Talk:The Lighthouse (2019 film)

Full cast

There are more in the cast. There are the two actors who pay the previous wickies that the main characters replace. Also, there is the blond-haired man who plays the real Thomas Howard.

The Lighthouse (upcoming film) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Lighthouse (upcoming film). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 13:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• The lightroom.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Genre

Please don't change the genre in the lead without a source. Currently, the genres mentioned reflect what is stated in the article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

What source is necessary to judge the genre of a work? Multiple reviewers have listed it as horror, yet you use The Concordian (which is student-run) as a base for calling it a thriller? Furthermore, calling it "psychological" is also to imply a certain analytical framework for the movie's narrative. How do you know it's not a mythological story? I find that if reception, intention and marketing all call it a horror, then it is strange to say that it is a thriller. ((User talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConyJuul (talk • contribs) 17:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

In general, genre is something to be interpreted so we should take in only third-party sources on how the genre is interpreted only after the film was released and received by an audience. I think we should take in more sources and find one that more specifically look at genres and give more detailed information on their reasoning for it belonging to specific sources. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, but currently, the sources aren't matching with what the article says. Both articles that we currently use as sources call the movie both a thriller and a horror. Using these sources to call it a thriller is not smart, since they both could equally be used to call it a horror. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConyJuul (talk • contribs) 15:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

As this was a very well covered film from last year, I'd suggest we look up more specific sources. If the current genre doesn't match, we change it to "thriller and horror" or whatever the sources state. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Apparently, this fascist editor Andrzej (like most of his/her ilk) is very one-sided on sources. No matter how correct or accurate some edits may be or how much effect is put in, the bastard just reverts based of his/her one-sidedness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.147.68.180 (talk) 07:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest a reminder of WP:CIVIL here, I haven't suggested one or the other and have even tagged this genre in the article for discussion and I don't think I've suggested on way or another other than how it should not be decided. Let's not name-call people and try to focus on the discussion at hand. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Throwing in my two cents, I feel like too much weight is being placed on the “thriller” part of these sources. The first only ever calls it a thriller in the title, and refers to it as a horror everywhere else, like when it calls the film a “supernatural, hallucinatory horror film”. Most other sites like Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes list is as a horror movie as well. If anything it should probably list horror AND thriller rather than using only one genre or the other. Koldcuts (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't use MetaCritic or RottenTomatoes summaries as reference from genre as it would be stronger to find specific sources from critics who have seen the picture itself instead of anonymous author of a aggregate website. We should probably start digging into specific sources. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I've done some quick research to find critics discussing the style and tone of the film. Some just drop genres without discussion, but it would be better to expand on it. I've found the following snippets.

https://variety.com/2019/film/reviews/the-lighthouse-review-robert-pattinson-willem-dafoe-1203220127/

• "a movie you can’t pigeonhole" "draw from a number of influences, though it merges them into its own fluky gothic historical monisos art-thriller thing." and "ou may feel in your bones that you’re watching a supernatural shocker. Dafoe and Pattinson, playing these gruff period yokels, are fascinating enough to fixate our attention, but the movie also has its quota of megaplex portents: an obstreperous seagull that may be a living spirit, a glimpse of Neptunian tentacles, the Dafoe character’s nearly mystical attitude toward the lighthouse booth itself, with its luminous rotating beacon of glass. What, exactly, is up there? And what’s going down, really, between the two men? Are we seeing a slice of survival, a horror film, or a study in slow-brewing mutual insanity? How about all of the above?"

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2019/10/lighthouse-robert-pattinson-willem-dafoe-review/600241/

• At first glance, this is an internal horror film about Winslow’s worsening paranoia and fear, and it’s a good one, told with the grand, thudding aesthetic of a silent movie.

• this is also a viscerally romantic film, at first driven by Winslow’s sexual mermaid vision, but eventually focused on the two men’s relationship.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/16/movies/the-lighthouse-review.html

• In “The Lighthouse,” a sly American Gothic set in the late 19th century, the director Robert Eggers lights and frames the actors to emphasize every bony plane, every facial crease, hollow and pinprick of stubble.

• A horror movie about inner and outer darkness, the film begins with two lighthouse workers, Wake (Dafoe) and Winslow (Pattinson), arriving on a small, desolate island.

https://www.screendaily.com/reviews/the-lighthouse-cannes-review/5139661.article

• a tense, claustrophobic psychological thriller about two 19th-century US lighthouse keepers stuck on a godforsaken rocky islet.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/movies/michael-phillips/sc-mov-lighthouse-pattinson-dafoe-rev-1016-20191016-nfiv6urxtfce7br5lhg4lu73lm-story.html

• That’s not to say the story operates as any sort of conventional ghost story, or thriller, or anything.

