Talk:Atonement (2007 film): Difference between revisions
m Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30) |
|||
(44 intermediate revisions by 27 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header}} |
|||
{{Film|American-task-force=yes|class=B|War-task-force=yes|B-Class-1=yes|B-Class-2=yes|B-Class-3=yes|B-Class-4=yes|B-Class-5=yes|French-task-force=yes|British-task-force=yes}} |
|||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1= |
|||
{{WikiProject Film|American-task-force=yes|War-task-force=yes|French-task-force=yes|British-task-force=yes}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Shropshire|importance=low}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Yorkshire|importance=Low}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Lincolnshire|importance=Low}} |
|||
{{WikiProject London|importance=Low}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Berkshire|importance=Low}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Sussex|importance=Low}} |
|||
{{WikiProject France|importance=Low}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Romance|importance=Mid}} |
|||
}} |
|||
{{ course assignment | course = Education Program:Queen Mary, University of London/Research Methods (Film) (Spring 2020) | term = Spring 2020 }} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
==Plot== |
|||
|algo = old(180d) |
|||
No where in the plot section does it mention that Cecilia ad Robbie died before meeting up again. I'd say this was a pretty crucial point? I'd add it myself but I was half asleep when watching it. [[User:Vanillav|Vanillav]] ([[User talk:Vanillav|talk]]) 23:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
|archive = Talk:Atonement (2007 film)/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
|counter = 1 |
|||
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|||
|archiveheader = {{tan}} |
|||
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|||
}} |
|||
== |
== Long plot? == |
||
I removed the entire Plot section because it appeared to have been lifted from [http://www.amazon.com/Atonement/dp/B00005JPTE this Amazon page]. --[[User:85.158.137.195|85.158.137.195]] 13:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Per [[WP:FILMPLOT]]: |
|||
:I have also just removed the entire plot section, because it was directly copied from The Focus Features site [http://www.focusfeatures.com/home.php]. I strongly suggest anyone thinking of doing it again read [[WP:COPYVIO]] first. [[User:AnmaFinotera|AnmaFinotera]] ([[User talk:AnmaFinotera|talk]]) 08:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
{{tq|Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as with non-linear storylines, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range. (Discuss with other editors to determine if a summary cannot be contained within the proper range.) }} |
|||
So let's discuss. First off, I dispute the characterization of the current 910 word plot as "massively bloated". It is a bit over the suggested range of 400 and 700, but I wouldn't call it "massively bloated". |
|||
:: Well someone desperately needs to write a new one, the article tells nothing of what the film's actually about. [[User:Nova Prime|Nova Prime]] ([[User talk:Nova Prime|talk]]) 15:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::: I believe that a new plot was inserted recently and this plot has been profusely edited. But it still may come from a copyrighted website? — '''''[[User:Andy M. Wang|Andy W.]]''''' <sup>'''([[User talk:Andy M. Wang|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Andy M. Wang|contrb.]])'''</sup> 18:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
In fact, allow me to suggest the plot section is fine as-is. The movie is not a simple or straight-forward one, and I can easily see a consensus forming around making an exception here. We should not reduce a plot section merely to conform to policy if that leaves out an important plot point. |
|||
==Throwning Scene== |
|||
I think it would be worthwhile for someone to insert into the plot, the scene where Briony throws herself into the lake for Robbie to save her. It provides depth into her character and gives her more motive. The current plot seems to skip over it. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signaures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Sworded lion26|Sworded lion26]] ([[User talk:Sworded lion26|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Sworded lion26|contribs]]) 03:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:I also do think this section is missing. I isn't only giving her "more motvie", it is THE motive for she obviously was in love with Robbie and later in the hospital confesses it was so. She not only misinterpreted the scenes between Robbie and Cecilia, she was obviously jealous. [[User:Roadrunner gs|Roadrunner gs]] ([[User talk:Roadrunner gs|talk]]) 06:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
To that end, I have removed the tag in case nobody contests the above. (Obviously I will not remove it again if reapplied, at least not until a consensus has been reached). |
|||
* You're wrong and doing the novel a disservice by giving Briony such a shallow motive. It should of course be considered that jealousy played a part, but there are so many other reasons that could also play a part in her reasoning; her wish to protect her sister, her fear of the raw sexuality in the letter, even her frustration at the events of that day leading to one silly childhood act. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/192.25.22.11|192.25.22.11]] ([[User talk:192.25.22.11|talk]]) 14:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
The best solution, of course, would be for the tagging editor to not merely perform drive-by tagging, and instead boldly edit the plot section to still remain informative and useful, just in two hundred words less. |
|||
Regards, [[User:CapnZapp|CapnZapp]] ([[User talk:CapnZapp|talk]]) 06:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
I agree, the author of this article has severely misinterpreted the character of Briony. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/130.91.196.77|130.91.196.77]] ([[User talk:130.91.196.77|talk]]) 19:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:I am working on a shorter edit right now, not to 700 words, but if you want I can put the draft here, to see if it's more acceptable (keep in mind not 700 yet, but shorter). |
|||
Briony is not jealous of Cecelia and Robbie. She states, in the movie and in the novel, that as soon as she told Robbie that she was in love with him (when she was ten, and years before she accuses him of raping her cousin), the feeling immediately went away. Her motive for fingering him in the assault was threefold: she misinterpreted what she saw by the fountain (because she could not hear them talking, and because she looked at them halfway through the scene), she thought he had already tried to assault Cecelia in the library (and that she had rescued Cecelia from further harm by walking in on them), and she read the note with the word "cunt" in it. She was not aware that the scene in the library was consensual, and so I am going to change the plot as it is written now, since it suggests that she was jealous when she saw Robbie making love to her sister. The drowning scene is interesting as character development, but I'm not sure that it's all that necessary to the plot, so I am neutral about putting it in. If it is put in, though, please be sure to mention that as soon as she told him she loved him, the feeling dissipated. [[User:Keenerreed|Keener Reed]] ([[User talk:Keenerreed|talk]]) 05:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Disclaimer I do like it how it currently is, but I think some trim would help a lot (not to 700, but still trim it down a little). |
|||
:I got to 785 words with this draft. |
|||
:"In 1935 England, 13-year-old Briony Tallis, the youngest daughter of the wealthy Tallis family, is set to perform a play she wrote for an upcoming family gathering. She spies on her older sister, Cecilia, and the housekeeper's son, Robbie Turner (with whom Briony is infatuated), from her bedroom window. During their (Cecilia's and Robbie's) argument near the fountain, Robbie accidentally breaks a vase and yells at Cecilia to stay where she is – so as to avoid cutting her feet on the broken pieces on the ground. Still angered, Cecilia then strips off her outer clothing and climbs into the fountain to retrieve one of the pieces. Briony observes and misinterprets all this from her window. |
|||
:Robbie drafts a note to Cecilia to apologise for the incident. He pens his true, unfiltered feelings of attraction for Cecilia in very explicit language, and mistakenly gives it to Briony to deliver to Cecilia; only after Briony departs does he realise he send the wrong explicit letter; Briony reads the letter before giving it to Cecilia. Later, she describes the note to her 15-year-old visiting cousin, Lola, who calls Robbie a "sex maniac". Paul Marshall, a visiting friend of Briony's older brother, introduces himself to the visiting cousins and appears to be attracted to Lola. Before dinner, Robbie and Cecilia are alone in the library, at which time he apologises to Cecilia for the obscene letter but, to his surprise, she confesses her love for him. They proceed to have sex against the wall in the library, as Briony walks in unseen and sees them; Briony mistakenly thinks her sister is being raped. |
|||
