Talk:The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari/Archive 1

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

Date?

Can anyone confirm the date of release? The IMDb lists it as 1920, but I have seen it as 1919 elsewhere.[1] An anon user just changed the date from 1920 to 1919, but this conflicts with the dates in the External Links. --Jeremy Butler 16:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

And now the info box has 1920, further adding to the confusion. --Jeremy Butler 12:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Because I used IMDb to build the info box :-) I don't know which is correct. - AdamSmithee 16:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

All the sources I've ever seen & read on this film say 1919. This includes many reviews & commentaries in magazines, books, & on the web, so I wouldn't go by what IMDb says if it's the only one saying 1920. Z Wylld 20:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I also just noticed that IMDb doesn't even spell the director's name correctly; it says "Robert Wiene" instead of "Robert Weine," in both the entry for the film and the entry for the director. So I definitely would not consider IMDb a reliable source. I think the date should be changed to 1919. --Opinions? Votes? Z Wylld 16:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
AACK! This article also misspells the director's name! From IMDb again? I'm changing the name to Weine now. Z Wylld 16:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, OK, I was R-O-N-G about the director's name. I'm correcting it back to Wiene. But I am also changing the date to 1919, which is correct, believe me. Within the next few days, I hope to also add a few more references at the end of the article. Z Wylld 15:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

At a conference this weekend, I saw archival material that confirms it was produced in 1919 in Germany. (And released in the US in 1921.) I'm still not 100% sure that it was also RELEASED in Germany in 1919, but it seems likely. --Jeremy Butler 19:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The IMDB states very specifically that the film premiered in Berlin on 20 February, 1920. [2] It would therefore seem logical to assume that the film was made in late 1919 and then released in early 1920. Can anyone cite a clear, respectable source for the film's premiere date? The Singing Badger 19:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

According to the BFI publication on the film, written by David Robinson in 1997, the world premiere was at the Marmorhaus in Berlin on 26 February 1920 (pg. 46). It also says that shooting began in December 1919 and lasted until the end of January 1920 (Robinson 24). I think it should state 1920 in the Wikipedia article. RGD 01:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

That settles the matter! Thanks. --Jeremy Butler 13:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

One last note

I contacted a research archivist at the Margaret Herrick Library, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. She adds this information:

It's interesting that a release-date debate has developed on this particular title, because when I went through our clipping file on the film, which includes newspaper, magazine and trade paper articles as well as program notes from archives and museums, I found that a date of 1919 has been widely used, even by MoMA in the 1930s. Undoubtedly the film was produced in 1919 and that's where the confusion arises. However, if you're wanting to pin down a release year, I agree with the conclusion that you and your fellow Wikepedians reached in your online forum, which confirms the release year given on the IMDb. Not only does David Robinson list that release date, it is also the date cited by Kracauer in From Caligari to Hitler; he writes that "After a thorough propaganda campaign culminating in the puzzling poster 'You must become Caligari,' Decla released the film in February 1920 in the Berlin Marmorhaus." In a footnote, Kracauer cites the 1922-1923 German Yearbook of the Film Industry (p. 31) as his source, so that seems pretty definitive.

--Jeremy Butler 12:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


Kracauer

I'm not sure that the Elsaesser 'discredits' Kracauer, who is still a formidable film theorist.

Kracauer's work on general film aesthetics is formidable, but his book about German film is primarily considered as historical document these days. His conclusions in From Caligari To Hitler are wildly speculative and just don't stand up to any sort of questioning, and should definitely not be presented as fact (which is how they were when I edited the article). Elsaesser does discredit Kracauer's book where the films are concerned as is described in the article, but finds value in his ideological grounding. Bigbigtom367 20:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm removing Elsaesser's argument "He also claims that Hitler took power after the movie's release thereby contradicting the notion of Caligari symbolizing Hitler." because this claim makes no sense in relation to Kracauer, who states that the film offers a "premonition of Hitler," straight out of From Caligari to Hitler in one of the pages from 67 - 72 (The quote and source are taken from the Scheunemann article/criticism that I'm adding because I don't have the text of From Caligari to Hitler on me, although I have double checked it and any is free to triple check it, with the page numbers listed it shouldn't be hard). Also, the Scheunemann work somewhat defends Kracauer's reading as he didn't have "the full range of materials at (his) desposal has clearly and adversley affected the discussion of the film," as the script was not rediscovered until 1977 and he was stuck outside of germany having not seen the film in over 20 years when he wrote From Caligari to Hitler.

