Talk:The Third Man/Archive 1

High
Acadamy award winner, classic film noir, Andman8 02:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The Novella
I have to dispute the opening paragraph. Graham Greene wrote the novella (it's not a novel) "The Third Man" first, not the screenplay. He did this to help him establish atmosphere and tone, since he found that the format of the screenplay didn't establish these very effectively. Then he wrote the screenplay based on the novella. The novella was not intended for publication, but it was subsequently published, with a preface by the author explaining how he came to write the novella.

I've read the novella, and it differs in many important respects from the film. The main character is called Rollo, not Holly, and he and Harry Lime are English. Calloway is the narrator, which gives it a different emphasis from the film. The ending is completely different and far more conventional than the much superior end of the film.

== I seen the page has been revamped since I wrote the note above, but it still claims that Greene later wrote a novel based on the screenplay. This is flat-out wrong. I may edit the page if this remains.

See this site: http://www.filmforum.com/making3rdman.html Especially this part: >> The Novella

In his preface to the The Third Man novella (in print from Penguin Books since 1949), Graham Greene wrote, "My film story, The Third Man, was never written to be read but only to be seen... For me it is impossible to write a film play without first writing a story. A film depends on more than plot; it depends on a certain measure of characterization, on mood and atmosphere, and these seem impossible to capture for the first time in the dull shorthand of a conventional treatment. I must have the sense of more material than I need to draw on (though the full-length novel usually contains too much). The Third Man, therefore, though never intended for publication, had to start as a story rather than as a treatment before I began working on what seemed the interminable transformations from one screenplay to another." <<

It is the story treatment (the novella) that was turned into the screenplay. It was never revised to incorporate the amendments that occurred during its transformation into a screenplay.


 * I made some changes recently and merely tried to preserve the information the was previously there. If there were mistakes here a week ago, they're still present now.  Since you have specific information you can contribute, you should go ahead and edit the article itself. --MarkSweep 12:18, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Will do, thanks!

Proposed rewrite
I'm proposing to rewrite/amplify the 'Third Man' article substantially. I believe there are more useful details to be included about the writing, direction and production of the film.

I am a bit doubtful about the initial description as a 'film noir', although it may fit into this broad category, I suggest moving this description to later in the article. Similarly, Holly Martins was a writer of 'western' fiction - not 'pulp', as I would understand it. I'll also write short filmographies of Alida Valli and Wilfred Hyde-White and link to those - as well as Anton Karas.

Any comments or suggestions, please get in touch on my Talk page. Bruce, aka Agendum | Talk 15:27, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Please, go right ahead and make whatever changes you think are necessary. Thanks for mentioning it here first; however, as the article is not about a controversial topic and there are no disputes going on, this is not strictly necessary. Just be bold!


 * Regarding film noir, I think the film fits quite well into that fuzzy category: the cinematography is about as "noir" as it gets, but the plot elements are also there: uninvolved outsider gets gradually and reluctantly drawn into an existing conflict; at one point the protagonist is accused of a crime he didn't commit; and you can check off almost all of the themes and clichés listed in the film noir article: murder/crime, infidelity, jealousy, corruption, betrayal, hopeless fatalism; disillusioned males and a femme fatale; people trapped in a situation they did not want; etc.


 * I don't think Anna classifies as a femme fatale at all, but I would still agree that The Third Man fits into film noir. ~ Dancemotron 01:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Re "Western" vs. "pulp": it's not necessarily a contradiction, as Martins seems to write the kinds of Westerns that might be published in pulp magazines. See also Western fiction, which discusses this sort of connection. I agree that "Western" should be mentioned prominently when describing Martins' occupation as a writer. --MarkSweep 19:19, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Don't make too light of the genre Holly Martins was given by Graham Greene and Carol Reed. The invented titles, the gaudy bookjacket of the novel carried by Kurtz--all are to set a tone familiar to people in the late 50's that has been lost today. "Pulp" aptly describes it for modern audiences, and "westerns" is absolutely essential. There was a certain style to pulp westerns--I have a number of preserved paperbacks--and the language of them might be described as baroque or even roccoco. Not what you'd expect if you've read Zane Grey or Louis L'Amour. Two of my favorite scenes in TTM come when Holly drunkenly corrects himself to mock Calloway and says "Raunch" for "Ranch", and when Kurtz obsequiously shows Holly the cover of his copy of "The Oklahoma Kid." Let it not be said that Reed did not have a sense of humnor in this film.--Buckboard 04:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Who is The Third Man?
I have to dispute the statement under "common misconceptions" that it was actually Harbin who was The Third Man - as I (and almost everyone else, I believe) saw it, Lime was indeed the Third Man. The Three Men in question were those who carried the body off the road - this body was not Lime's, it was Harbin's, therefore he could not have been one of the three. Presumably, Kurtz, Popescu, Harbin and Lime were all together, and Lime pushed Harbin in front of the car. The three of them then moved the body, and Lime then made himself scarce, and WInkel shows up seconds afterwards to formally identify the body as Lime.

I'm prepared to admit I'm wrong, but it seems so likely that I have trouble believing that Lime was uninjured by the car, and thatHarbin was still alive at the time, and only got murdered and buried in Harry's place later on.