I'd be happy to discuss it more, but with more specific research about critics discussing the film specifically, it would be wrong to probably just lump it simply. It's not a straight-forward film so a simple genre in the lead would probably be inappropriate. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Andrzejbanas, is this reaching anywhere? If there are various genres for this, just use the primary genre; if there are various primaries, then perhaps just call it cross-genre, with a footnote listing the many interpreted genres. GeraldWL 05:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Well nobody has replied so not really I was about to take action with it Gerald Waldo Luis. As for saying cross-genre, I don't feel like that's even accurate as the articles that go into more detail about what kind of film it is say it's "hard to pin down", so that's not exactly the same thing as calling it a cross-genre film, y'know? I'd leave genre blank in the lead for now and discuss the genre with the citations above honestly. Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Andrzejbanas, if you don't favor cross-genre, then there's two options left. Either omit the genre, or discuss sources and pick a genre stated the most. So let's say you sample 10 sources. If 6 say horror, then I'd call it horror. GeraldWL 08:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Looking at those sources above, we're certainly able to reference "horror" and "psychological thriller". Anything else seems to be reviewer's flourish. doktorb _words^deeds 08:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Although it has been discussed as belonging to those genres, there is enough discussion above that it also does not fall comfortably under any specific genre either Doktorbuk, so it probably wouldn't be right. I'm more in favor in leaving it blank and trying to create a section for this first. Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, I agree, though we do need something in the lead/intro. Summary there, wider description in a section, seems a reasonable compromise. doktorb _words^deeds 09:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

So thanks for bringing this back to attention, i'm proposing an entry within the article like this: The Lighthouse genre was described by critics such as Manohla Dargis of The New York Times as a horror film and Lee Marshall of Screen Daily as a psychological thriller. Other critics, such as Owen Gleiberman of Variety stated that the film was one that could not be pigeonholed, declaring that "you may feel in your bones that you’re watching a supernatural shocker [...] Are we seeing a slice of survival, a horror film, or a study in slow-brewing mutual insanity? How about all of the above?" Michael Phillips of The Chicago Tribune echoed these statements, noting the films plot did not operate "as any sort of conventional ghost story, or thriller, or anything"

Obviously these citations here are just dummy ones for now, but what do other things? I'm happy to hear some extra additions/suggestions. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

It's been a few weeks and I haven't heard any follow-ups to this. If there is nothing more to add, I'll assume consensus and get this going. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

There hasn't been any more comments on this so I'll be removing the genre from the lead and adding this to the article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Reading the page now seems extremely strange. I'm following Gerald Waldos advice and listing the primary genre as horror in a few days unless someone intervenes. Currently the page reads unlike other movie pages - and the discussion is strangely favoured against horror by Andrzejbanas. Of course genre is limiting; it's a preemptive way of describing a movie. And like Koldcuts says: almost no sources are actually calling it a thriller. Most prominent sources are calling it a horror. What's your vice against the description of it being a horror-film? It seems as though a majority of critics are completely fine with the label, yet you seem to have this strange attack against it.

Hey hey. I've changed it and left for discussion after there were several changes to it back and forth. The main issue I took umbridge with was the are where other critics have said (and more than one has said this as per the prose in the article), the film doesn't fit conveniently into any specific genre. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Andrzejbanas, I see you (or someone else) added a style section covering debates over the film's genre. While that is a great approach, I think it is really sudden-toned. I would suggest adding an additional opening sentence: "The primary genre of The Lighthouse has been a subject of debate by critics and scholars." Then maybe add more information. GeraldWL 03:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey Hey. Yes that was me who added it. I'll always admit not to be the best writer on this site, but as stated above nobody else was really responding to the topic anymore so I just went forward with it. I'd be happy if someone wanted to re-write or expand on that obviously. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Lighthouse (2019 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: HumanxAnthro (talk · contribs) 02:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey, look, one of the many films I planned to improve for my Film FA project, and one of the few recently-released films my dad saw last year. Time to review this thing

• Infobox states the gross is "$18.3 million," but the body says something slightly different: "$18.2 million"

Combined sources to say $18.1–18.3 million.

• Are we sure this movie hasn't pinned to one genre? The "style" section indicates the press has come to a consensus that it isn't categorizable in any genre, and only gets genre categorizations from certain sources, but it only makes this conclusion from four citations. I know this movie garnered way, WAY more than four sources (like all A24 movies do), so if it happens to be most of the other reviews and pieces describe it has a horror film or a thriller film, not representing them give this article a problem of undue weight. I'm suspecting horror is the most agreed upon genre due to its coverage in sources specializing in horror and being directed by a horror film director.
• Contradiction in lead and body. The lead states in began at Nova Scotia, but the filming section doesn't state this, only that it was one of the locations.

 Fixed Nova Scotia was the province where filming took place.

• "According to Eggers" Roger or Max? Also, the body doesn't give any attribution to who stated the fact? It just states it started out as an attempt for Max to adapt an Edgar Allan Poe story.

 Fixed Changed it to Robert. The body was changed by DAP389.

• " is bothered by a one-eyed gull", "Winslow is again attacked by the one-eyed gull", so when was he first attacked? Was the sentence with the word "bothered" meant to indicate the first time he was attacked in the movie, because "bothered" and "attacked" are definitely not synonymous.

