Talk:The Caine Mutiny (1954 film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Ferrers arm

Hi; In the courtroom scene, Ferrer's wearing a cast. Silly question, did he actually have a busted wing?

• Don't know--but it's part of the plot that he had been injured. Greenwald was not a military lawyer--he was a civilian lawyer who joined the Navy and flew fighter planes (notice his green uniform in one scene)--he got the Caine case while recovering from injuries received in a crackup in his plane (in the book his hands had been burned).--Buckboard 09:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I left the bit from Moviemistakes.com in the text, but it seems trivial trivia. The whole thing depends on the length of the chain, not how tight a circle a DMS can turn. Follow me here: Wouk was aboard two DMS during the war; Wouk wrote the book about a DMS; Wouk wrote the scene wherein the Caine cuts its own tow-line. Somebody at MovieMistakes.com forget to tell him?--Buckboard 11:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Split article

I'd recommend this article be split into The Caine Mutiny for the novel, and The Caine Mutiny (film) for the film. There are significant enough differences between the book and film - a lot could be said on a literary front about the book that has nothing to do with the film. It would also help with all the "Projects" and templates to separate movies from books. -- Stbalbach 16:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Queeg

Ok. I'm hoping maybe someone can straighten it out. Why, in the end, does Greenwald (and SINPAC) maintain that Queeg is NOT incompetent and that Maryk was not justified under 185?

1. Queeg on numerous occasions would blow his stack without cause. Example -- when he found out Keefer was writing a novel, he exploded. There was no justification for this -- the matter of a crewman's personal activities (baring violations of the law or regulations) are not under his jurisdiction.
2. The water crisis. When he ordered the men deprived of water, it seems to me Maryk would have been justified to act then. How can depriving the men of water be construed as an attempt to enforce discipline? The action endangered the lives of the crew and officers. Three days without water will result in death. In extreme heat as in the tropics, death could occur sooner. This would clearly constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
3. After the tow-line incident, it is clear that his superiors know -- or at least suspect -- him to be incompetent.
4. On his own, he showed himself to be a raving lunatic in the courtroom. This would show that the doctors who testified for the prosecution were probably told what to write in their reports. One doctor on the stand verbally admitted that Queeg was a sick man. This was omitted from his report -- and under the laws of perjury, an omission is as much a lie as a fabrication.
5. When Greenwald confronts Maryk and Keith afterward, he points out that if they had acted differently at a certain time, it would not have been necessary for him to have relieved Queeg during the storm. This makes no sense. What the man was in the past was irrelevant; the issue was what he was in the present. Maryk examined the Captain on the bridge -- he spoke to him, passed his hand in front of the Captain's face, snapped his fingers in front of his face, and got no reaction of any kind. The man was – only for the moment yes – catatonic. Queeg didn't even protest Maryk ‘s actions for 2 full minutes. Given the fact that he was clearly catatonic at the time, how could he NOT have been justified in taking command?

From all this -- including the crazy and outlandish statements Queeg made on the stand -- why is it the opinion of everyone that he is NOT incompetent?

For the record: in the book, Keith ultimately became Captain of the Cain. Maryk was given command of an LST. The Court-Martial convening authority disapproved the verdict (this goes against the principle that a trial verdict can not be impeached) and issued them both formal reprimands (brazenly proclaiming them guilty). -- Jason Palpatine 13:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Greenwald maintained that Queeg was a flawed but adequate commander who was undermined by subordinates who should have helped him, particularly Keefer. He only went after Queeg because Maryk ("the wrong man") was on trial. Greenwald gives a rather impassioned monologue about how the country owed a debt to professional servicemen like Queeg; a point that Wouk would explore more deeply in his Victor Henry novels. A very powerful scene, both in the movie and the book. -- Cranston Lamont 00:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I've read Greenwald's rather impassioned monologue -- more than once -- trying to understand what he was saying. His question to Maryk and Keith and their answer struck me as odd. Maryk said that it would not have been necessary for him to relieve Queeg if they had supported him when he deserted the other destroyers under fire -- i.e. helped him hide his cowardice. My answer in his place would be Yes. What happened was inevitable. What he was in the past -- no matter how distinguished his record -- is irrelevant. The only thing that counts is what he is now. -- Jason Palpatine 01:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Verdict

