Talk:Satyajit Ray

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Satyajit Ray is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 2, 2008.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Satyajit Ray article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Old comments

Could somebody write an article about Satyajit Ray's father - Sukumar Ray? He is an essential writer of children's books in Bengali. I recently read some of his translated stories and would like to know more about his writing. Unfortunatelly there is no article about him in Wikipedia... and I thought that somebody who grew up on his stories would be able to tell something about him.

An anonymous editor added this (along with plenty of content) to the main article: Article fails to highlight Ray's parallel careers in authoring, illustration, and music composition

Stewart Adcock 09:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] some filmography names of ray's movie in english

Changed the corres. names to the actual bengali ones.

[edit] Contradictions between this and the E.T. Article

The E.T. Article has Spielberg disagreeing with idea that E.T. wouldn't have been possible without Satyajit Ray's The Alien, while this article has him agreeing with the same sentiment. While the editing format may make it dificult, I feel that the Wikipedia's credibility suffers when it is not internally consistent. I have no info about which claim is more accurate so I will not edit either article, but thought that wikipedians should know that the two articles are not in agreement. I think one or both are being influenced by POV. 65.125.163.221 08:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


Amazing! I never heard that spielberg said "yes, I copied some things", quite the contrary. Whoever wrote this should provide a reference --67.80.150.102 22:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Table of Awards

How does this look? Can we use it in the article instead of the awards list?

Year Award Award giving body
1958 Padma Shri Government of India
1965 Padma Bhushan Government of India
1967 Ramon Magsaysay Award Ramon Magsaysay Award Foundation
1971 Star of Yugoslavia Government of Yugoslavia
1973 Doctor of Letters Delhi University
1974 D. Litt. Royal College of Art, London
1976 Padma Vibhushan Government of India
1978 D. Litt. Oxford University
1978 Special Award Berlin Film Festival
1978 Desikottam Visva-Bharati University, India
1979 Special Award Moscow Film Festival
1980 D. Litt. Burdwan University, India
1980 D. Litt. Jadavpur University, India
1981 Doctorate Benaras Hindu University, India
1981 D. Litt. North Bengal University, India
1982 Hommage à Satyajit Ray Cannes Film Festival
1982 Special Golden Lion of St. Mark Venice Film Festival
1982 Vidyasagar Award Govt. of West Bengal
1983 Fellowship The British Film Institute
1985 D. Litt. Calcutta University, India
1985 Dadasaheb Phalke Award Government of India
1985 Soviet Land Nehru Award
1986 Fellowship Sangeet Natak Academy, India
1987 Légion d'Honneur Government of France
1987 D. Litt. Rabindra Bharati University, India
1992 Oscar for Lifetime Achievement Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences
1992 Bharat Ratna Government of India

Bye.--Dwaipayanc 19:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] work

So much work to do here. this should be an FA.--ppm 03:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is a proposal for the structure of the article:
1. Early life
2. Career in Film

- Pather Panchali
- The next decade (culminating in Charulata)
- Later work

4. Critical reception
3. Literature, Graphic design


By no means the only way to go abt it. One might also do the career in terms of film types: Apu trilogy, calcutta trilogy, documentory ...etc. Input needed. --ppm 16:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a really a nice pattern you have suggested. It won't be much difficult to develope, and at the same time, would be attractive. Bye.--Dwaipayanc 17:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. we'll have to add the filmography, by the way!--Dwaipayanc 17:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


Do we know abt a FA on a filmmaker? I don't, and too bad there's nothing to follow. On prizes and films, should we have all of them in the article, or highlight some and link to articles of their own? --ppm 19:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


I think before FA, it is a good idea to go through a peer review. --Ragib 19:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, this article is not ready for peer review or FA, I was thinking in general terms.--ppm 20:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


Back to your previous question, take a look at list of featured articles to see if there is one. --Ragib 20:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Apparently, there is none.--Dwaipayanc 20:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I wonder why? Lack of pics? It is quite noticeable that atleast for US directors, there are no screenshots. Maybe copyright worries.--ppm 23:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I am starting to make changes, but slowly, so the article might have a disjointed look for a while. Any help is welcome.--ppm 22:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
This is the hardest article I tried to edit, together with Tagore! When u deal with genius, you get your fingers burnt. --ppm 19:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


