Talk:Annie Hall

Moving on

The debate above is not about the plot, the production or the reception. It is about the analysis of the movie. At one extreme is the view that nothing in the "themes" section deserves mention in the lead. Annie Hall is just a standard romantic comedy. At the other extreme is the view that the "themes" section is the core of the article, since this is what distinguishes the film from thousands of others. This is to ask for views on how to resolve the issue. I suggest first discussing which sub-topics should be covered in the "Themes" section. After this has been resolved, and only then, we should discuss each of the assertions and sources in the "themes" section. A sentence-by-sentence approach. The end result would be a version that reflects consensus. Would another approach be more efficient? Thoughts? Aymatth2 (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

A sandbox revised edition in the meantime might be a better way to go about it and then gain consensus for a given version. It's clear discussion with Ring isn't going to get us far. I'll work on User:Dr. Blofeld/Annie Hall and Ring can work on one in his sandbox if he really wants to. Aymatth or Erik etc is welcome to edit my version, obviously not Ring though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs): You can do that, but given the background I am very uncomfortable with making any changes without first carefully discussing the changes and obtaining consensus. Let's agree on the approach first. There is no urgency. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

OK no worries. I've pretty much done all I needed to. I strongly suggest that Ring makes his own version and exactly what he'd do and then we can compare and discuss. Discussion with Ring without physical changes have proved to have got us nowhere. It was the discussion among ourselves which produced results. He still feels the same. what makes you think anything will change through a continued discussion with him? At least if we have a comparison to go on then we can discuss which elements of each version should be included and try to move forwards. I can see that Ring is unlikely to accept anything he doesn't agree with so I have a feeling it'll come down to a consensus to replace a given version. I on the otherhand am willing to compromise a little if the changes proposed aren't against basic MoS guidelines or make a severe hack of what I've written in the critical analysis section.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

It's very strange that you think discussion with me leads to nothing. I have repeatedly urged everyone to back their claims with sources as I have done. That is how Wikipedia works. Now, if the sources don't agree with you, I'd suggest you change your views about what should be in the article. I am following the sources. You are frustrated because I insist -- quite rightly -- that you back your claims with good sources. If it's too much bother, then let the rest of us handle it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I presented enough sources to back my claims to sink a battleship and you proceeded to ignore them!!! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I responded to your sources and pointed out the problems with them. You didn't respond to that, I believe. Winkelvi said he had a source and it wasn't one at all. Your sources are all pretty dubious and capable of multiple interpretations. I asked you to back up your claims for a couple days before you finally took that minimal step, and then there were problems with them. So, if you seriously believe your sources are good -- the four that you listed next to my seven -- go back and defend them where I criticized them. That is discussion. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Issue 1:First paragraph of Style

Another thing which I see Ring restored was the beginning of the style section which I'd copyedited to improve the flow:

My version:

Technically, the film had a considerable impact on Allen who considered Gordon Willis to be a "wizard" cinematographer, and he credits Willis and the film to be an important step in his maturity as a filmmaker. Despite the contrast in their styles, with Allen known for his hilarious farces and Willis known for his dark dramatic films like The Godfather, the two became friends during filming and continued the collaboration on several later films, including Zelig, which earned Willis his first Academy Award nomination for Best Cinematography.

Existing version:

Technically, the film marked an advance for the director. He selected Gordon Willis as his cinematographer—for Allen "a very important teacher" and a "technical wizard," saying, "I really count Annie Hall as the first step toward maturity in some way in making films." At the time, it was considered an "odd pairing" by many, Keaton among them. The director was famous for "laugh machines" and hilarious farces, while Willis was known as "the prince of darkness" for work on dramatic films like The Godfather. Despite this, the two became friends during filming and continued the collaboration on several later films, including Zelig, which earned Willis his first Academy Award nomination for Best Cinematography.

