Talk:A Canterbury Tale

Cathedral set?

Neddyseagoon, you are not alone in being fooled into thinking it was filmed inside the Cathedral. I've known official guides to think that it was - until I pointed out the differences. Like the steps that lead up to the organ (in the film). The steps are there in the real Cathedral, but the organ isn't there, and never was.

Yes, it's sort of at right angles to that isn't it, over the choir screen? Neddyseagoon - talk 21:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

There is one shot, when they look up to the roof of the Cathedral as Peter & Bob first enter. That was taken sneakily with a hand-held camera. If you want to know more, get the book about the film and/or join us on one of our annual location walks -- SteveCrook 20:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Expansion

Huge improvement to a previously underpowered article, Neddyseagoon – great stuff! --Old Moonraker 14:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You're too kind! :-) Neddyseagoon - talk 15:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

PS I'm hoping to boost up the Chillingbourne plot section too, and perhaps explain how the real and set shots inside the cathedral marry up and do/don't show the reality of the interior of the cathedral, next time I have the chance to watch the film again. Neddyseagoon - talk 15:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to do this to you Neddyseagoon, but I reverted the plot. Your version is far too detailed IMO; certainly it's longer than any other synopsis I've seen. Clarityfiend 05:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, no problem - tis a work in progress, and I probably got a bit carried away (though there are some quite long ones around on Wikipedia - can't think of the names right now). I'm going to copy the long version across onto User:Neddyseagoon/sandbox/Canterbury Tale plot to work on (any additions welcome!), and then I'll 'release' a final copy for you and others to edit down to what looks like a reasonable length.Neddyseagoon - talk 10:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

ACT is an important and influential film and is acknowledged as such by many later directors of note. (I can only think of Kubrick at the moment, but there are lots.) It deserves a more detailed treatment than, say, the latest, fleeting romcom to demonstrate its historical significance. I look forward to your new version! --Old Moonraker 11:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Please include me in on any distribution list for this. If you want to know anything about locations or which shots were studio sets I can probably answer if nobody else knows. BTW add Scorsese to the list of those that greatly admire it -- SteveCrook 23:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC) Powell and Pressburger Appreciation Society

There is a lot in Neddyseagoon's expanded version, and probably too much detail about the opening,

Perhaps, though it's important to the theme of heritage, England, history etc.

introducing characters that aren't all that significant.

True

And there's not enough about Colpeper. Either the man himself and his reasons for doing what he did.

Well, his motivations are left kind of opaque in the film itself.

If you do it again, some of the character names were wrong, it should be Fee Baker & Pru Honeywood, not C. Baker & Pru Hunywood.

Corrected.

Clarityfiend, a lot of other films have more information on their page, mainly more recent one like The Departed. But not often as much in just the Plot section. Are there any rules or guidelines about how much detail to include? It's nowhere near big enough to get a "too big" warning when you edit it -- SteveCrook 00:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, having answered all that - news! I've finished polishing my copy of this, and would like to keep it as a master copy, but here is one for all you good people to edit to your heart's content, particularly with regards to getting it down to a reasonable (but not as over-short as the present one in the article) length. We might be able to bring some of the unneccessary detail and characters out into a new level 2 section called Themes, including level 3 sections such as Anglo-American misunderstandings eg tea, phones; Heritage / History / Landscape / Pilgrims - including the opening; Cinematic style - eg 2001-type cut. Plus a level 2 one on influences, to cover the Kubrick / Scorsese angle, with some quotes. Neddyseagoon - talk 12:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Or, an idea - keep the present summary as a 'Synopsis' section, then have a fuller (though not over-long) one as 'Plot' ? Neddyseagoon - talk 12:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Considering it just got a showing on TCM (where I caught it for the first time but wish I'd DVR'ed it now to add to my "library" of Archers films), this ought to be a busy place! BTW, m-a-a-ny film article plot summaries in wiki are highly detailed--whether for good or ill is in the eye of the beholder.--User:Buckboard talk 08:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It's available on a Criterion DVD. And I'm not just saying that because I'm on one of the many, very good extras on the DVD :) -- SteveCrook 09:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Summary lenghts were discussed recently at WikiProject Film here where Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style#Plot was cited. Basically they shouldn't exceed 900 words which means you only need to shave off ten-thousand words or so. Let me add, wow, if you can channel the energy here into the other sections you'll have one of the better film articles on Wikipedia in no time. I was wondering if someone here hadn't appeared on the Criterion disc when I was reading the comments here. Anyway, one other thing I might suggest is creating a separate article for the cast and crew and just summarize the key figures here with a main article link, as is done on the Ran (film) article. And on the off chance that you need or haven't seen this I'll leave you with Wikipedia:Article development. Kudos on your good work, Doctor Sunshine 20:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, that clarifies things. The present plot is 315 words, so we'll need to triple it, basically by whittling down the 10,000 one. Neddyseagoon - talk 20:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It could be worthwhile having a Themes section, as a way of reducing the Plot section. Also, the Plot should probably mention that Kent was an assembly area for D-Day: the soldiers are in that "hurry up and wait" time prior to an operation. The section on US/UK differences is too large: that theme is mainly played as light relief. The major theme -- a reflection upon the end of the rural period of Kentish history -- isn't mentioned at all. It's the desire not to see this period pass which motivates Colpepper, and it's such a natural desire that the viewer finds sympathy for him. Also, the mention of penance misses the main point: a pilgrimage is a penance, with absolution at its end (in Canterbury), which of course is exactly what happens in the film.

