Talk:Film/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Cinema, Film, or Movie as the primary page

It doesn't make a lot of sense to have separate articles for cinema, film, motion pictures, and movie. Currently all redirect to this article titled 'film'. Here's a refactoring of the arguments that were made on this talk page, mostly in 2004:

  • movie is not a popular term outside of the U.S., and since it has a colloquial origin (like talkie) academics will not likely start giving "degrees in movies" at "movie school". Danny points out that "movie" generally refers to a Hollywood-style feature, leaving film for everything else (shorts, documentaries, foreign, etc.)
  • cinema is more often used to describe the place where movies are seen (a movie theater) than the industry itself. Using the term for the field/industry might be considered "somewhat humorous and pretentious".
  • film is academic, used internationally, and understood. Technical people (such as those using the wikipedia) dislike the term's tight association with celluloid film, citing the industry's consistent march towards various kinds of video. Yet it has historical inertia, and for years people have been using video cameras and calling what they are doing 'filming'.
  • motion picture is probably the most accurate cross-medium description of the scope of what the article intends to describe. But (a) it's more of a definition than a term, and (b) outside of the MPAA, nobody says it, e.g. "I saw a great motion picture last week"

It would be tempting to use the Wikipedia as a bold step towards sorting this all out, and Michael Snow suggested to put the discussion of filmstock under film, while explaining moving-pictures-as-we-know-them under cinema. Yet a Google search done by Eclecticology showed strong support that the word film is heavily used in combination with each of festival, studies, school and documentary.

Because this issue has generated so much interest and discussion, zandperl suggested a section (after History but before Industry) that would discuss different connotations of the words "cinema," "film," and "movie" as used in American English, vs. British English, and maybe other languages. The current compromise is to list all the terms in the first paragraph of the lead of the article. Though it was suggested to make them bold, the manual of style says that words-as-words should be shown in italics. Metaeducation 13:23, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Just as significantly, it should be noted that the various sub-articles to this one - the ones on more specific aspects of Film - have the same problem, both in title (Cinema of [insert country name here]) and within text, where "movie", "show" and "cinema" may all appear within the same text, while "film" may not be used at all. The primary term used in this particular article will be rendered meaningless if not accompanied by extensive textual editing elsewhere. (And, BTW, I have heard/read the statement "I saw a great motion picture last week". All the terms under consideration do, in fact, have widespread usage, at least in the USA, particularly if you look back through time: "film" and "cinema" may dominate in contemporary academia, but I think a check of most other encyclopedias will find the topic title "Motion Pictures". But I'd much rather see everything just get organized under one common term rather than quibble over which is better; and "film" will do as good as any.) 12.73.195.41 20:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I must agree with the arguments above, however, I think with the coming of the digital age where cinemas get harddrives delivered instead of rolls of film could have an impact on the word choice. Considering "film" refers to the medium on which the movie has been captured, I don't think many people will be caught saying, "I saw a good film on a DVD last night". Also another argument for a possible split in the future is that "film" is ambiguous, whereas movie is not. --Kim Nevelsteen 12:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Scope of this article

There are countless topics in film production, so the question of the scope and priorities of this article comes into play. Mark feels it is important to mention the various theories of film, and Peter has advocated a section on "Film as Escapism"

NB, there is a competing article, and quite a bit longer, History of cinema, which needs to be examined & integrated in terms of relevant content, and the balance consigned to subarticles. There is also a contradictory section title, Cinema, in the site index at the Culture URL at the top of the 'pedia main page, and this leads to a number of different subtopical articles not linked to Film. The redirect process only works on the site-search field, and only if you enter the word "cinema" (or "movie", "motion picture", etc.) by itself.
We are working at consolidating all these link-points as a "table of contents" to Film. One reason, we can't stand scatter or mess! Also, hopefully, getting all these articles collected and classified in one place should help define the scope of this particular article insofar as it can't, alone, cover *everything* which can be said about film technology, film industry, film personalities and film product, but can serve as a summary lead-in to the details. Then comes the laborious process of conforming all the article titles to the word "film". 12.73.195.41 19:44, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Mentioning Specific Films, Directors, Actors, Editors...

Frequently, references to specific movies are added into the article, which seem rather arbitrary. For instance, when talking about the idea that some movies today use black and white for artistic effect, there was a reference to Schindler's List.

Though it could reasonably be argued that citing specifics is good for support, it opens a Pandora's Box of people adding links to their favorite films. It quickly gets to:

"The movie was a major critical and commercial success when it was released and has remained a popular favorite since. Kline won an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor for his work. [...]
In 2004 the magazine Total Film named A Fish Called Wanda the 41st greatest British film of all time."

<KF> points out that the same thing is happening with literature topics, and they are solving this with separate articles like 100 Best Characters in Fiction since 1900. A good rule of thumb seems to keep it out of this article, point out landmarks in the History of cinema article, and perhaps collapse a lot of other information under film award or film awards. Metaeducation 13:23, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


External links

There are waaay too many external links in this article. Did all of these websites send their minions to spam the Wikipedia, or what? --Ardonik 19:05, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

Some articles are starting to order their external links by Alexa traffic rankings; I think that would be a good idea here. --Ardonik 19:05, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

I agree- there are way too many external links. I don't want to start deleting them for fear of backlash, but some kind of discussion here would make sense. --DevanJedi


F.I.L.M. acronym-as-origin

194.243.7.199 wrote:

The use of word film in the sense of movie derives from Fabbrica Italiana Lamine Milano, an italian factory leader in 1920's market of cinematographic pellicles.

I couldn't find any support for this. It seems to me that the acronym was probably chosen because of the prominence of the existing term, and not vice versa. If someone can cite a historical reference for this "FILM" organization, then great, but I couldn't find anything about it that wasn't in Italian. Metaeducation 23:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I only have document in italian for this, and the entry in dictionary.com is of little support
Thus a word that has been with us since Old English times took on this new use, first recorded in 1845, which has since developed and now refers to an art form, a sense first recorded in 1920.

sorry. But if someone is interested in it,  :

Bye.

New template {{Future film}} for tagging upcoming films

Adding the tag automatically adds the article to Category:Upcoming films, which is a subcategory of Category:Future products. Note that Category:Future films would propably be more in line with Category:Future products, Category:Future games and Category:Future events.

ps. How come there isn't a portal for movies? It's talk-page would have been a more approbiate place to inform about this template. --The Merciful 13:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Silly me, of course there is Wikipedia:WikiProject Films! --The Merciful 13:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


Improvement drive

A related topic, Pulp Fiction, is currently nominated on WP:IDRIVE. Vote for this article.--Fenice 06:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Timeline

I just finished re-reading the timeline. It seems slightly bereft of information following the 80s. The 90s and the 00s may not have seen the same radical changes as the decades before, but there's still a lot to talk about with the rise of DVD and the distribution of movies illegally via peer2peer (and the MPAA's attempts against that movement), as well as other issues --Harmonica 03:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

This should be addressed in History of Film. For whatever reason someone copied what was there and put it here, and no one has condensed it down into the appropriate summary yet. MechBrowman 03:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Scope of this Article

Currently, this article is about the medium as well as the industry, and has a focus on history. Noisy suggests that the Cinematography article could be left to cover media and technology, and some history as well. More content is covered in Movies basic topics.

There has been a possibly misguided effort to pull in the content from other articles (timelines, etc) into this one. I say misguided because (1) the result is far, far, less readable and (2) the information was merely duplicated instead of moved entirely. Still, we really should have a consensus-based roadmap for what belongs in the various articles, and until we have one of those to point people to. So as I don't have the time at this exact moment to constructively do so, I'll just voice my opinion and hope someone else agrees and fixes it. Will the person/persons doing the merging edits identify themselves and present their rationale? Metaeducation 22:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd argue that the timeline actually reads as a fairly decent outline.. of something. But is it about Film per se? Or Cinema? Or is it in fact an amalgum of both? I realise that the two are inexplicably linked, but it starts out as talking about film (ie, the technical aspects/development) and then moves to talking about films (that is, Film) and the development of cinema.

Perhaps a timeline isn't a very helpful way of starting off this article because it conflates all the aspects of Film into one piece. I'm going to think about how this can be dealt with. Thoughts?--Harmonica 03:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone know where the word "film" is originated from? 64.231.177.76 00:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I came here looking for that precise information! (or the word 'cinema' in actual fact) --Harmonica 03:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I have tried to address the transition to digital theater display, and point out that HD home entertainment is soon to be a

big risk to the theater business, as 2K cinema is only a little better than home HD image

That list is too long and needs categorised; either that, or some entries should be removed. Fourohfour 10:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

"Films with plot twists"? This is a list? Films without are documentaries, aren't they? Or deadly dull... Trekphiler 07:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Film dating

Not sure if this belongs here or where, but... There seems to be a problem dating movie releases. I've seen discrepencies of a yr source to source; somebody needs to check. This isn't a problem unique to Wikipedia: I've seen 2 diff movie guides with diff dates, & the dates the newspaper uses don't agree always. More than that, & is it yr of release, yr filming ended, copywright yr, or what, that actually gets mentioned? Absent the exact release date, the year is a toss. Trekphiler 07:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

name of this article

should it be named Motion pictures - wouldn't this be the most unambiguous, straight forward, formal, and thereby proper name to use? Mayumashu 03:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Motion Pictures are often but not always on made on (photographic) film. AjaxSmack 07:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. "Motion pictures" is probably the most accurate name, and while the term "film" generally refers to motion pictures, the word only literally refers to the most common format of motion pictures. To me, it seems that a page entitle "Film" would be more likely to describe photographic film, rather than motion pictures. Of course, that's just me, and I'm not trying to call for a change in where "film" directs (although I would probably support such a change), but the name "Motion pictures" does seem more logical. --Shroom Mage 23:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I also agree. Motion Picture is less ambiguous. Wayne Goode 19:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, the point about "film" only literally referring to the most common format of motion pictures is incorrect in my view, the term evolved from those origins but now refers to all forms of motion picture. The English language is littered with examples of a term which originally had a limited and specific meaning, but evolved to become a more general and non-literal designation.
Moreover the term "motion picture" is rarely used in some English speaking parts of the world outwith North America - it's not at all common in Britain for instance where "motion pictures" are referred to almost universally as "films". You could argue that this would subsequently be taking the side of British English to use the term "film" for this article, however I would contend that point given that "film" is still used extensively in North America, it simply has a more formal meaning than it does in BE - it should also be noted that there's a discussion further down this talk page which concluded that keeping the name "film" was the correct course of action. Blankfrackis 19:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

List of Movie types

good job on the listings

But you all forgot, Movie based over video Games

When i get back, i wanna see it:P

>x<ino 08:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It should have a list of movies based on books. All I saw was a list of songs based on films or books, which I think was put in by mistake.

Chinface

Does anyone know which articles I should link to the Chinface article? This is a unique type of performance, there are only so many ways one can act with the human body. Kernow 15:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

size of pic

The size of the pic (the one of the reel) is a little large in my opinion. Does anyone mind if I scale it down? --Osbus 15:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


Endurance of film

Does this section really belong there -- or does it need a rewording? I wouldn't call it NPOV, exactly, but it seems to read more like a short essay than a part of an encyclopedia article. Eeblefish 02:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late, but I wholeheartedly agree. I was tempted to severely edit that piece just now, but I realised it was unsalvageable because of its complete pointlessness. It should get the axe. Anyone else have an opinion? elvenscout742 08:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Notice: Quarterly Review of Film and Video bounty

See Wikipedia:Reward_board#Quarterly_Review_of_Film_and_Video. — Matt Crypto 19:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

external link

Do you think that Film Reviews & Discussion would be worthy of putting in the external links section?

A Filmmaking Wiki

I apologize if this is somehow considered spamming or vandalism, but I thought this might be of interest to people who contribute to the Film Portal. If this should be deleted, by all means do so. I've created a filmmaking wiki, at http://wikifilmschool.com. My aim is not to duplicate the efforts of the Film Portal or any other project that seeks to catalogue films themselves (though, in truth, that may be an eventual effect if the project grows as large as I hope it will), but rather focus on the art and craft of how films and movies are actually made; cataloguing technique, terms, resources, and all knowledge that is related to how one would actually put together a motion picture. My goal is to cross the spectrum of filmmaking, from informing on the arcana of names and terms used in professional filmmaking that are only generally privy to professionals and people who have accumulated schooling and/or experience to cataloguing every possible way to achieve professional level results with as little money and as little "industry standard" equipment as conceivable. I hope some people will be interested in contributting, as Wikifilmschool could benefit from people with general wiki experience (formatting, templates, community building, etc.) as much as actual content. I intend to post this in a few other spots related to film, so I apologize in advance to anyone who comes across this message more than once. HamillianActor 19:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It might not be appropriate in the film article, but perhaps in the film school and filmmaking ones. I'd say be sparing in your use of linkage and only place it in articles which are very closely (ie not generally) related. Girolamo Savonarola 11:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree in principle, and certainly wouldn't start posting on things any more tangentially related to filmmaking than the film page, but in my opinion, it's relevant enough to warrant it. HamillianActor 16:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
It's not directly important enough to warrant a link to the article designed to discuss the entire discipline and artform of film in the past 100 years. Simple as that. External links should always be kept to a minimum, which was the rationale behind the extreme deletion of links recently. Relevant it may be, but not relevant enough to warrant inclusion in a serious encyclopedic article about film in general. Girolamo Savonarola 17:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Certainly not in the main article, and I would never edit the actual article unless it were a noteworthy inclusion (even then, I wouldn't make the edit myself) but do those same principles also apply to talk pages? As I stated in the original post, the last thing I want to do is engender a lot of ill will and if somebody feels their toes are being stepped on, I'm more than willing to entertain concerns and reverse edits.HamillianActor 21:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Request, if I may

The article on Satyajit Ray, Bengali filmmaker, is up for a peer review. Please take a look. Thanks--ppm 17:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

International Film

Having worked on various international cinema articles, I saw the opportunity to improve this section here. I have moved moved the few international cinema links to an "International Film" section under "See Also". As an alternative to this, the {{World Cinema}} template could be added, but I'll leave that up to the editors of this article.

I removed the few cinema by country links, as they were woefully incomplete, and added film by continent links in their place. If you wish to add a full list of cinema by country articles, check the World cinema article (but there are loads, so you may wish to avoid repeating the info that is already there). Gram 15:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 04:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

I have semi-protected the article based on frequent vandalism/link spam by IP users. Said users can request changes on this page to be reviewed deemable for admission, by any member or they can get an account. :) Cbrown1023 03:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

definition

The definition isn't specific enough. According to it, each episode of TV shows like Family Guy and Nip/Tuck could be considered a motion-picture film. Herorev 19:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Start of Collab

So what needs to be done to this article to make it a FA? First thing I notice is no inline cites, which is an instant fail. I think the endurance section should mention film preservation. Crew is an exceptionally short section that should include at least who are the main crew people. Film theory needs at least a sketch of realism vs expressionism and the major players. In the venues section we should mention how films are now framed with TV in mind. These are all off the top of my head, so if we agree we can start refilling the todo box.--Supernumerary 03:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

"Theory" vs. "Criticism"

Is there a difference between "film theory" and the academic style of film criticism? If not, perhaps we should combine the two subsections. --GHcool 04:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a HUGE difference. Film theory is much more academic, while film criticism is just reviewing movies.--Supernumerary 05:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Same comment as his, I was going to reply then he gave my answer. :-P Cbrown1023 16:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Certainly there is a difference between film theory and film criticism of the newspaper review variety, but that doesn't answer my question. My question was "Is there a difference between 'film theory' and the academic style of film criticism?" --GHcool 00:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes there is. The difference is that academic film criticism applies the film theory to a specific film, director, series, genre, etc. It's film theory in action. (See reviews written by André Bazin.)--Supernumerary 00:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

With the invention

of celluloid film by Goodwin in 1887 . . . Why not like that in the main article ? 80.219.134.64 22:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Roundhay Garden Scene

The still from Roundhay Garden Scene, carries the caption "world's first motion picture," though the article refers to it as "the earliest surviving film." What's the truth here. Is there a distinction between motion pictures and films in this example (i.e., is this a reference to the use of celluloid film?) Do any of Muybridge's earlier experiments count as "motion pictures?" Does the fact that this is the earliest surviving film depend on the fact that earlier films haven't survived, in which case this is not the "world's first motion picture?" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zadignose (talkcontribs) 00:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Wait a minute

Wait a minute... I thought the first film was released in 1896. And the oldest film was released in 1888. Something seems to be wrong. When was the first film released? Comon people, lets get our facts straight. Factual80man

1888 is when the FIRST ONE was released. 1896 is when the FIRST BRITISH FILM was released. Pro Game Master87 10:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's the quick and dirty version - the first successful experiments into motion pictures were completed by Le Prince in 1888. Many other people were working simultaneously on the technology, with varying systems and degrees of success. All of these systems involved specialized viewing systems which were essentially the original "peep shows" (think arcades, not red light district). The technology and concept of projecting a film took several more years to refine, and culminated around 1895. The Lumieres are often given the credit, although the truth is that they had many predecessors - no one person can claim much behind the creation of films. It was a very incremental process. Girolamo Savonarola 12:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

first feature film

Surely there would be room for mention in the article about what is considered the first feature length film, The Story of the Kelly Gang (1906, Australia)?? Peter 12:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The second paragraph

The second paragraph, "Films are cultural artifacts created by specific cultures...," seems out of place. The paragraphs before and after it are appropriate introduction defining the topic. All the statements about the power and importance of film sound like commentary trying to impress the reader. It's also not well written in my opinion, and it brings up an arbitrary collection of subtopics that do not define the scope. I suggest deleting it. SandyFace 05:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation request

Movie redirects here, so please put a link to Movie (disambiguation) on the head.--60.46.134.218 16:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Title Change?

I think the title should be changed to Movie.70.234.245.53 (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is that? Film is much more commonly used so it makes sense to use it. SP900 (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the title change. The word "film" may be more commonly used, but its primary meaning is the celluloid medium. "Film" means a thin coating or layer. I guess the most correct title would be "Motion Picture". Film is just the most common nickname for motion pictures. For example, my nickname is much more commonly used than my full name, but my full name is still my proper name. The only reason why "film" is more commonly used is because its short and neat, easy to use. However, its meaning is not as accurate as "motion picture" here. 88.112.228.30 (talk) 12:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

'Film' means what Americans called 'Movie' in the majority of English speaking countries (it's also interesting to note that the French language uses the word 'film' as well, not 'movie'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.12.236 (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


I agree, and so does Merriam-Webster. Binba (talk) 05:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

External links

I'm proposing that the following external links be removed as off topic. The article is about films in general, while the links are all to movie review sites.

What I think would be appropriate are links to sites and articles about the topics covered in the article. --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I would be in support of that if you replace those external links with better ones you can find. It's arguable whether those are off-topic or not and since the external links section is not cluttered, you named 4 of the 5 links in it, I think it would be a bit silly to remove all the external links without replacing them with better ones at the same time. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
May I suggest The British Film Institute's search engine, similar to those listed above however it is purely factual, listing things like release format, date, cast, credits with a synopsis etc. To fully declare my interested I was one of the developers who helped develop it although I no longer work for the original company nor the BFI itself. There are already a significant number of links from wikipedia into the results, the database itself is updated by the BFI every so often however the design ensure the updates keep links stable as it were. Philipmather (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Philip Mather

The title should be motion picture.--Gladboy101 (talk) 23:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

How about the term "cinema"?

I've seen a bit of the discussion about using the terms "film" versus "movie". I tend to think, however, that neither is appropriate. Film refers to the physical storage medium, the traditional name for the entire industry, and a common name used by a number of European English speakers. Movie refers to the actual motion picture, a modern name for the entire industry, and a common name used by most American English speakers. This dichotomy reflects a lack of consensus or reason, so the name of this page, in my opinion, should shed any conceptions of a storage medium or cultural attitudes: cinema. Cinema refers to the field as a whole, and does have a hold as seen with world cinema (foreign film) and cinema of the United States (US movie/film industry). Nevertheless, I admit that most cinematic terms are based around the term film. Some of these may be easy changed to more correct terms as needs present themselves. For example, history of film would work well history of cinema, as this term refers to the industry instead of individual films/movies. In the cases like filmmaking, where traditional terms have a strong hold, the term may either be used or changed (movie production), but explained more appropriately. In other words, ending the debate between film and movie would allow the most fitting terms to explain each concept individually. CaseyPenk (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC) [amended]

No, I disagree. This article is not just about the industry of cinema, but it's about the actual cinematic productions themselves. "Film" has evolved to mean much more than just the medium of recording, anyway. If there were to be a strong objection to the current title, then I guess the proper alternative would be "motion picture". But I support keeping it as it is. EuroSong talk 13:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see how your suggested alternative, "motion picture" would encompass the entire production and distribution process. And I furthermore fail to see how "cinema" does not include all the aspects "film" refers to. I'm not suggesting changing any of the scope of this article: it will still include much information on the actual motion pictures and their making, without the weight of an objectionable term. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see how "motion picture" would not encompass the entire production and distribution process of motion pictures :-) Binba (talk) 05:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

History section - typesetters' quotation found

"motion pictures." needs changing to "motion pictures". I'd do it myself, but the page is semi-protected. Can someone else do it, please? Avengah (talk) 00:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops, fixed (I forgot the S). The page, however, still needs fixing! Avengah (talk) 01:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Page fixed. Avengah (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Translation

The French article, is an extremely promissing featured article candidate. Any French-English bilingual interested in the topic willing to make a translation for an eventual FA here? Zouavman Le Zouave 16:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki

Please add this: {{Link FA|fr}} . This article (Swedish) is also a good article but I don't know how you call them. Thank you :) Dodoïste (talk) 10:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Added the French tag. The Swedish one I left alone; we only label FA-level articles, not GA (to the best of my knowledge). EVula // talk // // 16:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

'Talkies', 'Film', 'Cinema', 'Movies', 'Video of film', 'Video of film on DVD', "Hollywood" as adjective

I lectured on film at Stanford from 1984 to 1992 (Tarkovsky was my thing).

  • A question I was typically asked was "what is the difference between 'film' and 'cinema'?". I would answer they are the same.
  • "Talkie" usually means "movie made shortly after "silent film".
  • Another question is on the difference between a "film" and a "movie". The answer is more subtle, but the former is usually more used for artistic focus, the latter more for entertainment focus. However, "film", in the expression "silent film" could refer to an entertainment focus. Often "commercial film" and "movie" have similar meanings, but "commercial movie" still has meaning, as an entertainment vehicle that is also intended to make money.
  • Then I would hear people say "I 'saw' 'Andrei Rublev' on DVD, and it was boring". I would respond, "No, you saw 'a DVD, of a video, of the film'". A good way to make the point is to ask a person if they would claim to have seen the Grand Canyon if they merely had seen a picture book on the Grand Canyon. Surprisingly, I hypocritically would make this argument, then go on to talk about Copolla, and say I had seen "Godfather" ten times or more, but I never saw it on a screen until 2003. I went back three times in a row in 2003. I then corrected my own error and started saying that I had seen the Godfather film three times, and a 'video of the film' more than ten times.
This article shuold make this point, or Tarkovsky may die a second death because the "video of the film" is confused with the film. But I do not want to edit an article that seems so otherwise essentially complete.
The most clear way to make this point is using Ken Russel's Davils, in which shades of white (contrast) are used to create a symbolic language, related to purity and sin, and related to a whole lot more. This is almost impossible to see on a "DVD of a video" of the "film". —Preceding unsigned comment added by EricDiesel (talkcontribs) 15:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I used to use the expression "Hollywood", as in "It is Hollywood", as a disparaging adjective, similar to "commercial", but more specific, as a "noncommercial Hollywood film" is still usually "Hollywood". For example, Copolla's "Rumblefish" and Lynch's "Elephant man" are Hollywood films, but they are not "Hollywood". I now live in Los Angeles and run with the crowd here. No one here uses "Hollywood" as a disparaging adjective. When I first came here and met a person remaking a Kurusawa film, to star Tom Hanks, I mistakenly thought it was suppose to be a joke, and I laughed loudly in front of everyone, and the person has been ice cold to me ever since. That is because she is Making a film in Hollywood that is not "Hollywood".

I am not making any changes in the article, as it seems to have a lot of thought having gone into writing it, but these issues shuold be included, as they were things most often dicusseed in outside the theater conversations in places like the Pacific Film archive, when it used to be under the basement of the Berkely museum. EricDiesel (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"Another question is on the difference between a "film" and a "movie". The answer is more subtle, but the former is usually more used for artistic focus, the latter more for entertainment focus."
Maybe from a USA-centric perspective. However, in British (and other varieties of) English, "film" is absolutely the correct standard word for the feature production; whether it's been produced primarily for the purpose of art or for entertainment. When I saw "There's Something About Mary", I watched a film. EuroSong talk 10:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Photography

why are there no references to photography?

Films are produced by recording images from the world with cameras, or by creating images using animation techniques or special effects. would be more accurately put as Films are produced by editing photographic and or digitally originated footage. Research Method (talk) 22:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Gaping holes?

How could we claim this article is anywhere near completion, when there isn't even one sentence about documentaries? I'd suggest we add an introduction to key concepts of fiction vs. nonfiction, live action, animation, and the VFX & mocap inbetween, and that would allow to present the four basic types of films: live-action/narrative, documentary, experimental, and animation.
Meanwhile, I cleaned up and rewrote the Production section's beginning. You're welcome to revise, of course. Binba (talk) 05:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Including Moviefone as an external link

{{editsemiprotected}} Please include the following in the external link section of the Film page:

  • Moviefone - Find comprehensive information about movies, celebrities, theaters and location-based showtimes

Varcyb (talk) 04:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

And how does this meet the requirements of WP:EL? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Request to edit semi-protected article not done at this time. The article has had problems in the past with external links. Whilst it is impossible to be 'fair' about this, the existing external links are certainly more commonly known movie review sites. There are many, many websites with reviews similar to 'moviefone', and it would not improve the article if we added them all.
Any decision to add further external links would require a discussion here, in the talk page, and a clear consensus wish to add the link.
In the external links section of the article is a 'hidden comment'; "NEW LINKS SHOULD NOT BE ADDED WITHOUT PRIOR DISCUSSION ON TALK PAGE AND WILL BE DELETED OTHERWISE".
I'm sorry that I couldn't accede to this request.
Best regards,  Chzz  ►  05:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Reference

I don't know where to get a new source, but under Industry, where it says that bollywood has the highest amount of produced movies annually, the link [1] which is supposed to back this statement up goes to some completely different article, which is about how bollywood is getting to making "hotter" movies, not more, and not most in any way... 213.67.62.172 (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

2 Factual Errors

Sergei Eisenstein is not European; he was a Russian filmmaker b. 1898 in Riga (now in Latvia), died 1948.

Also, in the 1920s, New York City was a filmmaking hub as much as Hollywood. In fact, in the early 1920s, Hollywood was not yet the mythical movie-making mecca it would become in the studio-era. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.32.80 (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

While definitions may vary, most geographic distinctions include Russia as a part of Europe. As for NYC vs Hollywood, all of the major studios were founded in Hollywood in the 'teens, and output surpassed New York by 1915. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Please add the interwiki link kn:ಸಿನಮಾ. -- 59.96.58.8 (talk) 12:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Lack of mention of free video editors

I just noticed this part in "Independent films":

"non-linear editing system pro-level software like Adobe Premiere Pro, Sony Vegas and Apple's Final Cut Pro, and consumer level software such as Apple's Final Cut Express and iMovie, and Microsoft's Windows Movie Maker"

This only mentions proprietary software. Considering that even Windows Movie Maker (!) is mentioned here, I believe that a short mention of a free (as in freedom) video editor, like PiTiVi is needed.

I don't want the article to be biased towards specific types of software, so I find it important that both e.g. Movie Maker and PiTiVi is mentioned. And in terms of popularity, PiTiVi (as well as other free editors) are quite popular, so mentioning it would not more wrong than mentioning iMovie.

It seems that I've been too lazy a Wikipedian, so I'm currently not even autoconfirmed, which is why I didn't just edit this. NqpZ (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep the last ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done--Oneiros (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Film redirect

In general a film is a thin layer. The reason that motion pictures are called "films" is because that is the medium the pictures are/were traditionally stored on. This page should be called Film (motion picture) instead of just Film. Logically then Film should go to the disambiguation page or one of the scientific film pages, preferably Thin Film. XXVII (talk) 04:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary focus on Europe in the History section?

In the History section, the seventh paragraph (at the time of writing), beginning with "The rise of European cinema..." focuses specifically on the history of the medium in Europe. While this fact alone doesn't seem inappropriate by itself, it just seems odd to devote a paragraph to one geographical area, while not doing so with any others. Not to mention, in doing so, the paragraph seems, IMO, awkward and out of place, being the only regionally specific paragraph.

Just my observations. Not sure what would be the best way to go about fixing this, if it is indeed a valid observation so I'm just bringing it up here without editing.

(Sorry in advance if I'm not following Talk-page protocol... this is my first time posting to an article's Talk page.)

Zerotonin (talk) 06:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Split

Why do "film", "motion picture", "movie", and "cinema" all redirect here? They are different concepts and should get their own pages. "Film", "motion picture", and "movie" may all have similar meanings (with slightly different connotations and technicalities) but they are usually used interchangeably colloquially. But "cinema" does not mean "movie". I think there should be two separate articles, one for the field of film as an art form and the motion picture industry another for individual motion pictures. Many other arts do this. Compare literature with book. Or photography with photograph. Why does film have to be different?

Also, some other languages do not have the same word for both concepts as English does, which makes it difficult to create affective interwiki links. See fr:Cinéma versus fr:Film and es:Cine versus es:Película. -- Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The article about what we would understand as a cinema is the Movie theater article; which really should be moved to cinema. I understand your compaints that "film" and "movie" are different - but in English they are used pretty much synonomously, and don't merit two articles. I understand other languages have different (and seperate) concepts, and this can confuse interwiki links, but I would focus on improving this article, rather than trying to split it off. YeshuaDavid (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm not talking about cinema in the sense of a movie theater--I'm talking about cinema in the sense of the art of moving images. Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 05:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
How would you split the content of this article between the two? At a glance it looks like this article could be left as it is and renamed Cinema, and a new article would need creating on the concept of a film (the object). What would you put in that? Would it be a summary of the content linked from list of film formats? That could be nice. Perhaps you could create the new page at film (motion picture), say - if you're volunteering - and then we could quibble about naming afterwards. Flowerparty 06:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Yup! That's what I was thinking! It's just like the article for photograph, which just gives a brief history of the medium and the different types of photos. I would do the same with the new motion picture article. --Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 07:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Go for it. Sounds good to me. Flowerparty 11:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
There's also film stock. Not sure how much that overlaps with what you have in mind. Flowerparty 11:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
There's still a tag to split the article up despite this discussion being over a year old. Shall we remove the tag now? ENeville (talk) 03:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree. EuroSong talk 11:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Can't make out History section

I can't read this bit from the history section at all: "Much terminology later used in film theory and criticism applied, such as mise en scene (roughly, the entire visual picture at any one time). Moving visual and aural images were not recorded for replaying as in film."

What are we trying to say, there? I'd change this section myself, but I'm really not sure what it's supposed to say. -Miskaton (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 68.164.115.223, 12 September 2010

I DIRECTED THE OPEN TITLE HOT ACTION SEGMENT FOR THE 1985 MOVIE "HOT MOVES". ALSO DIRECTED THE HOT SHORT, "ROLLER SKATE FEVER' 1981, WHICH OPENED WITH E T AT THE HOLLYWOOD CINERAMA DOME PAUL SHAPER

PLS ADD THIS TO THE CREDTIS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.115.223 (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Wildeq, 3 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

"Rather than leave the audience in silence, theater owners would hire a pianist or organist or a full orchestra to play music fitting the mood of the film at any given moment." - not true, first music in cinemas had purpose of covering noise of movie projectors.

I would say:

"Rather than leave the audience with noise of early cinema projectors, theater owners would hire a pianist or organist or a full orchestra to play music that would cover noises of projector. Eventually musicians would start to fit the mood of the film at any given moment."

Wildeq (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Done Logan Talk Contributions 02:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
It would be nice to have a source for this to verify the information and justify adding it to History of film. --Ronz (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

'Story'

As a film student with a passion for experimental cinema I already have a massive problem with the opening line of this article: "A film, also called a movie or motion picture, is a story conveyed with moving images." This implies ALL films are 'stories' conveyed with 'moving images', and this is massively biased towards commercially dominant western modes of film-making, ignoring many important and loved works from various avant-gardes throughout cinema history. Derek Jarman's 'Blue', for instance, is the last film by an important director, which tells the story of his struggle with AIDS, though the film itself consists of no 'moving images'. There are also countless examples of non-narrative films which in no way convey any kind of 'story'. Could this opening line please be changed to remove the bias towards narrative film? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.2.136.60 (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the info i support what he said...Babumonsms (talk) 04:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree completely. How should we change it? Donniedarkofan2006 (talk) 15:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I have changed it myself. I think it now more accurately reflects the reality. Donniedarkofan2006 (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Lead caption

A 16 mm spring-wound Bolex "H16" Reflex camera, a popular introductory camera in film schools

Was certainly true in the 1980s and early 1990s, but in this day and age, I just don't believe it anymore. Most film students are using digital cameras. I'm going to remove it. Viriditas (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

All the major film schools in the east still use Bolexs or other 16mm cameras in the beginning. Ryerson University, York, Humber, Concordia in Canada. The New York Film Academy, and others all still use 16mm widely. I am reversing your mistake. (Yohowithrum (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC))

"Future State" Section has no Citations

I would just like to point out there there are no citations in this section. This makes me, even though I would think some of this information is true, doubt the validity of the section. One could even argue that it is an unnecessary section because film (in any format) is still a wildly used medium for recording motion pictures. Question to all you guys reading this: Should the section be fixed or Deleted or What? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zekeman95 (talkcontribs) 02:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


dievg;en gwoigneiowe';

Edit request from 98.191.109.146, 9 August 2011


98.191.109.146 (talk) 19:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Submission is blank Topher385 (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Ratings

hey there. wanso when most people search for a film title on wikipedia, they probably want to know how good it is. as it stands, most pages have a section "reception" that describes how critic reviewed the film. however this part is usually at the bottom of the page.


i propose we start adding film ratings into the main panel at the top of each film page. along wth the year of production, director etc, we should show how good the film was.

i know this is supposed to be an exncyclopedia and thus should deal with facts, but i think adding a numerical number is still farly scientific, and honestly, its artm it doesnt make sense to show all the info but not how "good it is. opinion is still information, and we should show people what they want.

please reply on my page so i know you replid.

-DJLO (talk) 01:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Current templates

This article currently has the following 3 heading templates

The Refimprove and More footnotes should probably stay but not sure about the Globalize template, bearing in mind that it's been here for nearly a year and a half anyone care to contribute exactly what needs improving? Zarcadia (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Movie

change the title to movie and make film redirect to that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.249.73.200 (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

That's not necessary. Binksternet (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia's naming convention, the article should be located at the title that is the most commonly used name for the topic. I think "movie" is more commonly used than "film", so I would support moving the article. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Not all films are movies - or even talkies. Headhitter (talk) 07:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that you have some narrow-minded editor insisting on renaiming a "movie poster" to a "film poster" eventhough they are not called "film posters." He cites this article. Can you at least change "film poster" back to "movie poster" on THAT article? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.131.34.246(talk) 18:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Dickson

Attached is a link to WKL Dickson. It seems odd that the name appeared with no context or link on [Nov 11 2007] and stayed that way for 4 years. It remains a rather underdeveloped, unexplained reference. Sojambi Pinola (talk) 05:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Jak-I the Pak-I — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.84.199.244 (talk) 14:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

First public movie projection in the world

Worth to be mentioned, I guess :

"La première projection publique des Lumière a lieu le 28 décembre 1895 au Salon indien du Grand Café, boulevard des Capucines à Paris. La séance est présentée par Antoine Lumière devant trente-trois spectateurs. Charles Moisson, le constructeur de l’appareil sera le chef mécanicien et supervisera la projection. Le prix de la séance sera fixé à 1 Franc" : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auguste_et_Louis_Lumi%C3%A8re#Projections_priv.C3.A9es_et_publiques_de_1895

"The first public screening of the Lumière brothers takes place December 28, 1895 at Salon Indien du Grand Café on the Boulevard des Capucines in Paris. The session is presented by Antoine Lumière in front of thirty-three spectators. Charles Moisson, manufacturer of the device, is the chief engineer and supervises the projection. The price of the session is set to 1 Franc". (Translation : Google, corrected by hand)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/76/Programa.JPG/220px-Programa.JPG

82.226.27.88 (talk) 08:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


Referencing

The following categories need referencing material to be considered 'fact' in Wikipedia, currently the pages that need referencing are: Distribuion (minor) Future State (currently has no references) the former has not been changed since 2009, the later has not been done since 2007. This is a seemingly important page and needs referencing if it is to be trusted in the future. Please change this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.11.110 (talk) 02:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Translation from French

Hey everyone, As requested on the main page, I made an attempt to translate a part of a section from the French article. Please find it below:

Film and music After the introduction of sound to cinema, the development of the dialogues and original soundtrack quickly became a crucial element to films. Music would help in the creation and development of the ambiance, as well as emphasizing the characters emotions and feelings. While cinema was being born, films were silent. To overcome the lack of sound, a musician, usually a pianist, would play along with the projection. Such musician would reinforce the rhythm and emotions, and the producers would catch up on it quickly. From 1909, classic music started to be included on films. They had to wait some time before the songwriters could compose original scores for the cinema. However, if at the premiere the music was still not entirely finished, the film would be accompanied by a speech, called by Igor Stravinsky as‘wallpaper’. http://www.filmmusicsociety.org/news_events/features/2003/101003.html

Let me know if you think this will contribute to this article! Many thanks, Zalunardo8 (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 April 2013

Take off filers so I may view the web.

69.171.178.90 (talk) 06:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)now...

Filers? Rivertorch (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done for now. Your request is unclear, and may have been posted on the wrong page. -- Dianna (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Film Ratings

Hello everyone, I am wondering if it would be helpful to have posted under the director, actors, etc. the film's rating? Generally, before wtching a film I look it up on Wikipedia. This is nice... ...however, I do like to know the rating of the film I'm going to watch. MayhemMaster (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, with consensus being against it - WP:FILMRATING explains Wikipedia's take on film age ratings. Basically it's because they vary from country to country, and we'd either have to arbitrarily pick one for the infobox, or list all of them. If you think it's worth looking at this again, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film would probably be the best place to start a conversation. --McGeddon (talk) 18:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Okay. I really dont think it worth quibling about. And really, if you think about it, it would be a LOT of work to go through every single film page to add ratings. ThanksTheMouthofSauron (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Don't be afraid to make suggestions; if something turns out to be a good idea, we can always draft in the manpower or create a bot to implement the change. --McGeddon (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 May 2013

The Role of a Film Festival Curator

Film Festival Curator also known as Film Festival Programmer or Film Festival Designer at various part of the world.

Over all programming - A curator is responsible for entire design of a film festival. From the basic concept development or research on the theme of the particular section or the whole festival. Suppose a film festival is based on Asian cinema, that case the curator have to keep a tab on all the Asian countries from Japan to Turkey. The curator should have a clear idea of the geography as well as a brief history and recent political development of these region, beside the recent development in the sector of not only film making but also the news from the film festival circuit.

Programming of sections - There are also various section of a film festival based on a various themes, like the birth / death centenary of a great personality, retrospective to a persona or a film studio/ company or any other theme relevant to the respective film festival.

The above mentioned process are completely based on research and one need to spend a lot of time on research.

After completing the research process one need to find out the source of the films. The source can be the actor/actress, director, producer, distributor, crew member of the film or journalists. One need to have very well network among the film fraternity and the journalists.

Acquiring film rights for the festival one of the very important process. Lot of the distributors or film sales company charged a huge amount of money as screening fees, the curator is responsible for the negotiation with the party to wave out or bring down the screening fees as much as lover side possible.

Even among of the few Indian distributors or producers have a tendency to charge the screening fees or other favour such as asking for Business class travel and hospitality. The curators job is to negotiation towards getting the right of the films, according to the terms and condition of the film festival.

Curator is also responsible for the travel and hospitality of the guests related to the films up to some extent. Mostly the film academician, journalists, critics have less tantrum but the so call stars and few directors always carry a huge ego along with them. The curator is the person who have to deal with all the tantrum and have to satisfy the ego of such guests. This is one of the unofficial but very crucial part of the film festival which make the festival great or bad name. Because mouth of word publicity through the film fraternity is extremely important to sustain a festival.

Curator is also responsible to maintain the secrecy. As curators use to get film screener before the film even commercially released. Curator is completely responsible to handle the screener in a strict manner so that no one can make copy the screener or promote piracy. This particular responsibility add a huge credential to the film festival. As of now not a single film leaked from the film festival fraternity, but we know from the report that even the noted laboratory was responsible for making pirated copy of films.

Usually a film festival curator work through out the year (24x7x365) for the programming. All the noted film festivals have their curatorial team works through out the year, it can not done on a part time basis. The job need complete devotion and loyalty towards the work. In India Osian’s was one of the big and good private film festival there they use to have a full fledged working force for the festival through out the year with a good package of remuneration from forty to sixty thousand rupees per month, according to the person’s capability.

Film festival curation is not a 9am -5pm office job. It’s need extensive field work, like attending seminars, talk, press conference, film screening, workshop etc. and also attending party or social gathering are most integral part of a curatorial job for networking. A curator may need to sacrifice his own religious / social / family function to attend film festivals or other film related events.

A curator need to be available anytime of the day, he need to be activate through internet and mobile all the time. He need to travel within a short notice or a prior notice. The person should be a good computer proficiency and need to have good knowledge on Microsoft Word, Excel and Access software along with the software like Datakal which are essential for various aspects of programming.

Due to all these aspects the curatorial job need full time attention and that to for sustainable time of the period of at least two to three years. Once the curator involve full time in a particular film festival they can’t not work simultaneously with any other project, as they have to put their full concentration, devotion and loyalty towards that particular festival only.

The curator should get a remuneration on an average of rupees fifty thousand at least per month, which can cover their local travel, internet charges, mobile phone bill etc. In any case one employer need to pay little more for the short term service, as in the short term service there is no provident fund, gratuity, life insurance and other facilities are available, which are available with full time government services.

Even for the Commonwealth Game, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting have hired professional for media arrangement, through BECIL, those who are less qualified as compare to the Film Festival Programmer but drawing a monthly salary of above fifty thousand rupees.

Also the festival committee need to send their programmer to the important foreign and domestic film festivals, so that the curator can build a solid network among the various film festivals and also bring good films, invite respected guests to the festival.

Santanu ganguly (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


What you are looking for is an article written about the role of film festival curator. I know that Anita Monga would be a notable example from the San Francisco Silent Film Festival; she was called a "film programmer" by the local papers: "Film programmer Anita Monga's 5-star places" and "Coming soon?". Another common title is "Artistic Director" of a film festival. I am sympathetic to Wikipedia hosting an article on the topic, whatever it is called, but the place where new article requests are handled is Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Tell them I sent you. Binksternet (talk) 00:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)