Talk:Film (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Stub
This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. A possibility for American films from before 1964 would be a screenshot from the trailer, as these are now in the public domain. Please make sure fair use is properly observed, or the image will be removed. See WP:Films MOS for image guidelines and assistance in uploading.

I'm still not entirely sure about this:

A possible reading of this is that self-perception is inescapable. Thus, it is not surprising that the original script begins with George Berkeley's dictum, "esse est percipi," meaning, "to be is to be perceived."

It seems to me that the point of the film is that avoidance of all perception is impossible, because one cannot avoid self-perception, which is slightly different to what the article says. And because avoidance of perception is impossible, one cannot cease to be. This perhaps makes sense of the scene (not described in the article) where he tears up some old photos of himself, and would seem to make more sense of the Berkeley quote (to me, anyway). There's perhaps some Cartesian influence in all that. But anyway, I'm not going to change anything about interpretation until I've got to some sources that tell me what critics have made of it all - then I can attribute these interpreatations to people instead of waffling on myself. --Camembert


An anon editor has changed the reference to a print of God on the wall to a print of a Phoenician statue. Now, I've not seen the film itself in ages, but the script as published says it is a print of "God the Father"; was this changed when it was shot? If so, I think it's an important enough change that it's worth us noting it in the article. Can anybody confirm what is actually in the film? --Camembert 18:51, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1979 remake Not monochrome

I removed 'in monochrome and' from the intro.
"Colour is in fact used by Clark with great restraint." Richard Cave’s review of the 1979 version of the film
Great explanation - I was really confused by Film itself ! --195.137.93.171 (talk) 22:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Film cover.jpg

Image:Film cover.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 12:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)