Talk:Sergei Eisenstein

message: I added the discussion on the amount of film Eisenstein shot for the Mexico picture. 
As a personal aside, I have to say I was shocked at how little he filmed over all that time. That Sol Lesser was able to extract a feature—let alone two features and a short, as he in fact did—is remarkable. 
The idea that Eisenstein had, of making a six-part feature, is absurd. Unless he had been willing to use every scrap of film, no matter how awful the performances and the technical aspects of the material, there is simply no way he could have pulled it off—the only metaphor I can think of is squeezing water from a vacuum: You can't get what isn't there. 
Looking at Eisenstein's bio more carefully, he's not the silent-film hero I thought he was. --TallulahBelle 15:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mexico Picture

message: This article places way too much emphasis on the period Eisenstein spent in Mexico and way too little on his first Soviet period. I've tried to correct this a bit by cutting back on the Mexico section, but more needs to be done. Jeremy Butler 12:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I started the ¡Qué viva México! article based on what was written here, so we can sift more of it from this article. dvdrw 01:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Imbalanced Article

message: Out of curiosity, why has Eisenstein's origin been twice changed to indicate that Eisenstein was born Jewish? Biographies do not indicate this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.171.180.126 (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin

message: As an unsigned anon mentioned earlier, Mexico was not a "right-wind dictatorship". In the time frame of Eisenstein travel trough Mexico (1930-1932, as I infer from the article), the country had (as it still does) a presidential system as a result of the 1917 constitution. During that period of time, there were two president: Emilio Portes Gil and Pascual Ortiz Rubio, and they weren't neither dictators or right-winded. The first one even went as far as founding a socialist party in Mexico, and the second one was from the National Revolutionary Party, that was populated with remaining leaders and participants from the 1910 Revolution. Because of this reasons, I will edit the article to remove the factual error. --Legion fi (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Mexico's politics in the early 30's 

message: I was wondering if anyone thought (like me) that the lead image should be replaced. It seems to me to be too grim, with the subject of the sugar skull too anecdotal, and it is also already the cover of a book. A replacement I have in mind which is floating around the internet but I can't find source info on but I'm pretty sure is , shows him at work with film, if anyone wants to upload it. I would be happy with one we already have. If we ever start a theory section, which seems to be developing, this would be my pick to illustrate it.  dvdrw 23:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I kind of like :Image:Sergei Eisenstein portrait1.jpg best. Lawrence § t/e 23:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Vast swathes of this article would appear to be plagiarized from http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=150906220.    It is possible that the material on that page is taken from this one, but I doubt it.  It is also possible (in fact, more likely) that that page is in turn plagiarized from material elsewhere.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 12:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'm beginning to think that it is this page that has been plagiarized by that other one, rather than vice versa.  But I'm not sure.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: These edits from May/June/July 2005 show when most of the text of this article was added. I've been trying to source it over the last two months or so and hadn't seen the myspace page that you found, which isn't dated to compare. Here is some evidence that it was probably copied from us, from the myspace page, §DEPARTURE FROM MEXICO, 3rd ¶, "Finally, in mid-1932, the Sinclairs were able to secure the services of [[Sol Lesser], who had just opened his own distribution office in New York, Principal Distributing Corp.." Notice "[[Sol Lesser]," has traces of wikilink markup "[[]" around it.dvdrw 20:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm convinced now that whoever made those myspace director pages is copying blatantly from Wikipedia and other online sources. Compare F. W. Murnau with this . In other instances, they are copying Wikipedia pages and partially acknowledging that fact in their "blog."(sorry blacklisted link not included) Furthermore, most of their articles are lifted from Wikipedia, Senses of Cinema, and IMDB, even though in they acknowledge that in most cases. Their Eisenstein article is an exception, and I believe it is directly cut and pasted from a version of this article that lasted until March this year.dvdrw 21:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  I was beginning to think that, too.  Glad you've figured it out!  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism? 

