Plot similarity[ edit ] A reference to the close similarity to a british short film of 2 years before- 'the photoman', was removed, the reason given that the verification was not reliable. The verification was this link http: The BFI link would seem to cover all that.
It directly supports the information presented. I wondwer whether Britannica would fail to put something in if they could document that it was fact, for lack of opinion expressing the connection.
Areas like this are never black and white. The absence of a definate link however does not render the suggestion of such a link historically invalid or uninteresting. There are many other suggestions of artistic infuence and inspiration on these pages unconfirmed by the creator of the work, that are there because they are of historical and artistic interest to readers and the pages would be very dry without them.
However in this case the similarity is beyond dipute and just because someone doesnt like something doesnt mean its not valid. You can say the similiarity between the British short and Amelie is beyond dispute, but unless you can prove that Amelie was influenced by it, there is no reason to accept that as fact. It is your opinion, and thus matters not at all.
And when you throw in petulant little statements like "just because someone doesnt like something doesnt mean its not valid," it really undermines your arguments and shows you have an agenda. It also makes you sound like a insipid pompous little twat, which I'm positive is what you probalby are in real life. It certainly wasn't original to Amelie.
As far as I can remember in the movie itself, the narrator says that she counts the number of orgasms happening at that moment - but does not say where.
I'll pay more attention to the individual settings and people next time. For example, how many couples are having an orgasm right now? If it stays, then it should be Paris, since the "world below" is the city under her vantage point. There is much more than 15 couples having an orgasm in the whole world in this exact moment. The original French text is as follows: Just like in the English translation, it's said that she likes to ask idiotic questions about the world or about the city she's looking at; for example, how many couples are having an orgasm right now?
I agree it's implied that it's about Paris, mainly because Paris is mentioned last before the example question, but it's not "clearly stated" at all. It's just as ambiguous in the original French version as in the English translation mentioned above. Criticism section - You can see Afro-French people in the film. One of the shots in the train station, there are 3 black people walking behind her.
On the old man's tv there is black and white footage of a black woman singing, and two of the photos in the scrapbook are of a black man. What is with the criticism of no Afro-French people in it? It's all very sad. If every ethnic group isn't represented in exact proportions to the real-world ones then it's racist.
My wife and I just watched the film again with this criticism in mind, and we've decided that the criticism is hogwash. Aside from the principal players one of whom is apparently North-African , there are very few other people of any notable ethnicity really visible in the film; there are very few "crowd" scenes.
Amelie leading the blind man to Abessess is the one that I recall. The scenes in the train station that show crowds are almost always very far shots. Maybe they should vote on this. Who really cares whether or not there are French-Africans included in each shot. There is nothing racist about that. We have been driven by the media to believe that we must embrace every culture and people to the point where no culture can be seen in isolation.
I didn't want to see every facet of Paris through this film. It could also be argued that this film "competely ignored the Eiffel Tower" and therefore did not show what Paris is really like. The problem with a politically correct society like ours today is that there is so much angst about these issues. People become so afraid that if even a film doesn't officially recognise every ethnicity there is, people become afraid as if a brawl is set to commence over such an offence.
I think the point is that the film tries to create a fantasy, 'perfect' version of Paris, right? Everyone knows that the real Paris is often cold and rainy, but in this film, everything is lit in golden sunlight. Everyone knows that the real Paris is often dirty, but in this film, all the litter and grafitti has vanished. And everyone knows that there are lots of black people in Paris, especially Montmartre, but in this film all the black people have vanished.
I imagine that's why some viewers were offended: I don't think it should even be included, considering it has little to do any aspect of the film's production, grossing, release, or reception apart from that one little-circulated review.
I think it should go. I came looking for information on that aspect because I'd heard the race criticism elsewhere. Allow people to make their own decisions on whether or not they think the film is racist, rather than deleting it and whitewashing over the issue in much the same way Jeunet may have.
No one is white-washing things, anbd for you to ask for people to think for themselves, while at the same time pushing for a skew towards a certain opinion is amazingly hypocritical and smug. If a french film has no ethnic minorities then who cares. But I just watched the film again and I found the shot where she's running away from three afro-french gentlemen, while they seem to be harassing her after sleeping the night in the metro quite unsettling.
The only things we, the viewers, should recognize as 'off' is the fact that there are pretty much only three black people shown in the film; and to make matters worse, they appear to actually be harassing Amelie.
I'm not saying there should never be that scenario in a film "because it's racist", because it does happen. I did not notice one single line of dialogue spoken by a black person throughout the entire film.
Once again, it's not that society is pressuring total racial 'equality' in terms of a minority's presence within a film, but just SOME representation of that minority would make the film a bit more credible. After all, it is set in Paris, one of the most diverse cities in the world. I do reckon this could be altered a bit, though, as it is a bit confusing. Amelie could have lived and died that way if she did not overcome her own "issue" with life.
She's like a fixer and figured that maybe she's going to die that way just trying to fix other people's lives and she had to give up her own when in fact it didn't need to be the case. I think she was just this girl who couldn't get out of her shell and lived vicariously through others by doing what good she tried to do for them. But of course in the end the reverse happened because she was able to allow the man she fancied to step into her world.
Almost every frame have some red article. Even some little thing is red in this film. I don't recall if our article mentions it, but you can see that the entire film has an overall greenish tint to it and the director has stated that this was deliberate , so red would be a very good contrasting colour to draw attention to objects.
Don't quote me on that, though, as I have nothing accept my friend's assurance that this is case - no direct quotes from the director or anything.
Pockey has it correct; the scenes that are green-tinted do almost always have a number of bright-red objects in them. A notable contrast to the entire colour-scheme is Amelie's apartment; themed almost entirely in red, she has an obvious bright blue table lamp and she is often wearing a bright-green dress.
Again, very high colour contrast. Color always means something. A director does not smack an object into a scene simply because it looks good. Every detail is calculated from the camera angle to lighting. A good director never misses that. If something catches your attention, it's not because it just happened to but because it was intended to.
Blue, green, red are appeared most. The oil painting by Juarez Machado Brazil inspired the director. These colors made the whole movie full of happiness.
The colors mix with vivacious music, you will get into bright atmosphere soon. This is nothing but some kind of trivial fact that seldom relates to an article, so why needing this useless section? I think it might be worth mentioning how this film sparked this discussion, perhaps in the Trivia section, but unfortunately I can't find any online source to back up my memory. Does anyone else recall this debate?
This is the most open rating one could get. Disney cartoons also get "grand public" for example. Film clips[ edit ] Aren't there clips of the TF1 bulletin giving the news of Princess Diana's death before she finds the box and a Tour de France added to the video for Raymond Dufayel. If so, why aren't these in this list?
I was going to add, but I was worried they might be deleted. Anyone know what the tumbler and the dog is from which follows this? If there's no policy it should be changed, together with all the interwiki articles using the French title. It seems to me that only Italian films do not use capitals.
Il dottor Stranamore, ovvero: They may be uncapitalised in the Italian language but this is the English version of Wikipedia so the titles should stay as they are. Gillean First letter is obviously capitalized in any language: And both Cinema Paridiso and Malena are proper names! Now what I'm asking is about policy not your patriotic views of the English language, since IMO a title should be kept in its original format as is the case for Se7en.
Thing is, the title is already the "English" version, but in the text the original title is given and is fully capitalized. Now, throwing an argument against myself, the poster actually capitalizes all words. For example, in French one could re-write that first sentence: This is really only a detail: