Talk:I Know Where I'm Going!

Film: British Start‑class

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.

Title

There is NO exclamation point in the title of this film. It never should have been moved here from the proper location I Know Where I'm Going. Please move it back to its proper heading. Thank you. The FinalWord 05:29, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Every one of the external pages listed at the bottom of the article gives the title with an exclamation point. Several of them include images of film posters and/or video covers, also with the exclamation point. Do you have any counter-evidence? --Paul A 06:25, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Almost every reference I've seen includes the exclamation point. The title caption used in the film reads: i know where i'm going! Jihg 18:23, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Hello, I'm new to Wikipedia but I think I can claim to know a bit about Powell and Pressburger films. I run the Powell & Pressburger Pages.

The title as given on screen in the film definitely has an exclamation point at the end. It is also all given in lower case and in quotation marks but many systems don't like titles like that so it is usually written as I Know Where I'm Going! (or just IKWIG). SteveCrook 01:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Scorsese quote

The Scorcese quote mentioned on this page, is from a documentary included in the Criterion DVD release of the film. I'd source it, but have no idea how to refer to this documentary correctly. And, by the way, I totally agree with him. I thought I'd heard of all the film masterpieces, and then saw this one, which I'd never heard of. It just blew me away. -- unsigned comment by 66.35.36.132 05:16, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've added the reference to it. -- SteveCrook 12:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy

Genre-labeling is usually a fool's game, especially with as sophisticated a work of art as IKWIG, but here goes. "Romance film" seems quite a pale and inadequate category. It is most certainly a comedy, and not merely because of a few jokes throughout. Its ending confirms its overall romantic & comedic tone. Various of the linked reviews concur, including Criterion and TCM. Cloonmore (talk) 03:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you define a comedy? I use the IMDb genre definitions. That says that to be considered a comedy, virtually all scenes should contain characters participating in humorous or comedic experiences. There are some jokes and a few comedic scenes in it but they are a tiny percentage of the whole. What's comedic about the ending? I don't often see many people laughing at the ending when it's screened. Just because a few other sites label it a comedy (I see that Criterion does but I don't see it on the TCM site), is that any reason to propagate the description? It's probably best to leave out any attempt at genre labelling -- SteveCrook (talk) 05:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Cloonmore is referring to comedy in the Shakespearean sense, i.e. with a happy ending. The film doesn't violate anything in Romantic comedy films and it has as much (or little) humour as some of the examples given: Shakespeare in Love and Roman Holiday. I certainly cringe at the idea of using IMDb's definition. I dunno, it could go either way; I just don't know where I'm going. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's certainly comedy in the Shakespearean sense, as all ends happily, but it's also a romantic comedy film in the absolute best sense. See the "description" section of the Wikipedia article, which fits IKWIG to a T. The IMDb definition is just plain wrong. Even such wonderful comedy classics as City Lights and The Shop Around the Corner wouldn't fit the IMDb definition. SteveCrook, comedy isn't measured by how often you belly-laugh. (But does the ending of IKWIG, with Joan's parading return and the wry terms of the curse read by the narrator, not evoke at least a smile?) BTW, if you click on "genre" on the left side of the TCM page, you'll see the reference to comedy. Cloonmore (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, using the arcane definition that anything that isn't a history or a tragedy must be a comedy. But if you told most people that a film was a comedy, they would expect to have quite a few laughs or at least to be smiling, giggling and tittering a lot. Hence the IMDb definition. There's a difference between "humorous or comedic experiences" and those that generate belly-laughs. So do you go for a definition as most people would understand it or for the technically more correct but not so widely understood definition? There are elements of the Wikipedia definition of romantic comedy film that seem to fit it. But I think it's a better fit to the Wikipedia definition of a romance film. Yes, there are usually smiles at the end of a screening, smiles and wry grins amidst the tears. But I'm not really a fan of genre classifications either. I don't know many films that really fit a one or two word definition. I leave it up to you to leave it as it is, change it or delete it entirely -- SteveCrook (talk) 06:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Music

My memory of the film includes the power of the tune 'Nut Brown Maiden' which recurs including in the final scene - is this worth a mention from someone who knows more about the film/music than me? Skihatboatbike (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. It's too much detail for the plot (WP:MOSFILM recommends 400-700 words), and where else could you put it? (By the way, I moved this section to the bottom.) Clarityfiend (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]