Talk:The Seventh Seal/Archive 1

Archive 1

Kite

An editor has changed "a hovering vulture is quite obviously a kite" to "a hovering bird is quite obviously suspended by wires" - there hasn't been any misunderstanding as to what "kite" means in this sentence, has there? I don't remember the scene, but the original sentence may be claiming that footage of a kite is reacted to by characters as if it were a vulture, rather than that wires are visible. --McGeddon 08:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It is in fact a sea eagle, and it's not at all obvious to me that it's suspended by wires, probably because it isn't. The fact of its being there is simply commented on by Peter Cowie on the commentary on the Criterion disc, and had it been set up in that way I can't imagine that he wouldn't have mentioned it. I don't wish to seem rude, but has the person who made the original edit ever actually seen a hovering bird? --Stephen Burnett 09:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I did look around for sources to check whether it was documented as being a bird-of-prey kite rather than a vulture, and couldn't find anything - it should be removed as original research, if there's no source for it. --McGeddon 09:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - I have done so. --Stephen Burnett 13:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

i had changed it to 'suspended by wires'. i've reviewed the film, and while wires are not visible, it still does not appear animate - there's no motion of the feathers, even as it sways about, which suggests it is a model, not a real bird. the suggestion by mr. cowie that it is a 'sea eagle' is no more or less fanciful than the suggestion that it is a vulture or a kite, absent a specific statement from bergman himself. the species of bird cannot be determined, nor is it relevant in any way that i can ascertain. i scanned through the movie at high speed, as i'd thought there was another scene with a hovering bird where the wires were visible, but could find none. in any event, this falls within the realm of trivia, and is hardly of any import to an encyclopedic entry, so it is indeed for the best that it simply be removed. Anastrophe 17:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Rescreening

This film is being re released at the moment, should this be mentioned?

perfectblue 16:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Where and when? If it's just one screening somewhere, then no. But if its a nationwide rerelease then perhaps. Cop 663 19:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 08:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Split Synopsis and Criticism?

Do we want the criticism woven right in with the synopsis? I find it annoying - the criticism seems better suited to be moved to a later separate section. I think having it woven in actually makes it more difficult to understand precisely what happens in the film for someone like myself, just looking to refresh my memory of the film's major plot points.

Jordanp (talk) 03:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Old talk

It's a little ridiculous that the longest section in this article is on parodies of the film... (anon)

Quite. I've been bold and cut it back to what seem to be the three most notable parodies. The chess game with Death is such an iconic and common-referenced scene that it seems meaningless to catalogue every single parody reference to it; all the ones I've cut were just single scenes in cartoons or comedy shows. --McGeddon 14:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair point on that! I think that even kids' shows have parodied it is perhaps a bit of a testament to its influence, but it's hard to draw the line as to how far one should go with these things. - Vianello (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The following text was deleted from this page, it had a leading space and therefore went all on one line. It might be useful to someone who wishes to write a decent article on this film.

Wild strawberries and cream make a delightfull luncheon for our heros as they meet on a summers day,be6tween chess matches on the journey that intersects the knight and his squire with the montblank troubadors who perform the (danse macabre).

Mintguy

I find it quite ironic that the English Wikipedia's article about The Seventh Seal is longer than the Swedish Wikipedia's.

Isn't Pablo Picasso in this movie, in the last part for like 2 seconds? i think he is, maybe it's another movie i'm thinking of. Amirman 05:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Preliminary Edits 1/09

I believe that the community of people who read and edit Wikipedia can do a much more thorough job on this seminal film, and IMHO a better one. My edits today -

1) Slight additions to "Synopsis" for clarity and accuracy, including the only English translation in the U.S. for "Jons' girl's" last words, which I noted in the edit summary are intended to echo the biblical passage on the crucifixion - "It is finished."

2) Replacement of "Parody" to a lower part of the page; I'd prefer to revert it altogether but most Wiki articles have similar "in popular culture" sections that, like this, are not germane to the topic. Also removed references that aren't exact parodies. If someone wants to develop this list, IMDB has an extensive listing.

3) Revert the WP:OR nature of the sectioned mis-named "Criticism." That term implies critical reaction or analysis. The editor who wrote it used it to reflect original research criticism of the film's "accuracy," which as noted above on this page is not a relevant issue in a film in which a Knight plays chess with a personified Death. Sensei48 (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Further - something needs to be done about the intro to "Parody" and the attribution of Bergman's idea for Death to a painting. The image of death as a cowled figure (the proper traditional term) is ubiquitous in medieval art and needs to be acknowledged as such by specifying how and where this very particular image is parodied in context, as with Last Action Hero.

First the "historical accuracy" section gets merged into criticism, THEN gets deleted because it really isn't criticism. IMO the material should be restored....to the "historical accuracy" section which is where it belonged in the first place!!!--WickerGuy (talk) 03:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You still haven't said why a section on historical accuracy - belongs in a NPOV encyclopedia article about a film whose entire thrust from the start is metaphorical, not realistic. In addition - where is your source for "Die Duva" being "best-known"? Without one, that is also POV - and OR. I'm not reverting it now because that would be an invitation to an edit war, when what's needed here it seems is an admin review to elucidate for you what kind of observations belong here and which are more appropriate to a blog on movies. Sensei48 (talk) 05:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's change "Die Duva" then to most significant. It is the only film discussed here in which the entire film is an Ingmar Bergman parody (although most of its 15 minute running time is devoted to the film "Wild Strawberries" which Bergman made at about the same time.) All the other films listed allude only briefly to Bergman while parodying many other films. (The Bill and Ted film for example parodies Star Trek, and lots of others.) So regardless of how well-known it is, it clearly should be discussed first. I would say De Duva was certainly the best-known Bergman parody in the 1970s- but perhaps not now in 2009. As for the accuracy, it seems that any observation made by a historian in a book commenting specifically on the Bergman movie passes the NPOV test (and WP:VERIFIABILITY), but may not pass the WP:NOTABILITY test (though this is normally applied to inclusion of entire articles). Accuracy is irrelevant when metaphors involve the supernatural or an imaginary land (like Narnia), but 2001: A Space Odyssey is highly metaphorical and yet WP and many other pundits have discussed its scientific accuracy (which it tried hard to achieve) at great length.
A broader point (which might be worth putting in the article although citing it would be harder) is that the general atmosphere of doom and gloom that pervades the movie really was the mood of medieval Europe during the 14th and 15th century and the Black Plague and flagellant movement (both shown in the film) were part of this era. But the Crusades were long over- the Crusades having taken place during a more optimistic era of medieval history. In essence, the film contains notable anachronisms. --WickerGuy (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Whoa! Fast, clean, and compelling - great job at sourcing! I'd still not agree with the critics you cite - a work of art in general taking an affective aesthetic view here) derives its significance at least in part from the extent to which it transcends its objective correlative. Take Macbeth, for example - a 17th century play from England about an eleventh century king of Scotland - do we look to it for the extent of its historical accuracy - and if so, for what? portraying Shakespeare's time, or Macbeth's, or...? Still - that's my POV, and you've done a fine job here at justifying the inclusion of the history section. I think it improves the article significantly. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

I really think It would be necassery to include some pictures of the film, like when Death first meets Antonius on the beach, or when thet are playing chess, since those image are very iconic and people reading the article will have a better understanding of the film's influence.

~~M.Komar~~

I believe the picture shown is misidentified as death, but is actually the monk leading the burning of the girl. Death had a robe hood which fit tightly around his head, rather than the loose-fitting hood shown on the monk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.154.140.246 (talk) 04:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it is Death - he talks to Block in that scene. He's already appeared disguised as a monk earlier, in the church confession scene, when he tricks Block into revealing his plans to defeat him in the chess game. --Stephen Burnett 10:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

As the uploader of the image, I can attest to the fact that it is indeed Death. It's at the end of the scene about the monks burning the girl, where he is talking to the protagonist. — Loadmaster (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Opening Section

I raise an issue about a sentence in the opening section which seems very speculative: "Here the motif of silence is used to refer to the modern concept of the "silence of God"" Surely this at least needs a citation. What is this modern concept and who wrote about it-the article doesn't go on to address this concept. I can't recall reading where Burgman ever said this121.127.222.111 (talk) 10:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the sentence should be deleted. The lead section is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article, so even if it was true it doesn't belong there since it isn't mentioned anywhere in the article body.

