Talk:Heavenly Creatures

Citations for use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• "Peter Jackson: Heavenly Creatures". Cinema Papers. April 1994.
• Tom Charity (1995-01-25). "Gut Reaction". TimeOut London.
• Michael Atkinson (May–June 1995). "Earthly Creatures". Film Comment.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)
• Tod Lippy (Fall 1995). "Heavenly Creatures : Writing and Directing Heavenly Creatures". Scenario.
• Howard Feinstein (1994-11-15). "Death and the Maidens". The Village Voice.
• John Darnton (1995-02-14). "Author Faces Up to a Long, Dark Secret". The New York Times.
• Linda Richards (1999-10-09). "The Mysteries of Anne Perry". January Magazine.
• David Melville (2006-02-07). "Dangerous Dreamers: Fantasy, Passion and Psychosis in Heavenly Creatures". Senses of Cinema.
• Matthew Stephenson (2008-05-19). "Great Directors: Peter Jackson". Senses of Cinema.

References to use. Wildroot (talk) 14:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Religious undertones?

See also angel, god.?

Can someone who has seen this more recently than I comment? I don't remember an angel in the film, or much play with religion, but I saw the film about 3 years ago and have seen hundreds since. I took the title to be ironic. Koyaanis Qatsi

Absolutely not relevant to the movies, and 'heavenly creatures' is not an expected entry point for those subjects.

I would just like to add some comments that I think might be pertinent and worthwhile. I would like also someone who could be bothered to comment critically on the comments I make. Perhaps even I would suggest that the person responsible for writing or editing the main article on the film might see fit or not as the case may be to add my points. I loved the euphemistic way that the writer of the article described the relationship of the two girls. The use of the term "close friends". Now while I must admit, that I havn't actually seen the film recently so I'm relying on my memory stores but I think my memory might be serving me well, when I say that by the use of the euphemistic terms "close friends" the author probably being as neutral as possible used these words rather than the word describing the relationship as lesbian. Now I don't think that euphemism is necessarily "neutral language"-it in fact could be construed as a form of propaganda coming under perhaps the field of omission. Saying "close friends" is not really accurate and indeed is actually misleading and degenerate and pejorative of the term friend. In my book and a lot of other people's books close friend except being "euphemistic" has no sexual content. Being euphemistic leaves the interpretation of the text open to possible misunderstanding and misrepresentation. This text could lead people to believe that the two girls were in fact good friends and not lovers. In truth they were. Is the truth important or is keeping up appearances under the cloak of "neutral " language acceptable, wanted, desirous, necessary? Why in this day and age where supposedly in the majority of Anglo-Saxon and Western countries where it is considered legal to be a lesbian is there this hesitancy resulting in euphemism probably trying to be neutral coming from? I also love the way the author continues to put together in the same vein and the same juxtaposed thought referencing, the fact of this relationship and the girls continually spiralling down into a world of fantasy. Now while in the film I must admit that they did live in and perpetuate and even egg each other on into more and more irreality (which is fantasy is it not?) I wonder whether this can be seen as more evidence of the mainstream heterosexuals who deem anything they don't understand or disagree with as being "not serious" "frivolous" and quite frankly from this text "of the fantastic (related to fantasy)".

Another point that I would like to make is that of all the 7 major types of plot you can ever have in a story this is essentially another take on the Romeo and Juliet level even if a bit obscure and "scratching for straws", as my detractors might say but I obviously don't because I bothered to mention it. The two girls were if not properly in love and who can judge but the subject because love is subjective and they were like in Romeo and Juliet prevented from seeing each other and this prevention like in R and J lead to death or a lot of death as in R and J.

I also don't quite know the protocol for submitting text. Do you have to put your name and can you remain anonymous?

I also agree with the comment possibly made by the person in charge of the site that said in response to the person above whose argument was I think that they thought there was enough "God, angel" stuff in the film, (obviously the title helped), to put a link to angels or God. I agree with the person in charge of the site that there is not enough evidence (cogent, pertinent, and relevant that is, to the subject) to link this film in any way to sites about angels, religion or god.

I'm very sick of hearing people refer to heterosexuals as "homophobes". I hate, absolutely HATE that term and wish it would go obsolete. "Heterosexuals deem anything they don't understand as 'not serious', frivolous'". What a misinformed thing to say! There may be some "intolerance" here, but I certainly can't see what is wrong with the right kind of relationship. Homosexuals deem anything that they don't understand or don't agree with as "intolerant" or "arrogant". A sexual relationship should be between a man and a woman, not between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Scorpionman 23:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Who suggested this? When? Where?

