Jump to content

Talk:Cinéma vérité

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

The exclusion of Robert Drew is a major problem here. He is mentioned only in reference to Drew Associates, but his contributions to cinema verite needs to be included. Certainly there is some controversy among Drew, Pennebaker, Leacock and Maysles over who did what in the early Drew Associates films. Doxrus (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)doxrus[reply]


POV

[edit]

There is a gigantic problem here with point-of-view: "Such is certainly the case with Breathless whose conventions can now appear quite mannered and open for critique."

The author doesn't just say that a certain opinion exists, but aligns with it saying "Such is *certainly* the case . . ." Can't something much more neutral go in this intro section?

Jupitermenace 16:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(chiming in several years later) I agree--this paragraph certainly does not belong in the lead of an encyclopedia article. It may prove useful if rewritten and relocated, which is why I commented it out rather than deleting it. But the lead of an article should not be used to forward an unverifiable argument. This is the full paragraph which I have commented out:

As historian Bill Nichols points out, the reality effect of a new mode of documentary representation tends to fade away when "the conventional nature of this mode of representation becomes increasingly apparent".< ref >"Representing reality: issues and concepts in documentary", Bill Nichols, Indiana University Press 1991, p.32< /ref > In other words, a new filmmaking mode initially appears to be unvarnished "reality" on the screen, but as time goes by, that mode's conventions become more and more obvious. Such is certainly the case with cinéma vérité, whose conventions can now appear quite mannered and open for critique.

The lead of an article should inform the reader about the most significant facts regarding an article subject. That the conventions of cinema verite "can now appear quite mannered and open for critique" is not a fact about cinema verite. The statement, as worded, doesn't even have concrete meaning to a reader new to the topic. Might I suggest that perhaps the most serviceable substitute for this paragraph in the lead would be an abbreviated list of films most undeniably exemplary of cinema verite style, so that if a person wanted to get an understanding of cinema verite, he or she would need look no further than viewings of the sample set of films? Robert K S (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

Scott Shaw

[edit]

Is there any evidence that Scott Shaw and Zen Filmmaking are notable enough to merit mention here? Looking at the titles of his works, they look like direct-to-video or drive-in fare, at best. I am inclined to remove this, unless someone has a citation that does not stem from Shaw himself. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:19, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I removed him, someone restored him; I still don't believe he belongs here, but I'll leave it alone unless someone seconds my opinion. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:53, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I second it. The pattern of Scott Shaw mentions on Wikipedia looks like self-promotion. - Nat Krause 15:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Nat, I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and I'm learning the ropes. But, I think your useage of the term, "Self-promotion" is not a very true or descriptive expression. It sounds to me almost like you are throwing a subtle insult at the additions I noticed had been removed and I replaced. Maybe a better way to put it is, "Additions to Wikipedia made by someone who appreciates the work of Scott Shaw." You guys probably haven't seen any of his movies or taken any of his classes on filmmaking, so I understand you do not know about his style of filmmaking.
Jmabel, for your reference, a lot of stuff has been written about Scott Shaw, his one-time partner, Donald G. Jackson, and the style of filmmaking, Zen Filmmaking they developed in publications such as the Hollywood Reporter, Variety, and various smaller independent film publications such as Independent Film and Video.
I'm not changing anything about this article, just answering your questions and statements. User:USC Film School Grad
FWIW, no, I haven't seen any of his movies and certainly haven't taken any of his classes. I have seen several a good 6 or 7 thousand films, including probably 30-50 examples of cinéma vérité; I've read about probably another 20 thousand films; and other than mentions in Wikipedia, I've never heard of this guy, which makes me doubt that he belongs mentioned on a level with Dziga Vertov, Robert Flaherty, John Cassavetes, or Fred Wiseman. Do you have some citations (by any major film critic or academic) that say his work is on this level of quality, importance, influence, etc.? If so, fine. If not, it doesn't belong in the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:59, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Jmabel, The way I understand Wikipedia is that it is about an ongoing delineation, documentation, and expansion of knowledge. I continually see that a lot of people get really strong willed about what they do or do not believe to be right or wrong about a particular subject; based on their own arena of ideas and knowledge. From this, they pull down facts that should not necessarily be removed. There also seems to be a propensity to make negative comments about individuals who have made a contribution to society and the arts; large or small. To me, that mindset really seems to defeat the pupose of this site. Wikipedia should not be about what you or I believe, it should be about information that will allow each person to decide what they want to do with it.
To answer your question/statement, you are right, his unique style of filmmaking has not been around as long as the other people you mention. But, being written up in industry journal such as the Hollywood Report (to name only one), and to continually be invited to give lectures at established filmmaking schools seems to validate his credentials.
Again, I am not changing anything. But, let us all try to make Wikipedia a better, less personality driven, place. User:USC Film School Grad
The thing is, this article isn't List of cinéma vérité directors. It's Cinéma vérité. (You could start List of cinéma vérité directors and link from this article, and I'll take your word that Shaw might belong on such a list, and I don't that he is important enough to merit the article about him). But much as the article Romanians mentions only about a dozen very prominent Romanians, this article should mention only a few very prominent cinéma vérité directors. Similarly, it gives an example of Wiseman's work, not his entire catalogue. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:49, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Direct Cinema

