Talk:The Lover (1992 film)

Versions

The article should mention the shorter, cut (censored) version. Badagnani (talk) 07:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Citations for use

• "Saigon, Mon Amour", Time Magazine.
• "Naked Came the Stranger", Entertainment Weekly.
• "The Lover Review", Variety.
• "Results page", Academy Awards.

Instead of arguing and borderline edit-warring (no discussion on this page, I see), literally 20 seconds on Google turned out these four sources among dozens of others from reliable sources that could be used to pave the way for a far greater expansion. Here is the search term I used. Steve ^{T • C} 13:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

As well, this analysis of the film --"The Lover. Indochine Returning to Indochina" -- from Jump Cut: A Review of Contemporary Media can be used. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

What I found through the British Film Institute's Film Index International:

• Brownlie, Siobhan (2008). "Using Riffaterre to Rehabilitate The Lover". Literature/Film Quarterly. 36 (1): 52–60. ISSN 0090-4260. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) (Reassessment of L'AMANT using the theories of Michael Riffaterre)
• Jackel, Andrée-Anne (1993). "Why the French had to love The Lover". Cinema Papers (92): 14–19. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) (A discussion of the film, with regard to the consequences of English-French co-productions on the French film industry)
• Roy, Jean (1992). "Memories of Bitter-Sweet Years". Cinemaya (17/18): 4–9. ISSN 0970-8782. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) (In an issue devoted to how Western filmmakers regard and have portrayed the East an article looking at how three French films, THE LOVER, DIEN BIEN PHU and INDOCHINE deal with Indochina)
• "Janemarch". Interview. 22 (9): 90–93. 1992. {{cite journal}}: |first= missing |last= (help); Text "Fuller" ignored (help) (Interview with Jane MARCH star of THE LOVER)
• Hearty, Kitty Howe (1992). "On the set". Premiere. 6 (1): 50, 52. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |issbn= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) (Brief interview with Annaud about the making of the film, l'AMANT, in which he offers a justification for the sex scenes)
• Daney, Serge (1992). "Falling out of love". Sight and Sound. 2 (3): 14–16. ISSN 0037-4806. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) (Daney writes about l'AMANT and attacks Jacques Annaud for being a 'profoundly ignorant' director)
• Roth-Bettoni, Didier (1992). "L'Amant - l'effrontée". Revue du Cinéma/Image et Son (479): 15–20. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) (French, Feature on l'AMANT including an interview with and filmography of director Jean-Jacques Annaud)

Hope they are of some use. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Revising style and content

I'd like to continue discussion from WT:FILM#The Lover (film) here, both because this is a specific article being discussed and so future editors can review past major discussions related to the article's expansion. Resuming the specific point about the "Country", my perception has been that this refers to the nationality of the film, and this is generally based on the studios and production companies involved. There are exceptions, in which there can be multiple countries listed and the production and distribution process clarified in the article. From what I can tell based on this article's content, The Lover is at its core a French film. We do not have to worry about nuances within the infobox, though we can write in a "Production" section that it was mainly French-produced with some Spanish help. (Correct me if I'm misunderstanding this, please.) Let's work on this point and take care of any others such as the external links or award wiki-links. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why the more positive comment about the film made by Vincent Canby in his review in the New York Times keep getting deleted, unless it's to support the claim that the film received mostly negative reviews. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 19:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are claiming the comments are not positive. The newer version gives a summation of his ENTIRE review, not just a single paragraph. This gives a more appropriate and complete representation of his views on the film rather than a selective one. You continue removing additional positive remarks he made. The claim that it received mostly negative reviews is backed up by its own source and by many of the other reviews used, despite their overly positive spin currently seen in the article. You can not just pick and choose favorite quotes from the reviews but must endeavor to summarize the reviewers main thoughts. Otherwise, you are not acting in a neutral fashion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you are the one not acting in a neutral fashion. I am not removing additional positive comments he made, I am simply reverting the positive comments I added in the first place and which you keep removing - without justification - and replacing with less positive remarks. Your need to take control of articles and always have the last word is particularly surprising given your position as a project coordinator. Looking through archived project page discussions and discussion pages of various film articles, one finds this is a pattern you repeat on a regular basis. I'm sure the film project has lost very good writers because of your bullying tactics. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 19:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am acting in a neutral fashion. I loved the film, but that doesn't mean I will pretend all critics agreed. And yes, you are removing additional positive comments. Are you even reading what was written? It does not seem so. You did not note that he praised the acting, nor that he praised the director's ability to work with difficult material. Nor is my summation any less positive. You are removing those additional positive comments in your reverting, as well as breaking references. The only thing I removed was one extraneous quote that did not really expound on the view. Rather than wholescale reverting that breaks the rest of the article, why not discuss why you feel the single quote removed should be included. Also, please remember WP:CIVIL and stop attacking me. I'd also ask you to keep to what you claimed on the Films talk page and stop edit warring. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not attacking you. I'm stating fact. I can refer you to many previous discussions that clearly show your need to take control of articles and always have the last word. I never "just pick and choose favorite quotes from the reviews." Quite the opposite . . . I always make an effort to make sure all views - good, bad, and different - are included. The problem is, you feel only you are allowed to decide what's "extraneous" or what constitutes a "more appropriate and complete representation." Why is your opinion more valid than anyone else's? LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 20:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No, you are not. You are stating personal opinion about another editor. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Original version: Vincent Canby of the New York Times called the film "something of a triumph" and added, "It's tough, clear-eyed, utterly unsentimental, produced lavishly but with such discipline that the exotic locale never gets in the way of the minutely detailed drama at the center."

