Talk:Celine and Julie Go Boating

Requests

I've done a quick synopsis and sorted out the top part. What would be cool is if somebody added some discussion of the thematic elements (magic, memory) -- and technical filmy stuff I know nothing about. Rob. --88.109.182.63 14:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I've inserted an infobox for this article. Could someone improve on it please? Thanks. Splashprince 09:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I have written a few paragraphs on the themes of magic and memory, as Rob suggested. I hope this meets with everyone's approval. Fred. --

Too Much

Too much original research and subjective commentary... too many unsourced references too many allusion that are explained in neither this article, nor in the case of Henry James, in the relevant article on Wikipedia.

Needs an over all rewrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.36.158 (talk) 23:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Too Little Remains

I'm a little unclear why all the references to the film by credited critics have been removed, as well as printed comments the director has made about his own work.

For example, what is incorrect in noting:

[Henry James]]' The Romance of Certain Old Clothes is the accepted story employed, although critic Gilbert Adair says that this internal story is actually "some odd marriage between What Maisie Knew and The Turn of the Screw". )

or

Describing the film's "richly allusive texture", Gilbert Adair also invokes the names of cinematic touchstones (Cocteau, Vincente Minnelli, Chytilova's Daisies) and literary ones including—besides the aforementioned Henry James—Borges, and Kafka.

or

Critic Jonathan Romney, however, says that Berto and Labourier did the "main writing", while planning their characters and the overall narrative shape with Rivette. Eduardo de Gregorio, says Romney, provided the structure for the "interpolated narrative."

or

The film was made, as Rivette has said, "for as little money as possible" so that he and Juliet Berto, who was to be involved in several projects—some that could get no funding, while others like Out 1 disappeared from public view—could "get out of the dumps that we all felt we were in," and to make a film that would "amuse people."

?

It seems to me that all of these statements are valid, and add valuable meaning and richness in explaining the film. As it has been rewritten, it is a flat, dull retelling that is a mere synopsis and adds nothing 'encyclopedic' to the topic. I thought Wikipedia, as any good encyclopedia, should open up a subject for a curious person who has perhaps heard of the subject or even seen the film and wants to know more. Anyone reading this current edit would miss valuable thoughts as to how the narrative grew out of literary sources--something the director speaks about directly--so why not mention it? If it needs better attribution, then yes, let's work on that, but let's not just toss out useful analysis.

If we are going to be so strict--and pedestrian--then perhaps the editor should next address the introduction to Rivette's magnificent "Out 1"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_1). Here is another case where the reader is served by opening up the film to the director's comments, to its literary genesis, etc.

Though good luck if you think those other editors will put up with such small minded thinking... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dano312 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Full title of French release

Some sources say the original title was "Céline et Julie vont en bateau: Phantom Ladies Over Paris" Can anyone confirm this? It seems odd to have English words in a French title. I saw the English-subtitled version many years ago and I do seem to recall the English subtitle under Céline et Julie vont en bateau was indeed Phantom Ladies Over Paris. THoughts? SageGreenRider (talk) 11:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Celine and Julie Go Boating. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061208171740/http://www.iua.upf.es/formats/formats3/luc1_a.htm to http://www.iua.upf.es/formats/formats3/luc1_a.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081006235750/http://www.dvdbeaver.com/rivette/OK/phantomint.html to http://www.dvdbeaver.com/rivette/OK/phantomint.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Metamodern

Seriously? Could someone explain this remark, please? ulyanick (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2019 (UTC)