Talk:Matangi/Maya/M.I.A.

Name of director

The director, Steve Loveridge, has had his name spelt in different ways in various press and publications about this film. Both the Sundance Film Festival ([1], halfway through page), Sydney Film Festival ([2]) and a handful of reviews refer to Loveridge as "Stephen" with a ph. But other sources, like the film poster released yesterday [3] and the film's website [4] use "Steve". So I think it's in our interest to just follow Steve, for the reason that that appears to be what is used by the promotional material from now on until the theatrical release in September.

As for what actually appears in the credits for the film... I did see the film but don't remember. The film might even change before September, as well.

(I even found one mistaken tweet from the Sydney Film Festival referring to him as 'Simon'.[5] That, I don't think we need to debate, is a clear mistake at least.)

seb26 (talk) 09:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit requests to factual errors and missing context

Dear editors, Full disclosure: I’m an employee of the production company that produced the film described in this article. I’m therefore only suggesting edits regarding factual errors as well as some suggestions that are intended to address cited sources that have been interpreted in a way that misses crucial context and portrays a negative bias not reflected in the cited sources.

(A) Update

Article states in the opening section: “The film premiered at the 2018 Sundance Film Festival, appeared at three other festivals...” Update: It would be more accurate to state that the film has played "over 20 [festivals"], and "more festival engagements are being announced." The article lists more than three screenings later on the page, under “Release.”

(B) Addition

Under “Production”, after “the UK non-profit documentary support organization BRITDOC Foundation announced funding.[11] ADD: Loveridge told Film Comment that the early trailer led production company Cinereach to join the project, saying, “That’s how Cinereach, the company in New York that ended up becoming the funders and producers, saw it and they got in contact with me and said: Oh we hear you’re having a few difficulties getting your documentary off the ground, can we help?…”'

(C) Addition

Article states: “This was distinct to the expectations that M.I.A. had for the project,[4] which is that it would become a 'tour documentary'.[34] M.I.A. had not seen the film prior to the premiere, suggesting at an interview at the Sundance Film Festival that Loveridge had been absent for the last 4 years, communicating with her sporadically.[39] Addition: Since the initial moment of the film’s premiere, M.I.A. has expressed an appreciation for the ways in which the film is more personal than what she originally expected and different than the film she would have made if she directed it herself rather than granting creative control to Loveridge. She told Rolling Stone “I feel like I’m the fish-man from The Shape of Water, and you need to show all the information to make people understand why you’re the fish-man. So on one hand, it’s very personal but on the other, maybe it’s helpful.” M.I.A. also described her positive realizations from seeing the film: “...The way he [Loveridge] told the story made me see how that maybe I was supposed to be a musician, as opposed to a documentary filmmaker… When I see the film, it seemed like I couldn’t get away from being a musician, whether it’s because I fell in with [Elastica’s] Justine, or whether my grandma told me or whether I was going towards it anyway.”

There is merit for wanting to expand discussion of the artist and directors' intentions but the way forward is not through long quotation passages. After reading through all of the sources I used to put together this article, the actual only thing that was clear is that at different stages between both 2013 and the 2018 release, and January 2018 and August 2018, the artist and the director have had varied opinions about each other's work and each other's expectations. Exactly as you say below, "there is more nuance to what the two, old and close friends, have said across their many appearances and interviews together". It is therefore tough to attempt to appropriate this properly in the prose, but I agree that perhaps it needs addressing. Though it's not necessary to point to their friendship as a way of unifying them more positively. seb26 (talk) 01:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

seb26Thank you for the explanation. Maybe something like: “M.I.A. has expressed that she also appreciates elements of the film that initially surprised her, including telling Rolling Stone that because her story and identity are complex, a film that focuses on her background is helpful, and that watching the film gave her some new insights into her career and why she became a musician as opposed to a filmmaker ,.”RevaGoldberg (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

(D) Context Correction

Article states: “Loveridge responded in defense of M.I.A.'s editing criticism and said both that his film "wasn't about music…”[43]

• Note: The cited source does quote Loveridge saying the film was not about music, but he says it in the context of explaining his creative intentions, and not directly “in defense of M.I.A.’s editing criticism.” The article presents the artist and filmmakers’ two perspectives as necessarily in conflict, while there is more nuance to what the two, old and close friends, have said across their many appearances and interviews together.

