Talk:Cinéma vérité

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
The factual accuracy of this article is disputed.
Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page. (March 2008)

Contents

[edit] POV

There is a gigantic problem here with point-of-view: "Such is certainly the case with cinéma vérité whose conventions can now appear quite mannered and open for critique."

The author doesn't just say that a certain opinion exists, but aligns with it saying "Such is *certainly* the case . . ." Can't something much more neutral go in this intro section?

Jupitermenace 16:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


I think this entry is terribly inaccurate! It would have been better have had no entry, rather than this one which is misleading! (23:14, 26 Apr 2004 . . AUSTiN)

Well, it's not quite that bad: the first paragraph makes some sense, but certainly Godard's Breathless is not cinema vérité, or even close. Yes, this needs a rewrite by someone with a clue. -- Jmabel 07:21, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I've rewritten. Not brilliant, but at least it resembles reality now. There seem to be no articles on almost any of the relevant directors, this could be a good project for someone. -- Jmabel 04:44, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Recent edit adds A Hard Day's Night (movie). Haven't seen it in years, but I don't remember it being cinema vérité. I remember lots of obviously studio-recorded music. Am I wrong in my recollection? -- Jmabel 02:57, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Shaw

Is there any evidence that Scott Shaw and Zen Filmmaking are notable enough to merit mention here? Looking at the titles of his works, they look like direct-to-video or drive-in fare, at best. I am inclined to remove this, unless someone has a citation that does not stem from Shaw himself. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:19, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I removed him, someone restored him; I still don't believe he belongs here, but I'll leave it alone unless someone seconds my opinion. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:53, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I second it. The pattern of Scott Shaw mentions on Wikipedia looks like self-promotion. - Nat Krause 15:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Nat, I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and I'm learning the ropes. But, I think your useage of the term, "Self-promotion" is not a very true or descriptive expression. It sounds to me almost like you are throwing a subtle insult at the additions I noticed had been removed and I replaced. Maybe a better way to put it is, "Additions to Wikipedia made by someone who appreciates the work of Scott Shaw." You guys probably haven't seen any of his movies or taken any of his classes on filmmaking, so I understand you do not know about his style of filmmaking.
Jmabel, for your reference, a lot of stuff has been written about Scott Shaw, his one-time partner, Donald G. Jackson, and the style of filmmaking, Zen Filmmaking they developed in publications such as the Hollywood Reporter, Variety, and various smaller independent film publications such as Independent Film and Video.
I'm not changing anything about this article, just answering your questions and statements. User:USC Film School Grad
FWIW, no, I haven't seen any of his movies and certainly haven't taken any of his classes. I have seen several a good 6 or 7 thousand films, including probably 30-50 examples of cinéma vérité; I've read about probably another 20 thousand films; and other than mentions in Wikipedia, I've never heard of this guy, which makes me doubt that he belongs mentioned on a level with Dziga Vertov, Robert Flaherty, John Cassavetes, or Fred Wiseman. Do you have some citations (by any major film critic or academic) that say his work is on this level of quality, importance, influence, etc.? If so, fine. If not, it doesn't belong in the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:59, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Jmabel, The way I understand Wikipedia is that it is about an ongoing delineation, documentation, and expansion of knowledge. I continually see that a lot of people get really strong willed about what they do or do not believe to be right or wrong about a particular subject; based on their own arena of ideas and knowledge. From this, they pull down facts that should not necessarily be removed. There also seems to be a propensity to make negative comments about individuals who have made a contribution to society and the arts; large or small. To me, that mindset really seems to defeat the pupose of this site. Wikipedia should not be about what you or I believe, it should be about information that will allow each person to decide what they want to do with it.
To answer your question/statement, you are right, his unique style of filmmaking has not been around as long as the other people you mention. But, being written up in industry journal such as the Hollywood Report (to name only one), and to continually be invited to give lectures at established filmmaking schools seems to validate his credentials.
Again, I am not changing anything. But, let us all try to make Wikipedia a better, less personality driven, place. User:USC Film School Grad
The thing is, this article isn't List of cinéma vérité directors. It's Cinéma vérité. (You could start List of cinéma vérité directors and link from this article, and I'll take your word that Shaw might belong on such a list, and I don't that he is important enough to merit the article about him). But much as the article Romanians mentions only about a dozen very prominent Romanians, this article should mention only a few very prominent cinéma vérité directors. Similarly, it gives an example of Wiseman's work, not his entire catalogue. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:49, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Direct Cinema

