Talk:Scum (film)

Woods

I heard that Woods' full name was Donald Woods. I think this may have been a reference to Donald Woods, the South African journalist who had risen to fame at the time of the film after he fled the Apartheid government, who had targeted him for reporting the truth of the death of activist Steve Biko. Woods may have been well known in England before that as well. Of course, it may just be a coincidence. Grieferhate (talk) 08:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The plot is incomprehensible, who is Archer? you havent introduce him but CARLIN and suddenly Archer becomes important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.84.89 (talk) 03:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scummy Reminiscence

Can't really justify putting this in the article but...

I was born in 1972, and this film took on a mythic status as many of us saw it at primary school age - under the age of ten. So, for a lot of us it was the most gruelling thing we'd ever seen. OK, we might have seen some Hammer Horror films, but this had violence in it we could actually relate to. We had socks. We had snooker balls. Don't get me wrong, I don't think any of us actually carried any of it out, but when we went on to secondary school there were a lot of people who knew exactly what "who's the daddy?" meant.

As for the rape - at that age I think we were all rather bemused by that ;o)

However, in my first job after leaving school - once I'd been there a year - I had to train a newly arrived colleague how to do the job. And he seemed completely obsessed by what he would only refer to as "the potting shed" in gleeful tones. I suppose that should have worried me, somewhat... but he seemed a nice enough chap. --bodnotbod 21:28, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone have the name of the song played when that kid lends the other kid his radio and snitches on him, and when he returns to his room with banks, there is a song playing on the radio what is it? cheerrs guys

Teleplay and Movie Versions are Different

The teleplay and movie versions are quite different. Suggesting that the actor/character and plot synopsis sections deal with each in turn. Perhaps also add pictures for the alternative actors. Also, a discussion of any reasons for the differences would be good, particularly regarding the fact that the film is more graphic in its depiction of rape and violence.--ChrisJMoor 02:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexual Relationship?

I heard that in the play carlin had a homosexual relationship with another inmate. This left him somewhat vulnerable in a way that he couldn't afford. i don't know why it was cut from the film version. I haven't actually seen the play though so i won't add it to the article. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to Ray Winstone's commentary on the DVD of the TV version, it was primarily cut from the filmed version at his request.

I've just watched both the TV & Theatrical versions (Prism Leisure), with commentary, and didn't notice Winstone mentioning this. I shall have another gander though. Also, the Winstone commentary is on the Theatrical version - is there a Winstone/BBC version commentary out there?

In the Roy Minton interview on the DVD, he says that he felt the loss of the "missus" scene was the most significant change in the feature film version, and seems to suggest that this was one of the main reasons why he parted company with Clarke. Bristle-krs (talk) 12:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EXPAND & CLEANUP

Plot

There needs to be a Plot Section (use previous info, see #Important Characters). Cbrown1023 20:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Important Characters

The information here reads like a summary and should be put into the plot section. Only some information from this section should be kept, don't be too descriptive, 1 or 2 paragraphs is enough. The rest should be moved into Plot (as stated above). Cbrown1023 20:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All understood, but the film is so reliant on character that a plot *almost* doesn't exist. Aside from one or two events in isolation, it's as if Minton created scenarios befitting of the characters he'd developed, as opposed to writing a plot and then basing the characters around it. Bentley Banana 16:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the emphasis of the page is all wrong, since it treats the film as the primary version of the story, when actually it should be the TV play. Ideally, there should be a run-down of the TV plot/characters and then a section that deals with film and how it differs. There is also no mention of Minton's novelisation of the story, which again differs from the TV original. To be honest, there is too much in the current character profiles that is supposition and interpretation, rather than pure observation of what actually happens.

That said, I'm not sure how this can be achieved, as effectively it would means rewriting the entire page. The fifth paragraph in the introduction, for example, begins with a "fact" that belongs to the TV version, but ends with a comment about the subsequent careers of the rest of the film cast, not all of whom were in the BBC play. I suspect the best approach will be to create a new and separate page for the TV play and see how that develops. Nick Cooper 11:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:ScumDVD.jpg

Image:ScumDVD.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 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 04:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religious service

"The governor's faith means that he insists on every 'trainee' attending Sunday morning worship." I've changed this. A religious service on a Sunday was part of the regime and it was compulsory to attend unless you wanted to obstinately challenge "the system" as Archer did and declare yourself an atheist or a follower of a non-Christian faith. Every inmate was also given a bible on being released, presumably to help you stay away from resuming your life of crime. I think most of those bibles ended up in bins at railway stations. Grievous Angel 14:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Formby/rape

"In the 1977 version, Formby is shown to be one of the rapists of Davis." This was at the end of the Formby section; I've removed it because I can't find any supporting evidence for it (for example in interviews/commentary/credits etc). I've also rewatched the scene and neither of the two boys raping Davis in the 1977 seem to me to be Formby, whom we know from the matron scene has a distinctive voice and has bright ginger hair. They appear to me to be the long haired boy who complains about the 'Atlantic fish' and the shortish, brown-haired boy sitting opposite him. Bristle-krs (talk) 12:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're confusing a couple of the characters too. The lad with the bright ginger hair isn't Formby, it's Jackson (forever combing his hair, and present in the bathroom discussion where he and his friend Rhodes challenge Richards' boasting). Formby had brown hair and large tortoiseshell-type rimmed specs. Rhodes, however, was called a 'poof' by Striper in that bathroom scene, has 'shortish brown hair' and, after the rape, where Davis is sitting at the dining hall table with Carlin, Rhodes is present too, sitting next to Carlin, and stares across at Davis after Betts explains the gardening duty tomorrow, and then gets up and leaves with Carlin. But I'm not sure if Rhodes was actually one of the rapists. The 'ringleader' of the rapists was indeed clearly featured in the 'crispy batter'/ 'Up Your Fuckin Borstal' scene. Dunno if this helps at all but the IMDb forum offers a lot of the plot/character details. Plutonium27 (talk) 22:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Cleanup and re-structure - Request to remove Requests for citations etc

Please provide feedback on my clenup of this page. ToonIsALoon (talk) 15:42, 7 August : Toon - Honestly? Not an improvement, sorry to say. Now formatted into a single long 'plot' section, the WP:OR and excessive detail not only remain but are exacerbated by a lack of editing and a writing style that appears laboured and clumsy. Indeed, the quality of the article has noticeably suffered because - despite the problems - it was reasonably well-written. Kudos for the effort, though. I don;t fancy having a go...Plutonium27 (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Davis' suicide

Hello. This article states that Davis committed suicide by slashing his wrists. However, after watching the film, it looks like this is not exactly what happened. Upon closer inspection, it appears he is, in fact, mutilating his genitals. There are a number of reasons why I believe this to be true:

Just before he harms himself, he sits on a chair and appears to be staring at his genital area, disgusted and anguished.
After his experience, he (likely) would have been feeling very ashamed and resentful of his own sexual nature. Many victims of sexual abuse have such feelings.
While he is harming himself, he hides his body underneath a sheet. While lying in his bed, he moves his arms underneath the sheet and cuts himself. The resulting flow of blood appears to be coming from his genital area.

Had he been cutting his wrists, he would have done so on camera without hiding his arms (as did Toyne). The fact that the actual self-harm could not be displayed on camera strongly implies that something was happening which was too graphic to show onscreen.

Does anyone else agree? Would it be appropriate to change the article accordingly? Let me know what you think. Keshidragon (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is basically original research. Since no actual cutting is shown on screen , it is open to debate what he does. A likely interpretation of the scene is that he cuts his wrists, but there is a need for reliable sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Davis clearly cuts his wrists in the original TV play. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]