Talk:Brief Encounter

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is on the project's core list.

Trains Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Research paper[edit]

This looks like part of someone's research paper--which is fine, but why don't you set up an account, 80.108.19.xxx, so we can address you by name (or nym)? We bark occasionally, but rarely bite. :-) This is interesting work, and I'd be interested to see what else you have to write. --KQ 16:26 Aug 22, 2002 (PDT)

Well, it isn't part of a research paper, but thanks anyway. And yes, I'm going to log in properly. By the way, what's wrong with my apostrophes? Isn't this ´ just as good as this ' ? Kurt aka 80.108.19.76

OK, I´ve set up an account as KF.

I'm confused. Does she go into town once a week, as first stated in the synopsis, or once a month? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.194.149 (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laura and Alec, or Mrs Jesson and Dr Harvey?[edit]

Someone changed Laura and Alec throughout to Mrs Jesson and Dr Harvey. To me, this makes the tone a bit too formal, even though this is an encyclopaedia. And surely the characters addressed each other as Laura and Alec? (I can't be certain as it's over 30 years since I saw the film, so am happy to be corrected.) Hence I've reverted.--A bit iffy (talk) 12:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would generally support your revert. The intimate nature of the characters' relationship suggests a first-name basis here and better reflects the tone of the film. --RayBirks (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made them all "Dr Harvey" and "Mrs Jesson" as that is how the characters would wish to be known; they use both their formal titles and Christian names to each other in the film. The article, as is, uses both versions inconsistently. On another note, the article is a little overwrought in its summary of the plot - I hope the name-formalisation highlighted this. 121.44.197.252 (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Yes, I can see a couple of cases where "Dr Harvey" is used instead of "Alec". I really can't remember now exactly how the characters did address each other. Also, I think I see what you mean by "overwrought" here. Any ideas how to improve the summary? Thanks.--A bit iffy (talk) 06:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that this is a work of fiction, and Wikipedia does not use courtesy titles. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 08:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should change all the references at this link to Ms. Drew? (not). --RayBirks (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the use of first names in the plot outline as they refer to eachother that way in the film. Vertovian (talk) 12:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Milford[edit]

All scenes in Still Life are set in the refreshment room of a railway station (the fictional Milford Junction).

There was a Milford Junction railway station if that is relavent..Prof.Haddock (talk) 12:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Brief Encounter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stars' fees[edit]

Pettigrew, in "Trevor Howard: A Personal Biography" claims Celia Johnson was paid £12,000 for the film whilst Trevor Howard received just £500. However, Pettigrew contains some blatant errors (not least that Guy Gibson's VC was "posthumous") so there must be doubt without further evidence. The disparity is enormous and the claimed fee for Johnson seems outrageously high for a country in serious austerity. Any reliable evidence most welcome.PDAWSON3 (talk) 04:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brief Encounter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brief Encounter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091006202703/http://www.act-sf.org/0910/briefencounter/index.html to http://www.act-sf.org/0910/briefencounter/index.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.britmovie.net/British-film-Locations/brief-encounter-1945.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed See Also[edit]

I removed the See Also section. Only one item in that section (BFI 100 British Films) had any relevance to this article. I put that item in the Critical Reception section instead; it made no sense to have a See Also link yet not have the distinction mentioned anywhere in the article. Another link was to an article about Banbury cakes. Since Banbury cakes are not mentioned in this article, and this movie is not mentioned in the Banbury cakes article, what would be the point of a See Also link? The reader would have no idea why they were directed there. The other three items were links to articles on movies or books that apparently have plots that are vaguely, partly similar to the plot of this movie. This seemed pointless. And--are See Also sections even a thing? Sylvia A (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In what year is the film set?[edit]

The lede states that the film is about "British suburban life at the end of World War 2". However the plot states "In the latter months of 1938". They can't both be right. Which is correct please? Zin92 (talk) 13:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I now see that user 86.181.119.186 recently changed "on the eve of World War 2" to "at the end of World War 2" with the explanation "1945 not 'the eve of World War 2'". I think that they are confusing the year that the film was made (1945) with the year that the film is set in. Unless anybody objects, I'm going to change it back to "on the eve of World War 2". Zin92 (talk) 13:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Zin92 (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The film drops strong hints of a late 1938 setting. It's obviously before the war, and the fictional film within a film that Laura and Alec see, Flames of Passion, displays a copyright date of 1938, meaning it could not have been any earlier. When Laura returns home following the first (and last) scene, her daughter wishes to see a pantomime, suggesting a setting in time during the weeks around, and probably before Christmas (the celebrations of which are not mentioned). -ProhibitOnions ^(T) 17:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Bibliography?[edit]

The last sentence of the Adaptation section, from "Still Life", has a unreferenced condition. It refers to a Bibliography, but there is no bibliography in this article. Does anyone know if it refers to some bibliography of Coward's somewhere else on Wikipedia? Or is it just a missing reference? Johngillis (talk) 16:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Material Requiring Sources[edit]

Moved:

The Channel 4 British drama series Shameless has a plot based on Brief Encounter in its fifth series. Similarities include the main character Frank Gallagher getting grit in his eye from a bus, being caught by a friend of his wife, and experiencing the tearful departure. Frank's wife Monica even thanks Frank for coming back.^{[citation needed]}

Brief Encounter also loosely inspired "Mum's Army", an episode of the British comedy series Dad's Army. There is a similar final scene in a railway station.^{[citation needed]}

I couldn't locate reliable sources. If you can find sources for these, please feel free to add them back in. - Popoki35 (talk) 14:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]