Talk:Michael Hordern

Michael Hordern on stage, screen and radio

Terrific article! One bit though, is maybe the link to Michael Hordern on stage, screen and radio would be better in a "See also" section? I see it's in the Films subsection right now. κατάσταση 16:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

A valid point well raised Katastasi. I've moved this per your suggestion, but I'm not altogether happy with the title of the section, if anyone has something better? Thank you for the compliment and I'm glad you enjoyed the article. I'll be opening a peer review soon should you wish to take part. Cassianto^Talk 20:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality work, as always Scr★pIron^IV 20:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

You're too kind ScrapIronIV. It's taken bloody ages to complete, but hopefully I've done the old boy justice. Cassianto^Talk 23:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

This is FA material for sure. I'm not too familiar with Sir Hordern's work, but I do remember his narration in Barry Lyndon fondly. Looking forward to learn more about him. Cheers, κατάσταση 01:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Wonderful stuff -- but I am disappointed to see that Hordern's film work is given such short shrift. What of Bill Douglas's Comrades [[1]] or of his brilliant turn as Vincent Price's first victim in Theatre of Blood?? The section on his later career seems only to cover his theatrical work, which hardly seems fair!Clevelander96 (talk) 03:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Clevelander96, and I'm glad you liked it. As I said in the peer review, Hordern disliked film work intensely and looked at a film as being nothing more than a way to make fast money. He turned down several film roles which would've propelled him, potentially, to the heights of some of his more esteemed colleagues (Olivier, Richardson et al. He chose instead to take any theatre role that was offered in its place, all for the love of appearing on the stage. A lot of people assume that it is a film that maketh the actor; it isn't. Not in Hordern's case, it was his stage work. He was honoured with the CBE and the Knighthood for his stage work, and not his films. If you give me three or four films that you think are worth mentioning and why here, we can drum up a consensus and add them. But I don't want the article to dwell on films too much and would insist that any film be restricted to two lines at most as the article is long as it is. Cassianto^Talk 07:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. Well, whatever Sir Michael might have thought of his film work, and whatever you (or I) think about it, if it's significant -- within film studies/history -- it ought to be covered fully rather than selectively. Quite a few theatrically-trained actors have at times cast aspersions on their own film or television work, but that doesn't mean WP should not cover them. That said, Hordern's work in Comrades -- recently re-released by the BFI and critically lauded -- and his turn in the BBC's Whistle and I'll Come to You, widely regarded as one of the finest adaptations of a horror story ever made, ought to be mentioned! Clevelander96 (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, if you add it and reliably source it, I'll adjust it if it needs it to meet FA guidelines. Cassianto^Talk 19:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

1957 BAFTA - source needed for role

It would be good to know the TV role that Hordern got his 1957 BAFTA for. The BAFTA website used as a reference does not say. DuncanHill (talk) 13:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

You're right, it would be good to know. I've got an idea, why don't you stick a tag on and who knows, in 15 years or so, maybe someone will be able to tell you. Cassianto^Talk 13:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Since the information is currently apparently unavailable, it would be best to just mention that he received the award, without saying what for. Incidentally the award is for a role carried out in 1957, although it wasn't necessarily presented in 1957. Like the oscars, the ceremony itself *may* have been in 1958, which is what the article originally said.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

In the time it would've taken for a tag to be added, you'd have been able to find this. Cassianto^Talk 14:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I did search, I did not find that archive.org page which does not as far as I can see mention the role, and anyway is contradicted by the current version of the BAFTA website. DuncanHill (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Just a suggestion: although we can't consider IMDB a reliable source for this, IMDB is listing only two other TV roles for Hordern in 1957 ... he's not the lead actor in one, and I doubt he got a BAFTA for this. We have reasonable sourcing that he got a BAFTA for Lead Actor in a TV show for 1957, and also that he was the lead actor in The Dock Brief. If we can find a source to tell us that he wasn't in any other TV show in 1957 that he would have received that award for, wouldn't that be good enough until we can find somthing more definitive? - Dank (push to talk) 15:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Why don't we just pull it? Cassianto^Talk 15:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cass ... good to see you back btw. The sentence? We've still got 32 hours ... I'm thinking of pulling the sentence from the blurb in around 8 hours ... unless we can find a better source than IMDB for the statement "he wasn't in another TV show in 1957 that he would have gotten that award for". - Dank (push to talk) 16:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• Source found and added for the BAFTA award for The Dock Brief. - SchroCat (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Archives help

Resolved

The archives of this talk page are unlinked, could someone who knows the right thing to add at the top help out? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I have added the talk page header which resolves this. DuncanHill (talk) 14:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Insert link somewhere?

Maybe not the most significant of his roles, but he played the butler in Ronnie Barker's Futtocks End, which has an article of its own. As this article has been polished and reviewed, I would not dare to presume where this belongs, which is why I've added it here on the talk page, and will let someone else consider it. Sangwine (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Is there a reason why this should be included? Cassianto^Talk 20:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Ian Books’ view of Horden’s Gandalf

In the1980-83 sub-section of “Television and radio”, there is mention of Horden’s playing of Gandalf in the BBC production of LotR. At one point, a couple of comments on Horden’s performance are mentioned:

The author Ernest Mathijs singled out Hordern…as being one of the more powerful characters of the series…while co-star Ian Holm…thought Hordern interpreted the role "in a grand, rather old fashioned way.

I’m specifically interested in the effect of that word “while”. To me it presents Holms’ “grand, rather old fashioned” words as somewhat critical of Horden. But while that is certainly consistent with him using “rather”, it’s not absolutely clear from the quote itself. As a result, that word “while” is doing a lot of work and I just wanted to check that it is striking a tone consistent with the facts.

So my question is simply, is that in fact how Holms saw things? Does anyone know enough to say if Holms’ really was being critical —- even mildly —- of Horden’s interpretation when he said it was done “in a grand, rather old-fashioned way”? (I mean, “grand” could easily be praise. And “old-fashioned” isn’t necessarily criticism —- although, as I mentioned, the “rather” does seem to lend a critical nuance.)

If Holm was being critical, fair enough, the wording can remain as it is. But if not, then I suggest there be the tiniest of change in order to neutralize the current implied criticism. Simply changing the word “while” to “and” would do the job. 45.51.100.70 (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

This page is not on many active editor watchlists anymore. If you don't get a response you can ask at the WP:VPE. MarnetteD|Talk 20:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Lead

I cleaned up the lead a bit as it rather florid. Given this article doesn't have an infobox it was hard to pick out basic info. Is it worth shortening more?—blindlynx 21:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

No. Cassianto^Talk 08:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The third paragraph is a list of his roles that is a bit long. Nine roles in one lead paragraph is excessive—blindlynx 21:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Postnoms

If the self-appointed guardians of this article will not allow an infobox (as appears on the page for almost every other actor) then we need to retain the postnominals in the lead or we are deleting information! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

It’s a fallacy to claim that IBs appear on almost all other actor’s biographies. The question about an IB is left open to consensus. The stewards on this article (not the bad-faith description “self-appointed guardians”) ensure that the FA standard is not degraded.

Can you out (with quote and link) where the MOS point about post noms says they should remain if there is no IB? - SchroCat (talk) 13:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you out (with quote and link) where the MOS point about post noms says they should remain if there is no IB? Isn't it bleeding obvious? When is deletion of information ever good? How is it a good thing for his correct style of Sir Michael Hordern CBE to no longer be shown? This is just utterly illogical and unhelpful to readers. Why should they now have to trawl through the article when before they could just glance at the top? A complete backward step with no logical reason other than whiffs of WP:OWNERSHIP (which says If you create or edit an article, other editors can make changes, and you cannot prevent them from doing so.). And yes, almost all other articles on honoured actors have infoboxes. I'm sure you know this really. What is the good reason (other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT) for not having one here? How on God's good earth is it in any way "degrading" the article? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide the link and quote? I presume not, given your response.

As has already been pointed out, no information has been deleted. His knighthood is still referred to in the lead and the body, so it hasn't been "deleted" as you keep claiming. You can pop the accusation of "ownership" where the sun doesn't shine. I'm not a fan of the change in the MOS over post noms, but lashing out with childish insults at me because you can't get your own way is not going to fix it. Feel free to start another RfC: I would happily support the return of them to all relevant articles.

I'm obviously not talking about his knighthood. I'm talking about his CBE, which clearly has been deleted. You are the one who is deleting perfectly legitimate edits added by an experienced editor and then refusing to accept that you are claiming ownership, despite that being one of the definitions of it! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not "deleting perfectly legitimate edits" at all: you have a beef with the change to MOS, take it up with the MOS and I'll happily support a return of all post noms. Again with the childish insults? Once again, shove your bad faith accusations elsewhere. The CBE hasn't been deleted. It's still in the lead and the body, if you bother to read it. - SchroCat (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the removal of postnoms from the lead per se. I have a problem with the removal of them from the lead if they do not show in an infobox, which the MOS quite clearly allows for. Knowing someone's correct style (e.g. Sir Michael Hordern CBE) is important in the UK and Commonwealth. The perfectly legitimate edit you have deleted is the infobox! What is your problem with an infobox? You just haven't explained why you object to one other than stating you want to "ensure that the FA standard is not degraded". How does an infobox amount to degradation? Many FA articles have them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

And many FAs don't have them either. There is a long-standing consensus not to have one here. The IB is a distraction to the main point, which is about the post noms. They are mentioned in the lead (as is his knighthood), so the information is all there, and it's a spurious to claim otherwise. Again, I would happily throw my support behind changing the MOS back to the much more sensible inclusion of post noms, and look forward to you opening an RFC on the point shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Once again, you do not appear to have actually read what I have written about postnoms in the lead or the desirability of showing an individual's correct style. My "main point" is entirely connected with infoboxes, so they are hardly a "distraction"! And where is the "long-standing consensus not to have one here"? All I see is a grand total of three editors stating they didn't want to have one eight years ago! That is hardly any form of "long-standing consensus"! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

SO you seem to agree that there was a consensus that has stood for eight years. I'd certainly describe that as a "long-standing consensus", but your mileage may differ. And yes, the IB is a distraction: the main point is about postnoms. - SchroCat (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Create an RFC for an infobox.Halbared (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Create an RFC as a textbook-How-To-guide, complete with 27 varieties of tag-team brigading, of a complete and utter troll-fest. SerialNumber54129^{A New Face in Hell} 13:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you think RFC is no good here?Halbared (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)