And yes, you are intolerant. It may be your view that there is a 'right' kind of relationship, but your failure to accept other relationships is, by definition, intolerant. I need waste no more time on this. -- Ec5618 01:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

There should be no other relationships. And you are intolerant of those who are intolerant of homosexuality, so you might as well not call anybody "intolerant" until you become tolerant yourself. And frankly, you might as well not waste any more time on this, because it's pointless. Scorpionman 01:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I never said I was intolerant of intolerance. I merely pointed out that you are intolerant. And technically, I don't think that even objecting to intolerance is intolerance in itself. Still, indeed, pointless. You're objecting to ficticious commentary. -- Ec5618 08:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Pictures please?

Since I don't know how to add pictures to Wikipedia, could someone please find some screen caps from the film, that aren't copyright and post them on the page to imporve it. Thanks Movie-lover93 04:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Redundancy

"The original 1994 American release was rated NC-17 for a chilling murder and some sexuality, while the 2002 Director's Cut was rated R for violence and sexual content." Is there anything functionally different about those two descriptions? Recommend revision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.188.55 (talk) 07:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Original Screenplay??? And where is Daughters of Heaven on Wiki?

"It received an Academy Award nomination for Best Original Screenplay" I thought it was based on the play 'Daughters of Heaven', which doesn't seem to have a single mention on Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.154.147.28 (talk) 00:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

emerse/immerse

Emerse: Rising above the surface of water Immerse: To plunge or dip into a fluid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.227.237.99 (talk) 00:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Plot Description

Pauline is 14 at the beginning of the timeline of the film, a fact stated clearly by her mother when she discovers that Pauline and "John" have had a nighttime meeting in Pauline's room. Someone keeps changing her age to 16, which is not correct. 18:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zelmia (talk • contribs)

They both go on to play Roses

In 1997 Winslet starred as Rose in Titanic, which won the Academy Award for Best Picture. In 2003-present, Lynskey stars as Rose on the very popular TV series Two and a Half Men.

I'm not sure this is notable enough to be put in the article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.244.120 (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Film running time/Info box

Do not put the DVD running time into the info box. It does not belong there. It is already noted in the DVD section at the end of the article. 109 minutes is NOT the "original" running time, but rather the running time of the Region 1 DVD release only. The film was 99 minutes in the theatre, 99 minutes on laserdisc, on VHS, and on the 1st DVD release. Then a so-called "uncut version" was released in the No. America market, and ran 109 minutes. The 99 minute, original version is now streaming on Hulu Plus and on Netflix. There is only one, anomalous 109 min. version, and this information needs to be kept in its proper place. In general, the info box should have a minimum of information in it, and only the most important. Keeping those boxes tidy and consise is an ongoing effort on WP right now.

Also, it is customary to avoid categorizing a film at all, and certainly "crime-fantasy" is an opinion, not a fact. Even calling a film a drama is usually avoided. It should be left as it is, merely a film.

To AbsoluteGleek92: You Wikilinked the same names multiple times, when one only does it once, the first time they are mentioned. We also avoid Wikilinking more than is absolutely necessary, as it makes the article unreadable when every other word is in blue. I restored your Wikilink to The Simpsons, but any other links should be carefully considered before you do them again. You also put in lots of unnecesary things like "previously unknown Kate Winslet" when the above paragraph states clearly that both girls were making their film debuts. We don't need to know to what film this lost the Oscar to, either. Excess verbiage is discouraged. Please consider carefully before making any more edits to this page, and always read the article in its entirety first, to avoid repeating things that are already clear, or completely covered in another section. Thank you.--TEHodson 05:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Age

That change to 13 years old appears to have been either an error or vandalism by an anonymous editor. The film doesn't change her age to 13.--TEHodson 22:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Perry born in October 1938; the murder occurred in June 1954, which makes her 15. The movie doesn't have to be accurate, but if it differs from such detail a citation or at least explanation is needed.-gadfium 19:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The Fourth World

To BlueJay Young: As the Fourth World is complex and evolves throughout the film, it's best that it's described in full, not merely called an afterlife. The fact that they are able to experience and enter it while demonstrably still alive rebukes that interpretation, so I've restored the fuller text which explains that. Also, you added an awful lot of words, taking us way beyond the limit. Thanks.--TEHodson 07:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Rebukes? Perhaps you meant refutes. A dictionary is a writer's friend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.64.89 (talk) 07:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

'Heavenly Creatures created an uproar in the United States'

The article currently states "B. Ruby Rich writes that Heavenly Creatures created an uproar in the United States" but it doesn't say why. More info on this please. 86.181.133.9 (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Lesbian-related and LGBT-related categories

WP:CATV > "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories."
The plot states "The doctor suspects that Pauline is homosexual....", but there is not one, single source verifying it and, thereby, the categories. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 09:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)