw offering an explanation for Carter not nicking Trubshaw's parachute. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June: Your sparks. You said he was dead. Hasn't he got a 'chute? Peter: Cut to ribbons. Cannon shell. Later, when Trubshaw is explaining things to the Chief Recorder he says that Peter's brolly was written off. "He got a direct hit while he was bandaging me." -- SteveCrook 11:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia - is this interesting?

If the character of June is taken as being the same age as the actress Kim Hunter (born 1922), it makes her 22 years old when the film is set. As, according to the conductor, she is to live until she is 97, she is still alive today and will pass away in 2020.

I know some people don't like trivia sections, but I'm sure I'm not the only person who would find this both interesting and charming - any thoughts? fizzybrain 87.81.62.83 (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting to those of us that love the film. But I don't think it's of enough general interest to include it. Shame she died in 2002, aged 79 -- SteveCrook (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blockquote

Ah, I see now why you put them in blockquotes Ed. The Salwolke book is full of errors [2]. I'll try to find the original quotes or passages that he copied from (and see if he got them right) -- SteveCrook (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great - I got the quote second hand through the TCM article. Information on IMDB about the number of steps on the escaltor contradicts what Salwokle wrote, but since it came from the IMDB Trivia section and was unattributed, I went with the citable material. Please feel free to correct, dissect and unquote! Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put the trivia item in the IMDb - and I got it from the Eric Warman book which has a photo of the escalator and quite a bit more information about it. I think it's more the case that Salwolke contradicts what everyone else wrote :) -- SteveCrook (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, since they're your words, you can use them verbatim again! I would have done that, since they were just fine as is, but wanted to avoid copyvio. Excellent. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 01:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bolding

Ed Fitzgerald, you claim bolding names in the cast notes is "a fairly standard technique which is widely used in that way." Fine, then you'll have no problem pointing out some examples. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, widely used in the real world, where the expression "bold names" or "bolded names" is well-understood, and the technique is used... well, sort of everywhere, just pick up a newspaper or magazine. I use it as a way of emphasizing who the cast note is about, to help that name stand out for the reader. If the name is wikilinked, it's not a problem, the linking takes care of pointing out the name, but since the cast notes appear under the cast list, and since the names in the cast list are already wikilinked, if the notes is about someone who is in the cast list (they often are not - many times the cast notes are about other people in the cast about which there are interesting things to point out, despite their having a relatively insignificant part in the film), then the name of the person who the note is about rather disappears into the text unless it is bolded to help it stand out.

Remember, people don't necessarily read these articles as if they are sitting down and reading a book. They frequently scan sections, either looking for the information they're interested in or just browsing through to see if anything strikes them. It's really incumbent on us to help people to scan the article and easily pickup up hints and clues about what's being discussed, so they can stop if they want. That's why we have headings and sub-headings, and formatting options like bolding and italics. We've got to do our best not only to present the best information we can, but also to present that information in a way that it can be easily used by the reader. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 05:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant examples in Wikipedia. Why do you persist in trying to impose your own particular MOS? WP:MOSBOLD#Boldface clearly states that this is inappropriate usage:

Italics are supposed to be used for emphasis in text, other than in the article's intro.
Boldface has a few clearly defined purposes, listed in the section I linked. Your's is not one of them. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've had versions of this discussion before, but I'll try again: the Manual of Style is a guideline not a rigid set of rules designed to be dogmatically followed. It is meant to guide us in our editing, but not necessarily to restrict us. However, the only way for them to be guidelines and not rules is for us to continually test them, question them, and try new ways of doing things. If we don't do this, then they become indeed simply rules and not guidance. If every time someone tries something new, somebody else comes along and says "No, you can't do that because the MoS says you can't," then the MoS is not in any meaningful way the collected past thoughts of Wikipedia editors intended to guide our actions, it is a collection of hard and fast rules than can never under any circumstances be disobeyed.

Clearly, it was never intended that they be that, or else they would have been presented that way: "Do this, and nothing else!" The spirit of the way they are presented to us requires that we (collectively) allow them to breathe, and to live.

