Talk:Babette's Feast

Timeline of the story: Yes? No?
I just watched the film – which I own on DVD – again yesterday (2 Sept. 2017). As I have previously, I wondered when it was taking place. Wikipedia had no entries on the timeframe.

I took closer note and jotted down the times and timeframes mentioned in the film. Doing a bit of arithmetic calculation, I come up with the below:

Babette’s Feast Timeline

12/15/1785:	The pastor (the girls’ father) is born

1836:		Papin gives Filippa singing lessons

1871:		Babette first arrives at Martine & Filippa’s home - she works for 14 years

12/15/1885:	Feast

I wonder if others agree or have different perspectives. I aim to order the book to – I hope – clarify and verify.

Any viewpoints on whether or how this could be added to the main page?

Thanks in advance.

-- Ray Birks (Chicago, Illinois), 3 Sept. 2017

Not a movie, a novel - that was later on made a movie of
Someone got this wrong, "Babettes Feast" is a novel by Karen Blixen that later on was used for a movie. So there should be a new article, called "Babettes Feast (movie) and then this article should be about the novel. Ulflarsen 16:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a question of notability, not chronological order. In the English-speaking world, the film is considerably more well-known than the novel; so this article should stay where it is, and the second article should be about the novel - if the novel is considered notable to have an article of its own at all. --Paul A 08:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's all about notability, to be honest. It was a novel, then someone made a movie out of it. Therefore "Babettes Feast" should be about the novel, and "Babettes Feast (movie)" should be about the movie. Not necessarily a question of chronological order, but a question of originality. The movie evolved from the novel, not the other way around.


 * Well, why don't you write an article called Babette's Feast (novel) and then we can change the names later. There's no point debating the title of an article that doesn't exist yet. Cop 633 16:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not a novel anyway. It's a short story that was first printed in Ladies Home Journal and later in the collection Anecdotes of Destiny. --24.196.131.242 08:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It - IS - a novel. And Karen Blixen is well known in english-speaking countries. She frequented the US many times, and was more well known in America than in Denmark. Then she died, from lead-poisoning.

_ Alexander —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.48.185.54 (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Isak Dinesen's aka Karen Blixen's story was never a book, it was in fact a short story which was first printed in Ladies Home Journal and also in her Anecdotes of Destiny, published in 1958. I have found a wonderful website on Karen Blixen which has several in depth discussions on her work and her life; the website is also resourced with many reliable links and footnotes.  --irshgrl500 (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Irshgrl500 Sorry, I just found the link to KarenBlixen.com in the main article.--irshgrl500 (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Irshgrl500

Movie Poster
I highly doubt that the poster shown is the original, as it's written in swedish and the movie is danish.


 * The original was in Danish. I've updated the image description. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 23:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've replaced the image of the swedish poster with an image of the original danish version. CactusWriter (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

An essay
An essay on "Babette's Feast" that gives a sense of what is missing in the Wikipedia article's pedestrian retelling of the "plot":Priscilla Parkhurst Ferguson, "Babette's Feast: A Fable for Culinary France". And these essays penetrate its themes.--Wetman (talk) 00:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Pope Francis's favorite movie
As noted in the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/27/us/pope-francis-has-a-few-words-in-support-of-leisure.html.

In my view this is certainly information worth including in the article. Pope Francis may not be a movie critic, but he is known to billions of people (literally!) around the world, which elevates the relevance of this fact beyond what it would be if we were talking about some random person who barely meets the Wikipedia notability requirement. For comparison, take a look at the Diplomacy (game) article ("John F. Kennedy and Henry Kissinger's favorite game").

If there's a particular Wikipedia policy that mandates exclusion, I'd be interested to see it.