(E) Context Correction

Further to the above note, article states: “Loveridge responded in defense of M.I.A.'s editing criticism…”...it was necessary to keep distance between himself and the artist during the editing process, and avoid the subject of the film influencing their portrayal.”[34] In the cited article Loveridge does not state that it was “necessary to keep the distance from himself and the artist.” What he says is that “making a film about anyone living” without them “hovering over the edit, going ‘don’t make me look bad,’ is “par for the course for any documentary filmmaker.” After M.I.A. talks about Steve having had creative control (which she granted to him), Loveridge’s point is that it is standard practice for a director not to involve a subject in editing a film about her. The cited source does not portray the contentiousness implied by the wikipedia article.

I've adjusted this to remove the text that implies Loverdige was responding directly to MIA's criticism, which he wasn't, and added a part which suggests that he is speaking more generally about documentary filmmaker practice. seb26 (talk) 01:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

(F) Contextual Correction

Article states: “Critical reception of the film praised its candid portrayal of M.I.A, but gave mixed opinions on the storytelling threads presented by Loveridge using archival material.[44]” Note: One review of the film is being inaccurately cited as representative of overall critical reception. An aggregator like Rotten Tomatoes, though not comprehensive, provides a sampling of different reactions, where a single article does not. Suggested Correction: "Critical reception of the film praised its candid portrayal of M.I.A. with the film’s focus being weighted towards its subjects life, identity and ideas, while one or two critics would have liked to see more coverage of M.I.A.’s creative process."

This sentence doesn't refer to RottenTomatoes as the sole basis for its remark, and it shouldn't have the RottenTomatoes ref next to it. There are indeed mixed opinions throughout most of those reviews. Keep in mind the purpose of this sentence when it appears as the very first in a paragraph about critical reception. Its intention is to summarise a wealth of critical reception discussion, as topic sentences usually do. "One or two critics would have liked to see more coverage of MIA's creative process" is ambiguous and is not really a suitable remark. seb26 (talk) 01:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

seb26I think I used that reference style incorrectly. Sorry about that. My intention was not to cite Rotten Tomatoes for a sentence I was including, but to suggest that a review aggregator like it (where the film is 90+% “fresh” out of 100), collects a cross-section of reviews by respected critics, and represents an overview of reception. As an objective reader of this article, however, I might walk away feeling that the film had an overall mixed reaction. Indeed there were elements that received criticism, but I don’t think it’s balanced to represent those points weighted as heavily as this article does, wherein the negative feels equal to the positive.RevaGoldberg (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

RevaGoldberg, I guess there is a differing understanding of what the purpose of an encyclopedic article about a film offers. I don't typically view these sections as supposed to offer readers a summarising "positive" or "negative" opinion about any topic. Film critics may choose to design their pieces so as to assist their own readers in concluding whether to see a film or not but it's not the perspective that Wikipedia articles adopt. They are supposed to synthesise critical analysis, commentary and discussion that appears within reliable published sources. None of the critical reviews echo each other perfectly, and for that reason the word 'mixed' is used. There are some that praise the narrative structure and criticise the lack of musical focus. Therefore again as a topic sentence, it is more appropriate to say in summary that there is mixed opinions about the storytelling threads. It is unnecessary to take it further and try to make the critical reception section stand out as this "Wikipedia says the film is positive", if that is sort of what you are after as a PR representative. After having read through the critics' articles cited here, I'm not really of the professional opinion that the film was praised beyond measure but only "one or two critics would have liked to see" a few more things differently, it is more appropriate to say 'mixed'. And again, the section as it is at the moment does indeed address exactly what 'mixed' means because it interlinks critics' praising comments and the areas which were significant enough for them to remark on. The sheer presence of these remarks is not actually outweighing the balance. You have valid comments about the balance presented by the Sight&Sound and the Guardian reviews but at the same time this section is not supposed to function to give a stamp of approval to films, but to appropriately mirror and synthesise what has been published in reliable sources. Cheers, seb26 (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

