Djaoeh Dimata

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAC and I would like some feedback on grammar and/or how comprehensible this article is to the lay-reader.

Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto

• I expect I know the answer, as it would not be like you not to think of it, but is there a lede image available?

• I haven't found any posters or newspaper ads. This shows them filming, but that's a Dutch newspaper so unless I can show it was published in Indonesia/the Indies first it will be copyrighted in the US. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "The first domestically produced feature film in five years, upon its release Djaoeh Dimata received favourable reviews" — "The first domestically produced feature film to be released in five years, Djaoeh Dimata received favourable reviews" would possibly read better.

• Sure — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "The poor villager Asrad (Ali Yugo) is blinded following a traffic accident and rendered unable to work. His wife Soelastri (Ratna Asmara) must then go to the capital at Jakarta and find work" — Two "work"'s in close proximity, suggest "The poor villager Asrad (Ali Yugo) is blinded following a traffic accident and rendered unable to work. His wife Soelastri (Ratna Asmara) must then go to the capital at Jakarta and find a job"

• Agree. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "...and nearly all studios were closed." — Why am I wanting to put a definite article before "studios"?

• "Film studios"?

• Yeah, or "the"? -- Cassianto^Talk 15:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it "featured film" or feature film?

• D'oh! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• OVERLINK to Jakarta
• OVERLINK to newsreels

• Got both. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Ultimately the film was one of only three domestic productions released that year" — Earlier we say that it was the first in five years. It would probably be good to mention that it was the first of three to be released that year.

• Don't think this is necessary, as we put that it was the first after Berdjoang (in 1943, as in the background section) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, ok. Sorry, I still had the "The first domestically produced feature film in five years..." line from the lede in my head. -- Cassianto^Talk 15:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Works cited" section— Could we put the list into two columns?

• It's at 40em, so it will split if you have a large enough monitor (it's two columns in mine) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Cool. I use an iPad so it is just one column for me. I don't think we will please every screen with this one. -- Cassianto^Talk 15:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All done, nice work. -- Cassianto^Talk 13:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for looking! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat

I've made some copy edits: feel free to revert anything you don't like, or that I've messed up! Some other points (which you're free to ignore at your will):

Lead

• Should "domestically produced" be hyphenated? (Not sure at all, just raising the question!)

• I recall that hyphens are for adjective-noun counstructs, not adverb-noun constructs. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• D'oh! Of course it is: ignore my gibbering! - SchroCat (talk) 07:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

• Who is Soekarto? Perhaps a description to introduce him may work

• None of my sources say :-( — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Background

• "However": I hear that "However" is nearly verboten nowadays at FAC, and certainly at the beginning of the sentence. It reads well without it, IM (not very)HO

• Fair enough. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "propagandic": not sure this is a word? Why not just say "All were propaganda.[3]"?

• Haven't found it in Oxford or Cambridge dictionaries, so sure. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Production

• "and entered film together": perhaps "entered the film industry together"

• Agree, done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Release and reception

• "Reviews were mixed to positive": mixed includes positive, so I'd drop the "positive"

• Sure, done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article! Reads well and I hope to see it at FAC soon! Drop me a line when it gets there. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two quick thoughts: J Milburn (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is this in the lost films category when a copy of it is still kept in an archive?

• That's me being a dolt. Removed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be helpful if the caption of the pictures of the actors could specify the years in which the pictures were taken.

• I've added it to the ALT text. They are not too far apart (Ratna is shown in 1940 [same image was used for Kartinah's poster], and Ali Yugo is shown in 1948 [image is from a newspaper dated that year) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for having a look! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarastro

What is this, Crisco writing about a film which still exists? The shock! I can find very little to even nit-pick on this one. Very tightly done, and as usual I have no doubt that this is as comprehensive as possible. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "and cost almost 130,000 gulden": Do we have any other figures to give this some context?

• Wehwalt has something. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Added a footnote. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Plot: Repetition of work in the first two sentences.

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "As Asrad does not trust of his wife": "of" sounds odd here.

• D'oh! Seems Wehwalt got it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Ultimately Soelastri is brought home by Soekarto": Who is this? Not described.

• Not in sources :-( See above. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Principal photography, was conducted on sets constructed…": We seem to have a stray comma here.

• Also caught by Wehwalt. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "but conditions were poor": Even with the mention of the passing car, this is ambiguous. What about the conditions was poor? Cleanliness? Soundproofing? Space?

• Doesn't say exactly. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Djaoeh Dimata was in competition with Roestam Sutan Palindih's Air Mata Mengalir di Tjitarum": How does this production fit into the context established in the background about Indonesian film? Sarastro1 (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Produced by a second company (info added), seems to have been the second film produced in five years (though I don't have any sources saying that explicitly). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wehwalt

Only a few comments this time. Very interesting. I've done some hands-on editing where I felt I could do so.

Background

• "was appropriated" Perhaps "was confiscated" or "was taken over".

• Sure, done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Netherlands Indies Civil Administration," I'd toss a "Dutch-run" in here someplace to make clearer this was a colonial government, which I don't think is 100 percent clear at present.

• How about Dutch in front of "colonial"? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That's fine. After all, the independence government was in its way a "continuation" of previous governments, sorta kinda.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Production

• You say Andjar was hired to write and direct the specific film, rather than a film. Was the plot concept already known to the management? Or was Andjar being hired to come up with an acceptable screenplay, with the plot more or less left up to him? Phrasing suggests the latter, but it isn't clear.

• Reworked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding the price for filming. I'd like to see a dollar equivalent, but this is complicated by an article I have (I can send you screenshots) from November 1948 saying the NI gulden's official value was about five times its black market value, at least according to an Indonesian official.

• Oh. That's interesting. That's definitely worth a full footnote (email's all open for you). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "had been active in the theatre during the occupation" Japanese?

• Yes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Were these films downplayed or shunned by the new independence government? Is this why South Pacific shut down?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Got the second question. First one: sources don't say anything, but I doubt the Indonesian government cared much. The Tan & Wong Bros. studio was located in Bidara Cina, also in Dutch-held Jakarta, so there were no feature films being produced in Republican Indonesia to contrast it with. Fred Young's Bintang Surabaya studio, which produced two works in 1949, was also in Dutch-held territory. The only studio I am aware of that was producing motion pictures (though not feature films) was Berita Film Indonesia, which had set up camp in Surakarta/Solo after the Dutch took back Jakarta. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]