Talk:Kes (film)

Illjjegal behaviour

In the article: "There is a strong concentration on falconry in the film but the film does not encourage any illegal behaviour with respect to falcons" This is non-factual POV so I called for a reference to back this up (sadly, for one thing no matter how well Billy treats Kes, he doesn't have a licence to keep birds of prey so is technically breaking the law). References have been provided but they were merelkkky more opinion POV, based on interpretations of the film dialogue and situations. A reference should be from a verifiable credible secondary source. WP:Verifiability So I am removing the 'references' and putting back the request for credible references. Magic Pickle 15:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

"In sharp contrast to the US, falconry in Great Britain is permitted without a special license." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falconry, a license is not req'd. "However, a restriction exists of using only captive-bred birds.", but he uses a wild-bred bird. But this could be a new law, the article refers to the "1981 Wildlife & Countryside Bill" so it could have been legal in '69. QuentinUK (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Just checked A Manual of Falconry by Michael Woodford, 2nd Ed, this is the same book as Billy is seen reading in the film. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1jkgAQAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=kestrel this bird requires a license because it is/was a protected species and Billy would have known this. So the Wikipedia article is wrong!
Other crimes seen in the film, stealing sweets, milk, Dandy comic, fraud (lying about age to get library membership), A Manual of Falconry book (although the book in the bookshop may not be the same book he's sat down with, it has a white cover with a picture of a goshawk) QuentinUK (talk) 11:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Extinct?

Stoo-an extinct? I think not. Ever heard a Geordie speak (yes I know not a Yorkshire accent but still ...) Hmm.

Candy 19:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought that was strange, but I haven't stayed long enough up that way recently so I couldn't be sure. You could change it to something like "is no longer used in Yorkshire" -- SteveCrook 19:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Vanity here?

Following is an extract from a posting made to the SHAKSPER message board today. No comment from me. AndyJones 19:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, for me the major problem with Wikipedia is that users are allowed to advertise their own often sub-standard work. For example, a chancer called Simon W. Golding has just delivered a vanity-published book on Ken Loach's seminal film, 'Kes'. The book is atrocious beyond belief: as well as being bereft of filmic insight or even the capacity to process basic information, the man literally cannot write a proper sentence; there has been no editor to correct his incompetent English. But the Wikipedia entry on 'Kes - the film' contains a massive plug for this book - one that has to have been placed there by the author or his associates. Every time one intervenes, toning down the self-praise for this book, one's intervention is quickly vandalised off the site, and the glorifying plug for it is restored. This, I am told, is a fairly typical Wikipedia experience.

So the correct procedure is to remove the reference to it. Not to leave the reference and comment on it. -- SteveCrook 20:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. Can you clarify? AndyJones 20:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Leaving the notes about the book - but adding a comment saying how terrible it is, (as someone has been trying to do recently) is still just advertising it. If you agree with the poster quoted and think the book is atrocious then surely all reference to it should be removed. Either that or just leave it as a basic reference because the book exists, but remove all the descriptions. -- SteveCrook 21:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Until I've actually read this book or seen a proper review that says it's atrocious I would tend to just leave the bare details about the book. It is a book that exists and there are some reviews, like the one in the [http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?sectionid=55&articleid=1245384 that doesn't give the impression that it's atrocious. I suspect there might be a personal vendetta at work against the author. Not by you AndyJones but by whoever is posting these comments. -- SteveCrook 23:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed this sentence just now which was (I assume) sneakily hidden at the bottom of the page.

"The book 'Life After Kes' is vanity-published and very badly written - written by someone who does not have university qualifications. It is full of mistakes and written in a manner that borders on the illiterate. It should not be advertised here on Wikipedia."

Could I point out a few issues to the perpetrator please?

1. PoV about a book or reference are not in the spirit or guidlines of Wikipedia. Please be aware what you are doing is close to sly vandalism.

2. It is not necessary to have university qualifications in order to do anything well and if one has university qualifications it does not necessarily mean that things will be done well. They are non-sequiturs.

3. It is not being advertised. It is a reference. As I have not read the book and did not add the link I cannot add my PoV as to whether it is literature. Perhaps the contributer could express some opinion (or someone else who has read it).

