Talk:Mumblecore

List of Mumblecore Films[edit]

What is going on with this section? There are two lists with completely different entries titled the same thing. I don't know if the lists are mislabeled or if there has been a failure to merge two lists or what, but it is very confusing. I'd try to figure it out myself and change it, but seeing this article was my introduction to the concept overall. --Edleob (talk) 00:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. What's going on here? - Mehughes124 (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, the second list is "mumblegore", with a "g". Korny O'Near (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for deletion[edit]

This article should be deleted because it contains unremarkable people, groups, companies or web content. The so-called movement or genre is in actuality a self-referential group of home-made films and film-makers with no relevance to the wider film culture. It is not a movement recognized by film critics, or film-schools as an actual American historical film movement, such as Golden Age of Hollywood, or the New Hollywood movement. It is simply a handful of home-made films with non-professional actors, of which there are thousand of on YouTube, that never gained an audience in sufficient numbers to qualify as a movement. It's only mention in the wider world are a couple of articles that mention the term 'mumblecore' which was itself originated by a participant in of these films. The articles are in semi-mainstream papers, but mainly blogs run by the friends or sympathizers of the directors of these films. It includes one (1) article in the Village Voice, and one (1) article in the New York Times, both located in the city where these films were shown. Most of the hype of the term 'mumblecore' are on blogs on the internet.

Speedy Keep - This article should not be deleted, and the mere proposal that it should is ridiculous. I read the article in the New York Times (AKA "The Newspaper of Record") declaring "mumblecore" a bona fide trend/genre. I came to wikipedia to learn more about this trend, the very reason for the existence of wikipedia. ~porters —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.86.220 (talk) 05:17, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

I'll second keeping this article. I came across the term mumblecore on a several blogs and came to wikipedia to find out what the heck it is. This is afterall the whole purpose of wikipedia. - Pizzle 06:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I object to the dismissive characterization of mumblecore as "...a self-referential group of home-made films and film-makers with no relevance to the wider film culture." Why does it matter whether or not mumblecore is "recognized" by "film critics"? Who are "film critics," and when were they vested with the sole authority to "recognize" a film movement? - Skaraoke 09:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second Deletion C'mon, these films are pretty terrible. If I wanted to watch twentysomething's bitching I'd go back to Emerson College. Which by the way, is an awesome school. -Asterios

Stong Keep Your opinion of the films is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of stuff you like. The only question is whether this article is notable. Tomdobb 12:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal for "Second Deletion" You sure about that? Because if notable means "mentioned in a media outlet" then what the hell isn't notable? Self declared genres coined by people's sound mixers shouldn't get the attention. -Asterios —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.7.68.122 (talk) 22:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite sure that your personal feelings shouldn't be used to determine an article's worthiness. Regarding notability: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This article could use more sources, but I believe the subject has been covered enough to be deemed notable.-Tomdobb 12:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

""Keep or not..."" The mere definition of this so-called-genre is the same as a independent filmmaker. The only difference is that it focuses on twenty-somethings. "A rose by any other name..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.2.64.216 (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP -Don't be ridiculous, of course the article should stay! I too am interested in learning more about this movement. The codification of Dogma 95 was also a self-declared movement started by filmmaker Lars Von Trier and his filmmaking brethren which made its genesis the result of a closed collective of mutual filmmakers with similar tastes, coining terms and writing manifestos, etc. That's one of the ways a movement starts so I see no reason mumblecore should be treated any differently when it comes to deciding on its "worthiness". It doesn't matter who coins the term or how interrelated the filmmakers are as far as themes and purpose. That's the point.

As someone has pointed out before, Wikipedia is not about only referencing stuff individuals deem important. Individual tastes run the gamut and the subjective viewpoint should not interfere with learning more about the subject. For example, the entire Star Wars PREQUELS were hideous as far as I'm concerned but I bet there's a wiki about it, as well there should be. The filmmaking establishment said the same thing about John Cassavetes' films not being of quality or importance but there is no denying the generational kinship that mumblecore films share with the Cassavetes oeuvre(his focus being the deconstruction of older adults in relationships.) And even if one does think mumblecore films are not good enough for them, so what? That doesn't erase their existence from the lexicon. By the way, Medicine for Melancholy received rave reviews by mainstream critics and wowed at film festivals!

