![]() | Un Chien Andalou was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Is there a reason why Image:Andalou.jpg is not marked to be in public domain? There's also Image:Chien andalou frame publicdomain.png on Commons with the same motive. Shouldn't we use that one instead? --romanm (talk) 01:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Isn't the caption under the image something of a spoiler? Not that the slicing is unexpected, but it is unexpected how graffic it is
I'm pretty sure the slashing scene was fake. If i recall, you can see tufts of hair around the eye, since they used a dead calf. If anyone believes this is not the case, correct me...
Whatever animal it is, we should settle for one of the two. :P The main article says "The eye that was actually sliced in the opening scene was that of a dead donkey." and cites it, but under the film caption to the right of the text it says "The legendary shot of the cow's eye being slit by Luis Buñuel.", without citing. Gershake (talk) 01:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
References
The information under "influences" is starting to look too much like trivia. Some of it, such as the Silence of the Lambs video cover, sounds like it could be WP:OR. What does everyone else think? --GHcool 06:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The presence of apparent trivia in the Influence section weakens it greatly in my view. They do need differentiation. High Heels on Wet Pavement 19:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I personally doubt the influence of Un Chien Andalou on Oldboy. In Andalou, the ants were meant to give literal meaning to a French expression, akin to "an itchy trigger finger". In Oldboy, the ants were used to show the character's complete mental breakdown from being isolated for so long.
The trivia is far from insignificant. It points to the continued relevance and influence of this film almost a century after its release. That only strengthens the article. It answers the question of "why is this still important?" ZathrasSpawn (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
several unattributed opinions - (no doubt attributable to notable sources-- but which?) High Heels on Wet Pavement 20:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Just curious, why isn't the name capitalized? - Anas talk? 21:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Is this section really necessary? It's got one unreferenced claim that should be in a production section and one piece of trivia. Davidovic 23:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The third and fourth sentences of the second paragraph aren't any good. They contradict the first sentence of the second paragraph and also contradicts the analysis section. This part is a subjective analysis of the film by the writer of the paragraph and holds no validity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.155.242.235 (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
It's already been marked for a long time, but sources and information on this page are really sketchy. I've looked and honestly can't find much to back alot of this stuff up. Even some of the sources listed are erroneous such as the first one for 'initially released in 1929 to a limited showing in Paris, but became popular and ran for eight months.' An unrelated link is listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.137.244 (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Footnote #13 goes to a dead link. I've seen similar footnotes with a notation stating 'Dead Link" or something like that. I have no idea how to put that notation though. Jtyroler (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Just wondering, how do you pronounce "Un chien andalou"? Maybe it should be written out in IPA at the beginning of the article. I would add that, but like I said, I don't know how to pronounce it. Also, the section "Legacy" kind of sounds like a bunch of made-up stuff that some person slapped together in five minutes. If any part of it is true, then it should be moved to appropriate sections in the article, and they could also use some references to make sure they are true. Cloudy fox 001 (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't the copyright on this film have expired by now? Youtube cites Microcinema International as holding the copyright. Can this be verified or discussed?74.97.10.95 (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to divide the section currently called "Production" into two -- one for "Background", which would deal with the planning and events leading up to the beginning of filming, and the second for "Production", which would cover the filming process itself. Any problems with that? Thanks. Jburlinson (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Un Chien Andalou. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore))
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot))
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Un Chien Andalou. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
This film is usually thought of being 16 minutes long or 21 minutes. The consensus appears to be 21 minutes these days :) you can it watch at both film rate:
21 minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=054OIVlmjUM
16 minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79h05vqezJ0
This matter deserves an entire section in the article, cause it is not clear anywhere. In that section, there should be a clear explanation of how it is mistaken for being 16 minutes -- if that is a mistake... or how it it considered to be, wrongly, 21 minutes long.. (if it is a wrong approach, and number)
IN the article, right now, it is 21 minutes at the main data sheet / info block of the film. But in the article's body 17 minutes is mentioned and "some sources" and 24 minutes -- and the reference link takes us to a very low quality page.
So, I suggest, this should be all cleared up in a nice way :)
I'll do a research myself, too...
--peter.josvai (talk) 06:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)