Talk:The Enchanted Cottage (1924 film)

Plot summary

Ever since the 2024 restoration aired on TCM, I and Merry medievalist have engaged in an edit war over the plot summary. This user has claimed my version is full of errors, and while I have amended them for corrections after rewatching the film, the reverts still continue. I'm not too pleased with their version since it doesn't follow Wikipedia:FILMPLOT guidelines. We definitely need a third party to write the most appropriate plot summary. PrinceArchelaus (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I put a note requesting some eyes here:

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Enchanted_Cottage_(1924)

and pinged both of you there.--David Tornheim (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The Enchanted Cottage

Hello, @Merry medievalist, you and I have been engaging in an edit war over the plot summary of the 1924 film. You claim my summary is full of errors, and while I have amended them with elements of your version, you still revert me. What are the errors you speak of so we can resolve this?

Also, my plot summary is not a matter of being short. It's a film that's over 70 minutes in length. It shouldn't need more than 500 words to describe the plot. PrinceArchelaus (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I am appalled at the idea that the 1-hour 11-minute length of this film should affect the length of its plot, any more than a three-hour film should be allowed another 3,500 words. This concept is not mentioned in the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Where does it come from?

This film has just been restored and re-released. It had been all but lost, with only a 35 mm print in the vaults of the Library of Congress and a time-worn version flickering on YouTube. Richard Barthelmess is an important and highly respected actor of the silent era. He is a co-founder of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. He also produced this film. Restoring a century-old picture to his body of work is important.

In 1924, The New York Times reviewer declared that this film was superior to the play. https://www.nytimes.com/1924/04/14/archives/the-screen.html#

It is certainly very different from the play. It is also very different from the 1945 film, which the New York Times'  Bosley Crowther panned.

According to TCM host Jacqueline Stewart, Edward Lorusso (who spearheaded the 2024 restoration) felt that it was very important to recognize the film as a showcase of “the long-lasting trauma” of WWI. This makes the Major's story even more important.

Your version. I have noted errors of fact in capitals.I have not pointed out all the gaps in the narrative that I see. My version represents those, within the limits of 700 words. The Manual of Style says “every important event in a film should be outlined”. Yours does not.

As the Judith Martin said—more than once—commenting on grammar is a guarantee that one will make a mistake oneself, even when it is one's profession. That said, I have marked errors, redundancies, and awkwardness in grammar, etc. in bold, without making changes. The correct forms should be plain to you

Having served during World War I, Oliver Bashforth returns home to his family, with his body contorted and needing a cane to support his right side. He is engaged to his fiancée Beatrice, but she loves another man. After Oliver watches Beatrice's companion horseback ride, IT ISN'T THE RIDING, THAT AFFECTS HIM, IT'S THE WAY BEATRICE REACTS TO THE MAN'S FALL. I REMOVED THAT TO MAKE ROOM FOR MORE IMPORTANT INFORMATION. he wishes them well. After isolating himself from his family in dark rooms, Oliver leaves them and wanders aimlessly AIMLESSLY IS YOUR INTERPRETATION. THE INTERTITLE SAYS “SOLITARY” until he finds an isolated cottage in the woods, “ISOLATED IN THE WOODS”. IMPLIES A FORESTED  REMOTENESS THAT IS NOT THE CASE. THE COTTAGE WAS PART OF THE DOWER HOUSE. THERE ARE TREES, YES BUT CHILDREN COME AND GO.  operated by Mrs. Minnett, the innkeeper.  MRS. MINNETT IS NOT THE INNKEEPER, SHE IS THE HOUSEKEEPER., The residents include Laura Pennington, a homely young governess, and Major Hillgrove, a blind war veteran. LAURA DOES NOT LIVE THERE, NOR DOES THE MAJOR. THEY  PLAY WITH THE CHILDREN IN THE GARDEN. THE FIRST DAY ENDS WITH OLIVER ASKING IF IT IS OKAY IF HE FOLLOWS HER HOME (ON FOOT) TO HER LODGINGS THE VILLAGE. LATER ON, WE SEE THE MAJOR IN THE MAGNIFICENT LIBRARY IN HIS HOME.

THIS SEQUENCE OF EVENTS IS COMPLETELY CONFUSED. MOST OF IT HAPPENS THE FIRST DAY.

