Talk:The Four Feathers (2002 film)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wes Bentley as Lt. Durrance Webley W.G. Mod. 1886 revolver.jpg

Image:Wes Bentley as Lt. Durrance Webley W.G. Mod. 1886 revolver.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 16:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Four Feathers 2002 movie.jpg

Image:The Four Feathers 2002 movie.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) 06:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Notes

The whole notes section is orginal research. Furthermore, in the commentary it is stated by the Director to be based on the battle of Omduran, not the battle of Abu Klea. From what I can tell it doesn't really resemble that either, so labeling it as any real battle and saying its not accurate to that battle, without anything actually backing up that assertion to which battle it is makes little sense, rather it is just a battle. In addition, it says they had red uniforms but they were replaced with khaki sometime in 85, yes? So, doesn't that mean there was a portion of time when the brits were using red uniforms in the Sudan, how is that inaccurate then? Do you have an exact date for this battle which didn't really happen which in the director's words "represents the battle of Omduraman", note represents, he goes on to say some stuff about the collapse of the British Empire and the breaking of the square, He doesn't actually say its 1898 or that its the battle of Omdurman.

• I just watched the DVD (Region 1 version) again today and there is a FEATURETTE in the DVD called "BATTLE OF ABOU KLEA". To complicate things, director Shekhar Kapur in his DVD commentary says that the British square battle scene is based on the BATTLE OF OMDURMAN which HE says was when the British square was broken. Historically speaking, however, the British square was broken in the Battle of ABU KLEA (17 January 1885) and not the Battle of Omdurman (02 September 1898). Although the British square was broken at Abu Klea, the Madhists were repelled from the square nonetheless. Therefore, the British actually won the Battle of Abu Klea (and also inflicted heavy casualties on the Madhists) when the film gives the impression that the British had lost. Ultimately, it does NOT matter whether the battle scene shown in the movie is supposed to represent the actual Battle of Abu Klea or simply a generic battle between the British and the Madhists that took place during the 1884/1885 Wolseley Expedition. The purpose of the Notes section is to clarify that the film's story is set in the 1884/1885 time setting (General Wolseley's rescue expedition in the Sudan) rather than in the later 1898 period (General Kitchener's punitive expedition in the Sudan). As for the colour of the British tunics (red or khaki?), I will only say that British soldiers in that vastly superior 1966 film Khartoum (starring Charlton Heston) wore the same red tunics as in this Shekhar Kapur film. The British army in the 1966 film was trying to rescue Charles Gordon who was trapped in Khartoum, which is the same reason why Harry Faversham's old regiment in this Shekhar Kapur film was deployed to the Sudanese desert (as explained in the officers' lounge scene between Jack Durrance and Colonel Hamilton) By the way, I watched the excellent Khartoum on DVD shortly before going to the cinema to watch this rather disappointing Shekhar Kapur film for the first time. The excellent 1966 Charlton Heston film gives gives alot of explanation on 1) The Mahdi (a.k.a. Muhammad Ahmadand) and his religious crusade against Islamic Egypt and Christian Britain, 2) Egypt's rule over the Sudan and Britain's imperialist influence over Egypt because of the Suez Canal, and 3) how General Charles "Chinese" Gordon became trapped in Khartoum and the British government's response, in the form of the Wolseley Expedition, to the British public's demand for Gordon's rescue. In the absence of this public demand, British Prime Minister William Gladstone would have unlikley authorized the Wolseley Expedition and Harry Faversham's regiment would not have been sent to war. In contrast, there is little explanation in Shekar Kapur's 2002 film as to this complicated political groundback which would help explain why Harry Faversham's regiment went to the Sudan. Another example of lacking historical exposition in this 2002 film is the scene where Abu Fatma tells Harry Faversham that he was a scout for General Hicks where there is little explanation beforehand on the disastrous Hicks Expedition that preceded the Wolseley Expedition. Director Shekhar Kapur seems to assume general audiences to know about the Hicks Expedition, which forms the opening scene of the excellent 1966 Charlton Heston film. Thus, the need to clarify the historical setting of this 2002 film in the Notes section. (Alf74 22 June 2008 11:15) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alf74 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Historically Inaccurate

I didn't see it mentioned here anywhere that in reality the British actually won this battle. The film is extremely misleading in depicting a Mahadist victory. This should be added. 71.187.205.25 (talk) 00:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

and the British wore Khaki, not red during this period — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.167.69.4 (talk) 13:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Harry Faversham

In the cast list Harry is listed as Faversham but his father is listed as Feversham. The earlier films use Faversham but the book seems to use Feversham. It's too long since I saw this version for me to remember which name is used in this film, can someone check? 86.139.161.23 (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)