Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ran (film)

Ran (film)
Ran is a film by famed Japanese film director Akira Kurosawa. It follows the fall of an aging warlord who decides to abdicate as ruler in favor of his three sons. His kingdom slowly disintegrates, as each son jockies for power, murdering their rivals and laying waste to the land. The film is one of my favorites and the article has received a major face-lift over the last two months. In addition, it has had a Peer Review and been listed as a Good Article. I hope you will see fit to give this article FA status, and if not please give us some constructive feedback so we can keep improving it.
 * Nominate and Support. Palm_Dogg 19:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. I've looked over your article, and it is both well written and comprehensive.  I'll admit I skipped reading the plot summary, since I still plan on seeing it soon (I'm working my way through Kurasawa's work), but all that I read was written quite well, with "brilliant prose". I checked some of the references, and they fit, and there are plenty of those references. I checked the fair use on the images, and they are all propperly declared and explained. Comprehensivly, it not only discusses the movie, but influences, themes, and other such things... and it's not original research, since this analysis gathers together quotes from the director himself.  All in all, a featured quality article. Fieari 20:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Very good. Not much more could be asked. RyanG e rbil10 22:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Good work. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 01:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. This is a wonderful article and very comprehensive. I hope to see this on the main page soon. Alexthe5th 14:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Not only is the article very well written and very thorough, it cuts to the story behind the story.  Too often artistic directors like Kurosawa never get to achieve financial success and thus end up sitting on an opus.  Here, Kurosawa gets what he wants at a time in his life where it was time to put a dramatic punctuation on the rest of his career.  This article does justice to what is really the culmination of one of the world's best directors.  --BridgeBurner 19:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, very good article, no doubts. --Ter e nce Ong 08:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support for a great and worthy film. I've viewed this page a few times before, and it is very good. We should propose this as the template for all movie articles. My only concern is in the "Background" section. Does there really need to be such lengthy exposition about Kurosawa and his lengthy hisotry? It mentions his suicide attempt, and for the life of me i don't see how that's germane. Perhaps it would be better to remove the exposîtion and reference the reader to the Kurosawa article. Thethinredline 09:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think there does. Ran is Kurosawa's bleakest film and he made it during the lowest point in his life.  Because many people (including Kurosawa) have said that Ran is partly autobiographical, I thought it would be useful to include some background on him as well.  His failed suicide is incredibly relevant, because Hidetora has a similar incident that is a major plot device.  I've tried to rewrite the background section to make that clearer.  Hope this helps. Palm_Dogg 18:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, i tend to disagree. The section contains over 500 words from looking at it, and mentions his getting fired from the set of Tora Tora Tora due to creative differences. That information (perfectly valid, of that I am sure) is not entirely relevant, and although it does give a sense of Kurosawa's state, the section could be easily compressed. However, consider this the advice of one man (and noone else has mentioned it, in fact one person even praised you for it), and noone else has mentioned it. And you can be sure I will not take the section to the abbatoir myself. Don't worry. I have a few labours of love of my own on this site, and i know how it is. But don't worry, my concerns wont prevent me at all from seeing this [[Image:Cscr-featured.png|14px]]
 * Thethinredline 07:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Support This article is a good example of what wikipedia can accomplish as a community. I hope that as a feature article that it may send people who have not previously seen the film out to discover this underappreciated masterpiece. My only proviso is that I would recommend that someone take a look at the cast and character section. It seems slightly clunky. Two of the actors listed as Kurosawa veterans were only in films that came after Ran making them AK rookies, neophytes or freshman. I had a go at it but only seemed to make it worse which is why I didn't save my attempt. I also want to let you know Palm dogg re Thethinredline's concern - Kurosawa's suicide attempt is not even mentioned in his article so I am glad that you have discussed it here.User:MarnetteD | Talk 20:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong support. Great article with detail and insightful analysis, excellent choice of images. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Object - good article, very well written, but a couple of big problems.
 * 1. there are too many screenshot images, and I'm not convinced they constitute fair use. Most don't particularly relate to the text and seem to be more for decorative purposes. Glaring example : Image:Warriors Ran.jpg has absolutely nothing to do with "Reception".  Some comment needs to be made in the text and also in the image captions that makes it clear that the use of the image is important, rather than incidental, to the discussion.  Fair use rationales should be specific to each image and it seems that the rationale has been copied and pasted for each one.  The storyboard image rationale contains "Ran has been released for public purposes. Therefore, this screenshot is intended for wide distribution." copy and paste? - rationales need to be thoughtful and well considered.  The storyboard image is not from the film and therefore this part of the fair use claim is false.  "Courtesy of Palm dogg" is only relevant if Palm dogg owns the copyright.  All images should show source and copyright holder.   Stating just the source is not good enough, and determining who owns the copyright for the film, and stating it on the image description page, should not be difficult. I also think there are far too many fair use images, and each fair use image weakens the potential fair use case of every other image.  Wikipedia's policies state that they should be used sparingly and only where necessary.
 * (have deleted those aspects of my objection that Palm dogg has addressed) Rossrs 00:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2. Lead paragraph mentions that an Oscar was won for costume design, and it is also highly regarded for its screenplay, musical score, cinematography etc.  These are very important aspects in the overall quality/look/feel etc of the film but are barely (if at all) discussed.  For the article to be comprehensive, aspects such as these need to be briefly discussed rather than briefly mentioned. Rossrs 09:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to throw in my two cents on this one, I think that the images are vital to conveying the true beauty of this film (and Kurosawa's masterful direction) to the readers of the article. I'd really like to see the first issue resolved in a way that would not involve the removal of the pictures from the article. Alexthe5th 03:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I also think the images are vital, but you are correct about the Copyright info. I believe I have added the revelvant copyright info everywhere and have indicated who produced the image and who uploaded it.  I have also tried to update the Fair Use tags so that viewers can understand why I put them where I did (although I don't think we're anywhere near finished with this issue).  Finally, there are a number of publicity photographs for Ran.  Would you still object if we used these instead of stills from the movie? Palm_Dogg 07:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong - I think the images are absolutely beautiful and certainly a good selection of images is vital, but as I said, the more images used, the weaker the fair use case is for each one. The work you've done on the tags is in the right direction, though it doesn't solve the problem of the sheer number of images. Replacing them with stills is just subsituting one type of fair use for another.  I don't think it would make much difference.  Some specific points -  Image:Warriors Ran.jpg is a great shot but it does not in any way relate to the "Reception" section and I suspect it's there because it couldn't fit anywhere else, and I see that as more evidence that there are simply too many images.  Also the fair use rationales make a statement "Ran has been released for public purposes. Therefore, this screenshot is intended for wide distribution. " - this is not a valid statement.   The film is intended for wide distribution, but individual screenshots are not, and DVDs have all sorts of copyright disclaimers on them and in them.  It's not suitable as a rationale.  Have a look at Sunset Boulevard (film) and specifically the images.  I think this film features some of the most beautiful black-and-white cinematography I've ever seen, superb direction, brilliant use of light and shade and camera angles.   I would have loved to have used about 50 images, but I used 4. I think my point was made with 4 images, and I think you can make your point with a reduction of images.   If you have a look at the fair use rationales I've tried to address why each individual image was required.  Perhaps if you frame your rationales similarly and drop the "screenshot is intended for wide distribution" you may have a stronger case.  Still too many images, but at least the fair use claim may be a bit stronger.  Rossrs 11:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Removed Image:Warriors Ran.jpg and eliminated "film is intended for wide distribution" tags. BTW, FANTASTIC work on Sunset Boulevard (film)! Palm_Dogg 14:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Palm dogg. The image description pages look good now.  I think you've fixed them very well.  I still have to say I think there are too many images, but I certainly feel that you are acting in the best of good faith.  We'll have to disagree on how many is too many, unfortunately.  Rossrs 00:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Object. I am currently beginning a copyedit, but if the intro is any indication there will be a lot of work to do on the prose. We don't want an article to greet people with such classic dangling participles as "Hailed for its powerful images and use of color, costume designer Emi Wada won an Academy Award for Costume Design for his work on Ran." Its? Was Wada the one hailed? It seems like someone inadvertently combined fragments of two other sentences to make that one. Also the language is, so far, a bit too hypey. I'll do what I can but I don't know how much work it would really need.

