Talk:The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions about The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Unsourced comments in opening
The Blu-Ray release by Eureka Entertainment includes audio commentary by film historian David Kalat. He contradicts the prevailing interpretation that the film is about World War 1 or German submission to government authorities. There may be recent scholarly articles that also discuss this interpretation. Regardless of interpretation, they should be attributed to a film critic or historian rather than presented as solid facts. Similarly, the article text for "plot" should not lend itself to one interpretation. The plot is far from open-and-shut, so we should stick to describing the events rather than interpreting them. This is original research, no? Anonymous-232 (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160504100546/http://imaginefilmfestival.com/films/das-cabinet-des-dr-caligari to http://imaginefilmfestival.com/films/das-cabinet-des-dr-caligari
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160617105308/https://www.scottishopera.org.uk/sites/default/files/images/The%20Cabinet%20of%20Dr%20Caligari%20press%20release%20PDF.pdf to https://www.scottishopera.org.uk/sites/default/files/images/The%20Cabinet%20of%20Dr%20Caligari%20press%20release%20PDF.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- 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) 19:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Interpretations in the lead
There is a bit of an edit war going on whether interpretations of the film should be mentioned in the lead or not. As long as its encompassing of what is written in the article, and stated that its just a view, not a written in stone fact, I definitely would feel that this should be included in the lead as it represents content within the article, which is what a good lead does. I'd like to hear other comments on this discussion here, rather than in the edit summary. Thoughts anyone? Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with you that it should stay. I had hoped Gentlecollapse6 would stop edit warring but it doesn't seem to be the case. Hopefully they will respect consensus here. --Laser brain (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- It is a hallmark of the film that it is open to various interpretations so a mention in the lede is appropriate. OTOH I feel that the version in question is a bit too long and detailed. I am wondering if it could be pared down. Now, seeing as how I'm not able to do the work, this is just a suggestion. MarnetteD|Talk 17:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- How is it too long and detailed? Gentlecollapse6 is removing text from the lead that's covered and sourced in the article body. We have a quite comprehensive article here in terms of sourced criticism. The lead is probably too short now. --Laser brain (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- IMO the paragraph about Kracauer's interpretation could be distilled down into a sentence and that would fit better with the last "other themes" sentence of that section. But, again, this is just my thought and suggestion. If you are happy with it that is okay as well. MarnetteD|Talk 18:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- How is it too long and detailed? Gentlecollapse6 is removing text from the lead that's covered and sourced in the article body. We have a quite comprehensive article here in terms of sourced criticism. The lead is probably too short now. --Laser brain (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- It is a hallmark of the film that it is open to various interpretations so a mention in the lede is appropriate. OTOH I feel that the version in question is a bit too long and detailed. I am wondering if it could be pared down. Now, seeing as how I'm not able to do the work, this is just a suggestion. MarnetteD|Talk 17:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Unsourced Claims
In the section The_Cabinet_of_Dr._Caligari#Film it's claimed that "In 2014 the movie was released in a 4K resolution restoration." However, the cited source for the paragraph doesn't make this claim. Indeed, a quick search resulted in press from 2016: Mammadyarov, Riyad (April 14, 2016). "'The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari' Sparkles with Life in New 4K Restoration". IndieWire. Retrieved November 1, 2018. And that terror is about to reach totally new levels with a brand new 4k restoration, thanks to the Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau Foundation.
Also, once we straighten out whether we're talking about a 4k version or not, the cited source does not say that "The premiere of this version in the Netherlands was in April 2016 during the Imagine Film Festival". I'll get around to working more on this eventually, but just in case I get busy or forget I wanted to post here in the talk page so someone can fix this segment of the article. ShAsHi SuShIlA mUrRaY 22:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)