message: The proponderance of sources just give the bald "23 January".  The Julian calendar applied at that time in Russia, including Latvia, so I assume the date in that calendar was 11 January, to which 12 days (in the 19th century) is added to get the Gregorian equivalent, 23 January.  I've found a few sites that refer to 10/22 January, but none that give 11/23 January.  Without further examination, it's even possible that "23 January" was the Julian date, and the Gregorian equivalent is 4 February.  Anybody have any clues about this?  --  JackofOz (talk) 00:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of birth

message: How does this sound for a compromise - a suitable statement can be written that indicates that there is speculation about Eisenstein's sexuality, with the Rechy book as a source.  The categories should be removed, though, since it is speculation and we still don't have a reliable source that backs the claim up.  And the project tag stays on the talk page.  Would that be a good compromise? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean the Bergan book, which was reviewed by Rechy (and others)? Anyway, that proposal sounds like it would cover the situation.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Bergan book and the documentary..ok Callelinea (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no normal evidence that Eisenstein was a gay, so I suggest us to remove this controversial category. Moreover, there aren't any facts about the claims on his sexuality, and, after all, he was married. According to your policy Hitler should belong to Category:Asexual people. So please think about the quality of Wikipedia not about your selfish purposes when categorizing. Thanks. -- Wisconsus TALK|things 13:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromise on the sexuality issue 

message: The early theatre work section needs some work, and currently contains factual inaccuracies. He worked with Meyerhold first, then went on to direct his own theatrical productions with the Proletkult Theatre. It should also describe his relationship to to the broader avant-garde movement Eccentricism and explain the relationship of his first theorization of montage to the production of Enough Stupidity. DionysosProteus (talk) 15:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theatre work 

message: The "Mexican Odyssey" section has had a great deal of detail removed since it was originally compiled around 2005.
The detail was already a summation of the Geduld and Gottesman book, "The Making and Unmaking of Que Viva Mexico", which consisted of reprinted correspondence between Eisenstein, Hunter Kimbrough, the Sinclairs and others involved in the 2-year duration of the contracted 4-month shooting schedule.  The detail removed is revealing of the behavior of Eisenstein toward his producers - which would repeat itself in the "Bezhin Meadow" and "Ivan Grozny" fiascos, and thereby sheds much light on his personality and character.  The over-synopsization of the Mexican episode of his life conveniently removes anything that could be construed as a negative or weakness on Eisenstein's part, thus replicating the POV of other Eisenstein zealots in handling the exposed flaws in the supposed film master.
Please restore the original, full-length summarization and amend it only if reliable citation may be found.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.201.49 (talk) 04:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overkill Editing, or Eisensteinophilic Deletion of Unpleasant Facts? 

message: :Eisenstein proposed a biography of munitions tycoon Sir Basil Zaharoff and a film version of Arms and the Man by George Bernard Shaw, and more fully developed plans for a film of Sutter's Gold by Jack London
Sutter's Gold is a 1936 film based on a novel by Blaise Cendrars.
I don't find the title mentioned in Jack London or John Sutter.
--Error (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sutter's Gold 

message: Why is there no mention of his homosexuality? (165.120.240.110 (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two references Putin's pride? Six famous gay sons of Russia and Who's Who in Gay and Lesbian History from Antiquity to World War II which bring you to the sentence «remained married until his death in 1948, though there has long been some speculation about his sexual orientation», a rephrased sentence  from a "compromise" of 2008 «though there is some speculation about his sexuality» after  discussed at #What about Eisenstein's gay preferences?. Nemo 21:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's well established that Eisenstein was gay and his marriage was a front. (2A00:23C4:638F:5000:5CA1:44CA:ABF8:6E8D (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homosexuality 

message: Since April 2010, there has been a warning in Eisenstein's filmography section that says that it is incomplete. It has been almost eight years; what films could be missing from his list? Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 18:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomplete Films 

