Talk:Cat People (1942 film)

The "bus"

Hi, I just added in the information about the technique called the "bus" that Lewton and his team claimed they invented. I think that it's a very interesting and important addition, because of the bus's influence on the horror genre, but I'm haveing trouble defining it clearly. There's something so abstract and fuzzy about the definition of a bus, and maybe I'm having trouble because it's purely a filmic technique and therefore hard to describe with words. If you have ever watched a horror movie then you have seen millions of "bus" scenes: it's any sccene where the director tricks you into screaming about something silly or harmless that pops out of nowhere because your afraid of the precence of something truly horrifying in the movie. If anyone knows filmic devices and can clearly explain them, then please be my guest, go ahead and clarify my attempt to define it. It would also be neat if someone could create a whole page to describe what a "bus" is, or maybe just create a list of famous busses in movie history. Icculusioso 07:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverting moves

I just viewed the 1942 film Cat People, and was searching for information on it on Wiki. In the course of my research, I found several links that directed to Cat People (1942 film), while some directed to just Cat People. Upon investigating the matter, I found that the page had been moved recently (Sept) with no discussion on the matter.

I consulted the Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films). The accepted pattern for films with more than one name, or more title than just films, is Film Title (film). There is no mention of one film being the the primary topic; it reads as if both films need to have (film) in the title. These are the reasons that I reverted the original move. With Cat People being the subject of several articles, not just the two films, this title should be the disambiguation page, linking to all the others.

I spent alot of time fixing broken redirects yesterday for this article, and noticed that many articles still linked to Cat People (1942 film). I was too tired after that to write an explanation here at that time. I am not going to get into a revert war over an obscure film; it's not worth wasting my time on. However, I have explained my reasoning here in case someone else thinks the same way I do on this issue. If someone want the names to be in such a way that they are more confusing to others, and no one else cares, so be it. It's not that big a deal for an obscure film. Just make sure that all the redirects and links to this article are changed this time. -- BillCJ 17:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: It's been 3 weeks since my rename was reverted, and none of the redirects have been changed. Bear in mind that one of my reasons for changing the name in the first place (as stated above) was that more links pointed to Cat People (1942 film than to Cat People in the first place, evidently left over from the first time the name was changed. This is sloppy work, and why I considered my change a "revert". - BillCJ 23:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Cat People → Cat People (1942 film) — and also Cat People (disambiguation) → Cat People — Another user has objected to this move in the past, but I'm not convinced that the 1942 film can be regarded as being unquestionably the primary topic. PC78 17:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

1. Support as nominator. PC78 17:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Support I came ready to oppose, but then read Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines - "If a film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, use (YEAR film) in the title: Film Title (YEAR film). Rename the already existing article's title and change it to Film Title (YEAR film) also." Clearly this should be at Cat People (1942 film). -- Beardo 06:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Support I tend to think of the Natassja Kinski film instead. 70.51.8.140 07:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Support both moves. The original, but not nearly unquestionably the primary topic.
5. Support per nom. I don't think we can say that the 1942 film is automatically to be given precedence. Tevildo 02:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Fair use rationale for Image:Catpeople.jpg

Image:Catpeople.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for image updated. --Northmeister 16:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

OR?

I've taken the following out, as it is unsourced and possibly WP:OR:

Although Cat People is usually categorized as a horror movie, it can also be considered a film noir, as Irena assumes many of the traits of both femme fatale and the typical noir hero alienated from conventional society, psychologically wounded and morally ambiguous. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

plot summary wrong

This summary makes it sound like she's eaten by a panther - it's been a while since I've seen this but I'm fairly sure the Panther is run over by and is dead by this stage of the film? --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

No panther was run over in this film (as far as I can recall), and she definitely lets herself be killed (not eaten) by opening a panther's cage. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I watched the film again. The panther is run over after killing Irena. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Missing citation/source

I've moved two sentences from the article as neither the author who wrote them names any source nor could I verify the infos given:

The writing is credited to DeWitt Bodeen, but Tourneur, composer Roy Webb, Lewton and his secretary all contributed to the script.

As a nod to the movie, the DC Comics anti-heroine Catwoman uses the name Irene Dubrovna as an alias after she goes into hiding.

Of course they can be reinstated when a reliable source is given.--Robert Kerber (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cat People (1942 film). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071030070540/http://www.bravotv.com/The_100_Scariest_Movie_Moments/index.shtml to http://www.bravotv.com/The_100_Scariest_Movie_Moments/index.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 00:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cat People (1942 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 17:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Happy to offer some comments. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• "Tourneur added that Lewton was not sure what to do with the title, and with "Val, with his good taste, said that the only way to do it was not to make the blood-and-thunder cheap horror movie that the studio expected but something intelligent and in good taste."" I don't follow. Also, be aware of MOS:LQ.

I believe I've fixed this issue. tell me if there is any more clarification needed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Could you provide a little context about "Ancient Sorceries"? At the very least, could you tell us what period it's set in?

I've added a brief plot scenario and info on its setting. I'm trying to say the story has a contemporary setting but is set in a Medieval architecture set-town, if that makes any sense. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• "Bodeen also stated that the scene was inspired by his own experience of nearly drowning when swimming alone at night in a pool. Tourneur said that the scene was based on his own experience of swimming alone in a friend's pool while the friend's pet cheetah escaped and began pacing nearby.[5]" Does this belong here?

I added a bit more info maybe to clarify this if that helps anything. Otherwise, not sure what the issue is exactly. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• "That became the bust and we used it in every film." Bust?