Out of curiosity, can anyone explain to me what gave the Navy brass (whoever it was) the authority to revoke a verdict of a general court-martial? Our laws have always held that a verdict can not be impeached. --Jason Palpatine 22:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Technically, the court martial convening authority can "disapprove" of a verdict, and this disapproval can be "endorsed" (approved) up the chain of command. This is what happened in the Caine Mutiny. This disapproval has no bearing on the verdict -- it is not overturned -- but becomes part of the record. AllanJ 13:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

An important point is that in the book the officers were not charged with making a mutiny, but with conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline. Despite the disapproval of the verdict, Maryk and Keith managed to resume their Navy careers more or less unscathed, unlike Queeg who was given a desk job as the Navy recognised he was not fit to command a ship at sea, therefore confirming that the officers were justified in their actions. Keefer also eventually

gets command of a ship and proves himself a physical coward as well as a moral one. Nevertheless Keefer and Keith manage to restore a degree of friendship.

Exile 10:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

USS Doyle

Official US Navy history has the USS Doyle (DD-494) as the destroyer used in the movie the Caine Mutiny. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chaveza (talk • contribs).

This article says it was USS Thompson (DD-627), which is confirmed in that article. Do you have a source that says it was the Doyle? -- Stbalbach 16:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/t5/thompson-ii.htm says

Commencing on 8 June 1953, Thompson served as a Columbia Movie Studio "prop" during the filming of the Herman Wouk novel, The Caine Mutiny. Operating out of San Francisco for one week, Thompson became Caine, while at the same time serving as the model for many of the Columbia sets used in the filming of the on board scenes.

http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/d5/doyle.htm says

[Doyle] returned to the western Pacific between 2 February and 21 July 1953, visiting Midway, Guam, Kwajalein, and various ports in the Philippines, as well as serving as station ship at Hong Kong for 5 weeks.

Doyle arrived at Charleston, S.C., 7 September 1953 from Long Beach.

So I'm not seeing the "Official US Navy history" that says Doyle appeared in the movie. It's not impossible however; at least two other ships, USS Richard B. Anderson (DD-786) and USS Surfbird (AM-383), had cameos. Perhaps Doyle did as well. But without a source it shouldn't go into the article.

—wwoods 19:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mutiny 0.jpg

Image:Mutiny 0.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 Wikipedia: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) 20:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Strawberries

I inserted a piece which was taken out about the quirkiness behind Queeg and the strawberries. Maryk tells the other officers that the mess boys confessed to eating the strawberries, but Queeg refuses to believe their story and instead accuses the officers of having a duplicate key to the food locker. Is this a valid point to bring up? It seems open-and-shut about what happened to the strawberries, but Queeg refuses to accept it. USN1977 (talk) 17:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Textual support?

The following text was posted on my talk page. I'm moving it here as the best place for the discussion to take place:

Hi, In the Plot section of The Caine Mutiny (film), you've taken out my contributions on the grounds that "There is no textual evidence that Maryk is 'prepared to forgive and forget'" and that "Keefer's motivations are not made clear in the film". When Keefer thanks him at the celebrations for not revealing his double-cross Maryk does say that the matter is "over and done with" and later tries to dissuade Greenwald from revealing Keefer's treachery with "Let's forget it, Barney". That strikes me as "evidence" enough. What do you need: a written statement by the actors, producers and director?
Also, Greenwald points out that "From the start, [Keefer] hated the Navy", as in it interfered with his writing. In the tow-line incident Queeg does state: "There will be no more novel-writing on the Caine". I think this describes some of Keefer's motivations, which were based on pure selfishness. Granted, Keefer does not make a full confession of his own, but the point of many great works of fiction, from the novel to the cinema, is that it is up to the reader and the audience to try and interpret a character's motivation and pass this on to others who are still a little puzzled by it.
With your permission, I'll restore my contributions. Cheers,--Marktreut (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

My response is below. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I disagree. The lines you've quoted are not sufficient to support the interpretations you are putting on them. The conversation at the party takes place in front of or in the vicinity of the other officers of the ship, all of whom have to work together. It's possible that Maryk simply doesn't want to go into in under these circumstances, at that time, with those people possibly in hearing distance. He's smoothing out an awkward situation, not in any way saying that he's willing to forgive and forget. I don't need an affadavit from anyone to convince, what I would need is Maryk to say "I forgive you" or a later scene in which his attitude to Keefer is apparent.
As for Keefer's motivations, Greenwald speculates on them, but I do not see any real support for the speculation. Besides this one opinion from a character who's disgusted by what these officers did, there's no neutral source which pins down Keefer's motivations.
Your interpretations are plainly POV, and there is disagreement about them. Therefore, I'll remove them again on the basis of WP:POV and WP:V. As contested facts, you can reinsert them once you have a reliable source to support them. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You dismiss my views as POV, but unless you or someone else can come up with better explanations for Maryk's attitude towards Keefer and Keefer's motives, I do not see why mine are not valid enough. If there are better explanations for their behaviour I'll accept them, but short of that I cannot find anything better than the ones I have suggested above.
It seems to me that in spite of your denials nothing short of an affidavit will do.
You're the third editor with whom I have been in conflict with this week. It's taking all the fun out of Wikipedia which I always thought was about people contributing to the knowledge of others or trying to find common ground, not taking it out completely.--Marktreut (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The plot section is for a straightforward description of the story, not for interpretation or analysis of the character's motivations. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 00:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There was a time when I felt the same as you. When I was doing English at school we would read a book or short story and then the teacher and the other pupils would discuss the characters and their motivations. All this went over my head. For me a story was a story and you enjoyed it or hated it. Nowadays I feel different: motivation is what drives the story and character development makes it interesting. It is Keefer's motivations, the way he manipulated Maryk into questioning Queeg's sanity, which is the driving factor in this case. After all, we need some kind of explanation for why Greenwald saw Keefer as the real mutineer, the perjury issue being the least of his wrongdoings.--Marktreut (talk) 11:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad for you that you've come to a greater appreciation of literature. And I would agree that motivations are appropriate for inclusion in the article, provided that certainly exists as to what their motivation is. That certainty can come from many places, including an explanation by the writer himself or the analysis of reviewers of the work. But per WP:OR, it cannot come from we, the editors of Wikipedia.

Now, to be perfectly honest with you, often such things do come from editors, who make the same assumptions that you have made in this instance. And if no one contests those conclusions, they generally stick. But in this case, another editor has challenged your interpretation of events and motives, and accordingly, you must provide factual backing from another source. It's just the way it works here on Wikipedia, and once you come to understand that more fully, you'll better enjoy your experiences here on Wikipedia.

There was a time when I felt the same as you. When I first came to Wikipedia I would edit articles and then the other editors would criticize my edits as POV or OR. All this seemed absurd to me. For me a fact was a fact and you understood it or didn't. Nowadays I feel different; Wikipedia's policies are what drive this project and collaborating with other editors makes it interesting. Cheers. Unschool (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

But the point is "that certainly exists as to what their motivation is". There is evidence in the film of the issues that we are arguing here ! Maryk tells both Keefer and Greenwald to forget the matter and given Maryk's character (he does what he thinks is best for everyone, not himself in particular) I believe that he genuinely means it. Greenwald describes him as "an honest man" and when Maryk tells Keefer that it is "over and done with" I think he means it. They may not be friends anymore, but Maryk does not come across as someone who bears a grudge.

As for Keefer's motives, Greenwald's criticisms of him are, I think, good enough. He hates the Navy and would rather get on with his writing: Queeg's by-the-book tough style of command, which leaves little in the way for free time and levity, contrasts very much with the easy-going nature of his predecessor.

I have read a few reviews of this firm, but none go into the detail of what pushes the characters. Most of them focus on Bogart's performance and little is given in the way of the supporting characters' drives and motives.