[edit]

many of the directors and films mentioned here are usually considered to be Direct Cinema... the very strong example being Wiseman. or maybe it is a distinction that exists in the limited literature to which i have been exposed, but really the distinction between the two varies widely from context to contex? what do other folks think? there is some discussion of the differences in the Direct Cinema article. maybe there should even be a completely separate comparison article. --Johnjosephbachir

  • Depending on who is writing about it, the two concepts certainly overlap. I'd be inclined to use Cinéma vérité for works that involve some fictional elements and direct cinema for ones with similar technique, but a more purely documentary intent. I think the latter usage is relatively uncontroversial; whether Cinéma vérité includes direct cinema is probably more controversial. But this is an area where I know that there is a lot more written now than when I studied it 30 or so years ago, and I would love to see some citations from recent literature. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


One can read here [1] :
-Quote
1959  : Brault screens Les Raquetteurs at a Flaherty seminar in California, where he meets Jean Rouch. Rouch invites him to shoot his next film, Chronique d'un été.
1960  : Rouch releases Chronique d'un été. In honour of Dziga Vertov, he names this new style of filmmaking cinéma vérité — a direct translation of Vertov's term, Kino Pravda.
End quote-


Fact : Rouch claims in Cahier du Cinéma that all of French cinema of his time was influenced by Michel Brault (see quote in Direct Cinema article), and had a 'brauchite'.
Fact : Brault (and his collegues) never used the term cinema verité (they found pretensious), they used cinéma direct. Cinéma verité did not have much of a French life.
Claim: Yet as a French catch phrase cinéma verité will have a strange an very active Anglo-american life in the 60's-70's.
Claim: It was the subject of very esoterical discussions in film faculties. Another hot topic beeing the true difference between Film Noir and Detective flicks.
Fact : Filmaker Wintonick in his recent film on cinéma verité joins the term cinéma verité with cinema direct.
Fact : It should be noted there is no entry for cinéma verité in the French version of wiki, it is redirected to cinema direct.
Claim : The level of both English entries articles is shamefully low... Maybe they should be merged.


74.59.64.161 16:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Serge[reply]

Definition

[edit]

Cinéma vérité literally means something closer to "the theatre of truth", not "true film" Krawn 05:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

("Movement")

[edit]

Contrary to the article, cinéma vérité is not considered a "movement" but rather a term used to describe a certain aesthetic as applied to film-making.Mglegend 22:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Oh, c'mon; in the absence of a RS (a proof by blatant assertion will hardly do, when the topic is motivation in the arts), that's far too fine a distinction among movements, aesthetics, tendencies, orientations, philosophies, and styles. [according to whom?]!
--Jerzy•t 02:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Quebec perspective

[edit]

I have contributed to the french version of this article (Cinéma Direct). I would like to comment on some of the article I see here. Please excuse my less than perfect English. I am a Quebec producer and filmaker called Serge Noel. And it is now 4 pm on the this june 27.

"Direct Cinema is largely concerned with the recording of events in which the subject and audience become unaware of the camera's presence. Essentially what is now called a "fly on the wall" documentary. It was felt this was the best way to reveal the truth of the moment being recorded."

