![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is a good article! I especially like the critical quotations. Rayray 09:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
This is an excellent film! I will definitely attempt to turn this article into featured (once I get the time). — BRIAN 0918 • 2005-09-13 20:17
I've done a copy edit and cleanup of the synopsis, which I believe clarifies some aspects of the story which were somewhat muddy in the old version. In the process, I moved a couple of commentary passages and asides to footnotes. These either really don't belong in the body of a synopsis or impeded the flow of the story. They can stay in footnotes, or be moved elsewhere in the article if an appropriate place can be found. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk / cont) 20:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I've made some more changes to the Boer War duel section, because it wasn't quite accurate the way it was.
*"All parties" don't agree to pretend that the duel is about Edith's honor. We only learn about this once in the film, when one of the British officials tells Candy "It's generally assumed that the duel was ..." something or other about Edith (I'm semi-quoting from memory), and that's the only time it's mentioned. We never know if the Germans deliberately bought into this subterfuge, only that "It's generally assumed" and the British want it to go on being that way -- so we can't say anything about what "all parties agree".
*I like the addition of Theo's objection to dueling, but it's important to keep in that he was put into the position of dueling because he was chosen at random, and that the reason he volunteered was that the duel would uphold the honor of the Army -- very important at the time.
I know that the wording theree wasn't the best, but it's a bit better now, I think. It could possibly be improved, but I'd like not to muddy the two points above.
Also, I removed "major" from diplomatic incident. Clearly, from the behavior of the 2 German officers when they come to the embassy (consulate?), it's not a major incident at all -- or else it would be being dealt with at a higher level. It's merely another blip in the continuing disintegration of relations between England and Germany prior to WW1. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk / cont) 04:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
One thing I've never understood was Churchill's attempt to if not deep-six the filming of Blimp, at the least to put hurdles in its way. From our point of view, looking back, the film is so clearly pro-British that it seems amazing that Churchill would be worried about it.
Let's face it, if P&P had actually made a film that showed the jingoistic Blimp character from the cartoons, that might have been the case -- and perhaps that's what Churchill feared, that such a film would hold British ideals and the military up to scorn and ridicule. The film they made, though, is so obviously sympathetic to Candy, who is shown as something of a "great man" -- a bit thick, perhaps, but honorable, resourceful, energetic, etc. etc., that I have to think that Churchill never saw it (who can blame him -- did he really have *time*?) or read a script, and was simply acting on the *possibility* of what the film might turn out to be. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk / cont) 04:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
That's all understandable, what makes it ironic is that things have changed so much that most people now, I believe, would look on Blimp as a blatant piece of wartime proganda in itself! (Not that I think it is -- but they certainly trod lightly over the British behavior in the Boer War, which was in some ways fairly reprehensible.)
Certainly Churchill, as great a man as he was, was not one without {significant) flaws. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk / cont) 10:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Should we point out how "typically British" this film is?
Written by a Hungarian, filmed by a Frenchman, music by a Pole, design by a German with an Austrian as one of the leads. The other leads were Scottish and Welsh. Still, the editor and director were English :) --
SteveCrook (
talk)
08:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Jeez, who makes films like that any more? That's a serious question, is there any filmmaker you would see as in some way -- stylistically, whatever -- the modern equivalent of Powell and Pressburger? Because if there is, and I don't know about them, I want to. Mike Leigh? Who? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk / cont) 10:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Question: Is the "written by a hungarian..." section a direct quote from Powell, or a summary of what he said. I'm thinking that if it's a quote, it should probably be in blockquotes. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk / cont) 22:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Ed -- SteveCrook ( talk) 02:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Isn't it worth mentioning the references to The Wizard of Oz in the Miscellany section? I attempted this before but it was declared 'non-notable'. Strange then that the mention of Conan Doyle and The Hound of the Baskervilles is permitted. According to the Internet Movie Data Base this is one of the earliest films to allude to The Wizard.
Absurdtrousers ( talk) 16:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
"One day, he receives a letter from Edith Hunter (Deborah Kerr) who is working in Berlin, Germany as an English teacher." Yeah, well, which other Berlin than "Berlin, Germany" might it be in a film of this kind -- "Berlin, Iowa", "Berlin, Missouri", "Berlin, East Hillbillia"...? I suggest editing this to just "...working in Berlin as an...".-- CRConrad ( talk) 09:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
"It suggests that Britain needs to 'fight dirty' in the face of such an evil enemy as Nazi Germany."
This is a theme of the film, but I don't think it's what the film is ultimately saying. This theme is represented by the character of Spud, the eager young Home Guard officer who takes Clive prisoner on the eve of the exercise, instead of waiting for the exercise to begin. Spud is brave, enterprising, savvy, energetic and well aware of the fact that he is fighting Nazi Germany. On the other hand he is also arrogant (he disregards orders because he has a better idea), ignorant (he doesn't know anything about Clive's distinguished career) and disrespectful to Clive.
A.L. Kennedy's BFI Film Classics book on the movie is pretty good about this stuff: you couldn't really get a film made in wartime Britain unless there was some obvious propaganda point to be made, and Blimp's obvious propaganda point is that the Blimps of the world did not really understand what kind of war they were fighting. However, most of the film is not set in WW2; the bulk of it is about Clive's hopeless romanticism, and how he keeps falling in love with the same woman over and over again without realising it. Clive's tragedy is that he never really understands himself, whereas Theo understands him very well. From reading Pressburger's biography, I think that what P&P really wanted to do was make a film about what made England (and Scotland, and Wales) worth defending. They were saying, in effect: Yes, we may have to borrow dirty methods in order to defeat the Nazis, but what kind of damage will that do to us? P&P were, in a way, making a film in the spirit of George Orwell's "As I Please" column, trying to remind people about the value of what they were fighting for, rather than making the whole movie about the need to win by any means necessary. "By any means necessary" is totally against the spirit of this movie and, indeed, of all the Powell & Pressburger movies.
I recognise that this is all me arguing, and I have no published sources for my arguments, because they're basically mine. But they may provoke somebody else to find support for them. Lexo ( talk) 23:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Good analysis. Is Spud the young Clive all over again: impulsive, fearless, not very bright? The Lawless One ( talk) 00:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
The "Plot" tag was added recently by someone who neither leaves edit summaries nor has worked on the article to speak of. I don't think the plot summary is currently too long, considering this is an epic 2-3/4 hour film which encompasses 41 years, three major romances, three major wars, and numerous flashbacks or changes in narrative, not to mention an abundance of different themes. The WP:FILMPLOT guidelines read:
Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction's non-linear storyline, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range. (Discuss with other editors to determine if a summary cannot be contained within the proper range.)
The cited plot summary for Pulp Fiction is 1177 words -- 38 words longer than the current plot summary for Blimp. The plot for Gone with the Wind is 1751 words.
Therefore I propose that the "plot" tag on this plot summary be removed. It's hard to find a decent summary for this film, and the one here leaves out a number of key points already. Softlavender ( talk) 01:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
The final paragraph of the section on Production has the tag "Citation Needed" for the claim that the picture of Barbara Wynne-Candy was used in the file The League of Gentlemen. This claim was originally inserted by me and is an observation of both films - you may classify this as original research but read on...
The claim was later modified by someone else (name unknown) to suggest the painting used in The League of Gentlemen was a close copy of the "Blimp" painting. I have not examined the relevant scenes in such close detail but have no doubt the paintings are either the same or very similar - I had no reason to change the modified claim.
The result of all this is that I cannot see how one can provide a citiation for a claim (or a modified version of it) when it is undeniably true but, as far as I know, undocumented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.45.192.9 ( talk) 12:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I said you may classify this as original research. Original research refers "to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist" - wikipedia's own definition. There is a reliable source. The film "The League of Gentlmen" is the source. Furthermore, "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed." That is the case in this instance. The picture in question is either identical or a close copy.
I suggest you restore the original statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.45.192.9 ( talk) 16:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Your approach is incorrect.
If you want to exclude that paragraph then you need to change the editorial policy so that it can be excluded.
If the film had contained (say) a defamatory statement no secondary source would have been required to verify the presence of that statement in the film. The only requirement for a secondary source might arise if it was desired to establish the statement's truth. The film itself is the documentary source as to its existence.
Presumably your approach requires quotes from the film (if used in the article) to be reliably sourced from somewhere other than the film.
As for the WP:TRIVIA remark. My statement about the portrait is indeed trivia. But the wikipedia editorial policy does not give this as grounds for its removal per se. I quote, "This style guideline deals with the way in which these facts are represented in an article, not with whether the information contained within them is actually trivia, or whether trivia belongs in Wikipedia." So if you want to exclude the statement on the grounds that it is trivia you need to procure a change to this policy to read, "This style guideline deals with the way in which these facts are represented in an article, <delete> not with, </delete> whether the information contained within them is actually trivia, and whether trivia belongs in Wikipedia."
As it is, I can see a reason to include the qualifier, "...the picture (of Barbara Wynne) or a close copy" but no reason to exclude the statement altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.45.192.9 ( talk) 19:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Try http://www.britmovie.co.uk/forums/general-film-chat/107211-paintings-films.html although I expect it doesnt qualify as reliable. Though the author does not obviously copy the WP comment and, in fact, verbalises my own speculation as to how the painying came to be used again - it was lying in a store room and found to be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.45.192.9 ( talk) 21:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Well... nobody has complained about this item for over 5 years. And as the correspondent in the above link pointed out, the picture is an important (fairly important, I'd say) plot point in both films.
When Clive fights his duel in 1902 mention is made of a author writing of the Hound of the Baskervilles. Of course that is Sir arthur Conon Doyle! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.242.65 ( talk) 02:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
--- In the meeting with Col. Betteridge Candy, holding a copy of The Strand magazine, mentions that he knows Conan-Doyle. Betteridge, a Sherlock Holmes fan, asks Candy if he can find out details of the upcoming episode of Holmes in The Strand magazine. 31.125.76.2 ( talk) 20:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)