Normally, I might follow wiki procedure and just edit it myself, but as MarkSweep added that section, and has put so much effort into the page, I thought I'd challenge it here first. --MockTurtle 10:35, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll have to watch it again to be sure, but here's what I remember happening. The superintendent (Hoerbiger) saw three men carry Lime's body off the street after the "accident", which he admits he didn't witness (in fact, there are no independent eyewitnesses, so it's not clear that anyone was injured at all). As far as the superintendent knows, Lime was fatally hurt in the accident and died soon after. He knew Lime personally and identified the body. So there is no doubt that in the scene that played out in front of the superintendent, Lime was the "victim" and Kurtz, Popescu plus a "third man" carried Lime off the street.  The police also knew Lime, so presumably Winkel's role was to issue a false death certificate, not to falsely identify the body as Lime's.  Also notice the uncertainty about the exact time of death.  Even if that's not what happened and it was Harbin who go shoved into the street, was hit by the truck, and died, it's still the case that as far as Martins, the superintendent, and the viewer are concerned, at least initially, it was Lime who died and Harbin was the third person to help carry his body.  I believe the scene when Martins talks to the superintendent is the first time the words "third man" are uttered in the entire movie, after which Martins begins to look for that third man. --MarkSweep 13:53, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll have to see it again too, so I can be clearer. However, I'd always assumed the superintendant was mistaken, that he hadn't seen the body was Lime for certain, but merely assumed that it must have been him after he heard Lime was dead. He was watching from some distance, after all, and his eyes probably weren't what they used to be.


 * More importantly, if Harbin was the third man, why would the others pretend he wasn't on the scene? He was known as an associate of Lime, and had not been seen for a while either way, so I don't think it would have made it any more suspicious if the authorities knew he was there. --MockTurtle 18:18, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I was a bit nonplussed by that statement to the effect that Harry Lime was not the third man, but I wasn't sure about it. So I went to the cinema and saw the film (one of the advantages of living in Vienna!), and I've since read the book. It is clearly implied (although never stated outright) that a third men helped to carry the body after the "accident", and since the body was not Harry's, and Kurtz and Popescu are the first and second men, Lime (perhaps pretending to be Harbin or someone else) must have been the third man who carried the body of Harbin, (but which was claimed to be Lime's). The witness didn't see any faces, but was told (wrongly) by others that Harry Lime had died, and so he reasonably assumed that the body he saw was Harry's. He did, however, see the right number of people. Martins then seeks the third man, and is naturally surprised when he discovers it to have been Harry Lime himself. One could interpret it as "the third man apart from Harry and the driver who was present at the accident", in which case it would refer to Harbin, but that seems an unlikely interpretation to me. --Stemonitis 11:37, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Having also seen the film recently, its clear that Lime is the the third man and that its Harbin's body. True, the film makes the viewer work this out for themselves rather than have one of the characters explicitly say so.  But if he wasn't then the plot simply doesn't make sense.  Besides, I can't believe Greene, a writer who clearly cared about plot, would double-bluff an audience and leave them deliberatly confused in this way. Jihg 17:08, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * I just finished watching the film, and I agree that it's pretty obvious. The shock for Holly and for the audience is that Lime himself is the third man. We don't know what the porter saw, because he was murdered before he could tell Holly the whole truth. He just didn't want to get involved (which actually makes more sense if he in fact knew that Lime was alive from the beginning). The body was Harbin, the third man carrying him was Lime. Ibis3 20:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The statement discussed here seem to have both come and gone since I was here last. Was it a separate paragraph under "Common misconceptions" stating that Harbin was actually the third man? I was not aware that there was any confusion on this point. Kurtz, Popescu and Lime wanted Harbin dead, staged the accident, and simultaneously gave Lime an opportunity to disappear. It is never said explicitly, put I always thought it quite obvious. I had even written a couple of lines explaining the meaning of the "third man" at the end of the synopsis (which apparently did not survive the extensive rewrite of that section), and would recommend such a clarification be put back in. The only mentioning of Harry being the third man is currently the paragraph about this not being a MacGuffin (under "Common misconceptions"). -- Andreas Karlsson 23 August 2007

cult film
this is not a cult film; any film listed in AFI's top 100 list can't be considered a film that has recieved little recognition. I'm removing it from this category presently. Shaggorama 10:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

..Cult recognition really has nothing to do with AFI's continued attempts to appear less mainstream...

Added a couple more entries on the end of the 'Cultural references' section, (sorry about poor sentence stucture, missing linkage and wrong quotation marks(sorry but am in too much of a hurry to do that more tidy).
 * How do you define "cult-film" anyway? ☺    Spiby   ☻ 14:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Documentary
I saw a documentary on the making of the this film, in which it was stated that Welles doesn't appear except as a shadow until late in the film, because he was trying to renegotiate his pay, and refused to film as a tactic. Unfortunately I can't remember the name of the documentary. Ajb 17:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The documentary you saw was probably "Shadowing the Third Man", a 2005 BBC Arena production, directed by Frederick Baker; see BBC program notes, and this Article by F. Baker on the documentary. Among other matters, it revealed that the grave allegedly given to Harry Lime [=light green] is in reality occupied by the body of Herman Grün - German for Green[e]. Michael Bednarek 09:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyright
So is this film public domain? It's in the public domain movie category. Theshibboleth 02:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Karas and "Harry Lime Theme"
Along with a little extra detail, I put in "and Howard" to the part that refers to the discovery of Karas and "falling in love with his music"(is there a less assuming way of saying that btw?). This is because both Reed and Howard have claimed to be the first person who went to the cafe he was playing at first and fetched the other person. I know a two word edit isn't normally worthy of mention, but it involves conflicting accounts of events and could seem incorrect to someone only aware of one persons account. SemperFideliS81 12:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Synopsis
I did a major reworking of the synposis and then it was erased and replaced with a much shorter summary. If it's not cool with Wikipedia to have such a long summary, I'd be happy to revert it, but I think it's much better this way. Either way, I'd like to know what's what. Dancemotron 22:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It's way shorter now, hooray! 129.237.168.172 04:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

