Talk:Cinéma pur

Merge
Based upon the Dictionary of Film Terms: The Aesthetic Companion To Film Art by Frank Eugene Beaver which considers "Cinéma pur" and "Pure cinema" the same thing, I will go ahead with the merge.-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 00:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Lord of the Rings?
Why is there the Lord of the Rings in a list of Cinéma Pur ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.68.1.206 (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone clearly mistook the "Pure Cinema" as an artistic movement for "pure cinema" for its semantic meaning. This critic obviously doesn't mean LotR is "Cinéma Pur". It only achieves (in that critic point of view) whatever goals a "good movie" should achieve. Lord of the Rings has nothing in common with any of other films on the list. If whoever put it here had read the article he/she would know that. I am removing that entry to avoid more misinformation. I am also removing "Les parents terribles" for the same reason: the film doesn't break any stage-driven aristotelian storytelling conventions as intended by most "Cinema Pur" endeavours. Xkuei (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

George Lucas?
Why is George Lucas included in here? He is not one of the forerunners of Cinéma pur, nor really a part of avant-garde film-making. It is a curiosity-- good for George Lucas's own wikipedia-- that he made avant-garde films / Cinéma pur films back when he was a film student. It does not add anything to my understanding of the concept Cinéma pur, or the history of the avant-garde movement. Really we should be talking about the highlights of this movement in film history, 1920s 1930s, Man Ray, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natzingg (talk • contribs) 09:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)