This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
If editing to NPOV is necessary, it's also necessary to avoid a monotonous style. The latest edit with its comment "this is an encyclopedia, not a film magazine" is fine for its NPOV but leaves us with a tedious and repetitive style in, for example, the Critical reception section: three views are presented with "He wrote," "He wrote," and "He wrote." An encyclopedia requires many things, including a NPOV style that avoids the flat, unimaginative edit increasingly found here and in other film articles. Wittgoodstein ( talk) 08:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The Famous scenes section comes across as being the favourite scenes of the section's author(s). It's not very encyclopedic. The section should be replaced by a plot summary or something. Moisejp 15:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
"Fellini's inspired indictment is all the more commendable for his vehement refusal to accept a revisionist justification of fascism."
This is POV; it also is completely ridiculous. A "vehement refusal to accept justification for fascism" isn't particularly commendable. People do this all the time. People are attacked if they DO accept justification for fascism; refusing justification for fascism is standard practice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.238.14 ( talk) 19:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Volpina is, to me, one of the most interesting characters in the film. During a recent viewing, I was struck by the similarity of her name with the term "vulpine" meaning fox-like, and, according to one source, that's exactly what it means in Italian.
However, it also seems to apply as the Italian common name for a species of fish also known as the "flathead mullet" as well as for a species of pear.
It seems likely Fellini chose the unusual name "Volpina" for one or more of its connotations, and to ignore this fact may be to miss an important joke in the film. (That is, for Italian-speaking viewers, her name may signify many ideas that are opaque to English-speaking viewers.)
As interesting as this may be, however, it is still the result of WP:OR, and I cannot see how it could be included in the article. Are any editors willing to share thoughts on this matter? Rangergordon ( talk) 08:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Items to add to the further reading list :
Bondanella on Amarcord in on the one hand his book The Cinema Of Federico Fellini (Princeton UP), which is probably thé book on Fellini, and on the other hand his book The Films Of Federico Fellini (Cambridge UP)
Bondanella on Amarcord https://www.scribd.com/document/374575564/Peter-Bondanella-on-Fellini-and-Politics-Amarcord-pdf and see also https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/films-of-federico-fellini/amarcord-nostalgia-and-politics/D4F8123001175B3521B325FFEB3023A1
Bondanella, Peter, ‘Amarcord: Nostalgia and Politics’, in: ibidem, The Films of Federico Fellini, Cambridge; Cambridge UP 2002, pp.117-139.
Kezich, Tullio, ‘Amarcord: Distant Memories, in: ibidem, Federico Fellini: His Life and Work, New York: Faber and Faber, 2002.
Ebert's review https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-amarcord-1974 (it's not because it's in the notes it doesn't deserve spotlight in the further reading section)
Film Obsessive article https://filmobsessive.com/film/film-analysis/film-genres/world-cinema/fellini-part-2-amarcord-and-roma-adolescence-maturity-and-the-fantasy-female/
Senses of Cinema article https://www.sensesofcinema.com/2023/feature-articles/fellinis-memory-amarcord/
BFI on Amarcord https://www2.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/4ce2b6b4b0e0c
Poster with reviews https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BZTUyYTBkZTgtZTg4MC00MjIzLWJjZDgtN2M4YWRkNGY5MDlmXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTUzMDUzNTI3._V1_FMjpg_UX1000_.jpg 62.235.240.9 ( talk) 23:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
If editing to NPOV is necessary, it's also necessary to avoid a monotonous style. The latest edit with its comment "this is an encyclopedia, not a film magazine" is fine for its NPOV but leaves us with a tedious and repetitive style in, for example, the Critical reception section: three views are presented with "He wrote," "He wrote," and "He wrote." An encyclopedia requires many things, including a NPOV style that avoids the flat, unimaginative edit increasingly found here and in other film articles. Wittgoodstein ( talk) 08:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The Famous scenes section comes across as being the favourite scenes of the section's author(s). It's not very encyclopedic. The section should be replaced by a plot summary or something. Moisejp 15:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
"Fellini's inspired indictment is all the more commendable for his vehement refusal to accept a revisionist justification of fascism."
This is POV; it also is completely ridiculous. A "vehement refusal to accept justification for fascism" isn't particularly commendable. People do this all the time. People are attacked if they DO accept justification for fascism; refusing justification for fascism is standard practice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.238.14 ( talk) 19:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Volpina is, to me, one of the most interesting characters in the film. During a recent viewing, I was struck by the similarity of her name with the term "vulpine" meaning fox-like, and, according to one source, that's exactly what it means in Italian.
However, it also seems to apply as the Italian common name for a species of fish also known as the "flathead mullet" as well as for a species of pear.
It seems likely Fellini chose the unusual name "Volpina" for one or more of its connotations, and to ignore this fact may be to miss an important joke in the film. (That is, for Italian-speaking viewers, her name may signify many ideas that are opaque to English-speaking viewers.)
As interesting as this may be, however, it is still the result of WP:OR, and I cannot see how it could be included in the article. Are any editors willing to share thoughts on this matter? Rangergordon ( talk) 08:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Items to add to the further reading list :
Bondanella on Amarcord in on the one hand his book The Cinema Of Federico Fellini (Princeton UP), which is probably thé book on Fellini, and on the other hand his book The Films Of Federico Fellini (Cambridge UP)
Bondanella on Amarcord https://www.scribd.com/document/374575564/Peter-Bondanella-on-Fellini-and-Politics-Amarcord-pdf and see also https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/films-of-federico-fellini/amarcord-nostalgia-and-politics/D4F8123001175B3521B325FFEB3023A1
Bondanella, Peter, ‘Amarcord: Nostalgia and Politics’, in: ibidem, The Films of Federico Fellini, Cambridge; Cambridge UP 2002, pp.117-139.
Kezich, Tullio, ‘Amarcord: Distant Memories, in: ibidem, Federico Fellini: His Life and Work, New York: Faber and Faber, 2002.
Ebert's review https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-amarcord-1974 (it's not because it's in the notes it doesn't deserve spotlight in the further reading section)
Film Obsessive article https://filmobsessive.com/film/film-analysis/film-genres/world-cinema/fellini-part-2-amarcord-and-roma-adolescence-maturity-and-the-fantasy-female/
Senses of Cinema article https://www.sensesofcinema.com/2023/feature-articles/fellinis-memory-amarcord/
BFI on Amarcord https://www2.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/4ce2b6b4b0e0c
Poster with reviews https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BZTUyYTBkZTgtZTg4MC00MjIzLWJjZDgtN2M4YWRkNGY5MDlmXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTUzMDUzNTI3._V1_FMjpg_UX1000_.jpg 62.235.240.9 ( talk) 23:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)