Talk:Onibaba (film)

message: Someone just changed "In a time of civil war..." to "In the time of civil war..."  Wasn't there more than one era of civil wars in Japan? Z Wylld 20:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is the part about Historical times after when the film apparently takes place, that part should really be somehow put in the plot. Andrzejbanas 21:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Civil wars

message: Hi everyone, and Colin4C in particular.  Colin4C, I disagree that your edit just preceding mine is "better" in toto, and so I do not think it was appropriate to simply revert everything I did without any discussion.  However, I am not going to argue about that, because it appears to be more a matter of stylistic preferences than anything else.  As for your "TV guide" comment, I thought that was a bit snide; but substantively, my question is this:  I have seen many Wiki articles about books, movies, etc. that include a "spoiler" warning at the beginning of sections summarizing the plot or story.  This was why I deleted certain parts of this section here, because not being a computer person, I don't know how to add the warning.  Is the "spoiler" warning not a standard device in Wiki?  If not, I wonder why it is available at all.  Cheers...  Z Wylld (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Z Wylld! I was normally for the entire "warning!: spoilers!" tag that was available before. Spoilers tag was lated sort of "disowned" as by general policy that if you are going to read the section on "plot" or "characters" you should prepare to have the movie spoiled for you in some areas. It's just common sense. I didn't see your edits before so I can't say why they were edited otherwise. Onibaba is an article that needs work anyhow so feel free to edit more and ignore more snobby wikipedians, and wait for more standards answers to questions. Cheers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never seen a spoiler warning in any film encyclopedia or any other type of encyclopedia for that matter. The Encyclopedia Brittanica doesn't include any. I don't know why anybody ever thought it was a good idea for the wikipedia. In Branagh's 'Hamlet' the Prince dies and in Pasolini's 'Gospel According to St Matthew' the hero ends up nailed to a piece of wood. There...I've said it...I'm just so mean...Colin4C (talk) 14:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Andrzejbanas, and thank you for explaining the "spoiler" history on Wikipedia -- which was my question, after all.  :)  Z Wylld (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Just to add, as a matter of fact, that the plot summary does not give away the ending of the film. Colin4C (talk) 08:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now it does. Yojimbo501 (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: recent edits

message: I made a Reflist tag and put proper references (albeit in offline form by accident).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yojimbo501 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Why both sources and references sections, and why is "sources" not referenced? JoshuSasori (talk) 03:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why "sources" and "references"? 

message: The whole "reception" section is pretty much a joke at the moment. Does anyone want to defend the reviews quoted there or the reputations of the reviewers, or is it OK to just remove all of it? JoshuSasori (talk) 08:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and deleted it. I am pretty sure that all of the reviews mentioned were worthless. I have added back the section and added a review by Peter Bradshaw from The Guardian. I will be on the lookout for more substantial reviews like that. JoshuSasori (talk) 11:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  reception - just delete it? 

message: Can we get a new poster, folks? This Italian image is a joke, totally unrepresentative of the film.35.24.46.141 (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it's not a great poster. JoshuSasori (talk) 12:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

text: I've replaced the Italian poster with what I believe is the original poster. Actually I am not 100% sure this is the original poster, but at least it looks like it is, it says "Onibaba" and it has a picture what looks much more like something from the film. JoshuSasori (talk) 07:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Also, this blog contains a picture which certainly makes it seem that this was the original poster. (I don't know who the man in the photograph is, but just the picture certainly looks like it is a movie poster) JoshuSasori (talk) 07:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poster 

message: This review: Anton Bitel
 seems like it could be useful for the reception section. JoshuSasori (talk) 12:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you define "useful" and what makes it a "reliable source" per your definition compared to others (see topic above)? Thx.--Robert Kerber (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's quite handy if the references are in English. I am often adding the Japanese-language references to articles, see e.g. Kaneto Shindo and Yasujiro Ozu, but I feel a bit queasy since it makes it hard for other editors to check them. For example Hasumi's book on Ozu was translated into French but not English, which is too bad. In this case, Anton Bitel seems to pass Wikipedia's notability criteria enough to have his own article (sorry I have not checked in depth about him), so I guess we can assume he is a reliable source. Also the article seems to be rather well-informed, that's just my impression though. I notice he even gives some musical instruments there: saxophone, tuba, all the good old Noh play instruments. JoshuSasori (talk) 23:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further review 