I believe this to be a general misconception. In fact a lot of cinéma direct or cinéma vérité insists on the presence felt of the filmaker (a quote of Michel Brault on the french article attests to that).

The filmaker is often seem as catalyst of a situation. This is the case for filmakers like Pierre Perrault who sets situations up, asking old people to fish whale and who then films that Pour la suite du monde.

In Cinéma Vérité, there was I belive (at least in Quebec Cinema), concerns with anthopological cinema, and with social and political implications of what was captured on film. How you film, (what you film, what you do with what you film, how you show what you filmed, all were very important for filmakers of the time. They sparked very ethical discussions. You also have to put this in the context of post war propaganda analysis. When independant, objective, strong journalism was a very important thing amongts intellectuals. People remembered what damage propaganda could do.

So, I believe that the best way to discribe this type of cinema is to say that it is concerned with notions of truth, and reality, in film. To say that it is an interrogative and highly ethical minded film form, looking mainly at the social, anthropologiqcal and political aspects of reality.

As Edgar Morin wrote in an introduction to a event held on cinéma vérité at Pompidou: "There are two ways to conceve of The cinema of the Real : the first is to pretend that you can give reality to see ; the second is to pose the problem of reality. In the same way, the were two ways to conceve cinéma-vérité. TYhe first was to pretend that you brought thuth, the second was to pose the problem of truth."

-- " Il y a deux façons de concevoir le cinéma du réel : la première est de prétendre donner à voir le réel ; la seconde est de se poser le problème du réel. De même, il y avait deux façons de concevoir le cinéma-vérité. La première était de prétendre apporter la vérité. La seconde était de se poser le problème de la vérité."

In a sense, its ethymology is at the core of what it is : questionning Cinéma.

As for the French russian term Cinéma Vérité , Jean Rouch coined it, as an hommage to Vertov who believe the movie camera could see things invisible to the human eye.

That was the dream I guess, what everyone was shooting for. And yes it does litteraly translate to Cinema Thruth. In Quebec, Cinéma Direct was opposed to studio documentary, which were the norm world wide up untill the late "50's. Filmakers found "cinéma vérité" to be a bit pretentious, they went with cinema direct, as they loved to just take the camera and go, without giving any explanations to the producers at the NFB... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.252.72.75 (talk • contribs) 27 June 2006.

(Serge, just type four tildes at the end, for a signature. The machine does the rest.) Director Noel makes the point exactly, in perfect English: That cinema verite may be hard to define for what it is; but it is brutally trivial to pinpoint it exactly for what it is NOT -- propaganda. Take the Nazi propaganda film Triumph of the Will, point to it, study it, and write down what is the OPPOSITE of that film, and there you have it: cinema verite. (I don't happen to have a copy of Riefenstahl's magnum opus right now, but as I recall, there was nothing "staged", as in most cheesy "documentaries" that are stuffed full of talking heads and reenactments; yet those staged events at the '36 Olympics are as portrayed in the movie as IMHO the opposite of cinema verite. Jeez, now that I think about it, the very exaggeratedness of that movie was pretty close to the truth, wasn't it? The goosestepping soldiers in the big parade; that WAS reality. I take it all back, about that movie. Yeah, people have been debating that movie for a long time, haven't they? Truth in cinema is a real kettle of fish.) Still, you take a government-funded war propaganda film made during a war, it's the opposite of cinema verite. Sorry for the digression about Ms Riefenstahl's movie.Richard8081 (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To this, I would add that the paragraph he quotes from (the one with 'Essentially what is now called a "fly on the wall" documentary') doesn't impress me much, either. Does someone want to take a shot at this? - Jmabel | Talk 05:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate person

[edit]

Someone added {{inappropriate person}} to this, without making a comment on the talk page. I assume their problem is with second-person, and I presume they have no problem with second person in a quotation, so I'm guessing the only questionable passage would be "How you film, what you film, what you do with what you film, how you show what you filmed, all were very important for filmakers of the time." The only reasonable other way to state this is "How one films, what one films, what one does with what one films, how one show what one filmed, all were very important for filmakers of the time." That sounds incredibly stilted to me. I think this is fine as it is. (By the way, if your issue was something else: if you had left a more specific comment, I wouldn't have to guess.) - Jmabel | Talk 18:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

  --Why not "How and what the film maker filmed, how he showed and what he did with that film were very important for filmmakers of the time."

