Talk:Caché (film)

The Tapes
So who was sending them? :p


 * As a way of breaking the fourth wall, Michael Haneke as the film's director was sending the tapes to George as a character in the film. Haneke likes to play around with this sort of thing, he did it in a more conventional way in his earlier film Funny Games. - Artificial Silence (talk) 11:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Haneke's answered another question with "Hmm. Very few people notice that. Next?" but if I repeated the question it'd just take away from the mystery wouldn't it? — eitch 15:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Majid, or his son, or both of them, presumably must have been sending the tapes. They would have had to have been sent by someone: (a) who knew the details of Majid's past (e.g. the rooster's decapitation, as reproduced in one of the drawings); and (b) who cared enough to try and get back at the person who caused Majid to be taken away as a child. Only Majid or his son would have had enough information and enough motivation to do this, presumably. Why would anyone else bother or care? Since after Georges' first visit and departure Majid sits in his apartment upset, apparently unaware he is being filmed by a camera recording on the opposite side of the kitchen, the tape that shows this detail must presumably have come from the son, not the father. (Who else besides the father would have access to Majid's apartment in order to film, other than the son?) So a best guess from the information we were provided with is that the son was sending the tapes, or else the father and son and then the son independently of the father.
 * I didn't understand the relevance of the last scene - Georges' son and Majid's son meeting outside the school and talking together - and felt inclusion of that scene without explaining it spoilt the film. CJRMcLaughlin (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

One Take
It’s natural to want to know who sent the tapes, we spend the whole film wondering, but in the end I don’t think it’s that important. You could argue that the person sending the tapes is us, the audience, and that the whole thing stems out of our voyeurism. That argument would kind of be supported by some of Haneke’s other films, but I don’t fell that that is the case here.

There are certainly some techy people working at Georges’ TV station that would have access to cameras and equipment, but why would they do it and how would they know where Majid lived. In my opinion it was Majid’s son sending the tapes. There’s no one else who really could have or would have.

The last shot of the film shows someone who at least looks like Majid’s son talking to Georges’ son outside the school. If it is Majid’s son, that doesn’t prove that someone else is doing the watching, because he could have set up the camera, and if it isn’t Majid’s son, I don’t think it matters that much. To me, the look in Majid’s son’s eyes during the scene where he confronts Georges in the bathroom says so much. His performance is so great and it tells us that he did it.

Overall though, who sent the tapes is left ambiguous and for the viewer to decide. I’m glad we are never TOLD who did it and I don’t think we’d be any better off knowing for sure.
 * I think the tapes were made by the Haneke's HD camera. E.g. the openingshot could probably not be zoomed in from an apartment opposing their house: it would need a construction built in the streets, visible for anyone. Brz7 01:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

In an interview Haneke said that if you leave the film asking who sent the tapes then you have missed the point. SmokeyTheCat 15:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Where can we see Majid's son talking to Georges' son outside school? I have rewatched the scene, but there are too many people at the school entrance and I can't spot them. xDCDx 13:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * They are standing on the left, right in front of the ladder and behind the fence. Pierrot is wearing a light-coloured hoody and a black rucksack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.31.118.254 (talk) 19:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Deleted link
I just removed the following link:
 * Christopher Peachment Absolute Juliette: a review of Michael Haneke's Hidden (Caché) Social Affairs Unit Web Review, March 2006

because it seems to be from someone who created a Wiki account to promote his fringe neoconservative think tank (notice that all his posts are from one day, and all promoting his web site).

If other people (not him) think the link should be included, by all means. But I also thought it was a pretty wrongheaded review that got all the facts wrong about the movie (for instance, it criticizes Georges for not looking for the video cameras, when in fact that's one of the first things he does in the movie).

