Talk:The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari/Archive 1

Date?
Can anyone confirm the date of release? The IMDb lists it as 1920, but I have seen it as 1919 elsewhere. An anon user just changed the date from 1920 to 1919, but this conflicts with the dates in the External Links. --Jeremy Butler 16:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * And now the info box has 1920, further adding to the confusion. --Jeremy Butler 12:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Because I used IMDb to build the info box :-) I don't know which is correct. - AdamSmithee 16:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * All the sources I've ever seen & read on this film say 1919. This includes many reviews & commentaries in magazines, books, & on the web, so I wouldn't go by what IMDb says if it's the only one saying 1920. Z Wylld 20:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I also just noticed that IMDb doesn't even spell the director's name correctly; it says "Robert Wiene" instead of "Robert Weine," in both the entry for the film and the entry for the director. So I definitely would not consider IMDb a reliable source.  I think the date should be changed to 1919. --Opinions?  Votes? Z Wylld 16:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * AACK! This article also misspells the director's name!  From IMDb again?  I'm changing the name to Weine now. Z Wylld 16:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, OK, I was R-O-N-G about the director's name. I'm correcting it back to Wiene.  But I am also changing the date to 1919, which is correct, believe me.  Within the next few days, I hope to also add a few more references at the end of the article. Z Wylld 15:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

At a conference this weekend, I saw archival material that confirms it was produced in 1919 in Germany. (And released in the US in 1921.) I'm still not 100% sure that it was also RELEASED in Germany in 1919, but it seems likely. --Jeremy Butler 19:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The IMDB states very specifically that the film premiered in Berlin on 20 February, 1920. It would therefore seem logical to assume that the film was made in late 1919 and then released in early 1920. Can anyone cite a clear, respectable source for the film's premiere date? The Singing Badger 19:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

According to the BFI publication on the film, written by David Robinson in 1997, the world premiere was at the Marmorhaus in Berlin on 26 February 1920 (pg. 46). It also says that shooting began in December 1919 and lasted until the end of January 1920 (Robinson 24). I think it should state 1920 in the Wikipedia article. RGD 01:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That settles the matter! Thanks. --Jeremy Butler 13:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

One last note
I contacted a research archivist at the Margaret Herrick Library, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. She adds this information:


 * It's interesting that a release-date debate has developed on this particular title, because when I went through our clipping file on the film, which includes newspaper, magazine and trade paper articles as well as program notes from archives and museums, I found that a date of 1919 has been widely used, even by MoMA in the 1930s. Undoubtedly the film was produced in 1919 and that's where the confusion arises.  However, if you're wanting to pin down a release year, I agree with the conclusion that you and your fellow Wikepedians reached in your online forum, which confirms the release year given on the IMDb.  Not only does David Robinson list that release date, it is also the date cited by Kracauer in From Caligari to Hitler; he writes that "After a thorough propaganda campaign culminating in the puzzling poster 'You must become Caligari,' Decla released the film in February 1920 in the Berlin Marmorhaus."  In a footnote, Kracauer cites the 1922-1923 German Yearbook of the Film Industry (p. 31) as his source, so that seems pretty definitive.

--Jeremy Butler 12:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Kracauer
I'm not sure that the Elsaesser 'discredits' Kracauer, who is still a formidable film theorist.


 * Kracauer's work on general film aesthetics is formidable, but his book about German film is primarily considered as historical document these days. His conclusions in From Caligari To Hitler are wildly speculative and just don't stand up to any sort of questioning, and should definitely not be presented as fact (which is how they were when I edited the article).  Elsaesser does discredit Kracauer's book where the films are concerned as is described in the article, but finds value in his ideological grounding. Bigbigtom367 20:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm removing Elsaesser's argument "He also claims that Hitler took power after the movie's release thereby contradicting the notion of Caligari symbolizing Hitler." because this claim makes no sense in relation to Kracauer, who states that the film offers a "premonition of Hitler," straight out of From Caligari to Hitler in one of the pages from 67 - 72 (The quote and source are taken from the Scheunemann article/criticism that I'm adding because I don't have the text of From Caligari to Hitler on me, although I have double checked it and any is free to triple check it, with the page numbers listed it shouldn't be hard). Also, the Scheunemann work somewhat defends Kracauer's reading as he didn't have "the full range of materials at (his) desposal has clearly and adversley affected the discussion of the film," as the script was not rediscovered until 1977 and he was stuck outside of germany having not seen the film in over 20 years when he wrote From Caligari to Hitler.

I've also corrected what was written about Kracauer's work in the first place. It seems to have previously stated that the film was interpreted as an allegory of the Second World War (which is overly vague), and someone considered that to be illogical and corrected it to say it's an allegory of the First World War. He actually argues that it represents the social attitudes of the German popular between the two wars (i.e. as a result of WW1, and in the build-up to WW2). I don't have the book with me, but have corrected with what I remember him writing. Anyone with the text to hand feel free to edit for specificity. Bigbigtom367 20:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I was the person who "corrected" the bit about the war allegory. I am not familiar with Kracauer's work, but I do recall another academic who proposed the somnambulist as an allegory for young German men lulled into killing in the Great War.--Pharos 09:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That sounds like something either Kracauer wrote (I don't have the book to hand to check), or someone indeed inspired by his work. I think most likely the former.  What is in the article at present is definitely verifiable, but do add more if you have the references.  Bigbigtom367 15:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Image
I replaced the image from the copyrighted DVD cover to an original poster image. (Ibaranoff24 05:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC))
 * Love it.--Puppy Zwolle (Puppy) 20:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

black and white?
The original presentation was color tinted. Should tinted films, which were common during this era, be considered black and white?Smiloid


 * Seeing as I've never seen any authority deem tinted films, i.e. Der Golem and Caligari as anything but black and white, Bordwell and Thompson's Film Art most definitely included, I'd say there's no reason to call it anything but, although noting the tinting wouldn't be out of the question


 * Films and pictures were often colorized (not all copies but some) They were the 'limited edition' so to speak. That one survives as being known to be colored is a miracle in itself. Nuf said. The film is black and white in nature as to how we split the color pictures from the b&w. --Puppy Zwolle (Puppy) 20:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

correction of original title
The original title actually was "Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari." The "Das Kabinett" title was used during the Nazi era to make the film appear "Aryan"Smiloid

Lang's involvement
Fritz Lang often boasted of created the controversial "framing" narrative, but later research on this film casts some doubts on such claims. A lot of Kracauer's statements on this film have also come into question by later researchers.Smiloid


 * I've seen much evidence for crediting Lang and so far, none going against it, so until you can note specific resources and cite them in the article, I'd avoid bringing that up


 * The matter is referenced in a number of commentary tracks done by film historian David Kalat for the various Dr. Mabuse films. Lang did make the claim that he had invented the framing device, and at least two others made the claim that they had been the originator; however, documentary evidence turned up later which showed that the existence of the framing device predated the involvement with the film of any of the three. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Trivia
I see several entries for musical scores, which jogged my memory of seeing the film shown at a theatre in Petaluma (CA) about 15 years ago, with a live performance of a new score by the Clubfoot Orchestra. Anyone have any information about this score? Z Wylld 17:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Edward Scissorhands
Is it worth noting that the appearance "Edward Scissorhands" was based on Cesare? --68.149.181.145 18:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Although visually you might be right, I'd rest easier if you could provide a source.--GeneralGrievance 09:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Many sources say Scissorhands bears resemblance to Cesare. Perhaps it could be worded as something like, "Many film critics remark that [blah blah blah]" etc?

Cultural References
I think that Adaptations and derivative works should be splitted with a Cultural References section

-Maxmordon

I did it

-Maxmordon

I watched the Red Hot Chili Pepper's Otherside video and I find the connection to the film shaky at best. Does anyone have an actual source that declares that the video was based on the film? (The only google result matching RHCP and the film was an entry in the Otherside wiki that claimed the same thing. Also no source cited.) If not, we should remove it. --Mordy

No response. I'm removing it. Lubbarlubab 08:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Abney Park
Hmm. On this page it claims the band Abney Park had written a song called 'Dr Caligari's Dream'. From what I've read, they did no such thing. Wikipedia is the only source for that claim. Should it be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.232.110 (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Questionable link
Should World Cinema Online link be removed, because it's a commercial, for-pay site? What's Wikipedia policy on this? Does it constitute an advertisement? --Jeremy Butler 12:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Harsh lighting
I removed "harsh lighting" from the following line, "complete with wild, distorted painted sets and harsh lighting." The lighting in the film, as can be seen in the accompanying screenshot, is actually very broad and even -- "high key," in cinematographic terms. As Zoe comments, lighting effects were painted onto the sets. This is because, in 1920, they were not able to achieve true chiaroscuro through lighting. They had to blast the set with as much light as possible to properly expose the film. I also removed a later reference to music within mise-en-scene as sound is not part of mise-en-scene. --Jeremy Butler 12:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Sets
The sets deserve mention, but I'm ignorant of art. Is that expressionist or impressionist? Koyaanis Qatsi


 * Ah. And wikipedia itself reveals.  Expressionism (film)

Good job. I don't know anything about art either. I do know the sets were paper and the shadows were painted on, but that's about it. Somebody help? -- Zoe


 * Yup, definitely expressionist. Not much expressionist work was monochrome except prints.  German work very lively at the time, many of the best known expressionists were already well known before 1920, e.g. Franz Marc.  The Blue Rider show actually included almost all the best known German expressionists.  The sets also had the advantage of being cheap.

Free images and edit summaries
Just a note for editors watching the article history: I noticed this edit replaced a freely licensed image from Commons with a locally uploaded image containing a fair use rationale; I reverted that edit here with the summary "why replace free image with fair use one? please see Commons:File talk:CABINETOFDRCALIGARI-poster.jpg" and left a polite note at the user's page here explaining there is no need for fair use in this case. My edit was then reverted without explanation here, and that the fair use rationale was removed (rightly in my opinion). I appreciate editors can be busy but it would be helpful to not revert without explanation, as my edit was in good faith and as far as I can see within wikipedia policy, and I also believe we are all working in the same interests of the encyclopedia. Thank you. -84user (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Missing word
Barlow said it was often the subject of critical disapproval, which he believes is because early film reviewers attempted to assign fixed definitions to the young art of cinema, and thus 'had accepting the bizarre and unusual elements of Caligari.}} Is the missing word "trouble" in between the bold? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You are exactly right. I've added the missing word. Thanks! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  20:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)