Thanks for all the contributions you have made to the article by the way. Now if we only can get a decent Reception section as well as do some clean-up in the other sections this could probably be passed as a B-Class article. Smetanahue (talk) 11:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I found a reference to the 'Silence of God' in Bragg and have added it to the major themes section. That may allow the sentence in the opening section, now referenced, to stand121.127.222.111 (talk) 11:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Plot length

Just a reminder: according to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Plot, the plot section of a film article should be no longer than 700 words if there isn't a particular reason for it. The current one in this article has 1200 words and needs too be shortened. It is also unnecessary to use cites within the plot section since the film itself is the source. I really appreciate the recent improvements of this article and think we should go for B-Class or even Good Article. I will probably start working on a reception section myself soon. Smetanahue (talk) 09:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'd disagree about the cites in this particular case. What you are really dealing with here is a play (written by the director) which then became a screenplay (written by the director) about very deep philosophical themes. It is a play/script seeped in complex theatrical and cultural traditions and so doesn't fit the usual plot rules for "Hollywood" films (see Impact section). The considerable metaphysical impact of the film is so much in the terse and beautifully crafted dialogue. My view is that this is a special case because of the film being a unique hybrid play/script with iconic status. I can try to trim the plot section down but really hope the quotes can stay. If they were merely paraphrased, much of the considerable existential impact of the film would be lost, to the detriment of the article. This is a special instance in my view where some flexibility in the usual rules is justified by the merit that would bring to this Encyclopedia.121.127.222.111 (talk) 10:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC) I could also add that this film precisely fits the policy exceptions of "unconventional" (an old play/script about the silence of God in medieval times, carried by deliberately rich dialogue) and "complicated" (deeply complicated chiefly because of the philosophical dialogue and its evocations-it is not a normal action film). To some extent it also fulfills the criteria of "lost"- a black and white classic from 1957 that is rarely played on TV and not as easy as most to get access to. The most important exceptions applicable in this case, however, are "unconventional" and "complicated."121.127.222.111 (talk) 10:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi! It is perfectly ok to include quotes from the dialogue in the plot section. What I meant is that it is unnecessary to cite them with the screenplay as source as long as they are in the film, since the film itself is used as the source for the rest of the plot section anyway :)

I don't really agree about the plot being complicated though - it is pretty much straightforward and the film is available in several DVD and Bluray editions. The complex themes and allusions should rather be addressed in the themes section or wherever they might belong. Smetanahue (talk) 11:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. I've moved two large philosophical quotes about the silence of God to the major themes section. As regards the plot, it really depends on how deeply you look at it and the philosophical questions that are being explored. I'd argue that really this is more a complex philosophical play (like a Pinter play for example) than a conventional film in terms of how reproduction of the dialogue should be treated. The history of the screenplay certainly supports this. I agree the synopsis section would read more fluidly if the citations were removed, but I wouldn't want that to be used against retention of the dialogue at some later point.121.127.222.111 (talk) 12:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Parody section

Suggest now is the time to remove unreferenced items from the parody section. It is only element holding back 'B' status.121.127.207.75 (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Parody Again

