Talk:Zen Filmmaking/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Dictionary of Film and Movies

What is the Dictionary of Film and Movies? I can't find any such publication. This article seems wholy unverified and smacks of self promotion for Scott Shaw. The TV.com link is worthless because it can be edited by anyone and is not verified for accuracy. 24.177.122.249 07:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The only "Dictionary of Film and Movies" I can find any trace of is a Wikipedia mirror. This would be a Wikipedia article using itself (or perhaps a previous version) as a reference -- a frequent technique of the author of this article and the article on Scott Shaw. I can see hardly any verifiable (or at least verified) facts in this article. It's supposedly about "a specific style and process of filmmaking" but whch "utilizes "No-rules and No-structure"" [sic] -- the only specific fact given is that "no scripts are used". There doesn't seem to be anything obvious to link it with Julie Strain except a claim on some TV fanzine blog that she is a friend of Scott Shaw and Donald G. Jackson. I see no evidence of a USC film course which cites "Zen filmmaking" alongside the rather better-known Dogme 95. Citing the inventor's own website and another TV fanzine website that can be edited by anyone (very possibly the author of this very article) hardly constitutes proper citation of independent sources. Basically we're left with a little web of articles around the subject of Scott Shaw and his films, written almost exclusively by the a fan or perhaps acquaintance of his, referencing each other, largely unverifiable and certainly not backed up with anything much at all. I'm not convinced Zen filmmaking really exists outside the mind of Scott Shaw and a few friends but, if this article is deemed worth keeping, a redirect to Scott Shaw would seem sufficient. Flapdragon 15:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


