Talk:Holy Rollers (film)

critical reception?

Any info on critical reception?173.206.212.208 (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Title

Hello, there imo is a problem with the section about the title. It first says “The film's title is a reference to the protagonist's religious character”, but then it calls the title “incongruous” and states that the expression “is not commonly used of Jews (like the film's protagonist) or other non-Christians”. So which is it? I added a citation needed-tag, because I didn't find anything explaining the title (besides another film with the same title which deals with card counting Christians [1], a critic calling the title “goofy” [2], or another one remembering Eddie Murphy’s 1998 film “Holy Man” [3], or Variety calling the film “cleverly titled” [4]). My guess is, that “holy” is a reference to the religiousness of the characters and that “rollers” refers to ecstasy, but that whoever chose the title didn't know about the meaning of the expression “holy rollers” for devout (Pentecostal) Christians. But that's guessing. In the article, as it is now, it's original research. Ajnem (talk) 09:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand your question "which is it?" I see no contradiction in the language you quoted.

Your surmise is the same as mine. But I have been careful not to actually ascribe any intentions to whomever came up with the film's title, so as to avoid the charge of OR, but rather to lay out the facts (which seem pretty clear) and allow readers to connect the dots. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 21:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The title cannot be called “a reference to the religious character” of the film's protagonists, if it is mentioned afterwards, that the title is “incongruous” because the expression is not commonly used for Jews. So which of the two is it? In my opinion only the word “holy” refers to the ultra-Orthodox Jewishness of the protagonists, and the “rollers” is linked to ecstasy and the allusion to “holy rollers” is non-intentional. Many of the people involved with the film are Jews, it is imo likely, that they simply didn't know the expression “holy rollers” describing Pentecostal Christians rolling on the floor. If they had known it, they would imo not have chosen a title linking Hasidic Jews to Pentecostal Christians, because that would be offensive for (ultra-)Orthodox Jews (and many Christians). Linking Hasidic Jews to evangelical Christians is tricky business; it is something for scholars, not for movie makers. The title seems to be perceived as funny, making people expect a comedie, which probably indicates that the expression “holy rollers” is not very well known. The paragraph Imo has to be changed. It would be best if a reference could be found. There are several interviews around, but nobody seems to have asked about the title. Ajnem (talk) 10:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Part of the problem appears to be the wording of the first sentence in the "Title" section. I've now changed it to "The first word of the film's title is a reference to the protagonist's religious character and the second word is a reference to the slang term "rolling" describing a person high on ecstasy." (new text in italics). This was the intention all along, but you seem to have read that sentence as referring to the entire title collectively and thus you saw a contradiction. I apologize for not writing clearer prose the first time.

I think it is very likely that the filmmakers knew that "holy rollers" refers to devoutly religious people and that they did indeed intend for it to be funny, but that they failed to inquire into the details. However, as I have said, the current text is careful not to ascribe any intentions at all, but simply to state facts. This theory is consistent with this article, which bemoans many other instances of inattention to detail in this film (though it does not mention the title).

I disagree with your conjecture that the term is not well known. The term is readily defined by Merriam-Webster and Urban Dictionary, and it easily gets a million or two hits on Google (depending on how you configure the search), with the results including not only the original meaning but a mishmash of puns on the original meaning, including football games and monster trucks. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, the change is a big improvement, but I still feel uncomfortable about the direct link of Hasidic Jews and Evangelical Christians. My suggestion: Incongruously, holy rollers is also a phrase most commonly applied to Pentecostal Christians, often derisively in reference to their ecstatic behavior, but is not commonly used of Jews or other non-Christians. What do you think? Ajnem (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

That looks great to me. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Good, I'll change it, and add a ref for the “rolling”, if I find one. But I'm off for the day, Ajnem (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Done, while at it, I also worked a bit on the “plot”. Ajnem (talk) 10:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Restoration of unsourced text

An editor restored the following unsourced text, "Incongruously, “Holy Rollers” is also a phrase most commonly applied to Pentecostal Christians, often derisively in reference to their ecstatic behavior, but is not commonly used of Jews or other non-Christians." The excuse was that the "factuality" of the statement was not challenged. Statements about what is "incongruous" are not facts. They are inherently expressions of opinion, and have no place in Wikipedia, except as the opinion of a quoted source. The material should be removed. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Your argument applies only to the word "incongruously." The rest of the text is simply a matter of looking at a dictionary. I could source it if you insist, but I see no need. And I think the word "incongruously" is also self-evidently true, as it is the most common meaning of the phrase but clearly not what the producers intended. If you insist on removing the word "incongruously," I would consider it, though I think the text is better with it. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

By the way, you might look at the discussion above, if you haven't. This text is already the product of consensus. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

My argument applies to the entire passage, since the rest of the text appears to be there only so that someone can explain why they consider the film's title to be "incongruous". One encounters this kind of thing rather often in film articles - comments about what is "interesting" or "ironic" that actually reflect only the opinions of the editor who put the material there. Wikipedia articles are there just to state the facts - there is no place for editorial commentary on those facts. Let readers judge for themselves what is or isn't "interesting", or "ironic", or "incongruous." ("Consensus" is also not an excuse for such nonsense). Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

