 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
bias and astro-turfing
editi don't have time to do it now, but the summary of this movie seems to contain a number of instances of weaselwording and bias that need to be corrected. also, some of the descriptions of the scenes and plot points seem to be at such odds with how i viewed the film that i honestly suspect this article to be an astro-turfing effort. i'll post specific examples soon.
examples
edit- Although there is a moment of crisis when another rig strikes a gas pocket, all of this is dealt with swiftly and off-camera
- this is hardly how the picture portrays the scene - when the rig hits the pressure pocket, there's a long, drawn-out scene where the sky goes from white to black as oil fills the air. the subsequent scene, where the disaster is dealt with, is down with newspaper clippings being inserted into frame - the first describing the accident, and the second stating that the rift had been fixed ten days later.
- The author of the article has simply said what you are saying, in fewer words. A shot of oil spraying in the sky followed by studio-typeset news articles in montage, all lasting less than a minute, takes one of the film's two potentially dramatic moments and deals with it "swiftly and off camera". There are no shots of the town being evacuated, emergency procedures carried out by the professionals in such circumstances, etc.
- i disagree. the issue may have been handled "off-camera," but it was not swift. again, the newspaper clippings state a time period of ten days. ten days of oil spraying into the air - this is not a "moment of crisis," nor is it swift. the fact that it only takes seconds on the big screen is just an artifact of some movie magic. the language is misleading. 192.223.226.6 21:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- The author of the article has simply said what you are saying, in fewer words. A shot of oil spraying in the sky followed by studio-typeset news articles in montage, all lasting less than a minute, takes one of the film's two potentially dramatic moments and deals with it "swiftly and off camera". There are no shots of the town being evacuated, emergency procedures carried out by the professionals in such circumstances, etc.
- this is hardly how the picture portrays the scene - when the rig hits the pressure pocket, there's a long, drawn-out scene where the sky goes from white to black as oil fills the air. the subsequent scene, where the disaster is dealt with, is down with newspaper clippings being inserted into frame - the first describing the accident, and the second stating that the rift had been fixed ten days later.
- and the barge, rig, and friendly drillers depart expeditiously, leaving behind a phenomenally clean environment and a wealthy Cajun family
- my interpretation of the movie hardly left me with the feeling that the environment had been phenomenally clean after hitting oil.
- please show where your interpretaton is reflected in the reality of the film? The major final shot shows the capped well, and pans down to clean and clear water and banks - no oil slicks, no cigarette butts, no beer cans or paper cups, no damage to the fauna on the nearby banks, no evidence other than the capped pipe itself that the natural surroundings have seen the presence of men.
- there are shots at the end of the film showing visible oil slicks in the river. plus, an uncapped oil well spurting in the air for ten days probably doesn't make for a clean environment. additionally, i didn't quite get the impression that the family was left as "wealthy." they're shown buying groceries at the end, not drinking martinis ;) 192.223.226.6 21:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- please show where your interpretaton is reflected in the reality of the film? The major final shot shows the capped well, and pans down to clean and clear water and banks - no oil slicks, no cigarette butts, no beer cans or paper cups, no damage to the fauna on the nearby banks, no evidence other than the capped pipe itself that the natural surroundings have seen the presence of men.
- my interpretation of the movie hardly left me with the feeling that the environment had been phenomenally clean after hitting oil.
- However, none of the members of the Cajun family (boy, father and mother) were actually related, and the film does not in any aspect deal with Cajun culture or the realilty of the hard lives of the Cajun people, nor with the mechanics of drilling for oil. The story itself is completely fictional.
- it sounds like the original author here simply had an ax to grind - why is it significant that the actors weren't related, or that the subject matter wasn't cajun culture? the film ISN'T a documentary, despite how others may have mislabeled it - these points are hardly fair criticism of the film
- No ax to grind that I can see, just pointing out reasons why this cannot be considered a *documentary*, which many many people DO say it is. It is invariably catalogued by video and DVD dealers as such, and is frequently referenced in articles as such. IMDb even had it categorized as a Documentary until a couple of years ago. I do think the author is doing his best to provide as much evidence as possible to lay the "documentary" myth to rest, but that is all. Why do you see anything more sinister than that in this sentence??
- why is it necessary to repeatedly state what the film is not, or what it doesn't do? cast members aren't related. it doesn't deal with cajun culture. it doesn't deal with the mechanics of drilling for oil. this isn't fair or appropriate criticism of the film - it's criticism of falsifications. state that the film isn't a documentary, or better yet, state that it is a fictional piece, and move on. if necessary, a section should be created detailing the misconceptions about labeling the film a documentary. as it stands, the entire article has a tone that is overtly negative, as if the film were deliberately misleading. 192.223.226.6 21:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- No ax to grind that I can see, just pointing out reasons why this cannot be considered a *documentary*, which many many people DO say it is. It is invariably catalogued by video and DVD dealers as such, and is frequently referenced in articles as such. IMDb even had it categorized as a Documentary until a couple of years ago. I do think the author is doing his best to provide as much evidence as possible to lay the "documentary" myth to rest, but that is all. Why do you see anything more sinister than that in this sentence??
- it sounds like the original author here simply had an ax to grind - why is it significant that the actors weren't related, or that the subject matter wasn't cajun culture? the film ISN'T a documentary, despite how others may have mislabeled it - these points are hardly fair criticism of the film
- It is therefore unclear why, other than for publicity purposes, or out of respect to the then-near-forgotten Flaherty, the film was ever referred to as a documentary
- again - i don't see any sources cited that state that the publisher, the director, the photographer, or anyone else involved with the film ever stated that the film was a documentary. if anyone else did, again, that can hardly be considered fair criticism of the work itself.
- You are reading in "criticism" of the film. All I see is a factual statement of a constant misidentification of the film, and thus misinformation of many many people, about the genre of the film.
- i still disagree with you - either the film was incorrecly referred to as a documentary by (a) the film makers, or by (b) subsequent viewers and reviewers. If the case is (a), this hasn't been cited at all. until any citation to that fact can be found, then the "publicity purposes" excuse doesn't hold water. if the case is (b), then i can't see how mislabeling the film would generate any additional publicity, nor how it would show "respect" for a "then-near-forgotten" director.192.223.226.6 21:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- You are reading in "criticism" of the film. All I see is a factual statement of a constant misidentification of the film, and thus misinformation of many many people, about the genre of the film.
- again - i don't see any sources cited that state that the publisher, the director, the photographer, or anyone else involved with the film ever stated that the film was a documentary. if anyone else did, again, that can hardly be considered fair criticism of the work itself.
- In the early 1950s, it was reissued by an exploitation film outfit with a new title, Cajun, on the bottom half of a double bill with another film called Watusi.
- source needed, as well as possibly the name of the exploitation film outfit that re-released the film.
- I've seen a poster for this reissue: how would I go about citing that as a reference. The "outfit" was actually a couple of guys named Horne and Dietz.
- source needed, as well as possibly the name of the exploitation film outfit that re-released the film.
- In 1949, Virgil Thomson won the Pulitzer Prize for Music for his score to the film (which contains only one Cajun-styled piece).
- why is the fact that the score only contained one cajun-styled piece significant?
- Shows, again, that the film is not a documentary, at least of cajun culture and life. Nothing sinister about that, is there?
- it isn't necessary to harbor on the point of the film not being a documentary - why is it necessary to constantly remind the reader that the film is fiction?192.223.226.6 21:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Shows, again, that the film is not a documentary, at least of cajun culture and life. Nothing sinister about that, is there?
- why is the fact that the score only contained one cajun-styled piece significant?
Perhaps you should re-read the article from a less reactionary position and see what is there - a description of the film on the screen evidencing its non-documentary reality to a world which very much *does* hear that it is a documentary of Cajun life circa 1950. For some reason seeing that evidence emphasized is bothersome to you, but I think that is more your problem than the article's.
Documentary?
editMost of the observations made by the unsigned commentator are valid, but they do not necessarily prove the composition of the article faulty. The most important point is the lack of sources, 100% correct. But since Flaherty has a reputation (right or wrong) as a documentary-maker, and since Nanook of the North was even more properly criticized as a faux-documentary, the topics complained about have to be brought up. The familiy relationships are important because the same was true of Man of Aran. The large job to be done is citation. Stagehand 04:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- If the points which are deemed to require a "citation" are based on actually watching the film, rather than second-hand opinion pieces, how does one go about formatting this information?
- First, read WP:CITE to learn about primary sources (in this case, the film) and secondary sources. Frankly, anything that you need a citation for is probably something you cannot cite to the film itself, because it is not just the film -- it is your interpretation of the film, and if anyone watching the film would have the same interpretation, well, you wouldn't be needing to cite it if that was the case, probably. If Roger Ebert says "the film does not in any aspect deal with Cajun culture or the reality of the hard lives of the Cajun people", that's a usable secondary source upon the matter. If Joe Schmoe the Wikipedia editor says "the film does not in any aspect deal with Cajun culture or the reality of the hard lives of the Cajun people" how do we know Joe Schmoe didn't form his opinion before the opening credits were even finished rolling and ignore everything that wasn't what he expected? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, if Roger Ebert is indicated as the source for the statement about the film by the Wikipedia writer, you would then read the article/book by Ebert from which Ebert's statement is taken, and then watch the film to see if Ebert is correct or not IN HIS POV. If the film itself is indicated as the source for the Wikipedia writer's statement, you would obtain and watch the film to see whether or not it confirms the writer's conclusion DRAWN FROM THE MOST PRIMARY SOURCE, THE FILM ITSELF. Makes no sense to me to just take some third party's opinion - especially if it agrees with yours - and cite it, and then claim this is proof proof of "neutrality" and "validity" in the article, instead of examining the actual subject of the article itself. Is Wikipedia meant to be just a collection of other people's opinions? If so, how do you ensure a balance of all extant and possible opinions is present in each article, and taken from the most reliable and established of secondary sources - especially for subject matter about which little or nothing has been written by others? Appears to me to be an intellectual dead-end to just leave the door open to the most slick propagandists with the largest hand-selected source material to gloss it up, and to innumerable holes for other matters which have never been seriously or significantly covered by others from any perspective. --
- First, read WP:CITE to learn about primary sources (in this case, the film) and secondary sources. Frankly, anything that you need a citation for is probably something you cannot cite to the film itself, because it is not just the film -- it is your interpretation of the film, and if anyone watching the film would have the same interpretation, well, you wouldn't be needing to cite it if that was the case, probably. If Roger Ebert says "the film does not in any aspect deal with Cajun culture or the reality of the hard lives of the Cajun people", that's a usable secondary source upon the matter. If Joe Schmoe the Wikipedia editor says "the film does not in any aspect deal with Cajun culture or the reality of the hard lives of the Cajun people" how do we know Joe Schmoe didn't form his opinion before the opening credits were even finished rolling and ignore everything that wasn't what he expected? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
pre-OSHA
editWhat is OSHA? Please explain/link. And I agree, this article is chiefly POV, not balanced. 110.174.52.185 (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2022 (UTC)