Hi Flapdragon,
As mentioned on the Scott Shaw TALK page, [1] I would attempt to further answer your questions and statements here.
I guess first of all, as a graduate of USC I can state infatically, that yes, Zen Filmmaking was discussed in at least two classes on the campus. In one of the classes, we watched all three of the films associated with The Roller Blade Seven. I do not know if this fact is discussed in the catalogue or not. But, I was there and it did happen.
You make a rather negative comment about a "Fan." I guess you could call be that, though I don't really see it that way. It is simply that I appreciate the philosophy of Zen Filmmaking.
It is similar to the fact that you have made a lot of contributions to the Oxford University pages. [2] Does that make you a fan or simply someone who wants to get the story out there?
You make the comment, "I'm not convinced Zen filmmaking really exists outside the mind of Scott Shaw and a few friends." As previously mentioned to you on the Scott Shaw Talk page, others have begun employing this method. Yes, it is relatively new. But, it is a method. I have noticed a new film listed on this page, "Aimee Semple McPherson" which I know nothing about. But, here is the link to it at IMDB.com. [3]
The director Ramona Diaz makes the statement, "It was Zen filmmaking at its best—a method I’ve sworn to adopt for every subsequent production because in the end, it worked," in regards to his film about the former Philippines First Lady Imelda Marcos [4] This is on the PBS website. And the list goes on.
I think if you were in Hollywood or were more active in the Film Industry perhaps this article would not be a problem to you. Zen Filmmaking has been discussed in several industry journals and one newspaper that I know about. Also, there was a big article in Psychotronic Video in relation to Donald G. Jackson and Zen Filmmaking in 2000. [5] This Independant Film magazine has been around since the late 1970s and is distributed internationally.
Mostly, I don't know why I have to justify this article or why you are taking such a negative approach to Zen Filmmaking, Scott Shaw, and those who have contributed to these articles or this system of filmmaking.
I remember reading the user page of an administrator when I first found out about Wikipedia. He stated in essence, "That he felt that any subject that was worth writing an article about was worth a page on Wikipedia." I think that is pretty true. Especially, when it provides new areas of thoughts and ideas as does Zen Filmmaking.
(Alex West) 09:11 23 March 2006
So what actually is Zen filmmaking? We still know pretty much nothing about the subject except that it involves not using a script -- which hardly qualifies as a breakthrough or a fully-developed philosophy of filmmaking. What exactly are these "new areas of thoughts and ideas" that Zen filmmaking leads us into? What's the relevance of Aimee Semple McPherson?
As far as I can see only one of the pages you cite (the Ramona Diaz/Imelda Marcos one) actually shows the famous phrase in use. That one might be a reference to a specific technique or it might not -- people use the word Zen in all sort of casual ways. I wouldn't be surprised to hear a reference to "Zen baking" or "Zen windsurfing" (yup, sure enough there are a few Google hits for each) but that doesn't mean those are specific recognised techniques which should have an encyclopaedia entry. I don't suppose Bodhidharma spent much time on a surfboard, but now anything can be "very Zen".
You say you don't know why you have to justify this article. Well that's the way it is, I'm afraid. This is an encyclopaedia, not an indiscriminate collection of unsupported claims. What you write needs to be established knowledge that can be backed up by reference to credible sources. I don't want to see this excellent resource devalued by material of dubious authority, so I'm asking you (as others have done) to justify the articles (or parts of them) you're so attached to. That's not being negative. If you really can't do that then that stuff doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Perhaps it would be useful to remind yourself of some Wikipedia policies like Ownership of articles, Neutral point of view, No original research, Verifiability and What Wikipedia is not.
No, I'm not a "fan" of Oxford University, I haven't made that many contributions to that article and nothing major, it's just that when I see a mistake or a piece of vandalism I take two seconds to fix it. It's probably a more productive use of time than these discussions!
Best wishes Flapdragon 22:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi AGAIN Flapdragon,
Looks like you popped into the article when I was working on it and kind of scrambled my edits. I guess that is just what happens sometimes on Wikipedia. But, that is alright. It is up there now, with some sources.
Re: your questions:
Someone put up the film, "Aimee Semple McPherson" under the heading of Zen Filmmaking. I guess that means that they feel they used the Zen Filmamking process to make it. The reason I mentioned that eariler is due to the fact that you claimed this process was totally associated with Scott Shaw. Which it is not. He and Donald G. Jackson simply created it.
And, if you study the work of Ramona Diaz, they have mentioned their use of Zen Filmmaking in other articles, in direct reference to this style of filmmaking. Sorry, I didn't know I had to keep track of every mention of the process and have a reference point for it.
Again, if you were more involved with filmmaking instead of spending your time bouncing around Wikipedia, all day, every day you may know this. I am just curious do you get paid for that? Because it looks like you are spending a lot of time here.
To answer your statement, it really only looks like it is you and one other person who have been attacking this article. You previously mentioned sockpuppets, a Wikipedia term I didn't know about until you wrote about it in your comments. But check out the contributions of 24.177.122.249. [6]
In any case, it really seems like you are a harsh person Flapdragon. There is a lot of nicers ways to say what you are saying. Again, I don't know why you are so negative. But, I trust I have fixed the article to your satification.
In any case, all the best,
(Alex West) 15:40 23 March 2006

I'm sorry you find this so unpleasant, but please try to understand that this is an encyclopaedia, not a personal website. I could have just put into motion the procedures for deleting this article and walked away. Instead I've been trying very patiently to communicate to you some of the basic concepts of Wikipedia, while you obsess at length about how much time you imagine I spend on it, and simultaneously take up large amounts of that time. You can't have it both ways.

The fact that you imagine I might be paid money for editing, and find it so hard to understand that anyone might give a little of their time to put something back into a worthwhile project, does kind of imply that you haven't really got these concepts yet. I consult Wikipedia throughout the day, and, as I've already explained, whenever I notice some little thing that needs fixing I take a second or two to go in and fix it -- usually very minor things. It seems a long time since I wrote or contributed anything major; that takes time. That's why I don't particularly welcome being drawn into time-wasting wrangles like this, especially in the case of an article that frankly I doubt is worth the effort.

You're right of course, I really must spend more time filmmaking and less editing Wikipedia. Very naughty of me! Then again I could say that if you spent more time "bouncing around Wikipedia" you might have a better idea of what's required. FWIW, I think your latest edit is a big improvement, but there is still not a whole lot of meat in the article, and if "Zen filmmaking" is much more than a pretentious title for making it up as you go along, I feel you are making heavy weather of demonstrating that. Cheers, Flapdragon 02:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

PS: You might like to take a glance at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(headings). Flapdragon 02:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)