I think a little leeway and POV should be permitted, especially if there is no other source to explain a particular issue and if it is based on scenes from the film itself. If we are supposed be "collaborating with other editors" over this, could you please indicate how you would explain Maryk and Keefer's behaviour. If they are good enough I'll accept them, but I think we need something.--Marktreut (talk) 13:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I disagree with your interpretation of Maryk's motivation. I have always made the same assumption as Ed, namely, that he was both an officer and a gentleman, and sought to avoid sullying the occasion with an attack on Keefer. Furthermore, even if he never does plan to bring the matter up one-on-one with Keefer, he might still be upset with him, but not want to get into it. I'm less sure what I think about Keefer; I think that it's wrong for him to be labeled as intentionally malicious; I think he was sincere in his analysis of Queeg, but he's too self-preservationist to place himself at any kind of risk at all. He's rather pathetic, in my book. In any event, it doesn't matter at all what I think or what Ed thinks or what you think, Mark. We're all just engaged in OR, and that doesn't fly on Wiki; at least, not when other people are shooting skeet. Sorry. Unschool (talk) 04:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

the "real" mutiny

The plot summary doesn't mention the story's critical turning point, probably because most viewers are so intent on hating Queeg (the name itself is hateable) that they don't see it. It occurs during Queeg's initial meeting with the ship's officers, after the "Do it my way and we'll get along" suggestion. Queeg is aware he has trouble with command, and asks, almost directly, for help in running the ship. (I don't remember the exact dialog.) He's given the cold shoulder, because the officers have already decided they don't like him, and don't want to cooperate. This is the real mutiny, not Maryk's later assumption of command. The officers have forgotten they're fighting a war, and there are things far more important than whether they like their commanding officer. This is not OR interpretation; it is the obvious, on-the-surface intent of the dialog and the way the scene is acted/directed/edited.

There is also the question of why the ship is named Caine. I have my opinions, but they would be OR. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 13:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Racism in the Navy

The parenthetical that Navy stewards during World War II were generally, if not exclusively, black, and later generally Filipino, is technically correct, but is it relevant to this movie? I don't think so. Is there any other reason to mention it in this article? Lahaun (talk) 01:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The Indifferent Children

Regarding this passage recently added and moved here:

There are some similarities between "The Caine Mutiny" and Louis Auchincloss's The Indifferent Children (1947). The plot of both books takes place in the unheroic backwaters of the WWII US Navy (Wouk's book in the Pacific Theatre, but the Caine's part in the fighting is marginal and the conflict is entirely among its crew, rather than with the Japanese - while Auchincloss' book is set in the Carribean, far from any fighting front); both books have as the main protagonist the scion of a rich family, who becomes a naval officer without seeking a heroic or combatant role, and who undergoes a fast character development in the course of the story; and in both books there is a central role to a court martial in which the defence lawyer brillantly saves his client from a seemingly hopeless situation - only to afterwards turn on the client and tell him what a heel he truly is. There is, however, no direct evidence of Wouk being influenced by the earlier book.

I'm concerned about WP:NOR - if we can cite someone on this, it would be interesting to add - but I'm concerned there is an unspoken hint at plagiarism. Given how popular CM was, someone must have noted the similarities. -- Stbalbach 14:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Searched google, google books and Amazon's A9.com on a combination of "caine mutiny" + "indifferent children", as well as "wouk auchincloss" and couldn't find anything. -- Stbalbach 15:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This little sally never pretended to be anything but Original Research, and an unpleasant little hint of plagiarism at that (it took 57 years after the supposed event for somebody to notice the resemblance.) Are we compelled to keep OR in Talk forever? Seven years now. I hesitate to delete it only in case there's some procedure to follow first which I don't know about. A trial balloon of OR that never panned out. I propose somebody cut it. Profhum (talk) 08:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

We don't generally delete Talk page discussion because it's meant to be a permanent record of discussion relevant to the article. That said, this could likely safely be archived. If you'd like more information, please refer to WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 15:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Mutiny?

When Queeg appears to become paralyzed in action, Maryk relieves him, with Keith's support. Upon returning to port, Maryk and Keith face a court-martial for mutiny.

Why is that? Relieving the captain is not a mutiny.80.141.24.11 (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The sentence isn't indicating that they committed mutiny, only that they are being charged with it. Just as one can be charged with murder without having committed murder. DonIago (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Template war and peace

One possible solution is to crate a broader Kramer template listing both directing and producing credits. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. BMK (talk) 00:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

•  Done BMK (talk) 00:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Plot summary

