Talk:The Artist (film)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus that the film is primary topic for this term. As the journal article has been moved per Talk:The Artist and Journal of Home Culture#Requested move, the undisambiguated title is now used for the disambiguation page. Jafeluv (talk) 12:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The Artist (film) → The Artist – I believe this is now the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this name. The current page for The Artist belongs to a stub article about a magazine that ceased to exist in 1902. Page view traffic easily demonstrates that the film is the most viewed topic, and I suspect that most of the page views to the journal were expecting to find the film. Lugnuts (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose – rather than hijack a long-standing title this way by your feeling about what is a primary topic for this generic-sounding title, based on a new topic that hasn't been around for even a year yet, why not just admit that it's ambiguous and make a disambig? Then you could also include other works with the same title, like the 2010 book by Quinin Jones or the 1993 book by John Bianchi or the 1912 drama by H. L. Mencken, etc. And don't forget the existing The Artist (magazine) which is not the same mag as The Artist. Sure, there's work to be done, but move it forward, not backward. Dicklyon (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support The film does seem to be the primary topic by a wide margin at the moment as far as useage is concerned, judging by traffic stats and Google hits. Lugnuts is right about the journal article getting dramatically more hits around the time the film was released, which suggests people were looking for the film, not the journal. "Importance", as defined in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC doesn't seem to be relevant in this case. Shirtwaist ☎ 01:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
As I read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, it says we shouldn't react to transients like a film release. If we choose a primary topic it should be because it is enduring. Don't do this. There's no disadvantage to simply disambiguating. Dicklyon (talk) 06:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't see anything in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC that suggests we take recentism into account, could you point that out? Primary usage and primary importance seem to be the main factors to be considered. With that in mind, "usage" is clearly slanted to the film, and taking into consideration that (IMO) the film has "significantly greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term", the "importance" scale also tips in the film's favor as being the primary topic. Seeing as there are only three other articles (two if you remove the link to Prince, which I don't think belongs there) associated with "The Artist", a hatnote seems more appropriate here than a DaB page, as suggested in WP:TWODABS Shirtwaist ☎ 07:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment it seems as though you are asking to delete the magazine that ended in 1902. You need to go through AfD to do that. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 06:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I presume he meant to rename that to something (like your suggestion below, The Artist (1880 magazine), which wouldn't need an RM discussion) as part of implementing this. Dicklyon (talk) 06:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Generally we skip the "(disambiguation)" and just name the disambig page like "The Artist" (unless "The Artist" is used for a primary topic, which it is now, and is what they're asking to do differently in this RM). I agree with your implicit conclusion that there should be no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here. And probably the modern magazine doesn't really need to be moved; it would be odd to refer to is as a 1931 magazine; keep disambiguators concise. The the old mag, the date may be an OK way. Dicklyon (talk) 06:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think a separate disambig page is needed for "The Artist" apart from various uses for "Artist", so a combined disambig page would be preferable. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 11:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
But if you do a book search, you get about 17 million books that use the expression for something other than the film. Dicklyon (talk) 03:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - The two magazines get virtually no hits at all; even if the film's hit rate deteriorates to the same level (and I do accept you should take a long-term view when discussing page moves) such that you can't justify the primary topic on usage levels, clearly a film that has received international recognition by two prominent bodies (Cannes film festival and Golden Globes) is clearly more notable than an arts club magazine and a defunct turn of the century journal; the film lends itself more to academic discourse (and therefore encylopedic coverage) more than either magazine. I recommend moving the journal to its most recent name The Artist: An Illustrated Monthly Record of Arts, Crafts and Industries and adding hatnotes for the journal and the magazine. Betty Logan (talk) 09:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks for the replies so far. If this isn't the primary topic, I agree that the current page for The Artist, becomes the disambig page. Lugnuts (talk) 13:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I opened a follow-up RM at Talk:The_Artist#Requested_move, but if this one is closed appropriately to include fix of The Artist, maybe I can just withdraw it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC),
No one's arguing that the magazine is primary, so it needs a new title whatever happens in this RM. Kauffner (talk) 06:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Right; so it should be speedily closed with this one. I started a new disambig to go along with all this: The Artist (disambiguation) (to move to The Artist). Dicklyon (talk) 03:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with Dicklyon's solution (see immediately above). Close this RM and the related one, and deal with the articles rationally together. This is often something we should attempt from the start, before the discussion gets too far into a blind alley. In fact, it's best to start with a well-organised multiple RM; or to convert to one as soon as the need becomes apparent.
NoeticaTea? 03:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Agree. Happy for this to close and some admin move the disambig page to The Artist and The Artist to the new name, keeping this one here. Lugnuts (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Top 10 Lists

I think this should be restricted to notable lists only - either the publication or the critic has a Wiki article. Does anyone know anything about Jonathan Lack and At the Movies, for example? Is this individual/publication notable? It looks like a blog to me, but wanted to double-check before I removed it. Lugnuts (talk) 10:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Post-RM commentary

Google "The Artist" -wikipedia and the film is the referent for nine of the top 11 results. One result is for The Artist's Magazine. This one would seem to be incorrect targeting, as well as a topic that we don't have an article for. The other result is for The Artist (magazine). In the last 30 days, The Artist (film) blew away The Artist (magazine) by 177430 :474 ==> 374 page views to one. This is way more than 50 percent of the relevant traffic, which is the most conservative of the commonly used standards for determining primary topic. Not only that, but the magazine is about painting technique, how to mix up new colors and so forth. So it's pretty iffy as an encyclopedic topic. I am sure traffic for the film will decline as time goes on, but that's WP:CRYSTALBALL stuff that we are warned against considering. Kauffner (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

A couple of points...

1. The film was shot in the early more square format and this should be mentioned in the article somewhere. But is it 1:1.33 whixh was commonly used for silent movies, or Academy ratio?

2. Under Production it says "Both the cast and crew were mixed French and American." A very sloppy sentence which could be taken as hints at inter-breeding (lol) but presumably means that the crew and the cast were of those nationalities. Which is news to Malcolm McDowell (English)and Bérénice Bejo (Agentine/French) and, almost certainly, several of the minor cre members. An, though perhaps not strictly "crew", the music was by Richard Middleton (English) Emeraude (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

More Balanced

I think a little bit of balance is in order. This article reads like an advertisement or a propaganda piece. Something like the following by LEONARD MALTIN would be helpful: "... I’ve spoken to several film-buff friends who came away from the film feeling disappointed. I can understand why: at this point it’s been praised to the skies, and people—especially old-movie aficionados—are going to see it with outsized expectations." http://blogs.indiewire.com/leonardmaltin/awards-season-backlashalready

And let's face it, Leonard Maltin is a reasonable person to quote. Much more reasonable than the non-entities quoted in the article.

I was interested in seeing the film but this article in Wikipedia really turned me off. It's lack of balance and its praise from obscure critics makes me really doubt that I'd enjoy the film. Maybe it's a great film, but, like I said, this article really turned me off. 75.48.23.112 (talk) 02:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree it needs more balanced reviews. Don't let the bias put you off seeing this (or any) film. I seldom pay attention to reviews to any films. Lugnuts (talk) 08:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Why don't you change it if it bothers you? It will be difficult to find a very negative review about this movie since most critics according to Rotten Tomatoes gave a favorable review. In the 4 negative ones there is Slant Magazine, maybe you could mention them ;-) --Sofffie7 (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
It is sad in the extreme that anyone should be influenced to see or not see a film because of Wikipedia! This is an encyclopaedia, not a film reviewer. Emeraude (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm reminded of an old story I just made up about a theatregoer who meets a critic one day. "Did you read my review of George Bloggs's new play?" asks the critic. "Good heavens, no," says the other. "If I read your reviews I'd know which plays I wasn't supposed to like." Lee M (talk) 03:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Accolades

Since the award season isn't yet finished and The Artist already has many nominations, I think it will be soon time to make a seperate page :) --Sofffie7 (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's a good idea. Maybe I can't see for looking, but hasn't this film been nominated for some Golden Globe awards too? Lugnuts (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes indeed the film has been has been nominated for something like 6 awards. I thought it had already been written in the table. --Sofffie7 (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Just a note to say that some editors are changing the pendings to won/nominated, without updating any source. They might have a source to say it's going for x number of awards, but nothing to ref the outcome. Lugnuts (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Actually I was wondering today if we should put a reference for the outcome and if we do, what about the first ref? Should we remove it because it's not necessary anymore -it goes without saying that if the film won a certain award, it means it had been previously nominated... - or should we keep it anyway? --Sofffie7 (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I guess it depends on how detailed the source is on the outcome. If it lists all the outcomes, then yes, replace the original source with that one. Otherwise, keep the original ref and add the outcome one as well. I'll do some work on the minor award categories over the next few days. Lugnuts (talk) 07:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
A good example is the Alliance of Women Film Journalists section. The outcomes don't list that the film was nominated for Best Actor/Supporting Actress (just who won overall), so I've left in the original ref to the nomination list along with adding a new one for the outcomes. Lugnuts (talk) 08:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Dedication

At the very end of the movie, after the credits (I believe), the film cuts to a picture of a man with a dedication (after his name) which includes the phrase "The classiest man in the world". Unfortunately, I don't remember the name of the person to whom the film was dedicated (and I didn't immediately recognize it), or I would add it to the article. I also can't find any other note of this dedication, though my Google-fu is definitely lacking in many areas. I haven't seen any mention of it here, but as I won't have a chance to see it again anytime soon, I'm noting its existence here in the hopes that someone else can sit through the credits when watching it and make a note of the contents of the dedication. (Also, sorry if this is a bit rambling and grammatically creative; I'm exhausted at the moment, but wanted to note this before I forgot). Magicmonkeybob (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The man's name is Kamel Ech-Cheikh. He and Ludovic Bource composed the music for Hazanavicius's OSS 117: Cairo, Nest of Spies together. In an interview Bource also described Ech-Cheikh as "one of Michel’s childhood friends" and explains that it was through knowing Ech-Cheikh that he first met Hazanavicius.[1] I'll leave to others the question of whether this is a significant enough fact to include in the article or if it is just trivia, but that's who he is. 99.192.56.116 (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Drama? Comedy? Romance? What kind of film is it?

I notice there has been some back and forth about how to describe the film in the first line of this page. It strikes me that editors making various changes are relying on their own opinion of what the film is, which is a WP:NOR problem. I have not done extensive research on what credible sources say about the matter, but (1) The only two awards it was nominated for that put dramas and comedies in different categories (The Golden Globes and The American Cinema Editors Awards) both counted the film as a comedy, not a drama; (2) The official website for the film describes it as "mixing comedy, romance, and melodrama"; (3) Rotten Tomatoes website categorizes the film as "Drama, Romance, Comedy"; (4) Metacritic categorizes it as just a "Romance". I would suggest that all three terms be used as RT lists them, since sources seem to think all three apply. "Drama" is the least well supported term from my very brief check, so if any one of the three should be left out it is that one. 99.192.49.210 (talk) 13:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I actually first put drama, comedy and romance in as the main genres, but then someone kept getting rid of it so I changed it to drama romance which suits the film more than romantic comedy. The film is more drama than comedy, if it wasn't then there wouldn't be a attempted suicide scene and for him to almost die in a fire. But I'm fine for it to be classed as a '2011 Drama Romantic Comedy film' as I originally put it. Charlr6 (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest avoiding "romantic" and using "romance" for four reasons: (1) It's the form of the word that the three sources I found use (none of them use "romantic"); (2) Grammatically "romance" is the parallel term to "drama" and "comedy" - "romantic" is the parallel to "dramatic" and "comedic"; (3) Avoiding the word "romantic" avoids the confusion that the film is being called a "romantic comedy", which is a single description and different from saying it is a romance and a comedy; (4) The Wikipedia page that should be wikilinked to is called "Romance film", not "Romantic film". 99.192.49.210 (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Just been thinking about it, but even though it should be Romance Drama Comedy, that doesn't word well on the tongue, even though the equivalent to drama and comedy is dramatic and comedic, its more likely you would say romantic comedy drama film than romantic comedic dramatic and romance comedy drama. So I propose that we still keep it to 'romantic' as it does slip off the tongue better. And actually romance films on Wikipedia don't say 'romance film' or 'romance science fiction' etc, they just say 'romantic film' or 'romantic science-fiction'. Like I said, it slips off the tongue better and works better, even though the correct term would 'romance drama comedy' film like you said, it works better (and by the look of it any other Wikipedia film with romance in does say 'romantic film', not 'romance film'). There are some cases where romance is acceptable, for example Titanic's page says "epic romance and disaster film". That works better than 'epic romantic and disaster film'. But just say to yourself 'romance comedy drama film' and 'romantic comedy drama film', maybe even 'epic romance and disaster film' and 'epic romantic and disaster film' and tell me what works better on the tongue. "Romantic comedy drama film' works better for The Artist and "epic romance and disaster film" works better for Titanic. Charlr6 (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
The movie is actually a fine balance of drama, comedy, and romance (the latter being better than romantic). There is no problem of near suicides and fires for dramatic climaxes in comedies; I’m sure examples can be found. In any case, the very concept of making a ‘’silent’’ movie in a ‘’sound’’ movie environment is humorous. Those sound effects in the Valentin’s nightmare were surrealistically funny, just as people talking and no voices can be heard or understood – brilliantly sad and funny! Alandeus (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
The only reason I changed it to just two genres; Romantic Drama film was because before when I put Romantic Drama Comedy someone deleted it to just two genres, and I was afraid they would do it again otherwise I would have put in all three genres. Charlr6 (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

And look at that, after I put "Romantic Comedy Drama" back in, someone gets rid of it to just two genres this time. This time its changed to Romantic Drama. Like I said, a couple of days ago I put it to Romantic Comedy Drama film, then someone got rid of it and I just changed it to Romantic Drama and then this discussion gets started off where I say what I originally done and no one is against putting Romantic Comedy Drama in so then I put it back in, only to discover its changed again. I'm putting it back in. It's not just TWO genres, its three very specific genres in one. Charlr6 (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

You need to source it. Just by adding it in, doesn't make it so. It has comic elements, but it is not a comedy. Lugnuts (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
If you look at what has been said above I originally put it to romantic comedy drama, then it got put down. It got changed to romantic comedy, I changed it to romantic drama and gave the exact same reason as you are giving now as to why it isn't a complete comedy. I only changed it back to Romantic Comedy Drama as thats what people on this discussion were happy with, even though it is much more of a Romantic Drama film than a Romantic Comedy or a Drama Comedy. And you don't need to source every genre for a film when the film would the source itself. But look above, I believe it is more of a Romantic Drama film than Romantic Comedy Drama, but as people here were happy with Romantic Comedy Drama, thats why I changed back to that. But read above at the discussion. Someone somewhere gave a link to how Rotten Tomatoes class it as Romantic Comedy Drama, and how it should be a comedy because Golden Globes classed it as it, even though they classed the more Drama film "The Tourist" as a comedy. But read above and you will see I'm on the side more for Romantic Drama than Romantic Comedy Drama, as like you said it has comedic elements, but isn't a complete comedy. Charlr6 (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Lugnuts, your assessment of the film is OR. I have just added several sources for the categorization, so please let it go. You don't have to think it's a comedy if you don't want to, but when critics, press associations, and professional guilds all call it a comedy that's more than enough for sourcing. 99.192.56.116 (talk) 19:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC) (=99.192.49.210)
I know you are talking to Lugnuts, but even though I don't class it fully as a comedy, I was happy to class it as all three, thats why I edited it to romantic comedy drama three times. Charlr6 (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
That's super. For your next task, try to master inline refs, rather than slapping a load of bare URLs in. Lugnuts (talk) 10:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 February 2012

The Artist is a French film. The only language it contains is French. It deserves to be considered as such.

69.204.108.178 (talk) 06:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The very first line says it is a French film--Jac16888 Talk 12:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Non R-rated?

  • "... the first non R-rated film to win Best Picture since 2004's Million Dollar Baby"
I think it means that it was the first non R-rated film to not win a Oscar for Best Picture since Million Dollar Baby. As Avatar won Best Picture Drama at Golden Globes didn't it, and that was only 3 years ago, but that was PG-13 rating. Charlr6 (talk) 15:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
This. Lugnuts (talk) 15:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The Artist is Not a Silent Picture

I edited the introduction-- The Artist was described as a silent film, but it's really only in the silent style for a significant portion; it's still a talkie because it has dialogue and synchronized sound. Asauers (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't you write that The Artist is a "mute film"? It has synchronized sound, but no dialogue, therefore it's mute. (I will not edit the introduction myself, because I am not sure "mute film" is understandable in English, which is not my language.). Seudo (talk) 13:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

How about saying "while mostly silent, it does have some scenes of dialogue"Charlr6 (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, it does not have any scene of dialogue (unless you mean dialogues written in intertitle...), but only music and maybe some extra noises. That is why I said mute (but not silent). Seudo (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
It has one scene with dialogue, right at the end. Lugnuts (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone has changed it to "Silent Film". I'm going to change it back. Just thought I'd let you all know. Even though he has put sources to why it is, there is two scenes featuring diegetic sound which the characters and ourselves hear. That takes away the 'silent film' aspect, thats not my opinion that is a fact. A silent film has to be complete silent. A talkie is any movie with voices in it or sound effects. There is no talking for the first six minutes of Alien but there is talking afterwards, wouldn't class it Silent Film just because of the no dialogue in the beginning. The film features dialogue and diegetic sound. Charlr6 (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

After changing it back Alandeus has reverted it back and added in "(ISAN 0000-0002-E9E4-0000-6-0000-0000-J)" which appears extremely awkward and out-of-place in the article. I have never seen anything like that on Wikipedia for films. But in the edit which you will see they said 'IS basically a silent film (even mentioned as such in silent), and is promoted as such despite the few words at the end. Can ISAN go elsewhere?)'.
It may very well be a silent film, and I'm pretty sure all of us would describe it as a silent film and if we want to we would mention the few scenes with actual sound. But the film may very well be stylised as a 'silent film' and mentioned about it being so, of course it would be mentioned in articles just like how we would describe the film when telling people about it. But we all know that it contains dialogue in the end and actual sound in the nightmare sequence. This takes away the fact of it being a 'silent film'. I can see why some people would want to add it in, I can but as it contains a few scenes of sound that we hear from the actual world the characters live in. Infact, the nightmare scene could be classed as it being meta-diegetic, for those who don't know it means sound that is only experience from one character to show their emotions. And oneiric sound, which is Greek from the greek 'relating to dreams' and shows imaginary sound in a way. Even though the most imagined sound in the nightmare is when the feather touches the floor and there is a sound of explosion.
But I will leave it happily for now as "2011 French silent romantic comedy drama film" until further discussions about what we should class are on here. Charlr6 (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
With all respect, saying this is NOT a silent film is the most stupid thing I've ever seen argued on here. Lugnuts (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


I gave reasons why it shouldn't be classed as one. On Wikipedia itself, the very website we are on it says "A silent film is a film with no synchronized recorded sound, especially with no spoken dialogue". The film has two characters speaking at the end, the director and then finally George. And also the 'synchronised recorded sound' is from the nightmare sequence of the sounds of the items he touches and the dog barks, the women laugh. Is that not synchronised recorded sound? And is the dialogue at the end not dialogue? It is already synchronised recorded sound and dialogue, the only way it wouldn't be is if the composer cleverly mixed sounds of instruments to make it sound like the objects in the nightmare scene and the dialogue at the end and not make it sound obviously composed. But that isn't what happened.
With all respect, people believing it IS a silent film don't understand that a silent film "is a film with no synchronized recorded sound, especially with no spoken dialogue". There being synchronised recorded sound and spoken dialogue stops the film being a "silent film" as it features SYNCHRONISED RECORDED SOUND and SPOKEN DIALOGUE.
If someone created a film set in modern day, filmed in colour, about a man who was deaf and the director chose to feature just music over the top and then when there would be 'dialogue' scenes that would be characters talking in sign language and we see what they are saying in subtitles at the bottom of the screen. And then the final few scenes show the main deaf character getting some special treatment to make him hear. It is successful and he can now hear at the end of the film and we can hear characters talking for the first time. If the director didn't class or mention or advertise it as being a silent film, it would still be a talkie and we wouldn't go and call it a silent film because most of the film was silent. It doesn't matter how much spoken dialogue or recorded sound there is in a film. There could be one sentence of dialogue and one scene of sound while the rest of it is 'silent', it wouldn't be classed as a 'talkie'.
"A silent film is a film with no synchronized recorded sound, especially with no spoken dialogue." Note 'synchronised recorded sound' and 'spoken dialogue' and tell me if this film does not contain either of this, which it does and any viewer of the film will noticed unless they have a toilet break at both scenes or turn it off early. Charlr6 (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
"If someone created a film set in modern day, filmed in colour, about a man who was deaf and...." Superb research. Plenty of sources to say this is silent. Two small scenes with sound doesn't suddenly make this a non-silent film. Lugnuts (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
You totally missed my point. And it was an example that I created to prove a point. I don't see you finding sources and research about how two scenes featuring true sound still makes it a silent film. It's breaking the definition. It is NOT that hard to understand. Here is my EXAMPLE in a shorter way. A director makes a movie set in modern day about a deaf man and the movie is silent to show his perspective of the world from being deaf. The film features music over the top to show emotions at different scenes. The dialogue in the film is shown from sign language and we have subtitles at the bottom. At the end of the movie from technology he is able to hear, and then for the first time in the film we hear real life sounds. The director, crew and studio do not advertise it as being a silent film, not even a slight reference. We wouldn't class it as a silent film just because most of it features no sound, it would feature dialogue and synchronised sound JUST like the Artist does, but the only reason you and most people want to class it as a silent film, is because of it being in the style of a silent film. The film is meant to be set in 1927, but we wouldn't say it was made in 1927. If an American film company decided to make a movie in the style of Bollywood films featuring similar dancing, singing, costumes, set designs and story, we wouldn't say it is a Bollywood film just because of it being in the style of one. It's still an American film. But the Artist is in the style of a 'silent film' but the sound in the movie stops it from being a 'silent film'. It is NOT that hard to understand. Look at the definition of 'silent film' on Wikipedia which is the exact same as what I put in as I copied it over. Charlr6 (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, why don't you simply edit the article to describe these talking scenes ? (which are so important that I don't remember them and few people mention them).

You could describe the movie as "mostly silent" and add a footnote about the barking dog and the two or three words at the end (see examples in the introduction of Silent movie or La Jetée which is "constructed almost entirely from still photos"). Seudo (talk) 18:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Why don't I simply edit the article? Because I know that it will get reverted, either soon after or in a couple of days. I already changed the film from "French silent film" to just "French film" but it got edited back. And it already mentions these in the article. If you look up at the top of this discussion I did say that we could say in the article that the film is mostly silent. And there is no need for sarcasm, these scenes are actually important to the film as one is a nightmare sequence about how silent films will be turned into talkies and the final scene shows two characters talking and we can actually hear them. These scenes are important also because it stops the film from being classed as a "Silent film", someone on the edit list page even said that it should be classed as a silent film just because it is mentioned on the Silent Film page on Wikipedia. Charlr6 (talk) 19:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Charlr6, you are such a purist. Your edit in the style of a silent film is a good compromise though. Just because there's maybe 1% audible dialogue at the end doesn’t negate that The Artist is basically a silent movie. It is the general silence characteristic that gives this movie its special charm. Your extensive explanation is rather interesting. However, as an opposing example, a brief humorous scene in a drama does not make a drama not a drama (see comic relief in Shakespeare) or a brief fight in a love story not a love story. Besides, in the old days, silent movies weren't completely silent anyways: there were accompanying pianists, orchestras, or even sound effects as part of the overall entertainment experience. By the way, I didn't put that ISAN number in and am glad that it has been moved away. Alandeus (talk) 08:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was you by the edit list page, must have mis-read. I know in the 'old days' silent films had pianists, orchestras and even a few sound effects. I never said they didn't and I never said that Silent films were strictly silent. Silent films featured no 'diegetic' sound, ever. For example "The Jazz Singer" was one of the first 'talkies' but is still classed as a 'talkie' and not a 'silent film' even though it features scenes of silent dialogue in it. But the definition of a silent film has always and always will be a film with no audible sound from the world of the characters such as if a character was typing on a typewriter we wouldn't hear the noise, we wouldn't hear him breathing, we wouldn't hear the characters wife if he wants a coffee or cup of tea to drink. The only sound would be music over the top of the film for the soundtrack. The closest thing for a silent film to have actual sound is when a character is supposed to be playing a instrument or in "the Phantom of the Opera" when the soundtrack to the film is similar to what you would expect the music played in that scene to be, but as there is no effects on the sound to make the music sound like the instrument is being played in a small room or large hall, doesn't fully class it as the actual sound featured in the film because the pianist in the theatre would create his own music for the film, each film in each different screen would differ with its soundtrack.
Thank you for understanding what I am saying. But with the examples you are using, such as a brief humours scene in a drama does not make a drama a drama. What do you mean by that? Like a brief scene with dialogue in a silent film does not make the silent film a 'talkie'? Because if the case the example would be better like 'a brief humorous scene in a drama does not make it a comedy'. But about silent films, you can't change the definition of a silent film still being a silent film just because it features dialogue and audible sound. If you look up a silent film definition, and I have, it will say that it doesn't feature any 'synchronised recorded sound and especially dialogue, except a non-diegetic soundtrack'. The Artist however has both of these, a scene of synchronised recorded sound and a scene of dialogue, which takes away the aspect of a 'silent film' being a 'silent film'.
But once again thanks for at least understanding what I was saying. Charlr6 (talk) 09:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


It is probably worth noting that the director Hazanavicius is pretty adamant that what he has made is a silent film, which ought to count for something. And it is worth noting that synchronized recorded sound did NOT mean a film in the silent era was not still considered a silent film. Indeed BOTH of the best picture winners from 1927 (Wings and Sunrise) are widely acclaimed as silent films and BOTH had synchronized sound that was a part of the film. There are generally considered to be two categories: silent and talkies. But there were silent films experimenting with sound for quite some time before there were talkies which added dialogue -- and they are definitely still considered part of the silent genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cygnature (talk • contribs) 13:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

French?

Are we sure this is a French film? I rather thought it was Belgian. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 07:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Directed by a Frenchman, with French leads, distributed via a French company. Sound French to me. The Cannes page lists it as being French. If there is a source for any Belgian involvement, then it can be updated if it's true. Lugnuts (talk) 10:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I'll have to look into it more, but "Brussels" and "Flanders" both appeared prominently (and repeatedly) in the credits when I went and saw it last night. KevinOKeeffe (talk)
For the record, IMDB lists both "France" and "Belgium" under "Country." And it first premiered (outside of film festivals) in Belgium. So I think its likely it has a somewhat ambiguous status. The people of southern Belgium are ethnically French, after all. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea what that last sentence is supposed to mean. The film is French with some US and British actors in it. A couple of minor financial backers are Belgian. Mezigue (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, the whole press in general refer to the film as a French film. I've never read in the press before yesterday there was any Belgian involvement in the film (except that the soundtrack was produced in Brussels). However, in a yesterday's article from The Guardian, The Artist was once mentioned as a Franco-Belgian film "It is most remarkable of course for featuring Michel Hazanavicius's The Artist, a Franco-Belgian film about the coming of sound to Hollywood, [...]." See here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/jan/29/oscars-2012-critics-nominations-artist Is it because of the soundtrack? --Sofffie7 (talk) 11:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh and if you go to the Artist's official website in the section "Cast & Crew", "See Crew", you'll read just under Michel Hazanavicius (Writer/Director/Editor) THE ARTIST is the first American film by acclaimed French writer/director Michel Hazanavicius. So yes, there's a lot to be confused about ^^ --Sofffie7 (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
The comment in The Guardian by Philip French needs sourcing - it reads as his opinion about it being Franco-Belgian - how does he know this? And yes, the official website doesn't help! Maybe we should be silent on this.... I'm here all week. Lugnuts (talk) 11:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I had been very confused about this issue, as well, until I stumbled upon this Foreign Policy article. It addresses the confusion and clears it up. "The Artist ... was an American film -- even though a Frenchman wrote and directed it, another Frenchman produced it with French money, and a Frenchman and Frenchwoman are the two leads. The Artist ... has a chance to become the first non-Anglo-Saxon film ever to win the Best Oscar Picture." Additionally, as someone else pointed out, its official website states it as "American" film. Therefore, this film should be stated as American or American-French / French-American. I'll rename it as American until we can settle this. -- chulk90/discuss/contributions 00:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
This movie is definitely not American. It was produced with French money, directed by a French director with mainly French actors. Weinstein states it's an "American" movie because it would be impossible for a movie labelled as purely French to win the Academy Award (as explains the article you quote—you should read it again). Encolpe (talk) 05:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I fully understand your point. They have re-branded the film as American to appeal to the American critics and be nominated for Oscars. However, we must remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Its articles are supposed to state official facts, not opinions. We can put the "French" argument in either footnotes or a subsection for controversies, but not on the summary page. -- chulk90/discuss/contributions 21:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Interesting discussion... Just because the official page reads it's an American film, does it make it one ? As an encyclopedia, shouldn't we try to sort out the facts and not just append contradicting sources ? The article at its present state is self contradictory, it qualifies the film first as American, then French. I think we should pick a side, or settle for French-American, but at least be cleat about this.--WikiJuL (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm fine w/ French-American or just getting rid of the country of origin from the article. The article had remained as French-American for a while, and then the country of origin was deleted, and then "French" reappeared. -- chulk90/discuss/contributions 23:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Dear friends, i don't know how this is debatable. This is a french movie because it was produced by french studios - all sources prove it. The Weinstein company is the distributor of the movie on US soil. Funnily, Midnight in Paris from woody Allen is the mirror of the Artist but no one is debating about its french or american origin, it is american cause it was american studios who paid. As Chulk90 stated Wikipedia follows state official facts and this is a fact. One of the source used in this article is from the festival de Cannes and it is unambigous. You can check also the IMDb database [2]. It is clear. So Culk90 changed it back, please. Mikael, 22:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.122.215.73 (talk)
As Lugnuts had pointed out on 02:42, February 27, 2012, IMDb is not considered a reliable source. It's user-built like Wikipedia. If you want the official fact, visit The Artist's official website, which states that it's in fact an American film. Here's its screencapt. -- chulk90/discuss/contributions 23:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
The film is cited as American with dubious and even wrong sources. First one only mentions a battle whether to consider it French or American, this one doesn't mention that it's American, while this one even mentions that it's a French film.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
The second link (official website) does mention that it's an American film. Go to Cast & Crew -> See Crew -> Michel Hazanavicius. Then you will see this. -- chulk90/discuss/contributions 23:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

This strikes me as sophisticated trolling disguised as an attempt to adhere to Wikipedia policies. I don't see how else User:Chulk90 could revert edits calling this a French film while citing to such as "vandalism." There are references littered all over the press referring to this as a French film or French production. Here's one: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/02/reporting-from-paris-the-french-woke-up-to-a-historic-moment-in-their-film-history-with-a-record-breaking-slew-of-oscar-f.html. As set forth by User:Kiril Simeonovski, the cited sources for the proposition that this is an "American" film are highly dubious. It's a travesty that this faux debate is being brought up right after the film won a bunch of Oscars, including Best Picture, and it should be dealt with immediately.TempDog123 (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Totally agreed.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Vandalism did occur by 91.39.87.152 here (see history). Tbhotch and I warned the user to stop deliberately removing tags and citations (which he blatantly ignored), and Arbero and I had undone the revisions made by 91.39.87.152. -- chulk90/discuss/contributions 23:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I've now added several reliable sources - including the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, CNN, and Bloomberg Businessweek - referring to this movie as a French film. TempDog123 (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
That's better. But what are we going to do w/ its official website's claim that it's an American film? -- chulk90/discuss/contributions 23:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm creating footnotes on the item. Let me know if you have any other opinions. -- chulk90/discuss/contributions 23:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Clearly state that the official site wrongfully presents it as an American film for unclear reasons, and in obvious contradiction with the facts ?--WikiJuL (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Look, here's one thing that I have been reminding people: it is not our right to determine whether something is right or wrong. This is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is not an op-ed or a column. We simply don't have the right to do so. In addition, the website was created by the very team who produced the film. It's analogous to telling the French that their national language is not French and they have been wrong about it. -- chulk90/discuss/contributions 23:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
The Weinstein Company's website (which BTW is the U.S. DISTRIBUTION COMPANY and not the PRODUCTION COMPANY - very important distinction) is a primary source which is generally disfavored in place of secondary sources. That Foreign Policy article, cited to by yourself, states that it was mentioned as an American film purely for branding and marketing purposes. That said, I am less inclined to fight on the subject of labeling it a joint French/American film and will leave it for others to decide that issue, but removing the French label entirely is nonsensical. TempDog123 (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
TempDog123 is right. Anyway, Chuck, we should not even have a debate here. Everybody agrees on the fact this movie is French. The only source stating otherwise is the one of the American distribution company... Encolpe (talk) 03:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Film, not movie. Lugnuts (talk) 07:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Is there any real difference? (I'm not a native speaker) Encolpe (talk) 04:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Why wouldn't calling it "French-American" solve the problem? — the Man in Question (in question) 02:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I haven't read this "French" part before. But I have read the last few comments and it seems that maybe "French-American" would solve the problem. I see it as this way, the director is French, but, and this is a paraphrase "it was my first American film", not clearly stating exactly what he means, but they filmed it in America, then so maybe that side of it would be classed as American? And in the film the dialogue spoken is English, there are also some English and American actors. But how I usually see films and what country they belong to is if the director and the writer are French, for example and was funded mostly by a French company, then it would be a French film. I saw something about the website stating it is an American film but the people who produced the website produced some of the film too? Well they wouldn't make a mistake on an official website. It's the official website. Charlr6 (talk) 07:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Predominantly it is cited as a French film only. If it was filmed in America, it does't necessarily mean we should consider it an American film. Many other films are made with scenes in different countries, but produced by a company from a single country. The only way to consider it a "French-American" is to have a such co-production, because the lead states what is the origin of the film with the company that produced it. Director's statement is too vague to conclude he meant the film should be consider an American film. What if he was only satisfied with the fact to have produced a film in America or if he just wanted to thank for the cooperation with some of the American actors starring in?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
You know I wasn't giving my opinion on thoughts of it like absolute fact and I don't appreciate it when people think I was even though I wasn't written it like fact at all. But whichever studio gave the film is budget, then if its a French studio, then it should be classed as a French film, if it was an American studio that gave it its money, then we call it American. Charlr6 (talk) 14:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

John Gilbert?

I removed a paragraph from the article for John Gilbert (actor) (see the edit summary). It claims that this film is based on this actor. I couldn't find anything to back this up though. With a passing resemblance to the lead actor, the whole thing looks like WP:OR to me. Lugnuts (talk)

The film has been linked to John Gilbert by the Chicago Tribune, the populist British Empire magazine, and The New York Observer. The connection is too slight to be mentioned in the Gilbert article, even allowing for reliable sources, but has certainly been commented upon. Philip Cross (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm, interesting - thanks Philip. Worth mentioning in this article? Lugnuts (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Probably, but only in passing. Philip Cross (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Gilbert's not the only one - there are unquestionable parallels to Douglas Fairbanks as well. I think it's worth mentioning both these two, if they can be sourced. --Lobo512 (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
The story of Gilbert is linked with the story of G. Valentin. Gilbert failled to be a good talking actor in 1929. Later, in 1933, Greta Garbo imposed him to L. B Mayer (who didn't like him) for Queen Christina (film). He was in love with Garbo before the talkies and she wanted to save his career. These are the similitudes with The Artist. This is mentionned (not in details), in this french link [3] where, in an english-speaking video, John Anderson remind Gilbert and Garbo as a reference of the movie. See also The New York Observer).--Noel Olivier (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

non-diegetic

What does "non-diegetic" mean? --Nbauman (talk) 07:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

See Diegesis. Dru of Id (talk) 07:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
It means sound that isn't visible on screen or even implied in the actual scene. Examples of the sound are narrator's commentary, music (for dramatic effect). It basically means ANY sound that the characters do not hear, only the audience. Thought I'd tell you instead of you having to stomp your way through an article. Now that I've told you anyway, here is a website that might help you more. Charlr6 (talk) 07:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I read the Diegesis link and still couldn't figure it out.
Wikipedia is supposed to be written for the ordinary reader, not the expert in the field. WP:TECHNICAL The introduction in particular should be easy to understand. Technical terms, if they're used at all, should be defined. A link to a definition is not sufficient. Do you think the average reader knows the meaning of "non-diegetic"? --Nbauman (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd agree with what Nbauman wrote. I improved the wikilink for "non-diegetic" but am not comfortable that "diegetic" is in the lead as most English language readers will not be familiar with it. I have not seen the film but would this wording work? "Most of the film itself is silent, except for the musical score;" --Marc Kupper|talk 23:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
A link to the definition is sufficient as its gives the proper meaning in few words instead of the reader having to read through the whole page to try and find it. But Diegetic is sound that characters here, it the real sound like what you should hear as you are reading this. Non-diegetic is music which the characters won't hear unless it is a comedy and they break the fourth wall and cleverly mention it such as in Monty Python and the Holy Grail for an example. Charlr6 (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Nope. A link to the definition is not sufficient. Technical language says, "Avoid excessive wikilinking (linking within Wikipedia) as a substitute for parenthetic explanations such as the one in this sentence." Wikipedia is written for the non-technical reader, and the introduction in particular should not use terms that the ordinary reader wouldn't understand.
Furthermore, even after I followed the link to Diegesis, I still couldn't figure out what "non-diegetic" meant. I think I understand it now, but the explanation in the link isn't clear.
It should go without saying that you shouldn't write anything that your reader doesn't understand. What's the point of writing something that your reader doesn't understand? They won't finish reading it.
If the concept of non-diegesis is important enough for the introduction, I think you should explain it -- that the sound track doesn't describe what the actors hear, or whatever -- without using the unfamiliar word "non-diegesis" itself.
But since the purpose of the introduction is to summarize the article below, and the article itself doesn't discuss "non-diegesis," then it doesn't belong in the introduction at all. And that's not my opinion, those are Wikipedia WP:MOS guidelines. --Nbauman (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Wait did you think I was going to edit that link in I gave in here onto the actual article? And I linked it to you as you wanted to know what it means. Why should I explain it? You wanted to know what it means and I gave you the answer. I didn't write the "diegesis" article. I was telling you way "non-diegetic" means. And you said that I should "avoid excessive wikilinking", I linked it to that website ONCE to help you understand what it meant. But I never wrote the Wikipedia article on it. What I wrote on here is exactly what it means. Simple as, I don't get what all the hassle on this is about.Charlr6 (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, I'll explain. These are the Wikipedia rules that we follow.
Please read WP:JARGON "Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader, when more common alternatives will do."
"Non-diegesis" is a specialized word. More common alternatives will do. For that reason alone, "non-diegesis" should go out.
Please read Know your audience "Wikipedia is not primarily aimed at experts; therefore, the level of technical detail in its articles must be balanced against the ability of non-experts to understand those details."
Non-experts won't understand what "non-diegesis" means. For that reason alone, "non-diegesis" should go out.
Please read WP:LEAD "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects."
The lead should summarize the important aspects of the article. "Non-diegesis" is not an important aspect of the article; in fact it doesn't appear at all in the body of the article. For that reason alone, "non-diegesis" should go out.
Those are three reasons why the term "non-diegesis" should not go in the summary, according to Wikipedia rules. Do you think we should ignore all these rules? If so, why? --Nbauman (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
What is your problem? What am I saying that you are not getting? Can you please read what I am saying and not just make up stories for what I am doing?
I DIDN'T write the "diegesis' Wikipedia article, you wanted to know what it means. YOU asked on the talk page what it means and I TOLD you and send you a link to help you, that features more information about diegetic and non-diegetic. I never wrote the article on Wikipedia, can you please remember that now and not keep responding with statements and rules of wikipedia as I have done nothing wrong!
No offence but can you please get it into your head that I did nothing wrong and all I was doing was trying to help you. You wanted to know what it meant, and I told you. No offence but you are acting silly and stupid and it seems like you are not reading anything I am saying.
You said "What does "non-diegetic" mean?" and I replied "It means sound that isn't visible on screen or even implied in the actual scene. Examples of the sound are narrator's commentary, music (for dramatic effect). It basically means ANY sound that the characters do not hear, only the audience. Thought I'd tell you instead of you having to stomp your way through an article. Now that I've told you anyway, here is a website that might help you more."
In any of that did I say I wrote the Wikipedia article? In this discussion have I not followed any Wikipedia rules? No! Stop blaming me for the way the article is set out as I never wrote it and neither is it my job to like you seem to imply it is.
For the last time, ALL I DID, WAS TELL YOU WHAT YOU WANTED TO KNOW! I then linked you to a website with other information about it that would help you! If you continue this I will take it as some personal attack as nothing in what I have said has implied that I wrote the article, all I was doing was helping you and you are criticising me about the Wikipedia article and giving me links and quotes of the rules of Wikipedia when I have done nothing wrong. If you want to discuss what should be on the page, then go onto that page's talk page, stop replying back to me as if it's my job and its my fault that you didn't understand the article. I clearly told you on here what it means and sent you a link. Charlr6 (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I am saying that the word "non-diegetic" does not belong in the introduction to this article. It violates several Wikipedia rules, which I listed. I offered to let anyone explain why they thought it does not violate those rules, and nobody did. I am now going to remove it, because the consensus is that it violates the above Wikipedia rules. --Nbauman (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Oops, somebody beat me to it. It's already out of the introduction, and is in the body where it belongs. I'll leave it to somebody else to explain in the body what it means.--Nbauman (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Similarities with the Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode "Hush"

Maybe Charlr6 can explain why this link should be included? I can't wait to hear from you. Lugnuts (talk)

Because like the other two editors said it's relevant as it has a similar theme to it. You deleted it with the only reason being "good god, no" from that it sounds like you possibly don't like Buffy the Vampire Slayer (I'm not that keen on the show either so I'm not keeping it in just because I'm a fan or anything) or you just do not like the connection. If you said something more professional like "Isn't relevant to article" then that would have been fine, but you said "good god, no" which comes across a lot like a personal hate towards the edit. But it was in the "See Also" section, and anything can go in there from being highly similar to almost. The editor who edited the "Buffy" link in gave a good reason for why it should be included. It was "mixes the techniques of silent films with contemporary storytelling". Which is a professionally Wikipedia way of saying it, instead of just simply "it has a similar theme". If they had lazily put in the edit with a lazy description on the actual article, I would fully understand why you would delete it. But as they wrote it properly and your reason for deleting it was simply "good god, no" shows possible personal dislike to the edit and there being a reference to Buffy the Vampire Slayer on the page.
But, I really do appreciate your professionalism on Wikipedia recently. Charlr6 (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
As I do yours, which consists of ingoring good faith by blindly reverting me, not raising the issue on the talkpage, not raising the issue on my talkpage and running off and crying on another user's talkpage. Please correct me if any of those statements are false. Oh wait, they aren't. Lugnuts (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
If the Buffy episode is appropriate to list in a "See Also" section, then that section should have hundreds of links in it. For starters, there's Schindler's List, another black-and-white film in the colour era that won the Adacemy Award for Best Picture. Then there's Zelig, Woody Allen's film that is filmed in black-and-white because it is set in the 1920s and 1930s. (And while we're at it, why not also add Broadway Danny Rose, another Woody Allen black-and-white film and Stardust Memories a black-and-white Woody Allen film that is about film making.) Then there is Mel Brooks Silent Movie, a silent film of the sound era about a man who wants to make a silent film. We could add Juha, a Finnish black-and-white and silent film made in 1999. Then we could add every film about films and every film about actors and every film that has any portion of it in black-and-white or silent and.... Why not just list every film ever made?
A "See Also" section should include only pages that have some direct relevance. If some future television show bases an episode around a parody of or tribute to The Artist, then a link to that article would make sense. But using "these two things have something vaguely in common" is a recipe for a section that has everything plus the kitchen sink in it. Schindler's List, Zelig, Stardust Memories, Silent Movie, and Juha strike me as all much stronger candidates for a "See Also" section than Buffy, but I would oppose including any of them. The link is too tenuous. 99.192.57.150 (talk) 03:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I disagree: the Buffy episode is more relevant - this isn't a case of black-and-white. It is the case of a silent film/episode done in relatively modern times, when those techniques are automatically anachronistic and, subsequently exotic and more difficult to pull off. Hush and The Artist were both praised for their inventiveness and risk-taking as well, were they not?Supervidin (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I would be in favor of adding "Juha" to the "See also" section next to Hush, along with Silent Movie, if they are indeed also modern silent films. Subsequently, their respective articles would benefit from a "See also" section as well (containing a link to this article). The similarities are not of plot, but of style.Supervidin (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. It isn't about the plot, just the style and theme. Charlr6 (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Well said. The opening paragraph of "Hush" states "Only about 17 minutes of dialogue is presented in the entire 44 minutes of "Hush"". So more than 1/3rd of the whole episode has dialgoue. A huge difference from a 90 minute film with one scene of speach. Lugnuts (talk) 10:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
"ingoring good faith"? I'm sure the comment "good god, no" was about a good faith deletion. "Schindler's List" is black and white, but doesn't have anything to do with a silent film at all. Neither do the Woody Allen films. The Mel Brooks one yes possibly. But it was relevant as it was another piece of work that featured dialogue and silence (which The Artist does too) and haves a story around it and proves that dialogue isn't always needed to create a story. Wall-e for example doesn't feature dialogue for half of the film I believe, but the first half develops a story that kids and adults can find enjoyable. If anything "Singing in the Rain" should be in the "See Also" section, even though it's a 'talkie' it is also about the transition from silent films to talkies. Charlr6 (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Charlr6: "It isn't about the plot, just the style and theme." Why? Why should works that are similar in style and theme be linked to and not ones similar in plot? Also, why does being anachronistically silent count as an acceptable style to use in a "see also" but being anachronistically black-and-white does not? That's an arbitrary distinction. Why is being about the transition from silent films to talkies a relevant "theme" but being about actors falling on hard times count? That's another arbitrary distinction. The simple fact is that once you allow one very tenuously linked item into a "see also" there are no valid grounds for keeping out hundreds of others. Adding a "see also" to "Hush" adds nothing to the article and opens the door to a lot of nonsense the article does not need. If The Simpsons does a parody episode that is silent and in black-and-white, that can be linked in a "see also", but unless there is a non-arbitrary, non-tenuous link between the other work and this film it should stay out. 99.192.79.45 (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC) (=99.192.57.150)
Did you not read what I said? I never said 'black and white' films shouldn't be included. I said that "Singin' in the Rain" (and thats colour) should possibly be included as that is about the transition from silent films to talkies. And I said that Mel Brooks' "Silent Movie" could be included in the 'see also' list. But the 'See Also' isn't just for anything related VERY similar in plot at all, which is what people on here seem to think. If it was then just "Singin' in the Rain" should be included. Charlr6 (talk) 11:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