Though I am very far from working on the "reception" part (I am concentrated on early life), I have a open question. How do we incorporate non-critical reception of Ray? For example the whole Nargis episode or Marxist antipathy towards him, which were not really about filmic issues. Maybe a "Media" section?--ppm 00:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well. there are a few reference on the web for the Nargis episode like here and Here. Well, can we create a section like "His influence on others"? Such a section exists in the Kurosawa article. We can incorporate his influence on other film-makers, and also non-film-makers. However, even that proposed section does not seem befitting to put the Nargis-episode in. I think we'll have to accimodate the Nargis-episode in the criticak reception. Your suggestion of "Media" section is good. But what would you incorporate in that section. The reaction of media to Ray? Well, that can be done. And in that case, the section "critical reception" (which,I think, will increase in size gradually) can be somewhat chopped of, and relocated inside the "media" as and when necessary. Please go ahead and start the "Media". I will take the cue later and try to add.
Yeah these are hard decisions. I think we need Influnces both on and by Ray, maybe under a subsection. Media might involve: Nargis, his open and bitter debate with Mrinal Sen, (if we get references) the affair thing, documentaries made on him, the simpson Apu character etc. --ppm 17:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

Hi, I have some proposals:
1. The awards section should go to another article and the more important ones should be discussed in the Reception/Awards subsection.
2. Relevant parts of trivia should be fitted in other sections, and trivia should cease to be there as a seperate entity.
3. Similarly filmography should have its own article.
--ppm 18:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, regarding your proposals:
1. The awards section seems too heavy. Your proposal can be carried out.
2.If fitting in relevant parts of trivia in other subsections is possible, no need to retain trivia.
3.I do not agree. Filmography should stay here. There is a separate article on filmography which deals with/ has the provision to deal with all aspects of film that Ray participated at. As director, composer, producer, writer etc. in separate sections. Here we should retain the filmography as director.--Dwaipayanc 18:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay. I removed awards, now it has an article. Can we make filmography multicolumn? right now its kind of long. Thanks--ppm 05:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
It's ok you removed the table of awards. However, have to include major awards under the "Awards" subsection. Please make the filmography multicolumn. Bye.--Dwaipayanc 05:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

I commented out trivia. The text is still there in case one wants to copy stuff, but not visible in the article.--ppm 22:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] link

Hi, I would like to add an external link to the World of Biography entry

  • probably the most famous portal of biography to this article. Does anybody have any objections?
Oh no. We do not have ANY objection. In fact, no body can have any objection here. Plese feel free to add the link of the biography. Please add the link to the "External links" section. Thanks a lot. Bye. --Dwaipayanc 11:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

please do not add this to the article, and please read the incident report before giving the go-ahead. This is spam and not link-worthy under WP:EL; the articles contain many distortions, lack citations, and contain nothing that wouldn't fit directly in the wiki article. a link to worldofbiography has been placed on over 70 talk pages by User:Jameswatt. thanks. --He:ah? 20:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

I think the article has reached a stage where some attention can be given to improving the lead. Currently the lead is too short and for the lack of a better word, cheesy:

  1. "whose films are perhaps the greatest testament to Bengali and Indian cinema." - this in my opinion sounds weak and boring. I understand why you need to add "perhaps" in that sentence but it really makes the entire sentence hollow. I am sure a more powerful sentence can be scripted that is also NPOV.
  2. "A Bharat Ratna, he was also noted for his literary works in Bengali." - very awkward sentence.
  3. "He has been called one of the four greatest directors of cinema in the world, and Akira Kurosawa famously remarked of Ray:[1]" - Again, awkward. This sentence can be easily improved but we need some information for it. Is the citation for Akira Kurosawa's quote or is it for "one of the four greatest directors of cinema in the world" or both? Did Kurosaawa call him one of the four greatest? --Blacksun 20:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I am now at a comtemplating stage abt the lead, but anybody else rewriting it would be ok as well.--ppm 05:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I plan to be bold have a go at the intro sometime soon.--ppm 04:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] literary adaptions

IMO, this section is not too illuminating for 2 reasons. one, all this can and will go along with individual descriptions of movies. Secondlly, in critical reception, there is another oppurtunity to discuss this, as being too "literary" is one of the criticisms leveled against ray.--ppm 05:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Early Life

I have made some additions to the "Early Life" section. But I think it still needs more work. I will keep working on it. Please check them out and verify. No one would want factual inaccuracies over here !

enigma 04:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I had to change some of these. Some of the info has no weight, they are suitable for a trivia section (eg, exact house he was born in). Kala bhaban is a relevant piece of info perhaps, but does not work with the sentence, I dont think it is known that Suprabha Ray wanted Satyajit to go specifically to Kala Bhaban.--ppm 03:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Personal expression"

Finally I have redrafted the offending sentence in re personal expression as: "Due to Ray's level of involvement in every aspect of filmmaking, his films demonstrate a level of personal expression usually not experienced in mainstream cinema." IMHO it needs to stay. The next sentence is a bald list of the "involvement" and does not adequately express the sentiment of the same and that is exactly why it needs to stay. Simply put it lays down the context for the latter which by itself would not convey the meaning. Fiilmmaking is different from art forms, like writing or painting for example, where the artist has by default complete control of his/her "expression" - hence it is never really in doubt that the "expression" represents the artist's personality. That is why it is necessary to mention this. Another objection that has been raised is that it's pov - my answer is very simple - it can't be pov if the second sentence provides the factual basis for the same. gunslotsofguns 17:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


"Another objection that has been raised is that it's pov" -- raised where? I don't see any discussion on the topic in this forum--ppm 17:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

imo, "mainstream cinema" is confusing, it seems to suggest that a Satyajitian level of control is commonplace in Parallel cinema, whereas hardly anyone else but Chaplin had as much control over this medium.--ppm 17:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh there has been no discussion regarding the pov - just some reverts - check the history if you are interested. In so far as "mainstream cinema" is concerned, I preferred the original version of the sentence w/out the confusing bit. But don't you think also true to some extent - Parallel cinema is much more personalised (from the director's angle) precisely because of the level of involvement. If you have a better draft of the sentence please go ahead. (Satyajitian - nice touch :) gunslotsofguns 17:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that parallel cinema is much more personalized, but if Satyajit is personal only insofar that he is a maker of parallel cinema, then that harly needs mention. It is interesting only if (and indeed it is the case) his control over cinema was even more total than many othe auteurs.--ppm 19:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
That the objections was raised can be seen the articles history. Please see edit by Tutmosis on 29 April here. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

  1. What exactly are the plans regarding Ray's Crafts??
One source would be "Some aspects of my craft", shooting style, kheror khata, how he directed actors. Will get to it.
  1. Any comment on the alleged affair of Ray with Madhabi?
Found a source. Robinson mentions Madhabi as "his unrequited love" in his biography.
  1. Career in film seems to have stabilised.
Hmm...kinda, but not totally.
  1. "Critical reaction". only involves Apu Trilogy. Should add more on other films? But the size of that section would increase. There are 2 red links in this section. I do not think we should go on to create article for everyone. Shall we remove those rwo names and jusr keep the names of the newspapers where the critical reviews were published?
These are the hard parts. My plan is, first give an overview (I did), then pather, then discuss overall judgement (like Kurosawa, or Rushdie (greates Indian artist ever, not only film artist), then discuss a few particular films, lastly some criticism.
  1. "Ray in media". any more info?
Well, work hasn't been done, but info is everywhere. His spat with Mrinal Sen, Nargis, for two.
  1. "Other works". should the template of expand section be removed now?
No.
  1. "Influences and legacy". hmm. Hard to find citation.
I'll dig up some from Robinson.
  1. "filmography". Only 2 are in red links. I shall turn them blue shortly.
Good luck with that. Someone continuously deleted entries when I tried. --ppm 06:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC) (and all indented comments)

Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More comments

  1. There is repetition in the article. In the section "pather panchali", influence of Italian neorealism on Ray is described. Again it's described in the seperate section pf "Influences and legacy". Similar applies for a few awards. IMo, we can remove the info on awards and influences from the passages of cinemas. Those are discussed seperately in other sections devoted to them.
  2. Needs wikilinks.
  3. Needs a universal style, whether to follow italics in every bengali names (films and persons) in every occasion. At present, italics are used somewhat haphazardly.
  4. size is increasing. Consider daughter articles?

Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


Oh yeah, there are major problems. Right now I am trying to accumulate the "Raw material". Is size a big problem? Today we had a 63 KB pink floyd article on the main page--ppm 19:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Size is not really a big problem. But summarisation is needed. Anyway, for the time being, go on adding the excellent material.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image size

I would request that image size is kept at 250 px . Some of the images are too small in the article. Thanks. --Blacksun 20:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review?

I think its time for the first peer review. Thoughts?--ppm 02:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] text overlap

The first line of text overlaps into the box on the right (on firefox), and is actually hidden by the box on IE. --Ragib 19:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

I have started a peer review. Please comment--ppm 18:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts

One of the main points raised in the peer review is that biographical and artistic info seems to have got mixed. One way out of this would be to add a "Career and later life" section after Early life, rename "Career in film" as Works, and condense it (and also add literature to it). Surely a biography of an artist must include considerable description of his art. In any case, we need to select films we describe, rather than including everything (as it is now). A proposal for films to keep:

  1. The trilogy
  2. Devi
  3. Charulata
  4. Days and Nights
  5. Goopy gyne
  6. Shatranj
  7. Jana Aranya
  8. Ghare Baire
  9. Agantuk

Deleting others should reduce the size considerably.--ppm 00:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is a good proposal. But I have a request. Do not delete the excellent critical analysis of the rest of the movies. Just shift those to respective movie articles. Can it be done?
IMO, literature deserves a seperate section. Ray is mainly known for his films. That he was also a well known author is hardly known internationally. So better we keep the films in a section and literature in another.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I am adding the whole analysis in Filmopgraphy of Satyajit Ray, as a repository. We can bring stuff back from it if/when necessary.--ppm 17:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The River

Wasn't Ray an assistant director of the Renoir movie? - Cribananda 01:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

no--ppm 03:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Check this out: [1]. IMDB says uncredited but I saw the movie recently and thought I saw his name somewhere... - Cribananda 03:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe "Thanks to"? Ray helped Renoir hunt locations, but he wasn't involved in it beyond that in anyway--ppm 03:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV issues

Almost every movie is claimed to be his best, almost every actor seems to have made stunning performances in almost every movie. I'm trying to copyedit some of the stuff, but I think some sections need a lot of work. - Cribananda 02:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well this is a methodological question. If we want to avoid the word masterpiece altogether, fine. But it by no means makes it more NPOV to say Charulata is a masterpice, and Music Room is not, infact it is more POV (editors expressing their own choices).--ppm 03:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say here is that NPOV should not be at the cost of mis-information. In other words, every movie will have some critic/ reviewer calling it Ray's best. We don't have to list everything. We must simply stick to one of them (preferably where there is most consensus.) - Cribananda

[edit] writer in lead

I want the first line to be straight to the point, film maker of seminal importance. writer can come later. a personal opinion, though.--ppm 04:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, Norman Clare does not really deserve an article. --ppm 04:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree on the first point; disagree on the second. People need to know who this person is if you're gonna quote him or cite him as an example. This Fire Burns Always 05:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
The thing is, I don't know anything about him, though he seems to have an lasting friendship with Ray, they would exchange letters long after he left for the UK--ppm 16:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I could not find anything on Norman Clare by some quick search. Don't you have anything in the reference books? A short stub is enough.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
So did I, and found nothing. --ppm 17:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Btw, do we need a spoiler alert?--ppm 17:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

"and mockingly described as "English" by Bengalis, and "Brahminical" by westerners ---What does this mean?--->" -- I found this question embedded in the text :). My goal was to give an idea why Ray was often considered too eastern for westerners and too western for Indians. If this is not very clear, we should probably just get rid of the statement.--ppm 22:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

No I think its an interesting insight into his personality - I just think it needs to be clearer. For example, why did "westerners" choose the word "Brahminical?" Perhaps to describe Ray as solemn and meditative? This Fire Burns Always 01:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but the other insight is a psychological one, how two cultures use each other to describe "remote"--ppm 18:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another point

My family was produced by Copolla. Should we call it a Copolla film?--ppm 01:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No, as it was directed by someone else. This Fire Burns Always 01:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ready??

