Talk:The Caine Mutiny (film)

message: Why was the Michael Caine trivia removed?! 22:56, November 10, 2002 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mintguy (talk • contribs) .
:Because it's already in the Michael Caine article, where it belongs.   Wasted Time R 04:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't really answer the question. Why can't there be a brief reference to it here? SlowJog (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Michael Caine

message: Hi;
In the courtroom scene, Ferrer's wearing a cast. Silly question, did he actually have a busted wing?
*Don't know--but it's part of the plot that he had been injured. Greenwald was not a military lawyer--he was a civilian lawyer who joined the Navy and flew fighter planes (notice his green uniform in one scene)--he got the Caine case while recovering from injuries received in a crackup in his plane (in the book his hands had been burned).--Buckboard 09:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ferrers arm 

message: Ok.  I'm hoping maybe someone can straighten it out.  Why, in the end, does Greenwald (and SINPAC) maintain that Queeg is NOT incompetent and that Maryk was not justified under 185?
# Queeg on numerous occasions would blow his stack without cause.  Example -- when he found out Keefer was writing a novel, he exploded.  There was no justification for this  -- the matter of a crewman's personal activities (baring violations of the law or regulations) are not under his jurisdiction.
# The water crisis.  When he ordered the men deprived of water, it seems to me Maryk would have been justified to act then.  How can depriving the men of water be construed as an attempt to enforce discipline?  The action endangered the lives of the crew and officers.  Three days without water will result in death.  In extreme heat as in the tropics, death could occur sooner.  This would clearly constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
# After the tow-line incident, it is clear that his superiors know -- or at least suspect -- him to be incompetent.
# On his own, he showed himself to be a raving lunatic in the courtroom.  This would show that the doctors who testified for the prosecution were probably told what to write in their reports.  One doctor on the stand verbally admitted that Queeg was a sick man.  This was omitted from his report -- and under the laws of perjury, an omission is as much a lie as a fabrication.
# When Greenwald confronts Maryk and Keith afterward, he points out that if they had acted differently at a certain time, it would not have been necessary for him to have relieved Queeg during the storm.  This makes no sense.  What the man was in the past was irrelevant; the issue was what he was in the present.  Maryk examined the Captain on the bridge -- he spoke to him, passed his hand in front of the Captain's face, snapped his fingers in front of his face, and got no reaction of any kind.  The man was – only for the moment yes – catatonic.  Queeg didn't even protest Maryk ‘s actions for 2 full minutes.  Given the fact that he was clearly catatonic at the time, how could he NOT have been justified in taking command?
From all this -- including the crazy and outlandish statements Queeg made on the stand -- why is it the opinion of everyone that he is NOT incompetent?
For the record: in the book, Keith ultimately became Captain of the Cain.  Maryk was given command of an LST.  The Court-Martial convening authority disapproved the verdict (this goes against the principle that a trial verdict can not be impeached) and issued them both formal reprimands (brazenly proclaiming them guilty).  -- Jason Palpatine 13:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Greenwald maintained that Queeg was a flawed but adequate commander who was undermined by subordinates who should have helped him, particularly Keefer.  He only went after Queeg because Maryk ("the wrong man") was on trial.  Greenwald gives a rather impassioned monologue about how the country owed a debt to professional servicemen like Queeg; a point that Wouk would explore more deeply in his Victor Henry novels.  A very powerful scene, both in the movie and the book. -- Cranston Lamont 00:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read Greenwald's rather impassioned monologue -- more than once -- trying to understand what he was saying.  His question to Maryk and Keith and their answer struck me as odd.  Maryk said that it would not have been necessary for him to relieve Queeg if they had supported him when he deserted the other destroyers under fire -- i.e. helped him hide his cowardice.  My answer in his place would be Yes.  What happened was inevitable.  What he was in the past  -- no matter how distinguished his record -- is irrelevant.  The only thing that counts is what he is now.  -- Jason Palpatine 01:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Queeg

