Talk:Hyperlink cinema

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.

Contents

[edit] Categorization

Wait, how is Reservoir Dogs hyperlink cinema? As far as I can remember it all revolves around the 5 main characters, and they're all together right from the beginning. Luvcraft 15:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

And how is City of God a "canonical example" of hyperlink cinema? It is mainly told from the point of view of the photographer, with some omniscience into scenes that he was not a part of. There were hardly many different story arcs, and it is not "characterized by globe-spanning locations, multiple languages, ... strict parameters in terms of art direction, cinematography and mise en scène are used in each story line, ... use of radically different cinematography to define each arc."

Either the definition is screwy, or the list is. I'm removing City of God, but more importantly: we shouldn't be including items in this list just because some random person happened to mention them in a blog posting. Either this is a well-defined term, and there is agreement on what makes a movie an example of "hyperlink cinema", or this list is basically original research. 128.197.120.31 [not logged in, Asbestos 15:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Asbestos here, I think anything taken from a guys blog should not be on here. I looked at his page and he is in no way an expert in the field, he makes websites. Also can anyone find the review of Happy Endings by Alissa Quart? It would be nice to have the origin of this phrase as a source.Gorkymalorki 06:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ID4

Would 'Independence Day', directed by Roland Emmerich, be considered a hyperlink film?

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Find an authoritative source stating it is, and you can add it. If there's no such source, don't. Chuck 21:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sin City

Hi! Since the characters' lives are being portrayed in somewhat parallel narratives which intersect at certain points, would this be a good example of the aforementioned category? Thanks! Heavenstorm 22:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think it is--I would call it an anthology rather than a hyperlink film (and yes, I'm aware that characters from each storyline appear in the others, but they don't really interact), but admittedly that's a very fuzzy line. But I'm no film critic so what I think isn't really relevant. Is there an authoritative source that says Sin City is an example of hyperlink cinema? If so, go ahead and add it to the article, and cite the source, and you'll already be ahead of the other examples here. Chuck 21:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too many examples

Everyone is putting in pictures that have flashbacks or more than two plot lines—technically, this would include Stars Wars and Citizen Kane. I'm going to prune off the spurious examples, because they're that—spurious. Hope no-one has a cow.--TallulahBelle 20:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Magnolia and Happy Endings

Undoubtedly a great film, Magnolia isn't quite a Hyperlink film, principally because two of the defining characteristics of the genre—abrupt visual breaks based on cinematography and mise en scene, and globe spanning story lines—are missing. The same of course could be said of Happy Endings—however, that film is included in the list because it was the film that originated the concept. --TallulahBelle 13:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Magnolia is also in the original coining of the phrase, the link to the creators article is http://www.alissaquart.com/articles/2005/08/networked_don_roos_and_happy_e.html I think that after reading this, there needs to be a rewrite of this article, The definition that is on the Hyperlink cinema page is that of a bloggers and needs to be removed and rewritten according to the originators definition of the term.Gorkymalorki 03:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
In progress. —Viriditas | Talk 00:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What about Pulp Fiction?

I do not understand why Pulp Fiction, an obvious example of a hyperlink film, is not included on this page.

Mynamejonascuomo 22:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


me neither. it pretty much popularized, if not invented the genre.

[edit] Original Research

I removed the Third paragraph that was littered with citation tags. all of it was original research. Also The list needs to be cut down to only movies that have been identified as Hyperlink Cinema. The rest of them are original research and Listcruft. Those that have been identified by reliable sources are Happy Endings, Syriana, Magnolia, Crash, Opposite of Sex, Time Code, Nashville, Short Cuts and Nine Lives. All of those films have been named as Hyperlink Cinema by credible sources. If you want to add anything else to the list make sure that you have a reliable source calling it Hyperlink Cinema.Gorkymalorki 01:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Found an article the Ebert says that City of God, Amores Perros, and Cape of good hope are also Hyperlink Cinema.Gorkymalorki 02:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This line

"Hyperlink cinema is often characterized by globe-spanning locations, multiple languages, and frequent though unannounced use of flashback and flashforward."

I have to doubt its veracity. While I'm sure this is true of some films, it certainly isn't true of all films with multiple unconnected storyarcs about different people which effect one another. Atropos 07:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I must have missed that one when editing out the unsourced material a couple of days ago. I took care of it. Gorkymalorki 08:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please Stop Adding Unsourced Movies

Unless you can find an article from a reliable source saying that a movie is part of the hyperlink cinema genre, do not add it please. I am trying my hardest to keep this page free of any unsourced info. Most people add Pulp Fiction to here, but Pulp Fiction is considered an Anthology film. Gorkymalorki 01:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted to fuller description and fewer examples

I have been reverting the cuts and additions made by User:Gorkymalorki for two reasons:

Number one, the cuts in the body of text made by User:Gorkymalorki are eliminating part of the definition of what a hyperlink movie is, as described by both Roger Ebert and Alissa Quart in their original articles, specifically, the issues of radically different cinematography and mise en scene, the globe-spanning locations,

Number two, the examples User:Gorkymalorki is including do not fit the parameters of what a Hyperlink movie is, again vid. Ebert and Quart. It is not enough that there be multiple storylines to qualify as a Hyperlink movie. If it were, then Chaplin's The Great Dictator would be an example of the genre, which it clearly is not. Adding extraneous examples muddies the issue and renders the genre meaningless.

There is no question that many films before Syriana and Traffic led up to the hyperlink genre. Obvious examples would be Nashville, Short Cuts, and especially Jim Jarmusch's ]]Night On Earth]]. However, again according to Ebert and Quart, Hyperlink cinema is more a product of the 21st century than of the 20th, albeit films from the past most certainly influenced of this particular genre.

