Talk:The Year of Living Dangerously (film)

TYOLD
Ok it isnt a war movie, then why is a wiki editor qualified to call 65/66 'The Indonesian Civil War',?? My wife, (who had done an honours thesis on an aspect of 65/66) had never heard of the phrase being used - I never have. I am mystified why wiki procedures allow something like that! SatuSuro 15:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC) dengan hormat!


 * Satu, I chose "Indonesian Civil War" as a specifically NPOV title for the period. "G30S" is a specifically Suhartoist take on it, and given that even if the G30S plot were true there's still the question of whether the onus should be on them, or whether it should be on the Council of Generals they accused of treason. "Indonesian Coup of 1965/66" was another option on the table, but who committed a coup against whom--Daniel 16:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC) is arguable.


 * At any rate: why not call a military conflict, which took hundreds of thousands of lives, and ended up in regime change a civil war?--Daniel 15:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Well the main reason why I wouldn't call it a war movie is the fact that no armed conflicts are depicted in the movie. Furthermore an armed conflict is not necessarily a war. Yes in the 1965 - 1966 era there was some kind of civil unrest in Indonesia with mass killings. But still it wasn't a war. In a war there are clear combattants and there must be at least two hostile parties. In this event there weren't even any combat. There were only killings. There were killings of presumed communists. So I myself would call it some kind of genocide but not war. Meursault2004 16:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, there was a hot war going on in the background of TYOLD (the Konfrontasi) - the whole "Living Dangerously" line was based around Sukarno's words ushering in of hot conflict against Malaysia, UK, etc. But on the point of Indonesian Civil War - at least at the beginning of '65, there was indeed some combat between the "G30S" forces and those loyal to Suharto. I'm of the opinion that the period of combat was brief, and that after Jakarta was seized by Nasution-Suharto loyalists the casualties were very lopsided - hence, why the PKI's Central Committee-in exile called it just a "White Terror."


 * But of course, however, the same group criticized Aidit for not adhering to Mao's "People's War" doctrine - so one could imagine that there were those sectors of the PKI that were spoiling for a conflict. Hence, I titled it Indonesian Civil War rather than Indonesian White Terror or Indonesian Coup - it keeps things NPOV and open to different scholarly interpretations.


 * By, I should point out that I have an interesting hard copy "self critical" document the PKI Central Committee published from China detailing what they perceived as their mistakes in '65 and attempts to re-establish the Party. Unfortunately, it is without copyright information printed (this was likely due to attempts to get around import restrictions during the U.S. Cold War). I am looking forward to contributing some choice quotes to round out Indonesian Civil War. At any rate, toodles. --Daniel 16:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I am fairly certain the line "TYOLD" is from Sukarno's August 1964 National Day speech (not 1965), ie it was the title of the speech. I will check this and correct if necessary. On another point (not related to the article but the above comments) I don't think that you can refer to "G30S" forces even being in existence prior to the Gestapu (September 30, 1965). Suharto, btw, was a minor figure prior to the subseqent counter-offensive. If there was some fighting between the PKI's "fifth armed force" and forces loyal to the rightist Generals in early 1965 (I am not at all sure to what you are referring though) then this can hardly be called a war. 192.43.227.18 09:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Whitlam a Liberal?
Why is Gough referred to as a liberal in this article? His policies and his current political leanings are clearly social democratic, not liberal. Because of the distribution of english-speakers in the world, Wikipedia is mainly written by United States of Americans, who equate liberal with left because of a hostility to social democratic policies in US domestic politics remnant from the Cold War. If Gough is to have a political label at all, it must be social democrat or even socialist. If you can't tell the difference between a liberal and a social democrat, then don't use the label. Just refer to their political background (ALP, LPA, Democrat, Republican, Shooters' party etc). Unsigned message


 * complete and utter crap label of liberal - agreed - he was a labour (sic) prime minister.143.238.221.62 12:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Political Context
If I was really Indonesian, I would say "artikel ini ada nafas "plagiarised", some of the phrases read like from something I've read somewhere else. Please be careful with edits that you are not copying copyright material! - also sign properly and put in order!!! 143.238.221.62 12:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Rama..'s removal of spurious political commentary as OR is incorrect, its more like something plagiarised as editor above suggests - looks like we need adjudication on this one folks!

