Talk:Through a Glass Darkly (film)

No subject

 * This article was created on May 3, 2005 in response to this Slate article, which states "Film buffs have yet to post a page on Through a Glass Darkly; they're too busy tweaking the seven-part entry on Tron."



'Synopsis'
The plot 'synopsis' is FAR too long. This should be a brief outline of the film, not a tedious scene-by-scene commentary. (Wowser (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC))


 * The title alludes to the phrase "Through a glass darkly", used by the Apostle Paul (at [the King James version of] 1 Corinthians 13:12) to describe how we currently view the world, the idea being that at the end of time we shall at last be able to see clearly.

Another page with almost the same name
This note is to report a problem with this page and its relation to another. These are literally the first two posts of a new member, so I am clueless. Ideally an experienced editor will decide to handle this issue. If not I will need someone to explain to me what I should do to fix it. Note that I have no expertise in the subject matter of either page.

The two pages have the same title, differing only in the case of the word "a": Through_A_Glass_Darkly and Through_a_Glass_Darkly. One is about a 1961 Bergman film and the other about a 1978 album by Peter Howell and the BBC Radiophonic Workshop. Since the two pages do not refer to each other (nor a "disambiguation page"?) a user would be prone to find one while looking for the other and be confused -- like I was.

pedantic grammar comment
"The film explores the subtle terror of schizophrenia, both from the perspective of the patient, and their family." The plural "their" does not agree with the singular "patient," and should be replaced with "his" or "her" as appropriate. If the gender is not known, flip a coin. Also, I don't think "both from the perspective of the patient and her family" is right; it's the equivalent of "from the perspective of the patient, and from her family." It should be something like "from the perspective of both the patient and her family" or maybe "from two perspectives: the patient's and that of her family." I still haven't worked up the nerve yet to edit actual pages, so for now I'll just leave this comment here because it makes me feel I've done something.

p.s. I spent a fruitless 15 minutes or so trying to figure out how to create a disambiguation page, but alas, couldn't find instructions for doing this.Rosekelleher 21:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

- I don't see anything wrong with their. It's the pronoun used when gender is unknown, not just for a plural.

Karin masturbating
"That night, after rejecting Martin’s erotic overtures, Karin wakes up and follows the sound of a foghorn to the attic. She has a psychotic episode involving voices and the peeling wallpaper, and she masturbates."

Is it so clear she was masturbating there? Is that really what you'd call that?
 * I agree that's obviously someone's personal interpretation. I'm removing it.

Fair use rationale for Image:Såsom i en spegel.jpg
Image:Såsom i en spegel.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) 06:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead edits
Reproducing relevant sections of a user talk page discussion with Ribbet32 for further debate here:

Hi, not sure why you’ve reverted my edits without so much as a sentence of constructive explanation. A general plot summary of the film would summarize the numerous hallucinations and delusions the character experiences throughout, not one specific detail which only appears in the film's final ten minutes (but which your sentence misleadingly implies happens throughout). I don’t see the value of emphasizing this one detail over, say, her incestual act, or her hearing of voices in the wall, or her visions of her husband. It’s entirely arbitrary. Also, why have you separated the mention of one theme—"God is love"—from the sentence that discusses the rest of the film's themes? And why include this but not the influence of Bergman's wife and their relationship, which he speaks about just as often? Especially given that he explicitly denounced the seriousness of the film's treatment of this theme later on? gentlecollapse6 (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest taking this to Talk to build a consensus instead of edit warring. But the Spider-God is very notable; it ties to Winter Light and also look at the Criterion cover, and the characters' struggles with their views of God is a core theme. If you want to join the ending's argument God is love with the other themes in the lede you can surely do that without removing content. Adding "the Swedish island of Fårö", aside from being needlessly wordy in that context in the lede IMO, strikes me as US-centric; it's like going through every article mentioning Manhattan and changing each mention to "the United States island of Manhattan"; the Filming section mentions it's an island and if a reader doesn't know what Fårö is and is curious about what it is besides knowing it's a location, they can hit the link. Ribbet32 (talk) 05:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I haven’t suggested the spider-god is not notable... there is simply no reason to emphasize it in the context of a general plot summary—perhaps a thematic summary, given its symbolic importance, but it does not reflect or summarize the majority of the plot. Additionally, I did not remove mention of the "God is love" theme in my final edit but simply included it alongside the others (and phrased it more clearly), as it does not strike me as taking precedence over, say, the film's exploration of mental illness and deterioration (even Bergman retroactively states that this was his true interest in making the film). And sorry, just about every general piece of writing I’ve encountered about Bergman in relation to Fårö feels it necessary to label it an island, including including UK sources—the idea that it’s equivalent to Manhattan in the broad cultural imagination is somewhat silly. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Ribbet32, any response here? gentlecollapse6 (talk) 02:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Busy with a 12-hour+ workday Ribbet32 (talk) 04:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Obviously not too busy to make the reversions in the first place? I've removed "Swedish" from the description of Faro. The "God is love" theme is present in the sentence about themes (rephrased more clearly as "the equation of God with love"). The plot summary in the first paragraph is unobjectionable, in my opinion—it summarizes the film adequately. The spider symbolism can be discussed in the body of the article, including its thematic connection to Winter Light, but it's not a central point of the film's premise and reads misleadingly as such when included. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your impatience with Wikipedians who have to work for a living and your false accusation above no explanation was given. You're right the spider symbolism is discussed in the body of the article; per WP:LEAD the lead summarizes the article and per WP:SPOILER the fact that this occurs at the end is not grounds for removing it. Ribbet32 (talk) 17:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I work too; when I don’t have time to defend a reversion to a relatively mild edit, I don’t make that reversion. Simply dropping in a WP is not an explanation, especially when it doesn’t refer to the substance of my argument: that your summary does not reflect the majority of the story, spoiler or no spoiler. And you’re right that the lead should summarize the article, so I’ve added extra plot and thematic points discussed at equal length in the article body which you’ve left out for reasons unknown. No hard feelings. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Mistakes in plot
The following things mentioned in the article are not shown in the film: "incestuous sexual activity" as opposed to leaving the events open to interpretation, for example violence or a traumatizing conversation or making reality (seem to) explode as Minus says, "Minus tells the other men about the incident", "Karin vanishes and [reappears]". Maybe I have an abridged version of the film? (I think I have the Criterion Collection release.) For now, I plan to edit the article such that it is compatible with both versions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:EC:9720:E000:E05B:A268:6129:14F0 (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)