The single most notable element of this film is that it was done in the style of a silent film. Some people do think it's the only one. The fact that there were three or four others is notable. At minimum, the "See also" section should list Silent Movie, to which it shares many similarities, as well as Juha and Hush. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Gothicfilm, your first claim is just your opinion. Many others might differ. Your second sentence might be true, but even if it is the fact that "some critics" think it's the only notable element does not contradict the claim that many others think there are more notable elements to it. But let's assume for the moment, just for the sake of argument, that there is reason to think that the items you mention are relevant enough to put in a "see also" category. There still is one more consideration to account for. According to WP:SEEALSO, such a section "should not repeat links which appear in the article's body". As it stands, there is a link to the Silent film page right in the first line of this article. You will find on that page an entire section called "Later homages". That section discusses Silent Movie, Juha, The Artist, and a whole host of other examples. People interested in other silent films of the post-silent era and other non-silent homages to silent film can go there to read all about them. So the link is redundant, even if it is otherwise a good idea.
I also noticed that this "Later homages" section mentions the television show Mr. Bean but does not mention Buffy. Perhaps those who want a Buffy mention might be better served by going to the Silent film page and adding the episode that was an homage to silent film there. 99.192.79.45 (talk) 04:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with your very last point - someone should do that. But the "See all" would only be redundant if it again listed Silent film. This is not about that whole topic, it's about listing three films done in that style since that era - which is a different, distinct subject. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
No, it's not about just listing three films. If you look at the "Later homages" section you will see that there are a dozen more films (and television) that are equally relevant if "modern day silent" is the criteria being used. Limiting the selection to just three is arbitrary. But if you are going to list them all, then it is best just to link to the "Silent film" article, which has already been done.
Also, as Charlr6 has just made explicitly clear above, there is no reason to use "modern day silent" as the criteria and not also use "modern day black-and-white" as criteria, which, if you check this list, you will see there are tons. And that does not yet include listing films about film making, films about actors, etc. It might be about just three films for you, but once the door is open there will be a line of other editors arguing that these other criteria are just as legitimate, and they will be right! I still believe that these hundreds of possible "See also" items all stand or fall together, and that they should not be included. 99.192.94.184 (talk) 13:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC) (=99.192.79.45)
Your slippery slope argument is invalid, as is your last paragraph. If WP went by your standards, the "See all" section would almost never be used. If someone later adds improper entries, it can be reverted, like anything else. The point is, if someone would like to find links to other modern day silents, it's not going to be obvious their only choice is to click on Silent film, as that is a different, distinct subject. The purpose of the "See all" is to have links that go directly to the correct pages. One might argue you could have "See all: Silent film#Later homages". I would be willing to accept that as a compromise (though I suspect you wouldn't, as you seem to want to banish any mention of similar-styled films), but I would rather list the most appropriate linked titles. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Gothicfilm, First: "Your slippery slope argument is invalid...." I didn't make a slippery slope argument. Second, "If WP went by your standards, the 'See all' section would almost never be used." Well, WP:SEEALSO does say, "many high-quality, comprehensive articles do not have a 'See also' section", so even the guidelines for such sections anticipate that they might often not be used. So I don't see the problem. Third, "If someone later adds improper entries...." This relates back to your error calling my argument a slippery slope. You have given no valid reason for thinking that modern day silent films are any more relevant to link to than modern day black-and-white films or films about film making or films about actors. So to just declare that these other things are "improper" is to beg the question.

But about your suggestion: "One might argue you could have "See all: Silent film#Later homages". I would be willing to accept that as a compromise...." Well, as I mentioned before, WP:SEEALSO says that you should not link in a "See also" section anything that is already linked to in the article, and since the "Silent film" page is already linked to, it is redundant to put it there. Your claim that I "want to banish any mention of similar-styled films" is absurd. The article already does this in the first line. Putting a link to the same page in a "See also" section is redundant and against the guidelines of WP:SEEALSO. The only thing I can see right now as a valid entry for a "See also" section would be List of black-and-white films produced since 1970, a list that contains The Artist and a page that is not otherwise already linked to in the article.

I also have just added to the article the categories "Category:Films about filmmaking" and "Category:Films about actors". If there were either a category called something like "Category: Silent films made in the sound era" or a page called "List of silent films made in the sound era" then I would support adding links to either (or both). Maybe someone should create this category or list page. 99.192.68.93 (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC) (=99.192.94.184)

Requested Move: → The Artist

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Miniapolis 21:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


The Artist (film) → The Artist – We use parenthetical disambiguation only when "natural disambiguation is not possible", per WP:PRECISION. As long as the lemma is not required for something else, a subject should be titled under its actual name. If you google "The Artist" -wikipedia, 28 of the top 30 results refer to this film. Of the other results, one is for The Artist's Magazine, and one is a partial title match. The film got 265,493 page views in the last 90 days, The Artist's Magazine 513, and The Artist (magazine) got 1,052. In short, the film got over 99.4 percent of relevant traffic. A topic is primary with respect to usage if it is, "much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term," per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Relisted. BDD (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Kauffner (talk) 03:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Survey

  • Support. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose—Since title case is often used outside, and sometimes wrongly used in WP titles, this is an invitation to confusion among readers who are searching. This change is part of a campaign to chop down article titles at whatever cost. Please stop. Tony (talk) 07:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
    Tony1, WP:NATURAL mentions red meat vs. Red Meat as an example. This is why I have supported similar moves. Is that not applicable here? Erik (talk | contribs) 12:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Tony1. Also, your point about PRECISION is not supported by your evidence, which is only about PRIMARYTOPIC. The article has the requisite precision. Primarytopicness reduces precision to less than adequateness on the basis that it is primary, not on the basis that it has adequate precision. -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 07:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:NATURAL (a section on the policy page for article titles) that mentions the example of Red Meat vs. red meat. This is why I have supported similar moves in the past, such as Hall Pass vs. hall pass. While this set of topics is not exactly the same, it seems to make sense that someone typing "The Artist" should arrive at the film article as expected. I do not recall any comments of confusion related to this type of setup, maybe because hatnotes are sufficient guiding posts. Unless this is an issue with "The"? Erik (talk | contribs) 12:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment A previous discussion can be found here. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. The film appears to be the primary topic of the title "The Artist". Other uses can be found through a hat note.Cúchullain t/c 19:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The proposal misquotes WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The actual wording is this (my underlining):

There is no single criterion for defining a primary topic. However, there are two major aspects that are commonly discussed in connection with primary topics:
A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.
...

Even if that "commonly discussed" principle is elevated to be a guideline in its own right, the proposal does not argue cogently that it determines anything for this article. "Artist", along with "the artist", has extraordinarily wide application. Entries at Artist (disambiguation) are just the beginning.
The proposal also errs in glossing over the central question, in the heading at the guideline: "Is there a primary topic?"
Well, is there in this case? How are the interests of readers served by dropping the obvious addition "(film)", leaving a bare phrase that has innumerable meanings in world culture? It is imperative to address that question, right?
NoeticaTea? 01:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
By this logic, no topic should be primary for any term. If the primary topic guideline is in fact self-canceling, what is point having it at all? An article title should inform the reader by telling him the actual name of the subject. In this case, the name of the subject is obviously The Artist, not "The Artist (film)". Yeah, I am sure most readers can figure that one out. But why make the title more confusing than necessary? Disambiguators exist on Wiki only because our software can't handle more than one instance of a given title. If you look at other reference works and sites, their entry titles don't include this kind of cruft. Kauffner (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
"By this logic ..."? No, by a transparent perversion of this logic. There is a chasm of difference between the present case, where "the artist" can mean a thousand things to our worldwide readership, and cases like London, or even She Stoops to Conquer. Time to move beyond these strawman arguments, and all such fallacious reasoning in RM discussions. We can do better, and really ought to – to maintain usability in the best encyclopedia of our time for English speakers everywhere (and everyone else, for that matter). NoeticaTea? 01:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Let me put it this way: If a reader types the search term "The Artist", the likelihood he is seeking this topic is nearly 100 percent. Yet this term redirects to a DAB. Who is this setup supposed to benefit? Kauffner (talk) 09:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose; I'm not convinced that the definite article alone is sufficient disambiguation. Besides, wasn't Prince (musician) once known simply as "The Artist" (as a shorthand for "The Artist Formerly Known As Prince")? Powers T 01:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Do you believe a significant percentage of people searching with the string "The Artist" are seeking the article on Prince, or anything besides this article? #NotFollowing --Born2cycle (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Kauffner put it quite well: "If a reader types the search term "The Artist", the likelihood he is seeking this topic is nearly 100 percent." By all means, feel free to include a hatnote to Artist, but do we really need to make it our utmost goal, when titling articles, to cater to whatever brand of incompetence would lead someone to search for "The Artist" to find the article about artists? Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support No one has even suggested anything else that someone might be seeking if they type in "The Artist" when searching (or linking for that matter). This is a no-brainer. We serve all those by taking them directly here, and inconvenience no one. This is what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is all about. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and User:Theoldsparkle. —  AjaxSmack  01:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, this is a quite notable film that's widely searched for. A hatnote to "Artist" is perfectly sufficient. The Evil IP address (talk) 11:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose – same as a year ago. See Talk:The Artist (film)/Archive 1#Requested move. Dicklyon (talk) 02:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I thought the issue was recentism a year ago. Kauffner (talk) 11:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Tony1 and Dicklyon. --Arxiloxos (talk) 08:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: Isn't the whole purpose of article titles supposed to be to enable readers to get to the article they want with the minimum amount of "running round the houses"? Nobody has managed to demonstrate that a reader entering "The Artist" is seeking anything but the film, nor that anyone seeking something other than the film is likely to enter that exact term. Skinsmoke (talk) 07:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per all the reasons stated above. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Such an obvious title should not be used for a specific article unless it's really, really obvious primary topic material. Wait a year or so and revisit, but I'm skeptical, oscar or no. Meantime leave The Artist pointing to the DAB. Andrewa (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The is not a definitive enough work to make something clearly a different subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I am not convinced that the film really overwhelmes people seeking The Artist (magazine). That is a prominent British magazine that is still in print. Films that use such common words as names should almost always be disambiguated with (film). That is a short addition and helps people immesurably.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Comment: Likewise. The film is very much flavour of the month as it has has recently made history in several ways, but it's in a niche all its own so far, and it's anyone's guess to what extent it's of lasting significance. The magazine has clear and lasting cultural significance. The disambiguators film and magazine seem helpful in all imaginable circumstances. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Plot derived directly from

Paul Auster's 2002 novel "The Book of Illusion". Which refers to the various old and true tales of silent stars with accents and funky voices and also to their more recent imitator: New York theater impresario and filmmaker Charles Ludlam, who himself slipped untimely into silence in 1987.Klasovsky (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Cite that genre

The first line of this article describes The Artist as a "romantic comedy-drama". There's no romance plot in the film. 87.112.189.206 (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.189.206 (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Aspect Ratio

The 4:3 aspect ratio was used in the 1973 winner for Best Picture ( The Sting) originally. Marty was the last 4:3 ratio best picture winner prior to 1973. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5:C080:63E:41D8:B11B:6B7:6936 (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

What reference do you have for your claim? IMDb says The Sting was 1.85:1; Wikipedia makes no mention of aspect ratio. It's more likely that the film was "open matte", i.e., it was shot at 4:3 (or technically 1.37:1 "Academy ratio") but sent to theaters with instructions to block the top & bottom for 1.85:1 projection. (Edit: By modern definition, such a film's "original aspect ratio" is 1.85:1 as it was never intended to be shown at 4:3, except possibly for TV.) Most 1.85:1 releases of that era were either that or "closed matte", i.e., blocked in the print when it was made. I know Annie Hall, Best Picture winner a few years later, was open matte; its DVD release was a "flipper disc" with the unmatted transfer as "fullscreen".
Actually, I believe even From Here to Eternity (claimed here to be the last 4:3 Best Picture) was originally open matte; it's wrongly assumed to be 4:3 because that's the only ratio Sony has used for it on home video. On the Waterfront, also open matte, was treated the same way by Sony till it was recently licensed to Criterion, who released it in three aspect ratios -- Academy ratio, 1.85:1 as originally instructed to theaters, and 1.66:1 which Criterion determined was more visually accurate. (Actually, I think the issue with both films is the 1.85:1 open matte Columbia used in 1953-54 was above center vertically, as the opening credits of both films suggest and similar to the 1.85:1 guideline for Super 35; later open matte films were centered vertically.) The last Best Picture before The Artist undeniably released in Academy ratio was 1952's The Greatest Show on Earth; it certainly wasn't made in CinemaScope (introduced earlier in 1952), and the first modern film matted to 1.85:1 was Thunder Bay in 1953 (same year as From Here to Eternity). --RBBrittain (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Artist_(film)/Archive_1&oldid=1137227413"