1950 film?
According to the trailer, this is the "First Great Picture of 1950" but why is it categorised as a 1949 film? Reginmund 00:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Because that's the American trailer. It came out in Britain in 1949, but the US had to wait until 1950. Cop 663 01:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

mention that Holly seems to ultimately loses his plane
Holly, apparently, loses his plane at the last scene of the movie, just to be snubbed by Anna. Though no information for his future actions is given by the film (will he try to catch the plane? has he decided when to leave Vienna?) I consider this an important element of the end of the film, especially because Holly acts so in the awareness of his very few hopes with Anna. 85.73.206.131 (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Mistake in plot summary
The section "Details" says "Calloway takes him to a hospital and shows him children who died of meningitis after receiving Lime's under-strength penicillin." This must be wrong. The children are damaged in some way, but they're alive. I saw the film just once, many years ago, and I remember something about the shot of Martins walking silently through the hospital ward, but not enough to change this statement confidently. I think the children were paralyzed, possibly also mentally disabled, although the latter is harder to detect visually. Can someone more familiar with the film correct "died" to whatever the film shows? Cognita (talk) 06:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right. Calloway even says explicitly, "the lucky ones died". He took Holly to see the unlucky ones, i.e. the living survivors. Rwflammang (talk) 14:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't they imply that one of the children has died while Martins and Callaway are there by removing a teddy bear from a crib and laying it aside? --HarringtonSmith (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

possible cleanup tag
this article obviously has a lot of errors, and i think there should be a cleanup tag. JJ  Cool   D  23:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well then add the tag and be ready to defend it. Tool2Die4 (talk) 23:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, since you're here already, why not discuss the problems you see with the article in this space, rather than slap a tag on it and hope that someone sees what you see and does something about it? Better yet, if you see errors, fix them. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 00:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Reverts
Ed, why did you do those reverts? The key points were 'Prater Park', 'Ferris Wheel' and 'Russian sector'. The way that you have restored it to, involves German words and details that nobody is likely to be interested in. Also, I very carefully re-worded it to four power control and removed the word 'four' from before the word zones. Did you have any reason for your reversion? David Tombe (talk) 11:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Because they weren't as good. I've now removed "four" so that little matter is taken care of, the rest is good. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 11:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It's up to you. But you shouldn't lose track of the fact that Graham Greene stated that the sole purpose of that novel was to have it backdropped in four power Vienna. He wanted that obscure aspect of history recorded in people's minds. I heard him on the radio talking about it. It's wrong to say that the four power occupation is irrelevant for the purposes of the movie. It is highly relevant. It's highly relevant that Harry Lime was hiding over in the Russian sector. It's highly relevant that the meeting had to take place over the Danube canal in the Russian sector. So it's really a question here of you thinking that the names 'Leopoldstadt' and 'Vienna's second district' are better and more relevant than 'Russian sector'. David Tombe (talk) 12:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I see that you have left in the term 'Soviet Sector' which I put in. The reason why I removed 'Leopoldstadt' was because the location description was beginning to get top heavy with irrelevancies. I'll leave it to you to write it whatever way you like. David Tombe (talk) 12:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Ed, although I was the one that first wrote 'Soviet sector', I then had second thoughts. Would you prefer 'Soviet sector' or 'Russian sector'? The former is more accurate, but the latter is more descriptive. In a cold war movie, people generally think in terms of the 'Russians' as opposed to the 'Soviets', especially as the Soviet Union has now been disbanded for 17 years. I'd tend to want to change it to the Russian sector. David Tombe (talk) 15:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Soviet is better. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 19:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

TV Series
-"The Third Man" How to Buy a Country (1959) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.8.107 (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Book by Brigitte Timmermann
I have just discovered that an English-language edition of the best historical overview of the production of the film was published in 2005 - it is amazing that no one has used it to improve this article. I will add the book to the bibiography for now and when I have time add some material to the text. Testbed (talk) 12:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

