Talk:Mon Oncle

Recent additions
I see that there has been quite some effort to bring the plot to a quite well-versed form. I admit that being new to WikiProject Films, my recent addition may not be of the same quality. Yet these scenes, along with some in the Vacances de M. Hulot, show a part of Tati which likes to take a look at the world through the children's eyes. Also in Traffic he has the prank with the fur which is put under the wheel of a car to look like the secretary's dog. Also I wanted to include the scene where the dogs meet the entrance guard of the factory, which creates a great contrast between authority and free living, but failed to come up with an adequate and brief comment. I will appreciate it if my entry is corrected to better fit in with the rest of the plot, or if it is included in another section, going more in detail with Tati's (Hulot's) character. Provided the article is a stub, such a section could have lots to add. Hoverfish 11:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The dogs in Mon Oncle are a rather obvious metaphor for the principal characters and their dualistic interaction between the old world and the new. Their main utility is to provide a thematic introduction and ending for a film that has neither narration nor significant dialogue; I think it worked pretty well, compared to the abstract introduction and finale of Play Time.  But I'm one of those who don't believe that a synopsis should approximate an entire copy of the script; it should be enough to highlight interesting elements and themes of note for readers, should they care to do so.  And the 'Vacances' and 'Trafic' scenes belong in those articles, not this one. 12.72.119.32 (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Comedy through background voices
I don't understand the following sentence: how do indistinguishable voices become funny? No doubt this is because I haven't seen the film. But could somebody rewrite it to make it clearer for those of us who haven't seen it? An example would be helpful.
 * As with most Tati films, Mon Oncle is largely a visual comedy, with voices and dialogue merged into the background noise of daily life to provide subtle yet comedic sound effects. Cop 633 18:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I hate to say it, but you do really need to watch the film. While an article about a film using visual and sound gags can painstakingly describe specific scenes (usually ruining the effect for those who haven't seen the picture), it cannot normally reproduce the same comedic effect in written form.  That is especially true of Tati, perhaps "the only man in movie history to get a laugh out of the hum of a neon sign!" (Leonard Maltin) 12.72.119.32 (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, Rowan Atkinson, very influenced from Tati (and Chaplin) uses often indistinguishable voices in the Mr. Bean series (the church sketch being the best example). Hoverfish 12:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Although it's a sound movie, the character of Monsieur Hulot seems more of a silent character. I think the only line he utters in the whole movie is "Ça va?" ("How's it going?"). In general, he seems like an updated (for the 50's) version of the silent "eternal kid", such as Charlie Chaplin's, Buster Keaton's and Harpo Marx's characters. (Slight spoilers follow:) I have an example of a gag that explains it, Hulot has messed up on the factory, and his brother-in-law who's hired him and is the boss of the factory is upset, anyhow, he's constantly going back and forth towards and away from the camera, and while he walks away, the voice gets more quiet and mumbled, as it would in real life. This is quite typical Tati, sacrificing comprehensible dialogue for an audiovisual gag. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 12:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Image
Thanks for the image. I also appreciate it was added in Tati's biography, though we may also have to find one not in role to satisfy biography conventions (in a biography infobox). Hoverfish 12:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC) In the beginning I thought it was from Vacances (being black and white) and was tempted to remove it. Then I compared it to the poster in imdb and there is no doubt, this is the one from Mon Oncle. Hoverfish 12:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

slightly bemused
Not quite sure why the citation needed tag was added. I won't remove it - will leave that to a more experienced editor who can better defend the decision - but I think the statement is sufficiently clear as is, and does not seem to be weasel wording. Unlike scientific articles, any reference to a cultural work (film, book, recording, etc.) needs some sort of description and (subjective) point of reference. In general I think this is one of the best film-related articles I've come across. Congratulations to those who have contributed to it! --Technopat 15:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC) useful
 * The sentence in question reads "...and is perhaps his best-known work". 'Perhaps' is a bit weaselly; after all, you could add the same sentence to all of the Tati articles and it would be neither true nor untrue. The citation request belongs there because it's possible to provide evidence for such a statement - e.g. did the film do better at the box office than his other films? Is it more widely available on DVD? Did it win more awards? If you can find that sort of evidence, the sentence can be replaced with something more Econcrete and less speculative. By the way, this is a fairly average film article - Casablanca (film) is the sort of quality we should be aspiring to - check out its 'Reception' section which proves the generalized statements in its introduction. Cop 633 15:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * On your recommendation, I went to the Casablanca (film) page and I agree totally that it is worth aspiring to. Four things spring to mind as a result. First, however much I personally like Mon Oncle, whichever way you look at it, it is evidently nowhere near in the same league as Casablanca and the article page as it stands is ample and to the point.


 * My second point, however, is that while unfortunately many, if not most, people judge a film on purely materialistic criteria such as box office, DVD availability and awards (none of which, by the way, are especially objective measures, even if they are cited as sources), this in itself does not mean that it is well-known or better-known than an other.


 * And third, although I agree that in absolute terms the word perhaps is slightly weasely/weaselly (?), you must admit it sounds/looks pretty innocuous in the context of this article.


 * Finally, I came across the following gem on the Casablanca page: Perhaps the most famous misconception is the belief that Ilsa says "Play it again, Sam."


 * And last, but by no means least, I can assure you that I have no interest in upsetting anyone over such a minor issue - unfortunately there's aplenty of worse things out there on Wikipedia which needs seeing to urgently. Maybe someone could find a way of modifying the article in such a way as to do away with the need for the tag - if I find time later, I'll try, but right now I'm outta here! Regards. Technopat 17:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Seriously I don't have strong views about this either! I was just trying to explain why the tag might have been put there and I don't think massive offence would be caused either way.... but actual testimonials about the film's popularity will always be more appropriate than harmless guesswork. And yes, the same problem is there in Casablanca ... confound it. We must stamp this stuff out wherever it springs up!! Cop 633 19:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Howz 'bout something like ...is perhaps one of his better-known works. - I reckon that's pretty neutral, so propose modifying it so. - Technopat 20:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's still a mite weasely in that it doesn't tell us to whom it's better known, to what degree or in what capacity. And it's an opinion which needs what should be a very easily found source. Doctor Sunshine 09:41, 29 January 2007 (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 07:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mon Oncle. 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/20090102081318/http://www.interiordesign.net/blog/1850000585/post/1790035379.html to http://www.interiordesign.net/blog/1850000585/post/1790035379.html

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) 23:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The plot section contains no plot
It's just a summary of the attitudes of the characters. Even that isn't quote so; Madame Arpel is quite forgiving of her brother, it's her husband that insists on getting him a job and finally forcibly moving him away, mostly out of jealousy for never connecting with his son, Gerard.

A few sentences of actual plot would be nice, added at the end of the section; it doesn't need to be that long. Deliusfan (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)