Talk:Begotten (film)

Featured Article Preparations

After a (premature) attempt to get this article to Featured status, there are tasks that need to be accomplished before another FA nomination will occur. The following is a list of issues pointed out by the FA reviewers, and need to be fixed:

• General paraphrasing issues found throughout the article.

• As one reviewer pointed out: "At JSTOR: From Film Comment, we have a 1991 review, a 2000 article by Michael Atkinson (mostly about Merhige's next film but with some good stuff about Begotten), inclusion in the Jan.–Feb. 2001 list of "Top 10 DVD Picks". From Cineaste, there's a review of Shadow of the Vampire that mentions Begotten only in passing; probably the only decent tidbit is a comparison of the film to Samuel Beckett, just another for the pile." - Added

• Verifying and replacing sources deemed unreliable.

• Find a reliable source to cite for Din of Celestial Birds plot.

--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Just realized some additional things that could be added to this article (depending on their noteworthy/reliability):

• There is an interview of Merhige on Jason Louv's Ultraculture podcast that gives some fascinating information on both Merhige himself and Begotten. (https://ultraculture.org/blog/2015/12/20/e-elias-merhige/)
• There are probably other audio interviews that I have not found yet but this is just a start.---Paleface Jack (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

New source

Since this last week or so, horror magazine Fangoria has published an article on Merhige recently with mentions of Begotten in it. I would add the information in it but I do not have access to the magazine so if any who does or can feel free to let me know. Paleface Jack (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• https://books.google.com/books?id=nq5IEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA110&dq=Experimental+film+Begotten&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiBx_WeyJSCAxUgIDQIHRabBHs4ChDoAXoECAUQAg#v=onepage&q=Experimental%20film%20Begotten&f=false

Images

I have been working sporadically on getting this article up to pass FA status for a while now. at the moment I am having trouble finding an appropriate and FA worthy image on Merhige cause visually it seems better to include on in the development section of the article though I cannot be entirely certain. Any help/advice on this and in regards to sources would be appreciated. Paleface Jack (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

FAC suggestions

• The film, described as "a gnostic creation myth", incorporates several different genres, including fantasy and science fiction in the series' typically grainy, black-and-white visual style - "the film" and then "the series". Described by whom

Added particulars

• Why did they decide on making it silent, and related...we need more on its visual style and influences Ceoil (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Ceoil added the reason Paleface Jack (talk) 02:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• After working on several experimental theater productions, he began development work on a theatre piece. - "Assisting on" or "producing" vs developing/writing?

Merhige Wrote: "With Begotten, I was working with a lot of actors and artists at the time, and I had a small theatre company in New York. And we were doing a lot of experimental theatre. And it was the sort of thing where I had envisioned Begotten".--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

That still doesn't explain why "after working on several theater productions" is different to "he began development work on a theater production". ie, having made several films, I made a film. Ceoil (talk) 02:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ceoil yeah. I am kinda stumped on that, then again I am drained rn. any suggestions? Paleface Jack (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Reword it to essentially after producing several theatre productions he began to develop his own original theatre piece. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

• Similarly Its concept was heavily influenced by the fine arts, which had a great impact upon him while developing the film seems frustratingly unspecific. Which fine arts - painting? What painters? Are graphic artists "fine art"?

Expanded.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd reword the term "fine art", with painters, graphic artists and silent film cinematographers, and add many more, esp wrt to silent film. Surely critics have established the influence of Nosferatu the Vampyre; an earlier but modern film produced in the silent film style. And thats just scratching the surface, considering how rich the visual style is; undoubtedly he drew form many many sources. Ceoil (talk) 02:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ceoil well he did direct Shadow of a Vampire but all the stuff I see, they really don't touch on these things and tend to focus on that film. Paleface Jack (talk) 03:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Influences were found on many portions of the film such as the visuals to the development of the film, which were added accordingly. Paleface Jack (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• Before working on Begotten he developed several short films - should appear later in the section, so it reads more sequentially and doesn't hop about.

Where do you suggest?--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Done Paleface Jack (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

• Some parts are repetitious - in this edit[1], the claim "Film historian Matthew Edwards cited Begotten as an example of low-budget films outside of the major film studios, displaying unique flair and artistry rivaling big-budget productions." was already said/implied by the preceding sentence. Ceoil (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

That Piece can be reworded, so implied stuff are comfirmed.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• I'm really enjoying the article. Nice work!

