This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Noting here the three dedications at the end of the film (Jackson's grandfather is already mentioned in the article):
Carcharoth ( talk) 23:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
The section on historical accuracy is cited to a reddit post. This looks suspiciously like original research.
It should be removed.
98.190.223.50 ( talk) 22:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
tank blogging |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The response was not universally positive however, and particularly among archivists and film historians some concerns were raised about the ways in which the film erased the original filmmakers, manipulated the image through colourization and other techniques and implied that the original footage (much of which had been extensively restored by the IWM archives) was in disrepair.
First of all, that's a run on sentence with a jolting "and" bolted into the middle of a radical tone change.
Particularly among archivists and film historians some concerns were raised about the ways in which the film:
- erased the original filmmakers
- manipulated the image through colourization and other techniques
- and implied that the original footage (much of which had been extensively restored by the IWM archives) was in disrepair.
Let's boil that down further.
Concerns were raised about the ways in which the film implied that the original footage (much of which had been extensively restored by the IWM archives) was in disrepair.
What does that even mean? Also, the long parenthetical also seems awkward. As far as I could tell, the film implied no such thing, though the commentary track on the DVD did address some restoration issues. One specific thing Jackson says on the commentary track is that some of the film footage had shrunk to where it no longer played smoothly on a standard projector (sprocket hole alignment problems). That's not disrepair, it's simply natural aging, and I doubt even the most careful conservation can prevent this.
Finally, "erased the original filmmakers" is the kind of hysterical language that's become prominent in the era of identity politics, but I don't think the word "erased" has a leg to stand on. Only because of this restoration potentially millions of people have seen this footage that would not have found a mass audience. Can anyone imagine a cameraman standing around in that carnage and thinking "this film is all about me"? My guess is that some of these cameramen, if they were still alive to speak for themselves, would slap that notion down in a quick hurry. Jon Stewart liked to tell the story of the news through the production process of the news. We're not going to get that perspective on these cameramen of yesteryear. This was long before people started pointing cameras at cameramen. To my taste, use of the word "erased" borders on cultural anachronism. — MaxEnt 05:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Colorizing and audibilizing and reimaging the footage—so that it is full of those camera movements that were not part of the era's cinematic language—would diminish the potency of the Chaplin parody and erases the parallel dimension of art, as it shows us what the people of the time couldn't see, and that the things that they could and couldn't see were what made them people of their time.
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Noting here the three dedications at the end of the film (Jackson's grandfather is already mentioned in the article):
Carcharoth ( talk) 23:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
The section on historical accuracy is cited to a reddit post. This looks suspiciously like original research.
It should be removed.
98.190.223.50 ( talk) 22:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
tank blogging |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The response was not universally positive however, and particularly among archivists and film historians some concerns were raised about the ways in which the film erased the original filmmakers, manipulated the image through colourization and other techniques and implied that the original footage (much of which had been extensively restored by the IWM archives) was in disrepair.
First of all, that's a run on sentence with a jolting "and" bolted into the middle of a radical tone change.
Particularly among archivists and film historians some concerns were raised about the ways in which the film:
- erased the original filmmakers
- manipulated the image through colourization and other techniques
- and implied that the original footage (much of which had been extensively restored by the IWM archives) was in disrepair.
Let's boil that down further.
Concerns were raised about the ways in which the film implied that the original footage (much of which had been extensively restored by the IWM archives) was in disrepair.
What does that even mean? Also, the long parenthetical also seems awkward. As far as I could tell, the film implied no such thing, though the commentary track on the DVD did address some restoration issues. One specific thing Jackson says on the commentary track is that some of the film footage had shrunk to where it no longer played smoothly on a standard projector (sprocket hole alignment problems). That's not disrepair, it's simply natural aging, and I doubt even the most careful conservation can prevent this.
Finally, "erased the original filmmakers" is the kind of hysterical language that's become prominent in the era of identity politics, but I don't think the word "erased" has a leg to stand on. Only because of this restoration potentially millions of people have seen this footage that would not have found a mass audience. Can anyone imagine a cameraman standing around in that carnage and thinking "this film is all about me"? My guess is that some of these cameramen, if they were still alive to speak for themselves, would slap that notion down in a quick hurry. Jon Stewart liked to tell the story of the news through the production process of the news. We're not going to get that perspective on these cameramen of yesteryear. This was long before people started pointing cameras at cameramen. To my taste, use of the word "erased" borders on cultural anachronism. — MaxEnt 05:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Colorizing and audibilizing and reimaging the footage—so that it is full of those camera movements that were not part of the era's cinematic language—would diminish the potency of the Chaplin parody and erases the parallel dimension of art, as it shows us what the people of the time couldn't see, and that the things that they could and couldn't see were what made them people of their time.