You change tenses mid-sentence in your version, plus the repetition is unnecessary and stylized. Also, its a tautology to say "ALL were very important"- "were very important" is sufficient. Raphaelaarchon 20:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a look at this person's contribution, he has added a lot of tags in many articles, without mentioning what's wrong with the article in the discussion. He even put more than 3 tags in one article and it is very irritating. Look at his talk page history, as he likes to delete his talk page, that he has been warned not to overuse tag templates. Just want to share. — Indon (reply) — 18:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's the one. (if not one of them) I thought the template was clear enough that no comment on the talk page will be necessary. And, Indon, I think stalking me like that is totally uncalled for. Your contribution on Bandung is appreciated, but it didn't do the article much better. (hence the npov & other tags) And stalking me all over wikipedia isn't gonna do much good.Feureau 19:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but I didn't just point: I explained why I think the current wording is more appropriate than the one alternative I readily see. So what else would you suggest if you find the current wording objectionable? - Jmabel | Talk 06:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, after a second look, I suppose that was the only phrase.
If you use opera and do a search for the second person (i.e. the word "you") the browser would point it out for you. I got some times on my hand right now and I'll go ahead and make some changes. Using you in an encyclopedia is unacceptable as pointed in the wikipedia guide. I'll try to reword these.
I still think the template is clear enough, but I guess you're right. I should've explained. I was just looking for something really quick and noticed some "you"s and just slapped that up there. Thank you for pointing that out.
I think there needs to be some template about inappropriate person like [citation needed]. Feureau 10:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I done away with the "you"s and inappropriate template.Feureau 10:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

after life

[edit]

after life vérité? It certainly uses some vérité techniques, but it is set in, well, an afterlife. - Jmabel | Talk 19:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Select cinéma vérité-style television shows?

[edit]

The section on "Select cinéma vérité-style television shows" needs to be trimmed or eliminated, in my opinion. Most of the shows currently listed have nothing to do with cinéma vérité-style beyond the use of hand-held camera and I'd suggest that hand-held camera is not enough to qualify a program as cinéma vérité. The Office does qualify because it is a fiction program shot in the style of a documentary (including face-the-camera interviews), but most of the others are not. --Jeremy Butler 11:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen Battlestar Galactica. I have to say, it is hard to imagine that with a title like that it was Cinéma vérité. Does someone have a citation for this? - Jmabel | Talk 04:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although they don't cite their reasons, I think the editors who added Firefly and Battlestar Galactica did so because the two shows use hand-held camera (as do many c-v docs). As I suggest above, that ain't enough. And also, I removed the {{Unreferenced|date=March 2008}} tag you added, because (1) the article as a whole is already so tagged and (2) the lists of c-v films/filmmakers don't have their own {{Unreferenced|date=March 2008}} tags and one could make the same criticism of them. --Jeremy Butler 12:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hand-held camera is certainly not enough, or the second half of Jaws would be cinéma vérité. I'll remove these, if no one beat me to it. - Jmabel | Talk 05:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but there is no way that -Arrested Development is Cinema Verite-. This entire article needs to be rewritten with citations from noted film scholars such as Cook or Bordwell.

Doesn't Cinema Verite refer only to documentaries?

[edit]

Sorry to show my ignorance, but doesn't cinema verite refer to documentaries? I think the opening of this article confuses cinema verite with neo-realism and the French New Wave and the New Cinema. My undestanding was that the verite director at least attempted not to direct at all, but capture events as they occurred. This then by definition could not include dramatic films that are simply "realistic" or use "improvisation" or "shaky camera movement" or "jump cuts" to simulate reality. Chris 17:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, cinéma vérité does not necessarily mean "documentary", but it does mean the use of documentary technique and very naturalistic (even amateur) acting. Some Italian neo-realism probably qualifies; most does not: the story material is suitable to vérité, but most of the technique really isn't. - Jmabel | Talk 05:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question (and my attempt at Citation needed)

[edit]

I tried and find something going in the direction of the request for citation. I did the translation. It doesn’t do it all, but shows how very practical aspects of the filmmaking process were considered as ethical by documentary filmakers of Cinéma Vérité/Cinema Direct. On the question of Cinéma vérité being also used for fiction, I am a very perplex. My best knowledge is that neorealism is the term used in this case. So this might just be a question of confusion in terms.