:During dinner, Lola's twin brothers go missing and search parties are organised. While participating in the search, Briony comes across Lola being raped by a man who flees upon being discovered. Briony becomes convinced that it was Robbie; a confused Lola does not dissent, and the two return home. Later, Robbie — who finds the twins unharmed — returns to the house; he ushers the twins inside and is promptly arrested despite Cecilia's pleas of his innocence. Lola and Briony's testimony, along with her turning over the explicit letter, convinces everyone but Cecilia of his guilt. |
|||
:In 1940, during the Second World War, Robbie is released from prison on the condition that he joins the army and fights in the Battle of France. Separated from his unit, he makes his way on foot to Dunkirk. He thinks back to six months earlier when he met Cecilia, now a nurse. Briony, now 18, joined Cecilia's old nursing unit at St Thomas' Hospital in London rather than go to the University of Cambridge. She writes to her sister, but Cecilia cannot forgive her for her part in falsely implicating Robbie. Robbie, who is gravely ill from an infected wound, finally arrives at the beaches of Dunkirk, where he awaits evacuation. |
|||
:Briony, who regrets implicating Robbie, learns from a newsreel that Paul Marshall, who now owns a factory supplying rations to the British army, is about to marry Lola. As Briony attends the wedding, she reliases it was Paul who assaulted Lola all those years ago. Briony visits Cecilia to apologise, and is surprised to find Robbie there living with her sister while on leave; Briony suggests correcting her testimony, to which Cecilia says she would be an "unreliable witness". Briony apologises for her deceit, but Robbie is enraged that she has still not accepted responsibility for her actions. Cecilia and Robbie try to instruct Briony on how to set the record straight and get Robbie's conviction overturned; however, Briony points out since Paul Marshall married Lola, she will not be able to testify against her husband. |
|||
:Decades later, when Briony is an elderly and successful novelist, she gives an interview about her last book, an autobiographical novel titled Atonement, and explains she is dying from vascular dementia. During the interview, she reveals that portion of the book where Robbie and Cecilia are living together and Briony attempts to apologize to them is completely fictitious. Briony could never atone for her mistake, and Cecilia and Robbie were never reunited; Robbie died of septicaemia from his infected wound on the morning of the evacuation at Dunkirk, and Cecilia died months later after drowning during an underground flood due to the Balham tube station bombing during the Blitz. Briony admits that she wrote her novel with its fictitious ending to give the two, in fiction and in death, the happiness they never had because she was responsible for mistakenly identifying Robbie as Lola's rapist. |
|||
:The last scene shows an imagined and happily reunited Cecilia and Robbie staying in the house by the sea which they had intended to visit once they were reunited." [[User:Duyneuzaenasagae|Duyneuzaenasagae]] ([[User talk:Duyneuzaenasagae|talk]]) 18:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== |
==Untitled== |
||
The information is incorrect in many ways. Briony has a clear crush (admittedly) on Robbie and doesn’t understand the Atonement she will face for her fictitious accusations. |
|||
There are many nuances here in which she as a young woman doesn’t understand that her accusations will kill Robbie. She tries to truly make up for them during the war by becoming a nurse. She delivered the letter on purpose to be viscous because she was jealous. |
|||
*[http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=18933 Exclusive: A Chat with James McAvoy] |
|||
*[http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=39766 James McAvoy Makes ''Atonement''] |
|||
*[http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/02/film.atonement.trackingshot.ap/index.html Amazing tracking shot] <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:JimDunning|JimDunning]] ([[User talk:JimDunning|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/JimDunning|contribs]]) 12:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
Headlines. —[[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) - 19:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
It’s a great movie that you may need to see more than once to comprehend. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2601:6C1:100:5A80:A46A:171A:B7D:73D4|2601:6C1:100:5A80:A46A:171A:B7D:73D4]] ([[User talk:2601:6C1:100:5A80:A46A:171A:B7D:73D4#top|talk]]) 07:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== Top Ten List list == |
|||
== Balham historical inaccuracy == |
|||
