Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Peer review/Pather Panchali

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Pather Panchali 1.1 Comments by User:Blofeld of SPECTRE 1.2 Comments by User:Ravichandar84 1.3 Comments by User:Mspraveen 1.4 Comments by User:Aditya Kabir 1.5 Update by Dwaipayan 1.6 Comments by Girolamo Savonarola

[edit] Pather Panchali

Pather Panchali, an Indian film directed by Satyajit Ray, is one of the Core articles in wikiproject film. The article has undergone substantial improvement lately. I request you to kindly give inputs for further development, with a view to a FAC in near future.

There are some points in the article which I shall address soon. For example, the English spelling of one of the main characters (Sarbajaya) is spelled differently in different places in the article. Please also see if the plot sounds ok. Thanks a lot. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the spelling of Sarbajaya. Also removed extra Cast section, as the Casting subsection already existed under Production section. Some FA articles like Casablanca has separate Cast section, but other FA articles like Halloween or Casino Royale have Casting subsection under Production section, just like Pather Panchali. However, there is one difference, characters of Halloween have separate wikipages (clear blue links are good visual cues) and James Bond has his own page, surely we are not going to write similar pages. Does it make sense to mark first occurence of a character in plot with bold letters? Not sure. About plot, currently it has 777 words, within limits and probably there is no alternative to the free-flow style for this story (not much timeline/geography change, nor too many big events). Anyway, good copyediting can always help. GDibyendu (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I've made a few comments regarding the plot in the Discussion section. Maybe I'll check up on that Nischindipur thing, but I'm also wondering about the reference to kaash flowers. Don't have much to say now, but well, we'll see... --Kuaichik (talk) 04:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by User:Blofeld of SPECTRE

• "Pather Panchali was warmly received by the audience globally" -too generalised - implies the entire world saw the film and loved it. Didi the Gabonese or Lithuanian people warmly receive the film?. I would try to avoid sweeping statements like that as much as possible
• "The film is often included in the lists of greatest movies of all time". -which lists? Would it appear in a list in Brazil or Mexico ? I can see it was featured in some notable American lists, ranking alongside The Godfather is huge but I can only vaguely recall seeing one of his films in a list on cable. This is a strong claim needs supporting.
• Why is the cast section entirely missing? There should be a cast section after plot. Use Casino Royale as a guideline.
• The plot is in desperate need of rewriting and condensing, It lacks conciseness and relies on almost entirely subjective content. It is told too much like a pleasurable story rather than summarizing the outline and plot of the film in an encylopedia entry. The plot could be cut considerably by planning it accordingly and sticking to the main points structually.
• Too many peacock words particularly in the plot. The casting sections don't flow they need to be rewritten to avoid short snappy sentences and phrasing
• It is mentioned many times that "The film was made on a shoestring budget". Are there any figures available on what the budget was?
• "In retrospect, the technical team was immensely talented" - POV and tone needs addressing. Some of the sentences in this section read like a magazine article
• The article is my view gets stronger and stronger towards the end. The last few paragraphs seem to be written a lot better although it may have some tone/neutrality issues, but I would pay serious attnetion to the plot and first half of production and mergin short paragrpahs and sections together. The main problem is that the overall article just doesn't flow and this can only be addressed by a serious amount of copyediting which takes time.

♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by User:Ravichandar84

The lead section is long enough, but then I am of the opinion that it could be expanded even more. The Plot section does not carry any inline citations. Complex confusing terms could be avoided. Apart from these minor shortcomings, the article is pretty fine. -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 15:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by User:Mspraveen