This seems to have been a misspelling I or someone else accidentally corrected. should say 'bus'. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• "a Disney cartoon about a kitten" DO we know what that was? We probably have an article about it...

Sadly the statement about the intro only comes from one of the writers of the film attending the premiere, so its second hand information. Haven't been able to find anything about what the cartoon was. If I find anything, I'll add it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• "60 times its estimated budget of $134,000" You give a very precise budget a few paragraphs up. Which is it?

I've removed this statement, I think the rest of the paragraph clarifies a bit more without it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Stopping there for now. Great read so far. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• This is a tricky point, and I'm certainly not insisting on anything, but if you head towards FAC... I hadn't gotten the impression from the article that the film was particularly famous, so the quote at the start of the retrospective reception section feels a bit out of place. By the end of the article, I get the impression that the visual style, the stalking scene, and the pool scene are all particularly iconic; my instinct is that this could have perhaps been brought out a bit more clearly earlier on in the article.

I'm not sure how much more I could expand on them or where currently. I might try to put a bit more focus on them on a re-write later, is it skippable for now? Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• (The section also feels a bit he-said-she-said - again, something to think about if you're looking towards FAC.)

I'm thinking again this isn't 100% necessary to go over unless we are going for FA? I'll be happy to tackle it otherwise. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Again, this is more looking towards FAC than demanding any changes now, but: "Newman praises the film, noting that it was the first major supernatural horror film with a contemporary urban, American setting with "normal people, engaged in normal occupations" as leading characters. She concludes that Cat People was a progenitor of films like Rosemary's Baby." This feels like literary analysis and/or historical contextualising rather than "reception". I personally think it belongs in another section. I'd like to see more scholarly analysis in this article; I worry it might be a little too woven in with critical (i.e., critic's) opinions. But, again, this is something to think about if you're looking towards FAC.

As per above i'll try to re-figure this later I suppose. But this did make me catch a mistake, Kim Newman identifies as "he" not "she". So i've fixed that one! Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• "Fujiwara declared the film in his book on Tourneur that it was "a master text in Tourneur's filmography"," Clumsy

I've tried re-phrasing this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Pet peeve, but "opining" is a word that only seems to exist on Wikipedia. Don't feel you have to change it, but do think about it!

It's pretty funny, as in all the texts I've read on film, this film was the first I've heard someone use the term "opine" outside Wikipedia. I've changed it here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• First paragraph of the "remake" section is a little choppy - and some dates would be helpful context. I completely lost what was going on in the second paragraph - the link to the article on the 1982 film in the first sentence threw me.

There's very little information I could find on when and how these bits of information were done. I believe one sourced gave a vague estimation of mid-1970s but it didn't sound very certain so I've ignored it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• "which also contains a plot that involves a gypsy curse" First mention of a "gypsy curse".

I've clarified what this refer to (specficially, the Wolf Man plot). I think that clears it up. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Finished my first read through. Again, please check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Your edits seem fine and non-controversial to me. Thank you for making them! Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Everson, Narenmore, Silver & Ward, Tollette, Viera, and White & Buscombe all appear in the bibliography, but are not cited.

These have been removed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Sources look OK, and I'm not going to pick on formatting. Be aware that you should cite particular entries in encyclopedias/chapters in collections, rather than the book as a whole, but perhaps the only ones that would need changing will be removed per the above bullet anyway.

I believe most here are authors through out the book currently. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@J Milburn:, I believe I've gone through everything you mentioned. Is there more to tackle in the article? Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• " had worked on second-unit" I don't know what this means, so I suspect that lots of other readers won't. "rushes" is another term that isn't familiar to me.
• "the cats presence by shadows" - Apostrophe. What does the source say? If that's what's in the source, a {{sic}} would be helpful.

It's looking great. I still need another look at the bottom two sections and a close look at the images/sources. I'll hopefully be back in the next few days. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy enough with the sourcing and images. I finished my second read of the article and made a few more changes. If you're happy with the changes, those two comments above are all that's outstanding. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Great I think your edits were good. I only made one mild change with a citation and phrasing. I've also addressed your previous two edits @J Milburn:, I've tried to explain some filmmaking phrases with slight re-arranges and wikilinks and fixed the missing apostrophe. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I think this is now looking great, and I'm happy to promote. I do think that FAC may be in reach. Take a look at my earlier comments and have a good delve into the scholarly literature if you're wanting to push that way. If you're having trouble accessing any particular sources, let me know; I may be able to get hold of them for you. A pleasure working with you. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! It maybe something I want to tackle in the future for this article. I'll consider it for sure. Thanks for all your work reviewing and editing J! Great to work with you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

No mention of a queer reading of this film?

Just watching Queer for Fear episode 3 and it's talking about Cat People. I've known for a long time about the queer readings of the film, especially given it was screenwritten by a queer writer DeWitt Bodeen during the Code era.

But, despite there being plenty of potential references (The Last Drive-In, citing Benshoff's Monsters in the Closet, Autostraddle, Morbidly Beautiful, The Queer Quadrant podcast, CineBeats, Ainsley Peace — even Ebert's review mentions Russell's character as potentially being a lesbian approach), this article reached GA status without a single mention?

NME has an interview with Brian Fuller that mentions the film: “The best queer horror films everyone should see – as chosen by an expert”, as well as the docuseries.

Perhaps someone who knows the genre better could update the article appropriately? — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:15, 18 October 2022 (UTC)