Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 19 November 2019 [1].

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari edit

Nominator(s): — Hunter Kahn 04:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari is the quintessential German Expressionist film, was described by Roger Ebert as the "first true horror film", and has been widely praised as revolutionary work of cinema. It has been listed as a listed as a level-5 vital article in the Art category. The article is currently a good article and has undergone a peer review. Look forward to working with you guys on any additional feedback to hopefully get it to FA status. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 04:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Das_Cabinet_des_Dr._Caligari.JPG: since this is on Commons it should include a tag for status in country of origin
  • File:The_Cabinet_of_Dr_Caligari_Holstenwall.png: in order for the URAA tag to be valid, we need to know the image's status in its country of origin. Same with File:The_Cabinet_of_Dr_Caligari_Werner_Krauss.png and File:The_Cabinet_of_Dr_Caligari_Conrad_Veidt.png. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nikkimaria I'm a little unsure how to handle this. (Apologies, I should have realized the image status should have based on German copyright law, not U.S.). If I'm correctly reading German copyright law, based on #33 on this link, the term of protection is the life and 70 years after the death of the longest surviving of the authors of the image; in this case the director and cinematographer. (I don't believe the screenwriters would apply here because the copyright pertains to an image, not the script.) If that is the case, because director Robert Wiene and cinematographer Willy Hameister both died in 1938, the image is no longer protected and can be used. But 1) would you say I'm interpreting this correctly and 2) how do I express this on the image tags? — Hunter Kahn 00:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since images hosted on English Wikipedia are only required to be free in the US, I'd suggest an easier option for those: just switch the URAA tag for a pre-1924 publication tag. You could similarly upload the lead image locally. If you want to address the matter of German copyright I'd suggest taking a look at this discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nikkimaria, I think I've addressed this now. I've uploaded the poster locally Wikipedia, rather than Commons, with a pre-1924 tag, and I've added the pre-1924 tag to each of the other images you highlighted. Please let me know if I made any mistakes or need to do anything differently... — Hunter Kahn 01:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • What you've got now is acceptable. I'd recommend using the tagging from File:CABINET_DES_DR_CALIGARI_01.jpg on the other images, but I'll leave that up to you. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM edit

It's not my favourite film, but I've seen it. Definitely a worthy topic for a star.

  • Could I ask you to add citations for the quotes in the lead? We should really be providing sources for all quotes, even if they're sourced elsewhere in the article.
    • Agreed. Added the citations. — Hunter Kahn 14:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps a picture of Caligari next to Schopenhauer would add some visual interest to the writing section? Just a thought!
    • I've added the images per your suggestion. — Hunter Kahn 14:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(See the Themes section for more.)" This strikes me as self reference, which are to be avoided. Maybe {{see also}} at the top of the section would be better? Same for "(See Visual Style for more.)"
    • I think you are correct that this is an unnecessary self-reference, and I actually think putting the "See also" reference to the top of each section is not only unnecessary, but could lead to confusion. So I've simply removed the self-reference altogether... — Hunter Kahn 14:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Critics widely agree that the discovery of the screenplay strongly undermines Kracauer's theory" Two things; first, do your cited sources specifically say that there's wide agreement on this? Second, perhaps the fact that the theory has been undermined belongs in the lead?
    • Yes, it does specifically state it in that way. And I've revised the lede to reflect this; let me know if you think the new wording works. — Hunter Kahn 14:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Die Pest in Florenz (1919) and the two parts of Fritz Lang's The Spiders (Die Spinnen)" Why translate one title but not the other? Also, I think you link The Spiders above.
    • I've changed the title accordingly, and removed the second wikilink. — Hunter Kahn 14:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The camera does not play a large part in Caligari, and is used primarily to show the sets.[28][80] The cinematography tends to alternate only between medium shots at straight-on angles and abrupt close-ups to create a sense of shock, but with few long shots or panning movement." I'm struggling with these lines. Could they be revisited?
    • I've tried revising; let me know what you think. — Hunter Kahn 14:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping there for a time. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the comments so far! — Hunter Kahn 14:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note I will be traveling on and off for the next two weeks. I should still have access to the Internet and Wikipedia, but there may be sporadic periods where I'm unavailable. I'll do my best to respond to any comments made during that time, and will address them as soon as I can. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 23:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lotte Eisner, author of The Haunted Screen, writes that objects in the film appear as if they are coming alive and "seem to vibrate with an extraordinary spirituality".[91] Likewise, Expressionismus und Film writer Rudolf Kurtz wrote" Just a thought: I'd be more interested to know their expertise than the title of their books. "Film critic", "film historian", something like that. I note that Eisner's already been mentioned.
    • Added the context to Kurtz's first reference. — Hunter Kahn 00:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As German film professor Anton Kaes wrote" When you say "as", you're editorialising a little - you're saying "Kaes is right to say that". This may run up against NPOV.
    • Good call. I removed that word. — Hunter Kahn 00:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and in the case of the film's characters represents an emotional response to the terror of society that Dr. Caligari and Cesare represent" Tricky - this could perhaps be massaged a little.
    • Reworded to "...and the film's characters represent an emotional response to the terror of society as embodied by Dr. Caligari and Cesare." Let me know if this is better. — Hunter Kahn 00:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a "cartoon and (a) reproduction of designs rather than from what actually took place on stage"" If the "(a)" is the addition of you or another author, you should use square brackets.
  • What does "iris-in" mean?
  • "(see the Themes section for more)" Another self-reference to be removed, perhaps?
  • "(See Writing for more.)" Ditto.