No dispute about Reed as director
Some user accounts are persisting with a claim that there is some "dispute" which states that Welles, rather than Reed, directed The Third Man. This is clearly false -- there is no reliable source for this claim. All books and documentaries only mention Reed. More importantly, in his 1969 interview with Peter Bogdanovich (This is Orson Welles, page 220), Welles specifically said he made only minor contributions to the film -- and stated the film was all Greene, Reed and Korda. Without any reliable citations or references, this "dispute" is fanciful rumor and violates WP policy on WP:OR and WP:BOP. I've removed all mentions of a dispute from Orson Welles, Carol Reed, and from the associated film templates for Reed and Welles. — Cactus Writer |   needles  16:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It’s against Wikipedia policy to take sides in a dispute. To not present one side is to take a side by omission. It’s only in keeping with policy to mention the dispute but not endorse one side or the other. The fact that The Third Man DVD opens with Peter Bogdanovich declaiming that Welles had nothing to do with the film and that most reviews insist that Reed, not Welles, was the author, prove there’s a dispute, otherwise, there’d be no need to counter these claims. CharlesFosterKane123 (talk) 06:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect about Wikipedia's standards on neutral POV and its need to provide all viewpoints. Please read the section Undue Weight on the NPOV policy page. The accepted standard is: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. Given that you previously failed to provide any sources, and when you finally added one yesterday, it was speculation by fringe essayist Dan Schneider, this claim fell under "tiny-minority views." However, I have not seen the The Third Man DVD, and if Bogdanovich does state that Welles was the director and not Reed, that would certainly by a significant reliable source for this claim. What exactly does Bogdanovich say? — Cactus Writer |   needles  17:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It’s not a minor dispute, elsewise Bogdanovich, Jonathan Rosenbaum, and even Welles himself wouldn’t spend so much time disputing it. The fact that they continue to flat-out deny Welles as director seems to indicate that many people do continue to dispute the idea that Reed alone directed it. I also wasn’t aware that Schneider was a fringe essayist. I noticed his article in the reference section, and thus thought it an adequate source. CharlesFosterKane123 (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Again -- there appears to be no dispute among reliable sources. And they do not "spend so much time disputing it." On the contrary, from everything I have read, everyone dismisses it out of hand -- and seems to address it only because there is a fringe minority who try to popularize the myth. You mentioned Jonathan Rosenbaum. In his 2007 book Discovering Orson Welles Rosenbaum takes exactly one sentence to dismiss the idea as a "popular misconception" (page 24). As already mentioned, the key players themselves -- including Welles -- also dismissed the idea. I have no problem if you wish to add a statement in the The Third Man article to the effect that: there were some claim that Welles might have directed the film, but that the idea has been refuted by Reed, Greene, Korda and Welles himself, and that film historians have dismissed the claim as false. However, adding the word 'disputed' to the film templates only popularizes a fringe claim, and your additions to articles on Reed and Welles appear to promote something which scholarly consensus has determined is false. I am still interested in hearing exactly what Bagdanovich says on the DVD. What exactly does he say? — Cactus Writer |   needles  19:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why waste so much time dismissing it if it’s a mere fringe claim? Clearly, the idea has some traction. Most people who view The Third Man believe it’s a Welles film. Alot of critics seem fairly defensive in asserting otherwise. Why so defensive if it’s so obviously false? This should be treated like the JFK assassination and dissenting views should be treated the same way that the JFK article treats them.CharlesFosterKane123 (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) For the sake of expediency, I have moved this discussion from Template talk:OrsonWelles to here to allow comment by other interested editors. — Cactus Writer |   needles  17:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As I wrote above, there is no problem in mentioning in the article that there had been a claim that Welles was the director. The problem comes from your assertion that this "dispute" still has any credence among scholarly sources, when in fact it appears to have been rejected, dismissed and disproved by every reliable source -- including Welles himself. On an analogous note, we do not add the word "disputed" to "Apollo Mission" templates or "Men who walked on the moon" templates or Neil Armstrong's accomplishment list even though there is a minority voice which still disputes that there were any manned moon missions. That lends false weight to a fringe view and violates the core principal of verifiability. Despite requests, you have not added any reliable sources to provide the appropriate weight which can counterbalance the overwhelming consensus opinion. Your only argument says: everyone keeps rejecting the claim, so it must be true. That is an absurd deduction. Therefore, the word "disputed" should be removed from all the templates and filmographies where you have inserted it, and the claim of directorship on this article should be clarified to reflect the consensus of reliable sources. — Cactus Writer |   needles  18:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is more comparable to the controvery surrounding the JFK assassination than to the fringe claims of a moon landing hoax. Just as official sources continue to support the lone gunman theory, official sources re: film continue to support the idea of Reed as creative force, but just as most people believe a conspiracy killed JFK, most people believe Welles directed The Third Man. Why would official sources even bother to dismiss dissenting claims, if the dissenters didn’t have some traction? Hmm. CharlesFosterKane123 (talk) 03:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your statement "most people believe Welles directed The Third Man" is false -- there is no source for that. That some people believed it, is why it was called a "popular misconception." Your argument that the best sources keep disproving it, so it must be true, is absurdist reasoning. The sources disproved it so that people would have factual information -- the same reason we only use facts in an encyclopedia. This issue has been explained and clarified in the text. It is time to move on. — Cactus Writer |   needles  16:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your argument that the best sources keep disproving it, so it must be true, is absurdist reasoning. The sources disproved it so that people would have factual information -- the same reason we only use facts in an encyclopedia. This is clearly a distortion, as well as a misrepresentation of my argument. My argument was why would they even give any attention to the rumors and thus give them the appearance of having more worth than they really have, if they were in fact ‘mere fringe claims’? Everyone agrees that taking on these sorts of claims merely gives them momentum, as well as added weight. If they had no traction to begin with, why would most critics, scholars, and Welles himself pay any attention to them. The facts are that they dismissed the rumors precisely because they’d gained so much traction, not because they were mere fringe claims. Unless you are willing to engage in honest discourse, I’m afraid this one-sided view of things is not very encyclopedic. As an addendum, you ironically keep the claims by a guy you claim to be a fringe essayist in the external links section. P.S. It reminds me of how the attacks on Oliver Stone’s JFK ended up giving it more weight than it otherwise would’ve had. CharlesFosterKane123 (talk) 10:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

← I concur with CactusWriter. I support mentioning the issue as a "popular misconception", but it is undue weight to mark pages like the director templates as disputed. — Erik (talk • contrib) 01:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Virtually every established fact on earth is disputed by someone, and apparently this one goes on at the end of the list. Adding a "dispute" tag and other edits advancing a fringe view on the directing of this movie are disruptive.Stetsonharry (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

What more definitive source do you need than Welles himself saying I didn't direct it -- Carol Reed didn't need any input from me? Isn't that sorta "Case Closed"? --HarringtonSmith (talk) 06:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Watch the Woody Allen movie The Front and read up on the Hollywood blacklist. Welles was indeed blacklisted when the film was made, and it was fairly common to go to Europe, get a studio director like Reed to cover for you, and then ghost-direct a film. Everyone admits that Reed, widely acknowledged as a mediocre director aside from The Third Man, artistically admired Welles, and aped his techniques in earlier films. Now is it more plausible that a mediocre filmmaker like Reed suddenly churns out a classic, although the film’s star made the near-universally acknowledged greatest film of all-time, Citizen Kane, and afterwards continued a mediocre career, or that a guy who admired Welles agreed to beard the film for him, and deny the obvious to his grave? Reed is a one-hit wonder. many Welles’ films, from Citizen Kane to Touch of Evil to F for Fake, are acknowledged masterpieces. Thus, the case is far from closed. CharlesFosterKane123 (talk) 10:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The Front, excellent film though it is, is not a Woody Allen movie; it was written by Walter Bernstein, directed by Martin Ritt, and only featured Allen as an actor. More importantly, it describes a different industry (television, not features) in a different time (the '50s, not the '40s) and a different place (New York, not Europe) and it doesn't provide a whit of evidence that Orson Welles directed The Third Man with Carol Reed as a "beard". Reed was far from a one-hit wonder; he was the first man ever knighted for his contributions as a film director and he won a Best Director Oscar in 1968 (okay, Oliver is not my taste but someone liked it). When this Welles-vs-Reed myth first got going, it was contended only that Welles directed his scenes -- scenes that he appeared in. To contend that he directed the whole thing -- when he wasn't even on the premises for the great majority of the shooting -- well, CFK123, I think you're trying to have a little fun with us, old man. --HarringtonSmith (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * True, but Allen’s the star. The point is the Hollywood blacklist certainly was real, Welles was on it, and many people did go to Europe to get films made, whilst having a competent, but lacklustre, filmmaker like Reed act as a front against the blacklist. Most people consider Oliver! one of the worst Oscar-winning films ever, and I agree that it’s quite a dreadful film. Accounts contradict as to where Welles was at certain points, and when he finally showed up. Some say they were on the verge of casting Trevor Howard as Lime, and others say that while he didn’t arrive when he was supposed to, he arrived on time to shoot his scenes. If Reed indeed beard the film for the blacklisted Welles, that may very well be a cover story. CharlesFosterKane123 (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