So what do you people think? Is it ready for FAC? All links have been turned blue, except Norman Clare. One red link is not going to spoil FAC. The length is also under 50 kab at present, which is far better than the previous 60-ish. So if you are satisfied, ppm, go for the FAC.--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh! I see there are 2 citation needed tags. That's your department, ppm :)--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Copyediting and spellchecks....Section titles "Middle phase," "Rest of Early phase" are not good. This Fire Burns Always 16:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Fixed citations, made tentative section name changes. If anyone comes with something better, pls change it. Yes, we need to copyedit, spellchecks ... and also POV check. I personally don't have a good feel for whether this article is too laudatory--ppm 19:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I added some comments in the PR. I think the article still needs to address them, plus length and laudatory tone issues. --Ragib 20:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar, spellcheck

Hi - a principal issue that persists is poor grammar and spelling mistakes. Otherwise this article is ready for FAC, IMO - if the citations are removed, the length will prolly drop to 40 or below, so I don't think there is a need to fiddle more with it. My suggestion is to go for FAC after addressing Sandy and Ragib's concerns, and a toothcomb screening for spelling mistakes and awkward grammar. Any poignant criticism will only be given in FAC now. Rama's arrow - this Fire burns always 18:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Since Tony has started copyediting, IMO, we should wait. If he manages to copyedit the whole article, it would be great...--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations!

Let me be the first to congratulate the tireless editors who have made this article into a great one ... a featured article !!! --Ragib 02:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

And let me be the second to congratulate everybody associated, and, of course, ppm especially. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Can I be the third? :D --ppm 17:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing in DVD's?

My parents and I watched the Apu Trilogy months ago. Recently, my father bought me the "entire collection" of Satyajit Ray (Bengali feature) films. (The only film missing was Ghare-Baire. He even got Chiriakhana!).

So far, my dad and I have seen two out of the four films he had seen in the 1970's. However, he thinks that Pratidwandi and Seemabaddha (at the very least) must have been edited after the years in which they were released (1970 and 1971, respectively).

He remembers a different ending in Pratidwandi where Siddhartha is reading a letter from Keya opening with the word "Shuno" (Listen) and ending with "Tumi" (Yours). Also, in Seemabaddha, he says that the guard had actually died in the earlier version he had seen. The DVD versions we saw instead have Siddhartha write a letter to Keya and have the guard get better.

Does anybody else share my father's opinion? Is it possible that Satyajit Ray's films were edited before (or while) being reproduced in the DVD versions? --Kuaichik 23:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I am a bit confused about the guard dying. If it is seemabaddha (which it is), how can Siddhartha, the protagonist of Pratidwandi, write about it?--ppm 17:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Oops! Sorry!! Let me revise that statement: "Also, in Seemabaddha, MY FATHER says that the guard had actually died in the earlier version that he (my father) had seen." Better? :) --Kuaichik 21:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. Now as far as I know, there has NOT been a official realease of any but a few of Ray films (for example a search on Amazon will produce 2/3 results). My (random) guess is the DVDs you have are not official and might be cut by whoever compiled them.
On your specific points, I have seen neither Pratidwandi not Seemabaddha for some time now, but my vaugue memory says that we listen Siddhartha reading a letter he writes to Keya and film ends with Eeti written on the screen and a procession carrying a dead man chanting the name of Rama--ppm 02:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Aw, man! This is very strange. Doesn't anybody remember anything less similar to the DVD version? Anything where Keya writes to Siddhartha (instead of the other way around)??

I guess it's possible that my dad is confusing it with some other movie...but he had only seen four Satyajit Ray movies (including Pratidwandi) before we saw the Apu Trilogy! Certainly, I didn't see any letter including the words "Shuno" and "Thumi" in Seemabaddha or Ashani Sanket. Surely, there isn't any such thing in...*gasp*...Shonar Kella???

By the way, I think the writing on the screen was actually "Haath Shiddhaartha" (his way of signing off the letter). And yes, that's from the DVD version...:-P --Kuaichik 03:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, my dad bought the DVDs from http://bdbazar.com. I don't know whether or not the versions provided there are "official." However, I don't see why they shouldn't be. A few days ago, I talked to a friend who lived in West Bengal (until about three years ago). She says that all of the movies I mentioned (all listed in this discussion) were shown on TV all the time. Why would the government allow unofficial versions of the movie to be shown on TV? Also, as this article notes, the Government of West Bengal actually funded some of his films (e.g. Pather Panchali). --Kuaichik 21:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biruitorul

You have twice reverted my edits.

The film Kanchenjangha is, by anybody's standards (which should include yours if you have seen it) very quiet and uneventuful, for a large part the characters are simply walking around, silent or making small talk. Whether the film is complex is however debatable.

Daarjeeling is strictly a town and not a mountain resort, as a visit to the FA Daarjeeling will tell you.

Your version of the plot summary gives away a plot ending/spoiler w/o a spoiler warning to a reader who has not seen the film. I've modified it to provide a plot introduction to the film.

I hope all your objections have been addressed. Loom91 10:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know, I just think the original is more succinct and flows better. I don't think the spoiler is major, but then again I didn't write that version. You could say Darjeeling is both - here, its status as a resort seems more relevant. As for the part about supporters and detractors: probably not needed, and lacking citations. I'm not adamant about any of this; thank you for your reply. Does anyone else have thoughts? Biruitorul 02:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
my only comment is that any changed version should strive to not increase the length, and be NPOV--ppm 03:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I think factual accuracy is more important than simply what 'flows better'. The spoiler does reveal a key point of the plot ending. While it can be argued that the film is not a thriller and knowledge of the ending is not significant, some viewers find any spoiler irritating. In any case we should be providing a plot introduction rather than a plot summary in the limited space.
A visit to the article mountain resort tells me that Darjeeling is nothing like a mountain resort, it is most definitely a town. I also note that sections on other movies contain information about supporters and detractors, and what I write reflects a very common rather than controversial opinion. But since I lack citations if someone insists on removing it then I will not press the point. Also, as I noted above saying the film is complex and musically composed is less NPOV than saying it's quiet and uneventful. Loom91 17:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
As you wish. Just one point, though: aren't the characters on vacation in Darjeeling? It might be a town and a mountain resort, or at least a tourist destination in the mountains, so in this particular case "mountain resort" may not be amiss. Biruitorul 18:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Please take a look at the article mountain resort. Darjeeling is a tourist spot,but it is not a resort. Loom91 08:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Shmitra wrote that; as long as he agrees, I'm fine with the change. Biruitorul 06:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
That is really a minor point. I agree that the preivous version was POVish, but so is the current version with "Magestic" and "boring". Please attribute those to somebody specific. About the resort issue, if someone can come up with a way of maintaning the word mountain (which is integral to the film) without using "resort", that'd be great--ppm 01:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Picture

Which one is Satyajit Ray in the photo.Bewareofdog 23:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Image:SatyajitProduction.jpg

On the left is Satyajit Ray. On the right is a child artist who is being directed by Ray.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Filmfare awards??

[edit] Kanchenjangha Picture

Is the picure showing Kanchenjangha scenery (not even from the film) really necessary or consistent with the rest of the article? If this piture is admissible, then why not put in street pictures of Kolkata (where Ray based most of his material), rural Bengal or Lucknow? I suggest it be deleted. --Thinking-ape 3 December 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 08:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

agree, unnecessary picture. I think the picture on the set of 'Two' should be retained, since is one of the free pics of Ray available. Between, my profuse thanks to the painter of the picture now apprearing--ppm (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2009?

There is a reference to shooting starting in 2009 which is a big mistake or vandalism in the section on the Apu years 1950-1958. I'm not sure how to correct it. Johnor (talk) 02:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. This has been corrected.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Calcutta to Kolkata

I have made the change from Calcutta to Kolkata in this article to reflect the city name change. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV?

Is it POV to say "Ray wrote an eloquent article defending it". I get told off when I use such words as unencyclopedic.

IceDragon64 (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah you are probably right. The word has been removed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)