Talk:The Crying Game

I'm hardly an expert on these topics, but based on my own understanding of the (continually contested) meaning of the terms and my having seen this movie, I'm not sure "transsexual woman" is the best description of Dil. I would say he/she is a "transgendered man". As far as I know, and according the wikipedia article transsexual, a TS is someone who desires a physical sex change or operation of some sort, and is not merely someone who prefers to live with an identity of the other gender. There certainly is no evidence in the movie itself, or in anything I've read about the movie, to suggest that Dil desires an actual sex change operation. So, I don't see any reason why it's accurate to say she's "transsexual". Revolver 11:39, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would add that TG has become accepted as generally the most inclusive term, so by this reason it errs on the side of caution to use it. Revolver 11:40, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

After reading the transgender article, maybe "transwoman" is better...it clearly identifies the gender identity and stays clear of the TS/TG terminology debate (it seems at least one group of people will find inaccuracy whether TS or TG is used). Revolver 11:52, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Being male to female TS myself, I associated myself immediately with Dil. She is one of the most accurate representations of a pre-operative transsexual in any movies, and I would recognize myself immediately in her - I was just like her when I was pre-op. The point is not her physique or dressing code; the point is that she acts, speaks, walks and behaves like a woman. She speaks of her mood changes and her medication; I interprete it is about hormone replacement therapy. I do remember my own wild mood swings and the horrible spells of agony while I was poisoned by my own hormonal production. I changed the text in the article as "transgendered"; she certainly was NOT a transvestite as the article suggested.62.237.141.27 21:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Should the reference to Dils trasngendered nature be removed from the begining of the article? While this is a long time after the movie it IS still a spoiler and someone might conceivably look at the article without knowing about "the secret"

Novel

Shouldn't the novel be in a disambiguation position if it is, in fact, wholly unrelated to the film? Right now the link of the novel on the John Braine page links to this page, which, if I understand what's going on here correctly, should not be the case. But I don't know enough about either the book or the novel to be certain. Can someone who knows this stuff either fix it or make it clear? CoramVobis 03:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Summary

The summary of this movie contains POV information. There is nothing in the movie that implies that Fergus is actually "attracted" to the Dil character. The person who wrote this was biased by their personal interpretations. The final paragraph that discusses the nature of Fergus's sexuality is also pure speculation and should be removed.

Pronouns

I agree with the change of pronouns to 'she', in accordance with Wikipedia's guideline regarding self-identification. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ummm...

Is it just me, or does this article currently leave out a kind of important part of the film? Like, you know, the twist ending? 70.171.57.254 15:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the twist is described in the plot summary. -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers vs. NPOV

I have redone the introduction to this article. Specifically, I have added the twist ending into the introduction. I expect that somebody will want to revert this. I encourage this person not to. Here's why:

One of the most important things about this film is that it is the first mainstream drama to deal with transgender issues in a remotely serious way. It is an absolute touchstone of discussions of transgender people and cinema. The LGBT perspective on this film is huge, and needs to be mentioned in the lead. This cannot, to my mind, be done well without using the word "transgender" in the lead.

More to the point, it is a gross violation of WP:NPOV to exclude this perspective from the lead. It is a highly notable, absolutely important perspective. It should not be marginalized far outside of the lead. The need to write a good introduction that actually informs people of the major issues surrounding this film trumps the need to cover the twist ending of a 15 year old movie. Phil Sandifer 21:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, per Wikipedia:Lead section, the intro should be a standalone short article. That means that not including the twist in the intro is a violation of NPOV - David Gerard 21:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Somebody has inserted a very ugly spoiler warning into the middle of the lead section, without giving justification or discussing it here. I've removed it pending justification. --Tony Sidaway 05:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No, that is no justification. I haven't even seen the movie and now I know about the twist at the end. I hate that. Get that spoiler out of there. Whey don't you just put what you said, "One of the most important things about this film is that it is the first mainstream drama to deal with transgender issues in a remotely serious way. It is an absolute touchstone of discussions of transgender people and cinema." instead of giving it away? There is a reason something usually says "spoilers start here." ---jdsully8 02:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. It isn't Usenet. --Tony Sidaway 21:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with putting the plot twist in the introduction, but there really should be a spoiler warning. There is nothing giving the reader any indication that the film's ending is going to be given away right off the bat.