many of the directors and films mentioned here are usually considered to be Direct Cinema... the very strong example being Wiseman. or maybe it is a distinction that exists in the limited literature to which i have been exposed, but really the distinction between the two varies widely from context to contex? what do other folks think? there is some discussion of the differences in the Direct Cinema article. maybe there should even be a completely separate comparison article. --Johnjosephbachir

  • Depending on who is writing about it, the two concepts certainly overlap. I'd be inclined to use Cinéma vérité for works that involve some fictional elements and direct cinema for ones with similar technique, but a more purely documentary intent. I think the latter usage is relatively uncontroversial; whether Cinéma vérité includes direct cinema is probably more controversial. But this is an area where I know that there is a lot more written now than when I studied it 30 or so years ago, and I would love to see some citations from recent literature. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


One can read here [1] :
-Quote
1959  : Brault screens Les Raquetteurs at a Flaherty seminar in California, where he meets Jean Rouch. Rouch invites him to shoot his next film, Chronique d'un été.
1960  : Rouch releases Chronique d'un été. In honour of Dziga Vertov, he names this new style of filmmaking cinéma vérité — a direct translation of Vertov's term, Kino Pravda.
End quote-


Fact : Rouch claims in Cahier du Cinéma that all of French cinema of his time was influenced by Michel Brault (see quote in Direct Cinema article), and had a 'brauchite'.
Fact : Brault (and his collegues) never used the term cinema verité (they found pretensious), they used cinéma direct. Cinéma verité did not have much of a French life.
Claim: Yet as a French catch phrase cinéma verité will have a strange an very active Anglo-american life in the 60's-70's.
Claim: It was the subject of very esoterical discussions in film faculties. Another hot topic beeing the true difference between Film Noir and Detective flicks.
Fact : Filmaker Wintonick in his recent film on cinéma verité joins the term cinéma verité with cinema direct.
Fact : It should be noted there is no entry for cinéma verité in the French version of wiki, it is redirected to cinema direct.
Claim : The level of both English entries articles is shamefully low... Maybe they should be merged.


74.59.64.161 16:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Serge

[edit] Definition

Cinéma vérité literally means something closer to "the theatre of truth", not "true film" Krawn 05:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to the article, cinéma vérité is not considered a "movement" but rather a term used to describe a certain aesthetic as applied to film-making.Mglegend 22:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Quebec perspective

I have contributed to the french version of this article (Cinéma Direct). I would like to comment on some of the article I see here. Please excuse my less than perfect English. I am a Quebec producer and filmaker called Serge Noel. And it is now 4 pm on the this june 27.

"Direct Cinema is largely concerned with the recording of events in which the subject and audience become unaware of the camera's presence. Essentially what is now called a "fly on the wall" documentary. It was felt this was the best way to reveal the truth of the moment being recorded."

I believe this to be a general misconception. In fact a lot of cinéma direct or cinéma vérité insists on the presence felt of the filmaker (a quote of Michel Brault on the french article attests to that).

The filmaker is often seem as catalyst of a situation. This is the case for filmakers like Pierre Perrault who sets situations up, asking old people to fish whale and who then films that Pour la suite du monde.

In Cinéma Vérité, there was I belive (at least in Quebec Cinema), concerns with anthopological cinema, and with social and political implications of what was captured on film. How you film, (what you film, what you do with what you film, how you show what you filmed, all were very important for filmakers of the time. They sparked very ethical discussions. You also have to put this in the context of post war propaganda analysis. When independant, objective, strong journalism was a very important thing amongts intellectuals. People remembered what damage propaganda could do.

So, I believe that the best way to discribe this type of cinema is to say that it is concerned with notions of truth, and reality, in film. To say that it is an interrogative and highly ethical minded film form, looking mainly at the social, anthropologiqcal and political aspects of reality.

As Edgar Morin wrote in an introduction to a event held on cinéma vérité at Pompidou: "There are two ways to conceve of The cinema of the Real : the first is to pretend that you can give reality to see ; the second is to pose the problem of reality. In the same way, the were two ways to conceve cinéma-vérité. TYhe first was to pretend that you brought thuth, the second was to pose the problem of truth."

-- " Il y a deux façons de concevoir le cinéma du réel : la première est de prétendre donner à voir le réel ; la seconde est de se poser le problème du réel. De même, il y avait deux façons de concevoir le cinéma-vérité. La première était de prétendre apporter la vérité. La seconde était de se poser le problème de la vérité."

In a sense, its ethymology is at the core of what it is : questionning Cinéma.

As for the French russian term Cinéma Vérité , Jean Rouch coined it, as an hommage to Vertov who believe the movie camera could see things invisible to the human eye.

That was the dream I guess, what everyone was shooting for. And yes it does litteraly translate to Cinema Thruth. In Quebec, Cinéma Direct was opposed to studio documentary, which were the norm world wide up untill the late "50's. Filmakers found "cinéma vérité" to be a bit pretentious, they went with cinema direct, as they loved to just take the camera and go, without giving any explanations to the producers at the NFB... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.252.72.75 (talk • contribs) 27 June 2006.

(Serge, just type four tildes at the end, for a signature. The machine does the rest.) Director Noel makes the point exactly, in perfect English: That cinema verite may be hard to define for what it is; but it is brutally trivial to pinpoint it exactly for what it is NOT -- propaganda. Take the Nazi propaganda film Triumph of the Will, point to it, study it, and write down what is the OPPOSITE of that film, and there you have it: cinema verite. (I don't happen to have a copy of Riefenstahl's magnum opus right now, but as I recall, there was nothing "staged", as in most cheesy "documentaries" that are stuffed full of talking heads and reenactments; yet those staged events at the '36 Olympics are as portrayed in the movie as IMHO the opposite of cinema verite. Jeez, now that I think about it, the very exaggeratedness of that movie was pretty close to the truth, wasn't it? The goosestepping soldiers in the big parade; that WAS reality. I take it all back, about that movie. Yeah, people have been debating that movie for a long time, haven't they? Truth in cinema is a real kettle of fish.) Still, you take a government-funded war propaganda film made during a war, it's the opposite of cinema verite. Sorry for the digression about Ms Riefenstahl's movie.Richard8081 (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

To this, I would add that the paragraph he quotes from (the one with 'Essentially what is now called a "fly on the wall" documentary') doesn't impress me much, either. Does someone want to take a shot at this? - Jmabel | Talk 05:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate person

Someone added {{inappropriate person}} to this, without making a comment on the talk page. I assume their problem is with second-person, and I presume they have no problem with second person in a quotation, so I'm guessing the only questionable passage would be "How you film, what you film, what you do with what you film, how you show what you filmed, all were very important for filmakers of the time." The only reasonable other way to state this is "How one films, what one films, what one does with what one films, how one show what one filmed, all were very important for filmakers of the time." That sounds incredibly stilted to me. I think this is fine as it is. (By the way, if your issue was something else: if you had left a more specific comment, I wouldn't have to guess.) - Jmabel | Talk 18:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

  --Why not "How and what the film maker filmed, how he showed and what he did with that film were very important for filmmakers of the time."

You change tenses mid-sentence in your version, plus the repetition is unnecessary and stylized. Also, its a tautology to say "ALL were very important"- "were very important" is sufficient. Raphaelaarchon 20:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If you take a look at this person's contribution, he has added a lot of tags in many articles, without mentioning what's wrong with the article in the discussion. He even put more than 3 tags in one article and it is very irritating. Look at his talk page history, as he likes to delete his talk page, that he has been warned not to overuse tag templates. Just want to share. — Indon (reply) — 18:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes that's the one. (if not one of them) I thought the template was clear enough that no comment on the talk page will be necessary. And, Indon, I think stalking me like that is totally uncalled for. Your contribution on Bandung is appreciated, but it didn't do the article much better. (hence the npov & other tags) And stalking me all over wikipedia isn't gonna do much good.Feureau 19:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, but I didn't just point: I explained why I think the current wording is more appropriate than the one alternative I readily see. So what else would you suggest if you find the current wording objectionable? - Jmabel | Talk 06:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, after a second look, I suppose that was the only phrase.
If you use opera and do a search for the second person (i.e. the word "you") the browser would point it out for you. I got some times on my hand right now and I'll go ahead and make some changes. Using you in an encyclopedia is unacceptable as pointed in the wikipedia guide. I'll try to reword these.
I still think the template is clear enough, but I guess you're right. I should've explained. I was just looking for something really quick and noticed some "you"s and just slapped that up there. Thank you for pointing that out.
I think there needs to be some template about inappropriate person like [citation needed]. Feureau 10:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I done away with the "you"s and inappropriate template.Feureau 10:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] after life