The films that have survived vetting to remain in the "Parody" section include a verbal reference to the film, a physical evocation of the final scene, or the figure of Death in some high-stakes game. The mere fact that Death is personified in a film, or that a figure in a black cowl appears, or that two characters play chess - these do not constitute a parody of The Seventh Seal. Sensei48 (talk) 07:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• In regards to the Cinema Insomnia information: You said and I quote "Unless Miss Mittens is Death, this is utterly irrelevant, syndicated or no." I modified the information to reflect that. What do you have against this bit of information? It's just as relevant as 'Billy and Mandy' or the 'Colbert Report' probably more so since it's an entire 2 hour episode dedicated to parodying this movie. It's obvious that you're not going to let this go no matter what information I provide. This is clearly abuse. Is there someone other then you that can settle this? You're not the world's expert on what is or is not parody and just because you haven't personally seen it doesn't mean it's not relevant. DixieDellamorto (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Nothing in the way you modified the section brings it any closer to parody - but since you clearly have little idea of how Wikipedia works, let me help you out. In a case like this, where two editors disagree on the validity of an edit such as yours, the common practice is to bring in a third party (usually an administrator) who can adjudicate the matter. If someone from WP:FILM endorses your thinking on this, I have no problem letting it stand. Regarding your tone here, you might want to stop by WP:CIVIL and take a look. Sensei48 (talk) 05:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I've seen said Cinema Insomnia episode and it is parody on the same grounds as Mystery Science Theater 3000 parodizes its films during its host segments.--DrWho42 (talk) 08:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You said (and again I quote) "Unless Miss Mittens is Death, this is utterly irrelevant". I included the fact that miss mittens represented death in the episode, I edited the explanation to reflect that "episode featuring 'The Seventh Seal', Mr. Lobo plays chess with Death (played by his co-host, Miss Mittens), the game parallels the chess match in the film".

In regards to what you feel constitutes parody: Wikipedia states, "Parody is a work created to mock, comment on, or make fun at an original work, its subject, author, style, or some other target, by means of humorous, satiric or ironic imitation." That is the entirety of the film, characters included. If Death is personified or a figure in a black cowl appears, it's humorous or is ironic, and it's in reference The Seventh Seal, it' parody. If two people are playing chess, it's funny and it's in reference to The Seventh Seal, it's Parody. If they're parodying a different scene in the film, for example someone humorously commenting on the fact that characters in the film are drinking milk where there are no cows, it's parody. Verbal reference to the film, however, is not parody -- it's a reference in pop culture, which should be a different category altogether (or perhaps the parody section should be renamed). Parody is exactly what is being done in the episode that I described. Mr. Lobo mocks the entire film in parallel with what is happening as it plays out on his show. Mr. Lobo is a satirist, parody is what he does.

As far as my not understanding how Wikipedia works -- I'm not used to dealing with someone nay-saying everything that I write for no good reason. You never sited a reason why you were singling me out and removing my posts other then "It's not parody"... which simply isn't true. I apologize about my "tone" but you erased my post a few times even after I modified them to your specifications and I was beginning to feel as though I was under attack, it seems as though you're looking for any excuse to take down this bit of information. DixieDellamorto (talk) 09:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

If the Cinema Insomnia reference is just "while introducing the film, the host dresses up and makes some jokes", this hardly seems a "notable parody" on the level of Death being a major character in the Bill and Ted film. I agree we can lose the "brief scene in (500) Days of Summer" and the three-second intro gag from Colbert, on the same basis. We don't need to overexplain "a white-faced man in a dark cape has been a popular object of parody in other films" to the reader, it's a simple enough concept. --McGeddon (talk) 10:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever seen Cinema Insomnia or are you making a generalization of all hosted shows? No one ever said "while introducing the film, the host dresses up and makes some jokes". Cinema Insomnia has over a half an hour of original material in each episode which include well written material (not just jokes), props, and costumes. The host segments are not brief by any means and could stand on their own without the film that they're hosting. Sure a television show wouldn't be on the same level as a feature length film but there is a half an hour of pure parody in that episode of CI. Also how notable something is, is subjective. DixieDellamorto (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard of the show, I was going by an earlier editor's comparison to MST3K - the Cinema Insomnia article describes the material as "brief vignettes". But this doesn't seem to add anything to the reader's understanding of the original film, beyond the fact that the Seventh Seal was still considered ripe for parody in 2001. --McGeddon (talk) 09:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)