message: Out of curiosity, can anyone explain to me what gave the Navy brass (whoever it was) the authority to revoke a verdict of a general court-martial?  Our laws have always held that a verdict can not be impeached. --Jason Palpatine 22:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, the court martial convening authority can "disapprove" of a verdict, and this disapproval can be "endorsed" (approved) up the chain of command. This is what happened in the Caine Mutiny. This disapproval has no bearing on the verdict -- it is not overturned -- but becomes part of the record. AllanJ 13:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An important point is that in the book the officers were not charged with making a mutiny, but with conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline. Despite the disapproval of the verdict, Maryk and Keith managed to resume their Navy careers more or less unscathed, unlike Queeg who was given a desk job as the Navy recognised he was not fit to command a ship at sea, therefore confirming that the officers were justified in their actions. Keefer also eventually
gets command of a ship and proves himself a physical coward as well as a moral one. Nevertheless
Keefer and Keith manage to restore a degree of friendship.
Exile 10:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Verdict

message: I'd recommend this article be split into The Caine Mutiny for the novel, and The Caine Mutiny (film) for the film. There are significant enough differences between the book and film - a lot could be said on a literary front about the book that has nothing to do with the film. It would also help with all the "Projects" and templates to separate movies from books. -- Stbalbach 16:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split article 

message: I inserted a piece which was taken out about the quirkiness behind Queeg and the strawberries. Maryk tells the other officers that the mess boys confessed to eating the strawberries, but Queeg refuses to believe their story and instead accuses the officers of having a duplicate key to the food locker. Is this a valid point to bring up? It seems open-and-shut about what happened to the strawberries, but Queeg refuses to accept it. USN1977 (talk) 17:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strawberries 

message: Regarding this passage recently added and moved here:
:There are some similarities between "The Caine Mutiny" and Louis Auchincloss's The Indifferent Children (1947). The plot of both books takes place in the unheroic backwaters of the WWII US Navy (Wouk's book in the Pacific Theatre, but the Caine's part in the fighting is marginal and the conflict is entirely among its crew, rather than with the Japanese - while Auchincloss' book is set in the Carribean, far from any fighting front); both books have as the main protagonist the scion of a rich family, who becomes a naval officer without seeking a heroic or combatant role, and who undergoes a fast character development in the course of the story; and in both books there is a central role to a court martial in which the defence lawyer brillantly saves his client from a seemingly hopeless situation - only to afterwards turn on the client and tell him what a heel he truly is. There is, however, no direct evidence of Wouk being influenced by the earlier book.    
I'm concerned about WP:NOR - if we can cite someone on this, it would be interesting to add - but I'm concerned there is an unspoken hint at plagiarism. Given how popular CM was, someone must have noted the similarities. -- Stbalbach 14:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Searched google, google books and Amazon's A9.com on a combination of "caine mutiny" + "indifferent children", as well as "wouk auchincloss" and couldn't find anything. -- Stbalbach 15:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: We don't generally delete Talk page discussion because it's meant to be a permanent record of discussion relevant to the article. That said, this could likely safely be archived. If you'd like more information, please refer to WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 15:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Indifferent Children 

message: :Image:Mutiny 0.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Mutiny 0.jpg

message: There is a difference.  An innacuracy is when something doesn't accord with reality - with the real facts of the real world.  Thus, there's an issue if a boat such as the Caine could really steam in a circle and cut the tow line.  That is a potential (if not proven) inaccuracy.The age of Queeg is not a fact of the real world.  It's something made up for a piece of fiction, a book.  In the translation of a book from a film, things get changed, for various reasons -- in this case the age of a character is changed (de facto) because the actor chosen to play the part is the not age specified in the book.  That is artistic license.  The makers of the film chose to alter an aspect of the book in order to make the film they wanted to make.  They weighed the value of Humprey Bogart in the part versus the value of keeping the character at 30, and made the artistic choice that the one outweighed the other.  That's not inaccuracy, it's artistic license.Now, if in making the film, they had made Queeg a woman, while keeping everything else the same, that would be an inaccuracy, because in the real world women did not captain ships of the U.S. Navy in World War II. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 00:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point! Perhaps we should consider changing the section header, as per your suggestion. Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs  •  critique) 01:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Never mind. I see you've already gotten rid of the "Queeg's age" issue. Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs  •  critique) 01:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I moved it into the section dealing with differences between the book and the script, which is where I think it belongs. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 02:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

text: If you've got some evidence that in World War II, at the height of a military manpower shortage while the US is fighting the largest war ever seen on Earth in two separate theatres on opposite sides of the world, an experienced ship's captain in his late 40's to middle 50's (the age range that would be reasonable to see Bogart as -- we only say 55 because we happen to know that Bogart was 55 at the time) wouldn't be commanding a minesweeper, please post it.  I'd be interested in seeing it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 19:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In the novel, Queeg was Annapolis Class of '36. There's that. Now, despite all that silly bluster in your entry about facts concerning WWII, any real Navy will know that there's no way a 55 year old would be given command of a minesweeper—war or no war. (In fact, in the novel, the 30 year old Queeg was disappointed that he was getting only a minesweeper—he'd been hoping for a destroyer, which would have been age-appropriate for the time.) But hey, like I said, delude yourself, what do I care: I'm not the one coming across as ignorant. --TallulahBelle (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When you've got some evidence, please feel free to post it.  Despite your telling me to "chill out" diff, and calling me "ignorant" and "deluded" (twice!) in this thread, if you have some actual evidence to support the contention that a man in his late 40's to mid-50's wouldn't be commanding a minesweeper in the midst of World War II, I'm willing to change my mind and admit your point. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 03:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

text: THE SKY IS BLUE?!?!? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 15:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, explaining why the sky is blue isn't all that hard, but if you're getting into the whole question of "How do I know that what I perceive as "blue" is the same as what "you" perceive as "blue"?", then we start to talk about qualia, and, frankly, I quail before qualia. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 15:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Innacuracy vs, artistic license 

message: The plot summary doesn't mention the story's critical turning point, probably because most viewers are so intent on hating Queeg (the name itself is hateable) that they don't see it. It occurs during Queeg's initial meeting with the ship's officers, after the "Do it my way and we'll get along" suggestion. Queeg is aware he has trouble with command, and asks, almost directly, for help in running the ship. (I don't remember the exact dialog.) He's given the cold shoulder, because the officers have already decided they don't like him, and don't want to cooperate. This is the real mutiny, not Maryk's later assumption of command. The officers have forgotten they're fighting a war, and there are things far more important than whether they like their commanding officer. This is not OR interpretation; it is the obvious, on-the-surface intent of the dialog and the way the scene is acted/directed/edited.
There is also the question of why the ship is named Caine. I have my opinions, but they would be OR. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 13:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: the "real" mutiny

message: The parenthetical that Navy stewards during World War II were generally, if not exclusively, black, and later generally Filipino, is technically correct, but is it relevant to this movie?  I don't think so.  Is there any other reason to mention it in this article? Lahaun (talk) 01:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racism in the Navy 

message: When Queeg appears to become paralyzed in action, Maryk relieves him, with Keith's support. Upon returning to port, Maryk and Keith face a court-martial for mutiny. 
Why is that? Relieving the captain is not a mutiny.80.141.24.11 (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence isn't indicating that they committed mutiny, only that they are being charged with it. Just as one can be charged with murder without having committed murder. DonIago (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mutiny? 

message: One possible solution is to crate a broader Kramer template listing both directing and producing credits. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a good idea. BMK (talk) 00:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

text: * BMK (talk) 00:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template war and peace 

message: *I've tagged for sources. This movie has been written about a fair amount and the sourcing (ebay? tcm? imdb?) needs improvement. We can get this mother up to GA I am sure. Coretheapple (talk) 22:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: *Sorry, but I disagree. The sourcing is more than adequate for a film article.  If there are particular items which you think should be sourdced, please tag them with CN, but the article as a whole is well-sourced.  AFI, in particular, is quite reliable, as is TCM, and e-bay has been removed. BMK (talk) 22:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: *Perhaps, but we can do a lot better. It's just a question of finding the time, really. Lots out there. It may be acceptable to use, for instance, Robert Osborne's comments on a film, though I tend to think it presents WP:V problems, but probably better to find published work and more easily verifiable material. IMDB has been challenged repeatedly, I know that. Coretheapple (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Sourcing

message: (@Centpacrr) On another point: do you have access to the text of the TIME article? I tried to find on the Internet. Google turned up an article accessible via Newspapers.com, in which some of the very same language in the Time piece is said by Bogart himself. See . Looks like either Time copied from Bogart or vice versa. Odd. Coretheapple (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added an external link. No doubt ghostwritten, the publicist copying from Time, but that's just a guess. It can also be used as a source, but there is no practical way to deal with the duplicate language. Coretheapple (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: *The 3,856-word TIME cover story ("Cinema: The Survivor") was published in the June 7, 1954 issue so predates the clearly ghostwritten San Bernardino County Sun substitute Drew Pearson piece by two-and-a-half months. Centpacrr (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Separating into new header as it is unrelated. I think the status quo is OK. Coretheapple (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Bogart quote & Time magazine