Consensus hasn't been reached on spoiler warnings. I honestly don't see why people oppose them so much. I have added a spoiler warning at the beginning of the article, which is permitted in rare situations. From the policy:

"Spoiler warnings may be used in articles whose primary subject is fictional, and where the editor proposing them presents compelling reasons for their insertion. Such reasons should demonstrate that the spoiler tag does not diminish article quality, and that knowledge of the spoiler would substantially diminish many readers' or viewers' enjoyment of the work. Very rarely, a spoiler warning may appear in the article lead. If this can be justified, the warning should be placed at the top of the article. The presumption should be that the article lead should not need to warn about plot spoilers that are significant enough to appear in the lead."

I think this applies in this case. True, the movie is 13 years old, but that doesn't mean that everybody has seen it already. There are surely people who were toddlers when the film came out and are looking to watch it. Adding the spoiler doesn't detract from the article because the important aspect remains intact in the lead. --YellowTapedR 03:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, the film is not "frankly primarily notable for its twist," as one editor said in an edit summary. It had six Academy Award nominations, including best picture.--YellowTapedR 05:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see why there should be a spoiler warning. The movie has been out for thirteen years. People coming to this article want to know more about the movie, and that includes the transgender revelation. This isn't some unreleased, lots-of-speculation movie where someone who hasn't seen it could accidentally stumble on it. Lead sections of movie articles should have a brief summary of the film. You can't briefly summarized this movie without mentioning the one thing that makes it notable: that Dil's trans. Putting a spoiler warning is, imho, unnecessary. Why would people read this article if they didn't expect to be spoiled? If someone didn't want to be spoiled, they'd take two hours out of their day and watch the movie, or they'd look it up on IMDB. This is an encyclopedia article, not a movie review. Kolindigo 05:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The comment by jdsully8 shows that not everyone going to this article has seen the movie or wishes to be spoiled. The twist belongs in the article and even probably should be in the introduction, but adding a spoiler warning does not take anything away from it. And, again, the transgender angle is not the only notable thing about the film, since it was heavily nominated at the Academy Awards and was praised overwhelmingly by critics.

A decade before The Crying Game came out, Sleepaway Camppulled the-girl-is-really-a-boy trick. That revelation is not in the lead of that article (perhaps it should be, because that's the only scene anyone remembers from it). --YellowTapedR 06:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The plot detail is the main thing that an encyslopedia on this article ought to discuss. There is no need for a spoiler tag; an ad description can be found on a more appropriate site. I have removed the spoiler tag again. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

And I have reinstated it. This is very uncivil for just a small compromise. Please be courteous. - Jeeny ^Talk 07:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

July 8

This plot detail is the key fact about the movie - it's embarrassing to put a "spoiler" tag on it. The movie isn't a new release, and people coming here are looking for critical commentary and historical importance, not for a summary to decide whether to go to the cinema to see it. I don't see why a spoiler tag is needed. As Kolindigo asks, "Why would people read this article if they didn't expect to be spoiled?" — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It's your opinion that the plot detail is the key fact about the movie. Just because it isn't a new release doesn't mean that everyone's seen it. It is not wikipedia's job to provide "critical commentary." You have no basis for your claims on why people are coming to this article. The spoiler tag takes nothing away from the article and doesn't prevent anyone looking to learn about historical significance from reading it.

The spoiler guidelines make it clear that tags in the introductions of articles are allowed in rare circumstances. This is one of the exceptions. People may expect to be spoiled when they read the plot summary in an article, but they don't expect to have the ending given away for them in the intro. --YellowTapedR 04:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} The "edit warring" is being done by a group of editors who are against spoiler warnings in just about every circumstance. The page in its current form is a version by one of those editors. --YellowTapedR 06:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Page protection is not an endorsement of any form of the page. Now is the time to reach concensus on the issue on this page. GDonato (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a spoiler warning is justified in the lead of this article. Revealing the key plot twist of a film in a Plot section is one thing, but I don't think a user would reasonably expect to come across it in the lead. It's not like the spoiler warning prevents the information being read by those who want to: As Jeeny says above, it's a "small compromise" of little detriment. Philip Reuben 17:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"has a penis"

Hmmm, I get the idea, "the big reveal is a dick". But the phrasing makes it sound like surrealism or radical plastic surgery, or even science fiction, when it's quite apparent that Dil, irrespective of whatever gender self-identification she may have, is biologically male. In fact, perhaps "biologically male" would be the right term. --Tony Sidaway 03:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

My problem with "biologically male" is that it's not as clear as it could be. The "shock" of the movie is that Dil is a transwoman and the "shocking scene" is when she strips naked and you can tell that she has a penis. "Biologically male" seems like unnecessary censoring to me. Kolindigo 03:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think on balance this wording is best. The revelation on the screen is intentionally startling. --Tony Sidaway 03:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)