Talk:The Life and Death of 9413: a Hollywood Extra

Is the film in the public domain? Is it possible to move the files to Commons?
The description page of all 6 files states that the film is in the public domain. Is it possible to move the files to Commons or it isn't? 190.235.229.100 (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * File:The Life and Death of 9413 A Hollywood Extra title card.jpg
 * File:The Life and Death of 9413 a Hollywood Extra - Mask.jpg
 * File:The Life and Death of 9413 a Hollywood Extra - Jules Raucourt.jpg
 * File:The Life and Death of 9413 a Hollywood Extra - Hollywood set.jpg
 * File:The Life and Death of 9413 a Hollywood Extra - Heaven set.jpg
 * File:The Life and Death of 9413 a Hollywood Extra - Audience.jpg

"The full, original film has not survived"?
This single sentence exists within the article, along with a single reference, but there's no further explanation as to what is missing (or different) in extant copies. On the other hand, there's an earlier reference in the article to the length of the film, stating "...the final film was edited to a one-reel length of 1,200 feet...", and when using the film footage calculator (https://www.scenesavers.com/content/show/film-footage-calculator), 1200 feet of 35mm film corresponds to a running time of 13 minutes 20 seconds, which is more or less the exact duration of my copy (beginning at 1:02:19 and ending at 1:15:40 on Kino's Silent Avant-Garde" Blu-Ray, running at 24FPS for a total duration of 13 minutes 21 seconds). Can someone clarify which piece of information is correct/incorrect? 65.99.105.91 (talk) 05:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and added a 'disputed' tag to this sentence. I think this is fair as a short-term solution because even the embedded copy of the film on this Wiki page runs for 13:25, which (as noted above) roughly corresponds to the stated length of 1200 feet of 35mm film running at 24FPS. However, there are other problems that need to be considered and cleaned-up, IMO:
 * 1) the opening side-bar lists the length as 11 minutes (which, again, doesn't correspond to the included video). This is an additional issue, because silent films weren't necessarily projected at (or even meant to be projected at) 24FPS, so rather than listing a running time at all, maybe the stated length should be standardized by simply referring to the physical length of the film (1200 feet, if the citation is correct) OR referring to both (perhaps saying something like "1200 feet, with a duration of 13:20 when shown at 24FPS).
 * 2) Even with that aside, there should either be further clarification as to whether the 1200 foot figure is correct (as stated above, I personally have no reason to argue against it, but...) OR, if footage is missing, exactly *what* is missing. Simply put, as written in the current article, these three passages all contradict one another, and the only one which has actual corroboration elsewhere in the article (though, admittedly, this does verge on 'original research' to state such) is the one regarding the physical length of 1200 feet.
 * My personal thought would be that, if the cited source saying the extant film is incomplete *is* actually correct, it would be nice if there were a second source to corroborate that fact (in particular by explaining what is missing and, if possible, giving the intended physical length of the film, i.e. something like "the film was originally 1500 feet, but existing prints are 1200 feet"). If it isn't correct, it would be nice to see all of the lengths standardized (and the statement removed, of course). 65.99.105.91 (talk) 05:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

"A Hollywood Extra also touches on the mistreatment of women"?
In the current article, the following passage exists:

A Hollywood Extra also touches on the mistreatment of women. Although the actors wear masks—symbolizing their ability to act—the female extra #13 does not; she is expected to simply obey the (male) filmmakers, and her only role is as an object for men to look at. Her success in this simple role, contrasted with the protagonist's inability to succeed despite hard work, reveals how differently the film industry views male and female actors.A Hollywood Extra also touches on the mistreatment of women. Although the actors wear masks—symbolizing their ability to act—the female extra #13 does not; she is expected to simply obey the (male) filmmakers, and her only role is as an object for men to look at. Her success in this simple role, contrasted with the protagonist's inability to succeed despite hard work, reveals how differently the film industry views male and female actors.

Now, having seen the film several times, I personally think that it would be more appropriate to refer to 13's experiences as type-casting, rather than 'mistreatment' (I think it is also worth considering that 13 is one of the characters who mocks 9413's death), but that's my point: while sourced, this is POV writing. Granted, I realize that this is in the segment of the article where 'themes' of the film are analyzed, so POV writing (IMO) is useful and fine for such an application (even if someone is apt to disagree), but wouldn't it be more appropriate to directly quote the referenced text (and more clearly show that it is POV writing), rather than paraphrasing and giving a reference (which, at least to me, comes off as making it seem more of a statement of fact...and if it is a factual statement of the filmmakers' intent, is there a source quoting them to this effect?)? 107.77.204.138 (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)