Talk:A Separation

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

Plot[edit]

The last line of the plot makes no sense. "Razieh is found to not be guilty of the incident..." There is no previous mention of her being charged. It earlier refers only to Razieh's husband and Nader being charged. Tiddy (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the film? I added the plot section, but I only based it on the one on German Wikipedia so I'm just as confused. Would be appreciated if someone who actually has seen the movie could go through the plot and adjust it. Right now there are lots of details and emphasis that I'm not entirely comfortable with. Smetanahue (talk) 03:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smet ! You'll have to excuse my imput, this is my first login on Wikipedia (a Wikivirgin, if you will). I agree with Tiddy that the last paragraph of the plot doesn't read rationally. While I appreciate your submission, may I make the suggestion that you just temporarily remove that part until you or someone else can re-add it more comprehensibly ? Roxannek (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both Smet & Roxannek. I haven't seen the film either but was interested in trying to understand the plot. Tiddy (talk) 05:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The German plot has now been updated and become more clear, and I've updated the English according to that. Still not completely clear about the different charges, and the ending is still confusing, but should be better. Smetanahue (talk) 05:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the plot summary. I have not seen the movie, but if the summary is based on the German version, then it contained a major mistranslation. In the previous version, it was stated "Hodjat could either face a prison sentence" which means that Hodjat could go to prison. However, this does not make sense, as it was Nader who (supposedly) committed the crime. The German version also states that it was Nader who faces a prison sentence. The new version is now in line with the German version. --Ruebezahl (talk) 12:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sorry about that miss. Hopefully the section will keep getting better as more people get to watch the move. Smetanahue (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb Top 250[edit]

Although, Nader and Simin, A Separation is the first Iranian film to appear in the IMDb Top 250, it will be difficult to find a citation without the cooperation of the IMDb staff, since original research is prohibited. This film is also the first and only 2011 film in the IMDb Top 250. --Dan Dassow (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There has long been a broad consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film to not include scores or rankings from IMDb in film articles. One reason is that there is not encyclopedic value in such info, and one even bigger is that the info is ephemeral and easy to manipulate. I will remove it from the article. Smetanahue (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually verifiable through Top 250 Informer. Lhw1 (talk) 01:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awards[edit]

This important part of the article does not have enough citations. Maybe people who added those, can give the references? Thanks. Xashaiar (talk) 10:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Title change to A Separation[edit]

What do you think? That's the official title for the US and UK releases. Why should it stay as its festival title? Lhw1 (talk) 06:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • that makes sense, although the article should state also what the original title is --Accursius (talk) 14:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Box office does not match[edit]

There is currently a huge difference between what is shown in article and the source provided. am I missing something? Amiralis (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NYT resources[edit]

99.109.125.85 (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awards and Nomination[edit]

Something has to be done about this section, either: (1) someone should create that collapsing option (hide?) or (2) create a new article just on this issue --Accursius (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism from establishment and others in Iran[edit]

Should be included in a new section in the article --Accursius (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a change of heart:

Court System?[edit]

After seeing this movie I was wondering how the court system works in Iran. Is the court system as shown in the film "secular" or "religious"? (Or is there a difference between the divorce court system and the criminal court system as shown in the film?) The judge as depicted in the film does not look like a religious authority figure, but more like a civil servant type of judge, but maybe you can't tell just from his appearance. (It looks like a pretty challenging job to be a judge, but they really make decisions and work relatively fast!) If anybody knows, this might be a worthwhile clarification for viewers who don't know the background. --Mdukas (talk) 04:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most nations have separate civil and criminal courts. Iran is no different in that respect than secular nations. The guidance of the courts in Iran today is a mixture of civil law and sharia law, in divorce cases, there are specialized civil courts, similar in scope to family courts. The jurists are appointed by the religious leadership and apply more sharia based law than secular based law, though there seem to have been some advances made in re-instituting the old Family Protection Law in recent years. For more detailed information, it appears one would have to request additional information from the Iranian government.Wzrd1 (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Original poster[edit]

Does anyone could find out the original poster? This is the American version with the American title. This is an encyclopedia, we must be as exact as we can. Thanks. 189.122.22.53 (talk) 07:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the Rejections[edit]

As --Accursius mentioned in a section above, there is rejections to the film. I had brought some of it there. Why anybody removed it? everybody else's reviews are bullshit, just because Oscar and Golden Globe awarded the film? Is this really what you think about analyzing films? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord'sServant (talk • contribs) 12:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Religious objections are not especially noteworthy in the review of *ANY* secular film, hence not extremely noteworthy. When objections are also partially political in nature, they become even less noteworthy. As the ban on the film has been lifted in Iran, the objections are far from noteworthy. Now, if there is an objection to the film based upon matters of accuracy of legal proceedings or matters of law, such may be noteworthy. As for the reviews of western critics and award committees being bovine defecation, this article is regarding the western release of the film, hence the reviews are germane to this article. Just as Iranian reviews of any western film screened in Iran would be germane to any Persian Wikipedia article on said films. Huffington Post and The Daily Beast are not reputable news outlets (the latter being opinion heavy, hence not neutral), hence not reliable sources. The first reference from Accursius discusses how Iranian authorities disliked the film being shown in Israel, which also has nothing to do with the film, its content or its quality, it's purely political. The artinfo article leans heavily upon The Daily Beast, then discusses how Iran’s Deputy Minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance as saying, “Wise judgment has put this movie on the podium of the chosen ones.” That doesn't sound like condemnation of the topic, accuracy or social context of the film, hinting further that the objections are political. The claim by Masoud Dehnamaki, a filmmaker who actually likes the regime, and whose “Ekhrajiha” was overshadowed by “A Separation” — to say that the U.S. government probably influences Oscar picks: “Especially in the foreign films category, yes, it does have a role.” is frankly absurd in the extreme and displays significant ignorance about film awards in the US, the role of US government within the US and everything about private industry in the US. An equal biased view would be to proclaim that the space aliens ordained this film be given an award. Rather than unbiased, neutral reporting on a film, not predicated on absurd conspiracy theories. As an example of bias, A Fiddler on the Roof is decried as "zionist propaganda" by Iranian officials, but I've personally gifted on request, DVD's of that film to Iranian citizens, who quite love that film. There was no zionist propaganda present in that film, to claim so is to deny the Russian pogroms, which even the USSR and today, the Russian Federation confirm to have occurred as described in the film. Only a fool would consider their government's word as unbiased or accurate, regardless of one's nationality.Wzrd1 (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How to handle abortion in the discussion of this film?[edit]

I just watched this movie and my first question was, "Is this movie supposed to imply that an abortion took place?" There are no sources from the director or producers indicating this implication is true, but if the director did indicate this implication, then he'd likely see his film banned. Arguments to support the abortion references include 1) the tutor mysteriously giving the pregnant woman a number 2) us not actually seeing the pregnant woman get hit by a car, as she later claims 3) and what we know: that it would have been impossible for Nadir to push her as far down the stairs as she claims to have fallen 4) it is only after Nadir inquires to the tutor about the pregnant woman's doctor that she suddenly releases an affidavit saying Nadir knew the woman was pregnant. Unfortunately, most of these points are not included in the plot summary, so anybody researching the film has no way of knowing that abortion is a topic this film indirectly, intelligently, and cautiously touches on.

I guess I want to start a discussion as to how we incorporate the issue of abortion into this film's page. After all, from some of the talk I've seen on the web, it's part of why this movie got so much attention and probably part of why it won an Oscar. It would be shameful for Wikipedia to omit one of the most significant aspects of the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.182.108.28 (talk) 06:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No speculation. The plot seems clear that the baby died in utero and the debate is to whether being struck by the car or the fall down the stairs was responsible for it.MartinezMD (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on A Separation. 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, 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) 20:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on A Separation. 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: 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) 14:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Separation&oldid=1197187845"