Talk:Ideology in Chinese Films

New comments in 2013

Dear Melanie, good start. Please also upload your powerpoint presentation and then extend the existing article. Now it is still too short. The final version should be 7 pages. You need not only to describe things, but also switch to the commentator role (maybe indicated by "Contemporary Commentator" and then evaluate and discuss the topic from different angles, put it into context, criticize etc.). If you want to write less, you can integrate more pictures. Please make sure to indicate your source after each sentence or, if there is a whole paragraph with the same source, after each paragraph. You can indicate it like "Smith 2009:345" and in the final section "References" write the long version "Smith, Jared, Confucius revisted, Yale University Press 2009, 415 pp." In the edit mode, section headers are indicated with "=" and sub section headers with "==". In the edit mode, paragraphs need to be marked with 2 line feeds ("Enter" key). 1 Line feed will not show up as a paragraph. For additional editing tips, including how to indicate sources and how to find copyright free pictures, please refer to [1]. Good luck with your composition! Best, Root (talk) 14:05, 25 February 2013 (CET)

Dear Melanie, in general a good article. The beginning with the metaphor of the roundabout rotation is a little bit hard to understand and is also not backed enough by later argumentation. If we want to assign a direction to ideology, it might be a right (GMD) or left (CCP) direction. Since the GMD fled to Taiwan, maybe patriotism has taken over for the right direction. However, the CCP profits from patriotism. Maybe the metaphor of a pendulum between more liberal and more restricted (ideologically-influenced) flim production would fit better here than the metaphor of the rotation. I have added some years to your introducing paragraph to make the phases clearer. I have also polished minor things throughout the article. Altogether still a little bit short and after the introduction a little bit too descriptive, too much drawn on Zhang. But you have indicated the sources correctly and have contributed with your own fotos from China a lot to make a round and sound article. Best, Root (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2013 (CET)

Great start. Definitely go into more depth about each little subject that you have. A pretty fascinating read that informs really well. Probably give more of your own opinions and ideas about the subject. A Nonny Mouse (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2013 (CET)

I also really enjoyed the article. easy to read and follow along. just get a picture and it'll do just nicely. --143robertb (talk) 04:48, 28 February 2013 (CET)

This seems like a good start. Some more info about the 5th and 6th generations would be nice. Cool pictures! It's awesome that you took most of these pictures yourself when you were in China. --Zombies Don't Eat Vegans (talk) 04:48, 28 February 2013 (CET)

Looks great! The headings could be in lowercase to make the article more inviting. Also the 6th generation heading could be reformatted so it fits in with the rest of the article --Linksys (talk) 07:40, 1 March 2013 (CET)

Good work. I have a few suggestions, though. I'd like to see a bit more elaboration on the terms you use. For example, in the "Early 20th Century" section, you use terms like "Family Dramas" and "Butterfly Literature" with only brief descriptions as to what those things are. I'd like to see a more in depth description of these terms accompanied by some kind of example. Perhaps give a brief plot summary of a book or film that would fit into these categories; or, alternatively, some kind of modern day equivalent. You might also want to consider listing a few of the movies that fit in to each category (for example, at the end of the 4th Generation section, list a few movies and directors that are considered to be a part of the 4th generation, etc.). I'd also like to see a bit more about the characteristics of each generation. What sort of similarities do the directors of the 5th generation share, for example? --Professor Wiskers McMeowmouth (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2013 (CET)

Nice documentation of your sources. It looks like you've really tried to expand the original notes, but, I think you got a little carried away. There is nothing wrong with writing like you talk- your sentences often read like you are trying to squeeze as much info as you can into each one. For example- your first sentence- "Throughout the history of Chinese cinema, the changing ideologies that were present in films in flux as time passed seemed to rotate through in a roundabout way."

The first part (through to "cinema") is fine. It makes sense. The rest of the sentence doesn't make much sense, as written- try reading it out loud and I think you'll see what I mean.

I think you meant to say that, "The themes of Chinese films, throughout the last century, have reflected the ideology prevalent in society at the time the film was made. As the decades passed, these themes appear to have rotated through a sequence of themes."

You have some good ideas, but I struggled to read many of sentences. Like the sample sentence I copied here, they seemed long and over worded. Keep it simple and short is good advice to follow.

Also, your pictures look really nice, but most of them don't seem to have anything to do with the topic of your article. Pictures are worth a thousand words- but only if they support the written words.

One last point- be sure to double check your spelling. (troupes for example- military troops is spelled differently).

Good job!--Dekeo (talk) 06:35, 2 March 2013 (CET)