Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2012 September 28

= September 28 =

Egyptian starring Adel imam and about Israeli embassy
What is the name of the Egyptian film starring Adel Imam and it is about the Israeli embassy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.40.122 (talk) 02:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Adel Emam says: "In 2005, he starred in Sifaara fil'Aimara (Embassy in the Building), playing a Cairene everyman inconvenienced when the Embassy of Israel moves into his apartment building." IMDb calls it El-sefara fi El-Omara. This appears to be more correct. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Nations Bangladesh recognition
How many nations recognized Bangladesh as an independent nation in 1971? How many nations recognized Bangladesh as an independent nation after the death of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.40.122 (talk) 02:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure why this is here, as I'm not sure this question is one about entertainment, but whatever. According to Foreign_relations_of_Bangladesh, Australia was the fourth nation in the world to recognize Bangladesh as an independent nation in 1972.  So that would mean, by deduction, that no more than 3 other nations recognized Bangladesh in 1971.  Scanning the article, it looks like most other nations got "on board" during the next few years.  It was admitted to the United Nations in 1974, which is usually the indication of "full acceptance" as a legitimate independent nation, even among nations who had not yet established a formal embassy.  -- Jayron  32  03:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Chris O'Dowd ,,,
did you know he's famous now for being in an Australian movie called 'The Sapphires' .. ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.103.252 (talk) 10:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * His role in it is mentioned in Chris O'Dowd, and two positive reviews of his performance are referenced in The Sapphires. Looks like the boy done good. -  Ka renjc 11:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Fleetwood Mac video
Would anyone happen to know who's the man playing the Highwayman and the woman playing the innkeeper's daughter in the Fleetwood Mac video for their song Everywhere? Thank you in advance.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure of the actors but it seems to have been directed by Alex Proyas if that helps any. Blakk   and ekka 16:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Help with Bach English Suite no. 3 Gavotte II
The above piece has a continuous G played on the left hand. There is a tie accross this G all along the piece. Is it supposed to be hammered more than once? How are we supposed to here it otherwise? (I know the piece was originally written for a church organ, but what is the traditional handling of this on the piano)? Thanks, Gil_mo (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's how Sviatoslav Richter plays it (from 5:14). Or here’s a slightly more wayward interpretation from Glenn Gould (from 26:17; he observes only the first repeat, Richter does both).  My ears are not perfect but you may be able to pick where and how often they strike the G.
 * In my score, the first group of ties applies only to the first repeated section. Then the G is struck again at the start of the second section and appears to be held down till the end of that section, which is also repeated.  That would make a minimum of 4 strikes of the G. but I admit that's not many in a piece of 36 bars including repeats.  Whenever I've played it (which is not that often), I've followed the score to the letter and never thought too much about how the G sounds.  I always assumed it relies on resonance rather than an overt drone.  There's certainly more resonance when played on a piano (which Bach never saw) than the harpsichord he had, so I'm unsure just what effect he had in mind.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  22:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Both indeed don't strike the G too often, so does Ivo Pogorelich here, at 1:40. Thanks! Gil_mo (talk) 23:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * And then, of course, there's the sustain pedal, "the soul of the piano". Bach knew it not, but we don't just pretend it's not there whenever we play Bach on the piano.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  23:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