Yet, to complicate things, I believe you *could* find the odd american books and articles of the 70's talking of Casavettes' cinema as Cinema Verite. But this view is rather marginal. And it is not held anymore today.

Take Ken Loach, today's best known director that has used this method (some non-professionnal actors, real locations) critics and experts rather talk of the influence of neorealism (in a shorten reference to italian neorealism- Bicycle Thief). As an example see here : [2]. So to my knowledge, neorealism is the prefered term to describe this practice.

In any case, remember that it was only "by extension" that the term cinema verité was ever applied to fiction film. The original phrase and meaning does come from Jean Rouch, as a reference to Vertov. And neither of these filmakers were interested in creating "true to life" fiction, but in rather in the process of grasping reality with film.

In the present context, since this article is still quite fragile, I would strongly suggest that the reference to fiction being removed. I think that the historical nuance it brings does not really help to grasp what are the base notions behind cinema verite. And that is where we are. What do others think?

70.80.13.247 16:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC) Serge[reply]


Hmm. Even Nanook of the North, often invoked as early vérité is semi-fictionalized. - Jmabel | Talk 18:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


What does that say about cinema verite? Is there no documentary before 1970?
By todays standards all documentary prior to cinema verite was set up...
Is it ALL cinema verite?
Again, this does not make much sense to me. In fact, such a loose definition defies any serious use of the term, either historically, or as film type.
This old view only attempts to describe the "reality effect" perceived by 70's audience in front of fiction that used documentary esthetic, mainly hand-held camera.
ALL film implies interference, and mise-en-scene to a certain degree.
ALL film relies on truth, spur of the moment inspiration or random chance.
With this measure there is no fiction or documentary anymore. Not to mention that the fact that the actors filmed, were or not, in a film actor union, should not make much difference...
You do not convince me at all Jmbel that what I know to be a very limited and historically marginal (american) view should be used here in 2007.
Let's note that none of the filmakers that are said to have participated in this form have ever used the term "cinema verité" in this fiction based way.
I have tried to support my claims by a precise example, with a verifiable source.
Can you do the same to support a contemporary use of cinema verite in the way you defend it?
Also I note that there was a huge rewrite in the meanwhile. Should we not settle this BEFORE doing such a major rewrite?
Your last comment was two months ago. If you do not care to support your claim, I believe what I see as a questionable and unsupported claim should be removed from the article.
74.59.64.161 15:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Serge[reply]

TV again

[edit]

I see that "COPS" is now listed. I've only seen it once, but doesn't that at times use a musical score? Also, don't they use superposed computer-generated text and so on? Those are not vérité techniques. But, again I only saw it once, and not recently. Can someone who knows it better please weigh in? - Jmabel | Talk 07:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From its wikipedia entry, it appears to be a factual docu-soap series. I don't think observational documentary per se qualifies as cinema verite. On the other hand it is possible that the listing actually refers to "The Cops", a 1998 UK television drama series produced by World Productions http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0180347/?rel=nofollow which did use verite techniques to good effect, in which case it should be amended. Claire c4 21:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"COPS" is cinema verite, generically speaking. If it's not, this whole cinema-verite-on-Wikipedia exercise is strictly for the film crit set. Auguste Lumiere and his brother, shooting the train coming in to Ciotat station, were shooting cinema verite, right? Are we agreed on that? If we are not, then we all need to go back to class and reread our Foucault and our Derrida et al until we start to understand deconstruction enough to have an intelligent modern discussion. Richard8081 (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is COPS a reenactment? Sure fooled me. Well, maybe some of it is. LOts of raw footage there, unstaged, unrehearsed, ambient sound, definitely verite. Maybe I'm wrong. You think they are reenacting the action and then blurring out the faces, to provide a sense of verite? Jeeeepers.Richard8081 (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cinema Verite directors

[edit]

I think that this section needs a mjor face-lift. I see that someone has quoted Bill Nichols, who is a major authority on the history of Documentary and has several good chapters in his books on cinema verite. But I would argue that some of the directors that Wikipedia is associating with cinema verite are very questionable. John Cassavetes, although he shot very naturalistically, is nowhere near cinema verite, that doesn't even make sense, and neither does Alfonso Cuaron. These are just flagrant misinterpretations of cinema verite... I wasn't sure I should go and edit the page, as I am new to editing on Wikiedia, but these are missing the point entirely.

