Talk:Sympathy for the Devil (1968 film)

	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 needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. Please ensure that non-free content guidelines are properly observed.

The Rolling Stones Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject The Rolling Stones, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Rolling Stones 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.The Rolling StonesWikipedia:WikiProject The Rolling StonesTemplate:WikiProject The Rolling StonesThe Rolling Stones articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Godard content hacked?

This film isn't even on the Godard page. And this page about this film isn't up to any standard. I've added the description from the French page, which, although not much better, is greater than zero.

Good luck in creating a meaningful page for this film of interest.

Dstlascaux (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please edit the main article - and this one, too - to make it a better article.

Original soundtrack is in French, does it qualify as a British Propaganda movie ? Ericd 14:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear it's a propoganda movie either. Revolutionary dogma in various forms crops up, but there's no reason to assume the film endorses any of it.

Objectivity problems

Whether or not these assessments are true, it doesn't seem like subheadings like "monotonous ranting" have much of a place in an objective encyclopedia article. I'm not going to change it unless someone else agrees.

It goes beyond monotonous ranting. It's like amateur night at the MAO theater in which the most retarded Freshman-level art school flunky vomits every ounce of baloney he ever ingested onto the crowd, without them ever doing him the honor of murdering him. It just goes on and on in an increasingly dire spiral of idiocy and lunacy. The counterpoint of a pure amateur like Godard with artists like the Stones just makes it all the more painful. His name be damned for this atrocity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.151.180.44 (talk) 05:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am. None of the material in the current article is at all appropriate for a Wikipedia article. WP:BOLD! Elrith 02:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objectivity problems (2)

I don't know whether it's a "powerful" political stance that JLG takes, or a parodic one. Like so many Wikipedia articles, this one seems to be the creation of the fractionally educated. And there is no mention here (cf. the French article) that in the magazine shop the work being read is Mein Kampf...! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andarin (talk • contribs) 00:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of "needs infobox" tag

This article has had its infobox tag removed by a cleanup using AWB. Any concerns please leave me a message at my talk page. RWardy 20:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two different versions

This page needs an explanation of the fact that Godard's film, "One Plus One" was re-edited without his consent and the altered version shown as "Sympathy for the Devil" against his strenuous objections. The article as presently written suggests these are simply alternate names for the same film. They are not.182.247.187.91 (talk) 10:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is this film?

I had not heard of this film, and never would have except for following a chance reference in another Wikipedia article.

Now that I have read this Wikipedia entry, I am left knowing very slightly more about the film than I did previously. There is so much missing here:

The description of the film's plot seems to jump all over the place. While this may be what the film does, this section of the Wikipedia entry should describe its narrative structure. At the moment, it fails at that and simply provides the reader with vignettes. Have a look at the IMDB descriptions, for a place to start - and other Wikipedia entries about movies.
Is the film in French? This is suggested on the'Talk' page, but is by no means clear in the main article.
What was the community reaction to the film?
Critical commentary?
Any response by the media?
Where was it filmed, where was it released, how was it released, how many cinemas, how many viewers, cost of making, profit or loss?
Who watched it? Where? Location/specific subset of communities/identifiable audience?
is it on VHS/Beta/DVD/HD DVD/BluRAY/VideoDisc or any other home movie format?

Please, if anyone actually knows something about this movie - have a look at another Wikipedia movie page and use it as a template for this page's content. At the moment this page is almost totally useless - except perhaps to serious fans of the movie who have to write a review for school!

Finally, references would be handy. There are only two at the moment. Ambiguosity (talk) 06:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]