Talk:Un Chien Andalou
|Un Chien Andalou has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Art. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|Un Chien Andalou was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.|
|WikiProject Film||(Rated C-class)|
Picture from film
Is there a reason why Image:Andalou.jpg is not marked to be in public domain? There's also Image:Chien andalou frame publicdomain.png on Commons with the same motive. Shouldn't we use that one instead? --romanm (talk) 01:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Isn't the caption under the image something of a spoiler? Not that the slicing is unexpected, but it is unexpected how graffic it is
I'm pretty sure the slashing scene was fake. If i recall, you can see tufts of hair around the eye, since they used a dead calf. If anyone believes this is not the case, correct me...
- You are absolutely correct. A close viewing of the film shows the differences between the actress's eye and the calf's eye. StavinChain 22:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- According to Allan Havis, the eye in this scene is a donkey's eye..
Whatever animal it is, we should settle for one of the two. :P The main article says "The eye that was actually sliced in the opening scene was that of a dead donkey." and cites it, but under the film caption to the right of the text it says "The legendary shot of the cow's eye being slit by Luis Buñuel.", without citing. Gershake (talk) 01:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
The information under "influences" is starting to look too much like trivia. Some of it, such as the Silence of the Lambs video cover, sounds like it could be WP:OR. What does everyone else think? --GHcool 06:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- If it was really influential than there should be enough information to devote prose to the influence rather than a bulleted statement. As in "Un chien's influence can be seen in X, Y, and Z in the general surreal tone and camerawork." Then in separate paragraphs more detail on X, Y, and Z or a link to the appropriate section in the articles of X, Y, and Z. I'm using X, Y, and Z because I think we should highlight the three (or some other small number) most important influences, and then list other homages that are very obvious and definitely not OR. As for the specific claim on Silence, I think a screen shot would verify/prove the claim. (Since Un chien can be found on the internet, one should be able to do this fairly easily.)--Supernumerary 08:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- In any case, there is no doubt that the moth in "Un Chien Andalou" and that used for various art (posters, DVD cover, etc.) for "The Silence of the Lambs" are of the same species. I'm not sure this is actually OR, but whether this is hommage or just coincidence (due to the striking nature of the skull image on the moth) is what is up for debate. I'll post a cap of the closeup from "Un Chien Andalou" as soon as I read the "how to" on that. StavinChain 22:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The presence of apparent trivia in the Influence section weakens it greatly in my view. They do need differentiation. High Heels on Wet Pavement 19:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I personally doubt the influence of Un Chien Andalou on Oldboy. In Andalou, the ants were meant to give literal meaning to a French expression, akin to "an itchy trigger finger". In Oldboy, the ants were used to show the character's complete mental breakdown from being isolated for so long.
- Apart from the meaning of the ants, I think the director of Oldboy did have this film in mind. Geert Rinkel (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
several unattributed opinions - (no doubt attributable to notable sources-- but which?) High Heels on Wet Pavement 20:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Because that's how they write titles in French. There's a discussion going at the moment about whether it's a good idea to follow foreign language norms in an English encyclopedia - see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films)#Capitalization_in_titles. Cop 633 01:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Behind the scenes.
Is this section really necessary? It's got one unreferenced claim that should be in a production section and one piece of trivia. Davidovic 23:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The third and fourth sentences of the second paragraph aren't any good. They contradict the first sentence of the second paragraph and also contradicts the analysis section. This part is a subjective analysis of the film by the writer of the paragraph and holds no validity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Sources desperately lacking
It's already been marked for a long time, but sources and information on this page are really sketchy. I've looked and honestly can't find much to back alot of this stuff up. Even some of the sources listed are erroneous such as the first one for 'initially released in 1929 to a limited showing in Paris, but became popular and ran for eight months.' An unrelated link is listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Footnote #13 goes to a dead link. I've seen similar footnotes with a notation stating 'Dead Link" or something like that. I have no idea how to put that notation though. Jtyroler (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- I was looking for a connection between the film and the Mickey Mouse suicide urban legend. I can't find it anywhere. --188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Just wondering, how do you pronounce "Un chien andalou"? Maybe it should be written out in IPA at the beginning of the article. I would add that, but like I said, I don't know how to pronounce it. Also, the section "Legacy" kind of sounds like a bunch of made-up stuff that some person slapped together in five minutes. If any part of it is true, then it should be moved to appropriate sections in the article, and they could also use some references to make sure they are true. Cloudy fox 001 (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't the copyright on this film have expired by now? Youtube cites Microcinema International as holding the copyright. Can this be verified or discussed?184.108.40.206 (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Divide section on Production
I'd like to divide the section currently called "Production" into two -- one for "Background", which would deal with the planning and events leading up to the beginning of filming, and the second for "Production", which would cover the filming process itself. Any problems with that? Thanks. Jburlinson (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Havis, Allan (2008), Cult Films: Taboo and Transgression, Univeristy Press of America, Inc., page 11