Talk:Frank's Cock

Further sources

• http://www.cineworks.ca/catalogue/omnibus_item/breaking_up/ - Original grant information
• http://alexmackenzie.ca/watchingyou.html - Alex Mackenzie's role
• http://www.mikehoolboom.com/r2/docs/1066.jpg - Screening at Viper Film Festival, Switzerland (source images)
• http://www.cineworks.ca/catalogue/omnibus/ - Single roll of film

Comments

Ok, here are some comments on the article. Mainly focusing on prose/readability. Most of it was well written, only a few concerns:

• "with interspersed scenes from popular culture, gay pornography, and human creation" "human creation" is a bit ambiguous here, does it refer to humans creating things or humans being created?

• Humans being created, linked to Embryogenesis. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• "and the narrator fears his loss" I'd suggest "death" instead of "loss" here.

• Fair enough

• "The two began an older brother-younger brother fantasy and moved in together." Just so I'm clear: they were playing out an incest fantasy?

• Check out the script if you want, but yeah, that's an implication. I'm guessing that it included some of the platonic aspects of brotherhood (sticking up for each other and whatnot) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• You probably want to cite the quotes in "Synopsis".

• Fair enough, done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• You might want to note Vancouver in the first paragraph of "Production"
• "The Canadian director Mike Hoolboom was diagnosed with HIV in 1988 or 1989, after going to donate blood." Just to be sure, it was found that he had aids after he donated, or he got aids during the donation process?

• During the process. Waugh (p. 316) has a good quote on that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• "Upon his friend's suggestion, Hoolboom began work on a script for "a real movie"" Who is being quoted here?

• I ended up with "Upon his friend's suggestion, Hoolboom began work on a script for what the source dubbed "a real movie", one which portrayed an AIDS patient as one full of love and not one that showed the patient's friends abandoning him.", which is quite long. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• "with the short Hoolboom's first venture at directly addressing the AIDS issue." I think it might be better to note this earlier in the article.

• How's this?

• "James Twentyman wrote that the film was "relatively straightforward" but strong and provocative, emphasising the "soul-bearing" nature of the monologue.[21] Rush and Baughman write that" You have "wrote ... write" here, might want to try for better word choice.

• Write --> found.

• Similar situation here: "The Canadian Filmmakers' Distribution Centre, which has distribution rights for the film, notes further awards at the Interfilm Festival in Berlin and at the Big Muddy Film Festival in Carbondale, Illinois (both 1995),[25] while Hoolboom notes that it received an honourable mention".

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, that's all I saw on my first read-through, good work. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Pornography?

Some of the graphics seem pornographic. Is that appropriate content for Wikipedia?Kerry (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I can appreciate your concern, but the image depicted is considered essential to help readers understand the imagery of the film. Please see Wikipedia is not censored to see how "objectionable material" is handled on Wikipedia. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

This imagery only shocks and appalls. There is nothing essential about it. Ridiculous and clearly inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.72.253 (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• It is a screenshot of a film showing its visual style, which is extensively discussed in the text. It easily meets the criteria for use. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, however the images on the Wikipedia gay pornography article itself are not as pornographic. It seems it's not essential to the understanding of the imagery of gay pornography to include graphic images on this respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.127.6.142 (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• This is not an article on gay pornography. It is an article on a film which features gay pornography, a film which has an entire quadrant dedicated to said pornography. Having all four quadrants active at once is the only one which provides EV. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Home media

The article contains no information on home media releases of this film. How would I go about watching this? How did the article's author watch the film? Beerest 2 talk 21:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• There is no indication that the film was released on home media (as a short film, if anything had been released it would have been in an omnibus). We can rent the film from the Canadian Filmmakers' Distribution Centre, however. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Main Page talk discussion

Interesting Main Page talk discussion, at permalink.

Placed here for future reference.

Cheers,

— Cirt (talk) 09:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)