• Lead section: Can be tightened in the first paragraph by writing something like "the film is an adaptation of its namesake 19xx Bengali novel written by Bibhutibhushan Bandopadhyay."
• Lead section: It is the first of three films which comprise the Apu trilogy and depicts the childhood of the protagonist Apu, in the rural countryside of 1920s Bengal. three films and trilogy is redundancy and the reader might want to know the names of the other two atleast - Instead why not something like - "It is the first film from the Apu trilogy that depicts the childhood of the protagonist, Apu, in the rural countryside of 1920s Bengal; the other two being Aparajito and Apur Sansar."
• Plot section: Did some copyediting and standardised into British English. I hope the main contributors find my edits appropriate.
• Filming section: Third paragraph - The Government of West Bengal loaned him money, allowing him to finish the film. However, the government misunderstood the nature of the movie, and considered it as a documentary for rural upliftment, such as the need for road improvement. Indeed the money was loaned on record for 'roads improvement', a reference to the film's title. - This is, however, followed up immediately with Due to the omnipresent lack of funds, the shooting was stretched, and could be done only intermittently.. The whole sequence of events from the third paragraph is quite confusing. Eventually, it appears that Government of West Bengal and MOMA were the funding agencies. If thats the case, why only the former is given credits for producing the film?
• Release and reception section: While the film was in production, a number of westerners, including Monroe Wheeler from the Museum of Modern Art (MOMA), saw the rushes and immediately recognized its originality. This has been addressed in the filming section, isn't it?
• Release and reception section: Needs more copyediting. The Awards, Soundtrack and DVD section can be clubbed with this section. Awards reflect reception and soundtrack and DVD suggest release details.
• There are far too many sub-sections/sections with very few sentences. For me, they don't warrant a separate section/sub-section and instead they can be clubbed with other bigger sections. What happens here is that when such sections are used in excess, it disturbs the fluency of an article. As Blofeld suggested, you might want to see Casino Royale (2006 film) or more native Rang De Basanti that I modeled on the former.
• I fully agree with Blofeld's fourth point. The article surely needs more conciseness and needs a look of an encyclopedic entry. Without short and snappy sentences, the article will see a greater sense of fluency.
• Submission to the League of Copywriters might just help a good deal for this article.

Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Blofeld and Praveen for your inputs. I am unable to respond to your inputs immediately, due to some real life commitments. We'll attend to them soon, and update you on the improvement. Thanks a lot. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by User:Aditya Kabir

Sorry for the delay. It's that darn real life. Haven't had much time to go through article thoroughly yet. But, at the first look I found some areas of improvement for sure.

• A bit too many short sections. Influences could become a part of the Production section. Release and response and Awards could become a part of the Reception sections. May be Legacy and the Trilogy could merge as well. Also, a separate section on the tile is looking a bit odd. For higher level assessment drives, short sections could prove to be a problem.
• The prose often slips into a non-encyclopedic tone, even to the point of using peacock words. For instance - Ray kept working as a graphic designer, exhausted his last penny, and sold his prized possession of LP records in order to raise fund for the film. His production manager, Anil Chowdhury, was reduced to spend nights in a taxi at one point, and he convinced Ray's wife Bijoya to pawn her jewels....
• There still may be some areas left out of coverage, like, for instance, the music. As I understand, Pather is a must-see for many film-schools. Quite a number of major critiques and directors have written on the film, a few of them not too positively. But, not a lot is here (Well, may be that could become material for another article like Critical response to Pother Panchali or something).
• The much written train sequence and it's repeat could earn some place here (well, may be along with other much discussed sequences, like throwing the stolen stuff into the pond)
• The John Houston bit is looking a bit awkward where it is now, may be it could be shifted to the Response section.
• And, mmmmm... this could be a personal prejudice, the plot section looks a bit too long. Are you sure that it needs to be this elaborate?

I'll take another look day after tomorrow. Cheers. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 18:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Update by Dwaipayan

Thanks guys for the excellent reviews. We've tried to address many concerns. Some (most notably the Plot section) has not been worked on yet. Here the updates:

A general concern in the reviews has been too many (small) subsections. Now, the structure has been changed. "Influences" follows "Cast" (which, in turn, has now been introduced per Blofeld's suggestion). "Post-production: soundtrack" (IMO, the name of this new subsection can be just "Soundtrack" instead of "Production: soundtrack". Views??) is now a new subsection under "Production". DVD information is within "Release and response". The earlier sections of "Sequels—The Apu trilogy" and "Legacy" have been merged under "legacy". Earlier sections of "Reception" and "Awards" have been merged into "Critical reception and awards".

Now, coming to specific reviews by individual users:

Blofeld's comments

• Global reception - removed "global", put "India, US and UK, among other countries". How's that?
• generalised comment on "lists of greatest films" - now specifically named the magazines. Is that better?
• Cast section - added.
• Plot - will work on that.
• Peacock terms- started to remove them. Please help identify more.
• Shoestring budget - unfortunately no numerical data I could find, in any of the books, and I doubt if there is any data (except may be the production manager's audit). This is really unfortunate that numerical data on the recent Indian films are not readily available, let alone this film from 1955. Still, would try to dig out something.
• Immensely talented - toned down. Please have a look.
• Flow problem—true. Copyedit is needed. And that's why this PR is started. Hope, the article will soon flow, at least like a small river ( cf. the big river flow of Pather Panchali, as described by Kurosawa)

Ravichander's comments

Inline citation in plots, though I am not 100% sure, is usually not needed, unless there is some commentary like sentence. Indeed, the plot, in its present form, have some commentaries. Will add citations. Regarding complex terms, please help finding them (often the main contributors become blind to such things, so please help).