(For what it's worth, I'm not Catholic, and I've never even seen this movie.) Terence7 (talk) 06:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:NOTNEWS especially item four. We don't list every film that David Beckham likes or every food that Al Pacino enjoys. Next per WP:OTHERSTUFF just because a trivial item exists in one article is not an argument for its inclusion in this one. BTW three months ago billions of people did not even know who Jorge Mario Bergoglio was. Also per WP:BRD you were bold, I reverted You started the discussion, however the item is not put back into the article until the discussion is finished. If no one else responds in the next day or so the you could ask for input from the filmproject or file an RFC. MarnetteD | Talk 12:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * One further item re the Diplomacy game. Kennedy and Kissinger were both involved in real life diplomacy which makes the mention somewhat notable. Pope Francis is not involved in filmmaking or film scholarship. BTW his liking of the film has nothing to do with the films reception. MarnetteD | Talk 12:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Kindly avoid lecturing me as if I'm a child ("the item is not put back into the article until the discussion is finished"). WP:BRD "is not a policy. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow."
 * WP:NOTNEWS isn't applicable: this isn't a news event.
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF is about entire articles, not content within articles. Also, it's not a policy; it's an essay. And as the essay notes, even, "a reason which arguably could be classified as an 'argument to avoid' can still have some valid points in it." As it does here. The Diplomacy article is hardly the only example of mentioning that something was the favorite of an extraordinarily famous person. (Let's face it, the Pope is famous and important on a level far beyond Al Pacino or David Beckham, and the fact that he was not as famous at some point in the past is irrelevant.) Other examples: Patton (Richard Nixon's favorite movie), Schindler's List (listed by Pope John Paul II's pontifical commission as one of the greatest films), Dr. No (film) ("President John F. Kennedy was a fan of Ian Fleming's novels and requested a private showing of Dr. No in the White House"). I am sure we could quite easily find more examples of how this is a widespread and appropriate practice on Wikipedia.
 * For the reasons above, I am putting the material back in the article, and I believe it should remain IN the article until consensus has been reached. Terence7 (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF is not just about articles it is about content. Your POV statements about fame show little understanding of the world as it is today unless, of course, you can provide a WP:RS showing that he is better known than Becks. Consensus i reached by gathering input from other editors and, until you explore that option, you do not have a consensus for the inclusion of the People magazine style material on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarnetteD (talk • contribs) 11:50, 27 April 2013‎

The statement that it is Pope Francis's favorite movie is disputed. After an extensive 2013 interview of Pope Francis for the Jesuit journal La Civiltà Cattolica by the editor Fr. Antonio Spadaro, Spadaro stated "His favourite film is not, as previously reported, Babette’s Feast, but La Strada.". It was expanded upon in this Catholic News article. The NY Times article (listed above by User:Terence7) incorrectly jumped to a conclusion. It appears to have come from the 2010 book Pope Francis: Conversations with Jorge Bergoglio: His Life in His Own Words in which Francis answered a question about the overemphasis on suffering by using Babette's Feast as an example. This may be useful if a theme section is thoroughly developed and sourced. But as is, I agree with User:MarnetteD that being one of the movies liked by the Pope is trivial in the context of the reception section. — Cactus Writer (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's trivial if Babette's Feast would be the favorite film of the pope—in that case I would prefer this fact mentioned in the article. However, I think it actually is trivial if it's only one of his favorite films. Because your hints strongly suggest that the latter, I don't want to defend my insertion any longer. --Cyfal (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

'endive salad'
The vegetable known in French as 'endive' is called 'chicory' in English ('endive' is a different vegetable known in French as 'chicorée'). This is a classic French-English error.80.60.103.23 (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Babette's Feast. 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/20121003003410/http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/458/year/1987.html to http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/458/year/1987.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Babette's Feast. 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/20121017225604/http://www.kristeligt-dagblad.dk/artikel/299221:Kirke---tro--Kirken-paa-kanten-synger-paa-sidste-vers to http://www.kristeligt-dagblad.dk/artikel/299221:Kirke---tro--Kirken-paa-kanten-synger-paa-sidste-vers
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091007095518/http://www.ingmarbergman.se/universe.asp?guid=895A97B2-15CA-4740-8B14-890E85FF5CA8 to http://www.ingmarbergman.se/universe.asp?guid=895A97B2-15CA-4740-8B14-890E85FF5CA8
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091007093227/http://www.ingmarbergman.se/universe.asp?guid=F37A6950-3B08-4452-AFB5-5260A3A6DCC5 to http://www.ingmarbergman.se/universe.asp?guid=F37A6950-3B08-4452-AFB5-5260A3A6DCC5

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Versions of the Film
I am hoping that someone can explain the differences in the various versions of the film. I checked out from the library the MGM World Films 1989? version (ISBN 0-7928-4839-x) that has been dubbed in English. But, it has none of the other features that the November 4, 2014 Criterion Collection (Direct) version has. The Criterion version is not listed as having been dubbed in English. I am looking for an English budded version with very good video and extra features. GBS New Jersey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:3A:C000:34:0:0:2:1BD1 (talk) 14:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)