 Fixed He wasn't really "attacked"; changed to "bothered again".

• What is "the relief ferry"? WP:JARGON like this needs to be linked or clarified.

 Fixed Clarified with "meant to pick up Winslow".

• "Filming took place around the Canadian province of Nova Scotia in Leif Erikson Park in Cape Forchu and inside a hangar at Yarmouth Airport" I suspect commas are missing heres. No one films around a bigger place in a smaller part of that place. That makes no sense.

 Fixed Commas have been added.

• "inspiration - the story" You must use the proper dashes in these cases, not hyphens, per WP:MOSDASH.

 Fixed Removed / paraphrased by DAP389.

• "Panavision" should be linked, and Eastman pipe-linked to Eastman Kodak so that casual readers who may not be familiar with film tech will know where to go. Also link the name of the Eastman film stock to List of motion picture film stocks since it's listed there.

 Done

• Make sure film and photography jargon is explained or linked to casual readers, like "aperture to T2.8" and "sensitivity." Look for others in the section.

 Done

• Verifiability issue. I don't think alcoholism is being analyzed as a theme in the two sources cited; the sources only mention the characters drink alcohol only as a detail of the plot, and don't state alcoholism is a legit them in the film. If it's stated as a theme in any other sources, it's not cited in this section.

 Done Removed.

• "Homoeroticism" subsection has a very long Dafoe quote I think could be paraphrased. 👨x🐱 (talk) 02:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done

• "In its second weekend the film expanded to 586 theaters, grossing $3.75 million and finishing eighth at the box office.[38]" Finishing at the box office implies it ended its run that weekend, which the following sentence indicates it didn't.

 Fixed Removed "finishing" from the sentence.

• I know the good article criteria doesn't necessarily require completeness, but the critical response section is tiny to the point of posing the same weight concerns I had for the genre the article presents. Only the opinion of three reviews are presented, yet Rotten Tomatoes has recorded 381 professional critic reviews of this movie. Imagine what other frequently-brought-up perspectives and possibly less-favorable opinions we could be missing here. "Broad in its coverage" is it very likely not.

 Working  Done

• The "Notes" section has nothing in it.

 Done Removed.

• What makes Thrillist, Flipscreened and NextBestPicture high-quality reliable sources? Mashable is also being currently contended on Wikipedia for its reliability.

The Thrillist and Mashable sources are interviews/analysis and NextBestPicture has been used in major articles. I removed Flipscreened.

👨x🐱 (talk) 02:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• • Decent work so far. I found the plot section did its best to explain the film's artsy plot within a 700 word limit. That can't be easy to do, given that you can't make conclusions from a set of events from these type of movies, so just summarizing the set of events seems to be the best solution. I also found the prose understandable if requiring explanation or linking of jargon at points, and the themes analysis rather interesting. I just think the article is pretty short for the type of notable topic it is, especially being an abstract A24 film, although I know GA isn't about completeness. Once this passes for GA, I'm gonna expand this very much so, which reviews and academic literature aplenty. 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I am currently expanding the production section from the on-and-off drafting I've done in recent months. I have to echo your concerns about the article's lack of comprehensiveness (for an otherwise notable film) and am quite surprised this was nominated in its present state. HumanxAnthro Some Dude From North Carolina It'Ll take a few days but please feel free to let me know what you guys think. DAP 💅 19:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
      • @DAP389: Thank you, also like I said, comprehensiveness is only an FA requirement. Also, I've made plenty of comments on your Chromatica peer review, so take a look at those ;) 👨x🐱 (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Due to the nominator's busy schedule with other articles and that he is fixing the issues prominently with help from DAP, I will give him far more than a week. You got this, :) 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@HumanxAnthro and DAP389: Is there an update on this? I wouldn't like to see this nomination sit for a few more months. Urve 00:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@HumanxAnthro: All  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll pass this since any other comments would be applicable if we were trying to get this for FA. Great work, although it'll need a lot more for FA. 👨x🐱 (talk) 20:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jewett

May be worth mentioning Jewett is a local color author from Maine, not just a Maine author; provides additional context for why her work in particular was consulted. Or it may not be worth it. Currently a GAN so I won't intervene myself, just a thought. Urve (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Urve:  Done with this edit. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Good work on this article. Urve (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Resolving Name Ambiguity

There is some ambiguity in the opening sections of this article. The movie's screenplay was written by two people: Robert Eggers (who also directed) and his brother, Max Eggers. However, there are also two Robert's involved in the movie: Robert Eggers again and Robert Pattinson (who starred). I'd recommend changing the first line of the second paragraph from "According to Robert" to "According to the director". I made an edit changing it to "According to Eggers"--I think this works because Robert Eggers as the director is the primary force behind the movie. This was reverted (due to ambiguity over the two Eggers), and I get the confusion. But leaving it to say "According to Robert" does not make it any clearer. CaptainAngus (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@CaptainAngus:  Done with this edit. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Some Dude From NorthCarolina: Awesome, that clears it up, thank you! CaptainAngus (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)