67.234.131.115's contention about... not sure...
I'm opening this section in hopes of 67.234.131.115's participation before an edit war develops. --HarringtonSmith (talk) 12:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My contention is that after a bit of peer review, I found out that one of your sources was unreliable. I don’t seek to supplant Carol Reed as director, merely to point out the unreliability of certain sources, and to add that Welles did- perhaps falsely, perhaps not so, we’ll never know, take credit for the direction of the film. 67.234.131.115 (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We've had this discussion already (please see above). There is established consensus that the "Welles as director" is a popular myth -- and the misconception merits only a brief explanation in the article per WP weight guidelines. Criticism of Shadowing the Third Man by the Welles fan site does not make the source unreliable. (In fact, the reviewer only expresses their own confusion with the documentary's presentation -- this doesn't refute the historical comments by Reed, Welles and others). I think inclusion of the reviewer's comments in a WP article about the documentary is fine -- but serves no purpose here.
 * Also, I disagree with the your addition of Welles as uncredited writer in the infobox. We don't normally add "uncredited" credits unless an established reliable source does so. Is there any for this? — Cactus Writer |   needles  10:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with 67.234.131.115's discomfort with the BBC documentary as a source, and since it's a relic of older, now discarded, parts of the argument, there's no need even to mention it. How do we all feel about this paragraph to address the popular myth:
 * Through the years there was occasional speculation that Welles, rather than Reed, was the de facto director of The Third Man.[2] Film scholar Jonathan Rosenbaum, in his 2007 book, Discovering Orson Welles, calls it a "popular misconception,"[3] and Welles himself admitted in a 1967 interview with Peter Bogdanovich that his involvement was minimal: "It was Carol's picture," he said. Welles contributed some of the most memorable of his dialogue, however, including his signature "cuckoo-clock" remark.[3]
 * How does that strike you folks? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problem if you wish to make that change -- it's nice and succinct. If you wish to plug it in, don't forget the Bogdanovich citation for the quote. — Cactus Writer |   needles  16:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 67.234.131.115: What do you think? Do we have consensus here? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 06:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. 67.234.152.89 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC).
 * Thanks everyone! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 06:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Allmovie
Reference available for citing in the article body. Erik (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ... plot synopsis, review, cast, production credits, awards

overwhelmingly positive critical reaction
HarringtonSmith has three times reverted the characterization "overwhelmingly" positive critical reaction. First based upon the argument that since some positive reviews included critical comments they were not overwhelmingly positive. "designed (only) to excite and entertain" precludes "overwhelmingly" positive, doesn't it?. Then because a cite was lacking: "Overwhelmingly" needs a cite; critics objected to the score and the slanted camera. A reference was added (but apparently not referred to) and then yet a third objection of "hyperbolicity" was made: overwhelmingly" is hyperbolic and therefore unencyclopedic; critics were MOSTLY positive, NOT overwhelmingly.

The question arises, which comes first, the reasons for the objections, or the objection itself. It seems that the fact of the objection is prior, and the justifications are added on afterwords.

This comment of HarringtonSmith's that I quote (bold italics added by me) from my talk page, shows that an objection with a certain editor seems to be relevant: My objection to the "overwhelmingly positive" remark in The Third Man article is the word "overwhelmingly," which is hyperbolic and therefore unencyclopedic. It is also untrue. The fact is that the critical response was not overwhelmingly positive — critics objected to the score and to the Dutch angle cinematography, among other things. So "mostly positive" is about as far as you might go. You might also check out the past edits of the IP editor who inserted the word "overwhelmingly" — his/her edits are strictly hyperbolae, one after another, always summarizing film reviews in extreme terms. You should do more homework before accusing me of misreading a quote. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The unfortunate fact is that each edit must be judged on its own no matter how much we disapprove of a certain editor in general. Editing is a consensus process.

In any case, it happens to be that the vast number of reviews of this movie are indeed positive. The TCM Essentials series article says:"The resulting movie, The Third Man, was an overnight worldwide hit and is often listed as the greatest British film of all time."

And I quote the British Film Institue article at length, bold added:


 * 

HarringtonSmiths' most recent edit changes the article from saying overwhelmingly positive to "mostly" positive. As a matter of reading comprehension, I submit that the word "mostly", which means "at least 51%" is a poor word choice to express the sense conveyed by:


 * "overnight worldwide hit and is often listed as the greatest British film of all time"
 * " Cannes film festival, where it won the Palme d'or, the festival's top prize"
 * "a huge box-office success both in Europe and America, a success that reflected great critical acclamation."
 * "positive critical reaction extended to all parts of the press"
 * "The enthusiasm carried over into popular and professional magazines"

and, of course:


 * "Dissenting voices were very rare, but there were some."

