Talk:Not One Less

Title?

What does the Chinese title mean, literally? It seems a little long to be Not One Less. And I've also seen the movie referred to as Together. --GwydionM (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The Chinese title literally means "Not One Less" or maybe more accurately "Not even one less." Together probably refers to the Chen Kaige film, although I haven't seen any instances where the two films were conflated.Tryptofeng (talk) 03:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

一个都不能少 would literally be "cannot be even one less" or "can not lose even one" or something along those lines. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It should be "Not One Fewer". Ericoides (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Prescriptive grammar is thataway, thanks. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Source

Scholarly article about this film:

• Zhang Xiaoling (2001). "A film director's criticism of reform China: a close reading of Zhang Yimou's Not One Less". China Information. 15 (2).

I heard about this film just a few weeks ago and am hoping to track it down and see it. After that, then I can use this source to expand this article a little. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

An English version is available on DVD.GwydionM (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I just watched it last night. Also, here are some more reviews; maybe sometime in the next week or two I'll get around to expanding this article.

• Kemp, Philip (August 2000). "Not One Less". Sight and Sound. Retrieved 9 September 2009.
• Scott, A.O. (18 February 2000). "A Substitute Teacher Is Put to the Test". The New York Times. Retrieved 9 September 2009.
• Scott, A.O. (27 May 2001). "Women of China, Chasing Their Impossible Dreams". The New York Times. Retrieved 9 September 2009.
• Feinstein, Howard (6 February 2000). "Losing a Muse and Moving On". The New York Times. Retrieved 9 September 2009.
• Zhu, Ying. "The Cinematic Negotiation of Chinese Identity". "China Rises" Companion. The New York Times. Retrieved 9 September 2009.
• Kraicer, Shelly (2001). "Not One Less". Persimmons. 1 (3). Retrieved 9 September 2009.
• Nesbit, Jon (2006). "Not One Less". Old School Reviews. Retrieved 9 September 2009. (maybe not a good RS)
• Lally, Kevin. "Not One Less". Film Journal International. Retrieved 9 September 2009.

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Release/box office/anti-piracy info:

• Pang, Laikwan (2004). "Piracy/Privacy: The Despair of Cinema and Collectivity in China". boundary 2. 31 (3).

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Cast

I have not made the usual cast list in this article, since the cast members are amateurs and most of them use their real names, so the main roles can all be found in the plot summary already. But just in case, I did put together this table (which basically parrots the film's credits). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Not One Less cast

Name	Role	Real-life occupation
Wei Minzhi	Teacher Wei	middle school student
Zhang Huike	class troublemaker, school dropout	primary school student
Tian Zhenda	Mayor Tian	mayor of a village in Yanqing county
Gao Enman	Teacher Gao	village teacher in Yanqing county
Sun Zhimei	helps Wei search for Zhang Huike in the city	middle school student
Feng Yuying	TV station receptionist	ticket clerk
Li Fanfan	TV show host	TV show host
Zhang Yichang	sports recruiter	sports instructor
Xu Zhanqing	brickyard owner	mayor of a village in Yanqing county
Liu Hanzhi	Zhang Huike's sick mother	villager
Ma Guolin	man in bus station	clerk
Wu Wanlu	TV station manager	deputy manager of a broadcasting station
Liu Ru	train station announcer	announcer for a broadcasting station
Wang Shulan	stationery store clerk	stationery store manager
Fu Xinmin	TV show director	TV station head of programming
Bai Mei	restaurant owner	restaurant manager

Congratulations

I know that this article is already featured, but I still want to congratulate its editors for an informative and well-written article. Not as often seen in Chinese cinema articles, who need more helpers (thank you Tryptofeng BTW!). Anyway, congrats. 121.7.189.76 (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Errors and sub-par article

This article is full of errors and falsified information. If the film had competed in the 1999 Venice Film Festival and won the top prize Golden Lion, how in the world can it compete in the next 2000 Cannes Film Festival? It wouldn't even be eligible! Read these film festivals official websites guidelines!!!! The same with the film The Road Home, which competed in the 2000 Berlin Film Festival in February and had won prizes, and the 2000 Cannes Film Festival was held in May; which makes it not even remotely possible (read the guidelines Cannes Berlin). And its not possible for a film director to have two films in the main competition slot, that never happens!!!