I'm not suggesting that it's not worthwhile to correct errors when they occur, or to, in most situations, try to adhere to the Manual, but it really is incumbent on us to allow people to try things out, to see how they work, to find out if they, perhaps, might have a better idea. That's the only way that the Manual of Style can evolve, for if everything even slightly new is squashed before anyone has a chance to see it and experience it, the MoS becomes a lifeless and dead thing.

Let me try to put this into context - what I'm doing is not disruptive, it's not an attempt at some kind of radical change, it's a simple matter of some very slightly different formatting, a use of bolding that's not covered by the Manual. As someone said about our previous disagreement over the use of italics, that seems like a pretty trivial thing to get upset about. (WP:LAME was the reference, I think.) I hardly think it's the beginning of the end of Wikipedia if you allow me the chance to try this very slightly new thing. It's not the top of the slippery slope, nor is it a harbinger of some formatting anarchy to come, it's just something a little different.

On the specifics of this formatting choice - I think the Manual, in this instance, is pretty much wrong when it specifies that italics should be used for emphasis and bold only for its short list of exceptions. What italics do is not to emphasize something so much as say "this text is different." Italics seperates the title or the foreign phrase from the text that surrounds it, but it really doesn't do a good job of making the text "pop" out of the page to emphasize it - the best way to do that is with bolding. Now, I do agree with the Manual in that such emphasis is so strong that in a encyclopedia, with its basically flat and neutral tone of voice, emphasis of any kind should be used very sparingly, especially in discursive text. But what I'm using bold for isn't that, it's simply pointing out in a short sentence, part of a list of short sentences, what the chief subject matter is. It's just a little bit of "pop" to help grab the eye of the reader and say "Here's who this item is about." That's the purpose of bolding names in the real world, and that's what I'm using it for here.

I do hope you can see that I'm not trying to force on you a personal aesthetic. I'm operating, I think, well within the bounds of the style and tone that's been set for Wikipedia, I'm simply utilizing my best judgment and whatever skills I have to make the articles I work on as functional for the reader as I can. Mostly, I don't have a lot of problems with the guidelines that have evolved on how things should be formatted, but there are some minor exceptions, and I think I make a fairly reasonable case for allowing me to try to do something very slightly different concerning them. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 05:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a crock. Of course you're trying to enforce "a personal aesthetic". What else would you call it - divine inspiration? There's a forum for proposing changes to the WP:MOS somewhere. That's where you should be directing your "testing" and "questioning". Instead, you ignore a unanimous (if weak) WP:Third Opinion consensus against you regarding your use of italics and now you're doing the same with bolding. What next, underlines?

Also, if you can go ahead and use your best judgment, then you can have no objection to my using mine and reverting it. We would end up in an edit war, yet you claim this would not "the top of the slippery slope"? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But starting an edit war wouldn't be displaying very good judgment, I don't think, especially over something of such a relatively unimportant nature. Wouldn't your energy (and mine!) be better put to editing articles, and improving the encyclopedia? As I've said before, I think that generally you do very good work in your editing, and I think that the project would be much better served by your continuing to do that rather than getting stuck in a morass than can be avoided with a little bit of forebearance. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm deeply unimpressed with Ed's idiosyncratic formatting, and have amended it per the manual of style. I trust, as edit wars display poor judgment, that we will not be seeing one here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Deeply unimpressed"? I'm cut to the core. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 23:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zzzz. Listen ed. Is there any possibility that you could either work within the MOS, or get a change made to the MOS? You surely understand that imposing your own view over community consensus is going to raise hackles. Or do you just not care?

You say but it really is incumbent on us to allow people to try things out, to see how they work, to find out if they, perhaps, might have a better idea. That's the only way that the Manual of Style can evolve. Well that may be the case, but do it in a sandbox and argue your point with illustrations in talk MOS. Doing it on a live article is rather POINTy.

You are very strongly urged to seek consensus, and to stop imposing your view against plural objections. --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) You certainly have a interesting style of discussion. You start out with an insult ("deeply unimpressed", "zzzzz") and then expect me to take seriously what you say afterwards? I'd say that most people would really be put off by the insult and not bother with the part that comes after, and the discussion turns out to be nothing but insult-slinging.

Anyway, what I'm concerned about is making articles as useful and functional as possible for the reader, and the choices I make about formatting all have that in mind - what will make it easiest for the people we are supposedly here to serve. I do realize that many people get upset when things change, but I admit that I didn't expect such relatively minor, but functionally effective, changes to provoke such strong feelings. After all, it's not as if I'm advocating making major changes, I'm just tweaking the formatting in relatively minor ways that are useful.

As for changing the MoS - there are many ways to do that. One is a frontal assault which, I learned early on here in Wikipedia, is not usually very effective, because you run into an extremely dense wall of resistance to change. Another way is by example - you try stuff out, see what works, and keep doing it to let other people get a chance to experience it and see how it works. Instead of being presented some theoretical change, they can gradually get used to a de facto change, little by little, and resistance is lessened (at least a little). That's the path I'm taking here, and, for all the reasons I wrote about above, it really is incumbent on us all to hew to the spirit of Wikipedia and allow such little experiments to have life.

I think that answers your questions. I hope you can see your way clear to letting my little experiment continue without us getting into some big hassle over it - it would be much appreciated. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(out)I'm responding now to the part of your comment you added while I was composing my response above.

Clearly the sandbox doesn't suffice for the process I delineated above. Yes, it's OK for trying out changes yourself, but in order for the MoS to evolve in the way I outlined, people have to actually see the adjustments that are being made, and copy them if they like them.

As for my efforts being "pointy", that's not at all the case. My understanding of WP:POINT is that it's about doing things simply for the sake of making a point. I'm not doing that at all -- what in heaven's name would be the "point" of bolding a couple of name in one section of an article, what disruptive effect could I possibly be looking to create in order to make my "point"? No, I honestly think that these very minor, very small changes are helpful to the article, make it more functional and effective and useful to our customers, the people who come to Wikipedia to find some piece of information they need. Thanks again. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deeply unimpressed was not an insult (though you may take it as one if you wish), but my reaction to your imposed style. My Zzzzz was merely a comment on your "cut to the core". I think it is clear that a number of editors have a problem with your impositions on pages which you "guard". There clearly are multiple ways in which you could have sought to introduce your change; not least, you could have discussed it here first. or, heavens, you could assume our good faith by presuming that we had made a judgment about which format we find preferable, rather than asserting that we are slavishly following guidelines. That sort of assertion is, I think you'll agree, an insult and unproductive. I note that you have a bunch of these style disputes running in parallel. I suggest we take the matter of your unilateral declaration of style independence to RFC. I trust you would concur that this is the best way forwards. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all. These little discussions already take up too much time that can be used for editing articles, but if you really feel so strongly about it, and don't feel odd about bringing such a WP:LAME dispute to RfC -- I mean, really, italics and bolding!?!? -- and have the time to waste, well... Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, just by way of making a record, I strongly dispute your characterization of my argument as a "unilateral declaration of style independence." I think I've been quite clear, here and elsewhere, that my philosophy is anything but that, and my edits bear that out. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 10:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, Ed, Ed <shake head>. How is it not unilateral? You refuse to accept the consensus of concerned editors. That leaves just the readers. But how are they to provide any feedback? Telepathy?

Yes, we readers will indeed be forced to try to assess the usefulness of Ed's proposed change in style "by telepathy" -- precisely because they've been removed by over-zealous slavish-application-as-unbreakable-unflexible-rules of the supposed "guidelines". (Which in my vocabulary used to mean something different from unbreakable unflexible rules.) Since you asked, and all... HTH!

Hope you can see how your over-zealous deletery, OTOH, certainly did not help me, as one of "just" the readers (i.e, the ones one would have thought this whole thing was written for).--CRConrad (talk) 09:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for wasting time on something you consider lame, there's an easy solution - stop what you're doing. Since you're apparently arguing with several others, it's taking up a much larger fraction of your time than it is ours.

I can't quite fathom how someone who makes solid contributions can be so determined to step outside established etiquette and procedures. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In 2004, A Matter of Life and Death was named the second greatest British film ever made, etc.

"In 2004, A Matter of Life and Death was named the second greatest British film ever made by the magazine Total Film in a poll of 25 film critics,[1] behind only Get Carter."

There is only one first place, if you come second, so to say "behind only Get Carter" (my emphasis) is superfluous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.235.4 (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article ownership question

Beyond My Ken, You do NOT own this article, so stop acting like you do. Please start by reading WP:FILMRELEASE and work up from there. - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(I changed the section header for you. Wikipedia policy requires that section headers on talk pages be neutral in tone.)

Of course I don't own the article, but I have been watching over it (a concept I call "stewardship") since before you joined Wikipedia, and I do have something invested in keeping its quality up -- hence the changes I made to the lede, and the copyediting tweaks I made throughout the article to improve it. I also appreciate the work you did on the article as well, but felt that some of the formatting changes were not improvements, so I reverted them. I understand how annoying that can be, but there's noting personal in it, no animosity on my part: the article has simply been stable and in decent shape for quite a while with the formatting that's there. It works, which is all thst is required of formatting. (Remember, MOS is a guideline, not policy. It's the institutional memory of Wikipedia, so it's always a good idea to pay attention to it - but it's not required to follow it slavishly.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, regarding WP:FILMRELEASE, I see what you're saying, but I also see the phrasing "Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival or a public release, and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings. (emphasis added) Again, as with MOS, "should" means that it is not mandatory. What I've provided for the release date is (1) The British release (the film's premiere), (2) The NYC release (which is not a screening -- films at that time generally opened first in NYC), which is the American premiere, significant because the American release is discussed in the article, (3) The LA release, which determines the year that the film is considered for Academy Awards, and, finally, the general US release. The only one of those I think could be done away with without compromising the information value is the general US release, so if you object to it, I'll be happy to remove it. The rest, however, should stay because they provide significant information pertinent to the film. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Staggering arrogance

Beyond My Ken, your antediluvian approach is so ridiculous that it staggers me. I think you are under the extremely misguided impression that stability is the be-all and end-all of articles. It isn't and the rather poor article you are trying to defend is testament to a mind-set that I find idiotic. Your "stewardship" is stopping the development of the article to a better standard and that is just utterly against the whole point, purpose and idea of Wiki. (I'm still going to point the finger over WP:OWN on this, no matter how much you try to re-dress it as "stewardship"). As there is no ownership then your thoughts on the formatting are just that of one editor with no more weight than anyone else: remember that.

Your new edits are so poor that you've even managed to mix up the date formats, adding US ones in amongst all the UK ones in the article and your "justification" for adding US release dates for a British film is so laughably and idiotically US-centric I don't know whether you're serious or not. Either way I am at a loss as to whether to bother trying to improve this article if all you are going to do is vandalise the work of others (and yes, I do consider what you've done to be akin to vandalism).

By the way, yes. The article is poor as its stands. Apart from the hideous grammar and formatting (One sentence paragraphs? Ouch! A "Production" section that is little more than a rough collection of trivia? Urgh!) there is no real look at the motifs or themes in the film. My editing process is to first give a quick run over the worst excesses of formatting (a large job here are this article is so horrible in that respect) before looking to re-building with extra information. With your rather poor approach to other editors working on "YOUR" articles, I'm not sure I'll bother… - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One last point: I've altered the title of the section heading to something more appropriate to your approach and closer to the initial intent. - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Time for a cup of tea and a sit down, don't you think? Span (talk) 09:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Span, you are of course right (although I'd prefer a coffee!) but sheer arrogant idiocy does annoy me, especially when it's made with no justification except "but I like it that way"! - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that WP:NPA is policy, and therefore must be followed. I don't plan to report you, but I do hope that after you calm down a bit you might think better of what you've written here, and retract the personal insults. It would certainly make it easier to move the dialogue forward. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no moving ahead: you are being so ridiculously and blatently obstructive that it's not a question of moving ahead, it's only a question of keeping an article slumped down at the level it is. This film deserves a better article than the apology of a mess that you are currently so obsesively defending. Go ahead: report away and make waves—seriously, please do—and I'll be more than happy to have an overall discussion with your ridiculous non-collaborative approach to article development. - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you feel that way, but I still have no plans to report you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you won't: a wider examination to your obstructive approach to editing may be what this article needs to raise it from the mess it is in now to something worthy of the stature of the film. As to the film's release dates in the infobox, I'll open a RFC at the Film Project to see what the consensus is on it. - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since, as I explained above, there are specific reasons for these release dates, wouldn't here be a better place to request comments? Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it would not, partly because the reasons you have given above are ridiculous and partly because a wider consensus is always preferable to the narrow discussion between two editors. - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of great editors at work here. Thanks to you all for your good work. Span (talk) 13:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cast list section/cast names in brackets

