User talk:Italo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Italo
Contents |
[edit] Editing out art cinema category in Indian film directors
I appreciate the work you did in filling out the Tamil and Malayalam director names. Those regional cinemas were under-represented.
However, it didn't make any sense to remove the heading for the art cinema directors and move them all into the Bengali section. I believe Mira Nair is from New Delhi, for one thing.
I'm going to restore the art cinema category, as I think that it is really not part of ANY regional commercial cinema. If you have any reasons for thinking otherwise, let's argue them out on the talk page for Indian film directors. Zora 02:47, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Reply to Zora 's message:
I think an additional category on art cinema will involve much duplication, as almost all directors currently appearing in the list arguably qualify as art film directors as well (most in the Tamil/Malayalam section, in addition to Bengali section, and a fair number in the other categories too).
Moreover, the art/commercial distinction is not canonical, by any means, (there are commercial films which are artistic; the two attributes are not mutually exclusive) and is artificial in certain instances of directors, eg: Guru Dutt, Bharathan, Padmarajan, and films eg: Rathinirvedham, Pyaasa; trying to elucidate the distinction in all the various cases that might arise is perhaps useless and/or meaningless/impossible. It seems best to investigate the category of a director in the article on the director.
Since currently there is not even an article with some actual flesh, I suggest the section be removed as the unnecessary effort involved in maintaining it seems not worth it (at least at this stage, when such effort seems better spent on other things, writing articles on the directors themselves, for instance). I am not keen on the matter, but I think I will have to add a fair number of directors (in fact most of those already present in other categories) to the section in question if you want to keep it, as the present list is not entirely fair.
Regarding Mira Nair, I do not know about her regional affiliation; from the article, I assumed she was Bengali, though her surname suggests Kerala; I leave it to you to put her name where you think appropriate.
Italo 23:49, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hi, Italo -- Most of the Indian art films I've seen are Satyajit Ray, and that was a LONG time ago. Ritwik Ghatak never made it to the US. However, from what I've seen, and everything I've read, the "art film" movement was left-wing or at least socially-conscious, realistic, NON-musical, oriented towards European rather than other Indian films, and aimed at an art-house audience rather than a mass audience. Kind of the difference between Hollywood and Kenneth Anger.
That's not to say that the commercial films can't be good, or even artistic successes -- it's just that they're working in an entirely different milieu, with different expectations, different financing, etc.
I think that the divide between commercial and art films was bigger (in the West and in India) several decades ago and that they're starting to mingle as never before. It's starting to be more of a continuum, from experimental films done on a shoestring to big-budget commercial films, with film houses like Miramax playing the middle. At least it is in the West ... I'm not sure that India has come as far as Hollywood has along that road.
Anyway, I'm not making judgements of MERIT when I talk about non-commercial films. I'm talking about a particular style. The Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema calls it Indian Nouvelle Vague.
Does this make more sense to you? Should some of your Malayalam directors be also entered in the art cinema category? Zora 01:04, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hello,
The term 'art film' for what you intend to describe is not very fair, as it is only a very small part of what might be called artistic films in India. The fact that some critics hold this biased view point (and use the terminology, which I know is well entrenched, but unfair nevertheless) is not necessarily a reason for echoing that view in the wikipaedia article. I understand that you do not hold that view, but are trying to describe what might be called Indian neorealism (influenced by de Sica's films and such); but using the term 'art cinema' exclusively for this school is a biased view (not yours, I understand, but you seem to echo it unconsciously when you use the term art cinema; and that *is* an implicit statement of relative merits).
The notion of black/white distinguishing criteria such as you list is something that I strongly disagree with. I think such charateristics are too simplistic. I am aware that these ideas are entrenched in a significant portion of critical circles, but I think it is too obviously biased to be considered unduly definitive (and a significant portion of critics do actually disagree, though this portion does not happen to be very influential). By the way, not all orthodox cinema is directed towards an European audience; Ritwik Ghatak would have been aghast at such a claim; his films were certainly intended for the rural audience, rather than art houses. Not all of them avoid music either.
Regarding the emergence of the continuum you talk about, yes, it did not exist much in the early fifties in India or the West (though Guru Dutt was an exception), but its emergence in India (in the mid-seventies, primarily in South Indian cinema) seems to have preceded the phenomenon in Hollywood; this is not well known; but it is a fact.
I am happy to extend the list on the new wave directors in India (which I believe is the meaning of the term you found in the encyclopaedia), but doing so would imply that I agree with the presentation as it stands now (which I don't). I want to propose the following:
1. Avoid the use of the term 'art cinema'; substitute 'new wave' or 'neorealism' or 'parallel cinema'.
2. Avoid a list of directors in such a school; rather, replace it with a sentence which enumerates a few definitive examples, (which list is *admittedly not comprehensive* in order to prevent arguments regarding inclusion/exclusion), and which includes only truly dedicated directors of that school; as the list stands presently, Mira Nair and Bimal Roy do not really fit into this class; if they did, the school would include quite a few directors, and that would probably obliterate what is really meant. (The really definitive example seems to be Ritwik Ghatak.)
3. If you want to say that this is sometimes called 'art cinema', then clarify that this is a biased term (as it clearly is).