I've made some WP:BOLD trims in the plot summary. I think it was going a bit overboard, not summarizing the plot but detailing it, and not only detailing it but providing a kind of "Wikipedia editors' commentary." For example, I've seen this movie a million times and I was surprised to learn from reading the plot summary that both Willie and DeVries were promoted by the end of the film. I was surprised because it's not mentioned in the movie, and only apparent if you freeze-frame the film and note the change in the number of stripes on each officers' sleeves. But it's not in the plot, if indeed mentioned it flits on by, and doesn't belong in a plot summary. Coretheapple (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually the promotion of both Keith and DeVriess is quite apparent and significant in the plot of the film even if it is not specifically "mentioned" in words. It indicates that Keith has not only had the charges of mutiny against him dismissed, he has also not had the incident held against him in any nonjudicial or unofficial way. This is evidenced by his being both promoted to LT(jg) and returned to sea duty, and also assigned to a higher class ship which is indicated by its captain being a CDR as opposed to a LCDR on a mine sweeper. I am surprised that someone who indicates he/she has seen the film many times would have never noticed and understood this significant element of the plot. I have seen the film many times as well beginning when it was first released in 1954. I both noticed the promotions and understood their significance the first time I saw it. Centpacrr (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

What you're saying above deals with just a tiny portion of my edit to the plot summary, and does not justify your pushing the "undo" button and removing the entire trim, So I'm going to go back and revert that portion other than the promotion material in the last paragraph. Meanwhile, please explain to me how this promotion is disclosed to the audience. Simple question. I'll suggest an answer: is it because of the change in the number of stripes on the sleeve? If so, everything else you say is original research. Coretheapple (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, the promotions are disclosed to the audience by the change in uniforms of both Keith and DeVreiss which are made quite obvious in the final shots of the film. That is not "original research" as I have not added the "reasons" to the article, just explained in here what the filmmakers depicted and made plainly visible on screen, i.e., that they had both been promoted and were wearing their new ranks on their uniforms. Centpacrr (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

So then you concede it's just an alteration in the costume the characters wear? Fine. Let's see if other editors concur. Coretheapple (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

It is not a "concession", but is a statement of fact. I never pretended it was anything else. What Keith and DeVreiss are wearing are not "costumes", but US Navy Class A dress blue officer's uniforms with gold braid sleeve stripes designating the wearer's grade. The insignia of rank which appears on both of them are clearly seen and are well known as to their meaning. With respect, sir or madame, I truly do not know why you are making such an issue of this. I have explained in great detail above what it shows and why it is significant to the plot even though this is unspoken by the characters themselves. Not everything that is part of the plot of a film has to be "spoken" by somebody to be recognized, understood as significant, and appropriately included. Motion pictures are intended to be more than just listened to. They are primarily a visual art form and thus intended to watched with eyes open as well. That's why they are called "motion pictures".Centpacrr (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that this is a plot summary, not a microscopically detailed depiction of everything happening in the film such as you might find on IMDB. In the novel there is much text devoted to what happens after the court martial. In the the movie very little, it wraps up fast, he goes on board the ship, they ship out, end of movie. There is no dialogue indicating that he has been promoted. He doesn't say, "May, I've been promoted, and gosh, I understand my old commander has too." Instead it's he just goes on board, sees his old commander, is startled, but the commander subtly shows no hard feelings, has him take out the ship. Yes, someone who has literally seen the movie since it first came out, as you have, might notice that both got promoted. But that doesn't make it a plot element worthy of inclusion in that already over-detailed plot summary. Coretheapple (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually for the reasons I explained above it does belong in the plot section. The promotions are significant to the understanding of the overall story as they represent the denouement of what happened to these two central characters that ties up everything else that happened in the story. Perhaps if you had read the book you would know that. Centpacrr (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, we can repeat ourselves two or three more times or bring some other editors into the conversation. Coretheapple (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

If the promotions are only indicated by changes in the uniforms, and no other mention is made of them, then they are not significant in terms of the plot, as only a small, specialized portion of the audience will realize they have occurred by "reading" the uniforms. If they were important to the storyline, they would have been spoken of by somebody, pointing them out to the audience. BMK (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Again motion pictures is a visual as well as aural medium intended to communicate information both ways. Many plot elements in movies are revealed only one of the two ways (sight or sound), but that fact does not make them any more or less significant. Simply because something that is shown is not mentioned or explained by a character does not lessen its importance. Centpacrr (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, motion pictures are a visual medium, but the rules for presenting important information are no different for visual material than they are for dialogue. If the promotions were important to the story, they would be visually emphasised in some manner, so the audience could take them in as they watched the movie for the first and only time they would see it. Analysis of passing shots enabled by video technology is not an indication that the director or writer thought these things were important. In fact, the positions of the officers in the ship's hierarchy did not change at all because of their promotions (accepting for a moment your analysis), and that is what is important to the plot.