Prologue

The prologue narrated by Esmond Knight doesn't seem to be Neville Coghill's modern translation. It's closer to the original Chaucer. But it is modified slightly (in just a few words) to fit the film. See scanned image of the words as shown in the film. What is read follows this and a couple of lines beyond what is shown, but that is still from Chaucer. Compare that to Chaucer's original and Coghill's translation -- SteveCrook 22:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It's also worth mentioning that cut between the Prologue and the Film, where the diving falcon becomes a diving Spitfire is often noted in film literature. 202.158.193.5 (talk)

Images

Normally I like images to the left and to the right. But doing it here with the images in the Major characters section does make them overlap vertically and squeezes the piece about Peter into quite a narrow column between them. I think it'd be better to keep them both on the same side -- SteveCrook 22:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Goons parody

I've added a reference to it, but I'm still not clear that it was in fact based on ACT. In the Goon Show the Phantom Head Shaver shaves various people which is similar to pouring glue into their hair. But the reason why he's shaving them isn't given in the script. I think it could do with a confirmation from somewhere that Spike was at least aware of ACT -- SteveCrook (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Image sizing

This edit does not conform to the manual of style regarding image sizing. The forced sizes as they now exist are, according to the policy (and the subjective view on the screen I am using now), too large for some displays and overwhelm the text. That's the beauty of user-selectable image sizing (which we no longer have): everyone can select the sizing that suits their circumstances and preferences. They don't have to conform to the desires of the last editor. The devs have given us tools to deal with the problem: they were deployed on this page, but have been reverted. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

What's that "upright" parameter meant to do in an image definition? I see it used at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images - but they don't say what it does -- SteveCrook (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It applies different scaling (while still retaining proportions) to images that are considerably taller than they are wide e.g., St Georges Tower. A good example is this edit, where the adjustment was applied to a tall image, with the width unspecified, that had previously overwhelmed the accompanying text. (I'm using it as an example because another editor made the change to an image I had placed: I found it a big improvement.) --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem with user-selectable thumb sizes is that they only work for people who already have an account at Wikipedia and can set that parameter to the size they want. Everyone else in the world then sees dinky little 180px images which do almost nothing to enhance an article -- it's as if someone licked a bunch of postage stamps and stuck them on.

We are building an encyclopedia which has the potential for being the very first place that most people think of when they need some quick information or background on a subject, and that means that we have to start thinking about the way we present ourselves to the everyday user, the one who's not an editor of the project, who doesn't see the need to register because all they want is some information. We have to start catering to the needs of everyone else over those of editors and registered users, and that means we have to take responsibility for the visual presentation of our articles, including layout and the physical relationship between the text and the images.

This being the case, I have no problem if someone judges that an image is too big or too small and changes the size -- such edits should be treated like every other edit. I happen to agree that there's one image (at least) which is too large and overwhelms the article at this point. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 05:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Is the 180px size a problem? If it is, then edit skirmishes on individual articles (I see that the effects of the existing sizing have been commented upon earlier) isn't the way to deal with it. It is a central policy issue and should be discussed as such. Meanwhile, pending change, individual articles should conform to that policy in the absence of a good reason, on that article, to the contrary (and I have on occasion specified a large image for a detailed diagram or map). Please also consider the global reach of Wikipedia: not all "everyday users" are from the U.S or Europe, where a considerable proportion, but by no means all, have fast access. If restricted to a dial-up connection, someone dropping by for a quick piece of information is going to have to wait a long and expensive time if the article they want is choked with oversized images. As user Ed Fitzgerald asks, who are we writing for here?--Old Moonraker (talk) 05:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If we're really that worried about users having bandwidth problems, then we should simply ban all images and go with just text. No, three images at 225 or 250 don't create that much more overhead than three images at 180. I'm not adovcating splattering huge images all over the place, simply that the size of the image in the article should enhance the article, be legible at the size presented and not require a click through to see what it is (more bandwidth!) What I've been doing is pushing an image size up, then previewing it and bringing it down in increments until it's in Goldilocks territory -- not too big and not too small, just right. Even then, I sometimes come back afterwards and find that it needs (in my judgement) to go slightly up or down, and I'll make that change, the idea being to use as little bandwidth as possible, not overwwhelm the text, etc.

To generalize, I think we're in a transitional period when Wikipedia is moving from primarily text with some images thrown in to a integrated mix of text and image. Text is (and should always be!) paramount, but images convey information in ways that text has difficulty doing, however, to convey it they have to be well-presented, such as facts have to be well-presented (i.e. the text that contains them has to be well written) to put them across effectively. In this transitional period, there are going to be problems in shifting the community's thinking from one paradigm to another, but it's well worth doing so (not that we really have any choice).

As for the bandwidth problem, I don't think it's nearly as big a concern, and we'd certainly be hearing it from people if they weren't able to load the typical WP page. I don't believe that's happening.

I've adjusted the size of two images in the article to something I think is more reasonable and balanced, if you want to take a look. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 05:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Allmovie

• ‹The template AllMovie title is being considered for deletion.› A Canterbury Tale at AllMovie ... plot synopsis, review, cast, production credits, awards

Reference available for citing in the article body. Erik (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A Canterbury Tale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090618083908/http://www.bbc.co.uk:80/kent/history/canterbury_tale/ to http://www.bbc.co.uk/kent/history/canterbury_tale/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Trivial quotes section

This section doesn't really convey any more information that is not already known in the film. Needs a heavy rewrite to be relevant.

Anglo-American themes

A major theme is Johnson's problems with, and gradual acceptance of, the differences and common ground of American and British 1940s life and heritage, along with the villager's acceptance of him. These include:

• His surprise at the station that so small a settlement as Chillingbourne is a town
• His lack of acquaintance with the British blackout, particularly in his use of a torch that is far too bright for it, at the station and in chasing the "glue man" (after Johnson brags about his "flashlight", Gibbs later satirically calls it a "searchlight")
• American sergeant's stripes (chevrons) being upside-down compared with British ones (a repeated joke)
• British police not carrying guns, and generally not acting as quickly as their American counterparts (when they chase the glueman to the town hall at the start – to which the constable replies that they may not be as fast or active as "G Men" or London policemen but they know their ways and do their duty, and that with regard to guns "This is Chillingbourne ... not Chicago.")
• The identical ways of woodworking between Oregon and Kent in his chat with Mr Horton that gives a mutual understanding and respect between Johnson and Mr Horton.
• A quarter (quarter-dollar) being equivalent to a shilling, to the boy standing on the hay cart near the beginning and to the boys in the mill
• Drug stores being called grocers, just after the river battle
• Telephones, mirrors, tea drinking, left-hand driving, as he lists when struggling with a British coin-operated telephone
• Comparing British and American rivers and countryside, when he and Gibbs look down on the River Stour after climbing a hill towards the end of the film
• When offered tea, he asks Gibbs how he can "drink the stuff". Gibbs replies that Johnson has joined the tea drinkers of the world, for the only countries that haven't been defeated and conquered yet by the Nazis and Japanese are the tea-drinking ones, England, Russia, and China.
• At the film's end, Johnson reluctantly accepts an offer of tea from his American friend Mickey who says "it's a habit you just fall into – like marijuana" (to which Johnson replies, “I’ll take marijuana.” (Or possibly, “I don’t take marijuana,” with ‘don’t’ slurred into 'take'. Midwestern accent. The actor was from Minnesota.) “You’ll drink tea and like it.” “I’ll drink it, but I won’t like it.” (1 hour 57 minutes)
• In wonder at the cathedral interior at the end of the film, he comments to himself that his "father's pa" (grandfather) "built the First Baptist Church in Johnson County...Oregon red cedar, cedar shingles, 1887...well, that was a good job too". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.0.1 (talk) 16:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)