One night, NO Laura visits Oliver at his inn (COTTAGE) THE GAME DISTURBS HIM, HE COMES OUT AND GLARES AT THEM. MRS. MINNETT EXPLAINS. LAURA GOES IN TO  APOLOGIZE and tells them the cottage has been lent to newlyweds for centuries. However, Oliver insists on being left alone. The next morning NO, Oliver apologizes to Laura, who is playing a nursery game with the children…. AGAIN, OUT OF ORDER. THIS ALL HAPPENS THE FIRST DAY

HIS DEVASTATING HEADACHE AND LAURA'S TRIP TO THE CHEMIST HAPPEN IMMEDIATELY. ETHEL BARGES IN WHILE LAURA IS AT THE CHEMIST.  Sometime later, NO his sister Ethel visits Oliver at his inn COTTAGE , telling him that the family plans to visit him NO, SHE COMES TO TELL HIM THAT SHE WILL MOVE IN.

Laura returns from the chemist to find Oliver in agony.  He decides to leave, TALKS ABOUT LEAVING but she gives him the medicine. HE TELLS HER OF ETHEL'S PLANS. Laura talks about loneliness, and Oliver relates with her. He asks her to marry him for the companionship but she declines due to her insecurities. A SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION. MY INTERPRETATION OF THE DIALOGUE IS THAT SHE REFUSES OUT OF PRIDE. NEITHER INTERPRETATION BELONGS IN A PLOT.

On the day Ethel plans to revisit MOVE IN WITH him, Oliver mails a letter to his parents stating he is marrying Laura. A TIMEWARP?

THE GHOSTLY COUPLES APPEAR NOW, ACTING THEIR OWN SCENES AND ACKNOWLEDGING  THE NEWLYWEDS.  On their wedding night, Oliver and Laura sit near BESIDE a window where newlywed couples have carved ETCHED their names IN THE GLASS. They have dinner with each other and sit near the fireplace until Laura weepingly leaves for the bedroom. There, the ghostly newlywed couples  who had stayed at the cottage become visible to Laura, and create an enchantment where she and Oliver are transformed. TWO WIVES COME AND SIT AND STAND BESIDE HER, BUT THEY VANISH AS SOON AS SHE NOTICES THEM. SHE SEES ANOTHER COUPLE CUDDLING IN A CHAIR. THERE IS NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT THE GHOSTS CAUSE THE TRANSFORMATIONS. Oliver stands upright while Laura becomes glamorous. BEAUTIFUL. CONNOTATIONS OF “GLAMOROUS” DO NOT FIT HERE.  

Shortly after, Oliver sends a letter asking for Ethel and his parents to come visit him. Back at the cottage, Oliver tells Hillgrove she and Laura will isolate themselves, and when his parents arrive, he must greet them, explain the transformation and then ring the gong. Mrs. Minnett feels APPEARS worried, but Hillgrove assures her that Oliver and Laura's mutual love has transformed them. After Ethel and Oliver's parents arrive at the cottage, Hillgrove informs them of the transformative miracle, and rings the gong.

Oliver and Laura descend downstairs and greet Ethel and the parents, but they appear unchanged. Ethel declares they are mad, and they leave. Hillgrove delicately feels Laura's face, confirming the truth. Distraught, Laura runs to the bedroom and prays she is made beautiful again. Oliver returns to the bedroom and sleeps on the chaise longue near AT the foot of the bed. THE DREAM AND THE WAY THEY REACH FOR EACH OTHER IN THEIR SLEEP IS IMPORTANT. The next morning, they wake up with their renewed appearances and consider having children. BRRRR. COLD WAY OF DESCRIBING A TENDER LITTLE SCENE. Merry medievalist (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I have already incorporated some of the corrections already. I was aware most of the first half of the film happens in one day. I must have missed the part where it wasn't implied that Laura and Mr. Hillgrove don't live at the cottage. They just hang out in the garden where Laura played with the children. As for the ghosts, I wasn't sure if they had caused the transformation, or was it Oliver and Laura's love for each other. It appears you paid better attention than I did. I'll remove "glamorous" and insert beautiful. PrinceArchelaus (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@PrinceArchelaus: and @Merry medievalist: This discussion should be on the talk page of the article--not here. Can both of you agree to move it to the correct place, so others can find it, please? --David Tornheim (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

This discussion is over, but yes, it can and will be migrated to the talk page of the article. PrinceArchelaus (talk) 03:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)