You are going to need to drop the stick on this, the consensus here is quite clear. BMK (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Concur with BMK. Whether they are promoted or not makes no difference to the plot by this point, and in any case it's OR synthesis to take a visual cue, combine it with information garnered from a source outside the movie, and then draw a conclusion the movie does not explicitly state. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you would have a better understanding of the plot if you were to read the book. Centpacrr (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I have read the book, it sits across from my on my bookshelf even as I type this - but the book it not relevant to this discussion. Many details in novels are left out or glossed over when they're made into films - that's simply the nature of the beast, a 2 - 2 1/2 hour movie just cannot contain everything that's in a full-length novel, which is why writing a screenplay is not simply a matter of breaking down the book into shots and re-transcribing the book's dialogue. The writer has to actually pick and choose what to show, or make a single incident stand for several in the source material, or merge minor characters into one, or give up some background material that's too difficult to make sensible for the viewer. So, if the officers' promotions were important, you can be absolutely certain that the writers and the director would have made sure that the audience knew about it, not just by a passing change of uniform which is never highlighted out to the audience, but by having some bit of dialogue, or a closeup, or something to clue the audience in. They did not do that, and therefore it is incidental to the film's plot.

Please, you are making yourself look very, very foolish with this WP:IDHT behavior, and you need to stop. BMK (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The promotion is trivial and not worth mentioning. I've gotten the synopsis down to a reasonable length (again). Clarityfiend (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

With respect, Coreoftheapple, you leave me wondering if you have actually ever seen the film at all. Your edit summary stating "promotion of these officers visible in last few seconds of film evident only in freeze-frame analysis" is just not accurate. In the 0:01:51 portion of the film between 2:01:49 and 2:03:40, the stripe-and-a-half of Lt (jg) on Keith's sleeves is plainly visible for a total of 0:50 (45% of the time) in four continuous segments lasting 24, 3, 10 and 13 seconds. Between 2:02:35 and 2:02:54, the three stripes of Commander on DeVreiss' sleeve are also plainly visible for 0:13 in two continuous segments of 9 and 4 seconds. On what basis do you thus contend that this requires "freeze frame analysis" to recognize? Centpacrr (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Because you just performed one. As has been explained multiple times by multiple editors, it isn't mentioned in the dialogue and is trivia. Coretheapple (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh my, do you really mean to contend that something clearly visible on the screen for almost a full minute during a less than two minute segment of a film has to be "freeze framed" to be seen and recognized? Really? Again, sir or madame, motion pictures communicate vast amounts of plot information only visually without ever being "mentioned in the dialogue". That's why they are called "motion pictures". You are confusing the necessity for something to be "mentioned in the dialogue" (or indicated by sound effects like a gun shot) to be considered a part of the plot with radio. The plot element being clearly communicated here by the filmmakers is that Keith has not only been exonerated of the mutiny charges and returned to duty, but also promoted. This could have also been mentioned in the dialogue, but the screenwriter chose not to as it was completely unnecessary because it is done adequately and far more efficiently simply by showing it. Having Keith state it in dialogue as well would have been unnatural for his character to do and superfluous.

As for visual plot elements take as an example, for instance, the 2013 Robert Redford film "All Is Lost", a winner of many awards including a Golden Globe and one from the New York Film Critics. It runs 105 minutes and certainly has a highly developed and definable plot. The one thing it does NOT have is anything "mentioned in the dialogue" because it has no dialogue. In "The Caine Mutiny" one of the key visual plot elements that is used to define the personality of Capt. Queeg are the two steel balls he is shown rolling in his right hand multiple times throughout the movie whenever he is under stress and yet the balls (but not what the signify) are mentioned only once in passing in the dialogue ("So he has migraine headaches and he rolls steel balls. So what?"). Does the fact that it is not "mentioned in the dialogue" that he is stressed every time he does so make him doing it just "trivia" too? Dialogue is only part of the "picture" when it comes to plot in movies, not the whole thing. See what I mean? Centpacrr (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

