Talk:Donnie Brasco (film)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Alan Greenspan?
He's credited as a producer and linked to the so-named former head of the federal reserve. Shurely shome mishtake.--Mongreilf 20:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
They aren't one and the same so I've red linked it to alan greenspan (film producer)--Mongreilf 19:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:DonnieBrascoDVD.png
Image:DonnieBrascoDVD.png 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) 06:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] RfC: Historical inaccuracies
I removed a section labelled "Historial inaccuracies". This film was a work of fiction. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 08:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- As this is disputed (by a revert) I've called a RfC on the question.
- My arguments against this section are as follows:
-
- it's a work of fiction so distinguishing artistic license from accidental errors is unrealistic. Moreover audiences recognise that they're being entertained, not taught a history lesson;
- The section at present comprises a list of unsupported, unsourced assertions.
- The section has attracted trivial, fatuous statements, such as a quibble over the timing of the release of a pop song.
- On a side issue, Cerasini's lawsuit (mentioned in the section) was rejected for the interesting and unusual reason that he was "the exceptional, libel-proof plaintiff" because he had tarnished his own reputation so thoroughly. [1].
- --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 03:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- My immediate thought is that what's needed is a specific citation -- perhaps quoting the film-makers -- demonstrating that it was only ever intended to be 'loosely based' on events, as the current version of the article claims. If such material exists, then the entire historical inaccuracies section is indeed not warranted. If, conversely, the film was consistently presented and discussed as being a depiction of actual events, the section could stand (and the introduction should be adjusted accordingly). If it stayed, it would definitely require some supporting citations. I agree that the ELO example seems trivial relative to the other issues presented. But some verifiable material to establish just how "true to life" the film was intended to be remains the obvious place to start. Gusworld (talk) 05:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think it's assumed that a drama based on real life will be different from a documentary. All the President's Men wasn't fanatical about factual accuracy, nor was Titanic, and the only people who have a problem with that are those who confuse fact with fiction. But yes, I think it would be neat to locate a soundbite of someone on the production, preferably Mike Newell (director) or Paul Attanasio (screenplay), saying something along the lines of "it's a loose adaptation of Pistone's memoir." --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting piece in Slate, 1997, by David Edelstein who says he knows the screenwriter Attanasio, "in college and later, when he was the chief film critic of the Washington Post". Edelstein is quite clear that "The story has been fictionalized, but it hasn't been Hollywood-ized", and he illustrates that with several examples, particularly the movie's theme of Brasco's remorse over his betrayal of Lefty (played by Al Pacino). "On the evidence of his book, Pistone was truly torn up about having abandoned his family for the years it took him to infiltrate the mob, but he didn't lose as much sleep over what he was doing to his Mafia family. That's the screenwriter's conceit. And the actual Lefty seems to have had much less stature." It occurs to me that we'd probably want to incorporate in depth analysis of this kind, irrespective of whether we retain the "Historical inaccuracies" section. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think it's assumed that a drama based on real life will be different from a documentary. All the President's Men wasn't fanatical about factual accuracy, nor was Titanic, and the only people who have a problem with that are those who confuse fact with fiction. But yes, I think it would be neat to locate a soundbite of someone on the production, preferably Mike Newell (director) or Paul Attanasio (screenplay), saying something along the lines of "it's a loose adaptation of Pistone's memoir." --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- My immediate thought is that what's needed is a specific citation -- perhaps quoting the film-makers -- demonstrating that it was only ever intended to be 'loosely based' on events, as the current version of the article claims. If such material exists, then the entire historical inaccuracies section is indeed not warranted. If, conversely, the film was consistently presented and discussed as being a depiction of actual events, the section could stand (and the introduction should be adjusted accordingly). If it stayed, it would definitely require some supporting citations. I agree that the ELO example seems trivial relative to the other issues presented. But some verifiable material to establish just how "true to life" the film was intended to be remains the obvious place to start. Gusworld (talk) 05:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Comment by Rfwoolf
- WP:Trivia is relevant here
- I believe there's nothing wrong in keeping this section (WP:Trivia says some sources are good),
-
- but, no policy seems to say this section shouldn't exist,
- and no policy seems to say this section should exist'
- ..and in such a case we can consider whether or not we feel this section is relevant. And I believe it is relevant. I think the section should stay, and we work on some sources.