It's not my version, it's the current consensus. Blofeld, you changed the meaning, as I said. You don't know the difference between "the film marked an advance for the director" and "the film had an impact on the director"? Isn't it obvious to you the two are not the same? --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

No it isn't, you reverted me twice on it and there isn't a consensus on it yet as people here weren't aware of it. You have a point about "marked an advance" so how about:

Technically, the film marked an advance for the director Allen who considered Gordon Willis to be a "wizard" cinematographer, and he credits Willis and the film to be an important step in his maturity as a filmmaker. Despite the contrast in their styles, with Allen known for his hilarious farces and Willis known for his dark dramatic films like The Godfather, the two became friends during filming and continued the collaboration on several later films, including Zelig, which earned Willis his first Academy Award nomination for Best Cinematography.

♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Why take out that he was an important teacher? The original is just better, with more nice quotes and less of your opinion. For some reason, you take out Keating's opinion, which is interesting. What is superior about your draft? --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

"he credits Willis and the film to be an important step in his maturity as a filmmaker" pretty much states that doesn't it? I reworded it for flow more than anything, your version is 0.5 kb long than it really needs to be providing the same information.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Not as well, and it makes it your opinion instead of his. Just inferior. The one thing I agree on is that it would be nice to find a replacement for "laugh machines". Vivid but strange. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Some thoughts and suggestions from others on this please. There's nothing wrong with paraphrasing a few quotes in prose IMO.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You are making this ad hominem now instead of responding to my legitimate criticisms. Additionally, why are you dragging in "maturity"? That's not in the original. If you can improve the style without changing the meaning, that's good. Otherwise, the consensus version seems to be pretty good already and it's accurate, including all true statements without any OR. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

There was no consensus version. It just happened to be existing at the time of the lock. How about

Technically, the film marked an advance for the director. He selected Gordon Willis as his cinematographer—for Allen "a very important teacher" and a "technical wizard," saying, "I really count Annie Hall as the first step toward maturity in some way in making films." Despite the contrast in their styles, with Allen known for his hilarious farces and Willis known for his dark dramatic films like The Godfather, the two became friends during filming and continued the collaboration on several later films, including Zelig, which earned Willis his first Academy Award nomination for Best Cinematography.

♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The current version is the consensus version. Maybe you didn't know that. If you have questions about how consensus works on Wikipedia, I would recommend WP:consensus. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Why remove Keating's opinion and "prince of darkness", which is vivid and true. I don't see how you are trying to improve the paragraph. Do you just want to make a change for the sake of making a change? --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest we change one sentence to this: "The director was famous for his comedies and farces, while Willis was known as "the prince of darkness" for work on dramatic films like The Godfather." --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Updated it in User:Dr. Blofeld/Annie Hall. How's that? Not for the sake of it no, as I've explained below. Can you find a source for "Allen wrote a first draft of a screenplay within a four-day period, sending it to Brickman to make alterations."? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, your explanation doesn't seem to hold water. You want to "condense" which apparently means leaving things out that are interesting. And you offered a draft with a major problem. Since Allen and Willis were considered an odd pairing, perhaps it is fitting they are referred to as an odd pairing. Having things in the article that are true is not "problematic" (which is itself a vague objection), it's the opposite of vague, and it's not OR. So we agree on "laugh machines" and that can be the basis of a new consensus. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

New to this discussion (and, full declaration, a regular WP colleague of Dr Blofeld). But in my view Dr B's version seems preferable. It conveys the same information without superfluity, and I support the shorter version. The quoting affects the flow of the text, and the sentence about odd pairing and laugh machines as Dr B says comes across as OR and, IMO, unencyclopaedic. Tim riley (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I doesn't convey the same information and nothing currently included is superfluous. The quotes make it clear who is the source of the opinion, which is actually quite significant in this case. That the director and the cinematographer were referred to as an odd pairing is a fact and it's up to the reader to decide what to make of it. What is really quite unencyclopedic is keeping interesting information from the readers. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Ring Cinema is of course entitled to have his/her views considered along with everyone else's, but I think "what is really quite unencyclopedic is keeping interesting information from the readers" slightly misses the point that it is our job as WP editors to write articles that home in on the essentials. "Interesting information" that is not central to the narrative can be footnoted, but oughtn't to obtrude into the main text. A footnote is always a possibility in such cases. Tim riley (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

"Obtrude"? No, the facts don't obtrude. You seem intent on hiding from the readers that Diane Keaton agreed that Allen and Willis were an odd pairing. If you can't appreciate that the characterization of the two has more meaning when it comes from someone close to them, I think you have missed something very, very basic about what is dubious and what is credible. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Taking a spin through Blofeld's sandbox version, I see that it's a great improvement on the previous failed attempts at GAN. I think we have to look at why the GANs failed to see where the article was lacking, and the sandbox version seems to cover most of the issues raised. - SchroCat (talk) 08:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Blofeld has offered many edits and it's not uncommon for his changes to get the facts wrong. As for GA, Blofeld mentioned to me privately that those editors may not have the best ideas. That was the case most recently and he thought it best to have this article fail so another editor could be assigned to it. Personally, I'm interested in making the article better, and if GA articles are worse, the honorific is empty. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Tony had some valid points actually, but yeah, I think he tends to overcook GA reviews to the point they end up being stalled and the review was in no man's land and clearly wasn't getting anywhere. I believe I've addressed most of the valid issues and improved it since and it's now ready for GA and if you can agree then the GA review can go ahead and it should pass fairly quickly. Common for me to get my facts wrong? Uh, where exactly? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the article has improved since the last failure; the format of the GA system ensures that articles are improved, not worsened and that has been the case since the last failure. - SchroCat (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure, let's improve the article. As it happens that may or may not lead to GA status. The previous GA editor didn't know what a paragraph is, quite literally, so there other things beside empty honorifics. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The article has been improved already and will pass GA as it stands. It can continue to be improved afterwards.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Look at the draft under discussion. You needed to be told that you'd changed the meaning. On March 11, I corrected you on at least four factual errors that you introduced, some of the mistakes as blatant as this one. You're not a careful reader. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Stop the personal attacks, Ring. There is absolutely no need for that sort of comment. This is a collaborative project, not a battleground. The JPS^{talk to me} 22:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

If you want to police personal attacks, talk to the others. Perhaps it's bothersome that my comments are completely factual; I literally corrected him five times in one day. Now, I really don't want to hear from you again until you have told the others who attacked me personally that they are out of line. I expect you to handle that promptly. Let me know when you've accomplished that and we'll talk. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

References

I felt that the quoting was unnecessary in parts here and it was best condensed to improve the flow. I thought the "The director was famous for "laugh machines" " sounded unencyclopedic and " it was considered an "odd pairing" by many," was problematic and vague and OR.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

We do not have to fall over each other to achieve consensus. We are not in a sprint to get this done. One act by one person is not the reaching of consensus and taking deliberation and waiting to change something with deliberation is not de facto consensus; there has to be a sense of something being right as based on viable sources and as well have the feeling that how it is expressed is appropriate. No rush here. It is not as if fresh plaster has been laid down and all there is but one quick attempt to get it proper. And especially for those quoted items. It is a great disappointment to find that which was quoted when examining the source was never there. We should never be in a position that merely by something being "there" that it stands or is consensus. To some it may be slow and to some it may be tedious but I am not one to appreciate being railroaded. Maybe. what I think was from one source and in reality is real but not from the source that I previously thought was the source. I would accord that courtesy on others as I hope it is accorded me. Civil behavior is all that is asked.LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

If you're trying to criticize Ring Cinema it's not really very clear. You might have time to sit around discussing the most minor and trivial of article issues with people but I don't. I think it's ridiculous actually, comical even, that we have to resort to a consensus to add a single sentence. There's thousands of other articles needing basic attention. It should have never got this far.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Getting consensus in order to add a single sentence is something Ring Cinema has resorted to before at other articles. You're right DB, it never should have gotten this far but it did because Ring Cinema forced it that direction. Unfortunately for Wikipedia, it's not new behavior for him. I would think that since his usual cadre of supporters haven't rallied around him by now he would get the hint he's in the wrong and just back off. Unfortunately (again) for Wikipedia, he's chosen to continue with the disruptive direction he's chosen. I applaud you for sticking with it; the article will be better off for your perseverance and patience. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 23:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Ring Cinema--"Quid pro quo" has never been part of your interactions on WP and instead has either been to bring about your Sherman's March or a General Lee's Surrender over others that may find some discrepancy in article content contributions. You have a short fuse and it does not take much to spark it. WP does not put jingle in my pocket; does not pay my bills; and I do not use it to reaffirm my self-esteem. You disregard of yourself that which you expect of others. Wise up and "cease and desist". What you amend in the articles is always "the best" and that which you revert is always "the worst". You will insist (as they say, "Until the cows come home.) that something is consensus merely because it has existed with out question in an article and is later shown to be untrue for such a duration that when a source is found by others to prove differently it makes you appear the fool when attempting to strive for a quality article that includes well-mannered personal interactions. An apology is not going to erase your history so let it be.LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 06:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Issue 2:Themes/critical analysis