seb26, Thank you for explaining, and the time you've taken. I don't expect Wikipedia to endorse the film. I am not a PR person, but the Communications person at the not-for-profit film company and foundation that produced MATANGI / MAYA / M.I.A. We are mission-driven, not profit-driven. My intention is to advocate for a fair article that does not harm the film's potential reach and impact. If you feel "mixed" best describes the tenor of the film's overall reception and that it is appropriate to weight the "reception" section that way, you are entitled to do so. I hope you won't mind my advocating again for two points, though, that would increase the balance.

• The first is where you discuss M.I.A.'s initial reaction to the film, as she appeared to grapple with its personal bent. It would be more balanced to also include positive observations she made about the film, like when she told Rolling Stone that because she is complex, a film that focuses on her background could be helpful, and that watching the film gave her insights into why she became a musician as opposed to a filmmaker. The Rolling Stone interview is already cited in the article.
• Second, where it says: "...The visual quality of the footage used concerned other critics.[49][48] Simran Hans (Sight & Sound) suggested that the "blurry and shakily shot [...] images suffer when blown up to the cinema screen", but praised M.I.A. as "an artist who documents things as they happen, rather than shooting material that slots neatly into a shiny, predetermined PR narrative".[50]"

• You have 2 references for the first sentence but I don't see a complaint about footage quality in ref 48.
• Thank you for adding more context following Hans' quote. I think the "shaky footage" note as it appears here still misconstrues the critic's key point somewhat, though. His preceding words are important: "Loveridge’s use of her archive of self-shot footage creates the sense of her as an authoritative, creative presence." As are the words that follow: "As a raw document of Arulpragasm’s life it’s a treasure trove of intimate insights..." It would not have been possible to both include early analog footage of M.I.A.'s life and use only HD footage. Hans took pains to show his awareness of, and appreciation for, the tradeoff made.

I hope you will reconsider these suggestions and the good faith in which they are submitted. With gratitude RevaGoldberg (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

(G) Contextual Correction

Article states: “Charlie Phillips (The Guardian) criticised that M.I.A. received no directorial credit, given that from her own footage is where the film "sources its greatest energy".[46] Note: This excerpt casts the review by Charlie Phillips as overall negative, when Phillips gave the film a positive review. The full piece includes important context for his comment that M.I.A. could receive “co-” credit, which is Phillips’ positive observation that the footage M.I.A. captured is the source of the film’s “greatest energy.” His takeaway is a positive reaction to the film’s portrayal of M.I.A. as the “controlling spirit of this enjoyable documentary.” In conclusion, he says, “for once” M.I.A. “truly gets to control her own narrative.” Correction: Charlie Phillips (The Guardian) observed that original footage shot by M.I.A. over the years is the source of the film’s “greatest energy.” And that in Loveridge’s film “for once” she “truly gets to control her own narrative” to the point where the film could be “co-credited” to M.I.A. As noted elsewhere in this article, however, M.I.A., does not claim authorship of the film, over which Loveridge had creative control.

(H) Contextual Correction

Article states: “However, the visual quality of the footage used concerned other critics,[47][46] with Simran Hans (Sight & Sound) suggesting that the "blurry and shakily shot [...] images suffer when blown up to the cinema screen".[48] Hans commented that he only found fault with Matangi/Maya/M.I.A. for lacking exploration of M.I.A.'s musical process, style or production, atypical of biographical documentaries in the music genre.[48]" Note: this point cites one article as representative of multiple, and construes an overall positive review as negative. In the original source, the point about the degrading of older footage when blown up is couched in the ‘’positive’’ observation that the candid nature of Maya’s archival footage is what distinguishes the film from a polished puff piece. The review reads that the use of her footage “creates the sense of her as an authoritative, creative presence…” and observes that “as a raw document of Arulpragasm’s life it’s a treasure trove of intimate insights, and fashions an image of Arulpragasm as an artist who documents things as they happen, rather than shooting material that slots neatly into a shiny, predetermined PR narrative.” Correction: Simran Hans observed that the archival footage shot by Maya herself “creates the sense of her as an authoritative, creative presence…” and that “as a raw document of Arulpragasm’s life it’s a treasure trove of intimate insights, and fashions an image of Arulpragasm as an artist who documents things as they happen, rather than shooting material that slots neatly into a shiny, predetermined PR narrative.” He noted, however, that some "blurry and shakily shot [...] images suffer when blown up to the cinema screen".[48]