How about if we convert the Top Ten List list to prose? It will make the article more readable if we summarize the list, identifying the significance and mentioning a few of the more notable lists. As it stands now eyes just glaze over and the import of the achievement is lost in the detail.<br /><span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px; color:#000000;"><b>[[User:JimDunning|Jim Dunning]]</b> | [[User talk:JimDunning|<small>talk</small>]]</span> 05:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:If the awards and nominations section could be changed to something of a table (as in the articles [[The Departed]] or [[Crash (2004 film)]]), it would be more readable. The top ten list can be taken out, possibly; just keep the very very notable ones and #1s I guess. — '''''[[User:Andy M. Wang|Andy W.]]''''' <sup>'''([[User talk:Andy M. Wang|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Andy M. Wang|contrb.]])'''</sup> 23:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
The fact itself (initial version, since condensed: {{tq|In the interview scene at the end of the film, Briony Tallis (played by Vanessa Redgrave at this juncture), says that her sister Cecilia was killed in the flooding of Balham underground station on 15 October 1940 as a result of aerial bombing by the Luftwaffe whilst the station was being used as an air-raid shelter; the bombing and the subsequent flooding of the station actually occurred the previous evening (14 October 1940) in reality.}}) was added back in April 2017 and I originally thought it'd be fine reporting this, especially as I believed our source verified our claim. |
|||
::Converting the awards list to prose, with statements of their significance, would be more informative and readable, similar to ''[[No Country for Old Men (film)#Awards and nominations|No Country for Old Men]]''. I vote against the table format in ''The Departed'' (and here), unless it were summarized on the article page and then table-ized (?!) on a sub-page. I find the list format difficult to read (scroll, scroll, scroll, . . .), like not seeing the forest for the trees. Same for the top-ten lists. Anyone else think so?<br /><span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px; color:#000000;"><b>[[User:JimDunning|Jim Dunning]]</b> | [[User talk:JimDunning|<small>talk</small>]]</span> 01:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
However. |
|||
== Lead unsupported == |
|||
The source provided ({{diff2|944067427|added in March 2020}}) is a poor choice. Finally having hunted down the actual text, it does NOT talk about the date in the context of it being a historical inaccuracy. It simply acts to verify the actual historical date. We need (and I assumed "Trauma and Romance..." was such a source) a source specifically reporting this to be a historical inaccuracy. The source simply does not support our claim that this detail "has been reported" as a historical accuracy. With a good helping of good faith, the source can be misinterpreted as saying such since it does discuss Briony as an unreliable narrator; how unclear it is that Cecilia actually died in the bombing... but about the actual date "Trauma and Romance..." simply reports the facts: {{tq|Sure enough, the station, which had been turned into an air-raid shelter, received a direct hit from a German bomb on October 14, 1940, killing 64 people, as quoted on the memorial plaque in the station itself.}} It never even mentions how Briony gives the 15th as the date, much less makes a deal out of the discrepancy. If anything this source would suggest this historical inaccuracy is NOT notable at all, especially in comparison to the in-universe unreliability of the narrator ({{tq|At this point, a page before the end, an exceedingly uncomfortable oscillation is set up inside the mind of the somewhat bewildered and traumatised victim of the text, me at least. This oscillation is something like our bewilderment before a famous Piranesi etching that does not make spatial sense, or before certain Escher etchings that are equally irrational, or before that celebrated Gestalt duck-rabbit, mentioned earlier.}} |
|||
Most of the information in the Lead lacks support in the article body. Either the Lead needs to be changed or a Distribution section needs to be initiated and the Production section augmented.<br /><span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px; color:#000000;"><b>[[User:JimDunning|Jim Dunning]]</b> | [[User talk:JimDunning|<small>talk</small>]]</span> 02:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
The movie does not depict the events of the bombing on the wrong date. It merely has ''a narrator'' give the wrong date. Is this really notable? |
|||