To "just state the facts" and "let readers judge for themselves" is exactly what the current text does. If you remove it, then that purpose will no longer be accomplished. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 13:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Policy says, "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." I do not think that the unsourced statement is commonsensical enough to warrant keeping. It is a kind of specialist knowledge that is not "obvious" to all readers, and it should be backed by citation. This film came out in 2010, so surely we can make an effort to research it to see how the title has been covered. For example, this says, "As for the film’s title 'Holy Rollers', Kevin explained that it fits, 'because they're holy and they're rolling. Rolling is a street term when you’re high on Ex and I wanted a title that was inspiring and funny and not somber.'" Surely we can find other such sources. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Please see this article for several references supporting the factuality of the text under discussion. Take your pick and add one or more to this article if you think it's necessary. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is what I have tried. I used the aforementioned film-related reference to explain why the director chose the title. I created a separate "Notes" section where I put the Merriam-Webster definition of the general term because we do not have a filmic relation to it. (Please note that the lead sentence at holy roller says "Pentecostal" but is not backed by the dictionary definition.) We do not know if the director wanted to reapply the term for his own use or if he was being subversive in choosing to use it. Maybe this can change if we look for more sources about the title. EDIT: I would also say that the article would benefit more from a "Production" section in which this title could be defined, using references like this. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

No, we don't know what the filmmakers' intentions were (personally, I think they were trying to be funny but didn't know enough about religion to realize that the term is not appropriate for a movie about Jews), which is why the original language carefully avoids the subject, sticking only to the facts. The language you have substituted is fine, but if anything, it makes the original language even more relevant alongside it.

By the way, "Protestants whose worship meetings are characterized by spontaneous expressions of emotional excitement" is a fairly good definition of "Pentecostal," but that's a minor issue. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

What you said about not knowing enough about religion is another possible reason the title was used this way. That's why I presented the general definition as a mere aside. And for whatever reason, M-W did not mention "Pentecostal" explicitly. We can look at other dictionary definitions if necessary. Otherwise, anyone have any input about the current draft? Any changes to be made? Erik (talk | contribs) 18:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I just added a modified version of the original text, adding more context in place of the word "incongruously" and adding the M-W ref. I also removed the word "Pentecostal". I hope it meets with approval. By the way, I don't see the point of exiling this point to a note, when the whole article is fairly sparse. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The change is still coached with opinionated language ("often derisively"). Merriam-Webster does not say that, and we cannot pluck reputed perspectives out of our own experiences with pop culture. Also not sure why you linked to "Christian" instead of "Protestant"? The point of having a separate section for the definition is to reflect tangentially the definition of the general term. As it stands, we have two sentences back-to-back, and the latter is presented to have as much weight as the director's intent. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The phrase "often derisively" directly reflects the M-W note that the term is "often offensive". "Christian" is just as correct as "Protestant", and better draws the contrast with Jews (who are the subject of the film). --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• I think this is a WP:INDISCRIMINATE issue in all honesty. We shouldn't be bringing in alternative definitions of the title unless they are explicitly touched upon by commentary about the film. If there are sources out that discuss the religious aspects of the title and its relationship to the film by all means include it and source it, but as yet its relevance to an encyclopedic understanding of the film hasn't been established. Betty Logan (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The reason I did a "Notes" section is that there is some precedent. Steve did this at American Beauty (film)#References, and I've done something similar at Panic Room#Notes (more for providing sets of links, though). Here it is admittedly sparse with one line, but I thought it would work as a kind of an aside. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not set up discussion by sources as a requirement for a fact to be relevant enough to mention. If the consensus is that it's irrelevant, then I'll acquiesce, but that is our decision to make and not that of the sources.

Because the title of this film is a fairly common term, but one that not all English-speaking readers will know, it seems relevant to explain. As I noted in an earlier conversation above, it easily gets a million or two hits on Google (depending on how you configure the search), with the results including not only the original meaning but a mishmash of puns on the original meaning, including football games and monster trucks. As the title of this film, it is also clearly intended as a pun (the director's statement supports this), so I think it is useful to supply the reader with the information to judge how successful the pun is.

Another point regarding "its relevance to an encyclopedic understanding of the film" is this article that bemoans the filmmakers' failure to understand religious people while making a movie about religious people. In my opinion, the title is another example of this, and I support presenting the reader with sufficient information (but without judgment) to evaluate that question for themselves. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

INDISCRIMINATE requires that relevance should be established though, and secondary contextual commentary is the most straightforward way to do that. Word play forms the basis of lots of titles, just to make them a bit catchier, and we don't know the director's motivations beyond that. Personally I would just wikilink it, we have an article about it so we don't need to be dragging definitions into the article that possibly have no bearing on the title's relevance. Betty Logan (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It will deviate from the topic at hand otherwise. MisterShiney ✉ 19:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)