Talk:Africa Addio

message: Why are his allegations the second thing you have to read about the movie after the depicted events? When you read the full review on Eberts site, he doesnt provide any evidence for his accusations - no sources about the hippo hunt, nothing. This makes the artice biased and disrespects the filmmakers who put their life in danger, getting in the line of fire in their helicopter, trying to report about a genocide. If you you cannot provide those sources for Roger Ebert, then stop quoting him, using his reputation as evidence, which it isnt. 
And if you have a problem with the fact that certain things in the human history happened because they put a group of people you like or belong to in a bad light, it doesnt mean you should or have the right to change history; this is propaganda.
-Not signed, 85.176.106.129  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrEvilGuy (talk • contribs) 09:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Allegations by Ebert

message: The authors and protectors of this article are trying to make this film out to be a "lightly European slanted' look at atrocities committed by black Africans" when that could not be farther from the truth. I've recently watched the entire film and its one of the most racist films of the past 50 years and throughout the net cherished by white supremacists and nationalists. Please refrain from so much protectionism and instead include more balanced aspects of this film. Thanks Catherine Huebscher (talk) at (9:29 14 October 2009 (UTC)</small>
: Before I continue, I want to point out that I am not the subject of the paragraph above; my only edits have been to remove spurious formatting marks and insert spaces where required. I am sure that the film is as horrible as Ebert's review states, but at the moment the article is seriously flawed, because it is full of assertions. E.g. "The film is edited with a clear pro-white European and pro-Colonialist slant," which is no doubt true, but is presented as objective fact when it is actually an opinion. Wikipedia demands that this kind of thing be referenced in the style "According to X, the film is etc." Given the existence of so much controversy that shouldn't be too hard. I would do this myself, but I simply don't care about the subject. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hitler cherished animals = animals are evil?   - Just thought I'd point out that racist groups cherishing something is a silly argument/point; they also cherish traditional families as far as I'm aware too...  --Kurtle (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps the critics could show us were the film is actually in error or misrepresenting something. Then we could place that in the article one by one. Of course the critique would also have to be backed up. --41.19.126.90 (talk) 09:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Whitewashed Article

message: Every thing in this film is staged for the camera. They paid an entire village to do the killing in order to justify the decolonisation political movement...most Italians are racist, arrogant and full of complexity and inferiority in regard to ethnical issues...so I totally believe that this movie was a stage...as we all know the African tribe they hunt with respect and after killing they prey they always perform a thanks giving pray for nature..see the San tribes, aborigines and etc. the movie Avatar (2009)depicts exactly the life of many indigenous that have been killed, exploited and looted in the name of peace, love and non sense religion (see the connection between catholic, fascist and Nazi with the "cross"..Those who made this film and their financier should be put to trial.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.117.223 (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't agree more.. Crusty007 (talk) 02:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  fascist italia 

message: A more objective and neutral opening would be "Africa Addio is a 1966  Italian documentary film"
:Though it seems to have negative connotations, unfortunately basically everything could be considerend and exploitation film --Kurtle (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  exploitation film[[User:Epirenton|Epirenton]] ([[User talk:Epirenton|talk]]) 07:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC) 

message: A full section on reception of the film is missing. At the IMDb it gets 7 out of 10 based on 25 reviews. --41.19.126.90 (talk) 09:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception is missing 

message: This movie is hugely controversial and liable to many conflicting interpretations.  I believe that the conversation would be better guided if various interpretations were laid out and argued for like positions in a debate.  That way the content (some of which was staged and some of which is authentic, all of which is of historical value)  will be separated from what people think of the content.  Broadly positions can be summarized as "Movie Shows Africans as They Are," "This is the most racist movie ever," and "Historical documentary, intended to ruffle feathers".  Let's note that all opinions are valid, and we have the "Movie Shows Africans as They Are," camp to thank for the movie's availability on the internet.     
The film makers deliberately made this movie a challenge to interpret.  In the opening, they state that Africa's effort to "become more modern [is] so recent there is no room to discuss it at the moral level."  The film makers clearly state that they are bidding adieu to the old image Africa.  Additionally, the original Italian narration (subtitles) differs significantly from the English narration making things that much more difficult.Basilbeshkov (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interpretation Section to Replace Rampant Criticism 

message: First off, I'm removing the paragraph about Ebert's allegation of that the Boers moving in cattle-drawn wagons was staged. As noted above in the article, Ebert watched the American version, so it makes sense he would suspect that. But in the Italian film, Jacopetti clearly states that "They could have chosen boats or airplanes as the English did to return to Europe. Instead, with controversial intentions, they loaded their families and possessions on old wagons to return to their homeland". 
I'm also removing the paragraph about the fox-hunting scene. "Some discussion exists" is not a good enough reason to include it in a wikipedia article, particularly if it can't be cited. 
If people want to look at "discussions" about Africa Addio, they can go look around on internet forums and such. Wikipedia is not the place for that.
As suggested elsewhere on this talk page, I'm going to create a "reception" header. That's where I'll move the "allegations of pro-colonialism". Except I can only move the Ebert citation because the rest isn't cited. 
If someone wants to improve this page, I recommend citing non-English movie critics who have seen the Italian version to elaborate on the "reception" of the film.
I'll also change the header "International opening crawl variations" to "Italian vs. English version". Someone should probably come up with a better header and elaborate on this section, though I like the quotations of the opening text to illustrate the difference.
Finally, the running time discussion is somewhat silly because citing IMDB isn't much different than citing another wikipedia article. But I'll keep it there for reference.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrEvilGuy (talk • contribs) 08:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs fixing 

message: I am sure there is a longer version to this film, as there are several scenes missing from the 140min version. Like the one about the lecture on the White brain. --197.228.32.215 (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only that, the Miss Uhuru sequence is missing and also the one where the new cronies got a White nanny for their kid. --41.151.235.106 (talk) 21:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  longer version