Talk:I Know Where I'm Going!

Title

There is NO exclamation point in the title of this film. It never should have been moved here from the proper location I Know Where I'm Going. Please move it back to its proper heading. Thank you. The FinalWord 05:29, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Every one of the external pages listed at the bottom of the article gives the title with an exclamation point. Several of them include images of film posters and/or video covers, also with the exclamation point. Do you have any counter-evidence? --Paul A 06:25, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Almost every reference I've seen includes the exclamation point. The title caption used in the film reads: i know where i'm going! Jihg 18:23, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Hello, I'm new to Wikipedia but I think I can claim to know a bit about Powell and Pressburger films. I run the Powell & Pressburger Pages.

The title as given on screen in the film definitely has an exclamation point at the end. It is also all given in lower case and in quotation marks but many systems don't like titles like that so it is usually written as I Know Where I'm Going! (or just IKWIG). SteveCrook 01:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So - it's five years after the last comment, and somehow in the intervening time someone has uploaded and illustrative period film poster - without the exclamation point. Some resolution is required here, I would think - either a change in article title or uploading of a poster file consistent with the claims here that the exclamation point is part of the title. Sensei48 (talk) 06:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Which takes precedence, the title as shown on a poster, or the title as shown on screen? The on-screen title has the exclamation point. See screen grab -- SteveCrook (talk) 06:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'd say of course the screen shot salts it because that's what the director wanted us to see. However - given the uncertainty about the question, I'd say we'd better find a movie poster with an exclamation point, at the very least for internal consistency and more importantly for factual accuracy. Sensei48 (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Is that a date of 1947 in the bottom-right of the image of the poster? It's fairly clear on the linked, source page. This would make it a later interpretation from a distributor's publicity department and not reliably connected to the original release. "Released through Universal-International" shows that this was a version for the U.S. release: U.K. distributor was Rank. Strictly WP:NOR to suggest that using the exclamation mark in the title wasn't well regarded in the U.S. Having said that, MP himself uses no exclamation mark in A Life in Movies: he explains (page 459) how he took the title from the song, and it isn't in it. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Although the song was Irish, not Scottish :) -- SteveCrook (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Scorsese quote

The Scorcese quote mentioned on this page, is from a documentary included in the Criterion DVD release of the film. I'd source it, but have no idea how to refer to this documentary correctly. And, by the way, I totally agree with him. I thought I'd heard of all the film masterpieces, and then saw this one, which I'd never heard of. It just blew me away. -- unsigned comment by 66.35.36.132 05:16, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've added the reference to it. -- SteveCrook 12:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Comedy

Genre-labeling is usually a fool's game, especially with as sophisticated a work of art as IKWIG, but here goes. "Romance film" seems quite a pale and inadequate category. It is most certainly a comedy, and not merely because of a few jokes throughout. Its ending confirms its overall romantic & comedic tone. Various of the linked reviews concur, including Criterion and TCM. Cloonmore (talk) 03:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

