Talk:The Atomic Cafe

‎

DVD image

The image should be replaced since it looks blurred/obscurred. DrWho42 20:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a smaller image that's been blown up, and lost focus and proportions, must be some better image available from somewhere. 惑乱 分からん 22:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Soundtrack Link

Son of Somebody keeps deleting the link to the original soundtrack of The Atomic Cafe. Yes, it's located on free file-hosting server, which shows some ads before you can download it, but look, IT IS VERY RARE RECORDING, it's impossible to find it somewhere else on the net, it was never released on CD (only on LP in 1982). What the problem with the link? It does work, 614 people had donloaded the OST. Please, let's keep in the article.

Hmm. It's worth noting that the link doesn't advertise a server or site, and doesn't benefit its adder. --Kizor 19:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

I added the NPOV tag because the article itself was not confoming to NPOV standards. The film itself may be any POV its director wants, but the article itself should not make uncited or inaccurate claims. Rearden9 15:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you be more specific or try fixing it? Seems like it only needs a few citations.--Son of Somebody 11:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I made some changes. Rearden9 19:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Exhibition (Unsourced)

The film was released in April 1982. Its release coincided with a peak in the international disarmament movement, and the film received much wider distribution than was the norm for politically-oriented documentaries. It rapidly became a cult classic, and greatly influenced documentary filmmaking.

The UK premiere screening in the British House Of Commons in October 1982 tied the film to then ongoing debate in the UK about the deployment of the cruise missile against the perceived Soviet threat. The film was also screened at the London Film Festival and nominated for a BAFTA award. The film was released on home video in the UK in 1983 by Virgin Video (VVA 028).

An illustrated book based on the film was published by Ballantine Books shortly after the film's release, and a soundtrack album was issued by Rounder Records. This documentary is heavily sampled and referenced to on the KMFDM album, Don't Blow Your Top.

Moved by Luigibob (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

Can someone elucidate this sentence for me?

"Many reviews of the film are quick to point out large amount of old tax money behind the film, an irony not lost on the filmmakers."

e.g. what is "old tax money" and why is it ironic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.13.74.164 (talk) 14:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Mockumentary

Recently USer:Liftarn has challenged the fact that the movie is a mockumentary.

They have provided this single modern reference, which is an interview with the "filmmaker" of the movie. Which doesn't exactly fit the WP:USEBYOTHERS criteria, does it? In this interview with the "filmmaker" they describe how they used/exploited the good-nature of film archivists in the 1980s "who believed they had made something educational" and ever since then, the archivists have had to be far more suspicious of this strain of "filmmakers".

http://scienceandfilm.org/articles/3069/false-truths-the-atomic-cafe-seen-today

Moreover, what I find particularly illuminating, right from the get-go is the "filmmaker" conveys an absolute hatch-job of propaganda on why Hiroshima was selected. They again falsely push this ingratiating historical inaccuracy. That it was "to do blast studies". When if the US was genuinely more interested in blast studies they would have put far more emphasis on the blast gauges the chase-plane dropped out to telemeter their data back onboard. Instead these gauges didn't work, they were the after-thoughts of 1-2 hydrodynamic scientists. The real reason why Hiroshima was selected as under Truman's directive he didn't want any more Tokyo bombing, Hiroshima was a military target and having gone relatively undamaged it would maximize the shock-&-Awe that would hopefully startle the Imperial Japanese Emperor and his cabinet, to end the war.

Killing civilians or him in Tokyo was increasingly seen as not the best idea, as being surrounded by the militarists who devised of kamikaze attacks and who were training those in Hiroshima in the use of suicide-boats, the klling of the Emperor would not have relaxed the war at that point. As the militarists in his cabinet continued to say "victory was possible". So in effect the attack was to solicit the Emperor, have his scientists come urge the Emperor to agree to sit at the negotiation table and surrender.

After Hiroshima and no peace declared, The US was fast running out of proportionate targets for their nuclear bombs as in truth, the militarists really did have the potential of "winning a pyrhic victory" during the projected amphibious invasion. Attacking the industrial zone of Nagasaki was less "awe" inspiring as no massive fire began and less people died, despite a more energetic bomb being used but regardless of its lower-awe-factor, it did convince the emperor that they were vastly technologically inferior and weren't going to "really win", despite what a minority of the militarists kept saying.

No "cynical" blast studies were involved in the decision making for this later target either.

So in sum, the "Filmmaker" made a mockumentary, calls it a "documentary", explains how they exploited the good-nature of archivists for their own ulterior ends and now similarly continues as of 2018, to push dubious and unsubstantiated historical claims.

Boundarylayer (talk) 11:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Your personal opinion is not a reliable source. I have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Horrorview.com (the only source you provided). But not that this source also calls it a documentary ("the documentary captures the hysteria of the dog-eat-dog mentality of the post-World War climate"). // Liftarn (talk) 11:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Personal opinion? Where? I will leave you with the irony of how the "filmmaker" openly describes in interview, just how precisely they were not clear with their intentions and went about deceiving archivists for their own ulterior ends and a reviewer has described the "artistic product" of all this, their deceiving work, as a documentary capturing the dog-eat-do mentality of the post-World War climate. Dog-eat-dog. That couldn't just be a reflection of what the filmmakers are? How they see. With that in mind, perhaps on that level, it is a kind of unintended documentary? Rafferty in interview, does describe the archivists and 1950s filmmakers as those "who believed they had made something educational". Yet it is Rafferty who now claims, it is he, who is the educational one?

In 1982, the hilarious documentary “The Atomic Café”...Kevin [Rafferty was later befriended by a young filmmaker from Michigan, Michael Moore, who was seeking advice on how to make his first film, Roger & Me. Rafferty ended up becoming the cinematographer on Moore’s debut film and acting as a filmmaking mentor to Moore.]

You do know who and what Michael Moore is, right? Not surprising such "filmmakers" run in packs?

Boundarylayer (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Still no sources? // Liftarn (talk) 12:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

As it says "Michael Francis Moore (born April 23, 1954) is an American documentary filmmaker". Look, get some reliable sources first. Your personal opinion is still not a reliable source. // Liftarn (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Are you serious? As what says...the wikipedia article tagged for a lack of neutrality? The film 'Atomic Cafe is not a documentary, no matter how hard you try and find as many sources as you wish, with this misapplied "Documentary" label, what you're honestly suggesting is, it should be categorized and included beside the likes of The Day After Trinity or The Ascent of Money? Is that right? It's a literally absurb and farcical suggestion, either that or a thoroughly base-clown-act? This is an encyclopedia not a promotional platform for films and "filmmakers".

• Horror View: Atomic Cafe, The Mockumentary

• Two years later, the hilarious documentary “Atomic Cafe” turned actual ’40s and ’50s newsreel footage and Civil Defense training films into a devastating satire of the atomic era.

• A documentary satire of the early atomic era edited together from newsreel and Civil Defense training films

There are many, many others that while not using that relatively unknown categorization of, the "mockumentary", they all refer to how the film intends to mock, make fun of and satirize. They all talk about the laughs and condescending humor. The category Docu-Comedy is also under the actual rubicon of - Mockumentary, in cae you also genuinely didn't know too.

While both, "docu-comedy" and the word "mockumentary" are not as well known as "documentary", despite that lack of this popular taxonomical knowledge, the Atomic Cafe, has all the hallmarks and follows the exact formula of a Mockumentary. Right down to the use of old footage, the splicing together archival footage in a effort to mock or undermine/satirize others. The "filmmaker" of Atomic Cafe Rafferty, even schooled and helped Michael Moore, who unless you happen to be unaware, is well known as the pinnacle of 2000s era mockumentary filming. It really is patently absurd to try and put these entirely different types of movies and filmmakers in the same category. You know, Dogs have 4 legs just like Cats, but anyone trying to say they're the same species, is pretty obviously, a clown. No matter how many misinformed people you come across. It's a mockumentary not a documentary.

"This faux invasion mockumentary features the affable (Michael) Moore in virtually every tableau, mugging for the camera in his trademark style. Yes, his tongue-in-cheek brand of humor...feels a little stale after a quarter-century of the same sort of shenanigans".

Boundarylayer (talk) 13:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

When I asked you to bring reliable source it was implied that it would be sources that supports your view, not contradicts it. // Liftarn (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

You seem to have missed a bit. For a full and clear picture, might you not add the following?

"...Yes, his tongue-in-cheek brand of humor is frequently sublime, and his earnest arguments are often persuasive, even if the format feels a little state after a quarter-century of the same sort of shenanigans."

"Yet another progressive political primer from a proven master at questioning authority."

95.147.153.80 (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I did not look for this discussion when I added Oxford Handbook of Science Fiction "mockumentary". I saw this discussion in Talk:Mockumentary#Inclusion_of_The_Atomic_Cafe. I also added it to the List of mockumentaries. IMO the lines here are okay since attributed and is in critic section. Having it in the list is a maybe; should it say documentary or "mockumentary"? Wouldn't have it in Mockumentary. StrayBolt (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)