A comment on the subject of whether actors' names should be mentioned in parentheses in the Plot section. I checked a few sample featured film articles:

No Cast section, lists actor names in parentheses in Plot section: American_Beauty_(film)
Both a Cast/Casting section and actor names in parentheses in Plot section: Witchfinder General (film), Casablanca_(film)
Casting section but no actor names in parentheses: Jaws (film)
Cast section for main actors; plot section only uses brackets to list minor actors: Star Trek III: The Search for Spock

Those are just a few movies I picked at random from that FA index. It seems either's an acceptable approach to producing a good article. Doesn't seem to be worth getting into a revert war over it.

As for whether character names in the cast section should be in italics: I'd say no, they don't. It's instantly clear at a glance which is the actor and which is the fictional character - it's not necessary to add italics to make them more distinct. --Nick R^Talk 12:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh those italics look awful. I'm removing them. WP:FILMCAST may help the editors reach an agreement. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rob, your comment "If we are going to have a cast list, it should be linked, as if it were a table" kind of goes against WP:FILMCAST: "Cast lists should not use table formats". I know it's not in a table, but if the cast names are to be included (and linked) in the plot section, then it's plain old overlinking if you also link them in the cast section... The other option is to add all the cast into the plot section, rename it "Plot and Cast" and get rid of the cast section - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know what you're saying, but we need to make the information as useful to the reader as possible. If they're not linked, then they're not useful the way that people use these cast lists. Look at any other film article and you won't see an unlinked cast list. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casablanca removes the links from the plot section. This might be the way forward? --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in two minds as to whether to follow their loead or not, or just to leave the names in there. It's always struck me as a little pointless having the cast names in a plot section (CASTLIST is just too vague and woolly for my liking), especially when they are 3 inches lower down the screen and having them unlinked on the first show and then linked on the second show seems strange: I'm not sure how they got that bit through the FA process! - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's purposely vague because there is no ideal or correct solution. WP:CASTLIST doesn't really advocate a plain cast list without context, but we see them on so many film articles, and I feel it would be to the detriment of Wikipedia if we removed them completely. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with having the cast list linked: it's one of the reasons I think the actors names in a plot section is all rather pointless! - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe most readers find the links useful in both the cast list and plot section. They're much more than three inches apart if the plot section is lengthy, and it's more convenient to not have to scroll up and down to see what actor played a given part as a reader goes through it, not to mention possibly losing their place in a lengthy plot section... - Gothicfilm (talk) 15:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We'll agree to disagree then, GF—I'm not aware if any research that shows what "most readers" find useful here. The research I do know about shows that links (especially in parentheses) make an article less readable. Either way, the consensus is that the status quo remains and so be it. - SchroCat (^ • @)

That would mean nearly every page on Wikipedia is "less readable." Apparently it's not much of a problem.

I think most people like and expect to have easily accessible links to relevant pages in the article. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite: See WP:OVERLINK: "Overlinking should be avoided, because it makes it difficult for the reader to identify and follow links that are likely to be of value". As to your second point, I think you've missed what I was saying. Again, it is of no issue as the consensus is clearly not to remove the cast list from the plot section. - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I believe links are useful in both the cast list and plot section, which seems to be the standard on WP film articles. Anything can be overdone. I'm just standing by the standard. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of course, I've been adding them in both places, as I assume it is convenient for the reader to know immediately who is playing whom without having to scroll down. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Byron

So that's what ultimately happened to the crazed nun. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check the release dates. Kathleen was an angel before she was a crazed nun. Maybe she was a fallen angel? :) -- SteveCrook (talk) 06:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nunsense. In the "real" world, Black Narcissus gives the impression of being set in the British Raj before the Second World War. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But neither of them are in the "read world" :) -- SteveCrook (talk) 08:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Budget

The 'Budget' section in the Template:Infobox_film says that it should be "the approximate production budget of the film. This is the cost of the actual filming, and does not include marketing/promotional costs". The £320K was the initial budget allocated to the film. There aren't any reports of it going wildly over-budget so I suspect that the £650K quoted from the book about Rank films is what it cost Rank, including the cost of being the first Royal Command Film and all of the initial advertising, possibly including distribution costs at home and abroad -- SteveCrook (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last Lancaster raid of the War IRL

For us completists - according to this page, the last Lancaster raid of WW2 (possibly talking only of the European theatre) was the night of 25 April 1945, on a synthetic oil plant at Tonsberg, Norway. The page (based on a DSO citation for the commander of the plane, then FO John Wainwright, 463 Squadron) says that the plane was hit by a JU-88 fighter and safely landed in Sweden. Skeptic12 (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The film's opening narration says, as the camera closes in on Earth, 'It's night over Europe, the night of the second of May 1945. That point of fire is a burning city. It had a thousand-bomber raid an hour ago.' The 'point of fire' is shown on the map in the exact location of Berlin, which the film-makers no doubt considered the typical bomber target, but in fact the RAF heavies never sortied to Berlin after the night of 24-25 March 1944.

Bomber Command was indeed out on the night of 2-3 May 1945, but the heavy squadrons had effectively stood down and High Wycombe laid on 126 Mosquitos of the Pathfinders' Light Night Striking Force to attack Kiel in two waves, an hour apart, to disrupt a feared plan to ship German troops to Norway for a 'last stand'. At the same time, 16 Mosquito bombers of the Pathfinders and 37 Mosquito fighters and fighter-bombers of 100 Group attacked German airfields near Kiel. One Mosquito fighter-bomber was shot down and the two crew were killed. Two Halifax electronic counter-measures aircraft of 199 Squadron, 100 Group, acting in support of the raid, collided near Kiel: 13 crew members were killed and 3 survived. These were the very last Bomber Command casualties of the Second World War. (Martin Middlebrook and Chris Everitt, The Bomber Command War Diaries, Midland Publishing 1996, pp.702-3.)

By 1945 Bomber Command's power and accuracy were such that multiple forces of about 200 bombers each could be sent to different targets on a given day or night. Old-style 700-plus or 800-plus raids did still take place, but the only thousand-bomber raid of 1945, the last one ever, occurred in daylight, on 11 March 1945, when 1,079 aircraft (750 Lancasters, 293 Halifaxes, 36 Mosquitos), under Mustang and Spitfire fighter escort, made the last raid of the war on Krupps of Essen, dropping 4,661 tons of bombs, blind, through cloud, on sky-markers placed by the Pathfinders' Oboe Mosquitos. The attack was accurate and Krupp was finally shut down. 897 people were killed on the ground. Only 3 Lancasters were lost. (Middlebrook & Everitt, p.678.) Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom & Jerry

Is the escalator to heaven in Tom & Jerry short Heavenly Puss an homage to this one, or are they both referencing a common trope? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.154.111 (talk) 05:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've always thought that was just a common trope. A "Stairway to heaven" is a very common idea used in things like Pilgrim's Progress and many other tales. I usually say that if it doesn't have the statues then it isn't a reference to this film. Many things do have the statues like The Three Lives of Thomasina (1964) with a Staircase to Heaven with statues (of cats) on either side. Or like Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey (1991) with statues on the stairway (including statues of Powell & Pressburger) when Bill & Ted go to heaven with Death. Or even like "The Simpsons: Bart Gets Hit by a Car" (#2.10) (1991) with Bart on the Stairway to Heaven (with statues) or "The Simpsons: Homer's Triple Bypass" (#4.11) (1992) and also "Homer Simpson In - Kidney Trouble" (#10.8) (1998) with a view through a closing eye. There's a list of all the references to P&P films that I know of at [3] -- SteveCrook (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between British and American releases

I feel sure that this article used to contain information about differences between the British and American releases of the film. What happened to this? DuncanHill (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on A Matter of Life and Death (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Busted categorization

I've removed Category:Depictions of Muhammad. A bust seen in passing is not much of a "depiction" IMO. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "a bust seen in passing". It's a full sized statue with his name on the plinth. But it correctly doesn't show his face -- SteveCrook (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, but it's still too trivial for a category IMO. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree with that :) -- SteveCrook (talk) 02:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Sofaer as The Judge

Abraham Sofaer is only credited as "The Judge", he is never referred to as "God" just like the other place is never referred to as "Heaven". The film-makers were careful to ensure that there was nothing in the film that tied it to any one religion, although some people may think of it as representing their favourite religion -- SteveCrook (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't credited as The Surgeon, either; though how it could be classed as a spoiler, appearing in the end credits, doesn't really make any sense -- unless we're talking about old British cinemas with their rolling matinée shows.

