Talk:1917 (2019 film)/GA2

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

GA for 1917 not warranted (yet) – the significance of the film editing is completely missing, and the whole premise of a two-take film, as claimed in the text, is factually wrong

It is amazing that this article was given GA status, when it completely misses out / misleads on the fact that 2017 is not a one-shot or a two shot film, but instead has an undisclosed large number of elaborately hidden edits, which makes it appear as if it consists of only two uncut takes. ( GA-Criterium 2: "Factually correct" and 3: "Broad in its coverage"). There should be a whole section on the editing of this film by Lee Smith, using sources like this article: https://collider.com/1917-movie-editing-explained-lee-smith-interview/ And in the light of that article, the rest of the "Filming" section needs a rewrite too, that focuses more on the actual circumstances of the shoot. The source above is 10 months older than the GA assessment, so it was certainly available, as were other similar sources. Lee's creative input in the film goes way beyond just the technical skills to hide the edits; he was making decisions on which takes would be used from every day's shoot so as to perfectly set up the next days shoot. In coordination with the director he was basically deciding every day what would be the final version of each segment – something that in a normal editing process takes place over the course of months, not days. Sam Mendes says about Lee Smith in this interview (which has been very badly transcribed, so rather quote directly from the video, than from the text): "It was like having another filmmaker working with me". Plenty of film critics and award juries were aware of Lee Smith's intricate work on this film, since he received 10 award nominations for "Best Editing" – and won two of them! Funny that nobody who's worked on this article started wondering why that might have been the case... Greetings from --Sprachraum (talk) 05:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

This doesn’t really feel like a warranted GA re-assessment. This seems like a one problem issue that could be instantly remedied. Having the GA status revoked feels overkill when this info can just be easily added by yourself (if you feel so inclined). Rusted AutoParts 05:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Chompy Ace: @MapReader: pinging for input. Rusted AutoParts 05:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Rusted AutoParts, in the six minutes between my notification on your talk page, and your answer here, I doubt you managed a proper assessment of both my post above, and the two sources I cite, one of which is a video interview. So please do that first before suggesting that this is not a "warranted GA re-assessment". The problems are not solved by just changing a sentence here, and adding a line there. This requires a rewrite and significant expansion of the whole production chapter to meet GA standard. And I posted that as a comment on the talk page four days ago – resulting in zero answers or activity in the article. So that is why this is now a GAR. --Sprachraum (talk) 05:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

If you felt this was a pressing matter or that it was being ignored you should have pinged me four days ago. I have a full grasp of what you're illustrating here and the point stands this is a small in comparison issue when suggesting the article as a whole is not worthy of GA status. All other aspects are up to par, if you feel the editing aspect is underreported on, please add to it. Don't seek to have it's status revoked. Rusted AutoParts 05:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I have a general view that film (and TV) articles are too readily put up for, and accepted, as GA, the problem being that they are both edited and scored by fans who are too eager to see their favourites become accepted as good articles. On its own, the challenge about 'one shot/two shot' is a point of detail that doesn't in itself demand a review. But looking at this article, it seems cursory, and I am not convinced that enough research has been done to make sure that everything in the public arena about this film has been adequately covered. For example I spend just a minute on Google and found this article[1] and this one[2] and this one[3] - in three very reputable sources (Time Magazine, New York Times, and Vanity Fair) none of which appears to be referenced by this article. Given how short the article is, I see no evidence that its editors have conducted a proper and thorough review of external sources and therefore suggest it should be a fail on criterion three, "Broad in its coverage". On this basis I'd agree that the GA should be re-assessed. MapReader (talk) 09:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi MapReader I agree with almost everything you write above, including about the general quality level that many of these articles have when attaining GA status. I would just point out that the "one shot/two shot" many shots issue is not a minor point of detail – because it is central to the impact of the film, the seamless real-time viewer experience it seeks to attain. It was also a central part of the marketing and "mystique" created around the film. It was delved into extensively in just about every interview, film talk, movie review, etc. And it made a huge difference to the difficulty and methods employed in the making of the film, as compared to a "normal" movie. The marketing purposefully kept up the illusion of it being a one-shot film separated by just one cut-to-black moment. Only after the first cinema release had run its course, did drip-by-drip facts emerge to reveal a quite different work process. But the article as written now, remains stuck in the initial marketing illusion, and leaves out how the daily results of 65(!) separate shooting days, plus several reshoots, where created, assessed and seamlessly stitched together to sustain this illusion. That is not a minor technicality like "oh, we shot it on Camera XYZ". It is both factually incorrect and part of the missing broader coverage you rightfully criticise. P.S. The article does spend a whole paragraph around the type of camera and lenses used, etc. – which would be ok, if it wasn't missing far more important stuff. --Sprachraum (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

It’s still a point of detail. And you’d have to be a bit dim not to see that being filmed to look like it is continuously shot doesn’t mean that it actually was. Which would have been impossible given the time and distance covered by the storyline. My criticism of the GA is that the article itself looks like it has been hurried together by simply making sure there was some text under each of the headings normally found in film articles, and the GA has been rushed through by checking for accuracy and referencing, without standing back and asking whether the article as a whole fits the bill as a comprehensive reflection of everything significant that external sources have said about the film. Since I am one of those who have edited the article, I am partly to blame. Although I would never have considered it GA material in the first place - few articles about recent media releases are likely, objectively, to be of GA quality, because it takes time to see and appreciate a fresh work of art fully and properly. MapReader (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Here's my two cents.. I've had a quick skim of the article, and to be honest, I do feel it's lacking in depth. The film has been heavily publicised in the media; I expected more in the production section. From the filming, casting to writing decisions. The critical reception - I'm expecting more reviews here. I think this article falls short of criteria 3 - broad in its coverage. LM150 14:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Sprachraum: Is this ready to be closed? Aircorn (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@Aircorn: Yes absolutely – thanks for reminding me and sorry to have left it open for so long. I had little time for the Wikipedia in the last few months. I've now gone through all the article revisions that have taken place since I posted this in February. They are mostly minimal, with none of them even remotely addressing the issues I raised, or those raised by MapReader and LM150. So the article fails this GA Reassessment. @Aircorn: Could you please complete the necessary steps on the article talk page for me? This is my first Reassessment procedure here on the English Wikipedia. Greetings from --Sprachraum (talk) 08:05, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

All done. Thanks. Aircorn (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)