Talk:Capitalism: A Love Story: Difference between revisions
Superluser (talk | contribs) m →Fact checking: forgot signature |
→Plutonomy: added comment |
||
Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
If we ever need an article on the subject, perhaps the word would be better rendered plutopoly (sale by wealth), after monopoly and oligopoly. [[User:Superluser|superluser]]<sub>[[User_talk:Superluser|t]][[Special:Contributions/Superluser|c]]</sub> 2009 October 07, 06:35 (UTC) |
If we ever need an article on the subject, perhaps the word would be better rendered plutopoly (sale by wealth), after monopoly and oligopoly. [[User:Superluser|superluser]]<sub>[[User_talk:Superluser|t]][[Special:Contributions/Superluser|c]]</sub> 2009 October 07, 06:35 (UTC) |
||
Actually Superluser I like your wording! I was sort of puzzled by Moores use of the Plutonomy phrase- I think he made an esthetic connection with "Economy" & "Plutocracy" . Plutocracy is often used by historians to describe the totally unregulated free-market 'Robber-Baron' period of American history in the last 2 decades of the 19th century. But Plutopoly as a descriptive of an economic structure scans better & seems self definitive. Wish Moore had used that! |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/71.6.81.62|71.6.81.62]] ([[User talk:71.6.81.62|talk]]) 04:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)MBD[[Special:Contributions/71.6.81.62|71.6.81.62]] ([[User talk:71.6.81.62|talk]]) 04:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:10, 8 October 2009
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Capitalism: A Love Story article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Capitalism: A Love Story. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Capitalism: A Love Story at the Reference desk. |
Film: American Start‑class | ||||||||||
|
Response has been very positive
According to Slashfilm.com: "So far the response has been very positive, a bunch of four out of five star reviews."[1] Dynablaster (talk) 23:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- For what it is worth, I would not cite this for critical reception of the film because it is an early perspective. We would do better with a retrospective perspective, particularly after the film is released to the public. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 18:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Washington Post seems to like it
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/15/AR2009091503314.html?nav=rss_email/components Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
a problem
the title of the movie is mocking capitalism but the trailer mocks bailouts, which arent capitalism (free market) but rather government intervention. does michael moore understand this? is it explained in the movie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mild Sauce (talk • contribs) 22:03, September 20, 2009 (UTC)
It's just a matter of who asked for the money, lobbied for it and used it for their own betterment. Gingermint (talk) 00:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- The treatment of the bailouts in the film involves the way in which the capitalist banks made the government work for them, rather than for the people.AniRaptor2001 (talk) 02:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Documentary vs. Propaganda
I disagree with characterizing any Michael Moore film, including this one, as a documentary. Like his other films, this seeks to convey a specific, if perhaps not clearly delineated, political viewpoint. Moreover, he is willing to distort his perception of reality, or affect it (by entering into the scene and trying to manipulate it) rather than merely observing, documenting, and commenting on his view of reality. Should it not be characterized as propaganda? Jim Simmons (talk) 04:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- I Agree completely. Calling Moore's works documentaries is like calling a polished terd a fine top-hat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.212.4 (talk • contribs) 02:30, September 21, 2009 (UTC)
- The general label for this film is documentary film. When the film is released, we can include commentary from various sides (applying due weight in the process) and let the readers pass their own judgments on the film. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 15:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Apologies, but see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Talk:Capitalism:_A_Love_Story_re_Michael_Moore. Thank you, --4wajzkd02 (talk)
- In response to Erik; I agree with that idea, and I apologize if my former statements were unproductive to the discussion at hand (This is the IP poster in this thread, I forgot my password after a long while of inactivity). The purpose of the page should be to inform, not form opinions of the film as that would probably just turn the reader off from the article and the media in question. I'll certainly do my part and present sources that seem un-motivated to Moore himself and more on the topic of the film after it's been released. Girasoleil (talk) 19:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- I would refer all to the relevant section in our article about the genre- Documentary film#Defining documentary, to whit: "a documentary stands out from the other types of non-fiction films for providing an opinion, and a specific message, along with the facts it presents". Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 19:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Resources to use
Please use this section to add resources that could be incorporated into the article. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 20:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Reviews
- Metacritic: Reviews (not in article) from Premiere, Entertainment Weekly, New York Daily News, The New York Times, Time Out New York, Village Voice, Salon.com, and New York Post
- Capitalism: A Love Story - An Early Review by The Nation
- Capitalism: A Love Story at The Guardian
- Michael Moore's Capitalism Goes for Broke at Time
- Capitalism: A Love Story at Screen Daily
- Moore pulls no punches in 'Capitalism: A Love Story' at AFP (via Yahoo!)
- Greed Is Good? He Begs to Differ at New York Times
- Capitalism: A Love Story at Rolling Stone
- Other coverage
- Media magnate among the backers of Michael Moore's anti-capitalism screed at Los Angeles Times
- Detroit gets sneak peek into Moore's 'Capitalism' at Detroit News
- For 'Capitalism,' Moore Sells Short Politicians of All Denominations at The Washington Post (copied from above)
- 'Capitalism' Comes to New York at The New York Times
- Dems Feel Michael Moore's Wrath at The Washington Post
- Michael Moore screening 'Capitalism' in Mich. town at AP (via Yahoo! News)
- Michael Moore: Capitalism has proven it's failed at CNN
Date formatting
An editor changed the "Accessed" dates to ISO formatting where this is not necessary, and I reverted this overhaul per MOS:DATE. With the articles' dates written one way, there is no reason to change the access dates to another format. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 14:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- More directly: MOS:DATE#Format consistency. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 14:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Fact checking
May someone add this AP fact checking of the film into the article?[2] Richard (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Nice nugget! I don't know if I'll have time to put it in, but thanks for sharing. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 17:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Someone merged the "Analysis" section into the "Critical reception" section, but the sections should remain separate. The "Critical reception" section is a place for sampling film critics' reviews of the quality of the documentary film. The AP article specifically analyzes elements of the documentary, so it is definitely not a review or by a film critic, but rather a business writer. There will undoubtedly be more such analytical coverage that has less to do with the film's "quality" than the accuracy of its details. Others' thoughts? Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 19:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Where is it written that a Critical reception section must only include the opinion of film critics? These things vary from page to page, but I can honestly say that I have never seen a section named Analysis. Surely it is better to follow the example set by other films of this nature? (e.g. Sicko) Dynablaster (talk) 19:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- (ec)I agree with Erik. "Critical reception" should focus on personal opinions regarding the filmmaking aspects of the subject. The current "Analysis" section deals with real facts that need to be discussed separately from critical observations on filmmaking. The editor that disagrees with Erik reverted again and added the factual analysis back to the reception section claiming that "there is no precedent for a section named "Analysis" anywhere on Wikipedia". While I welcome discussion on possibly changing the section header from "Analysis" to something considered more suitable, I think there's plenty of precedent for keeping these two sections separate. See, for example, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. A great deal of factual analysis is kept strictly separate from the critical reception. Filmmaking analysis and factual analysis may sound similar but they really are two completely separate issues and should be addressed separately. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) (reply to Dynablaster) Perhaps "Analysis" is a little vague. I think, though, that a distinction should be made between film critics and "fact check" writers. We will have more reviews like those from Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, so I foresee the need for subsectioning. We could do a "Reception" section with a "Critics" subsection and another subsection for those who are not quite film critics? Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 19:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- There is no precedent for such a section name. Please follow Wikipedia's Film template, or stick as closely to that as you can. Dynablaster (talk) 12:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- There is some precedent with films with scientific and historical subject matter; see WP:FILMHIST/WP:FILMSCI. This is neither, though the same best practices can apply, that there should not be armchair analysis, but analysis from reliable secondary sources. Does this not count? I'm not sure where you get the idea that there must be precedent for such section headings... we should write them as it finds the context accordingly, precedent or not. This is my suggestion. Do you have any alternatives that could work, too? Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 12:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, my alternative is to follow the Project Films Template, which clearly allows for "notable persons or experts connected to the topics covered by the film" to be cited in a Reception section (WP:MOSFILM) Since we both do agree that the same best practices apply, why should we do things differently? Dynablaster (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- We ought to subsection it accordingly because the film critics' write-ups are not in the same vein as the business writer's. Let's say we house everything under "Reception"; we will have the professional film critics and we will have people have different calibers. How do we make the distinction between them in the section headings? Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 18:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Michael Moore's previous film Sicko was fact checked by CNN. There were many arguments at the time, but editors eventually settled their differences. How about a Business media sub header? I'm sure there will be others in this journalistic field who will have something to say about the film. Dynablaster (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- So under "Reception", we could have "Critics" and "Business media"? It works for me, though I am wondering, what if there are new commentators that are not film critics nor business media? What about academics? Would it work to have subsections for them as we go along? Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 13:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Michael Moore's previous film Sicko was fact checked by CNN. There were many arguments at the time, but editors eventually settled their differences. How about a Business media sub header? I'm sure there will be others in this journalistic field who will have something to say about the film. Dynablaster (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- The claim that we need precedent before naming a section is patently ludicrous and should be disregarded. The only guideline mandate for section headers may be found here: WP:MOSHEAD, nowhere is any need for precedent mentioned. L0b0t (talk) 12:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- In what is currently the second item in this section, it reads "Moore said that the termination of the policies was covered in the presentation of facts and quotes in the closing credits." which seems an odd way of stating that. The assertion is either correct or it isn't, and Moore's opinion of what constitutes reality is irrelevant. The way it is currently written has the effect of turning a statement of fact (which, as a rebuttal, should be attributed in some way to Moore) into a he said-she said argument and introducing the possibility of poisoning the well (Oh, well, Michael Moore says it's in there, but you can't trust him). I'm going to try one more change, and see how that's received. superlusertc 2009 October 07, 14:22 (UTC)
Synopsis
When the film is released to the public, I recommend a "Synopsis" section to replace the "Content" section that can outline the major aspects of the documentary film to the point where we can link to the keywords involved. Linked keywords of topics that are not so common sense will benefit readers. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 17:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Plutonomy
I see some helpful individual has linked plutonomy to plutocracy. Unfortunately, that seems to me to be wrong. Plutocracy is rule by wealth, and can be seen by looking to Athens after the Lamian War.
Plutonomy would seem to be a portmanteau of pluto and economy, or a market of wealth (literally the study of wealth), which is not the same as rule by wealth. Indeed, the document cited by Moore addresses plutonomies untethered to plutocracies, going as far as saying "entrepreneur/plutocrats... are logically diversifying into the asset markets of the developed plutonomies," which would make no sense if the words were synonyms. Plutocrats logically diversifying into pluotcracies would be a self-evident and silly point to make.
If we ever need an article on the subject, perhaps the word would be better rendered plutopoly (sale by wealth), after monopoly and oligopoly. superlusertc 2009 October 07, 06:35 (UTC)
Actually Superluser I like your wording! I was sort of puzzled by Moores use of the Plutonomy phrase- I think he made an esthetic connection with "Economy" & "Plutocracy" . Plutocracy is often used by historians to describe the totally unregulated free-market 'Robber-Baron' period of American history in the last 2 decades of the 19th century. But Plutopoly as a descriptive of an economic structure scans better & seems self definitive. Wish Moore had used that!
71.6.81.62 (talk) 04:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)MBD71.6.81.62 (talk) 04:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)