The other reviews are more mainstream, and the link I added is from the film reviewer at The Onion, then includes 50 other peoples' comments. I have nothing personally against the politics of the "social affairs unit" review, I just think it is probably not Wiki-appropriate. Aroundthewayboy 14:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, if anything, it belongs in the "negative reviews" section, although I personally don't think it should be included at all. Aroundthewayboy 15:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Good work removing it from the site. Even ignoring the pretenses of its posting, this is not a worthwhile read. Rasquache


 * Glad to hear you agree. I always feel guilty and a little cruel removing things, since I'm a writer myself and I understand the impulse to promote your own work. But it's probably not best to do it on Wiki. Aroundthewayboy 04:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Congrats
I've been assessing film articles for an hour and this is one of two B-classes that I have given. Keep up the good work! --Supernumerary 05:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 02:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

"only true flashback"
I was going to delete the bit about the final flashback being the only true one, but looking at the discussions here I see some of you've seen Haneke talk about the film. So: Has he said this in some lecture? If not, it seems like quite a statement for WP to make. — eitch 04:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Similarities to Lost Highway
I haven't seen this film, but was directed here by the Lost Highway page which says that Cache has a lot in common with LH. A cursory look at the film seems to show similarities as superficial as the names of the characters to ones more related to plot, such as the sending of tapes. I only skimmed this article and I did not see the film, so I wouldn't be surprised if these were the only similarities, but the LH page told me the two were alike and I would like this page to discuss them a bit more as it is what drew me here. K1da42 (talk) 06:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The similarities don't go beyond what you mentioned. Haneke uses the name "Laurent" ever since, when it is appropriate, and in both movies the main character receives video tapes confronting him with a repressed memory. There's nothing much to discuss, really. --Gerald Jarosch (talk) 13:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I would say that one more similarity are the ambiguous endings. Sounds like both "The Hidden" and "Lost Highway" plots end leaving more questions than answers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.184.108.79 (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

If I was going to guess, I'd say Lost Highway was an inspiration or touchstone for Cache. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

for RC - i want to add the following detail, which you reverted
"he kills himself by slashing his own throat in one swift move, leaving a splash of red on the wall and a pool of blood on the floor."

this is arguably THE pivotal scene in the film because it is SO violently subversive, both on the level of the film's obvious subtext re French-Algerian relations, its whodunit mcguffin, and on the broader level of human psychology. I was so disturbed by the first 10 secs that a pal covered my eyes, so it is not as vivid in my mind, as i had thought, & i'm hardly doing it justice. but perhaps a quick highlight will suffice for now, and someone else can detail the aesthetics and politics of the scene, captured by Haneke's alarming filmic language.--67.84.35.181 (talk) 05:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

addendum - YouTube comments suggest that my reaction was not entirely subjective -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pbO7hiLJSY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNF2AD1XkNo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-csSFoss9g

--67.84.35.181 (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't really have any dispute with the idea that the scene is important, but: The purpose of the plot section is to summarize the story without interpreting it. To the extent that the purpose of an edit is to offer an interpretation it's out of bounds. My understanding of the proposed edit is that its purpose is to put forward an interpretation by adding detail. Without these details, I would say the story of the film is complete (although not definitive). In its defense, I recognize that the proposal doesn't include anything that's not in the film; so my objection is a matter of degree not of kind. I would suggest that a section on the film's interpretation could cover the matter and include the material deserving emphasis with reliable sources weighing in. Is that far from others thinking? --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

that's a clever argument. but by your rationale, every sentence in the plot summary should be scrapped not only because it weighs in on significance, but also because it's flagrantly interpretive as opposed to descriptive. take the opening phrase, for example - "The quiet life of a French family". that, sir, is an interpretation and a shaky one at that. They are literati, who host dinner parties and what not, in the manner of a modern day salon. And he's a talk-show host on telly. Not exactly a "quiet life". i can continue this line of argument with the rest of the plot summary, but i think you get the point. and i can also make the case that omitting the stylized splash featured on the poster of the film renders the plot summary incomplete, in that it is not an unnecessary detail.

that said, i just wanted to highlight your bias but am neither interested in contesting this further nor will I create a separate section because although Haneke interests me more than many other film directors, for now, his aesthetics and politics are low on my list of priorities.--67.84.35.181 (talk) 04:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the thoughts, Anonymous. I would prefer that you address the substance of the matter under discussion instead of accusing me of bias, especially without saying what the bias might be. My bias in favor of neutrality is a good one. I'm trying to be a good editor and I think you're the same on that.
 * As for your criticism of my argument, you imply there is a reductio ad absurdum from my claim that descriptions are allowed and interpretations are disallowed. Presumably you mean that all descriptions are interpretations. However, we have two words because there are two concepts, so I feel confident that we can discern where we switch from saying what's in the movie to saying what we think about what's in the movie. You imply as much in your discussion of 'quiet life'. You criticize the phrase for its inaccuracy, and you cite evidence to support your view based on what's in the movie. Well done. If you think the opening sentence is inaccurate, by all means let's edit it. (Leading a 'quiet life' refers to something apart from volume, though, so I'm not sure I would support a change.)
 * I'm all in favor of making the article as good as possible, which includes restricting ourselves to non-interpretive material as far as that is possible. Your argument might be taken to imply that you don't share that goal, perhaps in part because it is not completely attainable. I'm not sure that's a fair summary of your view, but I'm sure I reject it, since Wikipedia is pretty clearly a place where everything is not in its final form, is never complete, and is not perfect. I appreciate your effort to make the Cache article as good as it can be. It's an admirable film, and one of my favorites. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Cache not Hidden
There is a well established consensus to title the article Cache. No new consensus has emerged to change it to Hidden. Please revert, Roman Spinner or whomever, and bring it here if you'd like to change that. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Unlike such nearly-unanimously-accepted (in the English-speaking world) foreign-language titles as Pather Panchali, Aparajito, Rashomon, L'Avventura, La Notte, La Dolce Vita, La Strada, I Vitelloni, El Bruto and a good number of others, Caché (film) is not at all so clear-cut. Manual of Style/France & French-related states that in "Wikipedia articles and article titles, French titles of literary works of art should be put into English, if the work is well-known by its title in English (with redirects from the French title). If it is more well-known by its title in French, then French should be maintained (with redirects from the English title)".  Although there is no unanimity (IMDb indicates "Caché (Hidden) Caché (original title)", Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide lists it as "Caché", while TimeOut Film Guide, Halliwell's Film Guide and Videohound's Golden Movie Retriever have it as "Hidden", with newspaper reviews, such as that in The Guardian showing "Hidden (Caché)").  Perhaps "Hidden (Caché)" or "Caché (Hidden)" would be an acceptable (if somewhat unwieldy) compromise main title header for this article.  There is no indication that a "well established" consensus on this issue already exists, but if it does, a link to such consensus or such discussion should be appended here so that interested users may avail themselves of it and join the discussion.&mdash;Roman Spinner (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No. This has been discussed before. Let's return the article to the consensus and then discuss a change. Thanks for taking care of that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Although English-language translations exist for above listed titles (Aparajito means The Unvanquished, La Dolce Vita means The Sweet Life or The Good Life, etc), such translations are virtually never used for these films and use of English-language titles would render these films unrecognizable in any discussion. Again, however, that is not the case with Caché (film).  Having established the fact that a number of key film guides as well as reviews in various publications use the title Hidden, indicates that a clearly established, although not unanimously accepted, English-language title has entered general usage and should, therefore, be given priority over the French title per Naming conventions (use English): "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works, scholarly journals and major news sources)".  As to consensus, a large number of incorrectly- or uncertainly-titled articles (including film entries) remain unchanged until an editor takes the first step.  Lack of a previous discussion on the subject cannot be considered to constitute a consensus for stasis.  This article's revision history demonstrates contributions from many longtime users who may also wish to express an opinion on this subject.  Before reverting, let us see how many members of WikiProject Film will add their views and then decide what the consensus truly represents.&mdash;Roman Spinner (talk) 17:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I requested for the move to be undone for the time being (as part of the WP:BRD cycle). Let's determine a consensus at my request to move below. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, WP:NCF spells it out pretty clear. Tough shit, Hidden it is. People should stop crying and maybe improve the article instead.  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus for move. Favonian (talk) 10:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Caché (film) → Hidden (2005 film) – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC) The article was moved without discussion, and I do not think that the move is purely uncontroversial. Ring Cinema disagreed with the move, and I disagree as well, so I would like to have discussion to articulate reasons why the move should take place or not. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The naming convention for foreign films calls for common names not translations: "Use the title more commonly recognized by English readers." I think only in England was it distributed as Hidden. The rest of the English-speaking world will recognize the film as Cache. I noticed that Roman Spinner claims that the film is listed as Hidden in IMDb, TimeOut Film Guide, Halliwell's Film Guide, etc. That is seriously incorrect. IMDb lists it as Cache (Hidden). TimeOut Film Guide is London-based, so of course it lists it as Hidden, although TimeOut Singapore lists it as Cache (Hidden). Halliwell's Film Guide can't be checked online but again it is out of England so I would expect it to follow London style. Apparently it is most widely recognized as Cache among English speakers and IMDb recognizes that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would also argue that Caché is a common title in English-language sources that explore the film or its director in depth. See |cach%C3%A9%7Ccache&oq=haneke+2005+hidden|cach%C3%A9%7Ccache&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=21918l24355l0l24834l10l8l0l0l0l4l360l2146l0.1.5.2l8l0 Google Books Search and |cach%C3%A9%7Ccache&btnG=Search&lr=lang_en&as_sdt=1%2C47&as_ylo=&as_vis=0 Google Scholar Search. Hidden is by no means the dominant title in such sources, and I think this is reason enough to use the original title while being very clear that Hidden is another title for the film. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 21:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Since the likelihood of seeing further comments before expiration time is rapidly diminishing, additional points need to be elucidated regarding some of the above-mentioned positions.  This specific title is unlikely to set a precedent for use of foreign appellations because of the uncoordinated and inconsistent manner in which it is referenced in the English-speaking world.  Among the five print resources which I consulted, only Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide lists it as "Caché".  Two other American guides, the recently discontinued Mick Martin's & Marsha Porter's DVD & Video Guide and the 2050-page VideoHound's Golden Movie Retriever have it as "Hidden".   The London-based TimeOut Film Guide and Halliwell's Film Guide list it as "Hidden (Caché)" (in contrast to TimeOut Singapore's "Caché (Hidden)", those searching for  "Caché" in TimeOut London will find "Caché, see Hidden").   There are also scores of magazine and newspaper reviews such as those from The Times, The Guardian, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, Variety (magazine), The Village Voice, etc, all of which use either "Caché (Hidden)" or "Hidden (Caché)".  The English-language cover of the DVD release displays Caché in much larger letters than "(Hidden)", which appears below it, thus incorrectly making it seem that "Caché" is the official title and "(Hidden)" is simply a translation.  IMDb tries to satisfy everyone by indicating "Caché (Hidden) Caché (original title)", which is precisely what I wrote in my initial comments above (I did not state that IMDb lists it as simply "Hidden").


 * My interpretation of Naming conventions (films) ("...normally this means the title under which it has been released in cinemas or on video in the English-speaking world) is that if a foreign-language film has an English-language title which is established as a primary or even secondary title in such WP:RS as print guides and reviews in publications then such English-language title should automatically have primacy of use in the main title header, with the foreign-language title appearing in the lead sentence and in redirects. It is important that the English-language title be given precedence because, unlike the case here, some foreign films, particularly those from France, Italy and Spain, may be distributed in the British Commonwealth under their original titles, while audiences in U.S. may see them under their English-language titles.  Thus, the English-language rule appears to indicate that if a film has an English-language title in use in a considerable portion of the English-speaking world (either the U.S.-Canada market or the British Commonwealth) then such English-language title should trump the also-used foreign-language title.  Using two very familiar examples, I can point to the American-referenced "Grand Illusion" and "The Rules of the Game", which appear in all British references as "La Grande Illusion" and "La Règle du Jeu" and yet, due apparently to the fact that the English-language titles are equally well-known, appear in Wikipedia's main title headers under those English titles.  As mentioned before, the Anglicizing would not, of course, apply to such fully-integrated into English usage titles as "La Strada", which no one would reference as The Road and, on the talk page of which, the three of us agreed last year that the precedent for all such films should be English-language orthography (not "La strada"). The final comment in that discussion was, in fact, by Ring Cinema, who seemed to be giving me a "ringing" endorsement.