I've changed the section title to critical analysis even though many sources indicate most of them are perennial themes but I can understand Ring's view that some of them may be considered more motifs or devices. So a neutral title avoids any possible confusion, it addresses them purely as issues. My current version in User:Dr. Blofeld/Annie Hall also places the love section at the top as primary importance, addressing Ring's concerns that it is the central theme. My feeling is that we could probably introduce a bit more material on scholarly discussion of love and relationship and make it the longest sub section out of the lot and perhaps split Jewish identify later.

What do you dispute about what is currently in my sandbox version Ring? I've replaced that shoddy source as you suggested. All of the content discussed in it is well sourced and the issues in them whatever you want to call them are all widely discussed in multiple reliable sources. I make no claim about any of them formally being a theme or whatever, just addressed as issues. I'm sure some of them would be disputed on whether they're really themes, motifs or devices or whatever and my version makes no claim towards that, just documents what has been covered in reliable sourced on issues related to the film. We can say love is a central theme if you want to and can source that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

"Kol mah Sh'Talmid vatik atid l'horot lifnei rabbo, kevar n'emar L'Moshe B'Sinai (Whatever a seasoned scholar is destined to innovate before his master was already revealed to Moses at Sinai,

Yerushalmi, Pe'ah 2.4). "The current version is the consensus version." is like saying that an apple is an apple. But the one in the fruit bowl on the dining room table is from the backyard tree and the one on display on the living room credenza is of wax. The destination is the goal but the journey is just as important. No need to criticize, have a concern, yes, but to criticize, well, no need to turn the milk sour so soon.LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Broadcast television airings

Are there any articles about Annie Hall's presentations on broadcast television? I've seen it on ABC in the late 70's, Kansas City's KSHB TV41 (when it was a Fox affiliate) in the late 80's, and it's recently (early 2015) been shown a few times on the digital subchannel This TV. Each time it appears to have been shown unedited; every showing included some on-air advisory . This TV's advisory explicitly stated that the movie had not been edited for content.

I've always assumed that some contractual obligation existed that the movie be shown unedited, but haven't seen any detailed articles on the subject. And it appears that many of Allen's films (for United Artists, at least) have been shown unedited on basic cable channels. It would be relevant to the Annie Hall article (and the Wikipedia articles on Allen and his other films) if we could include that information. Just1thing (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Truman Capote

My recollection is Alvie is making jokes about people walking by, and just before the cut he says something like "There goes the winner of the Truman Capote look-alike contest", and the person walking by at that moment is Truman Capote. Both the caption to the picture and to a lesser extent the text, suggest that in the movie this is an actual winner of a look-alike contest. That is just incredibly literal, and I don't think it's right. Alvie is just quipping about people walking by. Obviously, in real life Woody Allen knows that is Truman Capote, and therefore that's part of the joke. It would be funny if Alvie the character didn't know, but he might. But either way, there is no actual look-alike contest in the film. Maybe I'm the one reading too literally and this is just a quick way to refer to where his cameo is, but I thought it was dumb when I read it... particularly the caption on the picture. Gripdamage (talk) 05:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

McLuhan in the cinema…

… is mentioned twice. Once is enough, surely? 203.221.133.144 (talk) 01:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to be bold and edit the article yourself. If you can't, could you be super specific about the change you want? I had a quick look and couldn't spot the problem. Thanks. Commander Keane (talk) 07:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)