Talk:Beirut (film)

Criticism Section makes no sense

The article is about the film presumably. Yet the "criticism" section seems to be nothing more than poltical soapboxing about . . . the trailer.

1)The "criticisms" are generic (location, accents, etc.) - and, frankly, could be said about most films made.

2)It seems the critics here (and in the referenced links!) have not actually seen the movie or read the script. Have they?

It appears that the "criticisms" are: Hollywood movies about places MUST be filmed in the exact actual location, or the movie is no good. By definition. Huh?

Hollywood movies are forbidden to cover the horrors of the Lebanese civil war, or Lebanon in the 1980's. Huh?

There can be no depiction of any bad Muslims/Arabs. There can be no depiction of any good Israelis/Americans.

Mind you, none of us has any idea yet how this film's script actually treats Muslims/Arabs/Israelis/Americans, yet!

But this self-styled anti-Islamophobia-squad is pre-emptively putting everyone on notice: Arabs/Muslim can ONLY be good guys. I'm reminded of when True Lies came out in 1994 and the "good guy/heroic" Grant Heslov character (Faisal - Tasker's competent, likable, upstanding partner) was ignored by the anti-Islamophobia-squad as they focused on their disdain for the existence of the Art Malik character (how dare Hollywood imply that not every one claiming to be of the Islamic faith is a good guy!) By the way, the idea that Hollywood doesn't make movies where the USA, the CIA et. al. are the bad guys . . . is laughably absurd. Maybe in the 1940's. But have the authors of the "criticism" section watched the past 50 (!) years of Hollywoods take on the USA, CIA, etc. these past decades? Really? Start your education with Three Days of the Condor (1975) and work your way through to Syriana (2005) and then maybe Body of Lies (2008). Can't wait to see what the criticism of the "7 Days in Entebbe" (2018) section will look like - probably it'll complain that the heroic commandos who freed the hostages from the hijackers are treated like heros. Crazy isn't it! In any event, I vote for a criticism section to be added only by people who've seen the movie, or have read the script? 68.129.183.206 (talk) 03:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Response to criticism making "no sense"

If you read the resources, the issue isn't that violence is taking place with Arabs or Muslims at the forefront, but rather the reductive nature of it. The film itself (yes the film, not the trailer) has been reviewed as xenophobic for that reason. It presents a very complex civil war with dozens of factions (for instance, Christian factions were allied with Muslim factions, western political efforts with east, US capitalism vs Russian communist direct influences, etc) through the lenses of tired Arab villain tropes and generalizations of Muslim kidnappers and white villains.

For instance, the film represents the villains as being the "Militia of Islamic Liberation" whereas the actual groups in conflict during the war spanned many religions and nationalities. More specifically, the film attributed the leader of the "Militia of Islamic Liberation" as being the mastermind of the Munich Olympics Massacre, whereas in reality the massacre was committed by Black September, a secular Palestinian nationalist group whose leader had Christian and Jewish parents.

There's certainly an interesting, compelling, worthy story to be told from these events, but this reduction isn't it.

Now add in the fact that the film titled itself with the name of the city. It was called "The Highwire Act" and changed to "Beirut".

Now add in that the film forever claiming the title of "Beirut" has no actors from Beirut. No characters from Beirut. No heroes from Beirut. No stories from Beirut. No settings from Beirut. No music from Beirut.

The criticism isn't some post-modernist snowflake where Arabs can only be good guys and Muslims have to be the heroes. It's just a matter of wanting to be viewed as complex, full characters instead of just part of the backdrop for war movies and expendable tropes. Compare this to Oscar nominated "The Insult" which exposes real issues that exist in Lebanon, not necessarily painting it in a positive light but likely a necessary introspective look to work on improvement. "Beirut" is no such film, the criticism is deserved, and the public response is important to document and record as is accurately reflected by references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimesUpBeirut (talk • contribs) 00:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Regarding structure and placement of public and critical response

While I believe much of the back and forth edits regarding criticism have served to improve it and make it more accurate, there's also been a lot of blanket removals. For anyone believing that it doesn't belong either as a section or mentioned (briefly as a significant overview item) in the top area, here are articles with precedent for both:

Song of the South, The Birth of a Nation, The Love Guru, Ghostbusters (2016_film), Aladdin (1992 Disney film), The Last Samurai — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimesUpBeirut (talk • contribs) 01:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Blanket Removal of Criticism

There appears to be an effort for blanket removal of properly referenced criticism by IP addresses resolving to both the neighborhood of Bleecker St Films (the film's producer) in NY, and user ZinedineZidane98 [edits], a user with significant anti-Arab and pro-Israeli edits: see his efforts on the articles for Charlie Hebdo, Linda Sarsour, Dean Obeidallah, Palestine, removals of talk from his own page, and history of edit wars from his talk page. The criticism section in place is consistent with precedent with other films on Wikipedia that received the same type and severity of criticism per the talk section above, and all criticism content is properly referenced by noteable sources, such as the NY Times. If the blanket removal continues I think we should request formal mediation on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimesUpBeirut (talk • contribs) 01:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 04:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

More blanket removal via ZinedineZidane98 in edits 825041880 and 825041972. The first edit's comment accuses the restoration of criticism as being "against concensus" despite the fact that the criticism section has contributions from many users and has undergone many revisions. In fact, the comments justifying blanket removals from ZinedineZidane98 continue to be a moving goal post. As the criticism section has been improved through consensus of edits, ZinedineZidane98's reasons for blanket removal continue to change. The second blanket removal comment asserts that the criticism of the film isn't notable, which simply isn't true and more evidence of a moving goal post by ZinedineZidane98. Notability and precedent has been addressed with talk above regarding structure and nature of the criticism. TimesUpBeirut (talk) 05:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Look, you can't accuse a film of being "xenophobic" in the lede, based upon a review written on some random website that no one's ever heard of (accusaations that you wrongly attribute in your edit to Variety). Nor can you have a four-paragraph-length "criticism" section sourced largely to blogs, without the balance of any positive reviews. Leave the bad review that it received in the NY Times, and get rid of the rest - at least WAIT UNTIL IT'S RELEASED. The film has an 88% rating on rottetomatoes.com, and only one bad review. I shouldn't have to even point all this out, it's obvious what's going on here, but since you persist, I've been forced to waste this 5mins of my life. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 08:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Look, you've moved the goalpost again and now it's "because the movie hasn't been released", except that it has been released and reviewed at Sundance. The Sundance review used as reference confirms the overwhelming, notable social media backlash, and is in-line with well documented Wikipedia precedent (see talk above regarding other articles with similar documentation of criticism). Previous edits to the criticism section were improved to add clarity to the many edits from many editors and separate pre-release criticism from post-release criticism. The 88% you mentioned on RottenTomatoes consists of just 8 reviews, which are mixed, one of which is the Variety article which was used as a reference for the "mixed" verbiage and the very negative review cited on RottenTomatoes that you mention is the exact one also referenced here in this article. It's noteworthy enough to be listed as a credible, professional on RottenTomatoes, and it's credible enough to be used here. Regardless, the criticism section, and the lead are both the product of now many contributors and very consistent with Wikipedia precedent as documented above. The fact is I'm the one keeping the criticism section alive by working to improve it over and over again to satisfy your moving goal post, which I have done, and honestly the article is better for it and I'm thankful for the process. However, at this point the article is quite good and very much in line with other Wikipedia film articles regarding criticism and blanket removal is not warranted. If consensus believes that more references are required (above and beyond NY Times, HuffPo, etc already referenced) to establish notability, I'm more than happy to add them; there are many more. Getting more editors involved would also be great. You've accused me of being a single issue account, yet yours is riddled with vandalism indicating a strong bias against Arabs, and frequent reversed edits to soften Israeli criticism. Please feel free to explain your (now reversed) edits to the articles about Arab activist Linda Sarsour, Dean Obeidallah, Palestine, etc. along with your talk page's history of edit wars. Frankly, if you want your idea of "balanced" coverage of criticism, please try to find a review from a credible source praising the film's historical or cultural accuracy and improve the article by adding this "balanced" view and adding the reference but I doubt you will since there isn't any to be found. If there's any source willing to defend the conflating of "Islamic Liberation" with Black September or a summary of Beirut's history as "2000 years of murder", it would certainly be educational since all non-fictional historical evidence points squarely to the opposite. TimesUpBeirut (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

To add to the above, I counted and a total of 12 editors have contributed to the criticism section or have helped restore your and the NY IP address's blanket removals. So, 12 editors working through consensus to improve and preserve, two people trying to remove it entirely despite references like the New York Times. TimesUpBeirut (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Fine, I did it for you. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 06:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

It appears that rather than respond in good faith, you've decided to vandalize the page and continue with blanket removals. The issues you've raised each time with your blanket removals have been addressed through consensus, proper use references, and exemplified through precedents. If you aren't interested in good faith discussions, I recommend that we formally request a Third Opinion from a user that hasn't edited this article previously and does not have a history of edits in middle eastern affairs. TimesUpBeirut (talk) 07:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Please do. You seem to know an awful lot about Wikipedia for being a brand new user, by the way... ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

RfC balance in criticism

Which version is fairer, TimesUpBeirut's [1] or mine [2] ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 09:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the question is whether which edit is "more fair" but rather whether blanket removal is warranted for any reason, which there is no reason for as it is properly referenced and falls in line perfectly with Wikipedia precedent. If you desire to create a section relating to the reception of the film rather than blanket removal of criticism, I would recommend that you follow Wikipedia precedent such as for The_Last_Samurai or Ghostbusters_(2016_film) and have separate sections for "Reception" and "Controversy". There's no reason why your content can't live side by side with the rest, and does not warrant a blanket removal. TimesUpBeirut (talk) 08:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to say this again, real slow now...... BLOGS.ARE.NOT.RELIABLE.SOURCES. Neither is twitter. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 05:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• That part about a twitter comment shouldn't be included unless another author writes about the tweet in a reliable source. Just because the person tweeting is a journalist doesn't make the tweets notable - anymore than if the journalist had made a comment to people standing around at a party. Notable writing needs editorial oversight.—Anne Delong (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The notability isn't coming from a single tweet or anything like that, but rather a mass of tweets and a boycott movement covered by New York Times. Hollywooderino (talk) 08:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Plot

It is mentioned in the plot that "After Skiles attacks a PLO officer, he sets up a trade for Rafid".

I guess it'll be more appropriate to write "Skiles forces a PLO officer to setup a trade for Rafid".

Since it is my opinion and I am not sure therefore I have not made this change to the plot. Ravi arnie (talk) 07:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)