Talk:Amarcord

message: If editing to NPOV is necessary, it's also necessary to avoid a monotonous style. The latest edit with its comment "this is an encyclopedia, not a film magazine" is fine for its NPOV but leaves us with a tedious and repetitive style in, for example, the Critical reception section: three views are presented with "He wrote," "He wrote," and "He wrote." An encyclopedia requires many things, including a NPOV style that avoids the flat, unimaginative edit increasingly found here and in other film articles. Wittgoodstein (talk) 08:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, good point, do change it.  Don't be a wise-ass, just, make it better. And keep in mind NPOV Luigibob (talk) 10:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes, i love these words: enchanted & adroitly .... Luigibob (talk) 10:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As you’ve rightfully stressed, NPOV is to be respected. The words "enchanted" and "adroitly" are, to be sure, clumsy attempts at style. Perhaps my own attempts in the next few days to improve the article using a clear concise style will meet with general approval, perhaps not. However, please do keep in mind talk-page rules for etiquette as, ideally, WIKI encyclopedians are not here for egotistical and overbearing tit for tat, "wise ass" or not. Wittgoodstein (talk) 12:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, it was my bad attempt to be succinct, and I guess the comment "tedious and repetitive style," yeah ticked me off. Luigibob (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your kind reply, Luigibob, and forgive me for not being more thoughtful in what I intended as a general critique of style - including my own faulty writing that requires endless revision - yet targeting no one in particular. Your concision, editing skills, and rapidity are both refreshing and inspiring. Wittgoodstein (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if I buy off on your last comment, but I made changes to the style, and you are right. Hopefully I helped the para a bit.  My best -- Luigibob (talk) 11:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A certain style 

message: The Famous scenes section comes across as being the favourite scenes of the section's author(s). It's not very encyclopedic. The section should be replaced by a plot summary or something. Moisejp 15:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much the only thing I knew about this movie was that someone gets smothered by a woman's bosom.  It might be given undue weight, but I wouldn't be surprised if it really is the most famous scene.  Not sure how easy it would be to source such a statement, though.  :)  --Starwed 03:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From one extreme to the other - the famous scenes were deleted and are currently not even mentioned in the overall plot. -Lwc4life (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree: the "famous scenes" will be re-written as part of the plot which, as it currently stands, is little more than an Imdb blurb. Wittgoodstein (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Famous scenes

message: Volpina is, to me, one of the most interesting characters in the film. During a recent viewing, I was struck by the similarity of her name with the term "vulpine" meaning fox-like, and, according to one source, that's exactly what it means in Italian. 
However, it also seems to apply as the Italian common name for a species of fish also known as the "flathead mullet" as well as for a species of pear. 
It seems likely Fellini chose the unusual name "Volpina" for one or more of its connotations, and to ignore this fact may be to miss an important joke in the film. (That is, for Italian-speaking viewers, her name may signify many ideas that are opaque to English-speaking viewers.) 
As interesting as this may be, however, it is still the result of WP:OR, and I cannot see how it could be included in the article. Are any editors willing to share thoughts on this matter? Rangergordon (talk) 08:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The name "Volpina" 

message: Items to add to the further reading list :
Bondanella on Amarcord in on the one hand his book The Cinema Of Federico Fellini (Princeton UP), which is probably thé book on Fellini, and on the other hand his book The Films Of Federico Fellini (Cambridge UP)
Bondanella on Amarcord
https://www.scribd.com/document/374575564/Peter-Bondanella-on-Fellini-and-Politics-Amarcord-pdf and see also
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/films-of-federico-fellini/amarcord-nostalgia-and-politics/D4F8123001175B3521B325FFEB3023A1
Bondanella, Peter, ‘Amarcord: Nostalgia and Politics’, in: ibidem, The Films of Federico Fellini, Cambridge; Cambridge UP 2002, pp.117-139.
Kezich, Tullio, ‘Amarcord: Distant Memories, in: ibidem, Federico Fellini: His Life and Work, New York: Faber and Faber, 2002.
Ebert's review
https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-amarcord-1974 (it's not because it's in the notes it doesn't deserve spotlight in the further reading section)
Film Obsessive article
https://filmobsessive.com/film/film-analysis/film-genres/world-cinema/fellini-part-2-amarcord-and-roma-adolescence-maturity-and-the-fantasy-female/
Senses of Cinema article
https://www.sensesofcinema.com/2023/feature-articles/fellinis-memory-amarcord/
BFI on Amarcord
https://www2.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/4ce2b6b4b0e0c
Poster with reviews
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BZTUyYTBkZTgtZTg4MC00MjIzLWJjZDgtN2M4YWRkNGY5MDlmXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTUzMDUzNTI3._V1_FMjpg_UX1000_.jpg 62.235.240.9 (talk) 23:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's also add Minghelli's article https://www.jstor.org/stable/48618415 62.235.240.9 (talk) 23:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fellini Amarcord further reading