Talk:The Anarchist Cookbook (film)

Garbage

Just by reading the plot it's obvious this film is garbage from someone who does not knows what anarchism is about... Is there no criticism against this rubbish to be worthy of mention?Herle King 23:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone order the followingHerle King 23:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is rife with incoherency (and possibly NPOV?), and even seems to mock itself:

"The film is seen by many who've viewed it as a thinly-veiled piece of right-wing propaganda, almost on the level of Reefer Madness, even featuring a character who's secretly a member of NAMBLA.

While, many others see the first set of 'many' claims of 'right wing propaganda' as propaganda in and of itself. The film never claimed to be an apologia of the anarchist movement. Criticizing it for this is like criticizing Spiderman for not getting the New York Subway train schedule right. It was really a coming-of-age story about the choices a disaffected young man had to make in order to grow up"

Seriously deserving of a cleanup tag, so I added one.

-Deus Homoni 01:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I did some stuff and looked over it, and it looks ok to drop the quality thing. If you disagree, just leave me a message. Caf3623 23:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I just added an infobox as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Films. I also took the first part of the spoiler and made it a plot section seeing how it doesnt give away anything that a preview wouldnt. If you have any issues with my edits please discuss and leave me a message. Thanks. Caf3623 02:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I added a B-class rating, discuss if you agree or not. Here is the description of a B-class article [1], I think it matches. Thanks, Caf3623 07:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the B=Rating. This movie article is clearly a movie, but it has no other sections according tot he WikiProject Films guidelines. Two sets of Guidelines need to be follow. Also the length is an issue. I moving it to stub class. --Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 07:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The first paragraph is entirely POV - "real life live-in-poverty rebellious communal house type of folks who are into all kinds of drugs"? Come on! I know nothing about the film (came here from the book), but this could do with editing if possible... Supersheep 11:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It is clearly not a stub so I've upgraded it to a Start. Caf3623 03:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Anarchist film

Although the movie presents a straw-man argument against anarchist philosophy, it is an anarchist film in the sense that it focuses on anarchism as its primary theme. However, this is not an opportunity to simply close ranks and demand it be expunged from the anarchist film category, or that it be removed from wikipedia entirely. Rather, this is an opportunity to create a subsection within the article explaining how it misrepresents anarchist philsophy, and is viewed by critics as anti-anarchist propaganda. I'm adding this back to the Anarchist film category, and in the coming weeks I'll make an effort to flesh out this article in general. --Cast 06:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Small 88.131.220.174 (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

then it should be split into 2 diff categories: 1 w/ accurate depiction of anarchist ideology, and 1 where anarchism is prominently discussed or whatever

I don't know if it necessarily needs to be split for a comparison. I've set up a stub section for the way anarchism is portrayed in the film, and it should be enough to explain that the film gets anarchist philosophy incorrect, uses anarchist slogans cynically, uses the characters to portray negative anarchist stereotypes, and then reference anarchist periodicals that printed critical reviews of the movie. I believe Green Anarchy (US) and AJODA both published scathing reviews of the movie, but they are the only two I know of. I'm hope other editors can help me find more.--Cast 02:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

well you might as well put on that james bond moovee the world is not enough on "anarchist films" cos it has an "anarchist" villain; that movie seems to know just as much about anarchism as this one, what's the difference between those films?

I don't know about this Bond film you reference, but if the antagonist is labeled an anarchist by the producers, writers, or director, or in the script, or the character at some point says "I'm an anarchist," then yes, that character would qualify. Understand, any fictional character who identifies as an anarchist is automatically considered a fictional anarchist.

If you'll take a look at the List of fictional anarchists Talk page you'll see that Puck is, in fact, included in that list. The reason for this can be found within the talk page, but also at the discussion nominating the fictional anarchist category for deletion. If you'll read them, you'll see my comments and advice for salvaging the list and category. To sum it up, any list involving anarchists is subject to constant vandalism for one reason: "Anarchy," and by extension, "Anarchism" and "Anarchists" are misunderstood by the majority of this society. Non-anarchists are quick to label a character an "anarchist" if that character displays negative stereotypes associated with anarchists, and in reaction to this, anarchists are too quick to label a character an anarchist if they display even the most remote characteristics they feel should be associated with anarchists, hoping this will have a counter balancing effect. Soon, such lists become full of non-anarchists and require massive overhauls to fix. The only objective way to include characters, or in this case films, in such a category is to include them regardless of whether they are positive or negative anarchist portrayals, and instead to focus on whether their source material refers to them as anarchic. This means some negative anarchist portrayals will get in, but there is room within the article of that given book/character/movie article to provide an analysis of the treatment of anarchy and explain to the reader what position the creator(s) took. This is done in several articles regarding fictional anarchists, such as Anarchists (film) and Anarky. I encourage you to read those to get an idea at what I'm driving at here.

Now I'll agree with you that this film is a negative treatment of anarchists and our philosophy, but that's no reason to just ignore it. I feel a better course of action would be to address this movie upfront and call it to task for being (either intentionally or unintentionally) anti-anarchist propaganda. In fact, it even seems to be unintentional propaganda, based on the movie review I provided an external link to. Expanding a section on how this film treats anarchism can be educational for readers who are unfamiliar with both anarchy and the movie, and can go a long way towards undoing at least some of the damage this film might have done (which probably wasn't much, because it was a crap film few care for anyway.) --Cast 03:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

PS, I forgot to address your question. What determines an "Anarchist Film." Well, I'm no expert on this, and there hasn't been a discussion on the matter the same way there was one for fictional characters, but if I could put forward a suggestion... the difference between an "Anarchist Film" and a film that just has an anarchist character in it would be that the anarchist film attempts to explore (or in this case, use) the philosophy of anarchy as part of the larger story. This would include "Anarchists", "Libertarias," and even "The Anarchist Cookbook." It would not include a film like "The World is Not Enough," because Anarchy wasn't used as a theme or in anyway explored. A character was described as an anarchist, but nothing more (and I don't know about this, I haven't seen the movie.) This same logic can be extended to books. A novel like "End Time: Notes on the Apocalypse," or a short story like "The Last of the Masters," would be considered anarchist, because the authors intentionally explored anarchist philosophy within it. However, a story such as "Rent" would not, because anarchy wasn't explored. A single character, Tome Collins, was just identified as an anarchist and that was the end of anarchy's influence on the story.

Does anyone else have an opinion on how this criteria of mine can be improved? I'd love to get some outside opinion on this.--Cast 04:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

0720024796 88.131.220.174 (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)