Talk:The English Patient (film)/Archive 3

"a once-handsome explorer whose sacrifices to save the woman he loves spell his end."
Just how significant is the physical appearance of Almasy? At no time is it said or indicated that Katharine is attracted to Almasy based on his looks. To say so is an assumption possibly based on someone's criteria that could depend on one's ethnicity. What is considered attractive can have much to do with one's up-bringing, not to mention race or ethnicity. The only time that the appearance of the English patient is called into consideration is when Hana is questioned about her concern for the English patient possibly based on his disfigurement. He is already disfigured so it would not seem to be a condition to be characterized by handsomeness. Katharine says in the cave when she is placed while Almasy leaves her for El Taj that she had always loved him. Just when that love started is up for speculation. She was aware of him from before their first meeting at the camp because she had read his mongraph that her husband had given her before they arrived at the camp. Why she married Geoffrey is best characterized by Geoffrey's admittance that they were more brother and sister than husband and wife and she somewhat conceded to his persistence for marriage. So was it love that they married or availability?

Just what did Almasy sacrifice? If it is his life because he was seriously burned, that is based on what the German's did to him by shooting at the plane. He certainly did not sacrifice his allegiance to the British because he felt that they had betrayed him when he was detained in El Taj for deportation. Remember that a British soldier on the train to Benghazi said, "You can get your boat back home then." His escape did not help with getting the assistance from the British that Katharine needed, and his incapacitation following the fiery crash made it all the more difficult to explain what had happened to the Cliftons. Moose and Geoffrey worked in the same office suite (paper anniversary scene) and most likely Moose knew that Geoffrey was returning Almasy to Cairo via plane. Moose seemed to be totally unaware of the K & A affair if he thought that the Cliftons had not returned and had presumably last been with Almasy and presumed murdered. OR tells us that the British had control of the area after the defeat of Rommel so the camp would have been available to inspect and find Geoffrey's grave but that was not film content.66.74.176.59 (talk) 04:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Who are you, and why don't you have an account? I am worried that Ring Cinema may think you are me pretending to be someone else because you agree with everything I said a few weeks ago. I am going to remove that bit (for the 5th time) because it is ridiculous. I rewrote this entire article back then, removing tons of OR, poor writing, and other problems (a long bit that someone put in all about bi-planes!). As you can see from the above exchange, RC became impossible to deal with and I quit trying to reason with him altogether. Others supported me in spirit, but none were willing to engage with him because he has become notorious. I am taking his failure to come here to instantly revert all your edits as a sign that either he has lost interest in this page or is gone entirely, and will restore some of what I did already, as now there are two of us in agreement (he likes to use the notion of consensus as what makes an edit acceptable, but we all know that no consensus is required to remove and replace original research, or just plain making things up). It has also occurred to me that maybe I should sign out, post a message showing my IP address so that others can see it is different from yours, then sign back in, but that seems really paranoid. Maybe I'll do it anyway. Oh where oh where were you all those weeks ago?! Welcome to Wikipedia; I hope you create an account. --TEHodson 07:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I see that you have a history of editing WP, so I won't worry about your being mistaken for a "fake" me. I removed that silly sentence, and the title "Count." Everything else I had fixed you have fixed again. THANK YOU!! --TEHodson 07:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I have been spelling editing for a bit when I came upon the article only after a night of home viewing with friends. The film does not particularly flow in one dimension so we started to talk about it especially as one of us had read the book. I brought up the article to see what was said in the hope of clarifying some points. I decided this round that I would keep the IP identification since it is easier for me to remember; I made a note of the IP use on my page so that people would refrain from "advising" me to do so.

No we are definitely not the same person and I can understand your reasoning after reading some of the exchanges between participants that have gone on in WP. It can be very difficult for some people in this type of community article development. Some people can not help but be themselves. The idea of communally developing an article is not what is in the consciousness of everyone. This is not an environment to have the "me" vs. "them" attitude. Unfortunately, the non-face to face aspect of WP may encourage some to be more of a strategist.

It does not take much to antagonize or set off some people and it seems that something as simple as disagreeing can do it. Also, the level of legitimacy seems to be at a higher standard for some than those that have found it part of their way of editing an article to reflect what they believe should be in an article. I would not hold my breath that anyone that has previously participated in this article would return.

After having corrected a number of misspellings I am not of the opinion that longevity of content is the best measure of reaching WP standards. Content can remain incorrect as long as the article does not attract traffic, and someone sees what needs to be changed and does so without someone else reverting what has been done. As far as I am concerned, WP will always be up for change including * articles. Some people may not fully include what is needed in an article and not be aware of how is something expressed.

As for the changes that have been made since my participation in this article, I noted on the talk page my concerns and reasons and gave others a few days to respond since notification of changes can be automatically sent. There was not response or no disagreement so I posted. If someone else comes along and finds disagreement with the edited statements then they need to follow the procedure and post on the TP to state their objections and reasons for the potential changes.

Many of these film plot summaries are heavy. But if something is included in the PS then a reasonable explanation should be provided if there is not consensus.66.74.176.59 (talk) 10:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Escapes to German lines
Almashy never said that he escaped to German lines and no one said that the trade happened behind German lines. All we know is that he traded the British maps for German gasoline. I think we assume that, without anything to indicate so, the trade occurs behind German lines but we do not know that. The maps went from Almashy to the Germans and Almashy used German gasoline to fly the plane. We do not know who controlled the territory in which the trade occurred; only that the trade was made. So to say that he escaped to behind German lines or that the trade happened behind German lines is our assumption, a reasonable one that that considering the environment is northern Africa during WWII. But, not a definitive one according to what is in the film. Maybe, the book but that is another WP article. He escapes from the British transport train, the latter protected with metal plates presumably from German attack. But, we cannot say that the train was going through German controlled territory; only that there presumably was an enemy threat. But if an area is in flux people can be there but not necessarily so confident in holding an area as to designate it behind their lines. Think "no man's land"; think trenches; think biological warfare; think drones.66.74.176.59 (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

This plot description is seriously flawed
There are many errors in the plot description. He escapes from german captivity whilst aboard a train, and their affair never ended. The sapper doesn't leave, he is killed while defusing a land mine.

The author does not mention that the film carried an implicit question whether the protagonist was really a german spy and his entire story was made up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.29.13 (talk) 03:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The English Patient (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 this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120201203529/http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/legacy/ceremony/69th-winners.html to http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/legacy/ceremony/69th-winners.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) 20:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The Cave of Swimmers and It's Discovery Portrayed
Katherineby Almasy with the Clifton's present before World War II. Is there a nuance by which I missed establishing that despite his earlier publication, which would seem to in monographs of that type to include images of what is being described, that would explain the conundrum? A1Houseboy (talk)


 * If the sole "discovery" of the Cave of Swimmers is given to Almásy or the others in the party then we are imposing an ethnocentric interpretation to what is clearly established in the film that a native guide in his own language describes the area where the Caves can be found. Just because in a majority English language movie a portion of the lines are not captioned for translation does not exclude their content from the plot. So, if it is said that Almásy or the party found the Caves then that is a material falsehood since their discovery had been made by others and it was through that incidence although not in the film that gave Almásy what information made it all the more easier for him to establish just where the caves could be found and carry out a survey. So if we cloak the incident in that Almásy "said" he found the Caves then there is no possible misunderstanding as to what happened in the film. Almásy said that he found them, that is true. But the discovery of their existence was already established by the knowledge possessed by the native guide in his description.2605:E000:9152:8F00:A5CA:DE31:64CF:C266 (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

WP Policy may need to be established.
The problem with movies is much different than books or other publications because the standards of practice have been formalized in publications than movies. When I pick up a particular publication, it can be identified by particular content such as the copyright date, or publisher. But when it comes to movies, it could be the version that the broadcaster played which could or could not include edits that are made by the original producer of the film or the broadcaster to suit their purpose. So that people are editing and commenting on the same version it may be necessary for WP to identify just what version is it that the article is to be based. I thought that at one time I saw a version of this movie that included the allusion that Almasy, as he is in the book, jumped from the burning plan in a parachute that then caught fire. But as this was not a private copy I cannot be certain.21:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:9152:8F00:71AD:75FA:7E81:289F (talk)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The English Patient (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 this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150530052328/http://www.powells.com/review/2002_08_31.html to http://www.powells.com/review/2002_08_31.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) 01:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)