I've also corrected what was written about Kracauer's work in the first place. It seems to have previously stated that the film was interpreted as an allegory of the Second World War (which is overly vague), and someone considered that to be illogical and corrected it to say it's an allegory of the First World War. He actually argues that it represents the social attitudes of the German popular between the two wars (i.e. as a result of WW1, and in the build-up to WW2). I don't have the book with me, but have corrected with what I remember him writing. Anyone with the text to hand feel free to edit for specificity. Bigbigtom367 20:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I was the person who "corrected" the bit about the war allegory. I am not familiar with Kracauer's work, but I do recall another academic who proposed the somnambulist as an allegory for young German men lulled into killing in the Great War.--Pharos 09:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like something either Kracauer wrote (I don't have the book to hand to check), or someone indeed inspired by his work. I think most likely the former. What is in the article at present is definitely verifiable, but do add more if you have the references. Bigbigtom367 15:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Image

I replaced the image from the copyrighted DVD cover to an original poster image. (Ibaranoff24 05:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC))

Love it.--Puppy Zwolle (Puppy) 20:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

black and white?

The original presentation was color tinted. Should tinted films, which were common during this era, be considered black and white?Smiloid

Seeing as I've never seen any authority deem tinted films, i.e. Der Golem and Caligari as anything but black and white, Bordwell and Thompson's Film Art most definitely included, I'd say there's no reason to call it anything but, although noting the tinting wouldn't be out of the question
Films and pictures were often colorized (not all copies but some) They were the 'limited edition' so to speak. That one survives as being known to be colored is a miracle in itself. Nuf said. The film is black and white in nature as to how we split the color pictures from the b&w. --Puppy Zwolle (Puppy) 20:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

correction of original title

The original title actually was "Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari." The "Das Kabinett" title was used during the Nazi era to make the film appear "Aryan"Smiloid

Lang's involvement

Fritz Lang often boasted of created the controversial "framing" narrative, but later research on this film casts some doubts on such claims. A lot of Kracauer's statements on this film have also come into question by later researchers.Smiloid

I've seen much evidence for crediting Lang and so far, none going against it, so until you can note specific resources and cite them in the article, I'd avoid bringing that up
The matter is referenced in a number of commentary tracks done by film historian David Kalat for the various Dr. Mabuse films. Lang did make the claim that he had invented the framing device, and at least two others made the claim that they had been the originator; however, documentary evidence turned up later which showed that the existence of the framing device predated the involvement with the film of any of the three. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

I see several entries for musical scores, which jogged my memory of seeing the film shown at a theatre in Petaluma (CA) about 15 years ago, with a live performance of a new score by the Clubfoot Orchestra. Anyone have any information about this score? Z Wylld 17:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Edward Scissorhands

Is it worth noting that the appearance "Edward Scissorhands" was based on Cesare? --68.149.181.145 18:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Although visually you might be right, I'd rest easier if you could provide a source.--GeneralGrievance 09:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Many sources say Scissorhands bears resemblance to Cesare. Perhaps it could be worded as something like, "Many film critics remark that [blah blah blah]" etc?

