Misplaced Pages

Talk:Cinema of the United States: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:31, 25 October 2006 edit87.110.43.97 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:48, 20 November 2024 edit undo24.249.59.28 (talk) →Regarding the recent reversion: ReplyTag: Reply 
(136 intermediate revisions by 78 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1=
{{V0.5|class=B|category=Socsci}}
{{Film|class=B}} {{WikiProject Film|American-task-force=yes}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=high|USfilm=yes|USfilm-importance=Top}}
Film noir doesn't belong in the "golden age" of hollywood. Or at least according to the article on film noir.
{{WikiProject California|importance=top}}
Removed this sentence:
}}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|archiveprefix=Talk:Cinema of the United States/Archives/|format=Y|age=26297|index=yes|archivebox=yes|box-advert=yes}}


== Move discussion in progress ==
If moving pictures were not an American invention, they have nonetheless been the preeminent American contribution to world entertainment.


There is a move discussion in progress on ] which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. <!-- Talk:Hollywood#Requested move 9 March 2022 crosspost --> —] 17:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
According to the linked page ], moving pictures are an American invention. What's the true story here? ] 22:14 Mar 20, 2003 (UTC)


== First studio ==
I was wondering about that myself, but that was what the us government article said. It did not elaborate and I haven't had a chance to check it out. ]
What was the first studio in Hollywood itself? I've made two edits and started a thread ] about this because I have no idea. Help would be appreciated. ] (]) 1 October 2022 (UTC)


== Hollywood is not synonymous with American cinema ==
According to http://www.cinescene.com/dash/lumiere.html, it was a french man, Lumiere, and his two sons (in Lyons), who having been inspired by Thomas Edison's Kinetoscope, had invented a process of moving a filmstrip and projecting it onto a screen. ]


New version:
Finally, according to this article, http://animation.filmtv.ucla.edu/program/before.html, others had a system of projecting images onto the wall, including Edison's personal system (not his public Kinetoscope), but it would appear that the sprocketed film coordinated with a shutter was the design of the french man Louis Lumiere. ]


<blockquote>
This title is ludicrous. It sounds like it's about movies ABOUT the United States. Avoiding the use of the adjective "American" is nonsense. -- ]
The '''cinema of the United States''', mainly comprised of ] (also known as '''Hollywood''') along with some ], has had a large effect on the ] since the early 20th century.
</blockquote>


If you feel otherwise, as the previous version effectively stated, please supply a cite that says Hollywood is fully ''synonymous'' with American cinema.
Okay Zoe, first I'm glad that you don't mince words and I've seen enough posts from you that I don't take this personally, but I'd appreciate it if you would be a little nicer. Anyway, here's my rationale, in the beginning, there was ''Culture of the United States'' and ''Music of the United States'' (as well as things like ''Politics of the United States'' which I think is a bit odd). So in the interest of keeping it similar to the other half-dozen to dozen ''_______ of the United States'', I added ''Literature of the United States'', ''Dance of the United States'', ''Architecture of the United States'', ''Visual arts of the United States''. (BTW: I didnot use ''Film of the United States'', because that literally sounded like it was a film about the US). Anyway, are you suggesting that we:
#) special case just this entry
#) change all of the entries
Again, I was simply trying to go along with what I preceived was the spirit of the articles. Cheers, ] 02:16 Mar 21, 2003 (UTC)


I'm merely a film buff, but let me say it would be ''shocking'' news to me if very many independent film houses regarded themselves as ''part'' of Hollywood, though they very much regard themselves as part of American cinema. By Hollywood, they usually mean the American institutional behemoth, notorious for having barely any appetite to expand the formulaic box.
How about this title: ''Movies made in the United States'' - ] Actually, I don't like that either. Any suggestions?


No national culture should be so insulted as to be directly equated with the self-glorifying institutional outgrowth of the thing, no matter if it's the ] of ] self-regard.
:I understand what you're saying, and I apologize for the tone, but the thing is that around here, the word "American" has become a dirty word, and I was reacting to that. I still think the title is wrong, but then, what do I know, I'm just one of those Unitestatesians who have stolen the name that belongs to everyone in the Western Hemisphere. -- ]


Perhaps "along with a small but vibrant independent film scene" would sound better, but I'm not one to moot puff language, even when dwarfed to the max by the proximate hindquarters of Puff the Magic Disney Kingdom. &mdash; ] 20:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


:I agree with you. I've never liked the fact that "Hollywood" redirected to this broader scope. I feel like an actual Hollywood article would be more about etymology and cultural meaning, and it can also point to relevant historical sections in this broader article. Be bold and make a change? ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 21:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
It seems to me that the title is perfectly fine, and I, for one, wasn't confused at all. The rationale given above is perfect, I think. Let it stay as it is. ]
:Could also get other opinions by posting at ] since this is a core topic. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 21:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
:I'm surprised to see the quick response. Thanks, Erik. For what its' worth, here ], apparently writing in ''Film Culture, n. 19, Spring 1959'', nakedly equating Hollywood with an ethos developed around a set of business practices ():
<blockquote>
Hollywood is not failing. It has failed.
:...
However the probability of a resurrection of the industry through individual expression is slim, for the men of new ideas will not compromise themselves to Hollywood's departmental heads. These artists have come to realize that to compromise an idea is to soften it, to make an excuse for it, to betray it.


In Hollywood the producer intimidates the artist’s new thought with great sums of money and with his own ego that clings to the past of references of box office triumphs and valueless experience. The average artist, therefore, is forced to compromise. And the cost of the compromise is the betrayal of his basic beliefs. And so the artist is thrown out of motion pictures, and the businessman makes his entrance.
Having read the above justification, I think the title is perfectly correct and logical. I will others would show the same logic sometimes in naming articles. ] 04:03 Mar 21, 2003 (UTC)
</blockquote>


:About John:
:But JT, you're not an imperialist warmongering Unitedstatesian. -- ]
<blockquote>
::Oops, I wanted to move ], ] and ] out of subpages and I put them at ], ] and ], not knowing a discussion had already come up. I like my way better, because ''movies of the United States'' sounds strange to me, but I don't feel strongly. If someone wants to integrate the two articles here, there or somewhere in between, that's fine. ] 16:34 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)
First known as a television and film actor, '''Cassavetes also helped pioneer American independent cinema''', writing and directing movies financed partly by income from his acting work.
</blockquote>
:I can't think of a single other figure in the history of American cinema more germane to the issue, but then I know next to nothing about film prior to the second world war, other than as written up by ] in his book ''The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires''. So that's my best shot, Alex, for what it's worth. I didn't squeeze hard on Cassavetes, either; what I found on one click in a single search was good enough. &mdash; ] 21:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


:My final input, <strike>five</strike><strike>six</strike>seven American films I regard as entirely apart from Hollywood, as such, yet distinctly American:
----
* ] — 1996; ]
''From ]:''
* ] — 1993; ]
* ] — 1990; ]
* ] — 1980; ]; ''belated documentary addition''
* ] — 1974; ]
* ] — 1972; ]; ''belated animation addition''
* ] — 1971; ]


:Some of those are student productions financed with pin money. As a Misplaced Pages editor, I'm a tumbleweed, most at home editing ten or twenty different pages daily for small blunders. It has already pained me to stick around here as long as I have, but my two cents was shining like a pair of pennies freshly toweled down after a good long soak in a vinaigrette hot tub, and just this once I couldn't help myself. &mdash; ] 22:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
*] and ] are essentially the same, except "Cinema" is just a hole-y list. I propose Cinema gets deleted. Where's the best place to ask for a mediation?
** On ]! :) ] 21:55, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
**My suggestion would to the ''Cinema'' content to ''Movies'', and redirecting ''Cinema'' to ''Movies''. The content seems valid enough as far as it goes. -- ] 20:34, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
***I think ''Cinema'' is more canonical (?) than ''Movies'' - rather like ''Photography'' and ''Snaps''. ] 21:03, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
**Unfortunately, most of the articles about the movies of other nations do seem to be titled ''Cinema of . . .'' (''Cinema'' means a movie you don't want to see, with long shots of gauze curtains blowing in the wind, and subtitles, and no explosions.) So it looks like "cinema" is the keeper. -- ] 00:44, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
**I second moving content from ''Movies'' to ''Cinema'' and placing a redirect at ''Cinema''. Virtually everyone calls them movies in the U.S. If there's a summary page somewhere that lists all countries, then just use ''Cinema'' if you want to make it pretty. ] 08:43, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)
**Whichever is kept, it seems better to make the other a redirect than to delete it. ] 08:56, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
**I third the move of content. Cinema is about the art form and its history. Movies should be a list of movies which references cinema for the art form. ] 09:11, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
***What about ''films''? There's already a long list of almost entirely US pictures at ]. ] 22:16, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
****I suppose there's an exclusive list for other countries, so we might as well accept the inevitability of a list of only US movies page. Personally, I don't care, I just forsee the inevitability of it happening.] 11:11, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)


== Reliability of tvtropes to support content found in the "Working conditions" section ==
----
In light of the above consensus-free discussions, I combined the content at ]. While I prefer this to ], the duplicate articles disturb me more. At least the content is now together and can be moved en masse.] 02:53, Dec 23, 2003 (UTC)


(Note: I'll try to use US english here)
== Introduction ==


There is a source in the "Working conditions" section, which backs up content about labor unions. The reliability of this source has been challenged by ].
Having added images, I'd like to ask other editors to help with the introduction. The quote by Pauline Kael - out of context and referring to an Italian film - is presented in a way that denigrates this subject. Surely there's a better way to begin the article. ] 10:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
The source in question is this: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/UnionsInHollywood


TV tropes is considered generally unreliable, as it is user generated content. A better source needs to be found, but replacing the source with a "citation needed" isn't really the way to do it. 103, do you consider that this information is likely incorrect, or is it "just" referenced to an unreliable source? That will affect where we go from here. ]]] 🇺🇦 07:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
*True, but the new section claiming "Its history is marked by two distinct periods, the first often referred to as ], the second as the ]" is extremly dubious. There's a lot of this kind of stuff written on WP, presumably by people who have read '']'' and little else. ] 18:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


==Great Train Robbery image caption==
::True. One could further divide them by decade, by pre-code and post-code (]), by silent/sound, by genre, pre-VCR and post-vcr, pre-filmschool and post-filmschool ... --] 21:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
The image caption for this film says it's the first western. I changed the wording to be consistent with the Misplaced Pages article on the film that says that is a debunked myth and it isn't. (Though it's still considered such by some, so the revision still reflects this). ] (]) 16:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


== Regarding the recent reversion ==
* I prefer the new introduction, but my understanding is that "new Hollywood" only lasted about as far as '']''. Post-'']'' is really another different era; the blockbuster era if you like. As for the deletions, we can all have fun adding our favourite actors or directors to the lists, but it looks like favouritism to put someone like Hal Ashby in with Huston, Spielberg or Kubrick. There are at least a dozen US directors you would add to the list before him. The actor list is the one most often added to; the key word I think is "iconic", not "famous". It's difficult to draw the line, but I don't believe anyone would really describe Tom Hanks as iconic. ] 11:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


Good evening, all. Recently this article was reverted. This version of the article is rife with grammatical errors as well as including a reference to a foreign film of questionable relevance to the article. Before the reversion, I had made edits to the article to fix some of its poor grammar and diction, add sourced material, and add templates regarding missing information (of which there is much). Other editors had amended erroneous punctuation, and another had also removed the poorly-sourced and irrelevant statement about Vijay's ''Leo (2023 Indian film)''. I believe these edits to have improved, if by a small margin, a frankly low-quality Misplaced Pages article, not to mention one which happens to treat a fairly consequential topic. Therefore, I do not believe this most recent reversion to be justified, "last good version" (the revision summary) hardly qualifying as rationale. As a matter of fact, the degree of the measures undertaken by myself and others to improve this article is not commensurate to the level of attention it actually requires. ] (]) 07:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
== missing something ==


:Since no discussion has come about on the talk page, I have restored the edits that were unjustifiedly reverted. If anybody would like to undo this action, they ought to provide a legitimate reason. Thank you. ] (]) 17:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Needs more stuff on CGI and animated films. Finding Nemo, Toy Story, and Shrek have been massively successful. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
:I nearly threw up three different times while reading this. Not sure if you are the original author of the article or not, if not disregard the following:

:If you can't keep your politics to yourself, you have no business contributing to Misplaced Pages.
== Clarity ==
:Please don't make it worse by pretending you don't know what I'm talking about. ] (]) 17:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

"The cinema of the United States, although it is sometimes simply referred to as Hollywood, does not refer only to the film industry of the United States of America. Other modes of production like documentary film or experimental film manage to exist beside the dominant cinema."

This makes little sense. "Hollywood" refers specifically to the big studios, even if they are financing smaller-budget films. No one is going to call a film like, say, "Roger & Me" a "Hollywood" film, but they would call something like "Fahrenheit 9/11" "Hollywood" because of the bigger budget and bigger marketing/studio associations. I really don't understand how documentary or experimental film is outside the "film industry of the United States." I'm going to clarify this section, but I gues I'm anticipating some debate over this. Also, the "other modes of production" do more than just "manage to exist" IMHO.

One final note - there really should be a list of famous film directors. Is there one? - ] 05:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I was never really convinced by the intro either, but it seems to be the wrong way round now. It says "cinema of the United States " is used to refer to the larger studio-produced cinema. What you mean surely, is "Hollywood" is used to mean this. ] 22:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

==Comments from Version 0.5 review==
I think this is a nicely put-together article, and it might well pass as a ] if you nominate it. However, I held off giving it A-Class status because I think the English could be improved. Although it's not really bad, it is awkward in many places and could benefit from a rewrite. Nice job generally, though, I passed it for V0.5. ] 05:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:48, 20 November 2024

This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconFilm: American
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
WikiProject iconUnited States: Cinema High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconCalifornia Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Hollywood which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

First studio

What was the first studio in Hollywood itself? I've made two edits and started a thread Talk:Hollywood, Los Angeles#First studio about this because I have no idea. Help would be appreciated. Invasive Spices (talk) 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Hollywood is not synonymous with American cinema

New version:

The cinema of the United States, mainly comprised of major film studios (also known as Hollywood) along with some independent film, has had a large effect on the global film industry since the early 20th century.

If you feel otherwise, as the previous version effectively stated, please supply a cite that says Hollywood is fully synonymous with American cinema.

I'm merely a film buff, but let me say it would be shocking news to me if very many independent film houses regarded themselves as part of Hollywood, though they very much regard themselves as part of American cinema. By Hollywood, they usually mean the American institutional behemoth, notorious for having barely any appetite to expand the formulaic box.

No national culture should be so insulted as to be directly equated with the self-glorifying institutional outgrowth of the thing, no matter if it's the Rickey Henderson of illeistic self-regard.

Perhaps "along with a small but vibrant independent film scene" would sound better, but I'm not one to moot puff language, even when dwarfed to the max by the proximate hindquarters of Puff the Magic Disney Kingdom. — MaxEnt 20:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you. I've never liked the fact that "Hollywood" redirected to this broader scope. I feel like an actual Hollywood article would be more about etymology and cultural meaning, and it can also point to relevant historical sections in this broader article. Be bold and make a change? Erik (talk | contrib) 21:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Could also get other opinions by posting at WT:FILM since this is a core topic. Erik (talk | contrib) 21:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm surprised to see the quick response. Thanks, Erik. For what its' worth, here John Cassavetes, apparently writing in Film Culture, n. 19, Spring 1959, nakedly equating Hollywood with an ethos developed around a set of business practices (src):

Hollywood is not failing. It has failed.

...

However the probability of a resurrection of the industry through individual expression is slim, for the men of new ideas will not compromise themselves to Hollywood's departmental heads. These artists have come to realize that to compromise an idea is to soften it, to make an excuse for it, to betray it.

In Hollywood the producer intimidates the artist’s new thought with great sums of money and with his own ego that clings to the past of references of box office triumphs and valueless experience. The average artist, therefore, is forced to compromise. And the cost of the compromise is the betrayal of his basic beliefs. And so the artist is thrown out of motion pictures, and the businessman makes his entrance.

About John:

First known as a television and film actor, Cassavetes also helped pioneer American independent cinema, writing and directing movies financed partly by income from his acting work.

I can't think of a single other figure in the history of American cinema more germane to the issue, but then I know next to nothing about film prior to the second world war, other than as written up by Tim Wu in his book The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires. So that's my best shot, Alex, for what it's worth. I didn't squeeze hard on Cassavetes, either; what I found on one click in a single search was good enough. — MaxEnt 21:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
My final input, fivesixseven American films I regard as entirely apart from Hollywood, as such, yet distinctly American:
Some of those are student productions financed with pin money. As a Misplaced Pages editor, I'm a tumbleweed, most at home editing ten or twenty different pages daily for small blunders. It has already pained me to stick around here as long as I have, but my two cents was shining like a pair of pennies freshly toweled down after a good long soak in a vinaigrette hot tub, and just this once I couldn't help myself. — MaxEnt 22:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of tvtropes to support content found in the "Working conditions" section

(Note: I'll try to use US english here)

There is a source in the "Working conditions" section, which backs up content about labor unions. The reliability of this source has been challenged by User:103.156.42.195. The source in question is this: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/UnionsInHollywood

TV tropes is considered generally unreliable, as it is user generated content. A better source needs to be found, but replacing the source with a "citation needed" isn't really the way to do it. 103, do you consider that this information is likely incorrect, or is it "just" referenced to an unreliable source? That will affect where we go from here. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Great Train Robbery image caption

The image caption for this film says it's the first western. I changed the wording to be consistent with the Misplaced Pages article on the film that says that is a debunked myth and it isn't. (Though it's still considered such by some, so the revision still reflects this). 136.159.160.121 (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the recent reversion

Good evening, all. Recently this article was reverted. This version of the article is rife with grammatical errors as well as including a reference to a foreign film of questionable relevance to the article. Before the reversion, I had made edits to the article to fix some of its poor grammar and diction, add sourced material, and add templates regarding missing information (of which there is much). Other editors had amended erroneous punctuation, and another had also removed the poorly-sourced and irrelevant statement about Vijay's Leo (2023 Indian film). I believe these edits to have improved, if by a small margin, a frankly low-quality Misplaced Pages article, not to mention one which happens to treat a fairly consequential topic. Therefore, I do not believe this most recent reversion to be justified, "last good version" (the revision summary) hardly qualifying as rationale. As a matter of fact, the degree of the measures undertaken by myself and others to improve this article is not commensurate to the level of attention it actually requires. 174.81.23.127 (talk) 07:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Since no discussion has come about on the talk page, I have restored the edits that were unjustifiedly reverted. If anybody would like to undo this action, they ought to provide a legitimate reason. Thank you. 174.81.23.127 (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
I nearly threw up three different times while reading this. Not sure if you are the original author of the article or not, if not disregard the following:
If you can't keep your politics to yourself, you have no business contributing to Misplaced Pages.
Please don't make it worse by pretending you don't know what I'm talking about. 24.249.59.28 (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Categories: