Talk:Brian De Palma

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Columbia University WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Columbia University, her schools, environs, and people. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Brian De Palma article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to actors and filmmakers on Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Lists

The normal way to present lists is with the oldest item first. Also, I think it's more legible to write "year: title" than "title (year)". --Pinkunicorn

I don't think the ordering of the items is so important (but it should not be random!). I looked at a few of the wikipedia director entries, and it seems that the consensus is "title (year)", see Bille August, Wim Wenders. --css

I'm looking forward to the entry for 660124 The Story of an IBM Card. Sounds gripping. Wikipedia contains spoliers, no?


[edit] What windbag wrote this?

It is this tension, at once removed from the superficial elements of the plot or characters, yet intended to elicit emotional responses, that drives De Palma's work; the somewhat notorious reputation he has earned and the critical dismissal De Palma has experienced is a direct result of the distantiation techniques he employs in films that use the methodology of thrillers to engage the audience.


Sisters was tongue-in-cheek? I don't think so.

Well, I saw it yesterday. It is tongue in cheek. :) It looked like a send-up of the genre - everything from the blatant contradictions in the story to that ending. Really funny in a macabre way.

[edit] Source

This is a good article to use as a source or to update the article with [1] Mad Jack 18:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bizarre Article

The author seems to know a number of biographic details, but shows a quite limited understanding of his films. The attempts at film theory are also questionable. The biggest problem with the article is the Career Beginnings and Highlights section. The problem with this section is that it doesn't actually provide an overview of his career highlights. Blow Out, Dressed to Kill, and Body Double are considered by many to be the core of his filmography, and these are not even mentioned. Blow Out particularly, is considered by many to be the quintessential De Palma film. This section also contains an obvious inaccuracy. Carlito's Way was not controversial for its violence like Scarface, and is not a particularly violent film (for its genre). Similar films made around the same time such as Goodfellas or Reservoir Dogs are considerably more violent.

[edit] Wildly Unfounded Article

This article seems to contain a great deal of unfounded commentary that ignores NPOV - particularly concerning the so-called violent reactions to De Palma's gangster films. The article also substantially glosses over a lot of De Palma's major successes in the 1990s such as The Untouchables and Mission: Impossible, as well as the notorious flop of The Bonfire of the Vanities

I am going to try and tackle this entry over the next week or two. It's a mess. I'm thinking of using Martin Scorsese's entry as my model.

The Untouchables was mid-80s. The problem I see with this article is a clear inflation of the director's influence and talent by fans, with virtually no criticism of a filmmaker who has often been accused of ripping off other directors like Hitchcock, has had few (or no) unqualified successes, very few box office successes, many critical flops, and a large comparative number of horrible "Mission to Mars"-like films, compared to the relatively even careers of those who are considered his contemporaries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A. Swearengen (talk • contribs) 13:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] weird balance

There's an entire section of this article dedicated to Redacted, one of his least-known films, but no sections on Scarface or The Untouchables? --Delirium 01:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Redacted wasn't just another film. It's a steep dive over the deep end of political activism, and some would call it a gift to fascism. A lot of people who loved those others will never watch another DePalma film. That's a world of difference from The Untouchables.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I sure hope your POV stays out of the article. --ZimZalaBim talk 02:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
BTW, I removed that section a few days ago as it was redundant to the existing article on the film. --ZimZalaBim talk 02:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm just explaining why it's notably different than his other films. You may disagree with my side of that view, but you did not say I was wrong. The NPOV standard means the article itself should be neutral. It does not mean we should strip out the controversies related to the topic.
Someone else will eventually replace that section. Otherwise, it would be like having an article about Jane Fonda without noting her support for anti-American causes.
-- 03:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)