I agree that the article needs more comprehensive work. Are any of you wiki editors out there available to do the research to reference this article with more in depth material? It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. 67.183.122.227 (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)La-Tonia Denise Willis[reply]

PS. User Tomdobb, keep up the good work arguing for the right of the article to exist. Your statements are sound and speak to the point. 67.183.122.227 (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC) La-Tonia Denise Willis[reply]

Third for deletion I hate this idiotic term. Wikipedia should do the world a favor and expunge any reference to it. It is not a real movement. It was an inside, self-referentail, self-deprecating joke that gained a bit of momentum as a hip catchphrase among pretentious film geeks. No one associated with the term wants to be. and it is not specific enough to be useful as a descriptor, as is evidenced by others commenting in the talk page that they have no idea what it is. Why not attach it to serious Woody Allen, or Kevin Smith, or Richard Linklater or Wes Anderson or Ed Burns or Cassavetes or Eric Rohmer or Bergman? Because it is a term with no real meaning. It is not like Dogme 95, which is very well defined. The term is useless, but more importantly, it is incredibly annoying. Vote for delete! 68.8.72.143 (talk) 05:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of mumblecore films[edit]

What about Half Nelson That had mumbling in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.138.12.194 (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about The Sunset Limited (film) ? It's just two guys in a room talking for the entire movie. Sounds like it would fit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.115.159.54 (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added Frances Ha to the list, your welcome. Wasn't sure if it should be listed under 2012 (festival release) or 2013 (American release)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MendozaPDX (talk • contribs) 20:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about more Noah Baumbach, like While We're Young and Greenberg? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plattprogram12 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay fine, but why MUMBLEcore?[edit]

Because the film makers mumble a lot? Because the no-name actors do? Because that's what the characters do? Why mumblecore as opposed to slackercore or DIYcore or thekidswhoaremakingmoviesthesedayscore? --72.81.135.206 (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I wondered that myself. Given how recent the term is, it should not be too hard to find the first published usage by a film critic and use the discussion there as a reference. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that some guy coined this term when asked what these movies had in common. Great. Now, what exactly was his answer and how did the term "mumblecore" come from it? This is a detail that ought to be in this article is the article is to exist at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.49.116 (talk) 05:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just read the article; still have no clue what mumblecore means or why that name was chosen. I saw a lot of attributes that are not defining characteristics, but what is? Overall, this article needs a lot of clarification. 68.110.104.80 (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah exactly. I've had a stab, but its far from perfect and help welcome. The sources mention Kevin Smith and Ive put him there in the lead, though I have no time whatsoever for his work. Ceoil (talk) 02:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salon article[edit]

Salon article on Mumblecore: [1] Lampman (talk) 02:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what about Slacker?[edit]

Slacker seems to be exactly the same concept, except it came out in 1991. Does this really count as a genre, then, or is it just an epithet that's applied to today's version of 20-something low-budget movies? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is Mumblecore[edit]

User:Ohwhataslaughter deleted the following three films from the mumblecore list: The Last Hurrah, Douchebag, and The Untitled Kartik Krishnan Project. An anon user User:99.48.214.16 has also been taking these three same films out. I have been reediting them back in. I still am leaning towards their inclusion, because I haven't found a source that mumblecore is a group of filmmakers, but generally refers to a filmmaking style. I wanted to check if there was anyone watching this talk page who had an opinion to come to consensus about the list XinJeisan (talk) 08:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal opinion isn't relevant; have those three films been described as mumblecore by the mainstream media? Otherwise you're just building your own personal list, in which case I suggest you have a look at TVTropes, you'll love it there. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 18:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about Primer?[edit]