What I "see" is that you are bordering on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT tendentiousness. The "steel balls" have been mentioned numerous times in articles about this movie and Bogart's performance; if such sourcing is lacking, it's a reflection of the poor state of this article's sourcing and not a justification for picking over every little irrelevancy that can be gleaned from careful and repeated study of the film. You keep bringing up the novel and badgering editors as to whether they've read it. I have indeed, but it wouldn't matter even if I hadn't. This is an article about the film, not the novel. It is not a depiction of a real event. I'm not going to repeat further what I have said multiple times. The consensus has been established and you really need to move on. Coretheapple (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree on all these points, the most important of which is that consensus is established, and Centpacrr seriously needs to WP:DROPTEHSTICK. BMK (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

In the hope of putting this issue to rest, I have requested additional input with a neutral pointer on the talk page of WikiProject Film. BMK (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The point I am disputing here is the contention that Coretheapple seems to be making that if something it "not mentioned in the dialogue" then it is by definition not important to the plot. My point is that since movies are primarily a visual medium much of what is significant in a plot is often not mentioned in dialogue, just shown on the screen. Centpacrr (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

We are not holding a theoretical discussion. The purpose of this talk page is to provide a place to talk about improvements to or porblems with this article. The consensus here, at least so far, is that the promotions of the officers is not important to the plot of the film, as it is never mentioned, nor is it presented visually in any way that highlights it to the audience. If you wish to have a theoretical discussion concerning the role of visuals versus dialogue in sound motion pictures, you need to find some other place to do that, it is not appropriate to do so here. BMK (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I concur that the promotions are not important to the overall plot of the film. That said, the last sentence could always be changed to something along the lines of "With all charges dismissed, a newly-promoted Keith reports to a new ship commanded by DeVriess, who invites him "take her out", assuming we think it's safe to assume the promotion is new. DonIago (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

(ec) I agree with BMK. This article cries out for more sourcing on consequential stuff, not the trivia we're discussing here. Doniago, the facts conveyed by the last scene, the takeaway, is that Keith is surprised that his old adversary is now his boss again, and that DeVriess makes a friendly gesture. The promotion is not part of the plot. Coretheapple (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't intend to suggest otherwise, just offering a possible minimal word-count compromise for anyone who feels the promotion matters. DonIago (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

My comments here have been exactly on those two points and giving my reasons why I find both of them faulty, i.e. the two promotions are presented visually for almost a full minute of screen time which certainly is sufficient to highlight them for the audience, and that being the case there is no need to also "mention them in the dialogue" as their having been promoted is clearly depicted on screen. The editorial question that arose then was whether or not the unambiguously true plot point that both Keith and DeVriess had been promoted is significant enough to the story line to include in the summary. I gave my reasons why I think it is worth mentioning. Keith's promotion constitutes a natural denouement resolving all of plot points relating to Keith's earlier issues, i.e., it confirms that he had not only been cleared of the charges of mutiny that had been made against him, but also that he was accepted back in the full the good graces of the Navy by being promoted, assigned back to sea duty, and finally being accepted as fit and trustworthy by (now CDR) DeVriess, his first commanding officer on the Caine with whom he had earlier clashed. Showing the promotions serves, in fact, as an overt message to the audience that all has ended well for both Keith and DeVriees. That's what I took from seeing the promotions when I first saw the film in 1954, and what I still take from it today. That's exactly what talk is for, and what I did. Centpacrr (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Responding to 6 lines of comments from others with 8 more of your own repeating your thesis once again is not "dropping the stick", it is continuing to pummel the horse carcass into a bloody mass of protoplasm. You really, really must stop, lest some passing admin with a short fuse takes your commentary for tendentious and disruptive editing. BMK (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