message: This edit was reverted by Robert Kerber. I watched the film again yesterday and did not notice a significant amount of slow motion. Shindo undoubtedly did not have a slow motion camera. Where in the film are the distorted or strange camera angles? (Also why does anyone not know the difference between jazz played on brass instruments and Noh music?) JoshuSasori (talk) 21:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There are, for example, shots of the pampas grass shot in slow motion. Are we still talking about the same film?--Robert Kerber (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are we still talking about the same film? - I don't know because I hear a jazz sound track and do not see any slow motion or Noh acting, and cannot hear Noh music. Can you give a specific time in the film where slow motion, strange camera angles, or distorted camera angles are used? I have a copy of the film open as I write this. JoshuSasori (talk) 23:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a copy of the film open but just take a look at the night shots of the pampa grass during during the second half of the film and you will see them. Also I deleted ", and not regular collaborator" from the section's headline which I regard a disparagement of my person.--Robert Kerber (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I went through the second half of the film skipping forward, but could not find slow motion, distorted frames, or strange angles. I don't think Shindo had the money for a slow-motion camera. regular collaborator" from the section's headline which I regard a disparagement of my person - please don't worry about it, no problem. JoshuSasori (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Slow motion scenes aren't created with an extra camera but by shooting with higher speed in the same camera. Also, here's an essay by UK distributor Eureka, one should assume they know what they're doing and releasing: The film’s aggressive style — its most singular characteristic — is a startling symphony of graphic, rhythmic, and sonic elements that never loses steam. Made a few years after the French New Wave, Shindo combines the ethereal beauty of Mizoguchi (whom he previously assisted) with the spontaneity and formal experimentation of Godard, shifting the film’s tempo from ghostly slow motion to furious action and back in a matter of seconds. . Or do you regard them as "unreliable" as well?--Robert Kerber (talk) 08:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Also, I openly disapprove of the way you delete or add information by personally deciding which sources are reliable or not, even going as far as misquoting sources to belittle them (see above); if this is on purpose or erroneously is open to question, but this starts to look as if you regard certain articles as personal property.--Robert Kerber (talk) 23:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

text: And, please!, don't state on the Dispute resolution noticeboard that I retain uncited information when you know it isn't true, the source is stated above.--Robert Kerber (talk) 10:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, but unfortunately you have misread the thing which you quote. The above says that the film's tempo shifts from ghostly slow motion to furious action and back in a matter of seconds. Tempo in this case means the pacing of the film and does not refer to camera work. The above does not say anything about the film using slow motion filming, or distorted or strange camera angles. As I said, I watched the film again, and I could not see a single instance of slow motion filming, distortion of the frame, or even a single strange camera angle. I would be delighted if you could prove me wrong by actually telling me at what point in the film any of these things are visible. I am very happy to go and check it against the copy of the video. Similarly, at what point in the film is there anything in this film which resembles Noh music, or Noh acting? I would be delighted if you could show me that. JoshuSasori (talk) 12:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Eureka DVD 1:01:07 slow motion shot of grass. Also 1:09:11, take a close look and see for yourself.--Robert Kerber (talk) 19:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no slow motion filming at either of those points in the film. JoshuSasori (talk) 00:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is. Pity when you are unable to see it. Ms. Donaldson in John Berra's Directory of World Cinema: Japan also sees it, despite your repeated denouncements of her article in this book. Don't you think it's time to rethink some of your views, or do you want to go on forever with this?--Robert Kerber (talk) 08:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there isn't. I have viewed the film from 1 hr to 1:10 and there is no slow motion in there anywhere. In particular, the times where you say there is slow motion, in fact seem to be perfectly normal motion. One shows Jitsuko Yoshimura running out of the hut through the reeds at a normal speed, and the other shows the hole with reeds swaying rapidly just before the older woman climbs down it. No slow motion there at all. Perhaps your DVD player is broken. I have two copies of this, one on a video recorder, from this broadcast, and one on the computer, and I'm quite happy to check both. JoshuSasori (talk) 09:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I know what I see, I've made films myself and worked in a movie theatre as projectionist. Anyway, a third opinion is needed here, urgently.--Robert Kerber (talk) 11:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Oh yes, there is one needed.--Robert Kerber (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you going to do if someone else claims there is slow motion at a different point in the film? JoshuSasori (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: However, there is a small amount of slow motion filming right at the end as the women jump over the pit (1:38). JoshuSasori (talk) 11:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slow motion, distorted or strange camera angles 

message: The above discussions were added to the "dispute resolution notice board": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Onibaba
JoshuSasori (talk) 01:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute resolution noticeboard 

message: I found a nice reference for this film in one of Shindo's books which I hadn't heard of before. I didn't know this but he wrote SIX autobiographical books in around 1994, which are "Shindo Kaneto No Ashiato" series. There is a whole chapter on Onibaba, plus the script. There is also some really nice material consisting of storyboards from the film in the book, which unfortunately is unuseable in Wikipedia. Anyway once I can get the book I will add some more information to the article concerning this, which can go in the production section. (I have to apply for a library card at the library where it is stored & it takes a week!) There is also Shindo Kaneto no Juhon covering Onibaba but I have not tracked down a copy yet. See also Talk:Kaneto Shindo for more details. JoshuSasori (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shindo's reference on this book 

message: #Year of release of the film given as 1966, rather than 1964.
:::1966 was the film's year of release in the UK.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Kerber (talk • contribs) 
#Title of the film given as Demon Woman - the title is Onibaba in English. This affects the "search" of the Directory of World Cinema so that Onibaba does not come up as the title.
#Kaneto Shindo described as silent film maker.
:::Quote (nth time) taken out of context. Original: "Shindo is a powerful silent film-maker whose 1960 feature The Naked Island was entirely dialogue-free, and the lengthy dialogue sequences in Demon Woman [=Onibaba] are regrettable." This is something completely different; she says Shindo is best when his films are silent instead of using dialogue.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Kerber (talk • contribs) 
#Han'nya demon mask described as gruesome war mask.
#Hachi misspelt as "Haichi".
#Claims the two samurai have been fighting each other when clearly they have not, one is helping the other wounded one.
#Claims the film has "lengthy dialogue sequences" and is "overlong" when in fact the film has only about 400 lines of dialogue (less than half that of a usual film), and is only 100 minutes long.
:::See above.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Kerber (talk • contribs) 
I do not understand why anyone would want to use such an abomination of a review as a reference for a Wikipedia article. Please find a better source of information. JoshuSasori (talk) 14:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The review contains errors, yes; an "abomination" is over the top WP:POV. Plus, I've seen worse. Btw, the review also contains statements which are correct, e.g. the use of slow motion. Let's wait for the discussion results at the notice board. – Robert Kerber (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, do not use this abomination of a review as a reference for the article. JoshuSasori (talk) 23:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Errors in Alanna Donaldson review

message: I remember seeing this film (in England) soon after its release, and in the opening titles it was subtitled, in parenthesis, in English (The Hole). I am surprised that this hasn't been mentioned anywhere in the article. Anton Bitel's review page linked to by JoshuSasori above also mentions this.
Romit3 (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be a translation of the opening sequence. It says the same thing in Japanese, in letters superimposed on the visuals. You can check it out by searching for "Onibaba" on YouTube. The first thing in the film is the word 穴 (ana), which is subtitled "The hole ..." superimposed on the film. Wistchars (talk) 23:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Hole"