Done AlatarK (talk) 04:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orthography

[edit]

According to the NOAD and the CanOD, in English cinéma-vérité has a hyphen and is not italicized. I'll correct the orthography in the article, and if there is no objection after a few days, the article ought to be moved. (Although the NYT writes "cinema verite".) —Michael Z. 2007-10-18 20:27 Z

What about that 2006 Beastie Boys film?

[edit]

"Awesome; I Fuckin' Shot That!" ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0488953/ ) I'm pretty sure it's a qualified film, giving dozens of cameras to random folks to shoot whatever they wanted, along the same lines as the Rolling Stones unreleased documentary "Cocksucker Blues". 199.214.28.100 (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not alex jones?

[edit]

I added Alex Jones as he has produced a large amount of films in this category, including 'truth rising' which gets a DVD/Download release on Jult 4th. I assume that he was removed because certain people on wiki have an OPINION about his views, this is NOT how wikipedia works! It's hardly a 'fringe view' that he has created and released plenty of films which fit into this category, after all you can download them from prinsonplanet.tv or find them on google video -weather or not his views are mainstream or not does shouldn't affect his right to be in this article, the fact that he is a notable and well known producer, director and creator of cinema verite certainly qualifies a small mention in the list which i've added him to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.137.87 (talk) 23:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a quote from prisonplanet.tv "from Alex Jones, cinema verite' style," --78.147.137.87 (talk) 00:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Documentaries are not necessarily cinéma vérité, and we can't take his word that that's his style. Just because I don't believe he has a credible view in his mind.... Well, that's not relevant. We still need a reliable source that that's his style. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why switch to the 1970's just when it starts going?

[edit]

The article is happily proceeding through the invention of the two-person crew, but instead of continuing with what they did with it, the article then jumps to the 1970's explaining that someone else made it even better by combining the two-person crew into a one-person crew. Now firstly this is silly, as changing from two intruders to one is not a dramatic difference (and in any case, news VTRs changed the whole game a couple of years later), but also it totally misses the point: it's not about technology, it's about what the film-makers did with it!

Perhaps the history of the equipment should be separated from that of the medium? Or they should be interspersed? The way it stands, the equipment history is given first billing which can hardly be the intention.AlatarK (talk) 04:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2011 List Cleanup

[edit]

I've copied over the various lists from the article, and am hoping to get some input on what should stay as good examples of CV, and what is just "related" or "influenced by". We'd best serve the reader with a concise list of works that represent the genre. In the interests of shortness, I think that we should yank the redlinks. If these films don't have articles, they don't serve to demonstrate the topic. I'm thinking we should require refs that state relationship to C.V., otherwise it's just interpretation and O.R. Remember that documentarians are not CV by default, its a question of approach. I'm going to strike the ones I have problems with, and ital comments to follow.


Select cinéma-vérité films

[edit]

The techniques (if not always the spirit) of cinéma vérité can also be seen in fiction films such as The Battle of Algiers, The Blair Witch Project, Jimmy and Judy, Cloverfield, Diary of the Dead, District 9, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1, Battle: Los Angeles , REC and Paranormal Activity among others.

Short films

[edit]

Cinéma vérité-style films and television shows

[edit]

Many film directors of the 1960s and later adopted use of the handheld camera, techniques and cinema vérité styles for their fiction films based on screenplays and actors. They often had actors use improvisation to try to get a more spontaneous quality to the takes. Influential examples include director John Cassavetes, who broke ground with his film Faces.[6]

The techniques of cinéma vérité were also readily adapted to use in TV fiction programs, such as Homicide: Life on the Street, The X-Files' COPS episode,[7] Sanctuary, Friday Night Lights, NYPD Blue, Hill Street Blues, Battlestar Galactica, The Thick Of It, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Lost, Arrested Development, Reno 911!, Trailer Park Boys as well as both the UK and American versions of The Office. Documentary series are less common, but include:

Discussion

[edit]

It may be worth looking at List of teen films. It went through AFD recently, and I cleaned it up by referencing as many items as possible and removing the rest temporarily. Maybe we could do the same here? The criteria I set up at that list is to have more than one source identify a work as being cinema verite. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that may be the way to go. I'll start looking for sources for the filmmaker list. This may be a slow-motion cleanup, as I don't have that much free time right now, but thanks for the help! The Interior (Talk) 02:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c Plot description of Cinéma Vérité: Defining The Moment, accessed online on the New York Times website 23 October 2006.
  2. ^ Richard Leacock in Allmovie, accessed online on the New York Times website 23 October 2006.
  3. ^ Daniel Asa Rose, Frederick Wiseman Takes His Camera to the Races, The New York Times, June 1, 1986. Accessed online 23 October 2006.
  4. ^ http://fr.youtube.com/results?search_query=24+idées+seconde&search_type=
  5. ^ Apple - Trailers - Billy the Kid - Trailer
  6. ^ John Cassavetes in Allmovie, accessed online on the New York Times website 23 October 2006.
  7. ^ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0751264/

Structural Rearrangement

[edit]

The intro the article is very informative but I feel that it basically says everything about the genre, leaving the remainder of the article for lists of films/tv/etc considered within the canon. This would be a much more elegant article if the various infos in the header were given their own section and expanded. There must be more to say about the history, the characteristics, the audience and reception... I would lend a hand here but I know very little about the genre myself...Milotoor (talk) 09:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. It's very "top heavy".Robmonga (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cinéma vérité. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cinéma vérité. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetically ordered films???

[edit]

   What need does that fulfill? I'm re-sorting, to chrono, which will be valuable to users interested in seeing or documenting the evolution of the genre.
--Jerzy•t 03:16, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of films inconsistent with definition.

[edit]

I am confused as to how the film list was compiled. The definition offered in th first paragraph of the article says that cinéma vérité is "a style of documentary filmmaking." So how are fictional, narrative films with actors playing others, such as Faces, After Life and Distance included within this definition. (After Life, which films the activities of persons after their death, is probably as far away from documentary as a film can be.) If one includes fictional films in this category of films, then the category is defined by techniques, such as hand-held cameras, inconsistent focus, etc. The Blair Witch Project would then be considered cinéma vérité. I think the problem with the article stems from the fact that it is not based in secondary sources which cover film criticism or film history. In fact, there is probably no more motely assortment of references than those cobbled together here. AnthroMimus (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have read this article twice and still don't understand exactly what cinéma vérité is, but maybe I'm just dense. Of the few examples of films made in this style, only two were released during my lifetime and they both seem to be straight up documentaries. How does cinéma vérité differ from an ordinary documentary? Are any of the following films or series cinéma vérité?: Man Bites Dog, This Is Spinal Tap, The Garry Shandling Show, Supersize Me, [REC] (or Quarantine), The Blair Witch Project, Waiting for Guffman, etc. 108.72.192.93 (talk) 11:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Main Picture Within the Article

[edit]

The caption underneath says “Cinéma vérité in relationship to direct cinema and observational cinema” and shows what’s essentially a Venn Diagram in case there’s any confusion as to which photograph I’m speaking of. Anyways, I’d recommend removing it and using another one. I’m not sure how else to do that or maybe I would. There is at least one odd spelling mistake and the picture honestly doesn’t even really explain anything in my opinion. First it talks about authors, then goes on to talk about filmmakers? It’s just confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cool879 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and have removed the image. The image does not present a useful Venn diagram at all. It is not clear what is being communicated, and the wording is poor. Doctormatt (talk) 06:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional films

[edit]

I've moved a chunk of fictional films to their own subsection of the list. I personally think it's worthwhile to discuss films influenced by the style, but having both documentary and fictional films in there is quite confusing for people looking for examples of cinéma vérité films. It also contradicts the article, which states outright that cinéma vérité is a style of documentary film. The article and the list generally seem to be operating on entirely different definitions, and the list probably needs some cleaning up (and some better sources), but I don't really know enough about the subject to do that. krytton (a) 12:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cinéma_vérité&oldid=1198524323"