 * Returning to "Caché", while it is true that even longer and more difficult titles such as Tous les Matins du Monde (film) (with incorrectly rendered, in lower case, main title header, Tous les matins du monde (film)) or Y Tu Mamá También (again, incorrectly rendered as Y tu mamá también) are occasionally accepted in, apparently, the entire English-speaking world under their original titles (with a small-font English translation, in parentheses, offered on some movie posters), that is not the case with Hidden (Caché) / Caché (Hidden). In fact, due to frequency of use in this instance of the "title (title in parentheses)" form in books and periodicals, a case can be made that this film's main title header in Wikipedia should be either "Hidden (Caché)" (preferable, since the English-language title comes first) or "Caché (Hidden)", especially since the use of "Hidden" or "Caché" as the lone title still requires the use of a parenthetical qualifier "(film)" or "(2005 film)".   Comments in precedent-creating circumstances tend to be longer and offer greater detail, but if consensus can be found to use either "Hidden (Caché)" or "Caché (Hidden)" then this rare titling form would not create a specific precedent.&mdash;Roman Spinner (talk) 06:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * There are a few misleading or incorrect statements in the above, but, for the sake of simplicity, I'd just like to mention one. Roman points out that the word 'Caché' is in larger font than the word 'Hidden' on the DVD cover. The poster image on IMDb shows about a seven-fold difference between the two. This seems to indicate persuasively that one is the title and the other is the translation. If Caché and Hidden were both the title, they would be in the same size font, so this is excellent evidence that Caché is the title and Hidden is the translation or alternate. This article has had the current title without any problem, and since the policy states that we should use the most widely-accepted title for English speakers (Roman doesn't get the policy right), there's not a good reason to change it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Awards are not authorities on country of production
The film being based for a certain country does not signify the way we look at production nationality. Please refer to the infobox for film to figure out how cite counties. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
 * The infobox states "conflict of information in various reliable sources". You've found one. That's not the same. I've found three that all the same, If you are truly desperate, I can find more. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You are again seriously mistaken. The Academy is a perfectly good source, as are the committees of the countries that make submissions by nationality for the awards. Please refrain from inventing nonsense because you don't like it when I'm correct. Because there is a conflict between sources, only the unanimous countries are included. That's how it is. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not nonsense when I've quoted what I'm sourcing. Also, here's several more sources backing me up. Signandsight ("Cache", Starring Daniel Auteuil and Juliette Binoche, is a French / Austrian / Italian / German co-production, 2005, 115 Min.). Moma states it as France/Austria/Germany/Italy. AFI.COM: France/Austria/Germany/Italy. That's six now. And that's plenty. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

As you know, when there is a conflict, unanimity applies. Stop warring when the evidence doesn't back you. Of course, you and I both know you have a view on this. Sorry it's in conflict with consensus, the guidelines, the sources, and common sense! You have nothing. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've provided six sources. You've provided one, the sources are not in your favour and I'm still following the rules of the infobox. Six sources against one. Simple math. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As you know, that's not how it works. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

National committees that nominate films for Academy Awards are reliable

 * Sorry, as you are aware, when there is a dispute, the disputed countries are out. That's how it works. I realize that when you are wrong you don't want to admit it. But you lack consensus, sources, guidelines, and common sense. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Obviously. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that's not how it works. Let's take a quote from Jimbo Wales:

Your statement of one source countering about 7 other sources goes against WP:UNDUE. I'm really tired of you removing well cited material that I've taken time to do. First you removed it saying I was wrong without any information, and then you removed it one citation that only mentions one country. You are applying undue weight one option. If you can counter this with some other rules I'm missing I'll be happy to adhere it as I would love to work it out with you. If you only want to continue edits that involve you saying "how ridiculous" I'm being, I'm going to ignore your posts and revert your edits that go against the rules I've stated until you can show me other sources. Thank you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There has been no further discussion on the topic for days, so I'll revert it back to the previously cited countries. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, there's been no discussion because it's obvious you're mistaken. I assume you'll be following the guideline in the future so today is a good day to start. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's good to help out other editors and show what rules I'm breaking, per the rule I stated above, the majority of citations would be the consensus. Not the other way around. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Majority? Okay, you know that's not how it works. You were told on the talk page for the infobox that only the countries cited unanimously are included. Okay, now I told you, too. Sorry you're wrong about this but you are. Not only that, there's no consensus for your change. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe actually wikipedia rules set in stone by the creator of wikipedia and that are posted on wikipedia rules pages (see, the the statement above) over-power mere guidelines that are not even implemented yet on the infobox's template. Also, reverting my edit from leaving it blank was also wrong, as we can alternatively "Alternatively in the case of conflict, consider leaving this field blank and discussing the issue in the article.". I've found various sources stating my countries of production. I'm suggesting we leave it blank if we can't come to an agreement. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing is set in stone and I'm sure you realize the infobox guidelines are properly agreed. We can continue to follow the guidelines as we're doing as there's no problem with doing it correctly. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The infobox guidelines are still in discussion (you should know, you are still trying to change them). There are disagreements here and I think it's best to expand the article like we did with the White Ribbon. Using the production seciton to discuss production countries, and leave it blank in the infobox. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Also false. I'm trying to change them? Well, first of all, I'm not, and secondly, if someone can try to change them then they are there and in force. Today would be a good day for you to start following the guidelines. As Lugnuts says above (Lugnuts (talk) 18:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)): "People should stop crying and maybe improve the article instead." --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am trying to improve the article. The infobox has still been full of prominent discussions within the last week. I don't even know where you are pulling that lugnuts quote from, but insulting me again isn't going to make me stop. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no change in the offing on the guidelines. That's your invention. I have not insulted you; another invention. In your previous post you invented something else. I am aware that you sometimes write things here that do not stand up to scrutiny, so I would suggest that you make sure you are completely accurate in the future. We will be much more productive that way. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "People should stop crying" . you do insult me. "Majority? Okay, you know that's not how it works." except WP:UNDUE does state to not use minority citations. It also mentions that you should more high quality sources. Websites like the British Film Institute, Variety, and AFI are far more high quality film based sources. Yours is from a television series, not to mention it's a bare-url. I've started a new topic on template:film since you have think no one cares about it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * But you know what the guidelines say. When will you start following them? Do you want to discuss the guidelines because you want them followed? Okay, there is a guideline right now and you should follow it. What else should you do but follow the guidelines if you think guidelines should be followed? --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I do want to follow it. Since there is still conflict (we've been discussing it for days), I've suggested we follow where it states to "Alternatively in the case of conflict, consider leaving this field blank and discussing the issue in the article.". Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You know as well as I do that the guidelines call for unanimity. End of story. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah! One of them says we can leave it blank if there is an argument. There is. I propose leaving it blank. Since you are in favor of wanting the country field taken away from the infobox, I think you'd be alright with this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it's best if the field just isn't used in this article, and national involvements are detailed in the prose. The guideline does indeed request that we include only the common identified countries, but the logic behind that was to weed out the spurious inclusions you sometimes get. Since very few sources identify solely France, just listing France on its own in the infobox is probably misleading too, since the majority of the sources do identify other countries. Remember, we want to give readers information clearly, and listing just one country or all four doesn't really achieve that objective. Betty Logan (talk) 01:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's what I have been saying. Thank you! Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not what you were doing! Another false statement in what is turning into a long string of false statements from you, Andrzejbanas. I would for the second time strongly urge you to stop making statements that are untrue and be extremely careful that you only write statements that are true. Thank you. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My history speaks for itself. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with sourcing all the production countries in the main body of the article, instead of using the infobox. The field in the infobox is fine for the majority of articles on here, but this is one of those exceptions. Now who do I send the video tape of their house being filmed to?  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 11:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As long as it's in the production section and not the lead that is a good idea. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm going to take a stab at it, see if we can settle this for good. If nobody is happy with how I word it, then just revert it, I don't really want to get drawn into a protracted discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

