Jump to content

Talk:Michael Powell

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Change name of page

[edit]

Michael Powell was hardly ever known as Michael Latham Powell. I propose moving this page to Michael Powell (director) to fit in better with the style of all the other people called Michael Powell. SteveCrook 03:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Early films

[edit]

There are 25 titles listed with Powell as a director on the IMDb before The Edge of the World (1937):
The Man Behind the Mask (1936)
Crown v. Stevens (1936)
The Brown Wallet (1936)
Her Last Affaire (1936)
Someday (1935)
The Price of a Song (1935)
The Phantom Light (1935)
The Night of the Party (1935)
The Love Test (1935)
Lazybones (1935)
The Girl in the Crowd (1935)
Something Always Happens (1934)
Red Ensign (1934)
The Fire Raisers (1934)
Born Lucky (1933)
His Lordship (1932)
C.O.D. (1932)
Hotel Splendide (1932)
The Star Reporter (1932)
Rynox (1932)
The Rasp (1932)
My Friend the King (1932)
Two Crowded Hours (1931)
Caste (1930) (uncredited)
Riviera Revels (1928)
In Caste he is listed as an uncredited director, the "main" director being Campbell Gullan. There's not much in Powell's autobiography about this one and might be more accurate to list Powell as 'assistant director' or 'second unit director'.
But many of them are "Missing, Believed Lost" so it's hard to check on any details.
Riviera Revels shouldn't really be there as a standalone title but has proved hard to delete from the IMDb. This has turned out to be a reference to a series of comic shorts he made with Harry Lachman. Only a few details are known about some of these:
Riviera Revels - Travelaugh No. 1: (1927)
Riviera Revels - Travelaugh No. 2: A Nasty Jar1 (1927)
Riviera Revels - Travelaugh No. 6: (1927)
Riviera Revels - Travelaugh No. 9: Cold Feats (1927)
Riviera Revels - Travelaugh No. 10: Fauny Business (1927)
Riviera Revels - Travelaugh No. 11: Scents and Nonsense (1927)
Riviera Revels - Travelaugh No. 12: That Son of a Sheik (1927)
They were all directed by Lachman although Powell may have acted as 'assistant director' or 'second unit director' on some of them.
But they are all "Missing, Believed Lost" apart from a short clip from Fauny Business where Powell acts as an English tourist dreaming that he is a faun. -- SteveCrook (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ordering bibliographical records

[edit]

The rationale for ordering bibliographical records alphabetically is that it is easy to find one from a short citation in the Notes. However, there is a problem. I find "Powell 1986" cited first in the Notes, yet when I look below in the Bibliography there are no books by Powell! I have to scroll upward to find books by him. --Jtir (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll fix that, it's a mix of Harvard and MLA formats at work. FWIW, the reason for sorting alphabetically is due to the use of multiple editions. Bzuk (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
For the record, WP:LAYOUT#References and WP:LOW both address the sorting of bibliographic records. They are not inconsistent though, because they are describing different sections. Will await your changes. --Jtir (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's an excellent solution. --Jtir (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i know i've sorta come late to the table, but it seems to me that wp:low is the more correct reference. regarding the actual citations in i think the use of template {{cite book}} would be helpful. --emerson7 23:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have three (?) editors who are OK with the current arrangement, but I will add a comment. The names of the end-sections in this article do not conform to WP:LAYOUT. The section the guideline calls "References" is called "Bibliography" in the article. Also, User:Bzuk is an experienced librarian, so you may count on him to format bibrecs perfectly without cite templates. I am not a librarian so I use cite templates, and I recommend them to editors generally. But it doesn't bother me [anymore] when he redoes them. --Jtir (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The term "References" is actually a nebulous term not used in publishing however it does serve to identify those sources of information that are properly identified as "end/footnotes" and a "bibliography" or "bibliographic record." Before instituting this revision to the standard Wiki sourcing, I very carefully read over the MoS and there is a provision for the use of both "Notes" and "Bibliography" and when a Swedish editor began using this style, I naturally was about to revert the changes out-of-hand until I began to see the advantages in grouping sources as well as the use of smaller fonts to condense the section. As to sorting a bibliographical record, the standard is to alphabetically sort by first entry whether it is author or title. FWIW, I have now made numerous edits over the last months and the style has been accepted by all editors once they check into its viability as a revised style. Besides being a former reference librarian, I am now an editor (by trade) and a published author so I have dealt with editing issues over a lengthy period of time dating back a decade or two. Bzuk (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

References

[edit]

I'm wary of including the books by Howard or Salwolke in these articles about Powell, Pressburger or their films. The one by Howard is mainly about Powell, it only mentions Pressburger in passing. And it's got hardly any original research. It's mainly just a collection of references. As for the Salwolke book, it's just full of errors -- SteveCrook (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality - Or: British or English?

[edit]

Should we go with the subject's own description? "I love grass and trees...with the passionate love of an Englishman for his island." Opening page of his autobiography. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And how many times did he describe himself as British? You can't just pick and choose. His passport gave his nationality as British. English is a sub-division of British, like being from Kent. But it isn't an internationally recognised nationality, or the passport would say he was English. He was a British subject (or citizen) who was also an Englishman and also a Man of Kent. But although the terms "Englishman" and "Man of Kent" narrow down where he was born, they aren't his nationality -- SteveCrook (talk) 10:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be more than one dispute over this, running at the moment, at different spots in the encylopedia. I have no idea of the solution but wp:edit warring isn't it, for sure. I was just cleaning up sources when my "save" failed due to the article being protected. Bleh.
  • Since it seems to be agreed that all English are British, why not simply call him English, with a Cite Book to his autobiography with the quote= parameter filled in as above, since he clearly claims that as his description. Those who are seeking his nationality will therefore know that he is British, a citizen of the United Kingdom, and those seeking a bit more detail will know he considered himself English.- Sinneed 19:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the section of his autobiography mentioned above he refers to himself as English, at other times he has referred to himself as British -- SteveCrook (talk)
I believe that the issue is one of nationality not place of birth. Is English a nationality? FWiW, the more important issue is the bypassing of talk pages when a potentially contentious issue arises. There appears to be a WP:POV concern when this series of edits is taken in totality with other similar edits on other articles. Bzuk (talk) 19:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Please focus on the content of this article here. The issue is the content of the encyclopedia. We have a source for "English" and I see more than one for British. If someone is looking for nationality, "English" will give it to them. If they are looking for his description of himself, "English" will give it to them. The other discussions belong, if they belong in WP at all, on some other talk page, please.- Sinneed 19:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion either way, just offering a thought.- Sinneed 19:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further, I note that a number of editing accounts here have been blocked under wp:sock. So the point may be moot.- Sinneed 19:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this case we have something to assist the decision, with Powell strongly identifying himself as English; such a cite may not be available in those other disputed cases. Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom#Guide to finding UK nationality allows individual UK+NI countries to be used for nationality where there is "evidence that the person has a preferred nationality". As User:Sinneed's suggestion. --Old Moonraker (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is his nationality British and his place of birth, England? If that is the case, then the lede reflects that, and further information in the body of the text gives more details as to where he lived. FWiW, he appears to have identified himself as both English and British according to Steve Cook. Bzuk (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Have you read my comments? For every time when he described himself as English there is another time when he described himself as British. The page about English people points out that describing oneself as "English" rather than "British" is something done by English nationalists. Powell was the last person anyone would describe as an English nationalist. He was proud to have been born in England but he welcomed and worked closely with people from other countries and he made films in other countries, in the UK and beyond -- SteveCrook (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts from source

[edit]

I have found these timelines a bit unreliable, but:

  • Lazar, David; Powell, Michael (2003). Michael Powell: Interviews (Conversations With Filmmakers Series). University Press of Mississippi. pp. Page xxiii- xxvi. ISBN 1-57806-498-8.

conflicts a bit with some of the text in the body.- Sinneed 19:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No reason not to change the timeline? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which timelines have you found to be unreliable? The article only mentions his dates of birth and death and the dates for the films The Edge of the World and Peeping Tom, all of which seem to agree with the dates given in this article -- SteveCrook (talk) 19:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, I was not clear. The timelines in these "Conversations with Filmmakers Series" are interesting but not always terribly accurate. I use them to give me bits of information, but if another source conflicts, I tend to use the other source.- Sinneed 19:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see a conflict. Or do you mean in the book itself? -- SteveCrook (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1919-1921 vs 1925 for 1st film work, for example. If the 1925 date is from anywhere other than "plucked out of the air", I would keep the 1925 date.- Sinneed 19:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That date range of 1919-1921 is definitely wrong. See my own timeline. His brother John died in 1918. In 1920-1922 he was at school at Dulwich College. From 1922-1925 he was working as a bank clerk at the National & Provincial bank, Canterbury. He started working with Ingram in 1925 -- SteveCrook (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Powell entered the film industry in 1925, consequently that date is significant. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
[edit]

I use "http://books.google.com/books?id=dHnZZcgztgwC" rather than the "http://books.google.com/books?id=dHnZZcgztgwC&source=gbs_navlinks_s" or whatever google gives out. My understanding is that the book ID isn't planned to change... but the commands after might. I have no sourcing for that, and hopefully it is minor, I think it was from a squabble somewhere about sources and url.- Sinneed 19:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first URL does not give the reader the book, but a link to the book where the second URL takes you to a page where you can do a direct search. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michael Powell. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michael Powell. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Powell. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from “Legacy”

[edit]

Bbb23 (talk · contribs) recently removed the following:

He has been played on screen by Alastair Thomson Mills in the short film Òran na h-Eala (2022) which explores Moira Shearer's decision to appear in the The Red Shoes

It seems to me relevant that Powell appeared as a character in a dramatic retelling of the making of one of his films. So… discussion, rather than edit war? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that t belongs on the page and in the "Legacy" section; its repeated migration to the opening of his biography seems weird to me! I don't think his appearance in a little-seen short film from last year is among the most notable things about Powell (with apologies to the filmmakers). Thundarrshirt (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Powell&oldid=1194842478"