Thank you Candy 14:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, I assume the guy who made this edit is the same guy whose posting to SHAKSPER I quote above. Exactly why he thinks vandalising wikipedia in this way is an appropriate response to (allegedly) poor sourcing is not clear to me, at all. Obviously I know his name and email address so I could contact him off-wikipedia. The arrogance of his ridiculous views about University education don't encourage me to believe we'd have a temperate correspondence, though. Let's see if his behaviour becomes a problem. Also we might check if the book in question really is vanity published. If so, it's likely to fall well below the WP:RS standard, and should probably be removed anyway. AndyJones 17:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Clean up and expansion

I took a lot of what was good and reworded it. Added a brief synopsis with spoiler notice (haven't seen the film for about a year so my memories may be wrong). I purposefully left out Glover's highly amusing (or if you went to school in the north of England sadly accurate) reflection of some PE teachers because although wonderful it wouldn't have added anything.

I would like to try to find some references to the falconry issues in the book (both protests and perhaps info about how they trained the falcon for the film).

The cast part should be expanded to include the main cast by character and actor's name (hence Mr Glover should be added here) and exactly where they were born perhaps (the actor whose name I forget playing the encouraging English teacher was a "foreigner" coming from the neighbouring county of lancashire.

I added extra refs inclucing the BFI top 10 which was already in the text. I removed the reference referred to in the above section (Vanity Here?) purely because compared with the other links it is clearly now sub-standard containing no relevent information to support the film except essentially an advertisement for a book.

Leaving it up to others to make some contributions (probably correct typos and formatting as well) ;) and perhaps take up the flame. Candy 23:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What's this complete rubbish about the teachers speaking in Received Pronunciation (RP) does whoever wrote this know what RP is as all the teachers speak in various Yorkshire accents with the exception of the English teacher who speaks with a south Lancastrian accent.

They all did except for Brian Glover, who had a moderated Yorkshire accent. I think that you are reffering to Welland here; he did have a slight Lancastrian twang, but he was generally R.P. All the other teachers were R.P. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QC-xZnnPhN8 The only Yorkshire accent that this teacher could possibly have is Harrogate. Note that saying "city" as citi was actually Standard English at one point before the Southerners got it changed. Epa101 (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Spoilers

I think this page needs a 'Spoilers' warning. --Paucolpitts2 15:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, done. -- SteveCrook 00:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kes DVD cover.jpg

Image:Kes DVD cover.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 this Wikipedia article 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 22:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Was Freddie Fletcher born in Barnsley? Need a reference

I have put a next to the sentence about how Bradley and Fletcher were both born in Barnsley. There are lots of sources saying that Bradley was but none on Fletcher. http://books.guardian.co.uk/fba2005/story/0,,1657036,00.html He worked at Grimethorpe colliery. Epa101 (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Accents - inaccuracies ?

I saw this at the age of 9 in Cleckheaton (West Riding) - it had quite an effect on me - I'd never seen people speaking in Yorkshire accent or dialect in a film before, and found it very entertaining. Also much of the dialogue was slightly risque - swearing on TV or films was not common. The phrase "where's me pillocking bike" in the first five minutes was quite shocking, and made us all giggle. Strangely it wasn't really a word we'd ever heard - but used a lot afterwards - it does appear to have been deliberately muddled up in more recent DVD editions.

At the time I didn't realise the differences between the South Yorkshire / West Yorkshire / Lancashire & General North of England accents - and considered the accents to be "Broad Yorkshire". As an adult I realise now that the main differences between South and West Yorkshire speech, are largely in terms of the dialect as opposed to the accents. The dialect is essentially the same - however it was (is) less commonly used in West Yorkshire. It would not have been common to use the amount of dialect as these characters do in school in a West Yorkshire school in 1970 - however it may well have been in South Yorks - where the film is set.

There are some odd bits of dialogue. The first scene itself is fascinating. At one point Billy says "I'm not gonna work down the pit" It's so out of kilter - in real life he'd have said "I'm not gonna work down 't pit" - with the 't being an almost silent glottal stop. If he was speaking "broad" - as he does in most of the film he'd have said "I'm no-an gonna work down 't pit" in fact he might have even said "I'm no-an bahnna work down 't pit". The word "work" as well would probably be compacted similar to "wuk" as prevalent in South Yorks or East Lancashire. In W. Yorks. "work" would only be contracted when "talking broad" - in informal situations (or among old people !)

I think the reality is that there were many actors in this film from all parts of Yorkshire and the North who were experimenting with a new way of communicating. Much as they wanted to deliver natural dialogue, it wasn't really possible - not least because almost of all of them would have been told not to speak "broad" in their work earlier in their careers (even David Bradley).