The contributor User:Rjanag who added these information either has no knowledge in this field or the sources the user is using are just lazy and wrong. Any films that enters these top-tier film festivals have to make their "international premieres". It's a joke that this article is even a featured article, as the quality is truly sub-par. Any film critics or organizers of these film festivals would have a field day for laughing.--Sevilledade (talk) 08:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summaries, I am repeating what numerous references say. If you can find references that explain this error, you are free to correct it, but per WP:Verifiability I have to take the references over your word. Never mind. I checked this source and it does confirm 1999; I don't know how the other sources cited might have mixed things up, but since this source predates the other one (it is a news article from April 1999, before the competition; the others are books and journal articles from post-2000) I think it is safe to go with it; the other sources are offline and I don't have the means to check them at the moment.

As for having two films in the main competition, Zhang didn't. All the references say is that neither of his films was accepted into the competition that year. (And this source, which is online, confirms what is in the article: it says "就在本届戛纳电影节候选影片名单公布的前夕，身为电影节主席的雅哥布先生公开谈到了对张艺谋两部送选电影的“看法”。" ("the night before this year's Cannes selection, the festival chairman [some name] had an open discussion on his 'opinion' about the two films Zhang had submitted"); I assume what happens is that Zhang put both films in the running, expecting for one or the other to be selected, but neither was.)

Finally, it seems pretty over-the-top that you think the whole article is "sub-par" and "a joke" just because of one fact you disagree with. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You have to wait sixth month later until someone to correct you to change the mistakes. It is pretty much established that you know nothing about this subject or films in general, if you would actually mix up factual information such as a film's festival release date.--Sevilledade (talk) 02:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Insulting one another is not constructive. I am willing to work with you to improve the article, but please refrain from personal attacks. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read what "personal attack" actually is. However I'm criticizing your contribution (harshly) to this article and I'm very upset about the fact that a featured article could even have such glaring and unacceptable major mistakes. I'm saying you know nothing about this subject because yourself commented in your edit summary "i don't know how film festivals work..." (????).--Sevilledade (talk) 02:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Film festivals are not the only subject of this article; suggesting that a whole article is bollocks because a small section of it has one date incorrect is more than a little bit over the top. And expertise is not required to edit any article. Before you get carried away, I suggest you take a step back and keep the respective parts of the article in perspective. rʨanaɢ (talk)

"Mixed" reception

Also, your rationale of "if the film has both positive and negative reviews, then it must have mixed reaction" is laughable. Every film throughout history has gotten negative reviews, but critical consensus determines that some films are acclaimed. You also actually have to have a source that states it received mixed reaction to support such statement, not just it received a couple negative reviews. The article Robin Hood (2010 film) describes it has "mixed reaction", because it has 44% on Rottentomatoes and 53 on Metacritics; by your reasoning, Not One Less received the same mixed reaction?--Sevilledade (talk) 02:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Numerous academic sources (books and journal articles, not just reviews) discuss the varied responses to this film; they are elaborated on in the Critical reception section of the article. Most of them are not online sources; this one, which is partially available online, begins

Zhang Yimou’s ten feature films to date ... have evoked heated attacks and passionate defenses.... Not One Less is no exception.

This, as well as a common-sense glance at the variety of reviews out there, demonstrates that the reaction was mixed.

I am filing a request for a third opinion here, and I ask that you respect BRD and refrain from edit warring while there is a content disagreement under way. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"have evoked heated attacks and passionate defenses" does not mean "mixed reaction" and does not correlate to the film's critical reception at all. Pretty much all films has had reviews attacking them and passionate defenses, this is no exception. One example is David Lynch's Blue Velvet, which received more negative reviews than this film, including one incredibly scathing review from Roger Ebert, that is more "heated attacks" than anything else. However its overall critical reception is very positive [1] and is widely regarded as a masterpiece.--Sevilledade (talk) 03:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

If you don't like the connotations of the term "mixed", then suggest another wording (for instance, replacing it with "varied", as in "critical reaction to the film was varied"). Removing explanatory information from the article (top portion of that edit) and disrupting the flow of the prose (bottom portion) just because you don't like one word in it isn't helpful. If you think the term "mixed" conjures up comparisons to lesser films like Robin Hood, that is fair, but no one can deny that the film received varied reactions, at the very least. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"critical reaction to the film was varied" has no weight, so please give an example of a film's critical reaction is "not varied" based on your criteria. You can pretty much find negative reviews for every single film that has ever been released.--Sevilledade (talk) 03:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

