Talk:The Caine Mutiny (1954 film)

Vessel Class

It was a DMS, a destroyer mine sweeper, not a minesweeper. 22:54, March 6, 2005 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.74.77.102 (talk • contribs) .

Ship inaccuracy

The aircraft carrier that the three officers go to to see Admiral Halsey on is easily identifiable by the 'shown' flightdeck number of "33."

Unfortunately, that is the wrong ship. "CV-33" is/was the U.S.S. Kearsarge. The Kearsarge was NOT IN SERVICE until 1946; but was in service (till 1970) when the movie was filmed. 2600:8800:786:A300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 22:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Glad you raised the point as there should be no identification of Navy ships and other locations in the making of this film unless they have been adequately sourced. I've removed the references that were in the article. This is exactly why we don't allow original research. Coretheapple (talk) 14:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Restored reference to the USS Thompson, and added the USS Doyle, as the two ships that the Navy converted to be used to portray the WWII USS Caine, and included two reliable reference citations to support this information. Centpacrr (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Plot

The plot at the current time goes into intricate detail on the "strawberry investigation" and other plot points, but fails entirely to mention the principle subplot, which involves Ensign Keith and his domestic issues. That needs to be addressed and we need to trim this otherwise, as it is far too long per MOS:PLOT. Coretheapple (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

One sentence ought to do it. The Keith/Wynn "plot element" is shallow hackneyed Hollywood window dressing retained for box office purposes and is essentially irrelevant to the main themes of the picture. They are seen interacting in just three widely dispersed brief scenes (twice face to face and once in a transcontinental phone call) which account for a total of barely seven minutes in screen time in the 124-minute film. Centpacrr (talk) 04:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

It was a major subplot in the novel, and was significantly downplayed in the film, so it is not accurate to call this "Hollywood window dresssing." And even if it was, so what? We're not film critics. The purpose of the plot summary is to summarize the plot, and at the current time we have a long plot summary that makes no mention of a significant part of the film. Coretheapple (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

As has been pointed out in the WP talk pages on films many times before, a novel and a film based on it are NOT the same thing. This is an entry about the film in which the complicated Keith/Wynn "subplot" from the novel has been all but completely eliminated. The place to discuss that fictional relationship is in the Wikipedia entry for the novel where it would be appropriate because it exists there as opposed to the film where it doesn't. A similar example would be the making of Sen. Orrin Knox (R-IL) in the Wikipedia entry for the 1959 film Advise and Consent as being that of a central figure in the film in which he is only a tangential one just because he is a much more important character in the Allan Drury novel, and in fact in Drury's 1968 sequel, Preserve and Protect, Knox is both Secretary of State and is then elected President of the United States.

The importance of the Keith/Wynn plot in the novel has nothing whatever to do with what it is in the film in which it barely exists in three very short and widely separated scenes totaling less then seven minutes in the 124-minute picture. With all the limitations and cuts you advocate making to the length of the plot section, one sentence to discuss the Keith/Wynn "subplot" would be plenty -- if needed at all. A much more important plot element which you have deleted multiple times over the years (and as recently as last week) when added by myself and other editors is that made in the final scene of the film in which Keith has both been promoted to Lt (jg) and that his reputation has been cleared is indicated by the confidence that CDR DeVries, his first CO on the Caine who had given him a substandard fitness report then and under whom he is again serving on his new ship, shows in him by inviting him to take command of undocking and getting the ship underway from its berth at Treasure Island. The redemption and maturity of Keith as a young Reserve Naval officer after undergoing the crucible of his service on the Caine and dismissal of the charges of mutiny is a far FAR more important plot element than the fleeting references to his relationship with a cabaret singer. Centpacrr (talk) 04:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with you about this, and your droning on in wall-of-text fashion about this minor point is disruptive. I put this out there, rather than make a WP:BOLD edit, because I am not sure how to effectuate an edit on this as we have a stable version. If other editors have any thoughts on this they are free to express them, Coretheapple (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• (Comment out of sequence) With respect, sir/madame, I utterly reject your implication that another editor making a two paragraph response that you disagree with in a talk page explaining his/her views on an issue that you as the OP originally raised in any way constitutes "disruptive" editing, and I am also frankly offended by any poster in a talk page attempting to intimidate another contributor into not expressing his/her views by calling for only other editors to do so. I find both of these to be counterproductive and inconsistent with the objectives and spirit of the Wikipedia project. Centpacrr (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Personally I don't find either point especially relevant to understanding the film, but the part about DeVries seems to me as though it may be reading into his motives. We can say what he does perhaps, but we shouldn't guess why he does so. In any case, if either of you want to take a shot at restructuring the summary to include your preferred plot points and can keep the summary under 700 words, then AFAIC you're welcome to do so as long as it's not at the expense of more relevant material. Hope this helps. DonIago (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with that reading motives into DeVries actions toward the end is OR. Coretheapple (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:PLOTBLOAT: "The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events". Does Keith's romantic trouble qualify? I don't think so. In the film at least, it's entirely irrelevant to the mutiny. Plus it pushes the synopsis over the 700 word recommendation (680 without it). Clarityfiend (talk) 07:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

If it can be worked organically into the summary without causing it to go over 700 words I doubt I'd have much opposition to it, but the last rendition I saw broke the fourth wall and seemed to be shoehorned in as "this also happens during the film!" Just because a plot point is important to the novel doesn't automatically make it relevant to the overall film plot, and vice-versa. Regardless, if the only way to discuss it is to break the fourth wall and add it as I've just outlined, I don't feel that's a net benefit to the plot summary. A more constructive option might be to discuss in the Production section how and why the romance subplot was downplayed versus the novel, provided sources have discussed it. Alternately, have sources discussed the romance subplot in general? DonIago (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Greenwald's monologue to the mutineers

In the novel, the Caine Mutiny by Herman Wouk when, Barney Greenwald confronts the mutineers (especially Keefer) about after their acquittal he reveals that the reason he condemns the mutineers is 1) for the same reasons as in the film and 2) because Greenwald is Jewish and as a result has the most to lose in the event of an Axis victory. His exact words were (I'm here condensing the content), "So when all hell breaks loose and the Germans started running out of soap and decided it was time to melt down old Mrs Greenwald-who's gonna stop them? Not her boy Barney. Can't stop a Nazi with a lawbook. So I dropped the lawbooks and ran to learn how to fly. Stout fellow. Meantime, and it took a year and a half before I was any good, who was keeping Mama out of the soap dish? Captain Queeg." Greenwald goes on to say more but, despite appearances, I'm not actually trying to be lengthy. My point is that in the movie scene wherein Greenwald confronts Keefer, which is actually closely based on the scene in the book, they omit all of Greenwald's references and allusions to the Holocaust and to his being Jewish. I honestly do think that change is important because, and this is just my opinion not something I'm trying to insert into Wikipedia, what was in the book, a defence (I'm Canadian that's how I spell it) of Jewish American patriotism becomes instead a defence of standard American patriotism. To my recollection, thearticle does not mention the discrepancies between the book and the film vis-a-vis Greenwald's monologue. Does anyone else besides me, think that it should? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.200.115.29 (talk • contribs)

It's an interesting variance, but when it comes to 'differences from the source material' we only include those which reliable sources have discussed. Films differ from novels all the time, so we need evidence that the difference was significant enough to merit attention. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

All right. Thank you for your response. 198.200.115.29 (talk) And Doniago(talk), I wish you good luck in your efforts to become an administrator. (I know that's not relevant to the discussion at hand but I do hope you succeed in your goal.) 198.200.115.29 (talk) 05:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! DonIago (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Iwo Jima

Queeg refers to the landing as "the most important thing ever"....or words to that effect. The scenes are obviously from Iwo Jima. The article cites "a small Pacific island", but the footage is certainly Iwo Jima. I realise we can't infer, but can we state the obvious? Hanoi Road (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

If it's obvious, then it's likely been discussed somewhere and may be added with a source...though I think it would be appropriate to add that as Production info, not to claim that the "small Pacific island" is Iwo Jima when that's not mentioned in the film. If there's no source, then no matter how "obvious" it may be, we shouldn't add it. DonIago (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not that big a deal,I suppose. As you point out, IJ is not specifically referenced in the film, though to anyone remotely familiar with WW2 Pacific Theatre footage, it would certainly be "obvious". In fact, the specific newsreel used is ubiquitous and shows up in The World at War, amongst other places. Sources are plentiful, but it does smack of inference. No crime to use IJ footage to represent Okinawa, I guess. Hanoi Road (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, one location "standing in" for another isn't uncommon even when it isn't stock footage. I just watched an episode of The Americans which located Croton Gorge Park in New York adjacent to Washington DC. I grew up about 15 minutes from CGP, so it was pretty amusing to see. :p I do think it might be worth mentioning that the stock footage is used if sources have discussed it, as Production-level information. We just can't mention IJ in the plot if the characters don't do so themselves. DonIago (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Yup. Seems so. Hanoi Road (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)