:I've rearranged sections to be more consistent with Film Style Guidelines and started a Distribution section (which should be beefed up). The Production section also needs some work.<br /><span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px; color:#000000;"><b>[[User:JimDunning|Jim Dunning]]</b> | [[User talk:JimDunning|<small>talk</small>]]</span> 03:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Well, that's where a new source comes in. I'm hesitantly going to let the paragraph remain but replace the source with a fact tag. If no source that verifies our claim this historical accuracy HAS been reported or discussed, feel free to remove the entire thing as not notable after all. Do note: a source should not merely confirm the actual historical date. It needs to specifically discuss the discrepancy in the context of the book and verify our claim [[User:CapnZapp|CapnZapp]] ([[User talk:CapnZapp|talk]]) 16:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Wild About Movies == |
|||
:OK, this does look increasingly weak and trivial, and if we don't have a secondary source that notes it as a discrepancy, it should probably be cut. As a matter of interest, can anyone tell us exactly what Briony says in the film? In the novel, the bombing is misdated to September (which is a slightly more significant slip, but obviously not appropriate for mention in this article): {{tq|Cecilia was killed in September of the same year [1940] by the bomb that destroyed Balham Underground station.}} [this section in Briony's voice]. [[User:GrindtXX|GrindtXX]] ([[User talk:GrindtXX|talk]]) 00:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I've [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Atonement_%28film%29&diff=183682877&oldid=183667360 trimmed] down the usage of multi-ref tagging for Wild About Movies. A tag does not need to be used every one or two sentences, just at the end of the paragraph or before a sentence that belongs to another reference. —<font face="Palatino Linotype">[[User:Erik|Erik]]</font> ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) - 19:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:: A possibly on-topic comment: could I ask you to not refer to the mention in the passive voice? {{tq|the bombing is misdated to September }} can be construed as a bigger error than "Briony misdates the bombing to September." Cheers [[User:CapnZapp|CapnZapp]] ([[User talk:CapnZapp|talk]]) 15:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Dead nominations == |
|||
I removed the Chicago Film Critics Assoc nominations since the awards were decided six weeks ago. I'm assuming three minor nominations are no longer worth mentioning in these long lists once the contests have been decided. So, that raises the question of how we maintain the numerous lists that are proliferating among the current film articles? I guess we could flag decision dates and maybe maintain a centralized list (yes, another list) of what nominations have been listed in which articles and then review and emend/update daily.<br /><span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px; color:#000000;"><b>[[User:JimDunning|Jim Dunning]]</b> | [[User talk:JimDunning|<small>talk</small>]]</span> 04:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:No, I disagree on removing nominations. Look at [[Crash (2004 film)]] and [[The Departed]]. Minor nominations are still in the table. — '''''[[User:Andy M. Wang|Andy W.]]''''' <sup>'''([[User talk:Andy M. Wang|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Andy M. Wang|contrb.]])'''</sup> 20:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Plot redux == |
|||
Err ... the plot section is entirely skewed. Briony isn't freaked out and scared over Robbie's perceived attentions to her sister; she's ''jealous,'' and that's plain nearly every step of the way. She doesn't suddenly realize at age eighteen she got the wrong guy ... she knew it from the start, and accused Robbie by way of lashing out. [[User:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:Blue;color:Cyan"> Ravenswing </span>''']] 13:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
In the novel Briony is frightened and confused. She was only 12 and people were much less informed about sex in those days. Have avoided the film because I found the novel harrowing. |
|||
== Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association Awards == |
|||
I was wondering whether the inclusion of the above trophy in the article is a good example of the alleged American bias of Wikipedia. Internationally, is it considered an important award? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.179.58.224|86.179.58.224]] ([[User talk:86.179.58.224|talk]]) 02:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:Oh, in Australia we don't bother to see any film that hasn't won the D-FWFCA. In fact they no longer even try to distribute films that haven't won one. [[User:Greglocock|Greglocock]] ([[User talk:Greglocock|talk]]) 09:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Long take on the shore == |
|||
