Talk:Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles

DVD release
I had thought the recent DVD release was the first ever, but apparently there was an earlier issue. Oddity: [http://www.criterion.com/current/posts/1223 Jeanne Dielman–Criterion Cooking Video Contest! ] (archive). / edg ☺ ☭ 12:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

"Orgasm" interpretation is WP:OR
Several times the following explanation of the murder has been deleted (by varying editors),  "when she unexpectedly has an orgasm with the day's client"... and then restored each time by.

No case has been made for this orgasm&mdash;it's an ideocyncratic interpretation that I would consider rather contrary to the intent of the movie (and therefore a real disservice in this article). Rather than argue interpretations, however, I'll offer that the Slant magazine review (linked from this article) describes the ending as ambiguous (listing "unexpected orgasm" not once in the possible interpretations), and User:Nightspore has not provided a source for this this apparently unstated (and, IMO, unlikely) motivation. I don't have a link to the Akerman interview, but the Slant article refers to her saying the murder was an arbitrary, definitive ending without any other meaning in itself (the preceeding 3+ hours of the movie being the "point", so to speak).

Please understand I am not objecting to a plot spoiler; revealing the murder and its specifics are fine with me. My main concern is the motivation being given for this action is completely unsourced.

Since it pushes upon readers (and potential viewers) a pat (in the sense of being both trite and superficially complete) message that may not be (and I would say probably isn't) the director's intent, this error non-trivial in effect.

I would very much like to remove this misleading motivation from the summary, and I would like it not to be reinstated. I'd prefer to see some kind of WP:CONSENSUS established beforehand (rather than a perpetual WP:EDITWAR). Is there any reason I should not remove this line? Is there any reason for retaining this explanation? / edg ☺ ☭ 02:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That element of the plot is now sourced from a major film critic's account of the movie. ~Nightspore —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightspore (talk • contribs) 00:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, that relieves me of the concern that this was WP:MADEUP. However, this still seems to be one viewer's opinion where many (if not most) viewers consider the motivation a mystery, in which case it might merit mention in the article, but still wouldn't be suited for a plot summary.
 * I cannot find this book in my local library system. For WP:V's sake, could you provide a relevant excerpt from Cavell On Film so we can see what he says here? The closest I can find is a reference to the review from a book on Cavell. We should probably add a short quote to the article's citation as well, but for Talk page purposes it would be helpful to have enough to establish context. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm not seeing what's worrying you. The entry doesn't say that having an orgasm is what motivates her to stab of the john.  It gives a sequence of events.  Maybe it's the word "climax" that's bothering you.  I'd invite you to change that word, if that's the case.  I'll point out that I wasn't the editor who put in this element of the plot summary.  And now I've cited arguably the most important film theorist in the world on the issue.  It's quite a stretch to put Stanley Cavell in the category of WP:UNDUE, as you do in response.
 * I don't think, by the way, that Cavell disagrees with you that much (nor do I really; I think her orgasm is at least as much a sign or result of the previous anomalies as a cause in itself), and I would be happy to have you quote his more detailed plot summary in that section, viz., "...on the third day we are not kept outside but accompany her with that day's client into her bedroom. After an abstract scene of intercourse in which she is apparently brought to orgasm despite her air of indifference, she rises, moves about her room to her dressing table to freshen herself, picks up the pair of scissors which we had seen her find and take into the room in order to cut the wrapping of the present just arrived from her sister, walks with the scissors over to the man lying back on her bed, stabs him fatally in the throat, and slides the scissors onto her table as she walks out of the room" (pp. 257-258). (I, by the way, don't think she stabs him in the throat, but other editors and I have papered over that disagreement.)
 * Cavell goes on to say - and this is where I think you would more or less agree with him - "As for a narrative that amounts to an explanation of the stabbing, it would make sense to say that it was caused by any of the differences between one day and the following", and he lists a bunch of those differences (the coffee, the potatoes, the dress) including but not privileging "slipping against her will into orgasm." But certainly what happens in bed that third day is a difference from the previous two.
 * Though not verifiable by WP standards, I'll say, since this is a talk page, what I think you may have seen me say elsewhere, that Akerman said to me, and to Cavell, in conversation, that he was right to lay stress on the orgasm she experiences. This is part of Cavell's general interest in representations of women's experience and the problem that it causes for male viewers, in Shakespeare, in what he calls comedies of remarriage, in what he calls the melodrama of the unknown woman, and in Jeanne Dielman.
 * In The Woman at the Keyhole: Feminism and Women's Cinema, Judith Mayne writes: "After Jeanne experiences what appears to be sexual orgasm, she kills her client." Very interesting is Mayne's footnote to this where she says that the orgasm seems obvious to her, but where she also cites an article by Brenda Longfellow who said that she surveyed woman for what they thought happened in that last scene, and that their reading of Jeanne's response - pleasure or disgust - correlated with their own sexual orientation.
 * I am a big believer in a maximalist approach to Wikipedia. I would be happy to have Cavell quoted and Slant magazine or some skeptic of the orgasm-interpretation and Maybe and Longfellow quoted as well.  Also, thanks for reminding me about the four tildes - it was late and I was very tired when I posted last night.
 * Nightspore (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I realize that this conversation took place many years ago, but Chantal Akerman stated in a 2009 interview ("Chantal Akerman on Jeanne Dielman") included in the Criterion release that Jeanne Dielman did in fact have an orgasm in this scene. Here is the quote:

“She has her first orgasm ever with her second client, which makes her burn the potatoes, which makes her forget to cover the soup pot, which makes her have to go buy more potatoes, and so on. And all this destroys the rhythm and rituals of her life. Her rituals keep her together. This orgasm actually destroyed her life, in a way. That’s why she kills the third client. Because she has an orgasm with him too, and she kills him. In a certain way, she kills him to preserve her obsessive world and keep it as it is. Delphine [the actress who played Jeanne] said to me, ‘If I have an orgasm, I want a second and a third.’ But I think she never lived in that world. Because in a certain way, I think that never having an orgasm is what held her together.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F2C0:9C12:E600:8DBD:7D1A:AF52:44E2 (talk) 22:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

'Real Time' - 'The film depicts the life of Jeanne Dielman in real time'
Akerman says it is not real time in this interview. www.canvas.be/programmas/de-canvasconnectie/server1-4fb24d04%3A13d7c2bafba%3A-4a14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.172.196.228 (talk) 11:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Your link is dead, but is the director's intent relevant when time can be objectively measured? 201 minutes is orders of magnitude shorter than three days, so the film is not a real-time depiction. 2A01:C22:A414:FD00:87C:49D4:9744:3DBD (talk) 10:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Category "Cooking Films" or "Films about food and drink"
Thanks to for raising this issue in a reversion of "CATEGORY:Films about food and drink," and edit summary (here).

I share the concern to get it right, or at least as close to "right" as the existing categories allow. It would be better if there were a category "Films with food themes" or some such, but....

The closest category I could find was "Films about food and drink," which still seems to me a little better than "Cooking films." I agree that it would be "reductionist" to use either one of them as the only category, but no more so than "Films about prostitution." Each of these categories has heuristic value.

My motive was to lead readers to this "seminal feminist film" (as IOO rightly terms it). Akerman has used food and cooking from the beginning of her career for thematic and analytical purposes, and it is not "reductionist" to acknowledge this aspect of her craft.

But again thanks for objecting to the original category and forcing me to add more sources.

BTW, what makes anyone think I am a "MAN"? ch (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles. 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: When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140331174817/http://www.filmsite.org/villvoice.html to http://www.filmsite.org/villvoice.html

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 22 April 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Opposed proposal made by an IP sock. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles → Jeanne Dielman, 23, Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles – Restoring the missing comma after "23". 90.249.169.199 (talk) 12:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The correct title is Jeanne Dielman 23,Quai du Commerce 1080 Bruxelles. There is only one comma in the title and there is no space between the comma and "Quai" in "23,Quai". The opening credits may be viewed here. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't title articles based on opening credits. You title them based on the WP:COMMONNAME, which is Jeanne Dielman, 23, Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles. And when writing addresses, a new line equates a comma, Roman Spinner. 90.249.169.199 (talk) 12:18, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There can be many competing sources — the author of a British film book may put three commas, the author of an American film book may use two commas and a Belgian film historian may depict only one comma. The cover of a VHS cassette may display an uppercase "Q" for "Quai" and the cover of the same film's DVD might exhibit a lowercase "q". There is no WP:COMMONNAME, thus the ultimate authority must rest with the on-screen credits, which feature an uppercase "Q", no space and a single comma. We are not writing an address on an envelope — we are indicating a film title in the same manner as the filmmaker intended, unless someone contends that a Belgian filmmaker doesn't know the proper form for an address in her native country. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 14:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Your personal policy is not Wikipedia policy. A quick Google search reveals that the common name by far has three commas in it. 90.249.169.199 (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC) 90.249.169.199 (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy is at Naming conventions (films). The Criterion Collection DVD cover has only one comma. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The policy you cite does not support your argument. This is the correct policy, anyway. Your Criterion cover argument holds no weight as the title is on multiple lines. When written in prose on the back cover of the same DVD, as well as on the Criterion website, the title has three commas. And a quick Google search reveals that the common name (by far) has three commas in it. 90.249.169.199 (talk) 09:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Commas, or lack thereof, do not shift depending on how the title is formatted. If there are competing sources, the on-screen credits, with a single comma, constitute the ultimate provenance. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no policy to back up your strange position on this. On-screen credits are almost always broken by line breaks instead of punctuation (commas and colons in particular). It's a visual thing. How they stylize the title on-screen does not affect how you write it in prose. 90.249.169.199 (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2019 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Source for quotation 'first masterpiece of the feminine'
This article, and others in Wikipedia and elsewhere, uses the quotation "first masterpiece of the feminine in the history of the cinema" that is attributed to the New York Times. I've been unable to find the original quotation in an archive search there. The quotation appears to be a translation of text in a review for Le Monde by Louis Marcorelles. The source for this is: I'm planning to make the corresponding revision, but am delaying a bit in case there are objections to my source. Easchiff (talk) 05:24, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

It's a slice of life portrayal of the life of a housewife
Um...? Slice of life describes the depiction of mundane experiences in art and entertainment. "Jeanne [...] has sex with male clients in her house daily [and] she murders a client." Sounds like my days aren't mundane enough. 2A01:C22:A414:FD00:87C:49D4:9744:3DBD (talk) 10:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The plot isn't even complete and felt like a tease to the readers
What happen on the third day?? Neocorelight (Talk) 06:37, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed (read the plot again, thanks). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 27 May 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) C LYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 01:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles → Jeanne Dielman, 23, quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles – A scholarly book published in 2021 uses this form throughout. Also matches what appears on the cover of the Criterion Blu-ray. Jovian Eclipse 19:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. C LYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 19:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)  — Relisting. C LYDE  TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 18:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per my oppose vote in the previous similar nomination above (Talk:Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles), but would support Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles → Jeanne Dielman 23, quai du Commerce 1080 Bruxelles or the alternative form Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles → Jeanne Dielman 23,Quai du Commerce 1080 Bruxelles. There is only a single comma in the title ("23, quai" per poster or "23,Quai" per on-screen credits) as confirmed by the poster appended to the article or by the film's own on-screen credits as seen here. As for the Criterion Blu-ray, it replicates the single-comma form seen on the poster. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Isn't the title an address though? It makes sense that in the screen credits and poster, the commas do not appear after Dielman and Commerce since the entire thing is artistically stylized, something that will not be possible in Wikipedia article titles (line breaks I mean). Also, I assume you are actually in agreement with the idea that a comma needs to be placed after 23, which was all I proposed here. I think in this case we should consider what the scholarly consensus is and due weight should be given to the fact that an entire book has been written on this film. Jovian Eclipse 07:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The title is indeed an address, but addresses are written inconsistently and this film's title may not adhere to the exact comma forms of home addresses in Brussels. The English Wikipedia article's current main title header uses two commas, your proposed header would leave those two commas in place and add a third comma, while the cover of the above-mentioned 2021 scholarly book by Catherine Fowler also uses only two commas, dispensing with the comma after "Dielman".
 * An entry for this film appears in 25 Wikipedias and the main header of each Wikipedia handles it in its own fashion — the German title is simply "Jeanne Dielman", the Polish title translates the address into Polish, the Spanish Wikipedia uses the same two commas as in the current English header, etc. Taking into account such inconsistencies, it would be best to simply use the single comma ("23,") that appears in both the poster and the on-screen credits and dispense with addition of other commas. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As the logic has been already mentioned, the cover of Fowler's book uses two commas because it contains a single line break, unlike the poster and film credits where there are two line breaks. It is worth noting that the very first print page of Fowler's book right after the cover goes back to using three commas, and this format is repeated throughout the actual text in the chapters. It thus seems quite consistent to me that wherever line breaks are not involved, using three commas is the norm. I also hold the opinion that reading "Jeanne Dielman 23" and "quai du Commerce 1080 Bruxelles" at one go but separately would actually cause more confusion due to the abrupt break caused by a single comma. Jovian Eclipse 18:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now per Roman Spinner if I'm understanding the discussion correctly. Adding another comma confuses the issue, so maybe the film's credits and poster should provide the title, although common name may be the present title. Since it is now officially the world's greatest film this RM should be left open and fully discussed until this is definitively worked out. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The film is in French and here in English Wikipedia, the French title itself is being used. Please note that the French Wikipedia article uses three commas and it does not seem to be causing any such confusion there, so I am not sure why not to follow suit here. And both the film's poster as well as credits use a comma after "23", so at least that much seems pretty consistent and thus, necessary to me. Agreed that this RM should be kept open till a wider consensus is reached. Jovian Eclipse 17:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Good points. I'll also wait for more editors to come by. I see you listed it at the Wikiproject Film talk page (I suspect the page moves too quick for everyone to read every section). Randy Kryn (talk) 01:00, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * , your turn to bring the coffee. I brought the expresso yesterday. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Since I have already informed the relevant Wikiproject, will now tag the top contributors of the article for their opinions. Hope this will not amount to WP:CANVASS. Also requesting the admin to relist this discussion for another week since no progress on consensus was made. Hello, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and , would love to know about your views on this issue. Thanks! Jovian Eclipse 14:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree. Nightspore (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you please make it a separate bullet point as above with the word "Support" in bold, for the sake of conspicuousness? Jovian Eclipse 19:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Neutral. For what it's worth,  The New York Times  uses the 3-comma version. Per Jovian E, I would give less weight to artistically stylized depictions. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)