"Mostly" indeed! The word overwhelming is perfectly acceptable in this circumstance. "Almost unanimous" would work just as well. The edit is supported, the alternative is too week to reflect the evidence, and a fourth reversion of it at this point without consensus is unadvised.μηδείς (talk) 19:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Medeis's lengthy quote from the BFI deals mostly with critics in Europe; the quote in question is: "Upon its release in the US (italics mine), it received overwhelmingly positive reviews by critics..." so its validity, like most of Medeis's argument here, does not really apply. I guess it's just a difference in defining "overwhelmingly"; the Crowther Times review he so proudly points to also contains the remark: "For the simple fact is that "The Third Man," for all the awesome hoopla it has received, is essentially a first-rate contrivance in the way of melodrama—and that's all. It isn't a penetrating study of any European problem of the day (except that it skirts around black-markets and the sinister anomalies of "zones"). It doesn't present any "message." It hasn't a point of view...." To me, "overwhelmingly" indicates near-unanimity; even Medeis concedes that "there were some [dissenting voices]." How many dissenting voices does it take to preclude the word "overwhelmingly"? I reiterate: that word is hyperbolic and therefore unencyclopedic, and is ill-advised for use in the Wikipedia context. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * In the paragraph just preceding the one with "overwhelmingly" is the word "underwhelmed."
 * Perhaps there's another word to use besides "overwhelmingly." -- LaNaranja (talk) 20:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

"Mostly" is simply too weak — sometimes the evidence does justify the use of strong yet perectly cromulent terms like "overwhelming," for which my Oxford provides the example "an overwheming number of players were unavailable" and offers "very large" as a synonym.

I think the solution to the underwhelmed problem is to remove or rewrite it. Does some source say underwhelmed?

A literal and attributed quote of the source is always fine with me.

And hence I added the verbatim quote that negative reviews were "very rare" and added the quote from the commie rag.

I have also changed the wording to make it clear that what is overwhelming is the number of reviews which are positive, in other words, the vast majority of reviews are positive (to some extent or another), not that each review itself was overwhelmingly positive. That was a bit ambiguous and I hope the new wording will be acceptable. μηδείς (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, Medeis. Hope your Sunday's going well, and glad to meet you :) "Underwhelmed" is the word used in the cited article for the Vienna critics' reaction, so it needs to stay in. I agree that "overwhelmingly" is absolut cromulent, but HarringtonSmith is correct: it is hyperbolic; see its equally extreme synonyms. Please choose a different word! Thanks -- LaNaranja (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Why don't you just begin the paragraph with: "Around the world, the critics embraced the film warmly"? It makes your point better than what's there, and frankly, the writing's better. It also gets rid of the problematic "overwhelmingly" which sparked this whole silly business (the on-line dictionary defines "overwhelming" as "1. That overwhelms; overpowering. 2. So great as to render resistance or opposition useless." Seems kinda belligerent for a pack of printed movie reviews, dunnit?). — HarringtonSmith (talk) 00:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, LaNaranja. The current wording is this: "Upon its release in Britain and America, the overwhelming number of reviews were positive.[13]" I think this is perfectly accurate and understated compared to the sources.

But feel absolutely free to use the following verbatims (if you find it less hyperbolic than saying that the overwhelming number of reviews were positive):

Outside Austria the response was different. The British Film Institute reports that "The Third Man was a huge box-office success both in Europe and America, a success that reflected great critical acclamation" which "extended to all parts of the press, from popular daily newspapers to specialist film magazines, from niche consumer publications to the broadsheet establishment papers." Writing for Turner Classic Movies' "The Essentials" series, John Miller reports that "The Third Man, was an overnight worldwide hit and is often listed as the greatest British film of all time."

Either is fine with me.μηδείς (talk) 00:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "Understated"? "Overwhelmingly" is understated?! Hahahahahahaha! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 04:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Pardon my shaky grammar, but in the sentence "Upon its release in Britain and America, the overwhelming number of reviews were positive." — isn't the subject of the sentence number, singular, while the verb, were, is plural? Aren't they supposed to, ummmm, agree? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 04:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to add a couple of words to the opening paragraph acknowledging that this film is widely hailed & considered by most to be a classic. My sense is that the debate is more whether it is truly a top ten film, or merely (as someone put it can't remember who ATM) merely one of the most enjoyable 'great' films of all time. I will stop short of the wording that rottentomatoes uses at the top of their Third Man page: "one of the undisputed masterpieces of cinema" http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the-third-man/. Praghmatic (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Does Holly Martins shoot Harry Lime?
Not in the version I just watched, Harry looks at Holly as if to say shoot me but the camera cuts to a view of Major Calloway when a shot is heard. Could it not be that Harry shot himself? It did seem ambiguous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.230.237 (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It was cut that way because British censors were uncomfortable with showing a man killing his former friend. This is also why Callaway calls out to Martins to shoot Lime if he sees him — Martins is then following orders. This background is discussed in several books. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Renewed debate about Reed as "beard"
The added item to the "Style" section makes reference to the German Expressionist flavor and to Joseph Cotten's presence in the cast as "evidence" that Welles was the de facto director of The Third Man. The cite here is an old fan site via Pandora; the theory this site propounds is a conspiracy theory that no credible film scholar or historian gives any creedence. Not only are better cites required for the two contentions, but better arguments are required for their inclusion: How does a neo-Expressionist mise-en-scene prove that Welles directed? How does Cotten's casting (by Selznick, by the way) prove that Welles directed? Welles certainly didn't have a copyright on Expressionism or an exclusive contractual control over Joseph Cotten.

