Talk:Murders in the Rue Morgue (1932 film)
 | Murders in the Rue Morgue (1932 film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: January 21, 2021. (Reviewed version). |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plot summary problem
editThe plot summary currently states that "Mirakle ... abducts young virgin women and injects them with ape blood, in order to create a mate for his talking sideshow ape Erik". This badly mangles the most outrageously pre-code aspect of the film. Mirakle injects them with ape blood, not to "create" a mate for Erik, but to test their biological compatibility with Erik. The "mixing of the blood" he is after is not the literal one actually shown, but the figurative one for which that phrase was a period euphemism. His plan is to find a compatible virgin ("Will my search never end?") and sexually couple her with his ape. The resulting progeny will enable him to "prove [man's] kinship with the ape" (and therefore the theory of evolution), as he told his hostile audience he would do in the tent show scene.
Apes ravishing women in the jungle are a titillating feature of more than one lurid pre-20th century piece of "literature" and the meaning would have been clear enough to many viewers of the film in 1932, as it was clear enough to the several later commentators who have mentioned it in print. However, I have no proper citable refs for those sources at hand, and at least one respectable cit will certainly be required to sustain a revision of the plot summary per the above. Is anyone out there better equipped and up for the task? 66.81.241.72 (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
P.S. From this [1] source, which, unfortunately like several outstanding online sources for classic film scholarship, is a blog and therefore verboten per strict WP criteria for citation, some typical commentary: "It is hard not to conclude that despite what we know of Mirakle’s previous experiments, he intends to prove his theories by making Camille the recipient of something other than merely Erik’s blood. Otherwise…why all the emphasis upon how much Erik likes Camille…?"; " [...] the censors [...] were also outraged by the implications of Mirakle’s plans for Camille, which apparently they interpreted the same way we do." 66.81.240.90 (talk) 12:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Murders in the Rue Morgue (1932 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 18:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments later in the week. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 18:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Basic stuff and comments
edit- Change the uses of [[Leon Ames (actor)|Leon Ames]] to simply [[Leon Ames]]
- Change all uses of the book "Universal Horrors" to either Universal Horrors or "Universal Horrors".
- Changed Universal Horrors to italics as its a book. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Infobox and lead
edit- Miton Carruth → Milton Carruth per the reference used.
- Articles (examples 1 and 2) usually have the premiere location, (in this case, the RKO-Mayfair Theatre) after the first date in the infobox, and (United States) after the second.
- Some characters in the first paragraph have the actor's name right after they are mentioned, but others do not. Try to be consistent.
- I've changed this so they all match. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- A good lead section has a good premise that doesn't spoil the entire plot of the film. To accomplish this, simply remove the sentence starting with "Dupin proves his innocence".
- No mention of the date February 21, 1932, in the lead?
- I mean, do we need to? I think it's ok how it is. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Plot and cast
edit- The plot changes from using the name "Pierre" to using "Dupin" to describe the same character. Fix this.
- Now says Pierre consistently. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- "deliver it to Pierre the next day" → "deliver it to him the next day"
- Remove (D'Arcy Corrigan) per consistency with the rest of the plot section.
- The actors who portrayed the "Italian Alberto Montani, German Franz Odenheimer and a Danish man" should probably be mentioned in the cast list.
- Done. They are thankfully within the Universal Horrors source as well. As is the Ape, so I've removed the unique source for it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Production
edit- Move the third reference after the sentence ending with "did not begin until 1931" to after the comma following "March 1930". Additionally, merge the other two references into a single citation titled "Weaver, Brunas & Brunas 2007, pp. 47-48."
- "Frankenstein was in production" → "Frankenstein was in pre-production" or "Frankenstein was in preparation".
- Mention the fact that the studio dropped Melford as director once Florey was available for leaving Frankenstein.
- From my readings, its not clear that's exactly the case. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- Put "a lack of sex appeal" in quotations in the article.
- Merge the two citations after "murderer spoke" to a single citation titled "Taves 1987, pp. 137-138."
- Same thing with the two references after "numerous characters". Change to a single citation titled "Taves 1987, pp. 138-139."
- "..." → "[...]"
Release
edit- Combine the two citations after "1949" to a single one titled "Rhodes & Kaffenberger 2016, pp. 113-114."
Reception
edit- "Andre Sennwarld" → "Andre Sennwald"
- Link "The National Board of Review Magazine" to National Board of Review.
- Try removing some quotes from the review by Patrick Legare per WP:RECEPTION.
- I just cleaned up the quotes here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- Remove the following: "The authors also said: Entrenched in a style which condemned it as a relic before its time, Florey's experiment has come to be regarded as a cinematic barrel of spinach that even the most jaded fan finds hard to swallow. Beyond its vulgar excesses and inspired theatrics, however, lurks a daring full-throttled-Poe inspired thriller couched in a darkly sinister aesthetic all its own" per WP:OVERQUOTE.
- Also remove the following per WP:OVERQUOTE: ", and said; "Depending on the disposition of the individual viewer, the 'feeling of dreamlike unreality' can go either way, to describe an 'oneiric masterpiece' or just plain incompetence".
Legacy
edit- Remove the "!" after "haunt me".
- "The Raven and The Black Cat" → "The Black Cat and The Raven"
- Merge the two citations after "deranged scientists" to a single reference titled "Heller-Nicholas 2020, pp. 7-8."
References
edit- Archive all archivable sources.
- Done now. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- Link the American Film Institute in the last two references.
Overview
editGAN table
edit| GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
|---|
|
|
Overall: |
·  ·  · 
|
Notes
edit- @Andrzejbanas: This article is in great shape but could use some small adjustments. I have just finished adding most, if not all of my notes for this review, so feel free to add comments and message me back. I hope I can promote this article to GA-status really soon. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 23:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks! I think i've addressed everything @Some Dude From North Carolina:. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)