Talk:Black Book (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Black Book (film) was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 7, 2007 WikiProject peer review Reviewed January 10, 2007 Good article nominee Listed April 11, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted Current Status: Delisted good article

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no This article has had a peer review which is now archived.

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

To-do list for Black Book (film):

edit · history · watch · refresh

major rewrite of plot summary to correct errors and fix unclear wording. more chronological plot rewrite, maybe divide plot into subsections to give it more structure historical basis of the story (black book, characters, Nazi occupation, Suez crisis) casting, why actors were chosen references to current events (members of the resistance called terrorists, Abu Ghraib prison) negative critical response after UK release international release dates international box office results "and the German SD officers Ludwig Müntze ... " should be "and the German SS officers ... " (The SD was the brown raincoat brigade snitching on their neighbours.)

Contents 1 Fatherland vs Homeland 2 Wow! 3 Behind the story and critics sections 4 GA recommendations 5 Kibbutz 6 un realistic 7 Being released in america 8 GA/R 9 Rachel's last name 10 My revert 11 Meaning of the Movie

[edit] Fatherland vs Homeland

In the section "Production", I changed 'Paul Verhoeven moved to his fatherland' to Paul Verhoeven moved to his homeland. This therm is more appropriate. The article Fatherland) explains why; Drawing from the Nazis' usage of the term "Vaterland", the direct English translation "fatherland" featured in news reports associated with Nazi Germany and in domestic anti-Nazi propaganda during World War II. As a result, the English word is now associated with the Nazi government of Germany (unlike in Germany itself, where the word means simply "homeland") The word is not used often in post-World War II English unless one wishes to invoke the Nazis, or one is translating literally from a foreign language where that language's equivalent of "fatherland" does not bear Nazi connotations.217.136.184.180 05:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wow!

Add some fair use rationales and get this peer reviewed. This article looks like it should easily pass the Good Article review process.--Supernumerary 02:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I added the fair use rationales, hopefully they suffice. - Ilse@ 20:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

They're mostly there, but they're missing the "lower quality" and "does not impede ability to market" clauses. See here for a summary, and here for a poster example, and here for a screenshot.--Supernumerary 22:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I changed the texts and I believe the clauses mentioned are now included in the rationales. - Ilse@ 22:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Behind the story and critics sections

I think that the sections are fine they way they are now. One gives the views of the makers and the other the views of the critics. These are two different but important viewpoints, which justifies any overlap. On a side note, I would suggest changing "Behind the story" to "Origins" and making it the first subsection of production.--Supernumerary 18:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA recommendations

Good article certainly, but I would recommend that the see also heading be deleted and the link to the soundtrack given a section in the production, because I'd prefer a lead to that article. Wiki-newbie 19:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I added a 'Soundtrack' section. - Ilse@ 00:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Please remove the cast names from the plot summary. Wiki-newbie 20:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to refer to the style guidelines of the WikiProject Films. These guidelines say actor names should be included between parentheses in the premise of the plot section. - Ilse@ 21:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I feel it is redundant to write who's who twice. Wiki-newbie 16:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Some people even want the names in a third time, see Peer review/Black Book (film)#Plot. I think we can agree on the redundancy of that... - Ilse@ 17:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Any other recommendations? - Ilse@ 17:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

No, you have passed. Wiki-newbie 20:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yikes. I just saw the film, so my memory of it is fairly fresh but I'm not sure enough to change this article. However, I have my doubts about this article being listed as a good article because IMHO, the summary has a number of factual errors or misleading plot descriptions:

• Müntze is arrested and sentenced to death for secretly making a cease fire deal with the Dutch Underground, not because he refused to execute people. Also as an important plot point, he's implicated by Franken, who is getting his information from a mole inside the Dutch Underground. This also occurs AFTER the members of the resistance have been arrested and tortured, but the sentence ordering confuses this plot point.
• The bug in the office isn't "discovered, but rather its presence is betrayed by the mole (More precisely, the discovery of the bug isn't explicitly shown, but it seems likely that the bug's existance is made known by the mole.)
• The black book does NOT contain the name of traitors (well except for the Doctor's name.) It contains the names of wealthy Jews who are trying to escape and the amounts of money they have.
• In the attempted rescue of the enprisoned members of the underground, only two rescuers survive and all the prisoners die, which far worse than implied by "most prisoners and rescuers are killed."
• The placement of the sentence "Ronnie is a woman who copes with each situation by acquiescing" is confusing since it comes in the paragraph about the flash forward.
• It's not clear from the plot summary, that Akkermans is attempting leave Holland by smuggling himself and his loot inside a coffin.
• It's more encyclopedic to refer to a person by their last name. Here, the article refers to "Rachel" throughout the article, but uses last names for other characters in the film.
• Missing from the plot summary, is the implication that the Kibbutz was funded by the stolen war loot. That could be construed as morally ambiguous.

The plot section is in serious need of a rewrite. Clemwang 09:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Although you say that you are not sure enough to change this article, it looks like you are well enough informed to currently be the most suitable person to make the changes.--Patrick 11:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kibbutz

Question - having seen the movie, I was wondering if anyone knew where the kibbutz is supposed to be in Israel? It looks like its by the lake of Galilee, but wouldn't that be too far away from the fighting of the Suez crisis to be affected? Maybe someone can help - thanks!

The kibbutz scenes was filmed at Kfar Ruppin -- LamontCranston 15:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] un realistic

parts of the film are un realistic like the scene where rachels charachter tells ronnie the collabarator secretary that she works for the resistance in real life that would be something you would not tell anyone also the scene where muntze gets executed by the germans after liberation by the allies also if anckermann wanted to keep rachel quiet why not just keep her in prison rather than have her released and wouldnt late 1944 be a bad time to start working for the germans when it was obvious to everyone they were losing the war and the scene where rachel dyes her pubic hair was unneccesary even on natural blondes these dont always match one bit that was realistic was ronnie who latched on to an allied soldier as soon as they rolled into town this seemed the cleverest thing to do Bouse23 15:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Being released in america

The movie is going to be released in america on april 4 2007 according to boxofficemojo.com shouldn't this be in the article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.25.182.213 (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

The release date April 6 is mentioned in the infobox. - Ilse@ 13:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA/R

Somebodies filed a Good Article review over this article, over as-of-yet undefined concerns of the accuracy of the plot section. Homestarmy 17:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rachel's last name

The official Dutch website for the film lists Rachel's last name as "Steinn," while the US one lists it as "Stein" with one "n" - As I recall, the entries of her family's name are listed as "Stein" in the black book. Anyone know what the correct spelling should be? Cheers, Mabuse 14:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My revert

The reason I reverted the edits by Jhyman1122 twice are that his plot summary is just not a neutral summary written in a formal register. For example, I believe to end a summary with the words "That is a movie everyone must see" is inappropriate in an encyclopedic article. Furthermore, I have the suspicion that it is copied from a newspaper article since it starts with a date and ends with a recommendation. Opinions, anyone? Blur4760 06:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning of the Movie

What does the film mean? Why did the director insist on the filming the short clip at the end in Israel even though there were close to bankruptcy? One thing questionable is the coffin-killing at the end, it even makes them out to be after the loot. It is almost like one of those classic movies where a certain piece of jewelery attracts death wherever it goes. But without a certain jewel being highlighted it may hope to address broader issues of treachery, double dealing, selling-out etc. ones in which we're still complicit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.54.231 (talk) 00:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)