Talk:Brother 2

This is a very poor article, many points made in this article are either simply wrong, or their interpretation is quite different from how I interpret the movie. I know I should now explain my points and rewrite the article, but I am too lazy to do that, so I just warn the reader. Better watch the movie. Marek 03:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Brother2.jpg

Image:Brother2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• This edit was problematic. The film was indeed described in books as anti-American propaganda and more [1]. So should this page. That does not reflect badly on director of the film, actors or anyone else. This is simply a description of the movie in secondary RS. My very best wishes (talk) 03:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

This isn't propaganda, though. Not every film with a political message is necessarily propaganda, and this film doesn't even have that much of an anti-American message. In fact, Danila generally meets better people and makes more friends in Chicago in Brother 2 than he does in St. Petersburg in Brother 1. Brother 1 and especially 2 are controversial films precisely because they have difficult messages. Are the films discriminatory, or are the characters? Is it trying to say that Russia is better than America, or that everyone's crap stinks the same? Filing this film as "propaganda" is completely missing the actual debate that's going on and siding with what you prefer. It's like if someone came onto the pages for the Grand Theft Auto games and said that they objectively encourage violence amongst their audiences and call for children to murder one another. It's a biased statement that completely ignores one side of the debate. If you're going to put down anything about this film being propaganda, then you also need to put down information on the controversy relating to whether or not it is propaganda in the first place.

AndreyKva (talk) 03:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

According to one review (link above), "Balabanov combines anti-Semitism, Anti-Ukrainism and ant-Americanism to create an image of an American Evil Empire". But I agree that movie is actually deeper than that. So, simply telling "propaganda" is probably too simplistic, OK. My very best wishes (talk) 04:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

He combined Anti-Lobbysm, Anti-Banderism and Anti-Globalism to create image of what America really is. He blew up the purple glasses into reality and its complexity, things that writers of the illusion, mostly the State Dept Grant-eaters and fake-writers didn't like - thus they substituted the words with fakes in the article. The similar fake is even present in today's US-funded post-Maidan Ukraine, which put sign of equivalence between Ukraine and Bandera to extent that if one doesn't support Nazi-collaborationist Bandera, one is pro-Russian and anti-Ukrainian. Its a typical globalist-funded propaganda.78.34.160.206 (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

First, how is it that my revert was problematic? The "propaganda" label was added without any references. This is the first time anyone mentioned this book. Second, you are free to place the reference to the book in the "Critical response" section, but in no way this one book's statement "in typical Soviet propaganda fashion" can be used to describe the film in the opening paragraph. Not to mention the book presents a very poor and one-sided analysis by people who clearly didn't read Balabanov's interviews regarding the movie and its ideas and who had no idea what the post-Soviet Russia of the 1990s looked like. AveTory (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

This page does not really use any WP:RS. It uses doubtful links. I quoted a book that discuss the film in great detail. This is the source to be used for the page. My very best wishes (talk) 12:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@AveTory Very true. It's difficult to tell whether you should attribute certain views to the author or the character, but when the author himself states that he doesn't necessarily share those views, it gives you a good hint. I'd like to think that film and media, in general, should be able to portray subjects as racism and anti-national sentiment, as well as characters who hold views that fall into those categories, without being attacked just for portrayal of those views, especially if it's not even the intended message of the film or the authors. In a controversial film such as this, it is important to not make any one-sided statements such as the propaganda claim.

@My very best wishes The only way the book should be used in the page is in the critical reception page. It doesn't provide an unbiased analysis, and the authors clearly don't understand the creators of the film and their stances. The problem is that you are saying that, since this book describes the movie one way, the Wikipedia page should comply, and you referred to the edit that removed the biased propaganda claim "problematic".

AndreyKva (talk) 12:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Here is the problem with your argument. It doesn't provide an unbiased analysis the authors clearly do not understand the creator is your personal opinion and therefore must be disregarded. On the other hand, "Balabanov combines anti-Semitism, anti-Ukrainism and anti-Americanism to create an image of an American Evil Empire" is direct quotation from reliable secondary source on the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 13:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Personal opinions on whether a source is reliable or not are important, and we cannot use our personal opinions to influence information in Wikipedia pages as long as it's backed up by a source, and I honestly question the validity and reliability of the source. The book is written in a very subjective manner, taking stances on many controversial and divisive arguments. There have been no statements by Balabanov that the film is intentionally anti-Semitic etc., and this book is taking a stance on the issue despite lacking evidence to back it up, other than the personal opinions of the authors, which should be disregarded as objective information (ie. films such as The Eternal Jew are categorized as propaganda films because we have evidence that it was made by the Nazi government with the purpose of making a political statement to support them). Since your source takes such a subjective stance on the matter, it's clear that its validity, reliability, and objectivity on the subject matter is compromised, and it should only be used to source opinions, instead of objective information. This is a controversial subject with no clear outcome as to whether the film is anti-Semitic, anti-Ukrainian, and anti-American propaganda, or isn't, and that's what deserves mention, and that's the only place your source would be reliable. Wikipedia pages are supposed to be unbiased and we can't put our personal opinions onto a page because we have a source to back it up. AndreyKva (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

No, this is actually very simple. This page currently uses only three refs about the film: that one (a blog!), that one (can be used with caution, but hardly a quality source - author tells that the film was a "vengeance to NATO", among other things), and a ref telling the movie was forbidden in Ukraine. Please use books by scholars for sourcing. There are such books because the movie is famous. My very best wishes (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not just "a blog". Mikhail Brashinsky is a professional movie critic who worked at Afisha for 5 years. Itogy was also among the leading political magazines of its time. You may agree or disagree with the author, but it's still a professional opinion. That's what the "Critical response" section is for - it gathers opinions of professional critics, not in-depth analysis by scholars. You may check other movie pages for comparison. And "propaganda film" label is used almost exclusively here at Wikipedia to describe documentaries and movies that only serve current political/war purposes. It is not applied to genre movies. AveTory (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@My very best wishes These sources are all perfectly fine. The last source you mentioned is used for a piece of objective information, that the film is banned in Ukraine, and states the reasons why it was banned. That is objective. The Wikipedia article doesn't take any stances that may or may not be displayed in that source. As for the other sources, they are subjective, written by professionals, and the content of those references isn't used objectively, but the opinions stated by them are objectively used in the "Critical reception" section, which is perfectly valid. Brother 2 should not be listed as a propaganda film, as we have no unbiased, clear source on the matter that cites actual evidence.

@AveTory Very valid points there. But if the "Critical response" section doesn't have a place for the book's analysis, then where would it fit into the Wikipedia page? Would it even fit in there at all? Maybe in the "Impact of the film" section or in a new section titled "Controversy"? AndreyKva (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it can be also included in the "Critical response" section. It's just that it is primarily used for immediate critical reaction, not fundamental works published years after the initial release. Although the linked book wasn't really written by movie professionals; it's rather a political work by a historian and a philologist from the Miami University. AveTory (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. That was written by historians/philologists because they consider the film as a culturally and historically significant phenomenon. Not many films deserved such recognition, far beyond the movie industry. I do not insist that "propaganda" or something bad must be included here. Whatever was written must be included. My very best wishes (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)