Talk:Camping Cosmos

Fair use rationale for Image:Jennifer.GIF
Image:Jennifer.GIF is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 18:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

this reads as though it has been written by a retard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.79.157 (talk) 14:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Tintin disambiguation
It's not clear why Tintin is in the first paragraph, what it refers to, so i cannot properly disambiguate it. Any ideas? --Cheers, LindsayHi 03:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

POV/OR
Philosophical background and artistic background simply reveal what is in the movie, and theme of the movie also. I do not see what there should be changed. Those three items should remain in the article. It gives information for a good understanding of the movie.Karel leermans (talk) 14:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed the following three sections and bring them here for discussion.

Philosophical Background
The influence of Jacques Lacan is imminent: Sex is the little Death and Du cosmos à l'Unheimlichkeit (Séminaire X, l'Angoisse) Arno Hintjens and Jan Decleir as a homosexual couple are really funny. Noël Godin as the eternal pieing-pope plays a convincing Pierre Mertens.

The protest of the younger generation (Eve and her boyfriend, Antje de Boeck, Ulrique the terrorist) refers to The Revolution of Everyday Life and the epicureanism of the elder to The Book of Pleasures, both by Raoul Vaneigem. The citations of Louis Scutenaire and the détournement publicitaire refer to surrealism (Marcel Mariën). Miss Vandeputte reads Function of the Orgasm by Wilhelm Reich.

Artistic Background: Surrealism
The movie is a rare surrealist cult movie which uses the technique of Verfremdungseffekt which means that the spectator is not supposed to feel sympathy for whatever feelings of the protagonists in the movie. Their sex life is of no interest, how peculiar it may be: sodomy, homosexuality, masturbation, rape, sado-masochism, sex with dogs and dolls, prostitution. The illusion is created that it is all far away and not related to us. The only artist never speaks (=the autistic painter).

Subject of the movie: People on holiday
There is also the idea that common people on holiday do not care about what is happening in the "real life", they live on an island (something like an Utopia: De Optimo Republicae Statu deque Nova Insula Utopia or the island Laputa peopled with struldbrugs and Yahoos) at this time of the summer, isolated from everything and everybody. Their Paradise Regained (= free sex and entertainment, sport, beerdrinking (boozing) and frites in abundance, sea & sun, no working schedule; Eve (Bible) being the main character), only lasts for the four weeks of their holiday. After the summer the normal life and the daily working routine starts again, the monotony and suffering in the grey cities of Southern Belgium: (Charleroi, La Louvière, Borinage etc...).

These three brief section make a number of claims which are not proven, or sourced, which means they are an editor's point-of-view or the result of original research. In addition, they are very poorly written, not having an encyclopedic tone at all. This is more like writing for a film fansite, not an encyclopedia. Until this is rewritten, and sourced to reliable sources, this has to remain out of the article. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 17:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I concur with RJ's assesment of these items. They should not be reinserted into the article until verifiable sourcing can be found. MarnetteD | Talk 12:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)