Revision as of 21:05, 10 September 2012 editTenebrae (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users155,424 edits →Are a film critic's favorite films notable?: clearer← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:02, 11 September 2012 edit undo72.244.206.168 (talk) →Can an article on a critic include a short list of films he considers to be notable?: new sectionNext edit → | ||
Line 142: | Line 142: | ||
::::I think it's not unreasonable, though, to note that there's no way one can compare a Mark Kermode with a Sarris, a Kael, et al. As for being a big critic in England — well, please excuse my flippant ruffling of any Anglophile feathers but, big deal. Same thing with someone who may be a big critic in Austria, Australia, Brazil or Belize. Outside of some horror buffs, no one in America even knows his name, which suggests that atop all other considerations, his list of "favorite movies" is ]. I don't think we'd disagree that the tone of this article has been somewhat fawning, shall we say? --] (]) 21:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC) | ::::I think it's not unreasonable, though, to note that there's no way one can compare a Mark Kermode with a Sarris, a Kael, et al. As for being a big critic in England — well, please excuse my flippant ruffling of any Anglophile feathers but, big deal. Same thing with someone who may be a big critic in Austria, Australia, Brazil or Belize. Outside of some horror buffs, no one in America even knows his name, which suggests that atop all other considerations, his list of "favorite movies" is ]. I don't think we'd disagree that the tone of this article has been somewhat fawning, shall we say? --] (]) 21:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC) | ||
== Can an article on a critic include a short list of films he considers to be notable? == | |||
{| class="wikitable sortable" style="float: right;" | |||
|+ Kermode's Top Ten films<nowiki><ref name="filmdirectory"/></nowiki> | |||
|- | |||
! Rank!! Film!! Year !! Director | |||
|- | |||
|1.||'']''||1973||{{sortname|William|Friedkin}} | |||
|- | |||
|2.||'']''||1985||{{sortname|Terry|Gilliam}} | |||
|- | |||
|3.||'']''||1941||{{sortname|Orson|Welles}} | |||
|- | |||
|4.||'']''||1971||{{sortname|Ken|Russell}} | |||
|- | |||
|5.||'']''||1973||{{sortname|Nicolas|Roeg}} | |||
|- | |||
|6.||'']''||1960||{{sortname|Georges|Franju}} | |||
|- | |||
|7.||'']''||1946||{{sortname|Frank|Capra}} | |||
|- | |||
|8.||'']''||1975||{{sortname|Woody|Allen}} | |||
|- | |||
|9.||'']''||1964||{{sortname|Robert|Stevenson|Robert Stevenson (director)}} | |||
|- | |||
|10.||'']''||1957||{{sortname|Ingmar|Bergman}} | |||
|} | |||
Since the ] to address the topic strayed, I've started a new section. The question is this: are there grounds for removing a referenced list of movies from this article on a film critic when that list identifies the films he considers most notable? For convenience, I've included that list at right. | |||
An editor, {{user|Tenebrae}}, has joined me in a minor reversion war over this question. The list was collateral damage accompanying a series of changes Tenebrae made recently, the majority of which I would consider to be clear improvements. | |||
The case for continuing to include the list is simple: bios on WP sometimes contain structured lists, when the purpose (]) is relevant to the person, as it is, for example, with musicians and their recordings, with novelists and their books. Film critics become notable because of their film criticisms, which routinely get summarized into lists by everyone from ] to ]. If such a list of films is available for a critic, it can be noteworthy and reasonable to include it. ] (]) 04:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:02, 11 September 2012
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mark Kermode article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Biography Start‑class | |||||||
|
Journalism Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Hampshire Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
This article or section does not cite any references or sources.
