Talk:2017 Cannes Film Festival

Different symbol for Queer Palm eligible films

One of the advantages of highlighting Caméra d'Or eligible films with an asterisk is that users can perform an in-browser search with the asterisk symbol and quickly find the number of films. I think it's a good idea to also mark Queer Palm eligible films, but can we use a different symbol in the Key instead of a "double asterisk"? This would avoid confusion and enable users to use their browser's find function to find both Cámera d'Or eligible and Queer Palm eligible films separately. Any suggestions for a different symbol? Kerlykew (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Makes sense - good idea. @Bearcat: - any thoughts? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

It's a good idea for sure, though I have no strong insight into what would be a good symbol to use. Bearcat (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Found this on the page for Dagger (typography): "A double dagger or diesis (‡) is a variant with two handles that is usually used for a third footnote after the asterisk and dagger." Since we are already using an asterisk and dagger in the Key, how about we use a double dagger as the third option? This solves the problem since it would be its own separate symbol and not just the same symbol typed twice. Kerlykew (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Yep, works for me. Go for it! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm down with that. Go for it. Bearcat (talk) 02:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Amant Double

Why is this happening? Wrong title and wrong capitalization. — Film Fan 12:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Waiting for the page move. Duh. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Why? No one is disagreeing about the English title. It's in the article! — Film Fan 12:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Similar problem with Fortunata. This is your Cannes title bible. It's the only up-to-date source. — Film Fan 13:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I understand that that is the source you are following, but the official website has been wrong in the past. I think it is best to wait and see what English language reviews say before assuming Fortunata is the new English-language title. Perhaps the removal indicates that a completely different English-language title will emerge. Have you seen any source that actually uses Fortunata in an English-language context? Even reviews sometimes give conflicting info: currently, some English-language reviews for the Claire Denis film use the title Let the Sunshine In while Variety's uses the 'new' Bright Sunshine In. In a case like this, I think it's best to wait for more reviews to see what the consensus is rather than to be rash and "move the page" assuming the English-language title has changed based on a single review. Ditto for the absence of Lucky on the festival page. (Kerlykew (talk) 13:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC))

The correct title is Bright Sunshine In. — Film Fan 23:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, I was just giving an example. But I did some digging and, yes, it seems Bright Sunshine In is indeed the correct English-language title based on the press kit which you can find here. My main point is that when conflicting data exists, it's best to find sources that support the suggested change (like the press kit, in this case). Simply saying "this is the correct title" is not a convincing argument. Kerlykew (talk) 01:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

"Kerlykew moved page Dregs (film) to A Man of Integrity: This is the title on the official Cannes screening schedule." Say no more. — Film Fan 22:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I really don't understand what you're getting at. In that case, the change in the Cannes screening schedule was the addition of completely different English-language title (not a removal of a title). I also looked around at several other sources that seemed to confirm the change. My response to you was specifically about the title for Fortunata, and whether the disappearance of Lucky on the Cannes website is an indication that the English-language title has changed. It is possible. My opinion is that we will only know when the film premieres and we can see what title is used in English-language reviews and/or press materials. Again, you might turn out to be correct in your assumption. Re: other title additions such as Amant Double, I am curious about this as well. So far I have noticed most English-language media (such as Variety) is still using L'amant double but I have found other sources using Amant Double (even though it seems awkward to my eyes). I have already stated my opinion about conflicting information such as this. Kerlykew (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

There you go, Film Fan. First English-language review is using Fortunata. It is also the title being used on the website handling international sales. Kerlykew (talk) 18:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanking you. — Film Fan 21:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2017 Cannes Film Festival. 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/20161127213127/http://www.semainedelacritique.com/selection.php to http://www.semainedelacritique.com/selection.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 03:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed changes to the notation

@Lugnuts: @Kerlykew: @Bearcat: I didn't see this discussion until I had already changed the 2011 and 2012 notation and eliminated the "key" separate section in both, but not before getting Kerlykew's agreement to go ahead in this way with the 2012 article. I am placing a note under each table where key notation appears, which is the conventional place for such keys. A separate Key section (as a main level header) does not seem in line with the structure of an article, especially as the first section under the lead (where it is surely more obvious before one gets to the tables). If it is so in other festivals too, I think this should apply there too. Initially the Key section was placed after the tables, which is more OK structure-wise, but understandably one would need a lot of scrolling to see what each symbol stands for. Placing a note under each table, is where usually a reader looks for such notation.

My thoughts on the asterisk: 1. An asterisc is not very easy to see. While I was looking (visually) for the films to check them against the official page, I had to check the whole page many times to spot them, then I did an asterisk search, but this is not what readers usually do. 2. An asterisk is sometimes needed to mark something extra, like in some Cinéfondation sections for "first time a school was selected to compete". So I think it should be kept free for such extra instances. Instead I use the more obvious small-text (CdO), which almost spells the hint, and I was going to mark the Queer Palm as (QP) which is also less cryptic and more descriptive than a double dagger or a Ⓓ. Plus both CdO and QP are very easy to search for. Also in coming years we may have more such parallel groupings, and for this too I think it's best to keep with intitials instead of symbols.

Another issue I want to suggest here, is marking "Midnight projections" with an asterick from within the Out of competition section, instead of segregating them in an extra table. Now here is where this comes from: In the official site, the Midnight projections are all included in the "Out of competition" tab [1], while Special screenings are given separately in a different tab, although in the press release PDF they are given as 3 separate groupings. I do not have a strong opinion about this, but I think we should keep the page with as few separate smaller tables as possible. I agree with separate tables for each of the (Official) Selection tabs: Competition, Un Certain Regard, Out of Competition, Special Screenings, Cinéfondation, Short films (main competition), Cannes Classics, Cinéma de la plage. Also Cannes Classics should not be under Parallel section, but under the Official selection, as it is in the official site. Hoverfish Talk 12:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)