Thanks. Found information that will prove useful when expanding the article on Merhige later on.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

not bad, considering I am doing these edits on 50% mental capacity, with a twitchy eye and allergies that won't leave me alone for the past 5 days. Paleface Jack (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Pre-FAC comments

@Paleface Jack: I'm taking a look through the article now, focussing initially on the writing. I'll aim to look at the sourcing another time. I'm making lots of edits as I go; please double-check them.

• Do you use the Oxford comma or not? Aim for consistency! (Also, I worry your use of dashes is inconsistent.)

I have always had that trouble with commas, dashes etc. Hard to wrap my head around where to appropriately place it at times. Are there any articles on here that might help me with that?--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

What you're doing now isn't bad; it's just not consistent. See WP:Oxford comma and WP:DASH.

• "Merhige was struck by the degree of personal and professional interconnectivity among its core members—knowing everything about one another and engaging in a more personal and intimate level of interaction" I don't really know what this means.

I will reword that later. Essentially Merhige was fascinated with the group dynamic and how they were so professionally and personally connected with one another.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• "some sources have erroneously listed the date as 1984" Does your source specifically say this?

Was going off of another FA reviewer's comments on this, as the errored sources were just statuing this but Merhige would list a different date entirely.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I worry about saying that they're incorrect. You could say 'M says that... though other sources say' or something. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Will do Paleface Jack (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• "This change in format allowed Merhige the opportunity to document the company's work, as many of its members were transitioning to other projects outside the company." Again, I don't really know what this means

Changing the intended outlet of the project, from theatre to film, was more beneficial because (As Merhige stated in an interview) that a lot of the members fo Theatreofmaterial were leaving the company to pursue other interests.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• "These were well-received, and gave Merhige the experience and insight he needed while working on Begotten" This feels meaningless. I've removed talk of these prior films altogether; if you do need to mention them, think about why and where!

Will do.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• "(Some reports incorrectly list the filming period lasting three and a half years.)" Again, do you have a specific source noting that this was incorrectly reported?

Does an interview with Merhige count?--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

If he specifically notes that the other sources are wrong, perhaps. Otherwise, I think we're going to have to just say 'some say this, some say that'. We need to be pretty sure to label sources wrong. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Paleface Jack (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• "The idea of visual perspective, according to Merhige, was also important to him while envisioning the film's visual style, as it challenged the viewer's interpretation of what is depicted on the screen." Again, I'm not sure I really understand this claim

• "This intentional visual ambiguity has been described by Ryerson University professor Carolyn L. Kane, who commented that its grainy and decayed visual style functioned as an allegory of uncertainty to what she referred to as "the hermeneutic of the image". Visual underminings from 1930s horror films, such as intertitles, was also commented on by David Annwn Jones, who stated that it was utilized to express its own set of evolving visual ideas and techniques." I am sure this sort of commentary belongs in the article, but it's out of place right now.

Yeah, I feel the same way.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Stopping there for now. I'll be back to continue at some point over the next few days, I hope! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I will work on those later. Currently focused on one of my more ambitious projects, expanding the article for the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre via a userspace. The original had an outdated citation style and had threadbare information, with some that were not found in the sources they cited. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• "In the years since its release, Begotten has been analyzed by critics and scholars who have put forth their analysis and interpretation of the film. Merhige has said that he intentionally incorporated certain mythic and existential themes into the film.[16][45]" I'd just lose this.

How come?

• "The film's characters also represented, according to Muir, certain concepts of mankind and the earth itself" Vague

changed "concepts" to "aspects" and might bring that a bit further up the sentance so things like mandkind toiling through the earth makes more fo a connection.--Paleface Jack (talk) 03:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• "Begotten represented "the evolution and transition of the anthropocene narrative"." Into what? Away from what? This is interesting (and probably represents a very 2020s reading!) but I fear more is needed.

Will look into it.--Paleface Jack (talk) 03:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Typo

Don't want to start an edit war. Just in case my IP has changed I am in fact the IP that did the recent edit

"The film does not contain dialogue, and its visual style evoking early silent films."

This is the last sentence of the lead paragraph. I changed it to this:

"The film does not contain dialogue, and its visual style evokes early silent films."

But user Durziil89 (unsure if you can "ping" someone on Wikipedia?) reverted it without comment.

Can we agree my edit is gramatically correct or am I actually the stupid one? (If so I apologise, English isn't my first language but I am fluent)

I will redo my edit and if it's reverted back I won't do it again because it must be me that's wrong. Thank you 2A02:C7E:2F68:AC00:A4AF:5098:ED37:D129 (talk) 11:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I will look into it. You have my respect for taking the issue here rather than letting it continue. I have been planning a restructuring of the article to fit the FA standards, so we shall see where it goes. Paleface Jack (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC)