Talk:Him (film)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Him (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.filmthreat.com/features/1899

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Him (film). 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110715114748/http://mesmerize.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=entertainment&action=display&thread=2399 to http://mesmerize.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=entertainment&action=display&thread=2399

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Imgur links
, links to Imgur, even if they're images of a newspaper clipping are not appropriate links. Is it possible for you to rework the references so they do not include this link, and instead more properly cite a page number? It's alright if one cannot actually see the ad, but instead knows where to find it. Overall, I also suggest you read the reliable sources policy and the external link guideline ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  15:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Duly noted. I'll be the first to point out that I'm not the best when it comes to wiki editing. Double - U 17:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The Kinsey Institute
About a month ago, I and several other researchers found an untitled 16mm film reel in the collection of the Kinsey Institute which we have come to believe may contain footage from 'Him'. You may find the listing for the reel at this link: https://iucat.iu.edu/kinsey/9123669.

The reel contains 12 short films. Several of the shorts featured seem to be edited down from feature-length films. The page notes that the reel is listed as “A hand in hand films release”. The book 'The Bible on film: a checklist, 1897-1980' has a short entry for ‘Him’ which claims that it was either produced or distributed by Hand in Hand Films. The first film listed on the reel is listed as ‘Why is everyone talking about him”’. This name is uncannily similar to one of the taglines used in advertisements for the film's original New York run. It’s also worth noting that the fact that the reel is 16mm is consistent with the films played at the 55th Street Playhouse. Advertisements from The Village Voice and New York Times also show that Hand in Hand Films definitely did do business with the 55th Street Playhouse.

It is my theory that the short listed here may well contain footage lifted from ‘Him’ and repackaged as a short subject. It’s worth noting that on the Kinsey Institute page, there is a single quotation mark after the word “him”. There is not one anywhere else in that sentence or any of the others. This leads me to believe that there was intended to be a quotation mark before the word “him”, just like the advertisements that the name seen here seems to be lifted from.

I emailed the institute this information and asked for any additional information they may have on the reel, as well as if there was any chance of me seeing it. They got back to me saying that as the material hasn’t yet been digitized, they don’t have any further information. They’ve stated that they will look at the material once it has been digitized. The digitization process is expected to start in 6-9 months.

I'll be the first to admit that there are a few leaps in logic that need to be taken in order for this theory to work, but I think it might be good enough to add to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Double - U (talk • contribs) 11:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Intriguing, but a bit tricky to add anything concrete to the article until we have a "reliable source" about the exact contents of this mysterious reel of film.--Muzilon (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * It looks that we have to wait some months until we could have results about this investigation. But it also means that we have to keep an eye until new information surfaces. I believe that the information given on the preceding messages could lead to an interesting finding of footage from the film, but until then, we have to be cautious on the issue. --Sfs90 (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Any news? Muzilon (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I've actually been in touch with the institute a few times over the past few years. Last I heard, the film reel has still yet to be digitized and so its contents cannot be confirmed. I can't confirm this, but I've heard talk that funding issues have slowed their efforts to digitize their collection, and I'm guessing COVID-19 didn't do any favours. Double - U (talk) 09:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could start a GoFundMe appeal (ha ha). In the meantime, I've updated the article by linking to the original newspaper ads that are available through Newspapers.com. Muzilon (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC)