Talk:Paris 05:59: Théo & Hugo

ASE

The characters are told by the AIDS hotline to tell the hospital emergency room that they have had unprotected sexual by saying they have had an "Ase" or perhaps an "ASE". What does this mean? I've been unable to find a French acronym. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I haven't seen the film, so I can't speak to what they said or didn't say. But from the context you've given here, it's likely an abbreviation for the French language equivalent of "accidental HIV exposure". Bearcat (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

From what I've gathered, AES, or accident d'exposition au sang ("accident of exposure to blood"), seems to be the closest thing possible. So it is possible that it was "AES" in the original dialogue and it was changed to "ASE" in the English translation, presumably to mean "accidental sanguineous exposure" or something. Nardog (talk) 19:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Makes sense. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

For the benefit of future reads, the dialogue does indeed say AES — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 11 October 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Theo and Hugo  — Amakuru (talk) 14:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

---

Paris 05:59 → Theo and Hugo or Paris 5:59: Theo and Hugo? – When this film's premiere at the Berlinale was first announced, its English title was given as Paris 05:59, so the article was created at that title accordingly. In general market release or later film festivals, however, the title seems to be most commonly Theo and Hugo instead, or sometimes Paris 5:59: Theo and Hugo, but never just Paris 05:59 anymore. Although technically just Theo and Hugo seems to be more common, there may be a case that we should use the Paris 5:59: Theo and Hugo variant as a middle ground between the Paris 05:59 coverage and the Theo and Hugo coverage — so I'm submitting this for discussion rather than picking a title arbitrarily. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support the Theo and Hugo move. That seems to be most used title from what I can tell. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 24 December 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as proposed. (non-admin closure) Bradv 19:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

---

Theo and Hugo → Paris 05:59: Théo & Hugo – Although the film is being released in the UK as Theo and Hugo, not only is it being released as Paris 05:59 Théo & Hugo in the U.S., but also it has been screened as Paris 05:59: Théo & Hugo or something to that effect with a slight difference in the punctuation (colon vs. no colon vs. parentheses, "Théo" vs. "Theo", ampersand vs. "and" vs. "et" vs. "+") at the vast majority of the festivals in English-speaking regions where it was screened. Other English festival titles include Theo and Hugo and Paris 05:59, but they seem to be in the minority. As for the punctuation, although the U.S. release title lacks the colon, it is obviously needed given the grammar of the title; and, although Paris 05:59: Theo & Hugo (without the acute) is the most common among all the variations cited below, the acute is necessary considering the U.S. title retains it and it is a proper name. Hence I consider Paris 05:59: Théo & Hugo to be the best viable option. Nardog (talk) 20:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

References

• Agree. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support, but would more strongly support Théo et Hugo dans le même bateau as fr:Théo et Hugo dans le même bateau. It's pretty clear that this art film is generally known by the French name in English WP:RS sources, and we can predict will be so in books. These small scale local opening names rarely permanently reflect in long term sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Ideally, it should be the most common English-language title, but if the French one is the one it's released as in the UK, US, etc, then that would be fine. Don't know if @Bearcat: is around right now (Christmas? Humbug!), but I'd value his input here. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:00, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Quick pop-in from my flaptop because I see that I've been summoned. This is indeed a bit of a tricky one, given that we've now seen three different "English titles" for this film since its premiere at Berlin. I'll note that in the first move request I did put the double-barrelled "Paris 05:59: Theo and Hugo" title on the menu as a move option, since I had found a few references to it by that title — and they do indeed seem to be increasing in frequency now that a wider US release is happening under that title. In addition, it also has the benefit of combining both of the other titles that European readers might still be expecting, and thus reduces the element of surprise involved in getting to an article whose title bears no resemblance to what the user typed.

That said, as a Canadian editor I would also like to raise the example of WP:CANFRENCH — when a Quebec-related topic has a standard French name but multiple competing English forms (e.g. Université du Québec à Montréal, where there are at least six different possible ways to "anglicize" the name, one of which is "just use the original French and don't touch it"), then we have a standing consensus to stick to the original French title rather than editwarring over conflicting English usage claims. That may, in fact, be a viable solution here as well, given that we now have multiple different English titles to choose from.

So, basically, I would support the proposed move: not because US titles win over UK titles on principle, but because the US title has the additional benefit of ensuring that almost all potential readers of the article, regardless of which title they know the film by, will at least see a title that still resembles their expectations. However, if the final consensus leans more strongly in the direction of "move it back to the original French title so that we don't have to keep having move discussions over conflicting perceptions about the right English title", then count me in support of that option as well. For the record, I haaaaaaaaate what WP:UE makes me do to French-language Canadian films from Quebec (Sweet Lies and Loving Oaths, my ass), but I think we'd need to have a wider consensus discussion at WikiProject Film over whether we should change the rules for when a film does or doesn't qualify for an exemption from it and how to determine what the new rules should be. Bearcat (talk) 07:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Bearcat - much appreicated. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 09:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Details

At the UK premiere, the film director compared the choice of playing in real-time to a famous French film with a similar "time of day" title (it's famous, I don't think it was a LGBT+ related film). I also recall that the older lady they have a conversation with on the train, was an actress (Marief Guittier?) that had a connection with the older film. Anyone have some idea of this background, or can find a related editorial? I'm unsure if this information would be encyclopaedic, but they may be suitable as the director made a point of them and it inspired the choice of title.

During the film Q&A, there were a couple of other tidbits of interest. The sex scenes with the main actors were shot "live", and everything shown is their bodies without relying on prosthetics or other tricks. In comparison the well known French film Stranger by the Lake cut to body doubles for the close up sex scenes, who are given credits as such. The first 22 minutes is all shot on location in L'Impact, the outside location shots are all in the correct street too, apart from the dance-like dream sequence which was shot in a few hours in a university film studio. The many extras in the sex scenes were all regular patrons of L'Impact, rather than shipped in extras. Again, it may be tricky to find reliable sources for these minor facts of production, unless the director or actors have published interviews or have written about making the film directly. --Fæ (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)