Cultural References

I think that Adaptations and derivative works should be splitted with a Cultural References section


-Maxmordon

I did it


-Maxmordon

I watched the Red Hot Chili Pepper's Otherside video and I find the connection to the film shaky at best. Does anyone have an actual source that declares that the video was based on the film? (The only google result matching RHCP and the film was an entry in the Otherside wiki that claimed the same thing. Also no source cited.) If not, we should remove it. --Mordy

No response. I'm removing it. Lubbarlubab 08:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Abney Park

Hmm. On this page it claims the band Abney Park had written a song called 'Dr Caligari's Dream'. From what I've read, they did no such thing. Wikipedia is the only source for that claim. Should it be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.232.110 (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Questionable link

Should World Cinema Online link be removed, because it's a commercial, for-pay site? What's Wikipedia policy on this? Does it constitute an advertisement? --Jeremy Butler 12:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Harsh lighting

I removed "harsh lighting" from the following line, "complete with wild, distorted painted sets and harsh lighting." The lighting in the film, as can be seen in the accompanying screenshot, is actually very broad and even -- "high key," in cinematographic terms. As Zoe comments, lighting effects were painted onto the sets. This is because, in 1920, they were not able to achieve true chiaroscuro through lighting. They had to blast the set with as much light as possible to properly expose the film. I also removed a later reference to music within mise-en-scene as sound is not part of mise-en-scene. --Jeremy Butler 12:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Sets

The sets deserve mention, but I'm ignorant of art. Is that expressionist or impressionist? Koyaanis Qatsi

Ah. And wikipedia itself reveals. Expressionism (film)

Good job. I don't know anything about art either. I do know the sets were paper and the shadows were painted on, but that's about it. Somebody help? -- Zoe

Yup, definitely expressionist. Not much expressionist work was monochrome except prints. German work very lively at the time, many of the best known expressionists were already well known before 1920, e.g. Franz Marc. The Blue Rider show actually included almost all the best known German expressionists. The sets also had the advantage of being cheap.

Free images and edit summaries

Just a note for editors watching the article history: I noticed this edit replaced a freely licensed image from Commons with a locally uploaded image containing a fair use rationale; I reverted that edit here with the summary "why replace free image with fair use one? please see Commons:File talk:CABINETOFDRCALIGARI-poster.jpg" and left a polite note at the user's page here explaining there is no need for fair use in this case. My edit was then reverted without explanation here, and that the fair use rationale was removed (rightly in my opinion). I appreciate editors can be busy but it would be helpful to not revert without explanation, as my edit was in good faith and as far as I can see within wikipedia policy, and I also believe we are all working in the same interests of the encyclopedia. Thank you. -84user (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Missing word

Example text Barlow said it was often the subject of critical disapproval, which he believes is because early film reviewers attempted to assign fixed definitions to the young art of cinema, and thus 'had accepting the bizarre and unusual elements of Caligari.}} Is the missing word "trouble" in between the bold? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

  • You are exactly right. I've added the missing word. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 20:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 19:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


General
Info box
  • I think there should be a caption for the photo, like promotional poster or something?
  • I think Germany uses British date formatting, not American?
    • You are correct. (The Germany article uses the British date formatting, so I assume this article about a German film should as well. :D) I've changed them. — Hunter Kahn 18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Lead
  • reveal the → reveals the
  • Red links are quite ugly, and if they don't have an article, there's no point linking it to a red link.
    • Actually, per WP:REDLINK: "Red links for subjects that should have articles but do not, are not only acceptable, but needed in the articles. They serve as a clear indication of which articles are in need of creation, and encourage it." I think all the redlinks in this article are for subjects that should have a Wikipedia page, so I really think they should stay. — Hunter Kahn 18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Considered a classic film, → I think you could omit 'film' here actually.
  • particularly horror movies and the film noir genre. → 'movies' is an informal American colloquialism, I'd stick to saying film instead of movies throughout. Also, I think it should just be "particularly in the genres of horror and film noir."
    • Changed. — Hunter Kahn 18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Cast
  • Again, no need to link names with no articles.
Production - Writing
  • Writing is done before the pre-production and the script is finalised in pre-production, so I find it a bit problematic that a Writing sub-section is included in the Production section, when Writing takes place in the stage(s) before production, when Production is the making of the film. (My MA in Film is coming out here!)
    • While you are correct in your technical definition of "Production", it's pretty common practice for film articles on Wikipedia to include all these subsections under a general "Production" section. For examples of FAs that follow this practice, see Blade Runner, Tender Mercies, American Beauty, Barton Fink, etc.
  • Remove the red link for Gilda Langer
  • In describing their roles in the writing, → You've already laid emphasis on them being the writers in the previous sentence, so further emphasis here in "in the writing" I think is not needed.
    • Changed. — Hunter Kahn 18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Janowitz said it was only years after writing the script → It was written in 1918-19 and released in 1920, so would it be more accurate to say "years after the film was released" ?
    • You are correct. Changed. — Hunter Kahn 18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Through film director Fritz Lang, Janowitz and Mayer met with Erich Pommer, head of production at the Decla-Bioscop film studio, on April 19, 1919, to discuss selling the script. → This should have a citation at the end of the sentence.
    • There are several instances in this review where you say a particular fact needs a citation. In each of these cases, the reason a citation is missing is because the next citation (usually in the following sentence) covers that sentence as well. For example: "Jack went up the hill. Jill went up the hill.[1]" In this case, "[1]" is meant to cover both the Jack AND Jill sentences. I believe this is the proper way to do it, per WP:INCITE, because otherwise you have overly redundant uses of the same citation within a given paragraph/sentence. That being said, I did add citations to each one you cited, just so it's clear they are all sourced. — Hunter Kahn 18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Production - Frame story
  • The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari makes use of a "Rahmenerzählung", or frame story. → Needs a citation
  • Fritz Lang has said that, → Just his surname, as he has already been mentioned once before.
  • In his 1947 book From Caligari to Hitler, Siegfried Kracauer argued, based largely on an unpublished typescript written and provided by Janowitz,[19] that the film originally included no frame story at all and only the main story, starting with the fair coming to town and ending with Dr. Caligari becoming institutionalized. → It's odd that you place a citation mid-sentence, but also not at the end.
    • Again, that's because the portion at the end of the sentence is covered by the next available citation. I've added one to the end in this case, but see my comment about WP:INCITE above. — Hunter Kahn 18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • No surviving copies of the script were believed to exist to confirm this fact, until the early 1950s when actor Werner Krauss revealed he still had his copy. → Needs a citation.
  • agree the discovery → agree that the discovery
    • Changed. — Hunter Kahn 18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Production - Development
  • Remove the dead red links.
Casting
  • Remove the dead red links.
  • The picture should be on the left hand side, because he is looking to his left (I'm under the impression that photos of people should be looking at the prose, not away from it)
Filming
  • Filming is the only sub-section which is actually production.
    • Again, I get that this is correct under the technical definition (it's obvious you know your stuff with regard to the film industry! :D) but I believe the section layout is consistent with Wikipedia practices. — Hunter Kahn 18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • is disputed. Janowitz → is dispute: Janowitz
    • Are you sure? I think changing it to "dispute" rather than "disputed" would make it grammatically inaccurate. Also, since the next TWO sentences are about this dispute, not just the next sentence, I think adding the colon instead of the period could confuse readers. — Hunter Kahn 18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
      • I meant disputed. Typo.  — ₳aron 20:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It was the fourth film to be made there, followed by Die Pest in Florenz (1919) and the two parts of Fritz Lang's The Spiders. → Needs a citation
  • However, an understage space was provided for use as a foreground set. Certain elements from the original script had to be cut from the film due to the limited space, including a procession of gypsies, a handcart pushed by Dr. Caligari, Jane's carriage, and a chase scene involving horse-cabs. Likewise, the script called for a fairground scene with roundabouts, barrel organs, sideshow barkers, performers and menageries, none of which could be achieved in the restrictive space. Instead, the scenes use a painting of the Holstenwall town as a background; throngs of people walk around two spinning merry-go-round props, which creates the impression of a carnival. → All need citations.
  • Several scenes from the script were cut during filming, most of which were brief time lapses or transitioning scenes, or title screens deemed unnecessary. One of the more substantial scenes to be cut involved the ghost of Alan at a cemetery. The scene with the town clerk berating Dr. Caligari deviated notably from the original script, which simply called for the clerk to be "impatient". → Same again. Every sentence should be cited.
Visual style
  • David Robinson suggested → You've mentioned Robinson before, so only his surname should be used from the second mention onwards.
Themes and interpretations - Authority and conformity
  • Siegfried Kracauer said Dr. Caligari → You've mentioned Kracauer before, so only his surname should be used from the second mention onwards.
Release
Release - Critical reception
  • I find this section to be WP:QUOTEFARM
    • I get where you're coming from here, but I don't entirely agree. To some degree, it's inevitable there will be a lot of quotes in a critical reception section, but this section is more than simply a list of quotes from movie critics (which WOULD be a QUOTEFARM violation). WP:QUOTEFARM says that "Many direct quotations can be minimized in length by providing an appropriate context in the surrounding text." In most cases, I do that in this section. Wherever possible I paraphrase the critics in prose rather than use their quotes, like "Other commentators, like critic Herbert Jhering and novelist Blaise Cendrars, objected to the presentation of the story as..." or "Barlow said it was often the subject of critical disapproval, which..." WP:QUOTEFARM also suggests minimizing the use of large quotes "by working smaller portions of quotation into the article text". I've done this wherever possible too, like: "Kracauer said critics were 'unanimous in praising Caligari as the first work of art on the screen', but..." or "René Clair said it 'overthrew the realist dogma' of film..." I feel quotations are only used when it best serves the reader, and that removing them too much further could reduce the article's quality. However, all that being said, if you still strongly disagree I can take a crack at it. — Hunter Kahn 18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Reception - Legacy
  • Remove red links
  • The Themes/Conformity wikilink doesn't go anywhere. And in the Frame story sub-section, you just say "See Themes section", not Themes/Conformity.
    • I fixed the links and change it so both references to the Themes section would be consistent. — Hunter Kahn 18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Sequels, remakes and musical works
  • Remove red links
  • In 2012, the Chatterbox Audio Theatre recorded a live soundtrack, including dialogue, sound effects and music, for Caligari. The film, with this soundtrack, was released on YouTube on October 30, 2013. → In 2012, the Chatterbox Audio Theatre recorded a live soundtrack, including dialogue, sound effects and music, for Caligari, which was released on YouTube on October 30, 2013.
    • Changed. — Hunter Kahn 18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Outcome

This is definitely one of the most well-written articles I've reviewed or read. But I'm concerned that it is too detailed in parts. The Production section, and it's five sub-sections, is very long. I feel like every single piece of information has been included, when this is perhaps not quite necessary to include every tiny detail or nuance. Also, you say in the lead that sources for its financial success differ, but you don't elaborate on this point at all in the entire article. I'm placing on hold for the time being for you to address what's above.  — ₳aron 18:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

  • As you probably know, there is a LOT written about Caligari. There are tons of sources out there about it, and there's a lot of minor detail that I've omitted. I know the article is long, but that's because it's an important and well-document subject, and I really think any information I've included is relevant information. Also, I wrote this with an eye on eventually nominating it for WP:FA, and WP:FAC requires that it be "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". That being said, if there are specific elements of this article that you feel should be cut or condensed, I'm willing to discuss them. — Hunter Kahn 18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this review! — Hunter Kahn 18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

  • You're welcome. Passing.  — ₳aron 20:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Cabinet_of_Dr._Caligari/Archive_1&oldid=1075508542"