Talk:Sergei Eisenstein

No subject

Comment for the Ivan the Terrible films articles when written:

Apart from the last scene of Ivan part II no character looks directly at camera, and very few blink.

The colour scenes for Ivan part II were made with film captured from the Germans.

At least one clip from Ivan part III survived: it was shown at a screening of the two extant Ivan films at the Barbican, London, a number of years ago.

Could use sections

Can this article be subdivided?

Dvyost 19:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC):

Probably, but it needs to be finished first. Bulk of material is on Que Viva Mexico episode of his life, and some on montage theory; very little early life history (have heard he fought in the Revolution), no details on theatrical work or early filmmaking, almost nothing on Ivan, no personal information (I have heard he was married, e.g.).

Good point. Since I'm in no way qualified to do this, I'll add a cleanup tag.

An editor added Eisenstein to the List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people saying that he was bisexual. Since there's no further info about it here or there, it will be removed by the terms of that article's criteria. But reading over the biography I'd suppose that this guy must have had an interesting private life. Cheers, -Willmcw 10:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Eisenstein was married twice in response to political pressure, but his marriages were never consummated. His unexpurgated diaries, published in 1984 as "Immoral Memories," are filled with accounts of his infatuations with many young men, including his assistant, Grigori Alexandrov.

Mexico was NOT a 'right wing' dictatorship in the 1930s!

Mexico Picture

I added the discussion on the amount of film Eisenstein shot for the Mexico picture.

As a personal aside, I have to say I was shocked at how little he filmed over all that time. That Sol Lesser was able to extract a feature—let alone two features and a short, as he in fact did—is remarkable.

The idea that Eisenstein had, of making a six-part feature, is absurd. Unless he had been willing to use every scrap of film, no matter how awful the performances and the technical aspects of the material, there is simply no way he could have pulled it off—the only metaphor I can think of is squeezing water from a vacuum: You can't get what isn't there.

Looking at Eisenstein's bio more carefully, he's not the silent-film hero I thought he was. --TallulahBelle 15:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Imbalanced Article

This article places way too much emphasis on the period Eisenstein spent in Mexico and way too little on his first Soviet period. I've tried to correct this a bit by cutting back on the Mexico section, but more needs to be done. Jeremy Butler 12:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the solution lies in the exorcising of information. Perhaps adding more to his Soviet period would be better. Rainer Werner 14:48 1 October 2006 (UTC)

A separate article should be made for the film ¡Que Viva Mexico! and the other films derived from it (e.g. Thunder Over Mexico) which would help balance the biographical nature of the article. kosboot 00:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

YEs, there is waaayyyyy too much coverage of the mexican debacle compared to his notable and productive period. It really reads more like gossip than and encyclopedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.154.65.131 (talk) 06:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I started the ¡Qué viva México! article based on what was written here, so we can sift more of it from this article. dvdrw 01:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Origin

Out of curiosity, why has Eisenstein's origin been twice changed to indicate that Eisenstein was born Jewish? Biographies do not indicate this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.171.180.126 (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

About Mexico's politics in the early 30's

As an unsigned anon mentioned earlier, Mexico was not a "right-wind dictatorship". In the time frame of Eisenstein travel trough Mexico (1930-1932, as I infer from the article), the country had (as it still does) a presidential system as a result of the 1917 constitution. During that period of time, there were two president: Emilio Portes Gil and Pascual Ortiz Rubio, and they weren't neither dictators or right-winded. The first one even went as far as founding a socialist party in Mexico, and the second one was from the National Revolutionary Party, that was populated with remaining leaders and participants from the 1910 Revolution. Because of this reasons, I will edit the article to remove the factual error. --Legion fi (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What about Eisenstein's gay preferences?

Eistenstein was a gay man, whose two marriages were marriages of convenience; the trunk full of pornography seized by the Soviet customs authorities was male pornography and created severe problems for the director. There is a lot of useful information in the article, but absolutely the gay aspect needs to be brought in order to make this a more complete entry. A good starting place for more information is: http://gayfortoday.blogspot.com/search?q=sergei+eisenstein

Tjfloyddc 17:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Blogs are not generally considered as reliable sources see WP:SPS. But my wife (who has studied Eisenstein's history considerably) confirms what you say, but she has no time to spend on wikipedia. If I can find the time I will try to read some of her books and add them as sources. --Triwbe (talk) 08:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Any solid non-blog sources for this? I followed this a bit when gathering sources for Bezhin Meadow but found nothing concrete beyond a couple of comments referring to Eisenstein having said he wasn't gay. Lawrence § t/e 23:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a review of one of the newer biographies: http://www.johnrechy.com/so_eisen.htm. Apparently the book seeks to throw "light on his homosexuality," but in the reviewer's opinion he offers more speculation than facts. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggested using the blog as a starting point, not as a final reference (even though Gay for Today is a top-notch blog). I'm glad that everyone agrees that continued exploration of this is worthwhile. I tried finding something on authoritative online. A quick search turned up this amusing tidbit on Carlton College's website: "After the February 1917 Revolution, he [Eisenstein] sold his first political cartoons, signed Sir Gay". More apropos is a (blog-like) entry on the Middlebury College website, which references Karlinsky's writing as well as an essay by Thomas Waugh, "A Fag Spotter's Guide to Eisenstein" in the July/August 1977 issue of Body Politic. URL: http://community.middlebury.edu/~moss/RGC1.html Tjfloyddc 04:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I retracted a comment that I made after this discussion developed, and having done more reading on the matter. [1] DVD 22:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this could help. --Ecelan (talk) 10:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry , but I fail to see how an alleged drawing gallery of Eisenstein can be of any help. --Legion fi (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

References see: Who's Who in Gay & Lesbian History edited Robert Aldrich and Garry Wotherspoon; Routledge, London (2002)Callelinea (talk) 04:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Except neither "Who's Who in Contemporary Gay and Lesbian History: From World War II to the Present Day" nor "Who's Who in Gay and Lesbian History: From Antiquity to World War II" mention Eisenstein. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link to the page at google books[2], it is based on the Bergan book above. Some sort of subtle mention along the lines of what Will Beback said is what I'm thinking. But I'm open to hearing what everyone else here thinks. Still doesn't sound entirely convincing to me, sorry for being skeptical. I think it is wonderful that Eisenstein is accepted by the gay community and maybe he was gay, I don't know. I think his films are admired unanimously. DVD (talk) 04:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

References see: Who's Who in Gay & Lesbian History edited Robert Aldrich and Garry Wotherspoon; Routledge, London (2002)Isbn: 0-415-15983 pages 144-145

Not that I don't want him to be gay - the man seems fascinating! - but that reference is bunk. It's full of eloquent terms about his "absorption and delight in the clothed and semiclothed young male body", but nowhere does it say he was gay. It does say "his (probably unconsummated) love for Grigori Alexandrov". But it doesn't say he was gay.

I'm all for adding him to the LGBT categories and the List of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, but we need a good reference. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I must disagree with SatyrTN. I feel he is not editing based on good intensions. Previosly he stated that Eisensteon is not mentioned in either Who's Who in Gay and Lesbian History, then when he is proven wrong that he is mentioned then he states the books are bunk. So I am puting back LGBT catagory. Callelinea (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Callelinea, please assume good faith, okay? I have not made any comments about you or why you are editing the article - please refrain from making those comments about me, and let's stick to the content.

The reference provided to Who's Who is not strong enough for the claim about Eisenstein's sexuality. As I said, it is flowery prose about his art and style, but doesn't come right out and say that the man was gay. If you can find a reference to back up the claim, I'll be glad to add it to the article, but I've searched the web for any corroborating evidence and have come up short. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Here is a second book that also makes claims as to his sexuality: Bergan, Ronald (1999), Sergei Eisenstein: A Life in Conflict, Boston, MA: Overlook Hardcover, ISBN 978-0879519247. Now lets presume assume good faith. Callelinea (talk) 04:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there a quotation from the book that says that Eisenstein was gay? I don't have the book or have access to it. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

As noted above (eight months ago) John Rechy reviewed the book and seemed to find little more than speculation.[3] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

An editor removed this book from the "references" section:

• Who’s Who in Gay and Lesbian History from Antiquity to World War II. Routledge; London. 2002. ISBN 0-415-15983-0.

With the comment "rm source, not WP:RS". I've never seen this book, but it appears to have been published by a mainstream publishing house. Why are we saying it's not a reliable source? ·:· Will Beback ·:·

In this particular case, the wording is not backed up with any sources, and is extremely poetic rather than factual. I mentioned it above in this conversation. I believe Aldrich and Wotherspoon are generally considered reliable, but this particular entry is weak. [4] might be visible to others? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a perfectly respectable source. Reinstated. DionysosProteus (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks like there are no definitive sources that establish the subject's sexuality. However there is also enough material to indicate that it is a matter of dispute. For that reason, I think it would be beneficial to retain the LGBT project tag. That tag doesn't mean that the subject is LGBT, only that the article is within the scope of the project. In ancy case, let's not revert each other over it. If there are differing views (as there seem to be), then let's work it out through discussion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for building consensus, and to be sure there is some argument for keeping the project tag. However, as a member of the WikiProject, I kinda object to people who aren't in the project adding the banner back. Doing that seems to be a back-end way of saying Eisenstein was gay. You and I know that the project tag doesn't mean that, but to the random reader, it's an indicator that he was. I know I seem like a reverse-WP:OWN here, and I'm trying not to, but unless a reliable source can be found, I feel people are mis-labeling the article. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

As a member ogf the LGBTProject I believe this article should be tagged. Perhaps we need some Administrators to get involved in this issue to resolve it.Callelinea (talk) 05:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who first took down the banner and now I regret it. I see now that there is more support for it than I gleaned from reading at the time. In addition, I second what Will Beback just said. This discussion has produced a lot of information and I am now convinced that this article is in the realm of the LGBT wikiproject. I also just put back the wikiproject religion banner which I took down at the time, but no one commented on that. Admittedly I am a little averse to wikiproject banners since they seem to me to over simplify while taking such a prominent place on the discussion page but I won't take one down again and have learned a lot from this discussion. Sorry to SatyrTN for second guessing your bot- you do good work, and my apologies for the reverting this has caused lets just leave the banner up. Regards, DVD 06:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I must be misunderstanding something. Why exactly do y'all think Eisenstein should be part of WP:LGBT? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 07:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Because there are a number of books and links that say he was gay, and editors here have included him in WP:LGBT through the template. I know the article doesn't currently reflect this, but it could change. Someone on the Russian Wikipedia just cited Bergan on another matter, which I'm tempted to translate, and that book has been used as a source for other books mentioned in this section. However, I for one am waiting to work on this article (which I'd like to see get to GA or FA) more until I see how the Russian Wikipedia article develops. But if you disagree about whether Eisenstein fits in WP:LGBT then don't include him. But I wish we had a consensus either way. That's what I think... Best, DVD 07:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) If you read the above discussion, you'll note that only a couple sources mention anything about his sexual orientation, and neither of them have proved to be very reliable in their sourcing or their research. Until and unless someone can provide a reliable source that states that Eisenstein was gay, I'm going to remove the project banner and the info in the article. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The source looks perfectly fine. Please stop removing it. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

DionysosProteus, have you read the above? The source mentioned is not in any way scholarly, does not back itself up with any sort of research, and is written in flowery prose. I usually hold Adrich & Wotherspoon up as pretty good scholars, but in this case they are not presenting any information - they are merely buttering up some rumors. I've asked before - if you can provide a reliable source that states that Eisenstein was gay, that would be great - but the one used here does not meat Wikipedia's standards. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Since when does ONE editor have the RIGHT to remove a documented reference by a reliable publisher? Who has made him the SOLE arbitrator as to what stays in and what stays out of an article based solely on their judgement? In addition, I placed a documentary as another reference that was also removed that I put in also. Any more removal and I will regard it as vandalism and no longer "good faith" editing.Callelinea (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Callelinea, we're actually working at the intersection of two different policies or guidelines here.

1. First, there's WP:CONSENSUS. The discussion above shows that I'm not the only editor doing the removing and objecting to the information.
2. Second, there's WP:V - facts (especially "controversial" ones) need to be backed up by reliably sourced references.

It may seem like I'm being overbearing, but I'm just sticking on the side of WP:V - the statement (or category) that Eisenstein was gay must have a reliable source to back it up. So far the only sources brought forward have not been reliable sources - they've either been fluff comments from Aldrich & Wotherspoon or the speculative Rechy book.

Once again, I'm not vandalizing the article - I'm requesting a reliable source to back up a claim. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

That you do not think it is not a reliable source doesn't change the fact that according to Wikipedia's criteria it is. If information is sourced properly, which this is, then it belongs in the article. A Who's Who published by Routledge is perfectly admissible. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

After reading WP:V I must agree with DionysosProteus. Wikipedia does require the truth only that it is verifiable.Callelinea (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem with providing absolute evidence that is incontrovertible about his homosexuality is that this is unlikely to happen given that you are dealing with the Soviet Union and a time period when homosexuality was not discussed in any shape or form; it remained an offense punishable by incarceration, penal servitude and death. Except for brief moments in 1920s in Germany and France, gay liberation was not to occur for another 40 years or so. Eisenstein would have been deeply closeted, his sexuality would have been coded in secrecy and veiled--its expression would have shown itself accidentally as in the pornographic drawings confiscated at the US-Mexico border by customs officials, drawings which are blatantly homosexual and graphic. There are also references in his diaries to his homoerotic longings, but in language that is veiled and coded. You seem to want something concrete from him, but given the spirit of the time, this may not be possible--I believe as a good historian, you may want to amend your expectations rather than expect what is not possible. Please take a look at the drawings and the diary entries and reconsider the sexuality entry, thank you. Mfwettlaufer (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Images

I was wondering if anyone thought (like me) that the lead image should be replaced. It seems to me to be too grim, with the subject of the sugar skull too anecdotal, and it is also already the cover of a book.^[5] A replacement I have in mind which is floating around the internet but I can't find source info on but I'm pretty sure is {{PD-Russia}}, shows him at work with film,^[6] if anyone wants to upload it. I would be happy with one we already have.^[7] If we ever start a theory section, which seems to be developing, this would be my pick to illustrate it.^[8] dvdrw 23:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I kind of like Image:Sergei Eisenstein portrait1.jpg best. Lawrence § t/e 23:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

Vast swathes of this article would appear to be plagiarized from http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=150906220. It is possible that the material on that page is taken from this one, but I doubt it. It is also possible (in fact, more likely) that that page is in turn plagiarized from material elsewhere. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 12:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm beginning to think that it is this page that has been plagiarized by that other one, rather than vice versa. But I'm not sure. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

These edits from May/June/July 2005[9] show when most of the text of this article was added. I've been trying to source it over the last two months or so and hadn't seen the myspace page that you found, which isn't dated to compare. Here is some evidence that it was probably copied from us, from the myspace page, §DEPARTURE FROM MEXICO, 3rd ¶, "Finally, in mid-1932, the Sinclairs were able to secure the services of [[Sol Lesser], who had just opened his own distribution office in New York, Principal Distributing Corp.." Notice "[[Sol Lesser]," has traces of wikilink markup "[[]" around it.dvdrw 20:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm convinced now that whoever made those myspace director pages is copying blatantly from Wikipedia and other online sources. Compare F. W. Murnau with this [10]. In other instances, they are copying Wikipedia pages and partially acknowledging that fact in their "blog."(sorry blacklisted link not included) Furthermore, most of their articles are lifted from Wikipedia, Senses of Cinema, and IMDB, even though in they acknowledge that in most cases. Their Eisenstein article is an exception, and I believe it is directly cut and pasted from a version of this article that lasted until March this year.[11]dvdrw 21:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. I was beginning to think that, too. Glad you've figured it out! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Date of birth

The proponderance of sources just give the bald "23 January". The Julian calendar applied at that time in Russia, including Latvia, so I assume the date in that calendar was 11 January, to which 12 days (in the 19th century) is added to get the Gregorian equivalent, 23 January. I've found a few sites that refer to 10/22 January, but none that give 11/23 January. Without further examination, it's even possible that "23 January" was the Julian date, and the Gregorian equivalent is 4 February. Anybody have any clues about this? -- JackofOz (talk) 00:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Compromise on the sexuality issue

How does this sound for a compromise - a suitable statement can be written that indicates that there is speculation about Eisenstein's sexuality, with the Rechy book as a source. The categories should be removed, though, since it is speculation and we still don't have a reliable source that backs the claim up. And the project tag stays on the talk page. Would that be a good compromise? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean the Bergan book, which was reviewed by Rechy (and others)? Anyway, that proposal sounds like it would cover the situation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The Bergan book and the documentary..ok Callelinea (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no normal evidence that Eisenstein was a gay, so I suggest us to remove this controversial category. Moreover, there aren't any facts about the claims on his sexuality, and, after all, he was married. According to your policy Hitler should belong to [[Category:Asexual people]]. So please think about the quality of Wikipedia not about your selfish purposes when categorizing. Thanks. -- Wisconsus ^TALK|^things 13:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

To SatyrTN and those other editors insisting on removing references to Eisenstein's sexuality and the relevant project banners: your removal of this sourced content constitutes original research. You are entitled to think that the relevant sources lack the scholarly rigour that you would like. I suggest you write an article and get it published saying so. As far as content on Wikipedia is concerned, we have clear and unambiguous guidelines. There is a perfectly respectable source, given in the discussion above, which lists him in a Dictionary of LGBT people. That is the only criterion required. How you assess that source's prose style is irrelevant. Your personal feelings on the subject are irrelevant. Your assessment of the strengths or weaknesses of its arguments are irrelevant. You write: "neither of them have proved to be very reliable in their sourcing or their research". I have seen no such "proof" offered, beyond your own subjective opinion; if you have it, by all means share that with us. In lieu of that, the fact that it is published in a perfectly respectable volume meets the relevant Wikipedia criteria. There is a source that categorises his sexuality under LGBT, and the Wikipedia article is therefore perfectly justified in reflecting that.

In addition to reliable sources, SatyrTN also refers to the consensus guideline. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean that we get together and share our opinions on a subject, reach an agreement, and publish it in the article. Consensus concerns a collective articulation of material presented in reliable, third-party sources. Our opinions about the subject matter are strictly excluded. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for debate. An encyclopedia merely re-iterates currently-existing scholarship on a subject.

Yes, I have read the discussions above. I am concerned by the mendacious logic they demonstrate with its arguments about supposed "prominence" and "weight". Of course discussions of his sexuality occupy a small proportion of the total volume of material on him; interest is principally in his cinematic and theatrical work. Discussions of his place of birth, similarly, do not occupy a large proportion of that material. This is in no way an argument for its non-inclusion. I am also concerned by statements such as "Except neither "Who's Who in Contemporary Gay and Lesbian History: From World War II to the Present Day" nor "Who's Who in Gay and Lesbian History: From Antiquity to World War II" mention Eisenstein". When that statement was demonstrated to be a clear falsehood, SatyrTN provided no explanation. This renders his/her contributions dubious. I am also concerned by the suggestion that people who have not listed themselves under a particular project are not entitled to place its banners on articles. Kindly desist from such attempts to police other people's contributions beyond the scope of Wikipedia policy and guidelines, they are most inappropriate. DionysosProteus (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Theatre work

The early theatre work section needs some work, and currently contains factual inaccuracies. He worked with Meyerhold first, then went on to direct his own theatrical productions with the Proletkult Theatre. It should also describe his relationship to to the broader avant-garde movement Eccentricism and explain the relationship of his first theorization of montage to the production of Enough Stupidity. DionysosProteus (talk) 15:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Overkill Editing, or Eisensteinophilic Deletion of Unpleasant Facts?

The "Mexican Odyssey" section has had a great deal of detail removed since it was originally compiled around 2005. The detail was already a summation of the Geduld and Gottesman book, "The Making and Unmaking of Que Viva Mexico", which consisted of reprinted correspondence between Eisenstein, Hunter Kimbrough, the Sinclairs and others involved in the 2-year duration of the contracted 4-month shooting schedule. The detail removed is revealing of the behavior of Eisenstein toward his producers - which would repeat itself in the "Bezhin Meadow" and "Ivan Grozny" fiascos, and thereby sheds much light on his personality and character. The over-synopsization of the Mexican episode of his life conveniently removes anything that could be construed as a negative or weakness on Eisenstein's part, thus replicating the POV of other Eisenstein zealots in handling the exposed flaws in the supposed film master. Please restore the original, full-length summarization and amend it only if reliable citation may be found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.201.49 (talk) 04:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Spelling

An editor moved the article from "Sergei" to "Sergey" without discussion.[12] The former spelling seems to be much more common in English references. I've moved it back. Let's discuss any future moves before we make them.   Will Beback  talk  19:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

While moving the article I kept WP:RUS in mind. According to the guideline "-ей" is to be translated as "-ey". SkyBon^{Talk/Contributions} 21:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. As I read the guideline, you're referring to a rule which only applies when the subject is not already known under a different romanization. See Wikipedia:RUS#People. This subject's name is consistently spelled "Sergei" in English-language sources and editions of his movies and writings released in English-speaking countries. Google test quickly confirms that: ["Sergei Eisenstein"] gets about 278,000 hits,[13], while ["Sergey Eisenstein"] gets about 26,300.[14] See also IMDB, Russian archives, and Google news. The difference is probably due to changing romanization schemes over time.   Will Beback  talk  00:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

While I find search engine test quite inappropriate, the sources are too reliable and notable to be bluntly ignored. In my opinion, the best option would be to keep the article's current name and create a redirect from proper (according to WP:RUS) spelling. SkyBon^{Talk/Contributions} 11:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Search engine tests can be helpful for seeing which usages are most common. However in this case we have more than that, we have the published works by and about the subject. In any case, I think the article is now as you suggest.   Will Beback  talk 

Sutter's Gold

Eisenstein proposed a biography of munitions tycoon Sir Basil Zaharoff and a film version of Arms and the Man by George Bernard Shaw, and more fully developed plans for a film of Sutter's Gold by Jack London

Sutter's Gold is a 1936 film based on a novel by Blaise Cendrars. I don't find the title mentioned in Jack London or John Sutter. --Error (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Homosexuality

Closing discussion initiated by block-evading HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why is there no mention of his homosexuality? (165.120.240.110 (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)) There are two references Putin's pride? Six famous gay sons of Russia and Who's Who in Gay and Lesbian History from Antiquity to World War II which bring you to the sentence «remained married until his death in 1948, though there has long been some speculation about his sexual orientation», a rephrased sentence [15] from a "compromise" of 2008 «though there is some speculation about his sexuality» after [16] discussed at #What about Eisenstein's gay preferences?. Nemo 21:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC) It's well established that Eisenstein was gay and his marriage was a front. (2A00:23C4:638F:5000:5CA1:44CA:ABF8:6E8D (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC))

Incomplete Films

Since April 2010, there has been a warning in Eisenstein's filmography section that says that it is incomplete. It has been almost eight years; what films could be missing from his list? Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 18:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2018

2405:205:A124:A604:E3B5:493A:B75A:63A6 (talk) 08:18, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 08:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Video

The link to the Rotterdam video doesn't seem to work. I don't know how to fix it. If you want to see it you can click here: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Russische_regisseur_bezoekt_ons_land.ogv — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.86.90.39 (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Religion

The father had converted to the Russian Orthodox Church.

Converted to … from what? 2A02:8108:1140:945:60A3:D028:24A6:9EC4 (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Congratulations, an incredibly good article!

Hi,

I have general doubts on Wikipedia articles' best achievable quality -- due to "collective editing" and "lexical" style, including neutralism...

But this article is live, and understandable... (unlike articles that have been exposed to extensive neutral editing sessions)... While over-edited articles tend to have contradicting assertions consecutively, this one is totally fresh and brilliant, and consistent assertion-wise!

Good to read, easy to "imagine" / grasp... Deeper knowledge apparently dominates over superficial "infos"...

QUESTION: can we mark articles as GREAT QUALITY in some way? Cause I'd like to just do that with this article!

Unlike most of the times, here I've read more and better than what I've read everywhere else... So, this is not just the sum of what's there on the net, but more! And better...

--peter.josvai (talk) --peter.josvai (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

the "Film theorist" chapter

hi,

This part: "[...] but budgets and producers were as significant to the Soviet film industry as the rest of the world. Due to the fledgling war, the revolution-wracked and isolated new nation didn't have the resources to nationalize its film industry at first."

This part appears to be a heavily edited section... with propaganda / image defending intentions in the background -- so to speak :)

Anyway: "the revolution-wracked and isolated new nation" doesn't seem to have a normal meaning... it sounds like from a "communist" text book...

The Soviet Union was no new nation. It was a new country but by no mans a new nation.

"revolution-wrecked" also doesn't translate well to out modern (postmodern) system of images... Also, it is anachronistic... Revolution for the Russians in the USSR was no "illness" or "disaster"... It was a victorious revolution which promised great life for the masses.. everyone... Artists included, as a matter of fact...

- - - a correction suggestion:

"but budgets and producers were as significant to the Soviet film industry as the rest of the world"

-->

"[...] but budgets and producers were as significant to the communist film industry of the Soviet Union as that of the Western capitalist world"

EXPLANATION: The situation must have been that Eisenstein expected "revolution" -- great reforms in the film industry as it was already a communist country, and communism was (supposed to be) a great thing, with freedom, to start with.

That Eisenstein didn't get what he hoped for should be viewed understandingly, not with some sort of Western cynicism -- "but, guess what, the world didn't change, film industry remained the same thing in the USSR as in the rest of the world"..

Eisenstein did have a good reason to expect fundamental changes, which the article doesn't necessarily has to deal with... but ridiculing cynicism should not be applied here (either)...

- - - - another correction suggestion:

"Due to the fledgling war, the revolution-wracked and isolated new nation didn't have the resources to nationalize its film industry at first."

-->

I'd just omit this sentence altogether...

EXPLANATION:

It brings up a whole new theme, "nationalization", which is not necessary at all... -- IMHO ... It excuses Stalin's regime, which is a bad thing... Why would we empathize with a mean dictatorship? Saying, literally, that the regime hadn't had the time yet to perform the necessary reforms is wrong, especially because the regime would never have the time for the necessary reforms... They had promised freedom and equality, at least Marx had been talking about that, and organized a horrible dictatorship, a regime of terror around the people. So, since they would never have the time for the necessary reforms, it shouldn't be mentioned, especially not as an excuse :)

/// - - -

as you may have guessed, I'm not really experienced with TALK... I hope I'm doing the right thing... My interpretation of TALK is a deep and friendly discussion before of without actual editing... So that editing, when it happens, would be a consensual, well though up move already...

- - - ///

sincerely,

--peter.josvai (talk) --peter.josvai (talk) 09:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)