Jump to content

Talk:Kubrick stare

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Draft talk:Kubrick stare)

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Schwede66 talk 17:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
An example of a Kubrick stare
An example of a Kubrick stare
Created by Bremps (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 9 past nominations.

Bremps... 10:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

@Bremps and Di (they-them): Interesting article, I learned something. I checked it out and it is ready to promote. Bruxton (talk) 02:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Kubrick stare/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Bremps (talk · contribs) 17:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Rhododendrites (talk · contribs) 02:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First pass review below:

Lead

  • calling it a director's technique in the first sentence doesn't seem to capture the rest of the article. It's a specific kind of look. Directors use that look to portray insane/unstable characters. Sort of a subtle difference, but case in point: if it's a director's technique and not the look itself, the second photo doesn't depict a kubrick stare as there's no film being directed.
  • Combine first two paragraphs -- avoiding a single-sentence paragraph.
  • Most of the lead is not in the body. The lead shouldn't contain anything that isn't already covered below -- it's there to summarize the body of the article.

Usage:

  • Odd to see subheadings for "and Kubrick" and "by Kubrick". Maybe it would work best with the first paragraph "origin" which explains the coining of the term and use by kubrick in his various films. Then "use by others" which explains the first usage by Hitchcock, etc. Alternatively, the subheadings could just be removed as there's only two paragraphs under the main heading.
  • The claim about the first usage in Psycho should probably be attributed to the author of that book if it doesn't appear in any of the other sources. I see that other people have called the look in Psycho a Kubrick stare, but it's a wild claim to call it the first. Maybe a good idea to just say that people have found examples of Kubrick stares in older movies like Psycho, too.
  • "Since Kubrick's death..." is followed by two examples that preceded his death.
  • It looks like an anonymous user removed the bit about Trump for "bias" rasons. Did you see this? Looks like there are three decent sources making the comparison (Telegraph, Forbes, LA Times), which seems like a lot for the subject. Probably doesn't need its own section if there aren't other "outside of film" examples, though.

Reception and analysis:

  • "Drawing on the theories of Jacques Lacan, Far Out argues" - it doesn't look like Far Out draws on Lacan. She uses other people's Lacanian film studies work on cinematic gaze to make an argument in the paragraph beginning "Thus, when a character...". So something like "Drawing on Lacanian scholarship about cinematic gaze, Far Out's Aimee Ferrier argues..." or something along those lines.
  • "a specific Kubrick stare" - probably worth saying which stare.
  • "scholar Jens Kjelgaard-Christiansen" - if giving a title, something more specific than "scholar" would be preferable (professor of communications, for example). Also the name is misspelled.
  • "She adds" - I presume this pronoun is a mistake.
  • "critic Roger Ebert complains" - doesn't sound like a complaint in context?
  • "He also criticizes Kubrick for overusing the" - it doesn't quite seem clear this is what he's doing, either. He criticizes that particular use of it, at least.

Sources:

  • You quote from a McDowell interview, but don't cite the interview: https://ew.com/article/2014/11/29/malcolm-mcdowell-stanley-kubrick-clockwork-orange/ -- you could probably do more with that long quote. Since it's kind of the most iconic example, spoken by the person who performed it, you could even consider a block quote.
  • The Critical Companion to Stanley Kubrick cited itself cites two sources which would probably be worth tracking down.
  • Collin, Robbie (2016-09-03). "We Can't Take Our Eyes Off Them". The Daily Telegraph -- a search to try to find this returns only hits for this wikipedia article. can you check it?

Images:

  • Well the Clockwork Orange image is certainly appropriate. The selfie is kind of jarring to see, but doesn't go against any policy. Surprising to see nobody complained about it being used for the DYK when the Clockwork Orange is available and discussed directly, but that's not my business here. No issues.

Copyright:

Misc:

  • It looks like "Kubrick gaze" is a common synonym for this, and may open the door to some additional sourcing. It's also possible "Kubrick gaze" is a broader subject that's just about when his characters look into the camera, though.
  • I'm a little disappointed that nobody seems to distinguish this subject from just a standard fighter's stare: chin down, eyes forward. Also, it's become such a trope that post-Kubrick it often feels, as the kids say, cringy, and I'm surprised there isn't any real criticism. These are my personal WP:OR gripes, though -- not action items. :)

Ok. I think that's what I have. Great idea for an article (I have a soft spot for quirky film details). :) Going to place this on hold for now. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites Thanks for the review. Could you take a look at the article again? I implemented your suggestions. I'm fine with the Donald Trump content removal (it's a bit tangential in hindsight). "We Can't Take Our Eyes Off Them" by Robbie Collin is accessible with the Wikipedia Library. I couldn't find any RS for "Kubrick gaze", but I did make it a redirect. I'll take a look at the Critical Companion later to see if there's anything more worth adding. In the meantime, is there anything else that could be improved? Cheers, Bremps... 03:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems stigmatizing

[edit]

Even the first sentence "insane or unstable characters". Mental health stigma is a problem, then featuring this article with the caption "Did you know that a Kubrick stare [...] can be 'invasive' and 'troubling'" on the front page seems inappropriate in its given state I think.

Attributing words of hostility to "insane/unstable" people (i.o.w. people with a mental disorder) in such a high profile way is not ok. It is never ok I think, but featuring it on the front page makes it look like wikipedia condones this kind of discrimination. Ybllaw (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The intent of the technique is to portray characters as mentally unstable in a troubling or scary way. While I agree that the language can be stigmatizing to the mentally ill, cinema and fiction in general unfortunately often carry that stereotype. The first film to use the technique was Psycho which in hindsight kicked off a lot of the ableist stereotypes in horror. Despite the issue of ableism, I don't think it would be a good idea to change the article to be more sensitive; the article portrays the subject as what it is and it's not our job to censor or change what the stare represents. Di (they-them) (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"It unfortunately is" is not answering my criticism, it is agreeing with it.
I am not calling for censorship, I however, find it hard to believe that this article isn't biased in its current state. Is there a sufficient diversity of sources? Is this "kubrick stare" maybe too little known to be actually worth an article to begin with if there is so little coverage of it? Ybllaw (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is not "little coverage of it", the article has 14 sources and there are undoubtedly more considering the subject is a well-established pop-culture phenomenon. It is currently a Good Article Nominee. As far as bias goes, Wikipedia covers what sources say. When we say that Wikipedia is "neutral", it means neutral coverage, not necessarily neutral content. Any bias in the article (such as ableist language) is the result of the larger cultural coverage of the subject and how it is commonly viewed, not this article itself. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are any of those sources written by medical professionals? Given that it would take a medical professional to claim "convey that a character has become dangerously mentally unstable". From looking at a few of those sources, they are written by professors with a degree in language, "film critics" and writers. 14 sources is not a lot, given that there are articles with over 100 sources. Even less so if those sources use words their credentials do not make them an expert about. Ybllaw (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I still don't get though, regardless of the state of this article, is why it was featured as a did-you-know article in its current state and with the stigmatizing message of "this look can be troubling". Ybllaw (talk) 12:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because sources describe the look as troubling and that is the intended purpose of the look in cinematography. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

when

[edit]
In the modern era, directors and actors have also relied on the technique

When did the modern era begin? Could we say "since Kubrick's death"? —Tamfang (talk) 05:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I'll add that. Di (they-them) (talk) 07:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kubrick_stare&oldid=1244520805"