Mspraveen's comments

• Lead - Did not do the sentence recommended by you. Was trying, but was having some problem in construction. Please go ahead and change it as you deem necessary.
• Lead - yes, three films and trilogy was redundant. Changed that per you. However, could not accomodate the names of the other two films due to sentence construction problem. May be have to add one more sentence to name those two.
• Plot - of course your edits were appropriate. More will be needed.
• Filming - tried to make it more coherent and flowing. Please have a look.
• Release and response - repetition done away with.
• Reception, DVD etc - have merged, as discussed in the beginning of this post.
• too many subsection - discussed above.
• consise, snappy sentences etc - works going on. Please help.
• LoC - will submit to them.

Aditya's comment

• too many short sections - discussed above.
• peacock words- removed many. Will do more. Please help, identify more.
• Coverage - ok. Will read more, and try to add.
• train, pond sequences - do you suggest a section on those much-discussed scenes? the section will have detailed discussion on those scenes with references (I have some references, more can be found). also, I invite views from others on inclusion of such a section.
• John Huston - please go ahead with your change. Let's see how it shapes.
• length of plot - no idea here. Is the plot long? Other views, please.

Thanks a lot to everybody. Please continue the review. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

one more comment. Mspraveen asked why only Govt of west bengal is mentioned as producer, when MOMA also helped with money. That is because the credit title of the film mentions only Govt of West bengal as the producer, and not MOMA. That MOMA also helped with money is referenced from Robinson's Inner Eye book (details of the book available in bibliography section of the article). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

More update Tried to condense and shorten the plot. Please have a look. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Note A probable alternate version of the plot is being worked on here. The alternate version tries to linearly telling the story. Editors familiar with the film are requested to help. However, that version, when completed, would be very large. Please se and comment. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment IMHO, The present version works fine. BTW, I may have been wrong about John Houston, with the mention of financing and all that. A separate section on the critically acclaimed sequences may not be a bad idea at all. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by Girolamo Savonarola

• "later regarded as one of the greatest auteurs of cinema" - peacock, weasel, and POV.
• "by the audience in India, USA and UK" - what distinguishes these particular countries' reception (aside from India, as the producing country)? "warmly received internationally" is better and doesn't sound as comprehensive as global.
• more needs to be said in the lead of how it was one of the first Indian films to be praised - even noticed - by western critics.
• The "usually translated into English" sentence needs citation.
• "The scene is considered as one the magic moments of the film." - by whom?
• "dreams a better career" - dreams of a better career
• "But, in reality, he is easily exploited" - either drop the But or replace it with However
• "bent over at almost a ninety degree angle" - was this measured? something less specific would be more appropriate
• "Durga, a boisterous girl," - sounds like she's being introduced again - needs some rewriting
• "those with aunt Indir," aunt should either be capitalized or dropped
• "Apu and Durga shares" - share, not shares
• "she does not let go any opportunity" - does not let go of any
• bioscope should link to the wikipedia article (unless this is not what is intended - I was under the impression that they were obsolete by the 20's, although the situation in India may have been different)
• "Indeed, one day" - drop indeed; awkward and superfluous
• "The scene of Apu and Durga running through the fields of white kaash flowers to see the train is one of the most celebrated scenes in the film." - not appropriate for the Plot section, which should only describe the plot, not the critical reaction. This sentence needs to be moved elsewhere and cited appropriately.
• "discover their old aunt, Indir, dead." - awkward; rewrite
• "travel to nearby cities for new vocations" - is he planning to take several jobs? Also, a vocation is the opposite of casual labor.
• "embittered as her sorrows pile up" - as they pile up? Isn't what you're describing the very piling of those sorrows?
• "(though she denied it)" - explaning this earlier in the plot makes more sense than leaving it for a parenthetical aside
• "as if to preserve her memory from any belated taint" - OR concern
• "Ladri di biciclette (Bicycle Thieves) (1948) by Vittorio De Sica" - just Bicycle Thieves is enough; the rest of the information is in that article and tangential to this one.
• "reflects the effect" - how about just "is indebted to"? Also, lose the "Indeed," again.
• The last sentence of Influences might work better by simply adding Renoir's influence to the end of the prior sentence; Corliss need not be mentioned, as he is the reference.