I wonder if there is any way to insert a reference to the 5 mins [[long take]] on the shore, that I think is noteworthy. I am not so fluent in english to find a way to rephrase the sentences in the description of the Dunkirk evacuation... now they are a little too terse work on them... — [[User:Ptoniolo|Pietro Toniolo]] ([[User talk:Ptoniolo|talk]]) 10:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:Hi there! I'm planning on improving the article sometime next year. If sources mention it, I'll try to add the 5 minute take in, as I also think it was an important scene. '''[[User:Ruby2010|<font color="003B48" size="2px">Ruby</font>]]''' [[User talk:Ruby2010|<font color="maroon " size="2px">2010/</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Ruby2010|<font color="maroon " size="2px">2013</font>]] 14:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::There are many sources; we can choose from the results of a google search. Many of them are reliable, like IMDB and such... — [[User:Ptoniolo|Pietro Toniolo]] ([[User talk:Ptoniolo|talk]]) 09:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::This shot is in fact already mentioned in the article, under '''Locations'''. It could be mentioned more prominently under (say) '''Production'''. [[User:GrindtXX|GrindtXX]] ([[User talk:GrindtXX|talk]]) 00:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::The locations section will definitely become a subsection once I get around to writing the article's production. Also, Pietro, IMDb is unfortunately not a [[WP:RS|reliable source]], but I know there are plenty of others that are reliable, which I will be using. '''[[User:Ruby2010|<font color="003B48" size="2px">Ruby</font>]]''' [[User talk:Ruby2010|<font color="maroon " size="2px">2010/</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Ruby2010|<font color="maroon " size="2px">2013</font>]] 01:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== Royal Sussex Regiment == |
|||
The plot summary currently states that Robbie "is assigned to A Company, 1st Battalion, [[Royal Sussex Regiment]]". Can anyone confirm that this is mentioned somewhere in the film? As a matter of historical fact (see wiki article), the 1st Battalion spent the whole of WWII in the North African/Italian theatre, and was not involved in the Dunkirk evacuation. [[User:GrindtXX|GrindtXX]] ([[User talk:GrindtXX|talk]]) 20:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 19:29, 10 July 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Atonement (2007 film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 6 months |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Spring 2020. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Queen Mary, University of London/Research Methods (Film) (Spring 2020)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
Long plot?
[edit]Per WP:FILMPLOT:
Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as with non-linear storylines, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range. (Discuss with other editors to determine if a summary cannot be contained within the proper range.)
So let's discuss. First off, I dispute the characterization of the current 910 word plot as "massively bloated". It is a bit over the suggested range of 400 and 700, but I wouldn't call it "massively bloated".
In fact, allow me to suggest the plot section is fine as-is. The movie is not a simple or straight-forward one, and I can easily see a consensus forming around making an exception here. We should not reduce a plot section merely to conform to policy if that leaves out an important plot point.
To that end, I have removed the tag in case nobody contests the above. (Obviously I will not remove it again if reapplied, at least not until a consensus has been reached).
The best solution, of course, would be for the tagging editor to not merely perform drive-by tagging, and instead boldly edit the plot section to still remain informative and useful, just in two hundred words less.
Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 06:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- I am working on a shorter edit right now, not to 700 words, but if you want I can put the draft here, to see if it's more acceptable (keep in mind not 700 yet, but shorter).
- Disclaimer I do like it how it currently is, but I think some trim would help a lot (not to 700, but still trim it down a little).
- I got to 785 words with this draft.
- "In 1935 England, 13-year-old Briony Tallis, the youngest daughter of the wealthy Tallis family, is set to perform a play she wrote for an upcoming family gathering. She spies on her older sister, Cecilia, and the housekeeper's son, Robbie Turner (with whom Briony is infatuated), from her bedroom window. During their (Cecilia's and Robbie's) argument near the fountain, Robbie accidentally breaks a vase and yells at Cecilia to stay where she is – so as to avoid cutting her feet on the broken pieces on the ground. Still angered, Cecilia then strips off her outer clothing and climbs into the fountain to retrieve one of the pieces. Briony observes and misinterprets all this from her window.