How do you define a comedy? I use the IMDb genre definitions. That says that to be considered a comedy, virtually all scenes should contain characters participating in humorous or comedic experiences. There are some jokes and a few comedic scenes in it but they are a tiny percentage of the whole. What's comedic about the ending? I don't often see many people laughing at the ending when it's screened. Just because a few other sites label it a comedy (I see that Criterion does but I don't see it on the TCM site), is that any reason to propagate the description? It's probably best to leave out any attempt at genre labelling -- SteveCrook (talk) 05:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Possibly Cloonmore is referring to comedy in the Shakespearean sense, i.e. with a happy ending. The film doesn't violate anything in Romantic comedy films and it has as much (or little) humour as some of the examples given: Shakespeare in Love and Roman Holiday. I certainly cringe at the idea of using IMDb's definition. I dunno, it could go either way; I just don't know where I'm going. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's certainly comedy in the Shakespearean sense, as all ends happily, but it's also a romantic comedy film in the absolute best sense. See the "description" section of the Wikipedia article, which fits IKWIG to a T. The IMDb definition is just plain wrong. Even such wonderful comedy classics as City Lights and The Shop Around the Corner wouldn't fit the IMDb definition. SteveCrook, comedy isn't measured by how often you belly-laugh. (But does the ending of IKWIG, with Joan's parading return and the wry terms of the curse read by the narrator, not evoke at least a smile?) BTW, if you click on "genre" on the left side of the TCM page, you'll see the reference to comedy. Cloonmore (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean, using the arcane definition that anything that isn't a history or a tragedy must be a comedy. But if you told most people that a film was a comedy, they would expect to have quite a few laughs or at least to be smiling, giggling and tittering a lot. Hence the IMDb definition. There's a difference between "humorous or comedic experiences" and those that generate belly-laughs. So do you go for a definition as most people would understand it or for the technically more correct but not so widely understood definition? There are elements of the Wikipedia definition of romantic comedy film that seem to fit it. But I think it's a better fit to the Wikipedia definition of a romance film. Yes, there are usually smiles at the end of a screening, smiles and wry grins amidst the tears. But I'm not really a fan of genre classifications either. I don't know many films that really fit a one or two word definition. I leave it up to you to leave it as it is, change it or delete it entirely -- SteveCrook (talk) 06:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, goody, let's have a vote instead of finding out what reliable movie reviews have to say. If WP:OR is now acceptable, my opinion is that this movie is not in any way a comedy (romantic or otherwise). There's little or no wordplay, joking, or any other form of humor. The scene at sea is thrilling drama, maybe scary, not funny at all. The Ceildhe is just plain fun. The plot is romantic. There's certainly pleasantness in this film but no comedy, except perhaps in some ancient or academic sense. David Spector (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Music

My memory of the film includes the power of the tune 'Nut Brown Maiden' which recurs including in the final scene - is this worth a mention from someone who knows more about the film/music than me? Skihatboatbike (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. It's too much detail for the plot (WP:MOSFILM recommends 400-700 words), and where else could you put it? (By the way, I moved this section to the bottom.) Clarityfiend (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

RE Plot

I'm not sure it's quite the thing to give away the entire story in the plot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.159.21 (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It is quite the done thing - on Wikipedia. There used to be spoiler warnings but the Wikipedia consensus was that if people didn't want to know the plot then they should read a section titled Plot -- SteveCrook (talk) 23:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Itinerary Template

User:Clarityfiend has removed the table showing the 'Itinerary of Miss Webster's Journey to Isle of Kiloran' on the grounds that "that level of detail is only suitable for a bus or train route". I would suggest that in the context of this section it is appropriate, because the 'Itinerary' is a central plot device in the film. It is featured prominently on screen, (where the details of the table are taken from) and in voiceover, during her train journey; it also features in the scene at Port Erraig quay when Miss Webster is waiting to be met by the motor launch from Kiloran, where it is blown from her hands into the sea to symbolise the frustration of her carefully planned future. Significantly, the whole of the 'Itinerary' is factual, referring to real places, stations, and services (even the name of the ferry to Tobermory is accurate), right up until the last entry where the fictional Port Erraig and Kiloran, are substituted for the real-life Carsaig and Colonsay. This is also symbolic of the transition from the 'real' world into the romantic fantasy of the rest of the film. So I would argue that including the 'Itinerary' as a table to illustrate the plot section is appropriate and aids understanding of the film. Josephus (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I've re-jigged the distorted layout this was causing, but it's not an endorsement: I'm with User:Clarityfiend on this.--Old Moonraker (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I too do not support its inclusion. This is too much detail considering her journey north only takes place briefly near the start and the bulk of the film takes place in fictional locations. I am not sure all details can be found in the film. Some details from this could be incorporated in the article in normal prose. PatGallacher (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Overall, a lack of support for inclusion. RV, then, to version from User:Clarityfiend. Suggestions by User:PatGallacher yet to be incorporated.--Old Moonraker (talk) 07:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Too much detail. It's fine where it is now, separate and linked. David Spector (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Corrected business about color film. In 1945, Technicolor cameras used black and white film - thru filters. The color was in the dye release prints. See any article about Technicolor. Bobrowen (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Opening vs. ending credits

The ending credits are in appearance order, but the opening ones aren't. Worse, the ending credits are more complete, including Petula Clark in particular. I've been trying to figure out how to reconcile the two, but I'm at a loss. I don't know where to go from here. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:41, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:I Know Where I'm Going (song) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Laird of Kiloran

The article states that Sir Robert Bellinger is the Laird but he is only renting from the actual Laird, i.e. Torquil. Raaronson (talk) 00:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)