message: The aircraft carrier that the three officers go to to see Admiral Halsey on is easily identifiable by the 'shown' flightdeck number of "33."
Unfortunately, that is the wrong ship.  "CV-33" is/was the U.S.S. Kearsarge.  The Kearsarge was NOT IN SERVICE until 1946; but was in service (till 1970) when the movie was filmed. 2600:8800:786:A300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 22:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad you raised the point as there should be no identification of Navy ships and other locations in the making of this film unless they have been adequately sourced. I've removed the references that were in the article. This is exactly why we don't allow original research. Coretheapple (talk) 14:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Restored reference to the USS Thompson, and added the USS Doyle, as the two ships that the Navy converted to be used to portray the WWII USS Caine, and included two reliable reference citations to support this information. Centpacrr (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ship inaccuracy 

message: In the novel, the Caine Mutiny by Herman Wouk when, Barney Greenwald confronts the mutineers (especially Keefer) about after their acquittal he reveals that the reason he condemns the mutineers is 1) for the same reasons as in the film and 2) because Greenwald is Jewish and as a result has the most to lose in the event of an Axis victory.  His exact words were (I'm here condensing the content), "So when all hell breaks loose and the Germans started running out of soap and decided it was time to melt down old Mrs Greenwald-who's gonna stop them? Not her boy Barney. Can't stop a Nazi with a lawbook. So I dropped the lawbooks and ran to learn how to fly.  Stout fellow.  Meantime, and it took a year and a half before I was any good, who was keeping Mama out of the soap dish? Captain Queeg."  Greenwald goes on to say more but, despite appearances, I'm not actually trying to be lengthy.  My point is that in the movie scene wherein Greenwald confronts Keefer, which is actually closely based on the scene in the book, they omit all of Greenwald's references and allusions to the Holocaust and to his being Jewish.  I honestly do think that change is important because, and this is just my opinion not something I'm trying to insert into Wikipedia, what was in the book, a defence (I'm Canadian that's how I spell it) of Jewish American patriotism becomes instead a defence of standard American patriotism.  To my recollection, thearticle does not mention the discrepancies between the book and the film vis-a-vis Greenwald's monologue.  Does anyone else besides me, think that it should? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.200.115.29 (talk • contribs) 
:It's an interesting variance, but when it comes to 'differences from the source material' we only include those which reliable sources have discussed. Films differ from novels all the time, so we need evidence that the difference was significant enough to merit attention. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! DonIago (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Greenwald's monologue to the mutineers

message: Queeg refers to the landing as "the most important thing ever"....or words to that effect. The scenes are obviously from Iwo Jima. The article cites "a small Pacific island", but the footage is certainly Iwo Jima. I realise we can't infer, but can we state the obvious? Hanoi Road (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's obvious, then it's likely been discussed somewhere and may be added with a source...though I think it would be appropriate to add that as Production info, not to claim that the "small Pacific island" is Iwo Jima when that's not mentioned in the film. If there's no source, then no matter how "obvious" it may be, we shouldn't add it. DonIago (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not that big a deal,I suppose. As you point out, IJ is not specifically referenced in the film, though to anyone remotely familiar with WW2 Pacific Theatre footage, it would certainly be "obvious". In fact, the specific newsreel used is ubiquitous and shows up in The World at War, amongst other places. Sources are plentiful, but it does smack of inference. No crime to use IJ footage to represent Okinawa, I guess. Hanoi Road (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, one location "standing in" for another isn't uncommon even when it isn't stock footage. I just watched an episode of The Americans which located Croton Gorge Park in New York adjacent to Washington DC. I grew up about 15 minutes from CGP, so it was pretty amusing to see. :p I do think it might be worth mentioning that the stock footage is used if sources have discussed it, as Production-level information. We just can't mention IJ in the plot if the characters don't do so themselves. DonIago (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yup. Seems so. Hanoi Road (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iwo Jima