Talk:Black Orpheus

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the French cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the Italian cinema task force.

Jazz Low‑importance

	Jazz portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jazz, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of jazz on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JazzWikipedia:WikiProject JazzTemplate:WikiProject JazzJazz articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brazil: Arts Mid‑importance

	Brazil portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Arts in Brazil task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mythology Low‑importance

	Mythology portal This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Jazzstandard

black orpheus is a jazzstandard, too, so in the realbook

Controversy

The depiction of Brazil in the film is fairly controversial (and was even at the time of release). Many thought it was candy-coated. I'll try to add a section on this soon - AKeen 03:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you hadn't said it, I would've. Caetano Veloso (who, as the article states, apparently did the music for the remake) says as much in his autobiography, that it was sort of a caricature of Brazil.--4.245.19.3 07:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:OrfeuNegro.jpg

Image:OrfeuNegro.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudo headings

As BMK wont discuss this, I'm raising this here. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Headings clearly states "Do not make pseudo-headings using bold or semicolon markup." Until BMK can show me something that goes against this, the MOS will be applied. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A "pseudo-heading" using a semi-colon fouls up screen readers because the semi-colon creates a definition out of the text which follows, which is confusing and doesn't searve the article. One made with bold simply creates a bolded word, which is acceptable, especially when it's followed by a bulleted list. A bold word followed by a list doesn't confuse the screen-reader, or the "reader" who is listening to it. In this respect, ACCESS, which is a guideline and not mandatory for good reason, is incorrect in advising against the use of bold. BMK (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the MOS-complaint, and accessible, headings. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite cleary shown in the fourth table (titled "Pseudo-headings") that using bolding to make a heading is wrong, so it's not acceptable. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, do the two concepts: "MOS is not mandatory" and "In this case, MOS is wrong" not mean anything to you? Are you familiar with WP:IAR? No, don't answer, I understand your motivation entirely, how petty. BMK (talk) 17:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note for other editors. Lugnuts has been banned from my talk page since January 16, 2014, yet persists in trying to "discuss" things there, knowing that I will revert his edits without reading them. He then uses that against me as he did here, saying "BMK won't discuss this", which is, if nothing else, intellectually dishonest. BMK (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You kept a note of the date?! Well, as long as you don't have any issues. How quaint. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Primitivism controversy

When you write the controversy section, do your homework on primitivism and post colonial studies. To say it is "candy coated" is not very scholarly. First, to what extent was the original playwright from a privileged class rather than a favela dweller? Then, there is the whole question of a French modernist looking to escape the failure of Western civilization after 2 world wars - how does he shape Brazil into a care-free, sexualized paradise/society (vs. the "remake" which deliberately engaged with the problems of society). How is slum life framed by the West? There are scholarly articles on this and many yet to be written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.240.250.63 (talk • contribs) 04:41, March 30, 2007 (UTC)

Can you please provide some references on this - I'd be very interested to read them! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.213.205 (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right now there is no controversy section, though there could be. I'm certainly aware that the film has been criticized. The term "candy-coated" comes from another editor's Talk comment in 2006 (above), not from the article,so it doesn't really matter if that is the best term to use or not. Also, keep in mind that the point of an article is not to do an analysis of the work, but to provide an encyclopedic view of of the work, which may include a summary of important scholarly positions on the article. To move this forward, it would be helpful to have secondary sources that talk about the film from the perspective you reference. David.thompson.esq (talk) 22:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

<Sigh!> It's truly disappointing that, after all these years, this section has never been written. Barack Obama's intriguing remarks (reported in the "Influence" section) are notable in their own right -- but it would be so much better to present them in the context of the larger controversy. Surely there must be a knowledgable editor out there who could undertake this sorely needed task! Anomalous+0 (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Black Orpheus. 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/20070928000107/http://www.culturevulture.net/Movies/blackorpheus.htm to http://www.culturevulture.net/Movies/blackorpheus.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

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) 16:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Black Orpheus. 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/20140709173856/http://playbill.com/news/article/193206-Lynn-Nottage-Will-Pen-Stage-Adaptation-of-Black-Orpheus-George-C-Wolfe-to-Direct to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/193206-Lynn-Nottage-Will-Pen-Stage-Adaptation-of-Black-Orpheus-George-C-Wolfe-to-Direct

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).

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) 09:46, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]