Talk:Hanna (film)

Posters
There is no reason to include two non-free posters in this article. We should pick one and remove the other.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally I like the theatrical poster over the international poster.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Chemical Brothers' soundtrack
Should it be given its own article or added in as a section to this film? I'm not sure if there's a rule on Wikipedia about it.--EclecticEnnui (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Symbolism
have moved this section to my sandbox to work on FeatherPluma (talk) 09:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC) Film Comment maybe? Varlaam (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbolism is highly problematic and OR, unless you have good sourcing from somewhere.
 * Well, I see that you are a very experienced and prolific editor, and I tip my hat to you accordingly, but let's put the snake on the table.


 * I'll preface my remarks by saying that I do see where you are coming from, and that my energy in this reply is not directed at you as a person.
 * However, IMO, Wikipedia generally is institutionally blinkered in certain regards.
 * 1 By chosing to initially work on the material in my sandbox I acknowledged some of the challenges you allude to.
 * 2 The sourcing in the "themes and motifs" section is as good as any other component of this article (or, for that matter, in most other articles, and better than many.)
 * 3 I agree that symbolism CAN be subjective, but I also believe that that POTENTIAL subjectivity does not fully justify a vigorous assertion that "Symbolism is highly problematic and "... The relevant question is alluded to in the tail of your comment... namely, whether the material is encyclopedically collated or conversely really is or a personal impression of the symbolism. I would appeal to editors to stop scaring off people from the hard work of actually contributing meaningful material to this corpus, and in doing so inevitably dumbing down and often perverting this encyclopedia.
 * 4 The motivation for working on this component is that to have an article about this particular movie without encyclopedically alluding to the numerous experienced and well-recognized reviewers who have commented on its fairy tale aspects has been a downright travesty, misleading wikipedia readers. In other words, experienced WP:RS external reviewers comments about this movie are replete with treatment on its symbolism, to an extent that obviously greatly exceeds most movies. If I had read the wikipedia article before watching the movie in the way it has stood without any proper commentary regarding its themes I would have been totally dismayed by being so completely misled.
 * 5 Thanks for the suggestion but when I looked at Chris Chang's Film Comment at I detected wispy faint allusions to the symbolism but no forthright quotable material. Perhaps I looked in the wrong place. Feel free to add something yourself, just follow your own advice to get some good sourcing from somewhere. Parenthetically, I have been through the Mahler phase, and I'm well beyond that now, well sort of beyond, except some days... very few but...itch, tickle...)
 * FeatherPluma (talk) 01:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

A Clockwork Orange reference
Anybody notice that Isaacs character bares a close resemblance to the Clockwork Orange protagonist? This includes the cane he carries in several scenes, his whistling, his noticeable love of ultraviolence, and his two assistants' skinhead gear? 67.10.202.120 (talk) 03:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Could be a reference, maybe an accidental reference, but I think its just purely coincidental. But I didn't spot it, but I see what you mean. Good job for noticing the 'the devil in the detail'. Charlr6 (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I first saw Clockwork in the 1970s. I had the poster. Read the book without the dictionary. Everybody at school seemingly had the LP.
 * I failed to make that connection here.
 * To be honest, I was trying to get my head around Tom Hollander, evil sadist.
 * But to me, that does seem beyond coincidence. Find a source.
 * Varlaam (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Arabic
Would it be correct to say that the Arabic in the Moroccan scenes in actual Moroccan Arabic?

Or is it of the standard variety? Varlaam (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Danish shooting locations?
I have transferred this uncited minor paragraph here:

Some shooting was done in Denmark: The bridge in the background where Eric leaves the water, is the Femer Bridge in northern Germany. He then kills two Danish police officers and later is seen lying on a bed reading a postcard, where the address says Aalsgaarde, which is a city in the northern part of Zealand, Denmark. On a trivial note; the abandoned theme park where Knepfler lives is the same park that was used for the vampire's hidout in the supernatural thriller We Are The Night.

Note: The fact that extras are in Danish costume does not require the shooting to have taken place in Denmark. Varlaam (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Brits
"Hanna meets Sebastian (Jason Flemyng) and Rachel (Olivia Williams), a bohemian British couple on a camper-van holiday with their teenage daughter, Sophie (Jessica Barden), and their younger son, Miles (Aldo Maland)" - This is wrong. Hanna is in the desert when she meets Sophie. Miles then appears. There is some talk. Hanna follows them over a crest enough to see their (parent's) van. Hanna is invited to ride with them, but she says she prefers to walk. Then there is a new scene. All of this takes place before Hanna has met Sebastian or Rachel. 211.225.33.104 (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. However. The first approach, which you dislike, is a summarizing paraphrase. The second is a series of screen shots, requesting we move to metaphrase literalism. These approaches have different purposes. The first actually is not wrong, but what it does is summarize or conflate things to their essence. The WP guidelines for plot summaries strongly promote summarization rather than metaphrasis - and in fact there have been several rounds of word culling in this plot summary for just this reason. The tough reality of life is that this is appropriate. If you perceive the EXACT sequence as being more meaningful, why so? Because if this particular conflation misses something of substance that we can point to exactly, then nothing is set in stone... The purposes of the sequence in the movie by the way are overtly to move her to Germany, and indirectly to portray her sexual and social awakening. Hence the emphasis the article gently places on this: "The family is nice to her, and she and Sophie become friends, and spend some time together, even sharing a kiss together." So arguably the summarizing paraphrase has captured more of the "real" sequence than the dessicated metaphrasis. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Morocco
How and why does Hanna travel from Finland to Morocco? Jim Michael (talk) 01:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * She was taken by the CIA to an underground base. I went ahead and cleared that up. Supergodzilla2090 (talk) 02:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Prresence of Hanna
Hanna is known only to her father and not those outside their circle. Having that included in the plot would better help readers understand why is it that the special forces confuse attributing the death of their members to the father who is not present rather than Hanna.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC) It has everything to do with the article. Just because you take what appears to be a personal affront to the matter is not necessarily immaterial. It is part of the record.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

American film?
Is it correct to call this an American movie? It was co-produced by an American company and Ronan was born in the US but apart from that there seems to be no American input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozijim (talk • contribs) 02:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)