Just about everything on the main pain (at the time of writing) has been said on his radio show - try listening sometime. IceHunter 00:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know, what is one supposed to do when the only way of providing sources is by having readers listen to (copyrighted and non-downloadable) audio files? --Emc² • contact me 20:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Mark Kermode's Religious beliefs
During his radio review of "March of the Penguins", I remembering him talking about a tendency towards belief in Intelligent Design. This sparked some intense e-mail debate. I may I still have the podcast mp3 if that can be cited as a reference. I also remember hearing him refer to himself as a committed christian, though this may have been some other time, perhaps on TV. --BN701 13:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- He often talks about his religious beliefs on his show. I think he is a methodist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakeyjamie (talk • contribs) 15:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- As far as I know he was brought up as a Methodist, but became something else (possibly an atheist) when he grew up. Somebody should ask him when he's on the show. Emc² • contact me 12:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Given the uncertainty on this issue, and the existing content of the article (which I have no problem with) I'm rather surprised that he is listed in the Category "English Christians". Until we have a good reference for his beliefs it seems slightly premature. Rachel Pearce (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Absolutely, I'll remove it right away. Emc² • talk 18:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- In his Jesus Camp review he makes it clear he looks favourably on Methodism and has 'admiration for faith' I think he said, I don't know whether that indicates him as having religious beliefs or not but I think its best to leave it unless something changes. I think he recently said he believes all matter is lucifer retruning to God or something bizarre like that.EchetusXe (talk) 03:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- He has described himself as a 'lapsed methodist' on the podcast, which essentially means he's not a practicing Christian. However given his views on intelligent design, it's pretty clear he holds some theistic beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.33.162 (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think he agrees with intelligent design he seemed to be saying that although right wing Christians are wrong their is something about the penguins that shows the work of god. His view on the subject seemed to be very poorly defined and a bit wishy washy but did stop short of intelligent design. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.107.196 (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Channel 4
Why is there no mention of his Channel 4 film introductions? Is this even the same person I'm thinking of? Splink 22:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes he is the same person, he's also done a few documentaries (one I recall is about 'The Shawshank Redemption") Msp 23:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Movies praised by Mark Kermode
Does anyone else think this section's a bit pointless? Kevin Boyd (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yep - it's completly unsourced for one. I've been bold and removed it. Lugnuts (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- I can see the reasoning, but a couple of things come to mind. 1 - Mark Kermode is known for his legendary rants about films he doesn't like, but it shouldn't be ignored that he does actually like some films. 2 - isn't it a bit tricky to cite a radio show? Kermode doesn't seem to do much written reviewing. Andymarczak (talk) 08:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The word 'Kermodian'
Is it too soon to put a reference to this, perhaps under Opinions? There's not much that's a good verifiable source on it, unfortunately, apart from the radio shows themselves and loads of blogs. Jenniscott (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
BBC News
Just how exactly is a film reviewer a frequent contributor to BBC News? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.86.175 (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't say frequent, it says regular. BBC News (channel) does report on major film openings etc. and when it does, Kermode is one of the people they have on to discuss them. He also has a weekly programme called Film 24, which sounds pretty regular to me. Rachel Pearce (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
"9/11 Truth Movement"
Some weirdo keeps putting that Kermode is a supporter of the 9/11 'truth movement'. Kermode is not, as witnessed here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2006/apr/09/features.review2 --EchetusXe (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Name
Is "Kermode" a 'stage name' or has he changed it legally? 81.101.137.82 (talk) 14:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's by deed poll. This is now explained in the article. Cordless Larry (talk)
Mark kermode's opinions
The article states that he has a personal liking for all three pirates of the caribbean films. This appears to be a mistake as the Guardian review cited in support of it expresses a very low opinion of the second and first of the series. Mother shipton (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, he hates them. The article was recently vandalised and I've restored the original text. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the linked video indicates that MK has a liking for High School Musical - he notes that it's a good formula for making money but that is not, of course, the same thing --Gobbag (talk) 22:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC) He does like the first and the third of the high school musical films he's expressed the view a number of times on his podcast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.107.196 (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
please format the citations
i added some citations, but only as in-line external links. could somebody format them correctly please? thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.64.147 (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
The Witch Who Came From the Sea
"though he regards video nasty The Witch Who Came From the Sea as being the most disturbing film of the 1970s."
removed as he never calls it that ( listen to the interview here: http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/fivelive/kermode/kermode_20090612-1642b.mp3 ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.64.147 (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes I agree, but mentioning the film as part of the video nasty genre in turn as part of the horror section seems appropriate. Adding further detail about his involvement with Last House on the Left may be an idea too. As of today the rewritten reference to ==The Witch Who Came From the Sea== still stands and I think it’s an improvement Jprw (talk) 04:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Is he related to Professor Frank Kermode?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.126.225 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- No, he's not. He's unlikely to be related to any Kermodes since that isn't his family surname. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- If Kermode is his mother's maiden name, surely he could be related to hundreds of them? Including, but not limited to, his mother of course... JohnB57 (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Good point, I obviously didn't think that through. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- He's not. I've just added a ref for that from The Times in Jan 2010. Qwfp (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- Good point, I obviously didn't think that through. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- If Kermode is his mother's maiden name, surely he could be related to hundreds of them? Including, but not limited to, his mother of course... JohnB57 (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Bride Wars Challenge
Is the material about Kermode's Bride Wars Challenge really necessary? Seems like something that belongs on a blog rather than a Misplaced Pages article. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'll remove it since there has been no support for its inclusion. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think it's worth mentioning as it was quite a big deal and he was apparently entirely genuine about it, but I would maybe just put a line or two about it rather than the gigantic paragraph that you removed. Now that the whole thing is over with it can be neatly summarized and left at that I think.78.147.8.8 (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Top Ten Movies 2009
Where would be the best place to add this information, if at all.
The information is from his podcast http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/fivelive/kermode/kermode_20100101-1500a.mp3
10. White Lightnin'
9. A Serious Man
8. Gran Torino
7. Helen
6. Moon
5. Anti Christ
4. White Ribbon
3. Anvil
2. Slumdog Millionaire
1. Let The Right One In
—Preceding unsigned comment added by TheHamburger (talk • contribs) 05:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
25 years of film criticism
Kermode says so himself here which would make him doing criticism in 1985 aged 22. Where would he have been doing film criticism then? University newspaper?
PS Some Oscar tips for those gamblers among you - and remember to use an accumulator :) 81.156.124.198 (talk) 16:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Blurby, self-congratulatory tone
I've made some cuts and given some of the language a more neutral tone, but this is one of the most self-promotional, self-congratulatory articles I've ever seen on Misplaced Pages. Parts of it were written like a fan site, not an encyclopedia article, and I wouldn't be surprised if the article subject himself had written great portions of it. It was shameful and it was disrespectful of the fact that this is an encyclopedia, not someone's fan page. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. It does seem quite lengthy and over-detailed for a fairly minor subject (horror film reviewer).... Twizzlemas (talk) 09:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
- Kermode is a bit more than a horror film reviewer, he's a television presenter and radio broadcaster. Hiding T 09:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
- ...but not much more. Twizzlemas (talk) 10:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
- Kermode is a bit more than a horror film reviewer, he's a television presenter and radio broadcaster. Hiding T 09:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Are a film critic's favorite films notable?
I am happy to do what Tenebrae (talk · contribs) should have done, which is start a topic about possibly removing a properly referenced and notable detail from this article, a short list present in the article for at least a year. I am returning the list to the article while Tenebrae makes the case for its removal. 72.244.204.167 (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- We have to make the case for inserting material in the first place. This material is trivia and self-aggrandizing: Since this IP address has no other contributions than to this article and only today, it's fair to wonder who this editor is and why the sudden interest in this particular individual, and whether this is Kermode himself or a friend since it's hard to imagine anyone else having the slightest interest in this unexceptional film critic's favorite movies.
- Is he critic Andrew Sarris, who brought the auteur theory to America? Is he one of the Cahiers du Cinéma critics who established that concept in Europe? Is he Pauline Kael or Penelope Gilliatt, who influenced a generation of film critics? No: He's one more ordinary critic among hundreds of others, and we don't even include the "favorite films" of Sarris, Kael, etc., so it is completely unjustifiable that than anon IP — who may well be the subject himself — try to elevate this critic as more important than those legendary names. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- That list of favorite films was added here by anon IP 72.244.204.222 — quite similar to the above 72.244.204.167 — who also in that edit added a large amount of promotional-seeming content and such fannish trivia as "Kermode rarely watches television." I am saying to this anon IP right now: You do not have the right to use Misplaced Pages as a promotional vehicle, or to turn this into your resume / fansite. There is clearly WP:COI going on. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think it would be best to address the issue of whether the material should be added or removed rather than second guess people's motives. I'm not sure whether the list should remain or not, but if we can source the statement that "Kermode rarely watches television." I would suggest we add it back to the article as it may be of interest to readers and researchers. Kermode is an influential British film critic whose radio program has won a Sony Gold Award and has been described as an "uber-critic" by the Belfast Telegraph, while The Yorkshire Post have advanced an argument that his "status as a national treasure is all but assured". Kermode is the critic who interviewed Scott and elicited the director's thoughts on Deckard in Blade Runner outlined in Themes in Blade Runner#Deckard: human or replicant?, and according to the BBC is "the authority on The Exorcist". I think that puts him above the average film critic. Hiding T 10:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- For context, the "fannish trivia" about television included the quote from Kermode that "an awareness of what's going on in television is probably helpful to an understanding of movies", which seems a little more relevant to his film-review work than is perhaps suggested. It was sourced to an Observer article. --McGeddon (talk) 11:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- First, I have great respect for my old colleague Hiding, who was essentially my menor and role model when I first worked on Misplaced Pages. It's always good to see his signature and I wish he were on WIkipedia more often.
- I think it's not unreasonable, though, to note that there's no way one can compare a Mark Kermode with a Sarris, a Kael, et al. As for being a big critic in England — well, please excuse my flippant ruffling of any Anglophile feathers but, big deal. Same thing with someone who may be a big critic in Austria, Australia, Brazil or Belize. Outside of some horror buffs, no one in America even knows his name, which suggests that atop all other considerations, his list of "favorite movies" is WP:UNDUE. I don't think we'd disagree that the tone of this article has been somewhat fawning, shall we say? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Can an article on a critic include a short list of films he considers to be notable?
Rank | Film | Year | Director |
---|---|---|---|
1. | The Exorcist | 1973 | William Friedkin |
2. | Brazil | 1985 | Terry Gilliam |
3. | Citizen Kane | 1941 | Orson Welles |
4. | The Devils | 1971 | Ken Russell |
5. | Don't Look Now | 1973 | Nicolas Roeg |
6. | Eyes Without a Face | 1960 | Georges Franju |
7. | It's a Wonderful Life | 1946 | Frank Capra |
8. | Love and Death | 1975 | Woody Allen |
9. | Mary Poppins | 1964 | Robert Stevenson |
10. | The Seventh Seal | 1957 | Ingmar Bergman |
Since the previous attempt to address the topic strayed, I've started a new section. The question is this: are there grounds for removing a referenced list of movies from this article on a film critic when that list identifies the films he considers most notable? For convenience, I've included that list at right.
An editor, Tenebrae (talk · contribs), has joined me in a minor reversion war over this question. The list was collateral damage accompanying a series of changes Tenebrae made recently, the majority of which I would consider to be clear improvements.
The case for continuing to include the list is simple: bios on WP sometimes contain structured lists, when the purpose (WP:LISTPURP) is relevant to the person, as it is, for example, with musicians and their recordings, with novelists and their books. Film critics become notable because of their film criticisms, which routinely get summarized into lists by everyone from Ain't It Cool News to Sight & Sound. If such a list of films is available for a critic, it can be noteworthy and reasonable to include it. 72.244.206.168 (talk) 04:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Kermode was speaking during an interview with Simon Mayo on BBC Radio 5 on 12 June 2009