Whoever said that the teachers all speak with RP - Received Pronunciation is entirely incorrect. Brian Glover had an archetypal South Yorkshire accent and most of the other accents are genuine Northern ones. Colin Welland - although born in Liverpool and spending much of his young life in Lancashire has what I would describe as a very West Yorkshire accent.

It's possible that what is meant is that they use Standard English - although the pronunciation is very definitely Yorkshire/Northern - they do not use dialect. This is generally the practice in West Yorkshire - although most people can still use dialect forms, and will do so in informal situations.

Reight Ahm bahn t' me bed nah - Ahm laiking togger tomor'n !

78.32.193.115 (talk) 01:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right. There is an enduring myth that parts of the film were dubbed, which I can believe. For example, the scene in which the boys are waiting outside the headmaster's office for the cane involves very dull voices and a complete lack of dialect. Some other scenes, such as the fight scene, seem more authentic. I think that the use of dialect in "Kes" is the main reason why it is remembered so fondly. It's a shame that there were not more films made like this, as other counties have a traditional dialect that has since passed away, and capturing them all on film would've been great.

Barnsley has quite a stable population: White working-class people whose families have lived there for a long time. Some areas of West Yorkshire are like this as well: e.g. Wakefield, Pontefract, Holmfirth. These are the areas in which the dialect is best-maintained. The big cities in West Yorkshire have had lots of people move in from other areas of the country and of the world, so the local dialect has inevitably been lost as people need to talk to those who are not familiar with it. Sheffield has a markedly different accent from the rest of Yorkshire though: for example, they use a final hard g in "king, ring, sing" the same way that Scousers and Mancunians do; also, they say "one" to rhyme with "gone", "among" to rhyme with "song", etc. which is not common in West Yorkshire or Barnsley. 90.197.171.208 (talk) 08:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I take your point on the Sheffield accent - there are many variations in accent in Yorkshire, but I'd guess many are so subtle that only natives can tell the difference. As a child I could easily spot a Morley accent by the amount of glottal stops - "I on'y wan'ed a bole a beer din' ah!", and could tell Cleckheaton from Heckmondwike by the word "school" - which rhymes with cool in Heck., but with duel in Cleck.- or perhaps "Skoo-wil" amongst less 'posh' types. Huddersfield people tend to say 'one' in the way you suggest, similarly 'love' rhymes with "of", and "lover" with "hover".

I've always wondered about Yorkshire people who pronounce "curry" to rhyme with "merry", and tend to be the same people who pronounce "poorly" as "pawly" - I'm thinking maybe Batley - which is famed for it's use of " I war agai't ... " and "She war geein' it ..." (I was doing ..., She was doing ...).

Slightly off topic, but I feel that Kes celebrates the Yorkshire accent and dialect in a way that few films do - so please leave this in 78.32.193.115 (talk) 23:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Changes to dialogue

I've been unable to find sources which confirm the dialogue has changed on the DVD release and more recent releases of the film. This doesn't seem likely and, as it has been unsourced for at least seven months, I've removed it per WP:V. --JD554 (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you've made the right decision. I have heard the story before, but it may be an urban myth. Wikipedia shouldn't really promote it. 90.197.171.208 (talk) 08:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I now own a copy of the undubbed version on DVD, from a recording made off BBC2 in the 1980s. There is an undubbed version, but it is extremely rare. I might see if I can upload some of the scenes that are different onto YouTube, but I don't know how to do this at present. Epa101 (talk) 12:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There are two versions available of the complete film on YouTube, The original undubbed version:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tynm2nopHLA
and the new version https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDpe_1WvEWM
QuentinUK (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Reversion

• User:Anthony Appleyard reverted the edit I made, which acknowledged this film's presence on the BFI list of the 50 films you should see by the age of 14. I reverted his reversion, and hope he'll discuss here any future attempt to do so again. 67.101.6.168 (talk) 08:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC).
  • I re-reverted because the addition looked like advertizement: see WP:SPAM. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I do not think this is spam because the British Film Institute is a charitable organization. However, a film will get on many lists after its release, and I do not believe that this is a particularly discriminate list to identify. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 19:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I agree that the British Film Institute (the organization responsible for film certifications etc in the UK) is extremely unlikely to be spamming Wikipedia. But do not see why the list shouldn't be added. It seems reasonable to me. --JD554 (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
    • The BFI, like the American Film Institute and the AMPAS, give awards and generate "best of" lists of films as promotional activities for the film industry. But for some organizations, like the BFI, WP consensus is that their promotional activities are notable, so the inclusion cannot be considered WP:SPAM. If you have an urge to tilt at this particular pop culture windmill, at least pick a target much more deserving of your distain— I nominate the Hollywood Foreign Press Association and the Golden Globe Awards. 66.167.48.64 (talk) 20:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Production - commented out citation