You keep on repeating the same old mantra, postulating that the the mantra has inherent meaning independent of the understanding of the person uttering them. Enough is enough! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones / The Welsh Buzzard 13:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear why we would not follow the guidelines on this. Is there something so incredible about saying this film is French? It's filmed in France, set in France, French is the film's language and culture and cast; it's completely uncontroversial to call it French. It seems like one really has to stretch to say it's not French. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well the article would be confusing simply calling it french wouldn't be specific enough. Why would Austria submit as their foreign oscar? If we can't even find sources or agree to what should be in the lead, then we shouldn't put anything in the lead for the country either. The article's production section and plot information and cast information illustrate the French-ness of it enough. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it wouldn't be confusing to call a French film French. Austria submitted it because it has an Austrian director. (Yes, the director's nationality is very important!) However, the Academy didn't accept it because it was not Austrian enough. (The film is in French which is not Austria's language, indicating that a film's language is more important to its "nationality" than its production company.) I'm sure they know what they are talking about over there, too, at the Academy. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * French is still not specific enough. Several other countries were involved with the production as well. If we didn't identify it in the infobox, then it shouldn't be in the lead either. Saying that most of the crew was French isn't apt either. The producers were both Hungarian and Austrian respectively, co=producer was Italian, Cinematographer was Austrian. Ditto for the cast as Auteuil is Algerian. This isn't the most reliable source, but for the sake of discussion it wasn't just shot in France, but Vienna as well (source) Besides, Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Absurd nonsense from you, Andrzejbanas. French has to be in the info' box.
 * Why Asburd? We're not even discussing the infobox currently Gareth. Since we've can't settle to what goes in the infobox, we've had settlement that it should be left blank and left to be discussed within the article. We don't need a country in the lead and if we can't agree what belongs in the infobox, we can't just apply some uncited original research to the lead. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I for one, would expect to see a country entry in the info' box. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones / The Welsh Buzzard 16:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Take this court cases into consideration as well: "With all that, the producer claims that he fulfilled 99 points of the 100 required for the qualification for the French scheme subsidy. But the Paris based court has denied the French nationality to the film. The decision is not about the team and crew nationality. The court ruled that the production company is entirely dependent on an American production and distribution company and therefore the movie cannot access to French funding which in this case means that the film’s producers could not receive the state funds of up to €3.6m (an estimation of le FILM FRANÇAIS) . To be eligible, the majority of the production company’s capital must come from the European Union. It is not the case here.". Source. So it's not so simple and we can't just apply it because of the staff or locations involved. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Your "Source" is connecting Asia with Europe through film. Not convincing.  -- Gareth Griffith-Jones / The Welsh Buzzard 16:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * the source seems to fit as a reliable source and is addressing a court case in France. I believe it's strong enough. we can't go by opinions, we can only go by sources. I've provided mine. You feel free to apply yours whenever you find one. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * France is mentioned in all sources, so the guidelines say that's the country that goes in the field. It's really that simple. (Your source, Andrz, is not about this film.) --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My source doesn't have to be about this film. And the above people generally agreed to leave it blank. which is another part of the template, do I have to screen shot it for you? Alternatively in the case of conflict, consider leaving this field blank and discussing the issue in the article. which is what we are currently doing.Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * (I'm sure you did not mean to 'shout'.) -- Gareth Griffith-Jones / The Welsh Buzzard 20:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I see that again Andrzejbanas jealousy about my good ideas is motivating him to make the article worse. Well done! You must be so proud of yourself, finding any way you are able to block reasonable ideas. How unfortunate that an editor of this quality is inflicted on the film. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:CIVIL. If you have nothing further to discuss then that's fine, but I don't recommend you attack other editors. I'm in not way trying to make articles worse and I don't think you are either as I Assume good faith. I hope you would do the same.Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

OMG, that's so funny! Andrz just took the director out of the production section. Lugnuts, Rob, here is the time to show you have some integrity. Correct your out of control friend. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I do agree with retaining the director in the production section, since up to that point he is only mentioned in the lede and the infobox, and ideally should be in the prose. The section also mentions the film has no score—it would be great it Haneke's motivations for not including one could sourced and added to the article, otherwise the comment just stands as an editorial observation rather tahn an explained creative decision. Betty Logan (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * again WP:CIVIL Ring. You could have just asked me why I removed it, and I did it as the production doesn't state anything the director did. It can stay there but I don't think it makes a difference. I'm more curious why you added the filmin locations without a citation. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What complete nonsense. Obviously you're reverting all my edits because I correctly identified your absurd arguments and incorrect assertions, and you were burned on the country field thing. Let's not pretend you're earnestly trying to improve the article. You're trying to bully other editors who offend your sensibility by correcting you when you're wrong. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For ever edit I make, I try to summarize in the edit field why I'm revertin it or changing it. In your case, there is no mention of where the film was shot in those countries. I'm more curious when you revert back to other people's edits with summaries such as these ones: here or here here. The last edit specifically was before any citations were placed on the article, so I'm leaning much more towards you were removing and adding items without summarizing your edits to swing thing the way you wanted. For the record, I don't doubt where the film was shot, but you need sources to back up your claim. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)