message: 2405:205:A124:A604:E3B5:493A:B75A:63A6 (talk) 08:18, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 08:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2018 

message: The link to the Rotterdam video doesn't seem to work. I don't know how to fix it. If you want to see it you can click here: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Russische_regisseur_bezoekt_ons_land.ogv  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.86.90.39 (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video 

message: :The father had converted to the Russian Orthodox Church.
Converted to … from what? 2A02:8108:1140:945:60A3:D028:24A6:9EC4 (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: Hi, 
I have general doubts on Wikipedia articles' best achievable quality -- due to "collective editing" and "lexical" style, including neutralism...
But this article is live, and understandable... (unlike articles that have been exposed to extensive neutral editing sessions)...
While over-edited articles tend to have contradicting assertions consecutively, this one is totally fresh and brilliant, and consistent assertion-wise!
Good to read, easy to "imagine" / grasp...
Deeper knowledge apparently dominates over superficial "infos"...
QUESTION: 
can we mark articles as GREAT QUALITY in some way?
Cause I'd like to just do that with this article!
Unlike most of the times, here I've read more and better than what I've read everywhere else... So, this is not just the sum of what's there on the net, but more! 
And better...
--peter.josvai (talk) --peter.josvai (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congratulations, an incredibly good article! 

message: hi, 
This part:
"[...] but budgets and producers were as significant to the Soviet film industry as the rest of the world. Due to the fledgling war, the revolution-wracked and isolated new nation didn't have the resources to nationalize its film industry at first."
This part appears to be a heavily edited section... with propaganda / image defending intentions in the background -- so to speak :)
Anyway:  "the revolution-wracked and isolated new nation"
doesn't seem to have a normal meaning...
it sounds like from a "communist" text book...
The Soviet Union was no new nation. It was a new country but by no mans a new nation.
"revolution-wrecked" also doesn't translate well to out modern (postmodern) system of images... Also, it is anachronistic...
Revolution for the Russians in the USSR was no "illness" or "disaster"... 
It was a victorious revolution which promised great life for the masses.. everyone... Artists included, as a matter of fact...
- - - a correction suggestion:
"but budgets and producers were as significant to the Soviet film industry as the rest of the world"
--> 
"[...] but budgets and producers were as significant to the communist film industry of the Soviet Union as that of the Western capitalist world"
EXPLANATION:
The situation must have been that Eisenstein expected "revolution" -- great reforms in the film industry as it was already a communist country, and communism was (supposed to be) a great thing, with freedom, to start with.
That Eisenstein didn't get what he hoped for should be viewed understandingly, not with some sort of Western cynicism -- "but, guess what, the world didn't change, film industry remained the same thing in the USSR as in the rest of the world"..
Eisenstein did have a good reason to expect fundamental changes, which the article doesn't necessarily has to deal with... but ridiculing cynicism should not be applied here (either)...
- - - - another correction suggestion:
"Due to the fledgling war, the revolution-wracked and isolated new nation didn't have the resources to nationalize its film industry at first."
-->
I'd just omit this sentence altogether... 
EXPLANATION:
It brings up a whole new theme, "nationalization", which is not necessary at all... -- IMHO ...
It excuses Stalin's regime, which is a bad thing... Why would we empathize with a mean dictatorship?
Saying, literally, that the regime hadn't had the time yet to perform the necessary reforms is wrong, especially because the regime would never have the time for the necessary reforms... They had promised freedom and equality, at least Marx had been talking about that, and organized a horrible dictatorship, a regime of terror around the people. So, since they would never have the time for the necessary reforms, it shouldn't be mentioned, especially not as an excuse :)
/// - - -
as you may have guessed, I'm not really experienced with TALK... I hope I'm doing the right thing...
My interpretation of TALK is a deep and friendly discussion before of without actual editing...  So that editing, when it happens, would be a consensual, well though up move already...
- - - ///
sincerely,
--peter.josvai (talk) --peter.josvai (talk) 09:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  the "Film theorist" chapter