Stopping again - really interesting stuff. Please check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • These sentences are very close together: "David Robinson said, as time passed, filmgoers have been less inclined to interpret the film as a vindication of authority because modern audiences have grown more skeptical of authority in general, and are more inclined to believe Francis's story and interpret the asylum director as wrongly committing Francis to silence him.[130]" ... "By the end of the film, viewers realize the story they have been watching has been told from the perspective of an insane narrator, and therefore they cannot accept anything they have seen as reliable truth" These feel like they contradict each other!
    • I added an "according to Brockmann" attribution to the second sentence, to further clarify that these are two different interpretations by two different scholars. I think this addresses your concern, but if not let me know. — Hunter Kahn 13:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Francis's or Francis'? I prefer the former, for what it's worth.
    • Changed all references to "Francis's". — Hunter Kahn 13:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Will get to the other comments later today. — Hunter Kahn 13:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The question of perspective turns in Dr Caligari into a question of worldview since, beyond Francis' individual circumstances, the film was written by pacifists who were opposed to what Eisner described as the willingness of Germans to commit themselves to the dark forces, such as demoniac magic and supernatural powers, that led to death on the battlefield." Tricky sentence. Could this be broken down a little? Actually, that whole paragraph is a little tricky, and the tone is off: more critical theory paper than Wikipedia article. Perhaps it could be revisited?
    • I've tried rewriting this sentence and a few other parts of the paragraph. — Hunter Kahn 13:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the viewer cannot help but suspect a malevolent aspect of him at the conclusion of the film" Says who? I think it's fairly clear that there are multiple readings about what is and is not "real", so perhaps language claiming one way or another will need to be toned down?
    • I've made an attempt as softening this language. — Hunter Kahn 13:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to get hung up on this, but there's some inconsistency about whether or not the article uses the Oxford comma.
    • I will look through and try to fix instances of this so it is consistent. Likely will lean toward keeping the Oxford comma, not omitting it. — Hunter Kahn 13:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for a stage adaptation of the film" I'm perhaps more interested in stage adaptations than soundtracks; is it perhaps worth another subsection for stage adaptations? Actually, I note that a few of the things discussed in that section go beyond music... "Music and stage", perhaps? I'm not sure. There may be another way to split this content up, but I'm just thinking aloud.
    • I like very much the idea of renaming this section "Music and stage", which is a more accurate description anyway. I've done so. — Hunter Kahn 13:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A very strong article; please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks good. Thanks very much! — Hunter Kahn 13:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry it's taken me so long to get back to this; I've recently started a new job and moved house, so it's been a busy couple of months for me. I'm looking again at the themes section, as it was here that I felt a few problems crept in. In particular, there's a tough paragraph (the last one in the point of view section) that I don't think is going to be decipherable for readers who haven't encountered a bit of literary theory.

  • "Mayer and Janowitz were pacifists opposed to what Eisner described as the willingness of Germans to commit themselves to the dark forces, such as demoniac magic and supernatural powers, that led to death on the battlefield." Really? Germans committed themselves to magic and supernatural powers? If that's what the author says, but...
    • lol I totally understand why that would stand out, but I just double-checked the source, and he does say it that way. — Hunter Kahn 22:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Hunter Kahn: Sorry to pick up on this again, but I wonder if it's worth quoting directly. This claim is just too weird to me. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @J Milburn: The exact quote is "mysticism and magic, the dark forces to which Germans have always been more than willing to commit themselves". Because of the way Lotte structured the sentence it's a bit hard for me to just quote directly, but I could change the sentence to something like this: "Mayer and Janowitz were pacifists opposed to what Eisner described as the willingness of Germans to accept "mysticism and magic, the dark forces to which Germans have always been more than willing to commit themselves," which Lotte said had led to death on the battlefield." Would you prefer this to the original sentence? — Hunter Kahn 19:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • How about something like "Mayer and Janowitz were pacifists opposed to claims of magic and mysticism, which Eisner called "the dark forces to which Germans have always been more than willing to commit themselves" that lead in turn to death on the battlefield." Or does that change the meaning of the sentence? Josh Milburn (talk) 20:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tried to edit that tricky passage about Eisner's views to be a little more readable/neutral. That said, I can't really make anything of "Kracauer was nevertheless concerned that the exposure of the German soul by German films in the 1920s made it even more into a riddle."
    • I've actually just gone ahead and removed this sentence, as I don't think it particularly contributes much now that I look at it again. — Hunter Kahn 22:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His writing anticipates" Whose writing? According to who? This feels like editorialising.
    • This particularly sentence (and source) were added by someone else, not me, after the point that I had gotten it to GA status. I had missed it until now. I've dug up and looked at the source, and it doesn't mention Caligari at ALL. It seems to me whoever added it was trying to draw a parallel between the film and the subject of that book, but since the comparison wasn't overtly part of the actual source material, I agree with you that it was editorializing and I've removed it. — Hunter Kahn 22:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "an unrepresentable totality"? What is "the unconscious proletariat"?
    • These were part of the sentence I cited above, which was added by someone else and I don't think was an appropriate addition, and that I've since removed. — Hunter Kahn 22:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it is possible for the viewer suspect a malevolent aspect of him at the conclusion of the film, even despite all evidence indicating he is a kind and caring man." But you've just said that it's ambiguous at the end; is it really the case that "all evidence" points towards one reading rather than the other?
    • I've changed it from "all evidence" to just "evidence", so as to not make it so definitive. I'm not sure if this fully addresses your concern, but if it doesn't, let me know. — Hunter Kahn 22:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "particularly in the contrasts between black and white. This is particularly" Repetition
    • Changed the second "particularly" to "especially". — Hunter Kahn 22:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this is helpful. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • J Milburn Your edits look fine to me. And congrats on the new job and house. :D — Hunter Kahn 22:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. I've left one reply above, and made a few small edits, but I now think that the themes section (surely the most difficult section to write and to follow) is looking very good. It reads well, it's relatively accessible, and it seems both neutral and internally consistent. I've only glanced at other parts of the article since my first read-through, but they were strong to start with. (We have some differences in style, but it'd be inappropriate for me to insist that you change!) Josh Milburn (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber edit

Good choice of FAC material as an important film in the history of cinema - kudos for taking it on.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Should Bundesfilmarchiv be italicised as it is a foreign word?