If there was any creedence to the Reed-as-beard theory, then these two points would be worth including. But, anyone who knows the dynamics of film financing and production — and who knows the personalities involved, particularly Selznick — knows there's a better chance of Lee Harvey Oswald having directed The Third Man than Welles having directed it. (He wasn't even in town during most of the production.) Everyone involved — most notable Welles himself — says he didn't direct it, that Reed did. Why clutter up the article with blind alley "evidence" of a theory that no reputable film historian believes? Please let's delete this recent addition. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 05:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The recent addition is an improper WP:SYNTHESIS of disparate sources to create a false logic: a) Joseph Cotten is in the film; b) Joseph Cotten and Welles were friends -- c) therefore Welles directed the film? There is no reliable sourcing provided for that conclusion. Even the weak blog source does not state any such thing. And the Ben Walters book talks about Cotten and Welles being friends but in no connection to the Welles-as-Third Man-director myth. (On the contrary, on pages 84-85 Walters credits Reed's direction, calling him "Britain's leading director", "a talented director," "Reed (and Greene) went further than Orson ever had in stripping the magician of his mystique" and calling Lime "the only thoroughly Wellesian role in which Orson did not direct himself." It is disingenuous to use Walters as a source for promulgating a myth which he does not assert.) I am deleting this recent addition as original research and pure synthesis without proper sourcing. — Cactus Writer (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The original referenced comment was challenged solely because the original cite did not refer to Cotten as a friend and collaborator.  I provided an additional cite for that fact alone - there are many such references available making the friend and collaborator claim in many contexts.  Yworo then removed the original cite for the claim as a whole, rather than asking for an additional one.  How you gentlemen came to the conclusion that my cite was meant to support the entire sentence, rather than just the parenthetical "friend and collaborator" claim, is baffling.  (Indeed, why friend and collaborator even needs support is baffling - but look at your own edit summaries.)  I am restoring the original statement with the two cites, and, further, will attribute it to its author, since it is a POV.  If you believe that further "support" is needed, then explain exactly what it is that you think is unsupported, and I will find it or delete it myself.  But finding support for the characterization of Cotten as Welles' friend and collaborator is merely that, and has nothing to do with any imagined synthesis.μηδείς (talk) 19:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Please do not restore until this discussion is concluded. It is obvious you are unclear about the current objections. And I think you have a misunderstanding of what "WP:SYNTHESIS" means. —  Cactus Writer (talk) 19:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Gee, was Hitchcock a beard for Welles when Cotten appeared in Shadow of a Doubt? Cool beans! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Childish nonsense such as this is not helpful.μηδείς (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

No, CactusWriter, I do not lack an understanding of what synthesis is. Yes, as I kept repeating, I was unclear about the current objections, which were very unclearly stated. (Look at HarringtonSmiths helpful comment immediately above.) But I see the problem on my own now. After looking again at the deleted source, I agree that the original statement here was a synthesis, and that supporting the fact that Cotten was a friend and collaborator of Welles' does not support the claim as written. It was merely objected here before that the original quote did not use the "words" friend and collaborator - but that objection was beside the point. The objection should have been that the source made no such argument from the presence of Cotten at all. I am not about to try to supply such an argument that is lacking in the source.μηδείς (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. Thanks. That was the core of the objection -- and the reason the dependent clause was removed. I realize now that you only meant the Walters book to source the friendship -- unfortunately, adding that source to a sentence about the misconception unfairly implies that it supports the entire sentence. The final objection was that the Retort Mag article is a fairly weak source which espouses a fringe viewpoint (and with a conspiracy theory, to boot). There was a long discussion about the fringe view on this talk page somewhere above. I am not much in favor of giving that source much credence. — Cactus Writer (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Careful with your personal attacks, Medeis. Incidentally, the singular possessive of Welles is Welles's — your Welles'  would indicate plural possessive of more than one Welle. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that reminder, HS. Too often I screw up those possessives, too. — Cactus Writer (talk) 20:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * My pleasure, CactusWriter. :)  — HarringtonSmith (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Your problems, HS, are apparently multiple, not least of which is failing to know that "s'" is a valid alternate singular spelling, just as "Jesus'" is often found as the possessive form. See here. Surely my pointing out that silly analogies with juvenile comments like "gee" and "cool beans" are childish distractions from the matter at hand is not controversial. You also don't seem to understand that pointing out minority theories which are actually held, so long as they are identified as such, is a proper practice. See WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. I suggest you pay closer attention to what is actually being said, learn to express yourself more clearly, and with less emotion, and be less worried that some POV that you do not adhere to yourself might be mentioned in an encyclopedic article. Maybe you can discuss this with personalities you know, like David O. Selznick. μηδείς (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Your belligerence is astonishing, Medeis. I am embarrassed on your behalf. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Just not cricket
I see someone with no regard for the minutiae of cricket has snipped the redirect 'third man' → cricket field positions and sent it here instead. This left the third man fielding position undiscoverable which is a bit harsh even though these days it's hardly used. Third man probably should direct there as it's the only content of that exact name but I suspect in a popularity contest this article would win out, accordingly I've just inserted a link to the field position in the article. Hakluyt bean (talk) 01:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * To eliminate the hatnote clutter on this article, a disambiguation page has been created at Third Man (disambiguation). I've included a direct for the cricket position there. — Cactus Writer (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Uncredited "credits" in infobox
I always read here that infoboxes carried the studio's official information of record — the documented credits as put forth in the credits onscreen. The Third Man infobox has picked up some "uncredits" — rumored scuttlebutt from the dubious source IMDB. While Welles, Korda and Reed no doubt contributed to dialogue development on the set, they did not get screen credit for their contributions. Ditto Korda and Selznick as "uncredited producers". Their un-credits should be removed from the infobox and, if they were significant, discussed in the text. Comments? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The guideline at template:Infobox film is that these categories like "Written by" and "Produced by" are primarily for credited names only. I think some leeway might be given for older films which didn't have the strict WGA and PGA criteria that are used today. I don't have a problem with Korda and Selznick as producers since they had "presented by" credits in the film, which is the equivalent of executive producer credits today. The written by credit is different. It is clear that Greene had the only original story and screenplay credits (today's "written by"). Like most films, there is often input by multiple names, especially from the film's stars, producers and director. In this case, there were suggestions and tweaks by Reed, Korda, Selznick, Cotten, and Welles as well as from other hired writers like Peter Smollett, Jerome Chodorov and Mabbie Poole. None of these, though, would qualify for the WGA's "written by" credit today and should not be included in the infobox. I agree that any significant non-credits can be written into the text, as has been done with the cuckoo clock line. — Cactus Writer (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

|} at the end
There's an excess |} hanging at the end of the article. I would have fixed it but couldn't figure out where it comes from. Maybe it's from a faulty template? -Uusijani (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow. I looked, too, and I can't find it. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Removed. . Not sure of the reason it was ever there. — Cactus Writer (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Baron Kurtz and Dr. Winkel--Are they gay? Anyone know anything about this? With that little chihuaha, and other signa, they have to be gay.207.237.139.174 (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC) Allen Roth


 * Interestingly, in the "Selznick cut" that played in the U.S. (and on American TV) from 1949 to 1999, there were several tiny trims that made Kurtz and Winkel seem "less gay." Most notable is the scene when they're on their balcony, talking to Martins down on the ground; he tells them to tell Harry to meet him at the Ferris Wheel. The American edit cuts away two or three beats sooner than the rest of the world's prints, avoiding their intimate embrace as they turn to go inside. It's nothing explicit, but it does project a homoerotic intimacy. The Selznick cut was retired in 1999 when the restored (and full length) 50th anniversary version came out. I haven't seen any critical or scholarly writing on this, and I'm not motivated enought to dig out my old VHS prints to quantify the trims. I've known a couple of tough-guy biker types who would disprove your theory about chihuahua owners having to be gay though. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 01:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Martins shoots Lime, with his OK
I don't have a source for this, but here's my comment. Am I the only one who has noticed that when Holly Martins catches up with the severely wounded Lime, Martins looks Lime in the face, Lime looks back at him and nods, and then Martins shoots Lime dead. This wordless exchange is clearly capable of several different interpretations, but to me it looks as though Lime gives Martins permission to kill him. Invertzoo (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you can find a good, reliable source that agrees with you, then it can go in, otherwise it's your interpretation and opinion only, I'm afraid! - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 00:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, this source agrees with my reading of that scene, and I assume it counts as a reliable source:


 * http://www.filmsite.org/thir.html


 * Would someone else care to put the reference in as a favor to me?


 * Invertzoo (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Length of plot summary
Just now I went through the plot summary and trimmed it down a fair bit, but I suppose it needs to be shorter still, so I left the tag on it. Invertzoo (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I removed the tag; it was a good edit and the summary reads much better now. Somewhere deep in the MOS I read that cites were discouraged in Plot summaries: if it's a matter of interpretation (therefore needing a cite), then it's not a summary of the plot, it's critical analysis. I say leave it in, without the cite. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I see that now User:Hydeblake has replaced the tag because the summary was 816 words even after my pruning, rather than a MoS maximum of 700 words. So about an hour ago I went through the section again and got it down to 667 words. And then I removed the tag. I will now tweak the prose a bit to make small improvements. Invertzoo (talk) 13:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oops, I did the same thing, without knowing you were working on it. If you like yours better, just revert mine. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Hit by a lorry?
Our Plot summary has Harry Lime being hit by a lorry. Didn't the porter tell Martins that "Mr. Lime was knocked over by a car"? And subsequently tell him that it was his own car and driver? My memory could be faulty on this. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You are correct, it was a car and it was Lime's driver that was driving it. I changed that just now, thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 01:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know if anyone actually says it was his car, but they definitely say it was his driver. Invertzoo (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Kurtz says that he was hit by a truck. The porter could’ve simply meant “automobile” when he said “car”, and the film also establishes his English isn’t very good.67.239.32.17 (talk) 23:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right, Kurtz does say it was a truck (though not a "lorry"). He's hardly a credible source, though, and once it emerges it was Harry's driver — what would he be doing driving a lorry? This script seems pretty close to the final film (at least in my mind), if it helps as a resource. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 00:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The porter is the only one who is likely to be telling the truth about the incident; Kurtz and Harry's other "friends" are completely in on the deception, so they are all lying about what happened. The porter however does say "car", and yes his English is not very good, so who knows what he saw exactly. The audience will never know how precisely Harry's "death" was staged, and how Harbin's body was substituted at the crucial time. I think all these spoken ambiguities are there in the script deliberately to make the audience uneasy and let them know that something is being hidden, right from the start. Invertzoo (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "I think all these spoken ambiguities are there in the script deliberately to make the audience uneasy" — not unlike the German! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

References to use

 * Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.



Drug dilution case
In the 90s-2000s, a Kansas city pharmacist, Robert Courtney, actually carried out Harry Lime's scheme, causing the deaths of many cancer patients.

Law and Order Quote is wrong
The quote of Jack McCoy referencing the Third Man was really off. I've had trouble finding it online, but I realized this after watching it tonight on my Tivo. Too bad I deleted the episode before noticing the discrepency.

Score: William Whitebait quote
It looks as though that quote did the rounds in various journals and papers, though the only on-line source I can confirm is its appearance in The Miami News: I've given this as the citation for the present, but suspect it probably appears also in the Time Magazine article "Zither Dither" (if so, the likely source for The Miami News). Anyway, until someone who is a Time subscriber can confirm this, or the precise issue of New Statesman and Nation Whitebait's quote first appeared in, I hope Miami News will do. Alfietucker (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Narrator
i dont care what book or interview or script or whoever sez. As far as the version shown in America (USA), i can swear that's Trevor Howard's voice doing the opening narration, not Reed, and certainly NOT Cotten. Thoughts/ideas anyone?76.218.248.127 (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

TV series needs its own article
Any TV series syndicated internationally for five seasons, with notable stars and directors, is inherently notable. There should be a separate article for the series. 68.146.70.124 (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

External links:
Removed the following. They would work better as sources instead.

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * BFI feature on Graham Greene's true-life models for the characters of Harry Lime and Holly Martins
 * Essay comparing The Third Man to Steven Soderbergh's The Limey