Talk:British Film Institute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

Re "mind-boggling inaccuracies":

My quote was a direct quote from paragraph two of their Royal Charter, so it is not inaccurate, whether it boggles your mind or not. Where are you quoting from? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:30, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Actually those weren't the inaccuracies to which I was referring, although I did think the original Charter quote excised too much content to give a rounded impression of their activities, excluding the "promotion of greater understanding and appreciation" which is such a key part of their remit. The material I was quoting from was the statement printed in every BFI publication, on the copyright page (in the case of books) or packaging (in the case of DVDs or videotapes). The inaccuracies I actually had in mind were contained in the sentence "The BFI is the United Kingdom's chief custodian of the "high art" end of the British movie industry." 1: This again elides mention of their exhbition wing, the phrase "movie industry" suggesting production, and 2: The NFT, contrary to your comment on the History page, have programmed commercial films, in addition to television programmes, documentary and news material, and assorted cult interest stuff (they're currently running a Diana Dors season!), none of which can be comfortably bracketed as "high art". In fact, tommorrow evening they are showing Hable con ella, funnily enough (according to the schedule available at www.bfi.org.uk). You were, I understand, dealing with it primarily as a film production entity rather than as an exhibition entity, and if we're talking about production, then of course your statement is correct (though less so than it used to be). However, as the BFI (to my knowledge, at least) no longer produces films "off it's own bat" (i.e., without associate producers) the statement is potentially misleading as to their real significance. The uninformed reader might well think that the BFI is, like the AFI, a production entity with only tangental involvment in exhibition.

I'm not moaning: those problems have been resolved by your current edit. As it stands, with a much longer Charter quote, and without the "high art" comment the article is now accurately representative of their activities. The only alteration I've made is the removal of "promote" from just before the Charter quote, simply because it seemed grammatically awkward. On reflection, the "mind-boggling" comment was unduly provocative, and I apologise if it was offensive. --Chips Critic 11:40, 25 May 2004 (UTC)