Shane Carruth's films fit many of the criteria. Does he have to be a pal of the other directors, or something? Thanks! OcelotHod (talk) 05:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC) OcelotHod[reply]

New Proposal for Deletion[edit]

This article shouldn't exist for the following reasons:

1) It's a "neologism" that was spontaneously uttered by someone in a social setting. It hasn't really gained traction, even in academic circles that study the movies that have been mentioned in the article. (As noted in the article, people refer to these movies by any number of ways but rarely "mumblecore".) 2) The characteristics attributed to "mumblecore" films are shared by many "art house" or "indie" motion pictures. Even if we limit the scope to American cinema, these movies are not uniquely improvisational, character-driven, "low budget", "low production values", etc. 3) The filmmakers themselves deny being part of a "mumblecore" movement. 4) The given time period lasts for approximately ten years, yet many of the filmmakers are still making similar kinds of movies. Furthermore, new filmmakers use the same techniques (which have been in existence since the beginning of cinema).

Some of the listed films and filmmakers are indeed noteworthy, but the "mumblecore" concept is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just google "mumblecore" and you'll find 425,000 pages. Among others, articles by the British Film Institute (Where to Begin with Mumblecore) and various sites devoted to film culture and pop culture, with titles like "20 Great Mumblecore Movies Every Indie Lover Should See", "Movie movements that defined cinema: Mumblecore", and "How Mumblecore Films Are Changing the Hollywood Landscape", all published in the last couple years. So yeah, Wikipedia should cover something that belongs to the cultural landscape, and that's hard to deny. Kumagoro-42 (talk) 08:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A "movement" that is denied by the filmmakers who are "included"? Pffft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to revive the proposal for deletion for the aforementioned reasons. The term "exists" as a joke in the first place because an interview subject was caught flat-footed when asked a question, and he blurted a random word.136.49.32.166 (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand why, 14 years later (the original deletion proposal was 2007), there are still and handful of unregistered users who are committed to trying to make mumblecore "not a thing." It doesn't matter that some film enthusiasts turn up their noses at it, or if they object to its use for one reason or another. Based on Wikipedia notability standards, it doesn't even matter what the filmmakers say about the movement or how much they deny it — notability is determined by secondary sources. WP:GNG And the term has been used across a wide variety of significant, reliable sources to describe a certain type of film which was especially prominent during a certain period of time, as Kumagoro-42 noted above. It continues to be used in sources to this day, indicating sustained significance. WP:SUSTAINED The fact that this conversation is even happening arguably could even be evidence of its sustained significance.Wemedgefrodis (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Sang-soo[edit]

The southkorean filmmaker is the real father of this movement. He has been making this kind of films since late 90s. Of course, his kind of 'independent cinema' is different from the american independent cinema but all of the characteristics described in this article were in his filmography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.155.86.76 (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He might be a precursor (if the mumblecore directors even knew of him), but the mumblecore movement is North American, it doesn't embrace everything with the same style across international film history, it's specific of a certain era, place and group of directors. See also other filmmakers mentioned in the article like Woody Allen, Richard Linklater and Kevin Smith, who influenced the mumblecore but would be ridiculous to retroactively make part of a movement that didn't even exist when they made their films. Kumagoro-42 (talk) 08:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing "remarkable" about any of the characteristics described in the article that would distinguish these movies from indie or low-budget productions of previous eras. "Mumblecore" is a term that describes nothing.136.49.32.166 (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mumblecore. 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: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mumblecore/Mumblegore[edit]

I think the two lists should be mutually exclusive. It's established that mumblegore is mumblecore with horror themes, so if a film is mumblegore, it's automatically also mumblecore. Therefore, either the mumblecore list gets ALL the films, and then the mumblegore list only the horror-themed ones, or (better) we put on the mumblecore list only the films that are NOT mumblegore. The way it is now, some mumblegore films appear in both lists (e.g. Pop Skull, Baghead, The House of the Devil), others appear only in their own list. Kumagoro-42 (talk) 09:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]