NFL ties
I'm confused by this article. I'm aware that the owners voted to adopt playoff overtime rules for the regular season. This means if the receiving team scores a touchdown, the game is over. If they score a field goal, or don't score, the game continues. If the game remains tied after both teams have had possession, the game continues until one team scores. Does this mean that the regular-season tie has been eliminated? Also, as it states that the kicking team will get the ball back unless the receiving team scores a touchdown, how would it be handled if the defense scored a touchdown first, or even a safety? Joefromrandb (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In the regular season, if teams are still tied after the 15 minute overtime period, it is still a tie. What the new system has guaranteed is that both teams are guuranteed one overtime posession, unless the first team with the ball scores a touchdown.  Other than that one change, it is still "sudden death" for 15 minutes, and then the game would end in a tie.  -- Jayron  32  00:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So am I correct that if the defense scores a safety on the offense's first possession, the game ends immediately? Joefromrandb (talk) 03:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe so. Let me look.  I'll get back to you.  -- Jayron  32  03:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup. Specifically mentioned here in the official rules.  The game would end at that point.  -- Jayron  32  03:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Joefromrandb (talk) 04:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * An interesting rules quirk that I'm waiting to see somebody exploit: per the rules Jayron linked, an onside kick recovered by the kicking team counts as the receiving team's first chance, and so a single field goal wins immediately. On the other hand, if the onside kick is recovered by the receiving team, the kicking team will still get a later chance at possession, barring a touchdown. &mdash; Lomn 22:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In such a scenario, the receiving team would not have had possession, so I doubt it would count against them - unless the rules say otherwise. The onside kick article doesn't seem to address that possibility. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Bugs, as Lomn notes, the rules that Jayron links to above really do address the onside kick situation directly. The rules are a snarling mess, but if you get down to 5e in the notes on that first page, you'll see that the kicking team recovering an onside kick means that the receiving team has had its "opportunity to possess".  I don't know that this really makes sense based on the language used elsewhere in the rules, which talk about actual possession rather than using the language "opportunity to possess", but it looks to me like they've intentionally set out to explicitly declare that a team onside kicking at the start of the overtime period can win immediately with a field goal. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 06:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right. I read the article but not the rules - until now. "Opportunity to possess." Amazing. However, anyone who tries the low-percentage onside kick in overtime is just begging to be defeated. I wonder if anyone has tried it, since these new rules went into effect? And there's something that doesn't make sense: ANY kickoff presents an "opportunity to possess" by both teams. So if the receiving team gets a field goal, which should the original kicking team get a second "opportunity to possess"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Bugs, some thoughts: one, no one has attempted this yet. Two, "low percentage" may not be applicable; surprise onside kicks are close to a 50-50 proposition.  As for "begging to be defeated", the theory per the rules is as follows: if I kick normally, I will get a chance at possession unless I give up a touchdown.  If I kick onside and fail, I will still get a chance at possession unless I give up a touchdown (albeit at a higher chance of needing to score something, but perhaps counterbalanced by the knowledge that I have all 4 downs to use on offense).  If, though, I kick onside and succeed, I start at midfield and only need a field goal to win.  Kicking onside has a very strong upside, and to my mind at least, not all that much of a risk penalty.  Further, no overtime game (of 5) this season has been decided on a first-possession touchdown.  One could even see a shift toward college-style overtime strategy, where deferring your offensive possession is preferred (provided you expect to kick onside).  Finally, per the rules, kicking off doesn't constitute an "opportunity to possess".  While I see your point semantically, if that were implemented, it'd be the same as the prior overtime system, which was much derided for having some 40% of games decided on the opening possession.  On the other hand, if/when somebody gets away with this, I can certainly see a push for writing in some sort of onside kick exception.  Or maybe the rules committee actually discussed the possibility and signed off on it; who can tell? &mdash; Lomn 15:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm just saying it doesn't seem fair. But if that's the rule, then that's the rule... until someone actually tries it and the receiving time gripes about the unfairness of it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Unidentified ITV show
There was a drama series on ITV about 10-15 years ago on a Thursday evening. The story was that there had been an apocalyptic event (possibly either a nuclear bomb or a meteor strike), which was survived by a group of people who were on a train in a tunnel (which might have been Box Tunnel). There were about 6 or 8 episodes, and the show featured Louis Armstrong's version of Blueberry Hill - either as a the theme tune or as a trope throughout the series. What was it called? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah. Ok everyone, stand down. I found it - it's The Last Train (TV series). Sorry. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 23:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. The heroine is carrying a canister in her backpack containing a substance that can freeze a train-car full of people for more than a decade. You can't buy writing that good. μηδείς (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)