Re; Citation given for the dubbing of accents in the later release. This isn't really how we use citations (i.e. in parentheses with name of paper and aprox year) but as it's the only one and I'm unfamiliar with the local Media in Yorks I have just commented it out for now in case someone can dig up the necessaries. --wintonian ^talk 20:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kes (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/20090206120353/http://www.kviff.com/en/history-years/1970/awards/ to http://www.kviff.com/en/history-years/1970/awards/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091004000547/http://archive.sensesofcinema.com/contents/cteq/03/28/kes.html to http://www.archive.sensesofcinema.com/contents/cteq/03/28/kes.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091109021207/http://tankersleypc.org/features/52-magazine/407-kes-at-40.html to http://www.tankersleypc.org/features/52-magazine/407-kes-at-40.html

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) 22:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Redirect?

Should this be a redirect from Kes, and rather not the Star Trek Voyager character? Neither topic is all that famous, but we could use with a disambiguation page here. Cheers 2A02:C7D:CA32:CC00:A44D:F01B:5386:E83E (talk) 10:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Kes is already a disambiguation page. If a Wikipedia article has a term in parentheses after the title, it means that the page has been disambiguated. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Yea, you are correct. Ever have one of those days where you just type in the wrong thing in the wrong search bar...

Thanks for the kind explanation, was just a brain fart on my end. Cheers, 2A02:C7D:CA32:CC00:9863:AEB9:AAA4:BB68 (talk) 11:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

No problem! Have a good one. :) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Famous?

I dispute that "Neither topic is all that famous" as mentioned above. The film (& the book) of Kes are both quite famous in th UK if not elsewhere -- SteveCrook (talk) 13:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Do you think one of them should be the primary topic? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

No, not really. Wikipedia often flags well known titles as "[title] (film" -- SteveCrook (talk) 09:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, when it comes to sorting articles of the same title, only one topic can be primary (if one among the set can be identified). You could have a very, very famous primary topic, then whatever would be considered the second-famous topic would be disambiguated just like the tenth-famous topic. So I would not read too much into the above IP editor not calling certain topics famous. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Certification

Is this section necessary? I'd go ahead and delete it were this not such an important article.

It's interesting to note how social changes have led to the re-classification of films, but that's hardly the subject of the article. It's still fun to remember, though, that any kid could back then get in to an "A" (Adult) classified presentation by approaching a friendly-looking family group in the queue asking, "Would you take me in, please?" (I was there, friends!) Much the same as the modern 12A certification, though kids these days are probably too paranoid about stranger danger. Willemslie (talk) 01:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

(I used to do the same as a youngster in the 1950s, asking a man on his way in if he'd take me in with him. I did it on many occasions and only on two or three occasions did one of them grope me between my legs and fondle me in the darkness. The first time it happened, I was taken by surprise and didn't know what to do about it, so I just sat there and did nothing, which to him signalled that I wanted him to go further with the activity. Actually, the original British Board of Film Censors guideline to cinemas for the 'A' certificate was that a guardian, such as an uncle or parent, who knew the child well and knew what they should and should not be allowed to see, should take them in. But for the sake of ticket sales, cinemas would ignore this and let any adult who wasn't related to the child, take them in to see an 'A' certificate film. David Rayner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidRayner (talk • contribs) 16:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC) )

I only ever asked family groups to take me in. I was brought up by parents who warned me about that stuff -- lucky kid, me! Willemslie (talk) 12:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Article expansion August 2020

Hi all, I came to this article looking for more insight and background info on the movie and did not find as much as I thought it deserved, so have taken some time to expand it using resources I could find - including adding a brief summary of the plot to the lead, creating a new section "Background" for some of the material previously in "Production", adding a new section "Commentary" (regarding the film's themes etc.) and expanded "Reception" (by adding quotes from reviews). For the latter I have aimed to include a range of reviews that between them cover the different aspects of the movie and its significance rather than aim for duplication. Hopefully the article is better now and contains enough background to enhance the viewer's understanding of the movie which is fact in quite complex and far reaching in the ground that it covers. Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

OR template

Is it really necessary to have the "Original Research" tag at the top of the article? The sections on reception, themes, etc all seem to be pretty well-sourced to third party content. Thoughts?--Chimino (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)