after life vérité? It certainly uses some vérité techniques, but it is set in, well, an afterlife. - Jmabel | Talk 19:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Select cinéma vérité-style television shows?

The section on "Select cinéma vérité-style television shows" needs to be trimmed or eliminated, in my opinion. Most of the shows currently listed have nothing to do with cinéma vérité-style beyond the use of hand-held camera and I'd suggest that hand-held camera is not enough to qualify a program as cinéma vérité. The Office does qualify because it is a fiction program shot in the style of a documentary (including face-the-camera interviews), but most of the others are not. --Jeremy Butler 11:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen Battlestar Galactica. I have to say, it is hard to imagine that with a title like that it was Cinéma vérité. Does someone have a citation for this? - Jmabel | Talk 04:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Although they don't cite their reasons, I think the editors who added Firefly and Battlestar Galactica did so because the two shows use hand-held camera (as do many c-v docs). As I suggest above, that ain't enough. And also, I removed the {{Unreferenced|date=March 2008}} tag you added, because (1) the article as a whole is already so tagged and (2) the lists of c-v films/filmmakers don't have their own {{Unreferenced|date=March 2008}} tags and one could make the same criticism of them. --Jeremy Butler 12:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Hand-held camera is certainly not enough, or the second half of Jaws would be cinéma vérité. I'll remove these, if no one beat me to it. - Jmabel | Talk 05:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there is no way that -Arrested Development is Cinema Verite-. This entire article needs to be rewritten with citations from noted film scholars such as Cook or Bordwell.

[edit] Doesn't Cinema Verite refer only to documentaries?

Sorry to show my ignorance, but doesn't cinema verite refer to documentaries? I think the opening of this article confuses cinema verite with neo-realism and the French New Wave and the New Cinema. My undestanding was that the verite director at least attempted not to direct at all, but capture events as they occurred. This then by definition could not include dramatic films that are simply "realistic" or use "improvisation" or "shaky camera movement" or "jump cuts" to simulate reality. Chris 17:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

No, cinéma vérité does not necessarily mean "documentary", but it does mean the use of documentary technique and very naturalistic (even amateur) acting. Some Italian neo-realism probably qualifies; most does not: the story material is suitable to vérité, but most of the technique really isn't. - Jmabel | Talk 05:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good question (and my attempt at Citation needed)

I tried and find something going in the direction of the request for citation. I did the translation. It doesn’t do it all, but shows how very practical aspects of the filmmaking process were considered as ethical by documentary filmakers of Cinéma Vérité/Cinema Direct. On the question of Cinéma vérité being also used for fiction, I am a very perplex. My best knowledge is that neorealism is the term used in this case. So this might just be a question of confusion in terms.

Yet, to complicate things, I believe you *could* find the odd american books and articles of the 70's talking of Casavettes' cinema as Cinema Verite. But this view is rather marginal. And it is not held anymore today.

Take Ken Loach, today's best known director that has used this method (some non-professionnal actors, real locations) critics and experts rather talk of the influence of neorealism (in a shorten reference to italian neorealism- Bicycle Thief). As an example see here : [2]. So to my knowledge, neorealism is the prefered term to describe this practice.

In any case, remember that it was only "by extension" that the term cinema verité was ever applied to fiction film. The original phrase and meaning does come from Jean Rouch, as a reference to Vertov. And neither of these filmakers were interested in creating "true to life" fiction, but in rather in the process of grasping reality with film.