This is merely a response to your contention that "..the promotions of the officers is not important to the plot of the film, as it is never mentioned, nor is it presented visually in any way that highlights it to the audience" and why I think both are wrong. Nothing about theory. Centpacrr (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, this us useless. As far as I'm concerned, this discussion is over. Consensus has been determines, and there are no other issues. BMK (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• I am going to be a contrarian in that I am not sure the promotions as indicated by the new uniforms are "trivial" details. Sure, it isn't spelt out as it is in films nowadays but this film was made just ten years after WW2 when the population would have been much more familiar with naval uniforms than they are today. I am pretty sure 1950s audiences would have realized the significance of the uniforms: the new uniforms speak to the utlimate fates of the characters (i.e. that mutiny has not hindered or derailed their careers) and I don't think that's a trivial detail. Betty Logan (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comment. You are the first editor who has actually addressed the significance of why the promotions depicted in almost a full minute of screen time (and thus not needing "freeze frame" to see them) were deliberately included by the screenwriter, director and producers as a non-verbal means to communicate the essential plot denouement that makes clear the resolution of the post-trial fates of Keith and DeVriees, points which all other commenting editors continue to ignore. Centpacrr (talk) 06:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Plot length

Regarding BMK's wholesale revert that violates WP:FILMPLOT: First, it is not "absolutely standard" to have actors' names in the plot. Countless films do not since it adds to word count and is redundant with cast. Second, you cannot go over 700 words. Finally, restore the names if you want, but we not revert legitimate edits wholesale. Other editors, would you weigh in before this blows up into yet another fight?--Tenebrae (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

This happens with you all the time, and you always end up apologizing and trying to be friends. Just stop now, please.

First, MOS is a guideline, it is not mandatory, and 700 is not an absolute limit, it is a suggested length. Second, putting the actors' names in the plot helps the readers because they don't have to keep bouncing back and forth from the plot to the cast list in order to keep straight who is who. It is standard practice, and used on every single one of the hundreds of film articles I have edited.{parabr}}We are here to serve the readers, not to follow foolish rules without consideration. SO, before this becomes the bigger megillah you always turn it into, I beg you to just stop and consider the purpose of the encyclopedia - it is not to follow rules, but to provide information to our readers in a helpful way. Thanks. BMK (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, you do not seem to understand WP:BRD. You are not supposed to continue to revert the article to your preferred version. As discussion goes on, the article stays in the status quo ante until you have a consensus to make the changes you desire. In the meantime, please just stop reverting and leave the article be. If a consensus of editors agrees with you, then I'm not going to stand in your way, but I'm also not going to allow you to try to force your version in without consensus. Now, please stop, and discuss. BMK (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I truly want to be friendly with you since you're such a good editor, though as I've said in the past you have a bad temper. First, let me I take exception to your claim that I "always end up apologizing" since there have been times when my requests for proper citing of boundary claims at New York City articles, for instance, have resulted in your providing citations, which is right and proper and as I know you believe in when you're angry with me.

Second, the whole idea of guidelines is that we follow them except when there are exceptional circumstances. Otherwise, we're all free to break all the guidelines anytime we want. I've worked with editors of good faith at articles with such convoluted plots as the Mission: Impossible films, and as a group collaborated to show that even these can be encapsulated within 700 words. And I could link a hundred film articles that do not include the cast.

But look, I'm willing to do the grunt work of what is almost always just a matter of grammatically trimming wordiness (changing passive voice to active voice, adjusting phrases like "he then decided to go for a walk" to "he went for a walk", etc.). I'm happy to do that if you want to restore the names. But you copy-pasting the names back in is easier than forcing another editor to re-do a dozen minor nips and tucks that were done in good faith in an attempt to follow a guideline. What do you say? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I understand WP:BRD. The consensus of editors is that film plots be between 400 and 700 words. The onus is on editors who don't want to follow these consensus guidelines. Regardless, why don't we compromise as I suggest above: You restore the names and leave the other edits, and I'll make further trims to bring it down with the names intact. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Go ahead. Link a hundred film articles in which a plot section of anything more than a paragraph doesn't include actors the actors playing characters. I don;t think it's possible.

But I will take you up on your offer. I will restore your edits, and then manually restore the names, if you will not then revert my restoration. BMK (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Than you. I appreciate that. In the meantime, to start, since you asked: Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation (672), Titanic (1997 film) (682). --Tenebrae (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

We did it! You and I working together have brought it to 700 words exactly, including actors' names. I like working together so much better than fighting. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Glad everything worked out. I just wanted to mention that it's useful in plot summaries with multiple characters to have the actors' names attached. I'm glad the summary is now compliant with our guidelines. Coretheapple (talk) 21:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)