**Done. — Hunter Kahn 00:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC) *Do we have rule that on subsequent mentions it should be "Dr Caligari" or "Caligari" as both are in the Plot section...?[reply]

    • I don't believe there's a rule per se, but I agree they should be consistent, and it does appear both are used at different times throughout the article, so I've changed every reference to "Dr. Caligari" to just "Caligari", except for the first reference in the plot summary and, of course, any quotes or references to the film's title... — Hunter Kahn 00:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • All good on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria edit

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • What's the source for the list of uncredited actors?
    • That list was in the article before I started contributing to it, but since I wasn't able to immediately find a source add to it (and in fact it seems there are differing accounts as to whether Rudolf Klein-Rogge even appeared in the film), I've removed it altogether from the Cast section for now. — Hunter Kahn 16:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN87: is this an authorized republication?
    • It's a bit unclear to me. This information had previously been cited by other sources, and another editor changed it and added this link; but since the link is dead I think it has only added confusion. I've restored the original citations. — Hunter Kahn 16:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Fandor a high-quality reliable source?
    • It's the official website of a subscription film streaming service which, to my knowledge, employs professional writers, not contributors or amateurs, so I assumed it was a reliable source. (See more about Fandor here. That being said, the only Fandor citation used on this page is for a sentence that already has two other sources, so I can remove it if you object to it... — Hunter Kahn 16:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unless this specific writer has some particular expertise on the topic, I'd suggest removing. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN148: see WP:ROTTEN
    • WP:ROTTEN says "Some review aggregation websites, such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, are considered reliable sources, but information from them should be used in proper context and have some limitations." Rotten Tomatoes is only used as a citation for the information about the film's 100% rating and the website's consensus blurb, which seems appropriate to me according to the guideline and its required limitations. Do you disagree? — Hunter Kahn 16:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do. One of the stated limitations is with regards to the release date of the film, with post-2000 films being more accurately reflected in the scores; given the date of this film I'm not convinced that the usage is appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I guess we'll have to just agree to disagree here, and I hope this one minor point of subjective disagreement won't make you oppose the FAC. WP:ROTTEN is an essay, not a guideline or policy, and in my view the main point of the essay is that information from aggregation websites "should be used in proper context". In this case, the context is simply two sentences at the very end of the Reception section; it's not as if it's in the article lead, or blown out of proportion and given undue weight. Very few films have a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, so I think it's very appropriate that it gets a brief mention in the article, and the two sentences expressly specify how many reviews the aggregation is based upon (as suggested by WP:ROTTEN), which further clarifies the context of the information. — Hunter Kahn 02:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Berg-Ganschow is missing location
  • Be consistent in what you wikilink when in Bibliography. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've gone through and made sure every location was wikilinked, as well as every publisher that has a Wikipedia page. Please feel free to let me know if I missed any. — Hunter Kahn 16:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes edit

@Hunter Kahn: I've added this to Urgents but we seem to have stalled. I'll have to archive this soon if it doesn't see significant movement. --Laser brain (talk) 12:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: I definitely plan to be back for another look, but I don't have as much time for Wikipedias a I used to. I'm sad that this isn't drawing a little more attention! Is it worth leaving a note at the horror WikiProject? Josh Milburn (talk) 14:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Laser brain I'd be happy to add a note to the Horror WikiProject and Film WikiProject above, as J Milburn suggested, as long as that's not inappropriate? (I just don't want to come across as WP:CANVASSING. As for where things stand right now, so far there's one Supoprt vote and one vote that seems to be trending in that direction, and I haven't received any actionable comments on areas that need improvement so I could bring it back to FAC if it fails, so if it were archived I'm not sure what would be the next step? — Hunter Kahn 14:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem—I wouldn't construe that as canvassing assuming the note is neutrally worded. Unfortunately for nominations that get archived for lack of activity the only next step is to re-nominate later and hope for more attention. I do find that poking at nests of potential reviewers can be helpful, or reviewing other nominations in hopes of receiving a return review. --Laser brain (talk) 15:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from SnowFire edit