In the present context, since this article is still quite fragile, I would strongly suggest that the reference to fiction being removed. I think that the historical nuance it brings does not really help to grasp what are the base notions behind cinema verite. And that is where we are. What do others think?

70.80.13.247 16:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC) Serge


Hmm. Even Nanook of the North, often invoked as early vérité is semi-fictionalized. - Jmabel | Talk 18:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


What does that say about cinema verite? Is there no documentary before 1970?
By todays standards all documentary prior to cinema verite was set up...
Is it ALL cinema verite?
Again, this does not make much sense to me. In fact, such a loose definition defies any serious use of the term, either historically, or as film type.
This old view only attempts to describe the "reality effect" perceived by 70's audience in front of fiction that used documentary esthetic, mainly hand-held camera.
ALL film implies interference, and mise-en-scene to a certain degree.
ALL film relies on truth, spur of the moment inspiration or random chance.
With this measure there is no fiction or documentary anymore. Not to mention that the fact that the actors filmed, were or not, in a film actor union, should not make much difference...
You do not convince me at all Jmbel that what I know to be a very limited and historically marginal (american) view should be used here in 2007.
Let's note that none of the filmakers that are said to have participated in this form have ever used the term "cinema verité" in this fiction based way.
I have tried to support my claims by a precise example, with a verifiable source.
Can you do the same to support a contemporary use of cinema verite in the way you defend it?
Also I note that there was a huge rewrite in the meanwhile. Should we not settle this BEFORE doing such a major rewrite?
Your last comment was two months ago. If you do not care to support your claim, I believe what I see as a questionable and unsupported claim should be removed from the article.
74.59.64.161 15:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Serge

[edit] TV again

I see that "COPS" is now listed. I've only seen it once, but doesn't that at times use a musical score? Also, don't they use superposed computer-generated text and so on? Those are not vérité techniques. But, again I only saw it once, and not recently. Can someone who knows it better please weigh in? - Jmabel | Talk 07:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

From its wikipedia entry, it appears to be a factual docu-soap series. I don't think observational documentary per se qualifies as cinema verite. On the other hand it is possible that the listing actually refers to "The Cops", a 1998 UK television drama series produced by World Productions http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0180347/?rel=nofollow which did use verite techniques to good effect, in which case it should be amended. Claire c4 21:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"COPS" is cinema verite, generically speaking. If it's not, this whole cinema-verite-on-Wikipedia exercise is strictly for the film crit set. Auguste Lumiere and his brother, shooting the train coming in to Ciotat station, were shooting cinema verite, right? Are we agreed on that? If we are not, then we all need to go back to class and reread our Foucault and our Derrida et al until we start to understand deconstruction enough to have an intelligent modern discussion. Richard8081 (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Is COPS a reenactment? Sure fooled me. Well, maybe some of it is. LOts of raw footage there, unstaged, unrehearsed, ambient sound, definitely verite. Maybe I'm wrong. You think they are reenacting the action and then blurring out the faces, to provide a sense of verite? Jeeeepers.Richard8081 (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cinema Verite directors

I think that this section needs a mjor face-lift. I see that someone has quoted Bill Nichols, who is a major authority on the history of Documentary and has several good chapters in his books on cinema verite. But I would argue that some of the directors that Wikipedia is associating with cinema verite are very questionable. John Cassavetes, although he shot very naturalistically, is nowhere near cinema verite, that doesn't even make sense, and neither does Alfonso Cuaron. These are just flagrant misinterpretations of cinema verite... I wasn't sure I should go and edit the page, as I am new to editing on Wikiedia, but these are missing the point entirely.

[edit] Orthography

According to the NOAD and the CanOD, in English cinéma-vérité has a hyphen and is not italicized. I'll correct the orthography in the article, and if there is no objection after a few days, the article ought to be moved. (Although the NYT writes "cinema verite".) —Michael Z. 2007-10-18 20:27 Z

[edit] What about that 2006 Beastie Boys film?

"Awesome; I Fuckin' Shot That!" ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0488953/ ) I'm pretty sure it's a qualified film, giving dozens of cameras to random folks to shoot whatever they wanted, along the same lines as the Rolling Stones unreleased documentary "Cocksucker Blues". 199.214.28.100 (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)