Italo 00:40, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[edit] The problem with abandoning "art cinema"
Dear Italo,
You seem like a thoughtful person and I appreciate what you're saying. I think it might be indeed possible to drop the term "art cinema" and just use "Indian neo-realism" and "Indian New Wave". But it's all coming back to me now ... the fights I had with Lord Surya of Shropshire (a Bengali college freshman with intellect and chutzpah) over the terms to be used. I think I might have used INR or INW, as used in The Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema, and been roundly denounced by Surya as an elistist who knew nothing about India, where everyone called these films !!!ART FILMS!!! He's less active now -- perhaps college is proving a challenge -- but I used to have prolonged battles with him over everything related to Indian cinema, Bollywood, filmi, etc. If we change the article, will you promise to stand up for it if Surya objects? I am at a disadvantage arguing with him because I am indeed a clueless foreigner. Zora 05:59, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes you do seem like a clueless foreigner....you are too caught up in your pseudo intellectual crap. You do seem to have an irritating temperament.Mr Zora has eloquently tried to rectify that but you seem to pursue your irritating comments."You seem like a thoughtful person bullshit". Why dont you say that you are embarrased by his clarity.You digress so skillfully which further creates a more irritating dimension by venting your hidden embarrasment to a certain Lord Surya who Mr. Zora does not give a rats ass about and you cunningly invite him on another useless intellectual debate. The point is your words were irritating when I tried to read aboout Neorealism and its essence, and Mr zora was brilliant. - Namley
Dear Zora,
I am not a frequent contributor, and I have limits on my time; I have not been able to complete certain articles I have started myself. But, yes, if the issue can be resolved by reasoned argument, I am at your service in this matter. Please use the e-mail facility, should I fail to log in for an undue amount of time after you ask me to argue on this. I should like to say, however, that I have a distaste for 'fights'.
What this Bengali friend of yours says is in fact true, but mostly the term is used pejoratively among those who don't really appreciate 'art films' (hence his claim of 'everyone' calling it so), and also among the strong admirers of this school. A fair term that enjoys wide acceptance in India is 'parallel cinema'. The critics seem to favour 'new wave'/'neorealism'. The proper solution is to use an unbiased term in the main and point out that in common parlance it is often called 'art cinema'; this is certainly not elitism.
Since you are a non-Indian who is fairly interested in Indian cinema (I think that is very good; few other cinema cultures are so varied and creative; at least it used to be...), let me recommend Ritwik Ghatak and John Abraham (his student and the true inheritor of his style) strongly, as also the films of Guru Dutt and Bharathan (both quite different from parallel cinema and from each other in style); you might find it difficult to get hold of these, I suppose, but you should try.
Italo 22:56, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'll make the changes and see what happens <g>. I don't like fights either, but ... if I insist on accuracy, NPOV, and good English (at least as I see them) I seem to end up in fights anyway.
I can only see Indian films as available through Netflix and a grocery/spice/video store near the university, and I've only been able to see Guru Dutt. Whom I think is a genius, if deplorably self-absorbed. Zora 04:57, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[edit] KR Narayanan
I saw your reply to my post at the talk page of Mr Kr Narayanan. I have no stastics to actually support my statement, but you see the state of Ottapalam now. No industries, rampant Unemployment, no good colleges. What is the use of having a great personality as your MP when there is no development in your town. I will work on it and come back with stats though I doubt whether this could be done sumal 14:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bharathan
Your translation of the names of his movies is lovely ! Tintin 17:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Dear Tintin,
Thank you very much for your kind appreciation. (For some reason, I did not notice your message until today, which is the reason for the rather late response...)
I am working on a complete article on Bharathan, but do not yet have one which I feel is satisfactory.
Nice to get to know a Malayali. I notice you have contributed excellently to cricket related articles. I happen to be no fan of cricket, unfortunately. But it is very nice to see you working so hard on the topic.
Do keep in touch.
Italo 22:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Basheer
I see you once used to contribute to Vaikom Muhammad Basheer. I have done some major editions there. Can you please take a look,and do something about it?
Sahodaran 17:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Dear Sahodaran,
Thank you very much for calling my attention to the state of the article on Basheer; it seems it was once deleted for the wrong reasons (the entire article could not have been a copyright infringement, maybe some later edits were...), and that I can't even look up my past edits.
I want to write a comprehensive article on Basheer, but since I was not satisfied with my draft, I had not been paying attention to what was happening here.
Very nice to see your work (on Basheer, and also on others, such as M. Mukundan). You have added several valuable points.
Maybe the first thing we should do is to include Ronald Asher's article from the web. I shall try to prepare a draft and show it to you, so that we can have a discussion on it before we actually put it on the wikipaedia.
Italo 17:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Dear Italo,Thanks for replying.Sure,we can have such a discussion.I am quite new to wiki,and now want to focus on Basheer and his works,my most favorite author.--Sahodaran 16:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Hello,
This is in connection with the article Vaikom Muhammad Basheer. It seems the article was deleted by you a while ago, apparently for violation of copyright. I have edited the article in the past, and I am sure there were no such issues with the article then. It seems from some comments on the article talk page that merely one recent edit was the cause of the violation, and that the copyright problem could have been resolved by a simple revert of a few edits. I feel the deletion has caused lots of problems because the entire past history of the article is lost, and this is causing difficulties (at least for me) in expanding the article.
Is it possible for you to restore the deleted history of the article, so that the entire editing sequence of the article becomes transparent? The article is on an important writer in Indian literature, and to see it in such a slovenly state of affairs does not seem right.
Italo 18:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I looked at the Basheer artilce, and restored all the edits before the copyvio material was added- people are supposed to just revert the addition of copyrighted material to existing pages and since someone who I though would have known this reported the copyvio I didn't check. The existing article is actually much more developed than anything that was there in the past.--nixie 22:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:KRN.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:KRN.jpg. 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 Wikipedia articles 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. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
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 ensure 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media 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. Rettetast 17:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