Thank You!

Thank you in advance for considering the above. I am new to the wikiepedia community but attempted to adhere to stylistic guidelines. If there is something I've missed and can correct, please let me know! RevaGoldberg (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

RevaGoldberg: Thanks for your comments and suggestions. I've worked to address some of the concerns of source representation in the Reception section. On the whole, it's a little excessive to indulge into a full discussion of each critical review and try to summarise if individually that review gives a "positive/negative" final comment on the film. A good summary of the many critical reviews would actually break them down into the specific topics that they discuss. That is why comments like those of the Guardian's Phillips are only included with respect to his comment about directorial input. His remark about directorial input is a distinctive point which almost no one else addresses and him generally giving the film a positive review becomes less relevant when the entire reason he is mentioned is because of his remark about directorial input. The comments of Hans are also cited for the purpose of speaking about visual cinematic quality. Your suggestions rely a little too much on general quotations, but I will use one additional one that you suggest so that it appears more balanced. Keep in mind that even if one remark from an article is used, it is not inherently biased nor does it invoke "contentiousness" as you say earlier. It is not practical to present a clear summary of every single resource which is consulted, from top to bottom, every time it is consulted. Hence why some critical reception articles are only referred to for a specific remark that they make having been distinctive and worthy of noting. Let us know any additional comments you may have and thank you for following our conflict of interest process by commenting on the talk page instead. It is an interesting collaborative lesson to work with a PR representative of a company but there does need to be limits. Cheers, seb26 (talk) 01:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

seb26 Thank you for the diligence and care you took going through each of these items. I made a few notes to yours above, and below. I agree that each mention of a specific review should not be a complete summary. My point is just that when presented out of context, some of the quotes cited in this article come across with a different overall meaning than I think the reviewers intended. Both Phillips and Hans were actually complementing the film for how much the archival material added, but as quoted, the missing context changes the meaning significantly.

For Phillips, it comes across as if he's saying Loveridge took away M.I.A.’s co-director credit, when in fact, M.I.A. gave Loveridge creative control of the film and gave him her footage to use. It was never intended that she co-direct, and Phillips is not taking issue with that. As I read it, Phillips is saying M.I.A. could be co-director as a way of complementing how much energy her footage adds, and how well her voice is conveyed in the film by Steve.

Regarding Hans’ quote, it reads as though his overall reaction to the film is negative due to poor quality footage, yet his overall impression of the footage is to praise how raw and honest it is. The flip side of that same coin being that there are some images that don’t look great blown up. Highlighting only the later point, is unbalanced. It would not have been possible to have all old archival footage Hans appreciates and have it also look as good as the newer footage shot on HD. Hans seems aware of that necessary trade-off, which is why in his piece, the negative part reads as more of an after thought rather than a big takeaway.RevaGoldberg (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

RevaGoldberg: also if you have time and it interests you, you may wish to contribute to the Plot summary section. You can write a draft summarising the events of the plot and post it here for review. It is the section most lacking in the entire article at the moment only consisting of bullet points. You may wish to review: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Writing_about_fiction#Contextual_presentation, Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary, existing film articles marked as 'Good', and one example of the latter which is a documentary (Islam: The Untold Story) which I found by searching "is a documentary" incategory:"good articles". seb26 (talk) 01:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

seb26Thanks very much, I’ll see if anyone on our team is able to take this on RevaGoldberg (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

References