My version: Vincent Canby of the New York Times, however, praised the film, feeling it was "something of a triumph" considering the difficult to adapt material and a "very good movie" that "has a way of standing just a little outside everything it sees, considering, recording the details, reserving judgment". He praises Annaud's treatment of the work, and the performances of Jane March as "The Girl", noting that for her debut work she is "wonderful here" and a "nymphet beauty" and of Tony Leung as "The Man."

I have bolded the ONLY piece removed from the original version. Now, rather than continue a WHOLESCAPE revert, let's discuss whether that since quotes is necessary to include when its already noted that he felt it was a triumph and praised the film. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Since you are the one who deleted "It's tough, clear-eyed, utterly unsentimental, produced lavishly but with such discipline that the exotic locale never gets in the way of the minutely detailed drama at the center," I would like you to explain why "has a way of standing just a little outside everything it sees, considering, recording the details, reserving judgment" is infinitely better, in your opinion. The quote I cited can stand alone and be understood. Your preferred quote, when taken out of context, makes no sense at all. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 20:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

My version: Vincent Canby of the New York Times called the film "something of a triumph" and added, "It's tough, clear-eyed, utterly unsentimental, produced lavishly but with such discipline that the exotic locale never gets in the way of the minutely detailed drama at the center." He praised Annaud's treatment of the work and called Jane March "wonderful here" and a "nymphet beauty" and praised Tony Leung Ka Fai for his performance.

Clear. Concise. Easy to read.

Your version: Vincent Canby of the New York Times, however, praised the film, feeling it was "something of a triumph" considering the difficult to adapt material and a "very good movie" that "has a way of standing just a little outside everything it sees, considering, recording the details, reserving judgment". He praises Annaud's treatment of the work, and the performances of Jane March as "The Girl", noting that for her debut work she is "wonderful here" and a "nymphet beauty" and of Tony Leung as "The Man."

Clumsy in structure. Doesn't flow. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 20:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no specific practice for how to implement a review. There are different ways to go about it. Sometimes reviews can be paraphrased enough to summarize a critic's entire viewpoint adequately, sometimes they cannot. Sometimes reviews are presented one after another; sometimes they are interwoven. There is also formatting to consider. I think what LiteraryMaven means to say is that there are too many quoted fragments, where his draft provides a fuller statement. There are a lot of ways the review can be implemented, so can there not be some sort of middle ground where both parties can give some leeway? It's not like either version is destructive to the article; its inclusion at all is beneficial. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Only in your opinion. My version expounds on his entire review rather than just randomly selecting a single paragraph. Your version is not clear nor concise, its taking two random quotes that neither stands alone nor is all that useful. Perhaps others will eventually weigh in since at this point, it seems obvious you and I will not agree. Regardless, it neither explains nor excuses your wholescale reverting, including reverting to a badly formatted reference and breaking the article, rather than just reinjecting your preferred quote or starting a discussion on your views on minor grammar issues. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Please remember that neither of you are "right" and both of you are reverting. Both of you are trying to improve an article on Wikipedia, so remember that both of you have that in common. Let's avoid finger-pointing and focus on the contribution. There is no "right" answer, so like I suggested, please try to find a middle ground. For example, forget about what's written here, re-read the review, and see if both of you can't do completely new rewrites to paraphrase the review. Might help break away from the existing drafts. Yet another option is to drop NYT since there surely are other reviews that could be discussed more easily. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

NYT is also being used to source some of the production info regarding the age change of the character. It is a good review, and since it seems to be one of the only really positive ones, I think its important to include. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't write for Wikipedia very much, but I read it a lot, so my opinion comes from that POV. A while back I sent a not to LiteraryMaven about an article he edited because I thought he did a good job. I happen to think he's a good writer. The Vincent Canby quote he picked told me EXACTLY how the critic felt about the movie. It wasn't random at all. The quote AnmaFinotera picked did not expound on his entire review at all. It was so confusing that I had to go to the full review to understand what he was saying. I shouldn't have to do that. What bothers me is that AnmaFinotera keeps using "that's your opinion" as a defense as if nobody else except him is entitled to have one. And why should anyone have to start a discussion about grammar issues? And how can a grammar issue be "minor"? It's either right or wrong. If grammar is incorrect, anybody should be able to fix it with discussing it first! Some people just need to accept the fact that their writing isn't as good as someone else's and leave it alone, and stop thinking they're the only ones allowed to have an opinion and articles must be only the way they want them. And that's MY opinion and I'm entitled to it! :) LargoLarry (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

One more point: I would like to know why the box with the additional Vincent Canby quote was added to the reception section. The film got mostly negative reviews, but it looks like the one good one it got is getting a lot more attention than it should. Isn't that bias? LargoLarry (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It was an attempt at a compromise as LiteraryMaven felt I was over emphasizing the negative reviews and showing bias. Now you think I'm making it too positive and showing bias. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I now realize why we have trouble communicating - you apparently misconstrue everything I'm saying. Why would you think I felt you were over-emphasizing the negative reviews when I'm the editor who added them to the article in the first place??? I agree with LargoLarry (and not just because he has the good taste to think I'm a good writer, which I appreciate!) - the box with the additional Canby quote places undue emphasis on one of the very few good reviews the film received by someone who admits "I loved the film" and states, "It is a good review, and since it seems to be one of the only really positive ones, I think its important to include." (By the way, I never said it shouldn't be included - again, I'm the one who added it to the article in the first place. I just felt the quote you selected wasn't the best representation of Canby's views, especially in the awkward way it was presented.) How is the addition of this box "acting in a neutral fashion." which you profess to be doing? What prompted you to add it? Mulholland Drive, which was a Featured Article, has a lengthy reception section that doesn't include a box singling out a specific review. In fact, I find very few film articles that do. So why this one, and why the positive review instead of one of the less complimentary ones? LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 16:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I notice you added the statement "It received mixed reviews from critics" to the lead. IMHO, a Rotten Tomatoes "freshness" rating of only 33% suggests a film received worse than "mixed reviews." LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 16:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I recommend not looking to Rotten Tomatoes to determine critical consensus for a film because the film precedes the website. Since this happens, the website cannot gather reviews in real-time like for most films in the twenty-first century. It's better to look to sources that examine the film's reception in retrospect. For example, Fight Club has a high percentage on RT, but the reception at the time is found to be mixed. The percentage was affected by the film's eventual status as a cult film. Additionally, it's not without precedent to have quote boxes in "Reception" sections. Changeling has two boxes. Of course, there should be discussion for proper balance. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

References

"The first Western film to be shot in Vietnam"

Really? Off the top of my head, The Quiet American was shot in Vietnam more than 30 years earlier, and I'm sure there were plenty of others (A Yank in Viet-Nam springs to mind). Do you mean the first post-reunification film? – iridescent 02:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Could be. The cited source itself just said "the first Western film" without clarification on since when. The DVD cover more specifically states "The Lover is the first foreign film to be shot on location in Vietnam, though it was quickly followed by two other French films." Are there any sources showing those films were shot on location? While IMDB isn't RS, it does say The Quiet American was filmed in Italy. Of course, it also says A Yank in Viet-Nam was filmed in Vietnam. So no idea, really...just going by the reliable sources :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Regards The Quiet American, Mankiewicz shot his film on locations in a Saigon little different from the one the French had left three years earlier or this impressively ironic-with-hindsight 1957 article both seem to be RS's for its being shot in Vietnam. – iridescent 02:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll search around, see if some other RS' can clarify "first Western film" more regarding "since when" :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

According to [1], The Quiet American was filmed in Saigon. The DYK claiming The Lover was the first Western film made in Vietnam is wrong. LargoLarry (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources say this was the first Western film filmed. The only issue is whether they meant post-reunification or not. I have found another reliable source that clarifies that yes, that is what they meant and am adding it now. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

That should have been done before a DYK with wrong information was posted. LargoLarry (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The question was only raised a few hours ago and sorry if I did actually have to sleep in there sometime. And, in reality, the DYK is NOT incorrect. Vietnam != North Vietnam and South Vietnam, which is what the country was divided into at the time other films were shot. So it was factually correct, it just needed clarification to better clarify that it meant the actual unified Vietnam, and not North or South while it was divided. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It needed clarification the first time you put the statement in the article, not weeks later. The DYK is not factually correct, it's misleading. LargoLarry (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I corrected the DYK. LargoLarry (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Undone. You have absolutely no business trying to do that. DYK is not an "editable by anyone" region. You want to complain, do it to one of the DYK admins, but do not go around messing it up just because you think you should keep attacking me because LiteraryMaven and I had a mild disagreement and you feel some warped sense of loyalty to him or something. The statement IS factually correct. It is only misleading to those unfamiliar with the basic history of Vietnam and who feel like arguing at a very semantic level. Going on and on about this is both pointless and only reflects badly on you. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all, as far as I knew, areas of Wikipedia that are not "editable by anyone" are locked. I had no way of knowing an inaccurate DYK could not be corrected. Don't chastise me as if I'm a child who maliciously broke the rules. Second of all, my discussion with you has nothing to do with past disagreements you have had with LiteraryMaven or anyone else for that matter, and there are plenty of others, because you are never willing to admit you made a mistake and back down, you always must be right and argue until people finally get fed up with you and give up. But here you are dead wrong. This is not a matter of "semantics" at all. There is a huge difference between saying a film was the first one ever made in Vietnam and the first one made in Vietnam after the reunification of the country. Readers are not supposed to know the basic history of Vietnam in order to know what you had in mind or to know your information was inaccurate. Someone should be able to read any given article and accept it as accurate without having to have prior knowledge about a related subject to know it contains errors. You are the one who continues to go on and on. Instead of saying "I goofed, I'm sorry" you try to justify your mistake by raising issues that have nothing to do with this one. If anyone's behavior reflects badly it's yours, especially since you are a project coordinator. Any project coordinator who is unwilling to admit he's wrong and who constantly belittles other editors is irresponsible and doesn't deserve to be in that position. LargoLarry (talk) 13:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Considering all of the people you bugged about this issue have told you that the statement WAS correct and still IS correct and that you are basically complaining about a non-issue, no, I'm no going to say "I goofed, I'm sorry." I will continue to stand by the DYK as factually accurate. That you continue descending to personal remarks rather than sticking to the issue, and showing your continued hostile attitude from the previous discussion only show a lack of neutrality in this issue and an apparent desire for some kind of justification or perhaps vengeance which is not appropriate. As it is obvious there is nothing constructive to be had from this conversation, I am considering this issue closed.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Your choice of language, such as saying I "bugged" people, shows you are the hostile one. I contacted two editors I think are connected with DYK to voice my concerns, period, and I'm certainly entitled to do that. Neither one of them said the statement was correct, as you claim, in fact one of them didn't respond at all. If you continue to stand by the DYK as factually accurate then you have no right to be a project coordinator or even a Wikipedia editor. The film was not the first one ever made in Vietnam no matter how you want to twist the facts. There is nothing constructive to be had from any conversation with you, because in your mind you are infallible. LargoLarry (talk) 13:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

For heaven's sake! I'm sorry I raised it now… The article is now undoubtedly correct ("the first western film since reunification") so there's nothing to argue about there; the DYK archive is an archive of what was shown on DYK, so its accuracy is irrelevant, whether or not you agree with it; it accurately shows what appeared on DYK. – iridescent 16:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as Iridescent says, the DYK archive is a record of entries that appeared on DYK. There are some statements in there that have turned out to be much more incorrect than this one. If a hook statement was changed while it was on DYK, then the archive should reflect the tweaked version. After the article is taken off of DYK, the hook is copied to the archive, where it remains untouched forever (well, at least while Wikipedia lives). Shubinator (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Age of character in film

The article is inconsistent as regards the issue of the protagonist's age. Under "Plot," we read: "The Girl gives her age at the beginning of the film as 15, but lies to The Chinese Man by stating that she is 17." But at two other points (in the initial summary and under "Production") we're told that the screenwriters changed The Girl's actual age to 17. If she's lying about being 17, then I'm not sure what the point of each of these claims is. I don't have access to the original source material, so I'm simply raising a question as a puzzled reader. 192.248.248.215 (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)garychartier

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The Lover (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080331175706/http://www.variety.com:80/profiles/people/main/32446/Jane%20March.html?dataSet=1 to http://www.variety.com/profiles/people/main/32446/Jane%20March.html?dataSet=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090415011532/http://www.toutlecine.com:80/film/tournage/0001/00012953-l-amant.html to http://www.toutlecine.com/film/tournage/0001/00012953-l-amant.html/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Multiple dead links

Needs updating. Nicmart (talk) 04:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Rating

Is it notable to mention the rating in Australia?

https://www.classification.gov.au/titles/lover-0 https://www.classification.gov.au/titles/lover

Matthew hk (talk) 05:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)