I urge User:Gorkymalorki to be more judicious in his/her edits. --TallulahBelle 00:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem I have is that you are using unsourced information. I can find nowhere in any of the articles that are cited that supports this whole part-
Hyperlink cinema is often characterized by globe-spanning locations, multiple languages, and frequent though unannounced use of flashback and flashforward. Also, strict parameters in terms of art direction, cinematography and mise en scène are used in each story line, so as to create an abrupt visual break when cutting between characters and arcs.
The genre was generally identified as such in 2005 with Syriana, though its development can be traced back to the beginning of cinema. It is generally agreed that director Robert Altman is a major influence on the development of the hyperlink movie. The first true hyperlink movie was Traffic (directed by Steven Soderbergh), which systematically defined and applied the basic rules of hyperlink cinema: Multiple story arcs, multiple (and international) locations, use of radically different cinematography and mise en scène to define each story arc, and character ignorance of defining events occurring in other story arcs.
Infact one of your claims, that Traffic started it, is contradicted in Eberts review of Cape of Good Hope "The movie belongs to a genre that has been named "hyperlink cinema" by the critic Alissa Quart, in Film Comment. She suggests the structure was invented by Robert Altman" And in Quart's article it says "Happy Endings, which Roos also scripted, joins his The Opposite of Sex (98) in the hyperlink canon, alongside the likes of Magnolia, Time Code, and, most recently, Crash (with a special mention for tv’s 24)."
also many of these movies do not have international loacations, and multiple languages, so your definition is a bit off. If you could just cite where you are getting all of this from, I would not mind, but it is better to have a smaller, sourced article, than it is to have a large, unsourced article.Gorkymalorki 08:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I have re-written this description sticking to only what can be sourced per WP:V and WP:OR dissolvetalk 02:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Nice work! I like it much better now. Chuck (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Only recent examples?

While I think this "hyperlink cinema" is pretty much a fad and is being overused over the last few years, it's not nearly as recent as this article makes it out to be. Surely Robert Altman (especially "Short Cuts") had an influence, as did Lawrence Kasdan's "Grand Canyon"

[edit] Poor Definition

I'm sorry, the "global locations" and "multiple languages" bit is just complete bull. Those are artistic choices for a director, not an integral aspect of the genre, which is about a large number of random characters whose lives collide. Crash (recognized by Ebert), Lock-Stock-And-Two-Smoking-Barrels, and Snatch thus all qualify. In fact, expanded to the TV medium, The Wire and Heroes qualify. IF they do not, and IF the aforementioned concepts ARE important, then what should be painfully obvious (but apparently isn't) is that cinema experts need a new name for a genre/style that can accomodate a broader definition. Crash and Babel and Syriana and Snatch HAD something big in common. That needs a name, period. "Hyperlink" is the easiest one out there.

Also, Traffic did NOT "start" the hyperlink genre, even by the inadequate standards provided. Snatch (released earlier in 2000) beat it to the punch by months. By the way, that one WAS international (New York, London, Antwerp) and DID feature multiple languages (Dutch, Russian, English), so even by the poor definition provided it makes the cut.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.150.71 (talk) 13:10, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crash does not fit

I have to question the current definition. "Multiple story lines, multiple (and international) locations, multiple characters, use of radically different cinematography and mise en scène to define each story line..." In Crash: The film is set solely in L.A While different cinematography is employed, it is far from separating story-lines. (Halation is used frequently across all story-lines and is to make viewers physically uncomfortably, and definitely not to 'define each story-line.') —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.133.65 (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I used to have this article pretty well maintained and I had all that stuff deleted but someone kept putting it up faster than I could delete it, and then I took a wikibreak and came back to check on this page and it has really gotten way out of context. Gorkymalorki 04:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pedantic?

"...though its development can be traced back to the beginning of cinema, starting from 1975." This may be a little pedantic, but I somehow doubt the accuracy of this statement. Cinema existed a long time before 1975... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.133.65 (talk) 10:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ebert Definition

Roger Ebert just provided his own official definition for the Hyperlink Film two days ago on his website —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.9.98 (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neologism

My concern with this article is that the term is a neologism. Although there are a few articles that use the term, there are no article or books cited specifically about the term (WP:NEO). A few reviews by Roger Ebert does not a genre make. dissolvetalk 01:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:NEO does not forbid all articles about neologisms, just specific subsets thereof, and I don't believe this article falls into the prohibited classes: the article does more than merely define the term (it has at least a kernel of the historical development of the genre); and it does more than merely "attempt[s] to track the emergence and use of the term as observed in communities of interest or on the internet."
As far as reliable sources, when it comes to movies, you don't get much more reliable than Roger Ebert.
If you're referring to the bit in WP:NEO that says "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term," I think you're misinterpreting that--I think the point is to avoid justifying articles on neologisms whose only sources are those in which the term is used without any analysis of the concept described by the term. While it's true there aren't any articles purely about hyperlink cinema, the Quart and Ebert articles cited clearly do more than simply using the term; they do spend some time discussing and analyzing the genre. Chuck (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Does 11:14 qualify?

Does Greg Marcks' thriller titled 11:14 (2003) qualify? -- bkil (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you asking for the purpose of including it as an example in the article? If that's the case, it would qualify only if there's a reliable source which says it's a hyperlink film. Remember: the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiabilty, not truth.
Or did you just want to know? My gut instinct, after reading its article, is that it is not because the movie is really just one coherent story, although it is told in an unusual order. To me, a hyperlink film is a set of loosely connected stories which interact with each other in a few points throughout the movie. But I'm not an expert on the matter, and furthermore I haven't actually seen 11:14, so your guess is probably at least as good as mine. Chuck (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)