- Robbie drafts a note to Cecilia to apologise for the incident. He pens his true, unfiltered feelings of attraction for Cecilia in very explicit language, and mistakenly gives it to Briony to deliver to Cecilia; only after Briony departs does he realise he send the wrong explicit letter; Briony reads the letter before giving it to Cecilia. Later, she describes the note to her 15-year-old visiting cousin, Lola, who calls Robbie a "sex maniac". Paul Marshall, a visiting friend of Briony's older brother, introduces himself to the visiting cousins and appears to be attracted to Lola. Before dinner, Robbie and Cecilia are alone in the library, at which time he apologises to Cecilia for the obscene letter but, to his surprise, she confesses her love for him. They proceed to have sex against the wall in the library, as Briony walks in unseen and sees them; Briony mistakenly thinks her sister is being raped.
- During dinner, Lola's twin brothers go missing and search parties are organised. While participating in the search, Briony comes across Lola being raped by a man who flees upon being discovered. Briony becomes convinced that it was Robbie; a confused Lola does not dissent, and the two return home. Later, Robbie — who finds the twins unharmed — returns to the house; he ushers the twins inside and is promptly arrested despite Cecilia's pleas of his innocence. Lola and Briony's testimony, along with her turning over the explicit letter, convinces everyone but Cecilia of his guilt.
- In 1940, during the Second World War, Robbie is released from prison on the condition that he joins the army and fights in the Battle of France. Separated from his unit, he makes his way on foot to Dunkirk. He thinks back to six months earlier when he met Cecilia, now a nurse. Briony, now 18, joined Cecilia's old nursing unit at St Thomas' Hospital in London rather than go to the University of Cambridge. She writes to her sister, but Cecilia cannot forgive her for her part in falsely implicating Robbie. Robbie, who is gravely ill from an infected wound, finally arrives at the beaches of Dunkirk, where he awaits evacuation.
- Briony, who regrets implicating Robbie, learns from a newsreel that Paul Marshall, who now owns a factory supplying rations to the British army, is about to marry Lola. As Briony attends the wedding, she reliases it was Paul who assaulted Lola all those years ago. Briony visits Cecilia to apologise, and is surprised to find Robbie there living with her sister while on leave; Briony suggests correcting her testimony, to which Cecilia says she would be an "unreliable witness". Briony apologises for her deceit, but Robbie is enraged that she has still not accepted responsibility for her actions. Cecilia and Robbie try to instruct Briony on how to set the record straight and get Robbie's conviction overturned; however, Briony points out since Paul Marshall married Lola, she will not be able to testify against her husband.
- Decades later, when Briony is an elderly and successful novelist, she gives an interview about her last book, an autobiographical novel titled Atonement, and explains she is dying from vascular dementia. During the interview, she reveals that portion of the book where Robbie and Cecilia are living together and Briony attempts to apologize to them is completely fictitious. Briony could never atone for her mistake, and Cecilia and Robbie were never reunited; Robbie died of septicaemia from his infected wound on the morning of the evacuation at Dunkirk, and Cecilia died months later after drowning during an underground flood due to the Balham tube station bombing during the Blitz. Briony admits that she wrote her novel with its fictitious ending to give the two, in fiction and in death, the happiness they never had because she was responsible for mistakenly identifying Robbie as Lola's rapist.
- The last scene shows an imagined and happily reunited Cecilia and Robbie staying in the house by the sea which they had intended to visit once they were reunited." Duyneuzaenasagae (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Untitled
[edit]The information is incorrect in many ways. Briony has a clear crush (admittedly) on Robbie and doesn’t understand the Atonement she will face for her fictitious accusations.
There are many nuances here in which she as a young woman doesn’t understand that her accusations will kill Robbie. She tries to truly make up for them during the war by becoming a nurse. She delivered the letter on purpose to be viscous because she was jealous.