As I have already said, this is not just a case of "I found some negative reviews so I'm calling it mixed/varied". Again, there are numerous academic sources that discuss the international reaction to this film. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Not One Less and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: It seems to me that in this context "mixed" is not just a turn of phrase, but a value judgment with negative implications. As such it must be sourced to a reliable source to avoid being prohibited original research. "Critical reaction to the film was varied" is, however, inane. I wonder if both phrases could not be replaced with a more substantive statement such as "Foreign critics complained about a number of specific issues about the film, including..." or something like that.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I'll try to think of an acceptable rewording. Maybe something along the lines of "Internationally, critical reception for the film was generally positive (ref. Metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes), but it also attracted criticism for its ostensibly political message; foreign critics are divided on whether the film should be read as praising or criticizing the PRC government." rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Quick pre-TFA check

I thought I would do some checking prior to the TFA appearance. Issues identified:

• article says "the first was his 1997 Keep Cool". Cited source says 1996.
• everything else that relied on Losing a Muse and Moving On looked good.
• The article says of character Wei Minzhi: "Richard Corliss of Time criticized her for being "no brighter or more resourceful than [her students]"." - what the critic says in the original source is: "The remote Chinese village of Shuiquan needs a teacher, but the authorities send a girl to do an adult's work. And don't expect the 13-year-old (Wei Minzhi) to be an inspirational whiz with her balky pupils. She is no brighter or more resourceful than they; she breaks and loses things." I don't think the critic was criticizing the character - he is describing her role. He does however criticize the film. Within that constraint, the use of the Time review was OK. Ditto Washington Post review.
• I don't have access to Liu (2003) but the Google Books snippets include a line that refers to the film's box office failure (p. 217). This seems at odds with the text of the article which refers to its box office success. Why is Liu's perspective omitted?

Article looks generally very good though. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments!

• As for the date of Keep Cool, that NYT article must just be in error, everything else I've ever seen (both on- and off-wiki) lists that film as coming out in 1997.
• As for whether Corliss' review is criticizing her character or just describing her role, it seems like a pretty fine nuance to me. But I suppose it's impossible to read the reviewer's mind and know his intention; I've made this edit, which hopefully avoids that problem while still maintaining the overall point, does this look better?
• There is no Liu (2003) in the article as far as I can tell; are you referring to Lu (2002)? Anyway, I didn't intend for the text of the article to suggest that the film was an unequivocal "box office success", which is why there is mention of the average-ness of its earnings and comparison to later films. If the book you are referring to is indeed Lu (2002), I think I have access to it and can take a look at it this afternoon.

rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rjanag. Must have had my brain in neutral: book was Zhu, Ying (2003), not Liu or indeed Lu. p. 216 (not 217 when I looked yesterday - go figure): "To the critics of Not One Less, the film's being out of touch with the Chinese cultural reality is partially blamed for its failure at the box office..." Regarding the date of the film: it is always useful if a little annoying to be reminded that newspapers that we tend to treat as strong reliable sources get stuff wrong... Cheers, and good luck with the TFA. hamiltonstone (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese title over Simplified Chinese? Idiotic

What is the rational of putting a Traditional Chinese title over a Simplified Title of a movie made in Mainland China? Do you put Hanja over Hangul in South Korean titles? Do you put British spellings over American spellings over Hollywood movies? Yet wikipedia keeps putting Traditional over Simplified. Traditional is almost completely irrelevant and exotic in Mainland China. So stop with this pretentious nonsense. If you MUST include it, put it belove the actual Simplified title. Check this Mainland Chinese source:

http://baike.baidu.com/link?url=_DLXe9DdVVDTNsWHoyWKYzJDUWZR7uxjWOEGfD_Nw3sbezGDYQiYM0kTT8mHgCRK7Huh2Z8U5vjbvL-cms4LXbbGqj3ktI-ay03_MUYhYXK

See the title? It's in Simplified Chinese. Like everything else. That is how they do it in China. So educate yourself and talk less with Taiwanese and diaspora and more about the billions of Chinese who are being misrepresented by having Traditional Chinese added to their art, movies and actors all over Wikipedia. It is shameful and exclusively targeting Mainland Chinese. As I said, Koreans and Americans don't get such ludicrous mistreatment here. You don't include Traditional Chinese version of names in boxes of articles about Mao Zedong or Xi Jinping... so stop with doing this elsewhere. It's disrespectful to Mainland Chinese. And misleading to people who aren't aware of which one is used in China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.70.86.139 (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Not One Less. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081002015703/http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/review/459 to http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/review/459
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090303110011/http://www.sonypictures.com/classics/notoneless/home.html to http://www.sonypictures.com/classics/notoneless/home.html

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) 16:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)