Oh, another example to avoid: "The story is based on the historical story of ..." Daniel Case 04:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I just got done going through the whole article and making what fixes I could. I am not ready to support it. The prose is still not anywhere near brilliant; I feel the most I could do was make an adequate eighth-grade paper into an adequate ninth-grade one. There is far too much in the way of repeated information (Do we need to tell the story of how Mrs. Kurosawa died during production twice? Once is enough. On the second reference we just need to say "Kurosawa halted production for a day to mourn his wife's death") and overall wordiness. One gets the feeling that different writers worked on different sections and didn't step back to look at the overall picture.


 * Far too many paragraphs lack organization, seeming as though information was just thrown in haphazardly, like socks in the hamper. They feel like lists. This sometimes results in overkill ... do we need to have every potential King Lear parallel explored in such great detail. It's important to the film (and the "themes" at the end could do with a great deal more of the Lear comparison, since many of the things said there could just as easily be said of the play as well.


 * Within sentences, there is far too much circumlocution, too much use of indirect language in the hope of sounding scholarly. Nouns are repeated too often where pronouns would do. It almost feels translated from some other language.


 * Beyond that, some more substantive issues:


 * I am a bit troubled by the use of section epigraphs. They don't seem terribly encyclopedic to me and I don't know of any other FA (post-mid 2005, anyway) that uses them.


 * There should be just one . I appreciate the authors' awareness of the reader, but there are more or less spoilers everywhere in the body of the article.


 * I see how "the absence of God" is supported by Kurosawa's quote, but it comes not soon enough to shake the confusion caused by saying it and then immediately talking about Buddha.


 * Likewise the images are nice, but I agree about the screenshots ... is it necessary to use so many of them? Similar issues were recently raised with Triumph of the Will, after all. Fair use only goes so far. Daniel Case 05:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, good job on the copyediting. I freely admit it's not my strong point and when you edit an article day after day it just sort of flows together. I removed the, since the whole article is a series of spoilers.  Regarding the epigraphs, I've used them on both Triumph of the Will and Battle of Badr without any complaints.  I think they lend credibility to the article, by showing what the director was thinking of.  Regarding God/Buddah, I believe they're supposed to be one and the same.  I can't think of any clear way to discuss this without going off on a major tangent, so I'm open to suggestions.  Regarding "Fair Use", see comments above. Palm_Dogg 07:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

A few points I came across after taking another look at the article:
 * You mention costume designer Emi Wada as "he", but she is actually female (she has an article in the Japanese wikipedia here: where she's credited with being the first Japanese woman to win an Academy award).
 * The Japanese meaning of the kanji 乱 has multiple meanings, most commonly "riot", "war", "disorder" and "disturbance"; since translations of these kanji are ambiguous at times (especially in titles, where the author is attempting to be intentionally vague, letting the reader decide for themselves which meaning to consider), "chaos" is not unappropriate. However, do you think it might be a good idea to list all the meanings? Alexthe5th 01:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The Fading Light 11:29, 20 March 2006 "In Ran, the Battle of Hachiman Field is a perfect illustration of this new kind of warfare. Saburo's arquebusers annihilate Jiro's cavalry by engaging them from the woods, where the cavalry are unable to venture. Similarly, Saburo's assassination by a sniper also shows how individual heroes have no place on a modern battlefield. Kurosawa also illustrates this new warfare with his camera. Instead of focusing on the warring armies, he frequently set the focal plain beyond the action, so that in the film they appear as abstract entities." First, it's plane, not plain. That should be easy enough to fix, but the rest of the article probably could use a check. Second, this analysis is a little too insightful for wikipedia. We're not here to make insights, we're here to cite experts and critics and summarize what others have concluded. This is the kind of analysis that belongs in an essay, not here, where it's considered original research. This article either needs more sources cited or conclusions cut. Night Gyr 17:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. This article is well written and is very informative without suffocating the reader with too much information.
 * Object:
 * I actually forgot to add a reference for this. I got it off the audio commentary for the Criterion Collection's "Ran" DVD.  I have just added a citation and fixed the spelling error. Palm_Dogg 21:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. The article is well written and very comprehensive. Great work! — Underneath-it-All 20:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment The styling of Japanese names is a fruit salad, with Sue (no accent), Sué (avec accent Pokémon), Yôko (circumflex), Hidetora Ichimonji (given name first, despite being a character in pre-Meiji Japan), Mori Motonari (surname first, according to the convention for pre-Meiji Japanese people), a red link to Shinnosuke "Peter" Ikehata (it seems prudent to create an article with one of his names or the other, rather than have the nickname in quotes in the article title) etc. Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) has suggestions. There are similar inconsistencies in things like "Best Picture" in quotation marks, but other awards in the same paragraph not similarly marked. Additionally, links should be made direct, e.g. Buddhist should link directly to Buddhism. These finishing touches can be the very last things that turn a good article into a featured article. Fg2 02:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. Too many fair use images. I know why you want to use them, and I sympathize with that, but it doesn't matter. No reasoning can support fair use on that many. No matter how much you want to use them, we have to respect copyright. More than 3 or 4 is really stretching it. - Taxman Talk 14:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I have to politely ask if someone has some sort of agenda against this article. It's been up here for two weeks now, despite consistently having at least 3:1 support. If it's regarding the images, just order me to take them down and I'll do it, although I don't think there are too many.  If it's about the copyediting, I've done what I can but it's not my strongest point -- I'm a researcher first and foremost.  Anyways, I'd hoped to have this article promoted before I shipped out today, but it doesn't look like that will happen. Palm_Dogg 20:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Agenda against the article? Remember - There Is No Cabal. ;) In all seriousness, though, I think this is a great article, and a lot better than many other FA's out there. Hopefully someone with enough knowledge of this film can get the issues ironed out and we'll have it up on the main page. 203.179.21.193 05:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works. FAC isn't a vote it's a consensus that all major objections have been dealt with. It's not a rough consensus like (2/3, 3/4, whatever) like other Wikipedia processes. Even one major objection will keep an article from getting promoted. And I'm not just saying this because I've objected. You can check the talk page archives for backing. And if you disagree with our stance, find some evidence to back your position. I've just been around long enough that I doubt you'll find it. Try asking Carnildo, an editor with a lot of image experience, or get some legal backing for your position. I may be radical with 4, but certainly 11 is unnacceptable. - Taxman Talk 21:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Now you tell me! :) OK, I've slashed and burned and cut it down to what I consider a bare bones 5.  I'm sure that's still one too many, but I think all these images are necessary. I also have to formally state that I can't work on this article anymore.  In two hours I leave for military training and won't be posting again until July.  I'd really appreciate it if someone could take over for me and push this baby the last few inches to FA status. Palm_Dogg 00:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry you had to go before it was done. I hope someone can finish it up as it's pretty close, but not there. - Taxman Talk 14:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * CommentKurosawa also illustrates this new warfare with his camera. Instead of focusing on the warring armies, he frequently set the focal plain beyond the action, so that in the film they appear as abstract entities. Different tenses, I corrected it. But I didn't have time to read through the whole article, so there might be other grammatical errors...great articleOsbus 23:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Object its good but missing something: what was its long-term influence? have any directors been directly influenced by ran in the past 20 years? what do directors, producers, actors have to say about ran today? what other films borrow from ran? didnt peter jackson say the two towers battle was inspired by a kurosawa battle - was it from this film? also i dont think encyclopedia articles should have "intro quotes" like at the beginning of the king lear section, they should be incorporated into the body of the text. Zzzzz 18:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Fantastic article, only a few minor corrections left, after several major overhauls, including the one that has taken place on this page. Judgesurreal777 01:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support for this comprehensive article. Tankred 16:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Wikipedia can be proud of this article! Fg2 01:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. I've been indecisive on this issue for a couple of weeks, because although this is a fantastic article (and I listed it as Good a while back, and it's improved since then) I can see that it could be refined still further.  But I've come to realise that I'm questing for perfection, but perfection is not the standard for FA status.  It is a model article in terms of many of the Wikipedia criteria and a fascinating read.  I feel that it could still do with more copy-editing but I don't think that holds it back from FA status - no article is perfect, after all, they can all be improved.  The abuse of "fair use" on the images was really the last stumbling block for me.  It's a great article, I would be proud to see it on the front page or in a printed encyclopedia, let's please feature it.  --Estarriol 11:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I dislike the Amerocentrism of the value judgements and critical commentary presented in the article. I appreciate it's harder to work with sources not in English, but it just seems wrong that so much of the article is based on US media, critics and websites. --zippedmartin 23:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - Good enough for FA status. Cvene64 06:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Well cited, good language, gives good cultural, literary and historical perspective on the role of the great film. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. This is an excellent article. It's been here long enough&mdash;let's get it out of here and onto the main page. --DanielNuyu 02:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)