Talk:Chocolat (2000 film)

Disambiguation

Disambiguation links are used when a person putting a word in the search box may been sent to a page they weren't looking for. The policy states that you do not disambiguate, or add a link to a disambiguation page, if there is no risk of confusion, as is the case here because the page name is "Chocolat (movie)", not "Chocolat". A disambiguation link is therefore an inappropriate way to link to the article "Chocolat" from here. Joe D (t) 22:36, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

That's great if you can guarantee that nobody ever ends up at the wrong place (possibly because someone linked the movie article when the novel article would have been more appropriate). I don't think you can make that guarantee, so I guess I don't understand why the presence of the dab line bothers you so much.

Atlant 01:46, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why anybody would link to the movie when they meant the book, considering the book is named "Chocolat" and the movie is named "Chocolat (movie)" - it would be pretty obvious to them that they were linking to the movie. If somebody does link to the wrong page that's a case for fixing the link, not cluttering this page with excess disambiguation links. The reason the disambiguation line bothers me is that the two disambiguation lines clutter this page but don't serve any disambiguation purpose. Joe D (t) 11:18, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I completely disagree that each and every wikipedia visitor/user understands the disambiguation process. If they put in Chocolat into google and found this page, but were really looking for the book......chances are they would not find it. You have done this on many pages and I disagree with each and every instance of it. Cburnett 18:36, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

So because "not every Wikipedia uses understands the disambiguation process" it would be easy to link to Chocolat (movie) thinking it was a book? Joe D (t) 18:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

What? If google points me to Chocolat (movie) and I, an unknowing WP visitor, don't know the book is at Chocolat then I'd have to rely on someone having linked Chocolat in Chocolat (movie). Not so convincing for a movie based on a book, but more so for Replicator (Star Trek) since there is no link to Replicator without the dab header. Cburnett 19:14, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Did you read Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Proposal:_When_to_disambiguate_section? This has been proposed before and rejected. Joe D (t) 19:20, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

But what about the 2016 French film of precisely the same name Chocolat (2016 film)? Cluginbuhl (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Music

Can someone tell me in this film there is a "Classical" music that I want to take and often hear it in TV but do not know its name.80.80.175.66 (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Overview

The overview in this article more closely resembles a review than a synopsis. It needs a little editing to be NPOV. Thanks. Rockhopper10r 19:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am new to commenting and have never edited--I was uncertain how to start a new comment. I read this article and noticed there was no mentioned about the mystical elements of the movie. Thanks, jnmckm Jen

I agree that without even a cursory mention of the mystical elements of the film (examples: Vianne's backstory, her intuitive ability to help villagers, the ancient healing power of her recipes, how the mother and daughter travel with the north wind), the plot description makes the film sound a lot drier than it actually is. It would be a pity if a reader chose not to see the film based on that driness. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 06:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Plot

An anon user had changed the synopsis to one of the book, rather than the film. I've not only reverted it, but also dealt with a minor grammatical matter. AndyB (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The Plot Summary is supposedly too long, so what's wrong with using the one from Chocolat (Novel), which seems to me the right length? Valetude (talk) 03:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Plot - priest & fire

Anyone else find it weird that the plot seems to miss the priest completely? I don't think he was & extremely major character but IIRC he was somewhat of a foil to the mayor and IMO important enough for a brief mention. It's been a while but IIRC he didn't really agree with the mayors view but as a new young priest allowed the dominant mayor to take control over the message but grew stronger over time until the end after the mayor's binge episode (which I believe he also knew about) he took control.

Also, and again I could be wrong, but I don't think the fire is explained that well. Our article mentions it made her lose confidence in the town. IIRC, it wasn't just that the fire happened. Rather the mayor tried to spin it to make her and the gypsies look bad rather than concentrate the perpetrator. (Who as our article mentions had been the mayor's pet project and I think believed he had done something the mayor would appreciate. Although to his credit, the mayor was disgusted and forced him to leave.)

Nil Einne (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Narrator?

I understand that the narrator is Anouck, as an adult, looking back on her memories of her mother and their early experiences in the village, but the voice certainly sounds like that of Juliette Binoche, yet she is not credited here as fulfilling that role. Is she the narrator? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 06:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

A sentence that needs help...

Regarding this sentence under the Plot section: "Vianne wears more provocative clothing than the village women, does not attend Mass (being an atheist), and has an illegitimate child. . ."

• Why "provocative" clothing? That word is not mentioned in the film and there's nothing provocative about the character's clothing, anyway. It looks to me to be more youthful, fashionable, modern, but not more "provocative". How about "Vianne dresses in a different style than the village women. . ."?

• Why "(being an atheist)"? The Vianne character simply tells the mayor, when he invites her to church, that she doesn't attend. The only person who calls her an "atheist" is one of two boys who peep through a void in the newspapers pasted over the front window. When the other boy asks what that means, the first boy says that he doesn't know. Vianne never self-identifies as an atheist in the film. I haven't the read the book, so I don't know whether she does there or not. How about deleting the parenthetical comment?

• Why "illegitimate"? That's such an ugly word to call any child, isn't it? How about ". . .and has a child although she never married."?

Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 22:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, Serge is called an alcoholic in this article. That he is abusive is obvious; that he drinks to excess a few times is obvious; that he has several scenes where not only does he appear to be sober, but has no drink near him is obvious (Mass, tavern, religious class, river bank); but nowhere in the film is he labeled an alcoholic. If I am misremembering, please advise. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I should have mentioned that Vianne's wardrobe was much more colorful that the neutralized earth colors of the village women, perhaps the most obvious difference! B^) Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 08:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Since there has been no other input, the changes above were made in addition to some grammatical corrections and places where the authors have assumed what the characters were thinking (WP: original research) were tagged for citations. I also made what I believe are some clarifications. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 11:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Time setting of the story; Luc's mother

1. Regarding "In the winter of 1959. . .": The film actually begins with the narrator saying, "Once upon a time. . .", a nicely fuzzy time fix. And although the weather may still be blustery with snow flurries, the village is already into Lent when Vianne and Anouck arrive, making it either at the very end of winter or during early spring. Vianne mentions at one point that, "It's been 15 years since the war." But since the war, what? Since it started with Hitler invading Poland (1939), invading France (1940), the Armistice was signed (1945), all prisoners of war returned home (years later)? Again, vague. Perhaps the novel states that the story took place "in the winter of 1959", but the film does not (a reasonable assumption though it may be).

2. I'm curious if the additional material on the DVR or any discussions or analysis of the film addresses the relationship of Luc's mother with her son. It seems odd to me that such a religious woman, one who micromanages her son's homework and refuses to let him ride a bicycle through most of the film, would tolerate all those drawings of blood and gore and corpses to be pinned up in his bedroom. Thanks again, Wordreader (talk) 08:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Judi Dench

Could someone please make the "Judi Dench" pointer precede the other "Dench" item in this page? It was rather awkward to have to go halfway down, to be sure that it was she who was referenced. And I am a novice at Wikipedia, so I would probably mess it up if I tried to fix it. Thank you very much. CaptainSleaze (talk) 01:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The linking is correct. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking.
Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 08:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)