Quite a long article. It's obviously well-researched, and I'm sure all the references check out; it's nice work. My biggest worry is one of overall tone / stance / volume of text: the article portrays this more as an expressionist film with important themes & arty stuff first that happened to also be marketed as a grubby horror movie. There's a lot more information on the first than the second. But that's not my impression of the film; it's usually been portrayed in non-Wikipedia places as a work of classic horror first, one of the first horror movies, that also happened to be arty and weird as a side thing. For example, at the EMP / MoPop museum, they had an exhibit on Caligari, and it was placed in the horror section, included video interviews with modern horror directors, and talked all about it as an inventive and creative horror movie. Nothing about authority & conformity. I recognize that these sources surely exist, and I'm not asking for them to be stricken, but lines like "Though often considered an art film by modern audiences" read as weird to me: no it isn't? At least to my knowledge? It's considered an art film by academics who are into that kind of thing, but not everyone.

More helpfully, I think the lede could cut down a lot from Siegfried Kracauer's book; not clear to me why quoting his opinions extensively in the lede is proportionate coverage. It's fine to mention that writers have drawn the Caligari = German Government = proto-Hitler connection, but Kracauer is just one person; the twist ending is fine from the stance of "repeated horrifying revelations" where things keep getting worse and stranger, for example, even if he felt it dulled its political statement. (Which isn't really clear to me anyway that this is actually true, or that other writers agree that the twist ending messes with this - I mean, the whole movie is fictional, what's another layer.) SnowFire (talk) 20:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • In response to your comments, I've toned down the mentions of Kracauer from the lead, removing his name altogether, more generally attributing some of the themes he discusses, and removing his argument about the addition of the frame story altogether. I also reworded "Though often considered an art film by modern audiences" to "Though often considered an art film by some modern critics and scholars", again to make it a more general statement, but I assure you, it IS considered an art film, and the citations I use with that section reflect that. As for your more over-arching remarks, I'm not entirely sure how to respond, especially since it seems to be based upon your own subjective impression of what the movie is/was, rather than reliable sources. Everything in the article as it stands now is cited by verifiable sources. That being said, can give me any more specific examples of areas that you feel are either incorrect or need to be scaled back? — Hunter Kahn 20:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the edit, the lede looks better now.
I don't think anything is "incorrect", exactly. As I noted, this is clearly an impressive work that's read the scholarship. And yes, I am basing some of my commentary on my own personal experience, so I'm willing to show a lot of deference to someone who's read the sources; I'm just one data-point. That said, my general worry is about proportionate coverage. Put things another way, imagine if Jaws had 50% of the article discussing its impact on Hollywood's revenue model, on blockbusters, on its influence on marketing, and so on. These are all valid things to cover, and people have written entire long magazine articles and chapters of books on that subject, so no problem with grabbing reliable sources. However, there's plenty of other stuff to talk about for Jaws as a movie, too. The section in "Critical reception" is great, for example - I suppose I was hoping for a little bit more content such as that, on why Caligari is considered a foundational horror movie, its influence on other horror movies (similar to how other German Expressionist cinema is covered), and so on. There's extensive (sourced!) coverage on the artier aspects, which is fine, but there is somewhat less coverage of things like Rotha's comments, more on the influence on 30s horrors films in Hollywood beyond superficial "there's a monster & mind control" level observations, or if any modern horror directors had things to say about Caligari other than "it's good". Again, to be clear, it's in the article (crazy, dementia-esque set design, makeup, etc.), it's just a matter of overall relative amounts.
That said, I recognize that some of my desires may be impossible, and to be clear I do think it's a comprehensive and well-written article as is. If you ever get a chance to find more on the horror side, I think it'd be a great addition! And to be clear, it was certainly interesting reading about the historiography and changing impressions of the films from dueling scholars. So support. SnowFire (talk) 20:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paleface Jack Comment edit

Looking over the article, there is only one reference issue there. The Uta Berg-Ganschow and Wolfgang Jacobsen reference in the bibliography has no citation attached to it in the body of the article. You should find a way to put that citation in the sfn format in the article. Hope this helps.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, that book is not used as a source in this article (someone else must have added it), so I've simply removed it from the bibliography. Thanks for pointing it out! — Hunter Kahn 20:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problem.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Cabinet_of_Dr._Caligari/archive1&oldid=927041517"