# Talk:The Haunting (1963 film)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Haunting (1963 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jionpedia (talk · contribs) 17:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Will review it in the next coming days. Regards, ----Jionpedia ✉  17:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


### Comments
Lead
No big issues
Plot
"The companion inherited the house, but hung herself in the library" Why? Did she saw something terrifying?
"Dr. Markway is investigating paranormal activity" Where? In the mansion?
"... but must take Luke Sannerson, her heir, with him." Again, why?
"... and meek Eleanor "Nell" Lance" --> "... and the meek Eleanor "Nell" Lance"
"... Eleanor almost falls to her death. Dr. Markway rescues her." --> "Eleanor almost falls to her death, only to be rescued by Dr. Markway."
Production
Looks good
"Robert Wise was in post-production on West Side Story when he read a review in Time magazine" - this quote comes straight from Wise, but the dates of publication of the novel and purchase of the rights preceded the production of 'West Side Story' - it should be 'pre-production' - but post-production what Wise kept saying.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony McKay (talk • contribs) 06:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Script
"But the United Kingdom might be different." Very confusing and unclear. Perhaps it will be good if you merge it with the previous sentence
"Wise approached United Artists with the project, but after much delay they turned him down." No - Wise had a contract with the Mirisch company to make three films - in turn Mirisch had a contract with United Artists to make films for them. 'The Haunting' was going to be made for United Artists as part of this wider deal, United Artists paid for the rights on the Novel and Wise started work on the script for Mirisch. It was later that United Artists decided not to proceed with the project and Wise was allowed to take the project (and associated rights) to M-G-M.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony McKay (talk • contribs) 22:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Casting
"Russ Tamblyn, also under contract with MGM, turned down the role because... " Which role?
Filming
"... the sets created a subdued feeling among cast and crew" --> "the sets created a subdued feeling among the cast and crew"
Apart from these sections, every other section is fine.

This is from my side. Will pass the article after the comments have been addressed. Regards, ----Jionpedia ✉  15:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Done, but I can't recall the reasons for the first suicide, I think it might have been over guilt of not answering the call, but in thinking about it the character in the film (Eleanor) later feels guilt about not answering the call so I don't want to add it and get it wrong. If so then I vaguely remember the character being haunted severely, that might have been it. I'll leave it as it is for now.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


### Final analysis
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
B. MoS compliance: 
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
C. No original research: 
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
B. Focused: 
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Very good job! If it is expanded more, then it is has a great FA potential.----Jionpedia ✉  11:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The lead refers to the film as "often cited as one of the most frightening films ever made." Methinks this needs a citation in support. Any refs? A brief look at the internet shows a lot of repetition of the second-hand claim that it is "widely regarded" as such, without offering first-hand claim.Faff296 (talk) 02:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay, should have read further before creating section - refers to Guardian and Scorcese listings at the end of the section. Can delete this section if possible? Faff296 (talk) 02:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I just reviewed the novel and the sexual orientation of Theodora is never explicitly stated (as the article erroneously stated prior to my edit).  I confirmed this by doing some web searching where there are a number of extant discussions about the ambiguity of Theodora's sexuality.  I made a small edit to correct the error. jwright (talk) 04:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I've watched the film twice in recent years, having purchased a DVD release of it.  Thinking back to the first time I saw it, which was on TV one night in the late 1960's when I was probably 16 or 17, I now think some footage has been lost.
There is the scene where the book Hugh Crain put together for his daughter's benefit, full of horrific illustrations of the seven deadly sins, etc., has been discovered.  I think more of the book was shown in the film than now exists on the DVD release.  For one thing, there was a page where Hugh Crain wrote a letter to his daughter as part of presenting her with the horrible book, and it is discovered by Dr. Markway, Luke Sannerson, Eleanor and Theodora that Crain signed that page in blood, and they are all horrified by the discovery and conclude that Hugh Crain was clearly a sick individual and a horrible father.  I suppose I could be conflating what I read in the novel with what I saw in the movie, except for this fact.  When I first saw the movie, they talked about Hugh Crain, and imagined his last name was spelled "Crane".  Then, when they showed the signature in blood, the handwriting revealed to me the spelling "Crain", which I thought was odd, but took note of.  (I hadn't yet heard of the actress Jeanne Crain.)  So I do think bits and pieces were trimmed from "The Haunting" to make it fit into a given time slot fo further showings on TV and that the version now seen on DVD is missing bits and pieces here and there. Does anyone else remember what I think I remember?Toddabearsf (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Nothing in the original script or the production notes would support this. Anthony McKay (talk) 06:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Two sources have been added to dictate the nationality of the film. One is from IMDb, the other seems to indicate its Britishness. However, the American Film Institute states the film as an American production, here while the Monthly Film Bulletin in a contemporary source states the film is British. So which is it? Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The sources added since have been contradictory. Some just state "US", others have stated "UK". Not a hybrid of both. So which is it? Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
It was made in the UK for M-G-M in America - but it certainly counts as 'British' under the UK quota scheme. Anthony McKay (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm curious about that as the production company is Argyle, who don't seem mentioned anywhere within the article otherwise. Is this to take advantage to make it a legally British production? Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Just as a follow-up, this keeps being removed to being just British, but there has been no clarification on why or how the conclusion is being of this being done on either the talk page or the edit summaries. If we can clarify this stuff, it would really benefit the article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Britannica says the film is British.Halbared (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I mean, potentially, but the issue is we have different sources saying different things. Unless there is some depth or specific details with that source, we require something more in-depth to clarify the issue. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes. I started looking into it more after the edits. I see a French website says both countries, but that website also has issues. The company that created the film is a British one, a subsidiary of an American company. I think that is why the AFI likes to claim it as an American film, when it was created by a British company.Halbared (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Hmm. That would explain some issues, a bit like the Alien as being made by a British branch of 20th Century Fox. I wonder if we can find more clarification on citations discussing the company and its relationship to the film as this would clear out the issues. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I didn't know about that British subsidiary, I just read up on it, most interesting.
This might be a subject hidden in a book on the history of cinema, or MGM-British Studios specifically, or maybe MGM. Do you have any ideas on titles?Halbared (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Not quite that specific. I'll ask around and look around. I usually find film historians don't emphasize these kind of details. But lets research and see what we can come up with. I'll share anything if I can find material. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)