There's more to be said, but I have to get some sleep, so let's see how these are handled for now. Keep up the hard work - it's definitely heading in the right direction, and the references are pleasantly strong and fluff-free. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Girolamo Many of your points have been addressed. However, the first four concerns are yet to be addressed.

• "later regarded as one of the greatest auteurs of cinema" - if we drop "greatest", will it be ok? This sentence is not cited in the lead, but has been discussed in the section "Legacy" (why he is an auteur, with citation). So, this can be cited in the lead as well. The book reference counts him among the auteurs of cinema. So, imo, no problem if the statement is like, "later regarded as an auteur of cinema".

That's a rather ambiguous statement. Potentially any director might be regarded as an auteur. The other problem is that the very concept of an auteur is debatable to begin with. I have no problem with what you're trying to say - that Ray was a respected and influential director - but I'm wary of the wording. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• "by the audience in India, USA and UK" - this was done in response to Blofeld's review (the very first point in his series of comments). No problem in making it "internationally". Hope Blofeld is ok with that.

I'd just drop "warmly received by the audience in India, USA and UK, among other countries. It was" entirely. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• more needs to be said in the lead of how it was one of the first Indian films to be praised - even noticed - by western critics. - yes, that will be done. Will try to make a one or two sentence gist of the "critical reception" section, and also add additional material/citation as needed. Please allow some time.

As per last comment. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• The "usually translated into English" sentence needs citation.-well, I'm planning to write it in sort of this way, "The film title in English is "Song of the Little Road".(with citation from the Robinson's book) However, some sources/commentators have described it with similar but different names, such as X, Y and Z (with citation of those sources)."

Cleaned up the sourcing a bit, but well done tracking those down! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

So, the word "usually" won't be there. And other alternate translations will also be mentioned. Is that fine? (the works will be done tomorrow). Thanks a lot. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Update

Added in "critical reception" that it was the first Indian film to get major critical attention internationally (with refs). And added one sentence in the lead - "It was the first Indian cinema that attracted major critical attention internationally.". Does it suffice?

As per above. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Title section now begins as follows "The title of the film in English is "Song of the Little Road". However, some commentators translated the title in similar but different ways, for example, "The Lament of the Path", "Song of the Road" and "Song of the Open Road"." (with citations for each translations). Is that ok?

Have not yet changed "India, USA and UK" and "greatest auteurs" sentences (reasons discussed above in Reply to Girolamo). Will change after further inputs from you and others. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

More

• "The lady generously allowed Ray, a complete novice then, to shoot a film on her husband's masterpiece." - generously and masterpiece are very peacock. The entire sentence seems to somewhat repeat the previous one, so integrating them together would make sense. (Or just drop this one entirely.)

Yes, the sentence repeated the previous one! Removed it.

• "Ray's adaptation of the novel involved many changes, including compression, omission, and occasional addition." - virtually all adaptations do; this prefatory therefore is probably not needed.

Removed.

• "celebrated scene of Apu and Durga running" - celebrated by whom?

Removed "celebrated".

• three of the main actors were named Banerjee - are they related? Either way, it probably needs to be clarified.

No, they were not related. For clarification, if we put a sentence like, "Three of the main actors' surname was banerjee, although they were not related." will it be ok?

• The first paragraph of "Filming" has some POV, peacock, and citation issues. Again, I agree with the gist of what you are saying, but the phrasing and citation is poor.

Tried to remove POV and peacock. Will add citations.

• "While shooting, he zeroed in on Boral, a village near Calcutta, as the location of the shooting of the film." - This does not make sense to me.

Removed the sentence. Managed in a different way by User:GDibyendu.

• Funding questions: what made West Bengal finally decide to loan money? The article states the official reason, but why did they suddenly step in? Seems somewhat non-sequitur (or deus ex machina) without any prior explanation. Also, did Huston see the footage before Wheeler? The article seems to imply that he might have tipped Wheeler off, but Wheeler's mention comes first, so it's confusing.

Excellent catch. Yes, I read in a book that Bidhan Chandra Roy, then the Chief Minister of West Bengal, was persuaded by a contact of Ray's mother to see the footages of the film. The Chief Minister then directed his officials to loan Ray some money. I shall add this once I locate the source.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Added the info on the chief minister's intervention. Please see if it sounds ok.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Wheeler and Huston, clarified the temporal relationship of their visits, and Huston's action. Huston came after about six months of Wheeler's visist. Wheeler had asked him to check the progress of the project. Please see if it is clear now.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Was Ravi Shankhar well known prior to this film?

Ravi Shankar did his first public performance in 1939. He was at an early stage of his career, and was just beginning to have international tours at the time of Pather Panchali, although he already was the music director of All India Radio. so, how should it be put. For the time being, the sentence is as follows: "The soundtrack of the film was scored by the sitar maestro Pandit Ravi Shankar, who was at early stage of his career, having debuted in 1939." (with ref). Please comment.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• "When Ray met him, he hummed a tune" - who hummed it?

Shankar hummed it, clarifiied.

• "most important pieces of the score" - most important to whom? most important how/why?

Well, the sense I tried to convey was "majority of the score"; now re-wrote in that way.

• Is there any more substantial information about the release of the film? It seems somewhat brief for what was a highly influential film even at the time.

Not really. I read many sources for the release. The important information gathered from the sources are written here. Apart from this, there were some info that I thought was not needed, for example, how the producer of a Hindi film (the next change of Pather Panchali in the first Calcutta cinema hall where it was released) came to meet Ray one morning with dreary eyes (having seen Pather Panchali) etc.

However, the film, before the release in Calcutta cinema hall, was once shown in a sort of party, where anybody hardly paid any importance to the film. This can be added. I am trying to find out the source.

Okay, more to follow later - good luck with this for now! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Have responded to many of your concerns. More to follow. Thanks a lot for your help. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Part 3

Let's start with some old issues still not resolved:

• the peacock/POV issues regarding Ray are not going to be resolved by changing the word auteur to director.
• The Banerjee non-relation needs to be dealt with. (Perhaps as a parenthetical?)

New observations:

• Do you have a better source for the 122 minute version? It just seems - given the excellent overall quality of sources and documentation for the film - that one should be able to find something more reliable than a passing mention in a university screening's program notes to verify this.
• The newly added influences (Kurosawa and Bimal Roy) could be cleaned up a bit and perhaps combined into one sentence.
• What is a "common friend"?
• Footages is not a word.
• How was Monroe Wheeler affiliated with MoMA?

Wheeler was head of the department of exhibitions and publications of MoMA. Added with NYT ref.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'd drop maestro and Pandit from Shankar's first mention, as it's peacock and arguably neither would have been considered fait accompli c. 1955.

Dropped both. Wrote as "sitar player".--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Can you clarify what sort of "sustained opposition" occurred? Why did Nehru sign off on the film for Cannes, then?
• "they reportedly found" - weasel words.
• If this was released in India a year prior to Cannes, why is the Indian reception following the Cannes one?
• All of the awards need references, and it may be easier to simply recite all of the awards rather than try to create sentences for each year of awards.
• The legacy image is a poor choice and does not illustrate anything directly involving the film alone, nor does it seem that any of the people within it are affliated with PP. I would drop it entirely.

Image removed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Cahiers du cinema had a famous issue called "Ray vs Ray" where their contributors had to choose between Nicholas Ray and Satyajit Ray. I believe this was the late 50s or early 60s, but that might be worth mentioning perhaps...
• The Variety reference is wrong (ref 65) - the film was 11th in the 1962 Sight and Sound poll.

Yes, Variety was wrong. Removed the wrong info.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Roger Ebert also wrote a "Great Films" essay on the trilogy, which may be handy.
• The last paragraph needs a fair bit of work to avoid peacock/POVness, and the list of contemporary directors is superfluous.

Overall, though, it's definitely coming along. Look forward to seeing this in A-Class review and FAC. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent review. However, this time I'll be late addressing them (may take 1-2 weeks), unless someone else does the job. Please keep the peer review active. the work will be done gradually. Once again, thanks a lot.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Completely understood. Not certain it's necessary to keep the PR open if there's no new comments being made, though, but please do let me know when this article goes to higher review processes, as I suspect it will do quite well. :) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)