Besides, Spoilers may be used in Wikipedia articles, so there!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spoiler Nuttyskin (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status

I have deleted the link to the illicit hosting of this British film on Internet Archive. Michael Powell did not die until 1990, so UK copyright subsists until the end of 2060. As a non-US film still under copyright in its country of origin on 1 January 1996, it is protected in the US for 95 years after publication, so to the end of 2041. Nick Cooper (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May I now put Category: films about chess?

Mauro Lanari asked "May I now put Category: films about chess?"

The film isn't about chess, it mentions chess briefly a few times. The Talk page is a better place to ask things like that rather than in a correction to the main article -- SteveCrook (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not even The Seventh Seal speaks of chess, it uses them as a metaphor just as in this case. Yet Bergman's film is categorized as "about chess". Two weights and two measures? --Mauro Lanari (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just because another Wikipedia entry makes a mistake doesn't mean that you should repeat the mistake here :) -- SteveCrook (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree: the essential is consistency and not "the two weights and the two measures". Therefore this category should be kept or removed in both cases. M. Lanari --82.84.29.63 (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "Not even The Seventh Sea speaks of chess"? It is front and center in the Criterion Collection's brief synopsis: "Disillusioned and exhausted after a decade of battling in the Crusades, a knight (Max von Sydow) encounters Death on a desolate beach and challenges him to a fateful game of chess." The stakes are the knight's life! The Telegraph claims, "Yet its best-known visual images are timeless: Block and Death playing chess on a beach ..."[4] A ChessBase article states, "The chess scene from Ingmar Bergman's classic 'The Seventh Seal' is quite possibly the most famous movie chess scene of all time."[5] Empire Online does a disdainful analysis of the game.[6] In this film, the game is not a matter of life and death. Conductor 71 "borrows" a book. Not even remotely comparable. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's very telling that the synopsis does not mention the chess game at all. (Or the ping pong game, which might also be a metaphor for Peter being batted back and forth between this world and the next.) Clarityfiend (talk) 12:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) Do you disagree with Ian Christie who wrote a book about the film and a paragraph about the importance of Alekhine's chess book in the film? I take note. 2) You're right, if it was for me I would have added even the ping pong, but without RS it would have been OR. 3) "Heaven" would be OR? But the film ~~was~~ is also titled Stairway to Heaven, do you remember? --Mauro Lanari (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RS?? OR?? What do they refer to?

It was only called "Stairway to Heaven" in the USA (and colonies) and then only for the initial release, most people, even in the USA, now refer to it by its "correct" name -- SteveCrook (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RS=WP:RS. OR=WP:OR.

Who taught you to call "colonies" Italy and Mexico? The US Foreign Office? M. Lanari --82.84.31.225 (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christie is just one person. Does anybody else discuss his interpretation? If not, then IMO the book section violates WP:UNDUE. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The long and the short of it is, despite aficionados' oohing and aahing, if a synopsis is perfectly fine without a mention of the game, it's not a chess film, but rather a film with chess elements. It doesn't play a significant role. I presume motorcycle fans go gaga over Steve McQueen's Triumph in The Great Escape.[7][8] That doesn't make it a motorcycling film like Easy Rider. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven or heavenly?

When young Richard Attenborough says "It's heaven isn't it". Does he mean that the place is "Heaven" or does he really mean that it's heavenly, using it as an adjective rather than a noun? The producers generally took pains never to refer to "the other place" as Heaven, as they felt that was restrictive. What do other Wikipedians think? -- SteveCrook (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven, with a capital haitch IMO. The phrasing indicates he believes he's in God's country. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]