Maybe we need to have some - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Negotiation, or maybe SatuSuro 03:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Yearlivingsetdoihave.jpg
Image:Yearlivingsetdoihave.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Theme music
The title music for the film is L'Enfant by Vangelis (from the album Opera Sauvage). Is this significant enough to be mentioned, and if so, where in the article? — Loadmaster (talk) 02:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate tone
In the plot section, there is a sentence, "Guy is quietly shanghaied by Kumar, to keep him from harm and protect the information." Could somebody explain what 'shanghaied' means in this context? The next sentence is," Upon returning to Jakarta, Guy plumbs the depths with Curtis but then realizes his folly." Plumbs what depths of what? Any ideas anybody? Davidelit (Talk) 04:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Budget
In the infobox it is given as 6 mil., but the article gives it as 13 mil. What gives? Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 06:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Historical accuracies?
During the first half of the 60s, was traffic in Indonesia counter-clockwise (Mel Gibson was driving on the right). Also one thing, did KLM planes that landed in Indonesia have English text? Between Dutch speaking countries, I thought they would be written in Dutch. --88.89.69.14 (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As for the English text on the aircraft, English is the common language in aviation, so that'd be correct. Here's a KLM plane from 1964 to illustrate the point. Swanny18 (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. Sorry, BD2412; looks like the consensus disagrees with you. --George Ho (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC) George Ho (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

– The film is more popular than the novel (October: ). First page of every search results have both novel and film, but it also has recent death of the author. Unsure why the dab page still exists, unless criteria for primary topic are inconclusive or something. As for significance, the film is notable for well-known cast, including Mel Gibson, Sigourney Weaver, and Linda Hunt's portrayal of an Asian man. George Ho (talk) 05:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The Year of Living Dangerously (film) → The Year of Living Dangerously
 * The Year of Living Dangerously → The Year of Living Dangerously (disambiguation)
 * Oppose - sorry but this is the same as nearly every (novel)/(film) split. The Year of Living Dangerously (novel) gets less page views but more highbrow coverage, making WP:PRIMARYTOPIC subjective. The Year of Living Dangerously should remain a dab. The title is ambiguous. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is a malformed multimove request. There is already something at The Year of Living Dangerously, and no move notice has been placed on its Talk page. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I realize that; at the time, there were only two entries in the dab page. George Ho (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So your suggestion is to delete that dab page without giving any warning to anyone watching that page? —BarrelProof (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That was intended until more entries were added. Well, I fixed the malformation for you. --George Ho (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. If there were no film, the novel would be the clear primary topic; the novel was adapted into a film, which has overtaken the novel in notability. I would contend (as my friend George surely knows) that the film and the novel are not ambiguous to one another at all, because of their relationship, which will require that each be mentioned in the first sentence of any article on the other, and which will keep any thoughtful reader from being surprised to land on one or the other at this tile. However, even aside from that, there is clear evidence of primacy in this case, with the film being sought much more than all other topics combined. bd2412  T 16:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is not some obscure novel nobody remembers; the novel has some serious coverage. The Blue Lagoon (1980 film) has nearly 20 times the hits that the novel does (stats), but someone thinking that particular film adaptation is the primary topic would be off their rocker. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you consider the novel to be the primary topic of the term, then? bd2412  T 16:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not unless the novel is more viewed than the film. --George Ho (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I never said the novel should be without disambiguation. The current setup is fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Both are in need of disambiguating, so the current disposition is correct, IMHO. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Confucious and Crisco - as well as (1) the author of the novel has recently died, so usually interest in a deceased writers books has a spike unrelated to anything else (2) In ictu oculi's comment about primarytopic becoming subjective is a valid point (3) primacy and 'hits' imho is irrelevent in the case where: the novel was long considered (before the internet and google was even dreamed of) to be a significant fictional explanation of the issues surrounding 65/66 events in Indonesia. That in itself suggests the move is not justified. satusuro 12:24, 20 October 2013 (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.

Section on historical accuracy edited.
The list of possible conspiratorial culprits for the coup attempt is without any references, and therefore suggests responsibility without linking the suggestion to published sources or other evidence. Without referencing, we should not be listing possible culprits in support of opposing inflammatory theories of responsibility for such a gruesome chain of events. The report on the movie's content is fine. Leave the list of opposing theories (ignored by the movie) to the main article on the coup, where (one hopes) necessary references are given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.179.245.225 (talk) 06:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on The Year of Living Dangerously (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110218045303/http://film.vic.gov.au/resources/documents/AA4_Aust_Box_office_report.pdf to http://film.vic.gov.au/resources/documents/AA4_Aust_Box_office_report.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Music section
This section made a comment about the piece from Strauss's "Four Last Songs" being "Abendrot", but the IMDb page only lists "Beim Schlafengehen". So I've vagued it up a bit to reflect that. I've also added some stuff, because I didn't think that was the most important thing to be said about the soundtrack. I trust everyone is OK with that. Swanny18 (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)