It’s a great movie that you may need to see more than once to comprehend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6C1:100:5A80:A46A:171A:B7D:73D4 (talk) 07:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Balham historical inaccuracy
[edit]The fact itself (initial version, since condensed: In the interview scene at the end of the film, Briony Tallis (played by Vanessa Redgrave at this juncture), says that her sister Cecilia was killed in the flooding of Balham underground station on 15 October 1940 as a result of aerial bombing by the Luftwaffe whilst the station was being used as an air-raid shelter; the bombing and the subsequent flooding of the station actually occurred the previous evening (14 October 1940) in reality.
) was added back in April 2017 and I originally thought it'd be fine reporting this, especially as I believed our source verified our claim.
However.
The source provided (added in March 2020) is a poor choice. Finally having hunted down the actual text, it does NOT talk about the date in the context of it being a historical inaccuracy. It simply acts to verify the actual historical date. We need (and I assumed "Trauma and Romance..." was such a source) a source specifically reporting this to be a historical inaccuracy. The source simply does not support our claim that this detail "has been reported" as a historical accuracy. With a good helping of good faith, the source can be misinterpreted as saying such since it does discuss Briony as an unreliable narrator; how unclear it is that Cecilia actually died in the bombing... but about the actual date "Trauma and Romance..." simply reports the facts: Sure enough, the station, which had been turned into an air-raid shelter, received a direct hit from a German bomb on October 14, 1940, killing 64 people, as quoted on the memorial plaque in the station itself.
It never even mentions how Briony gives the 15th as the date, much less makes a deal out of the discrepancy. If anything this source would suggest this historical inaccuracy is NOT notable at all, especially in comparison to the in-universe unreliability of the narrator (At this point, a page before the end, an exceedingly uncomfortable oscillation is set up inside the mind of the somewhat bewildered and traumatised victim of the text, me at least. This oscillation is something like our bewilderment before a famous Piranesi etching that does not make spatial sense, or before certain Escher etchings that are equally irrational, or before that celebrated Gestalt duck-rabbit, mentioned earlier.
The movie does not depict the events of the bombing on the wrong date. It merely has a narrator give the wrong date. Is this really notable?
Well, that's where a new source comes in. I'm hesitantly going to let the paragraph remain but replace the source with a fact tag. If no source that verifies our claim this historical accuracy HAS been reported or discussed, feel free to remove the entire thing as not notable after all. Do note: a source should not merely confirm the actual historical date. It needs to specifically discuss the discrepancy in the context of the book and verify our claim CapnZapp (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- OK, this does look increasingly weak and trivial, and if we don't have a secondary source that notes it as a discrepancy, it should probably be cut. As a matter of interest, can anyone tell us exactly what Briony says in the film? In the novel, the bombing is misdated to September (which is a slightly more significant slip, but obviously not appropriate for mention in this article):
Cecilia was killed in September of the same year [1940] by the bomb that destroyed Balham Underground station.
[this section in Briony's voice]. GrindtXX (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)- A possibly on-topic comment: could I ask you to not refer to the mention in the passive voice?
the bombing is misdated to September
can be construed as a bigger error than "Briony misdates the bombing to September." Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- A possibly on-topic comment: could I ask you to not refer to the mention in the passive voice?
- B-Class film articles
- B-Class British cinema articles
- British cinema task force articles
- B-Class French cinema articles
- French cinema task force articles
- B-Class war films articles
- War films task force articles
- B-Class American cinema articles
- American cinema task force articles
- WikiProject Film articles
- B-Class Shropshire articles
- Low-importance Shropshire articles
- B-Class Yorkshire articles
- Low-importance Yorkshire articles
- WikiProject Yorkshire articles
- B-Class Lincolnshire articles
- Low-importance Lincolnshire articles
- WikiProject Lincolnshire articles
- B-Class London-related articles
- Low-importance London-related articles
- B-Class Berkshire articles
- Low-importance Berkshire articles
- WikiProject Berkshire articles and lists
- B-Class Sussex-related articles
- Low-importance Sussex-related articles
- WikiProject Sussex articles
- B-Class France articles
- Low-importance France articles
- All WikiProject France pages
- B-Class romance articles
- Mid-importance romance articles
- WikiProject Romance articles